The court's decision was based on the requirement for the owner of the defendant vessel to deposit a specified amount as security for the release of the vessel, without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the present application.

1. On August 30, 2018 at the instance of the plaintiff, this Court passed an order in this application directing arrest of the defendant vessel lying berthed at Haldia port. By the said order it was, however, clarified that in the event the owners or the parties interested in the defendant vessel deposit amount of INR 1,75,20,037/- as security with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court, the order of arrest shall stand automatically vacated. Subsequently, the said order dated August 30, 2018 was extended and the defendant vessel still remains arrested at Haldia port.

2. Today an affidavit has been filed by the owner of the defendant vessel, a copy whereof has been served upon the advocate-on-record of the plaintiff. In its affidavit, the owner of the defendant vessel has alleged that the plaintiff has obtained the order of arrest of the defendant vessel by suppressing the order dated August 29, 2018 passed by the Civil Court, First Hall, Malta in its application under the Merchant Shipping Act of Malta. By the said order the learned Court at Malta has directed that no dealings are to be carried out with the vessel, the defendant vessel herein in this application or any share therein, specifically, any dealings sale or loan/lease of the vessel or any share therein.

3. Mr. Tilak Kumar Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the owner of the defendant vessel, submitted that in the present case, when the plaintiff has obtained the said order of arrest of the defendant vessel by suppressing a very material fact, the order of arrest should be vacated. He, however, submitted that in order to obtain immediate release of the defendant vessel, the owner of the defendant vessel may be allowed to deposit only the principal amount claimed by the plaintiff against the owner of the defendant vessel of USD 166,526.83 with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court and that too, without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the present application.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Thaker, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submitted that the order dated August 30, 2018 entitles the owner of the defendant vessel to have the defendant vessel released by securing the principal amount together with interest of INR 1,75,20,037/- and, as such, this Court would be pleased not to modify the quantum of security to be deposited by the owner of the defendant vessel.

5. Considering the facts of the case, I find that for obtaining release of the defendant vessel the owner of the defendant vessel should deposit INR. 1.60 crore with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court for securing the claim of the plaintiff. Thus, subject to the deposit of Rs.1.60 crore with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court by the owner of the defendant vessel, upon notice to the plaintiff’s advocate-on-record, the order of arrest of the defendant vessel dated August 30, 2018 shall stand vacated and the Marshall shall take steps for immediate release of the defendant vessel from Haldia port. It is made clear that the deposit of the said sum of Rs.1.60 crores by the owner of the defendant vessel with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court shall be without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the present application.

6. As submitted by Mr. Thaker, let the plaintiff file its affidavit-in-reply within September 14, 2018. Let this application appear on September 17, 2018 (at the top).

7. In order to maintain the order of arrest of the defendant vessel, the plaintiff is directed to deposit Rs.10 lakh with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court within September 14, 2018.

8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties on usual undertakings.