( 1 ) THE following reliefs have been sought by the plaintiff in the suit. "15. The Plaintiff prays : (A) that the Honourable Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to the ownership and possession of the vessel MT Chesapeake City and the defendants be directed to specifically perform the contract by transferring ownership rights, title and interest and handing over physical possession of the vessel alongwith its hull, tackle, machinery, apparel, equipment, stores, articles, things and other paraphernalia to the plaintiff; (B) that the defendant vessel MT Chesapeake City together with hull, tackle, machinery, apparel, equipment, stores, articles, things and other paraphernalia be arrested and detained by a warrant of arrest by this Honourable Court and the defendants be permanently restrained from beaching the said vessel on any other plot; (C) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit the defendant vessel MT Chesapeake City together with hull, tackle, machinery, apparel, equipment, stores, articles,things and other paraphernalia be arrested and detained by a warrant of arrest by this Honourable Court and the defendants be restrained from beaching the said vessel on any other plot; (D) for costs; (E) for such further and other reliefs as the circumstances of the case require.

( 2 ) THE brief facts necessary and relevant to the controversy may be stated. The plaintiff, a partnership firm entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (Moa) on 13-04-2002 with the Defendant No. 2 for purchase of vessel named, MT CHESAPEAKE EX CHESAPEAKE CITY, which is a Motor Tanker. The said vessel has been joined as Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 3 is a Limited Company being the Agent of the owner, namely, Defendant No. 2. The Defendant No. 1 vessel is presently registered with Directorate General of Merchant Marine of Panama and is presently lying in the Harbour and Port of Alang (District Bhavnagar ).

( 3 ) IT appears that on 02-04-2002, Defendant No. 3 on the basis of details of the vessel circulated amongst various ship breakers entered into a Pre-Memorandum of Agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to a purchase price of USD 2,506,544 on lump-sum basis payable in two installments as under :" us$ 1,255,000 payable at 89 days from the date of Physical Delivery. And us$ 1,251,544 payable at 120 days from the date of Physical Delivery. "

( 4 ) AS a consequence, the plaintiff purchaser deposited a sum of Rs. 50 lacs which was returnable to the plaintiff at the time of opening of LC for the defendant No. 1 vessel. It appears that the said Pre-Memorandum of Agreements term was incorporated as Clause-1 of the Memorandum of Agreement (Moa) entered into 13-04-2002. The said Clause-1 reads as under :"1. Total lump sum price USD 2,506,544 (United States Dollars Two Million Five Hundred Six Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four Only ). Light displacement ton excluding permanent ballast Net LDT being 17,707 Metric Tonnes or equivalent 17,428. 15 Long tons after removals and excluding permanent ballast only. "

( 5 ) CLAUSE 8 (a) of the Memorandum of Agreement (Moa) which is necessary for the present is in the following terms :"8. 1 The SELLER shall issue the notice of readiness for delivery only after the vessel has arrived at Alang and is ready in all respects for physical delivery as per this agreement along with the following certificates from a reputed licensed and independent Surveyor at the Port of delivery. I. Port worthy certificate. II. Proof of light weight : certificate confirming the LDT of vessel excluding permanent ballast and removals only as per the copy of the Trim and stability booklet or Capacity Plan or Builders Letter sighted on board the vessel i. e. 17,707 Metric Tonnes or equivalent 17428. 15 Long Tons. "

( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, notice of readiness was given by the defendant No. 3 - Agent on 23-04-2002, but the plaintiff purchaser vide letter dated 24-04-2002 disputed the LDT weight as not being 1770