The court establishes that a maritime claim under the Admiralty Act allows the arrest of a vessel for wrongful freight charges and related damages, ensuring claim security.

ORDER :

Niral R. Mehta, J.

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Pankeet P. Aundhiya along with Arnab Ghosh instructed by Advocate Manoj Khatri. for the Plaintiff mentioned the present matter for urgent circulation and, considering the urgency involved, the present matter is taken up for hearing today.

2. Learned Advocate, Mr, Manoj Khatri representing the Plaintiff submitted that submitted that the Plaintiff has filed the present Admiralty Suit seeking arrest of Defendant No.1 Vessel M.V. SCL MERCURY (IMO No. 9258193) and a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,22,49,164/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty-Two Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Four Only) in connection with a maritime claim arising out of wrongful extraction of excess freight charges and consequential losses under a contract for carriage of goods by sea aboard Defendant No. 1 vessel.

3. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff entered into a BIMCO Liner Booking Note dated 08.05.2025 with Defendant No.2, through Defendant No.3, for carriage of LSAW and Coating Plant equipment (‘cargo’) from Dahej, Gujarat to Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and, pursuant thereto, from Mumbai to Dammam onboard Defendant No.1 Vessel. Under the said Booking Note, freight was agreed at USD 59 per W/M (Weight or Measurement) basis liner terms, and the booking was made on an estimated cargo volume of approximately 8,500 CBM breakbulk along with 56 containers, as mentioned in the said booking note. The Booking Note also stipulated a laycan period of 15.05.2025 to 22.05.2025 for arrival of the vessel at Mumbai Port.

4. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that Defendant No.1 Vessel failed to arrive within the agreed laycan period of 15.05.2025 to 22.05.2025 and arrived only on or about 06.06.2025, on account of which the Plaintiff incurred additional port storage charges to the tune of Rs. 77,25,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Seven Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Only) at the load port i.e. Mumbai, for which the Plaintiff holds the Defendants wholly liable.

5. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that although the actual breakbulk cargo volume at load port was established by an independent survey at about 6,629.73 CBM, and the containerised cargo volume was 4,721.20 CBM, bringing the total actual cargo volume to approximately 11,350.93 CBM. A further independent discharge port survey conducted by Al Abraj Technical Services, Saudi Arabia, at King Abdul Aziz Port, Dammam, during actual discharge operations from 7th July 2025 to 21st July 2025, established the actual breakbulk cargo discharged at 6,974.30 CBM, corroborating the load port survey to within a variance of only 5.2%. However, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 wrongfully inflated the cargo volume to 19,796 CBM and demanded freight on the basis of much such figure.

6. Learned Advocate further submitted that documents placed on record including vessel particulars, the vessel stowage plan, and publicly available information relating to Defendant No. 1 vessel including screenshots obtained from Defendant No. 3's own official website and commercial brochure as well as independent shipping intelligence databases indicate that the cubic carrying capacity of the said vessel is substantially lower than the cargo volume claimed by the Defendants. The stowage plan dated 02.06.2025, prepared by Defendant No. 2's own technical team, discloses the vessel's total cubic capacity at only 11,597.52 CBM Defendant No. 3's own official website and commercial brochure publicly advertise the vessel's cargo carrying capacity as only upto 13,000 CBM. Defendant No.2’s own stowage plan dated 02.06.2025 disclosed vessel cubic capacity