JUDGMENT

R.N. BISWAL, J. — In this appeal, the appellant challenged the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the District Judge-in-Charge, Cuttack in ARBP No.207 of 2009, wherein he ordered that status quo in respect of the cargo as on the date of the order, be maintained by both the parties till appearance of the opp.par¬ties.

2. Opp.party No.1 herein was the petitioner, appellant was the opp.party No.2, respondent No.2 was the opp.party No.1 and respondent No.3 was the opp.party No.3 in the Court below. The petitioner is a private limited company registered in Singa¬pore and is engaged in the business in shipping, ship chartering and ship brokering. It filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 1996 Act) giving rise to the aforesaid case before the Dis¬trict Judge, Cuttack with prayer to injunct the opposite parties from removing 17,532 M.T. of iron ore fines stored at site “site for N/S. I.O.C.L. Outlet” a specified location at Paradip Port in order to secure its dues and claims against opp.party No.1.

3. As per the case of the petitioner in November, 2007, through its parent company, M/s. Acemark Ventures INC, it Char¬tered, a 1984 built bulk carrier, later renamed as MV SAHAR from its owners, Bridge Navigation Limited, Republic of Malta and was engaged in shipping of prescribed bulk cargo to different parts of the world as a despondent owner of the vessel. On 28.7.2009, vide a Fixture Note signed between the petitioner and opp.party No.1, i.e., Voyage Charterer, the petitioner sub-chartered the bulk carrier to perform a single Voyage. According to Fixture Note, MV Sahar was to load bulk iron ore from Haldia and Visakpatnam or Paradip and was to discharge the said cargo at any of the designated ports in China. According to the stowage plan of the vessel, she was to load 17532 of M.T. of iron ore fines at Haldia Port by contracted shipper, opp.party No.2 and was to top up the vessel with additional cargo at Paradip Port by different shippers to take the total load up to 40,000 M.T. iron ore fines. The vessel, reached at Haldia Port on 11th August, 2009 and the loading of 17532 M.T. of iron ore fines on it was completed on 10.9.2009. Thereafter, the Master of the vessel was given a certificate of analysis of cargo loaded on behalf of Charterer and shipper, the 1st and 2nd opp.parties. The certificate was issued by the Cargo Superintendents and Surveyors of opp.party Nos.1 and 2, M/s. Therapeutics Chemical Research Corpo¬ration (TCRC), Haldia and represented that the moisture content of the cargo loaded was on average 7.04%. On 10.9.2009 itself, the vessel MV SAHAR sailed from Haldia and arrived at Paradip Anchorage on the next date. It was berthed at Paradip Port on 16.9.2009. Then, loading of additional cargo for another shipper commenced. In course of loading, the Chief of M.V. SAHAR observed puddles of free water on the Haldia cargo and as such sought the assistance of J.B. Boda Surveyors. On observing water on the top of the cargo and its liquefied state, further loading was stopped. Unfortunately, by the time the condition of the cargo was known, about 700 M.T. of cargo of another shipper, M/s.Orecast India Private Limited had already been loaded on top of the Haldia cargo. On analysis it was found that Haldia cargo had moisture content in excess of the flow of the moisture point of the cargo, which was unfit for shipment. The dangerous condition of the cargo loaded at Haldia was reported by the Master of the ship to the petitioner, Voyage Charterer and shipper. On request opp.party No.3 vide its letter dated 9.10.2009 directed the Addi¬tional Traffic Manager to allot 2000 square meters of storage land to opp.party No.2 for temporary storage of the Haldia cargo. Accordingly, on allotment being made, the cargo was stored there. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the mishandling, negligence and malicious act of opp.party Nos. 1 and 2 in loading the dang