Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 22080
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J
MEIR COMMODITIES INIDA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
M.V. SW SOUTH WIND I (IMO NO. 9478626) – Respondent
R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 37 of 2024
The court recognized the Plaintiff's maritime claim for damages due to the detention of a vessel not caused by the Plaintiff's lawful cargo, allowing for the vessel's arrest.
Headnote:(A) Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 - Section 4(1)(f) - Maritime claim for loss due to detention of vessel - Plaintiff claims damages of USD 367,503 due to detention of vessel MV SW SOUTH WIND I, asserting cargo was lawful and compliant with export standards - Court finds prima facie case for arrest of vessel due to negligence of vessel's owners - Plaintiff's cargo was not the cause of detention. (Paras 2.9, 3, 4)
(B) Maritime Law - Nature of maritime claims - Claims arising from loss or damage to goods in connection with maritime operations are recognized as maritime claims under the Admiralty Act. (Paras 3, 3.1)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff entered into a Charter Party Agreement for exporting 450 MT of rice, which was detained due to issues with other cargo on the vessel. The Plaintiff asserts that their cargo is lawful and has suffered financial losses due to the vessel's detention. (Paras 2.1, 2.9)
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the arrest of the Defendant vessel due to the Plaintiff's prima facie claim of damages arising from the vessel's detention, which was not the Plaintiff's fault. (Paras 4, 4.1)
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff's cargo was lawful and the cause of the vessel's detention, and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages. (Paras 2.9, 3.1)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Plaintiff's claim is valid under maritime law, as the detention of the vessel was not due to the Plaintiff's actions, thus warranting the arrest of the vessel to secure the claim. (Paras 3, 4)
Result: The court ordered the arrest of the Defendant vessel.
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Saurabh Soparkar tenders a draft amendment. The same is granted. To be carried out during the course of the day.
1.1. Learned Senior advocate also draws the attention of this Court to the name of the vessel as mentioned in the Board as MV SOUTH WING 1 whereas it appears that the correct name is MV SW SOUTH WIND I. Registry to appropriately correct the name of the vessel in the board as well.
2. Heard Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Saurabh Soparkar with Mr. Manav Mehta and Mr. Darshankumar Kabra for the Plaintiff.
2.1. Learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the averments made in the plaint and submitted that Plaintiff purchased about 450 MT of Parboiled Rice i.e. the cargo in question and sold the cargo to one JKT Foods Europe DMCC (“JKT”). To export the cargo, the Plaintiff entered into a Charter Party Agreement dated 19th June, 2024 with one OK International Logistics LLC, the Disponent Owner of the Defendant Vessel, for a Voyage Charter of the Defendant Vessel for exporting the Cargo to JKT. Ld. Senior Advocate further submitted that the plaintiff’s cargo formed a small part of the entire cargo shipped on board the Defendant Vessel.
2.2. Learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that Upon securing the Defendant Vessel for exporting the Cargo, the Plaintiff entered into a Sales Contract with JKT being Sales Contract No. ER / 2024-25 / 001 dated 25th June 2024 for export of 450 MT (+/- 10%) of Indian Long Grain IR-64 Parboiled Rice at the price of USD 604 per MT and The Cargo under the sales contract was to be shipped between 20th June 2024 to 10th July 2024 .
2.3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Soparkar further submitted that the Defendant Vessel arrived at Deendayal Port (Kandla), Gujarat on 8th July 2024 and thereafter on 09th July, 2024, the Plaintiff packed the Cargo in 9160 bags as evidenced from the Shipping Bills dated 09th July, 2024. Ld. Senior Advocate further submitted that Before commencing loading operations, a Pre-Shipment Inspection of the Cargo was also carried out on 11th July 2024 by one Inspectorate Griffith India Pvt. Ltd. / Bureau Veritas on the instructions of the Plaintiff.
2.4. Learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that loading operations onboard the Defendant Vessel commenced on 12th July 2024 and The Customs Authorities cleared the Cargo for export on 13th July 2024 which can be evidenced by the Shipping Bill Summary in respect of both, 4160 bags and 5000 bags.
2.5. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that upon clearance, the loading of the Plaintiff’s Cargo onboard the Defendant Vessel was completed on 13th July 2024 and Accordingly, two Mate’s Receipts dated 20th July 2024 were issued to the Plaintiff showing that the Plaintiff’s entire Cargo of 458 MT had been loaded onboard the Defendant Vessel.
2.6. Learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that operations of the total cargo of 50,670 MT onboard the Defendant Vessel completed at 21:10 Hours on 8th August 2024 and The Plaintiff was issued Original Bills of Lading of the same date. Ld. Senior Advocate further submitted that the Bills of Lading provide the weight of the Cargo as well the discharge port. Ld. Senior Advocate further submitted that as on 09th August, 2024, the Defendant Vessel was ready for departure.
2.7. Learned Senior Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that the Defendant Vessel had not left Deendayal Port (Kandla), Gujarat since then and the Plaintiff received an email dated 09th September, 2024 from one Commodity Care Shipping Pte Ltd. (“Commodity Care”) claiming to be the Disponent Owner of the Defendant Vessel that the Defendant Vessel had been detained by the Kandla Customs due to “lack of clearance for the cargo”. Ld. Senior Advocate further submitted that the Plaintiff’s cargo is duly compliant with the Export Standars and it is only because of some other prohibited cargo on board the Defendant Vessel, t
