IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 2 of 2023 In R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 3 of 2019 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2023 In R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 2 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Sd/- ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

MONJASA LTD.

Versus M.T. ALPINE DUKE (IMO 9470909)

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS PAURAMI B. SHETH(841) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Date : 13/10/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

INDEX

1. Monjasa, the plaintiff, started an action in rem on 07.01.2019, against the vessel MT Alpine Duke hereinafter referred to as the “Arrested vessel”) stating that it had supplied bunkers to MT Megacore Philomena (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vessel’) on 24.11.2017 at St Eusatius Anchorage and had issued an invoice dated 01.12.2017, but the sums due on this account remained unpaid and they had therefore a maritime claim.

2. The claim made was for a sum of USD 399,413 with interest at 2% per month.

3. It contended that the arrested vehicle, though stated to be owned by Blizzard Navigation Inc (hereinafter referred to as the ‘registered owner’) and the offending vehicle, which was stated to be owned by Hurricane Navigation Inc, were ultimately controlled and beneficially owned by Oxygen Maritime Management Inc (hereinafter referred to as “the alleged beneficial owner”) and hence it was entitled to seek for arrest of a sister ship ( i.e., the arrested vessel) for the recovery of the maritime claim.

II. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS BEFORE THIS COURT

4. On 07.01.2019, the learned single judge ordered the arrest of the vehicle MT Alpine Duke.

5. On 10.01.2019, Blizzard Navigation Inc, the owners of the arrested vehicle entered appearance and offered security for the release of the arrested vessel.

6. On 11.01.2019, a learned single judge of this court ordered release of the arrested vehicle, subject to furnishing of a security by the owners of the arrested vessel.

7. On 15.01.2019, the owners offered security by making a cash deposit of USD 405,200/- and the vessel was released. The said amount has since been ordered to be invested in a Fixed Deposit and is thereby earning interest.

8. On 09.05.2019, a written statement was filed by the owners of the arrested vessel and thereafter on 04.07.2019, an application for vacating the ex-parte order of arrest was also filed.

9. On 14.11.2022 (i.e., after about 30 months) the learned single judge, on hearing the arguments, proceeded to vacate the order of arrest that had been granted on 07.01.2019 and ordered the security furnished by Blizzard Navigation Inc to be returned to them in the following terms:

“17. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the documents on