The need to establish a prima facie case for damages and the sufficiency of evidence to substantiate the claimed damages.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Applications filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Order 38 & Rule 5 of CPC, to grant the following prayers:

i. to pass an order directing the 1st respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs.5,56,56,993/- (Rupees five crore fifty six lakhs, fifty six thousand and nine hundred and ninety three only) towards loss of charter hire and cost of bunkers when then injunction and status quo order wrongfully obtained by the 1st respondent was in force failing which this Court may be pleased to order attachment of the assets of the 1st respondent including the vessel MV Mahavir before judgment.

ii. to pass an order directing the 1st respondent to furnish for a sum of Rs.5,56,56,993/- (Rupees five crore fifty six lakhs, fifty six thousand and nine hundred and ninety three only) towards loss of charter hire and cost of bunkers when the injunction and status quo order wrongfully obtained by the 1st respondent was in force failing which this Court may be pleased to order attachment of the assets of the 1st respondent including the Bank Account No.400000005055 with RBL Bank.

iii. For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require and thought fit by this Court.

iv. For the costs of the present application.

Common Order:

Application No.1119 of 2023 and Application No.1423 of 2023 have been filed seeking to order the first respondent to furnish security for a sum of Rs.5,56,56,993/- failing which to pass an order of attachment of the assets of the first respondent including the vessel M.V.Mahavir and order of attachment of the bank account of the first respondent with RBL Bank, Tiruppur Branch respectively.

2. Application No.1424 of 2023 has been filed for a direction to direct the first respondent to disclose on affidavit true and complete details of the bank account of the first respondent available with ICICI Bank.

3. Heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Deepak Narayanan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.R.Murari, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Dhanaraj, learned counsel for the first respondent.

4. Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the second respondent herein being a Public Sector undertaking owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu with the responsibility of the shipment of coal along the East Coast of India, had issued a global tender for chartering a vessel of a particular specification to aid in transportation of thermal coal from the Ports of Paradip/Dhamra/Kakinada to Ennore with a capacity of 50000 to 86000. That the applicant was declared successful bidder as being the lowest bidder having satisfied the technical qualifications.

5. The applicant had originally offered vessel M.V.Prabhu Sumat for carrying out the transportation. As there was some delay in finalizing the contract and the aforesaid vessel being a commercially viable vessel had been engaged for other purposes and hence, the applicant had offered another vessel M.V.Prabhu Puni for a single voyage till M.V.Prabhu Sumat could arrive at the load port. The reason for the swap for the first voyage was due to the prescribed layover in the contract. The said offer was also accepted by the second respondent.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant would submit that the first respondent had challenged the said decision by instituting a Writ Petition in W.P.No.27323 of 2022 and that by misleading this Court, he had obtained an order preventing the second respondent from entrusting transportation of coal to the applicant by grant of an order of status quo.

7. He would submit that the said order came to be passed on 13.10.2022. Immediately, the applicant had filed a detailed counter statement and the second respondent herein also filed a detailed counter. Thereafter, when the writ petition came up for further hearing on 09.11.2022, this Co