A suit in rem against a vessel for necessaries supplied remains maintainable despite a change in ownership during the pendency of the suit, as the claim is attached to the ship and not to the owner.

( 1 ) M. V. Nikolaos-S was owned by Third Element enterprises at the relevant time. The vessel was flying a flag of republic of Sipras at the relevant time. The plaintiff supplied bunkers and other necessaries to the said vessel as well as rendered necessary services to her at the Port of Durban on the terms and conditions agreed by and between the parties in or about November, 1999. According to the plaintiff the bunkers were received by the master, the services were rendered to the ship as acknowledged by the master of the vessel. The plaintiff raised invoices on November 26, 1999 for US$ 94,611. 25 which remain unpaid.

( 2 ) WHILE the vessel was at Indian Port the plaintiff filed the above suit on January 6, 2000. Simultaneously with the filing of the suit the plaintiff moved an application for arrest of the ship in question and got the same arrested on the same date i. e. 6th January, 2000. The vessel remain arrested at the Indian Port for few days. None claiming the ownership of the vessel approached this Court for release of the said vessel at that point of time.

( 3 ) ON January 25, 2000 learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff approached the learned admiralty judge expressing the intention of the plaintiffs not to proceed with the application for arrest as according to him, the parties reached an out of Court settlement. This Court recording the said fact dismissed the application for arrest and remained silent on the issue of pendency of the suit.

( 4 ) IT now appears that on January 18, 2000 during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff entered into an agreement (exhibit J) with third Element Enterprises claiming to be the owner of the ship to the effect that the claim of the plaintiff of USS 94. 611. 25 together with interest and cost would be paid by Third Element and so long the money was not paid the ownership of the vessel would not be changed and the plaintiff would be informed about the movement of the vessel from time to time. Clause 6 of the said agreement provided that if money was not paid within 10 days after the sailing of the ship from the Port of Bangkok or the ship owners committed any breach of any of their obligations stipulated in the said contract the plaintiff would be entitled to take appropriate legal steps including arrest of the vessel for the recovery of the amount or any higher sum as they might be entitled to.

( 5 ) MONEY was not paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached this Court again by way of an application for recall of the order dated january 25, 2000 as also for re-arrest of the ship in question. This court passed an order on May 2. 2000 in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c) of the notice of motion which are re-produced below:- (a) The order dated 25th January, 2000 be recalled. (b) The Marshal, High Court, be directed to arrest the vessel m. V. Nikolaos-S along with her bunker, apparel and furniture; (c) Injunction restraining the defendant from selling, disposing of, transferring and/or in any way dealing with the defendant vessel M. V. Nikolaos-S without securing the claim of the plaintiff to its satisfaction.

( 6 ) AFTER the vessel was re-arrested M/s. MJR Steel Pvt. Ltd. approached this Court inter alia claiming that the vessel was sold to them by the owners of the said vessel in question and as such they became the owner thereof. This Court released the ship upon security being furnished by MJR Steel Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "mjr")

( 7 ) THE vessel was released upon furnishing of security.

( 8 ) MJR filed written statement and contested the suit. In the written statement MJR contended as follows:-" (1)On April 15, 2000 MJR became the owner. Third Element being original owner sold and transferred the vessel to Eastern Wealth investment Ltd. Eastern Wealth sold her to Fair Steel corporation and Fair Steel Corporation sold her to MJR. (2) The payment of consideration was made through an irrecoverable letter of credit dated April 8, 2