IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 25 of 2023 ==========================================================

UCO BANK Versus MT INDIAN FRIENDSHIP (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MT PACIFIC KOHINOOR)(IMO NO 9800661)

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

Appearance:

for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Plaintiff(s) No. 1 MR PRATHMESH KAMAT, ADVOCATE for MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) with MS ADITI MAHESHWARI with MS ANKITA SEN for the Plaintiff(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Date : 26/08/2023

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Rushang D. Mehta requested urgent circulation of the matter. Permission for circulation of the matter was granted for today at 9:30 pm. Accordingly, the suit is taken up for hearing for interim orders.

2. At the outset, Learned Counsel Mr. Prathamesh Kamat along with Learned Counsel Mr. Rushang D. Mehta submits that the Plaintiff Bank entered into transactions / a refinancing arrangement with MMTC which culminated in the Plaintiff holding 2 original Bills of Lading (PK-34 and PK-35) regard to 2000 MT of crude Degummed Soyabean oil edible in bulk from Sao Francisco Do Sul, Brazil to Deendayal Port, Kandla. Mr. Kamat further submits that an import invoice was raised by Bunge Asia Pte Ltd. (Seller) on MMTC for a sum of USD 2,148,420. MMTC in turn raised an Invoice on Arcis Global Merchants Pte Ltd. for as sum of USD

2,160,000. This sum was to be paid by Arcis for the purchase of goods from MMTC. This payment was to be routed through the Plaintiff Bank under the arrangement with MMTC and credit facilities granted by the Plaintiff Bank thereunder. Mr. Kamat further submits that on 05.04.2023, the Plaintiff Bank made a SWIFT payment for USD 2,148,420 to Bunge on behalf of MMTC for purchase of the goods. Subsequently, MMTC provided all shipping documents including the two Bills of Lading to the Plaintiff. Mr. Kamat, therefore, submits that the Plaintiff accordingly became the holder of the Bills of Lading. Upon instructions from MMTC, on 06.07.2023, the Plaintiff presented the shipping documents including the Bills of Lading to Arcis’ bank, i.e. Standard Chartered Bank for collection of payment within 48 hours of receipt of the documents by Standard Chartered Bank. Mr. Kamat submits that despite presentation of the Bills of Lading, no payment was made. This prompted the Plaintiff to request Standard Chartered bank to return the documents. Accordingly, all documents including the original Bills of Lading were duly returned by Standard Chartered Bank.

3. On 24.07.2023, the Plaintiff issued a letter/email to the Owner of the Defendant Vessel, seeking delivery of the Cargo on presentation of the original Bills of Lading. The Plaintiff received no response to the said communication.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Kamat submits that the Cargo covered by the Bills of Lading is delivered without presentation of the original Bills of Lading. Despite follow-ups, no payments were made. This constitutes a breach of the contract of carriage which has resulted in damages/losses caused to the Plaintiff in connection with the Cargo covered by the Bills of Lading. Mr. Kamat submits that such a claim constitutes a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(g) and Section 4(1)(f) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017. Mr. Kamat further submits that since the Bills of Lading were issued for and on behalf of the Master of the Defendant Vessel, the Plaintiff has a maritime claim against the Owner of the Defendant Vessel and is entitled to proceed against the Defendant Vessel. Mr. Kamat therefore, submits that the Defendant Vessel is liable to be arrested in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Admiralty Act 2017.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Prathamesh Kamat would draw the attention of this Court to the Equasis Report which would show the name of the defendant vessel as Pacific Kohinoor with