IMPORTANT POINT
Revocation of leave – Power to revoke dispensation granted under Section 12-A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 can be made even suo motu without being tethered to application made by defendant in that regard.

JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.—The defendant no. 1 Green Ocean Seaways Private Limited has filed the present application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiff under section 12-A of The Commercial Act, 2015, dispensing with pre-institution mediation in relation to the Admiralty Suit being AS 6 of 2023. The defendant no. 1 also prays for rejection of the plaint and for dismissal of the suit in tune with the first prayer.

2. The prayer for dismissal and revocation of leave arises out of an order dated 19.10.2023 which recorded that there was no urgency for moving the affidavit of arrest on an earlier occasion. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant no. 1 argues that the plaintiff’s suit for payment of outstanding amounts allegedly due to the plaintiff was on account of services rendered to the erstwhile owner of the vessel. Counsel submits that the suit was instituted on the basis of the leave granted by the Court on 13.10.2023 dispensing with the mandatory compliance of the provision of pre-institution mediation under the 2015 Act. Counsel submits that the plaint and affidavit of arrest are bereft of any pleadings on urgency and that the cause of action arose sometime in June, 2016. Counsel places the second order dated 19.10.2023 recalling the order of arrest of 13.10.2023. Counsel submits that the suit could not have been instituted without the plaintiff exhausting the remedy of pre-institution mediation since the suit did not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the 2015 Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the dispensation of leave under section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act is not a revocable order since the need for urgent relief may arise even during pendency of a commercial suit. Counsel further submits that the particular suit was filed under Clause 32 of the Letters Patent, 1865 which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court in exercise of its maritime jurisdiction under The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. Counsel submits that a plaintiff has only to establish a maritime claim/maritime lien for an order of arrest under the provisions of the Admiralty Act of 2017. According to counsel, the present application for dismissal of the suit and for revocation of leave granted under section 12-A of the 2015 Act should hence be rejected.

4. The arguments made on behalf of the parties need to be placed in context, that is in the foreground of the orders passed in the Admiralty Suit.

5. Upon presentation of the plaint in the Admiralty Suit on 13.10.2023 the plaintiff prayed for dispensation of pre-institution mediation under section 12-A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, pursuant to which leave was granted on the urgency shown by the plaintiff. The order records that the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid fees for services rendered was found to be covered by section 4 of The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and that the High Court was conferred with jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim against the vessel. The Court accordingly passed an order of arrest of the vessel which was lying within the territorial waters of India, more specifically at Port Blair, as on that day and was within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. The vessel was directed to remain under arrest until the defendants / owners furnished sufficient security for the plaintiff’s claim of Rs. 1.50 crores inclusive of interest and costs.

6. The owner of the vessel applied for vacating of the order of arrest which culminated in the second order dated 19.10.2023. This order forms the basis of the present application for revocation of the leave granted for dispensation under section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act and for dismissal of the Admiralty Suit.

7. The Court proceeded to vacate the order of arrest dated 13.10.2023 on the following reasons:—

(i) That there was no privity