IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ADMLS No.2 of 2025 ALPHARD MARITIME LTD. …. Plaintiff Mr. D.P. Nanda, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Samvit Mohanty, Advocate Mr. Anurag Pati, Advocate Mr. Adwitiya Satpathy, Advocate Ms. Jimisha Dalal, Advocate Ms. Nitansha Nema, Advocate Mr. Aryan Sharma, Advocate Ms. Shivani Das, Advocate -versus-

OCEAN JADE (IMO: …. Defendants

9660750) and another Mr. Gautam Mukherji, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Advocate Ms. Arusmita Acharya, Advocate Ms. Ankita Mukherji, Advocate Mr. Amlan Mishra, Advocate Mr. S.S. Moharana, Advocate Ms. Deepsha Dhal, Advocate Mr. S.K. Padhi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ipsit Aurobindo Acharya, Advocate Mr. Nitesh Jain, Advocate Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate Ms. Juhi Mathur, Advocate Mr. Piyush Panda, Advocate (For intervenors)

CORAM:

JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

08.05.2025 (Hybrid Mode)

Order No.

12. 1. The learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff refers to the order dated 06.05.2025 to point that at internal page 10, in last but three lines of paragraph-5 there is a typographical error. In the last but 3^rd line ‘resolved’ is to be read as ‘reserved’.

2. The word ‘resolved’ is to be corrected in the said order as indicated above as ‘reserved’. Correction be carried out as per rules.

I.A. No.15 of 2025

3. Mr. D.P. Nanda, learned counsel in response to the submissions of Mr. Mukherjee learned senior counsel submits that though the defendants find flaw in not mentioning the ‘Gujarat admirality suit’ in the plaint as well as contend that the suit before this Court is in aid of the admirality suit pending at Gujarat before the High Court, Section 5(1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims Act, 2017) itself gives the answer to the said proposition.

“5(1).The High Court may order arrest of any vessel which is within its jurisdiction for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim which is the subject of an admiralty proceeding, where the court has reason to believe that—(a)the person who owned the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected; or(b)the demise charterer of the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the demise charterer or the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected; or(c)the claim is based on a mortgage or a charge of the similar nature on the vessel; or(d)the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the vessel; or(e)the claim is against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the vessel and is secured by a maritime lien as provided in section 9.”

4. It is submitted that since section 5(1) refers to an “…Subject of an admiralty proceeding…”, the suit before this Court is also in aid of another admirality suit and the claim against the vessel is the subject of an admiralty suit pending before the Gujarat High Court. It is submitted that it is for securing that claim and also for securing the value of the vessels those are subject matter of the suit at Gujarat. It is submitted that reliance of the defendants on Rushab Ship International LLC v. Bunkers onboard Ship M.V. African Eagle (rendered by the Bombay High Court) : 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 620 : (2014) 4 Bom CR 269 has to be considered in the context of the fact that African Eagle (supra) is a pronouncement prior to coming into force of the 2017 Act. The learned senior counsel refers to observations of Siem Offshore Redri AS vrs. Altus Uber: 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2730 paragraph-37 onwards (of the SCC OnLine print) to contend that the observation in African Eagle (supra was rendered in a different context prior to the 2017 amendment.

5. Responding to the contention of the learned senior counsel Mr. Mukherjee that defendants in the present suit before this Court are not party before the Gujarat High Court in the pending suit there, Mr. Nanda submits that the defendants do not dispute that they are the owners of the vesse