The petitioners, seafarers, who had been engaged as the crew in the 5th respondent Vessel, seek exercise of lien as provided under sub-section (2A) of Section 42 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 [for brevity, the Act of 1958]. The petitioners are said to have been recruited by the 4th respondent, who has a valid Recruitment Placing Service License (RPSL) issued by the 1st respondent.

2. The 5th respondent Vessel has an Indian registration, hence flying the Indian Flag and is owned and represented by the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent has now sold the Vessel to the 7th respondent. The claim raised in the writ petition, to exercise the lien as indicated herein above, is the payment of wages to the petitioners and other crew, on whose behalf also the above writ petition is filed.

3. The petitioners admit that the wages of the crew has been released by the 4th respondent in time. As per the agreement between the 4th respondent and the 6th respondent, the latter ought to have reimbursed such amounts to the former, is the contention. The petitioners allege that, there was an agreement between the 4th respondent and the 6th respondent, regarding the disbursal of the wages of the crew, which the 6th respondent was obliged to pay to the 4th respondent, which in turn was to be paid to the crew members by the 4th respondent. The 6th respondent having neglected prompt payment of the wages, the 4th respondent is said to have paid the crew members considering their welfare and it is contended that there was an agreement between the 4th respondent and the crew members, that if the wages were not reimbursed, then necessarily the crew members would have to repay such amounts to the 4th respondent. To further buttress their contention, it is stated that the 4th respondent had filed an Admiralty Suit No.3 of 2013 before this Court for arrest and detention of the 5th respondent Vessel. Though the 5th respondent Vessel was arrested as per Ext.P1 order, the same was not executed, since the Vessel was anchored in the Port of Tema, Ghana. An order was obtained from the competent Court of Tema, which later was vacated for non-prosecution.

4. Again, the 4th respondent is said to have filed writ petition before the High Court of Madras, seeking a direction to the official respondents 1 to 3 from issuing a Non-Objection, Non- Encumbrance Certificate and/or Deletion Certificate with regard to the 2nd respondent Vessel. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3, since the official respondents had stated before that Court that the owners of the Vessel had not submitted the requested documents of Closure of Registry of Vessel, as required under the Act of 1958. There was also a direction issued by the 1st respondent to the respondents 2 and 3 not to issue the Non- Encumbrance Certificate or Deletion of Registry Certificate, till all encumbrances, mortgages, liens and the case pending before the High Court of Tema, Ghana, West Africa are settled. Hence, it is evident that the 4th respondent had been before various forums seeking realisation of the dues as per the Technical and Crew Management Agreement, which they claim, were entitled to be paid for the management services carried out for the 5th respondent Vessel.

5. The 7th respondent has filed an application to vacate the stay order and also filed a detailed Counter Affidavit to the writ petition, upon which on consent of both parties, the matter itself was heard finally. The 4th respondent alleges that the instant writ petition is a collusive affair to somehow coerce the 7th respondent into satisfying the dues, if any, of the 6th respondent to the 4th respondent, by delaying the transfer of registry of the Vessel.

6. The 7th respondent places on record the following facts; which are supported by the order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP(L) No.849 of 2015. The 7th respondent, by the above proceeding, was before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, seeking issuance of Non-Encu