An action in rem under admiralty law can proceed despite an arbitration clause, as such actions are intended for obtaining security for maritime claims.

1. Admit. Advocate Sri. Vipin P. Varghese takes notice for the 1st defendant and Advocate Smt. Latha Anand takes notice for the 2nd defendant.

2. Post the suit for the Written Statement of the defendants on 04/07/2025 along with Adml.S. No. 9/2025.

3. (1) I.A. No.1 of 2025

This Application is filed by the plaintiff in the captioned Admiralty Suit to issue Warrant of Arrest against the vessel "M.T VISION" (IMO 9236016) with all her accessories, which is presently anchored at Cochin Port, which is within the territorial waters of India and within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.

4. (2) This is the second suit filed by the very same plaintiff against the very same defendants with respect to the very same vessel in this Court. Earlier, the Applicant filed Adml.S. No.9 of 2025 with respect to its maritime claim of Rs.56,38,03,314/- as unliquidated damages with interest @ 12% per annum against the 1st respondent alleging breach of contract of the Time Charter - party executed by the Applicant and the owner of the 1st respondent and consequential losses suffered by the Applicant In I.A.No.1/2025 in Adml.S. No. 9 of 2025, filed by the Applicant, this Court had ordered conditional arrest of the vessel for the plaint claim of Rs.56,38,03,314/- as per interim order dated 13/06/2025. The 1st respondent did not furnish the security as per the said Order dated 13/06/2025 and hence the said vessel is still under arrest and continuing in Cochin Port.

5. (3) The present suit is filed claiming an amount of Rs.25,74,63,958/-.

6. (4) When this suit and Interim Application came up for admission on 24/06/2025, this Court thought it fit to direct the Applicant to give notice to the first respondent, as the first respondent has already appeared in Adml.S. No. 9/2025. An interim order was also passed directing the second respondent to see that the vessel is not sailed out till 26/06/2025.

7. (5) Today, the first respondent appeared through counsel. Since the first respondent did not get sufficient time to file Counter Affidavit in this Application, the counsel for the first respondent was permitted to advance his contentions opposing the Application.

8. (6) Accordingly, I heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant, Sri. Pratamesh Kamath with Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. Vipin P. Varghese and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Smt. Latha Anand.

9. (7) The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the claims are for crystallized debts under three specific heads. The claim of the Applicant is that the Charter - party executed by the Applicant with the owner of the first respondent is terminated as per the Termination Notice dated 14/06/2025. On account of the termination, the first respondent has to return the excess charter hire paid by the Applicant & the Security deposit made by the Applicant for the Charter - party and to pay the value of bunkers on re - delivery. According to the learned counsel, these are crystallized debts proved by supporting documents. Since the applicant has made out a prima facie case, the applicant is entitled to get conditional order of arrest of the vessel till furnishing security for the plaint claim by the first respondent.

10. (8) Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the plaintiff has no right or authority to issue a Termination Notice on 14/06/2025 as per the Charter - party. The conditional arrest was ordered in the earlier suit on 13/06/2025. The Applicant issued the Termination Notice on the very next day itself. The Charter - party contains an arbitration clause. Without disclosing this material