Point of Law :
Termination of alleged bareboat charterparty is denied. Accordingly, it is denied that once after the termination of the Bareboat Charter Agreement with MEDS by the alleged owner of MV Altus Exertus and MV Altus Uber cannot be treated as sister ship. It is thus denied that provision provided to vessel M.V. Altus Uber cannot be treated as claim against the Defendant vessel.

JUDGMENT :

S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.

1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The present O.J. Appeal has been preferred by the appellant P.S. Marine (A Unit of Seaman Multi Trading Pvt. Ltd.) being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge dated 18.02.2019 in O.J.C.A. No.1 of 2019 in Admiralty Suit No.53 of 2018, wherein the learned single Judge by dismissing the same as not maintainable in admiralty jurisdiction before the Court, found that the defendant vessel could not be treated as sister vessel of M.V. Altus Uber and the plaintiff has failed to make out prima facie case for arrest of the defendant vessel and also found that since defendant vessel was not the sister vessel of M.V. Altus Uber, the arrest of the defendant vessel was not permissible under Section 5(2) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of maritime Claims) Act 2017 ( the admiralty Act hereafter for sake of brevity) for the claim of the plaintiff against M.V. Altus Uber and consequently, the suit was not maintainable in admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. The learned single Judge also observed that the applicants were entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs.96,73,753/- deposited as security against the claim made in the suit and accordingly directed the registry of this Court to refund the amount of Rs.96,73,753/- to OPES Shipping Ltd., which deposited the said amount as security against the claim of the plaintiff.

3. Facts in brief, as could be culled out from the memo of the suit deserve to be set out as under:

3.1 In or around February, 2018, the plaintiff, appellant herein was approached by MEDS for the supply of provisions and equipment to M.V. Altus Uber, owned by Marine Engineering Diving Services FZC (MEDS for short). On the basis of a promise made by MEDS to pay the price of the supplies, the plaintiff agreed to sell and supply various provisions viz. food items, mineral water, cleaning compounds, ship maintenance supplies, etc. It is stated that there were instances where, in case of emergency, the plaintiff would supply provisions first, without waiting for a formal purchase order. However, MEDS would issue purchase orders later, after the provisions were supplied. The plaintiff states that it would supply provisions only on the basis of faith and assurance of MEDS.

3.2 The said provisions were supplied by the plaintiff to M.V. Altus Uber in various intervals and the same were received by the Master of M.V. Altus Uber without any protest or demur. The Master of M.V. Altus Uber, on receipt of the said provisions requisitioned by MEDS, acknowledge delivery challans issued by the plaintiff.

3.3 In the period between February 2018 to September 2018, the plaintiff raised various invoices on account of the supply of the said provisions to M.V. Altus Uber, at the behest of MEDS. The Invoices were raised in the name of the Master of M.V. Altus Uber, C/o MEDS. On 16th August, 2018, MEDS vide its email apologized to the plaintiff for delay in making payment of the sums due under the aforesaid Invoices. MEDS further, requested the plaintiff to allow time for payment until 10th September 2018 and assured that payment is guaranteed and will be done on priority.

3.4 On 8th September 2018, the plaintiff in reply to the aforesaid email by MEDS, granted time for payment till 10th September 2018. The plaintiff also forwarded an outstanding list of payments, under invoices long overdue from MEDS. The said list specified an outstanding amount of Rs.77,29,299 covered by 24 invoices, with amounts outstanding in full under 23 of them and part payment made under one Invoice No.811.

3.5 On 10th September 2018, MEDS vide its email informed the plaintiff that payment, as promised could not be processed due to delay in receivables. Further, MEDS accepted that it was fully responsible for the payment and assured that payment would be