IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the arrest of a vessel under the Admiralty Act requires strict adherence to the conditions set forth in Section 5, and failure to meet these conditions renders the arrest order invalid.

ORDER

I.A No.6 of 2024

V. Narasingh, J.

 This is an application filed by the Defendant.

2. In I.A No.1 of 2024 arising out of the present suit was filed seeking arrest of the Defendant-Vessel. And, by order dated 23.02.2024 this Court directed for arrest, recall of which is being sought by the Defendant by filing present I.A No.6 of 2024.

3. Relevant extracts of the cause title and the prayers made in the I.A are culled out hereunder for convenience of reference:

'IN THE MATTER OF :

An application for the release of the Vessel which was arrested by the Order Dt.23.03.2024 of this Hon'ble Court in ADMLS No.1 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF :

An application for the Release of the Vessel under Section 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.'

'xxx xxx xxx

1. The order dated February 24, 2024, passed in ADMLS No.1 of 2024 be vacated and/or recalled;

2. To direct release of the Vessel M.V. DEBI upon furnishing of appropriate security without prejudice to the right and contentions of the Vessel and her owners for the period upto and until 30.11.2023 at the first instance as an ad-interim measure;

3. The suit being ADMLS No.1 of 2024 be stayed till the disposal of the present application;

4. Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above;

5. The costs of the present application be paid by the Plaintiff;

6. Such other and/or further order or orders be passed and directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.'

4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakar appearing for the Defendant submitted, inter alia, that since there is no privity of contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the suit in its present form is not maintainable. Hence, the logical fall out is that the arrest order needs to be vacated. To fortify his submission, learned Senior Counsel filed his written note of submissions. One of the contentions raised is that the order of arrest, vacation of which is being sought, should be deemed to be an ex parte order.

5. It is his further submission that in the face of non-existence of the pre-condition as envisaged under Section 5(1)(a) and/or 5(1)(b) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2017') invocation of admiralty jurisdiction of this Court by the Plaintiff and seeking arrest of the Vessel is not at all entertainable.

6. In this context, it is relevant to quote Paragraphs-28 to 30 of I.A No.6 of 2024 filed at the behest of the Defendant.

'28. That the arrest of any Vessel could be ordered where the Hon'ble Court has reasons to believe that any of the circumstances described in Section 5(1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 ('Admiralty Act') exists. It is respectfully submitted that the Court must record its prima facie satisfaction with substantial basis corroborated from records of this case that the circumstances and conditions enumerated in Section 5(1) of the Admiralty Act does exists in the case at hand.

29. That in the present case, the Applicant was not liable for the claim when the maritime claim is alleged to have arisen since that is the real position of fact, no contrary evidence has been tendered by the Respondent while obtaining the Arrest Order. SSLL is the disclosed agent of the Charterer being DAVA. The said Charterer never owned the Vessel nor is the demise charterer of the Vessel, whether when the alleged maritime claim arose or when the arrest was affected. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination the conditions stipulated under Section 5(1)(a) and/or 5(1)(b) of the Admiralty Act ever existed.

30. That the aforesaid conditions are mandatory for obtaining an order of arrest. Unless such specific pre-conditions are found to be met from the evidence disclosed prima facie by the party seeking an order of arrest, no order of arrest can even be contemplated. In the present case, none of the mandatory pre-conditio