- (1.) In an action in rem, in an admiralty matter, it was of course open to a plaintiff to seek to recover its alleged dues in respect to one vessel by causing another vessel to be arrested which either belonged to the same owner or a beneficial owner or one having control and possession of the arrested vessel. If both the vessels were owned by the same person, it was unlikely that the matter would come before the Courts. When the plaintiffs however, sought to establish and rely on beneficial ownership, or control and possession of the arrested vessel, intricate questions of interpretation, erudite deliberations by the Courts, public common law, provisions contained in international conventions and indeed the facts and circumstances of the case would become necessary to be considered, to decide the contentions of the parties. The exercise no doubt would, and in the instant case did, necessitate counsels for the parties, to resist the temptation of going on a pleasure cruise on the vast, and I dare say, very interesting expanse of the laws of admiralty both Indian and foreign, and restrict themselves to clarify, distinguish and apply only those portions of the laws which were relevant, according to them, for the purpose of adjudication of the disputes at hand. I believe, it would be prudent to start at the very begining and consider the facts of the case.
(2.) Alexandros Dryron S.A. as the owner of a vessel "M.V. TIRGU NEAMT" let and Arabian Express Line Ltd. as the charterers hired the vessel, for a voyage from the port at Bombay Kandla-range to the port in the Eastern Mediterranian Blacksea area, and the terms and conditions were stipulated in the charter-party agreement dated October 24, 1996. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in respect to moneys alleged to be payable by the charterers to Alexandros Dryron S.A., on account of freight, Sues-canal Toli, demurrage due to breach of 4 charter-party, laytime, loss and damages by reason of over-time, and in accordance with an arbitration-agreement contained in the charter-party it instituted in London, arbitration proceedings against Arabian Express Line Limited, to be referred to as the charterers hereafter. Thereafter, Alexandros Dryron S.A., referred to hereafter as "the plaintiff", instituted an admiralty suit, in rem, in this Court against the, "Owners and Parties Interested In The Vessel "M.V. PRAPTI ", being Admiralty Suit No. 18 of 1997, on similar cause of action as in the arbitration proceedings, and had also claimed similar reliefs. In this suit the plaintiff made an interlocutory application and by an ex parte-order dated August 22, 1997, made by the Hon'ble Judge taking interlocutory matters, the vessel "M.V. PRAPTI", then berthed in the port of Vishakhapatnam in the State of Andhra Pradesh, was placed under arrest "for a period of ten days from date or until further orders of this Court whichever is earlier". The Hon'ble Judge was "prima facie satisfied" as to the correctness of the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner." The matter did not appear in the Cause List on the returnable date, and counsel on behalf of Eleanora Shipping Co. Ltd., the owner of "M.V. PRAPTI", hereinafter referred to as "the owner", mentioned the matter and prayed for variation of the order. The Hon'ble Judge upon hearing counsel for the owner, was not inclined to vary the order, though leave was granted to make, and an application was made on behalf of the owner on August 28, 1997 for dismissal of the suit and the plaint be taken off the file. Parties agreed, that upon completion of the filing of affidavits the two applications ought to be heard analogously and the Court gave directions accordingly. The matter was thereafter released by the Hon'ble Judge, and His Lordship The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice assigned the matters to be heard by this Court. The matters were heard analogously on September 18, 22, and 23, 1997.
(3.) In the course of the hearing of the applications, a further application was sought to be moved on behalf of one, Rastrya Ispat Nigam Limited, a Government company whose goods had been loaded on "M.V. PRAPTI", the vessel under arrest. It was submitted by counsel for the petitioner that pending the hearing of the two applications, presently being heard by the Court, his client, though not a party to the disputes in the two applications suffered and would continue to suffer irreparable loss and damages. He prayed that his client would deposit a sum of Rs. 1 crore by way of securing the claim of the plaintiff and the vessel may be permitted to sail to Bedi Bander in the State of Gujarat, and there unload the petitioner's cargo, and the vessel would continue to be under arrest both throughout the voyage and thereafter. Except for Eleanora Shipping Company Limited, the owner of the vessel, none of the other parties objected to the making of an order in terms of the prayer made by the petitioner. Since it was clear that hearing of the two applications would continue and the petitioner was a Government Company, I was of the view that public money would be wasted if the vessel was not allowed to carry the cargo, already loaded, to the port of Bedi Bander, and since the petitioner would deposit the sum of Rs. 1 crore which would in effect secure the claim of the plaintiff if any, none of the parties would suffer any prejudice or injustice of any manner, and for those reasons an interim order was made in that application, on September 18, 1997 to the effect that upon deposit of a sum of Rs. 1 crore by Rastrya Ispat Nigam Limited with the joint-receivers, being two advocates-on-record for the petitioner and the plaintiff, the vessel would, under arrest, sail out of Vishakhapatnam and to the port of Bedi Bander in the State of Gujarat and unload the cargo belonging to the petitioner and thereafter the vessel would continue to remain in Bedi Bander under arrest until further orders of this Court. At the instance of the parties directions were given for filing of affidavits.;