JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Plaint filed under Order XLII Rule II of the High Court Original Side Rules, praying for the following judgment and decree:-

(a) for a sum of Rs.1,29,22,430/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on Rs.1,29,22,430/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization in full;

(b) For arrest and sale of the vessel M.V.Mirna in as is where is condition, presently in Indian waters at the port of Tuticorin;

(c) For a direction to adjust the sale proceeds against the suit claim with interest and costs;

(d) For costs of the suit.)

1. The plaintiff seeks recovery of a sum of Rs.1,29,22,430/- due and payable for the fuel (bunkers) supplied to the ship M.V.Mirna, while it was berthed at Cape Town, South Africa, on 24.09.2006.

2. According to the plaintiff on the orders of the charterer of the ship M/s.Crossworld Middle East LLC, Sharjah, represented by one Mr.R.Srinivasan, the plaintiff had supplied 599.998 Metric Tonnes of Intermediate Fuel Oil and 90.004 Metric Tonnes of Marine Gas Oil to the ship M.V.Mirna, which is cited as the defendant in this action under the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. According to the plaintiff, the orders were placed through e-mail on 13.09.2006 and the plaintiff vide its email dated 14.09.2006 agreed to supply Bunkers as requested. An agreement was reached between the parties to supply 600 to 700 Metric Tonnes of Intermediate Fuel Oil together with 90 to 100 Metric Tonnes of Marine Gas Oil, as bunkers for the defendant vessel. According to the plaintiff, the supplies were effected on 24.09.2006 and the same was acknowledged by the Master of the ship. An invoice was raised by the plaintiff on 24.09.2006 for the value of USD 280,922.40, and the Bank account to which the payment should be made was also indicated.

3. Contending that despite several demands and remainders, the defendant had not made the payment, the plaintiff had come forward with the above suit for recovery of the said sum of 280,922.40 USD equivalent to Rs.1,29,22,430/-. Terming the contract as a commercial contract, the plaintiff would also claim interest at 24% per annum. An order of arrest of the ship was also obtained pending suit and the same was vacated upon the defendant furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the suit claim.

4. The suit is being resisted by the defendant contending that the very claim of the plaintiff is not a maritime claim which could be launched against the ship, as an action in rem under the admiralty jurisdiction. It is the case of the defendant that supply of bunkers though would amount to supply of necessities for a ship, the same if supplied at the instance of the charterer will not qualify as a maritime claim in order to enable the plaintiff to seek recovery against the ship in an action in rem under the admiralty jurisdiction. It is the further contention that the ship was actually on a time charter during the relevant period and it was the charterer namely M/s.Crossworld Middle East LLC, Sharjah, which was in control of the vessel and there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendant or the owners of the defendant ship with reference to supply of bunkers to the ship.

5. It is the further contention that the plaintiff being a regular supplier of bunkers was aware of the fact that the ship was on a time charter and it is the charterer who is liable for payment of the cost of the fuel supplied to the ship and not the owner of the ship. An additional plea was taken to the effect that the charterer had in fact paid the cost of the bunkers supplied in advance. It is the further contention of the defendant that M/s.Crossworld Middle East LLC, Sharjah, the charterer is a necessary party to the suit. The conventions relating to arrest of ships where also sought to be relied upon by the defendant to deny its liability. On the above contentions, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Upon the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by this Court:

1. Whether the