- (1.) MR . Saha, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the claim is a maritime claim, inasmuch as, it relates to outstanding dues owing to supply of bunkers for the voyage of the vessel ''M.V. Yangtze Xing Xiu '' pursuant to order placed at the behest of M/s. Orient Maritime International Limited, the agent of its owners. He further submits that the dues have been acknowledged in an electronic mail sent by the agent and the same are admittedly outstanding.
(2.) HE further submits that the vessel is likely to leave the port shortly and, therefore, there is extreme urgency in the matter and an order of arrest ought to be passed to assume jurisdiction and secure the maritime claim. Mr. Thaker, learned Advocate, undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of the defendants in course of the day. He disputes the submissions of Mr. Saha and claims that no prima facie case for passing of an order of arrest has been made out. He emphatically argues that there is nothing on record to show that M/s. Orient Maritime International Limited acted as agent of the owners of the vessel and relies on an earlier affidavit filed by the self -sale deponent in G.A. No. 1516 of 2014 wherein, inter alia, M/s. Orient Maritime International Limited has been described as ''demised charterer '' of the vessel. He draws my attention to Article 3 of the 1999 Convention and submits that no prima facie case for arrest of the ship has been made out. According to Article 1(l) of the 1999 Convention, claims in respect of bunkers supplied to a vessel for its operation, management, preservation or maintenance is a maritime claim. It prima facie appears that bunkers were supplied to the vessel for its voyage and there are outstanding claims with regard thereto.
(3.) I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Thaker at this stage that the averments in the affidavit of arrest and the annexures do not prima facie disclose that M/s. Orient Maritime International Limited was not acting as agent of the owners of the vessel or that they had not placed orders for supply of bunkers to the vessel in such capacity. The averments in the affidavit sworn by the self -same deponent in G.A. No. 1516 of 2014 cannot be said to be patently inconsistent with the averments in the present affidavit of arrest, as argued on behalf of the defendants. In the earlier affidavit, an alternative case that M/s. Orient Maritime International Limited may have been acting as ''demised charterer '' of the vessel had been pleaded in addition to the claim that they were acting as the agents of its owners. The cause of action in the earlier suit related to a period different from the present one. No demise or any other document has been placed before me in support of the plea that M/s. Orient Maritime International Limited was the ''demised charterer '' of the vessel at the material point of time. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made out in favour of the petitioner that a maritime claim is subsisting in respect of the vessel and that unless an order of arrest is passed, the vessel shall forthwith leave port and thereby render the suit infructuous. ;