V. Ramasubramanian, J.

1. A vessel by name MV Neamonitisa, registered in Panama and flying a Panamanian Flag, said to be owned by M/s. Trinity Shipping Corporation, Piraeus, Greece, berthed at the port of Visakhapatnam on 14. 2001. On the very next day viz., 14. 2001, 2 Suits in C.S.Nos.34 and 36 of 2001 came to be filed, on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, respectively by (i) Interaccess Marine Bunkering SA, Liberia, and (ii) Gulf Marine and Industrial Supplies Inc., USA.

2. While the prayer in C.S.No.34 of 2001 was for recovery of a sum of USD 90,501.502 from the owners of the aforesaid vessel and for a decree of arrest and detention of the vessel, till the amount is paid, the prayer in C.S.No.36 of 2001 was for recovery of a sum of USD 903,273.56 and for the arrest and detention of the vessel. The claim of the plaintiff in C.S.No.34 of 2001 was that they had supplied bunkers to the vessel, when she was at the ports of Piraeus, Bandirama and Istanbul, during the period from November 2000 to January 2001 and that the value of the supplies so made, was not paid. The claim of the plaintiff in C.S.No.36 of 2001 was that they supplied necessaries to the vessel in question as well as to its sister vessels, during the period from October 1997 to January 2001 at various ports in USA and that the value of the supplies was not paid. It appears that in both the Suits, interim orders of arrest of the vessel were passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

3. In June 2001, one K.M. Allauddin, sole proprietor of M/s. Sea Traffic, claiming to be a shipchandler and exporter, filed a Suit C.S. No.441 of 2001 on the file of this Court (out of which the applications on hand arise), for recovery of a sum of USD 14,123.10 and for the arrest and sale of the vessel, on the ground that at the request of the Master of the vessel, he supplied necessaries such as provisions, cabin stores, deck stores, engine stores, electrical stores, etc., on 20.4.2001, under six invoices, for an aggregate amount of USD 13,579.92 on 10 days credit. Since the value of the supplies was not paid, the Suit was filed for recovery of the amount together with interest at 24% per annum. Though, by the time C.S.No.441 of 2001 was filed, the vessel was already under orders of arrest, the plaintiff in C.S.No.441 of 2001 also obtained an order of arrest in A. No. 2633 of 2001 on 26. 2001 and the same was also executed on 26. 2001.

4. The owners of the vessel abandoned it and did not even come forward to defend the Suit. The wages of the seamen and Master also remained unpaid, forcing them to intervene in the Suit C.S. No.441 of 2001.

5. Since there were at least three claims, two on the file of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and one on the file of this Court, which the owners of the vessel could not meet, the vessel was ordered to be sold, by an order dated 27. 2001 passed by this Court in A.No.3079 of 2001 in C.S.No.441 of 2001, by appointing an Advocate Commissioner and directing the Advocate Commissioner to put the plaintiffs before the Andhra Pradesh High Court on notice of the proposed sale.

6. Several steps such as the valuation of the vessel, publication of the advertisement in ‘Lloyds List’ and in ‘The Hindu’, etc., were taken subsequently by the Advocate Commissioner, during the month of August 2001.

7. At this stage, the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc., UK, filed a Suit on 9. 2001 in C.S.No.37 of 2001, on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking (i) a declaration that the vessel was hypothecated, charged and mortgaged to them by way of first preferred mortgage (ii) recovery of an amount of USD 601,000.52 and (iii) the arrest of the vessel. Since, by then, there were two orders of arrest by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and one order of arrest by this Court, the Royal Bank of Scotland did not obtain an interim order of arrest of the vessel.

8. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the vessel was sold in favour of one M/s