OWNERS & PARTIES INTERESTED IN VESSEL MV NEPENTHE Vs. OTA KANDLA PVT LTD & ORS
LAWS(CAL)-2018-2-58
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on February 07,2018

Owners And Parties Interested In Vessel Mv Nepenthe Appellant
VERSUS
Ota Kandla Pvt Ltd And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The Court : The arrest of a vessel has been questioned in this appeal.
(2.) The first respondent herein is the plaintiff in the admiralty action. According to the first respondent and the case run in the plaint, the first respondent effected supplies to vessel M. V. ARYBBAS and remains unpaid therefor. M. V. ARYBBAS is said to be owned by Maximus Marine Ltd. Company Probulk Shipping and Trading S.A is said to be the holding company of Maximus Marine Ltd.. Probulk is also said to be the holding company of Keletros Maritime Company Ltd. The vessel arrested is vessel M. V. NEPENTHE. M. V. NEPHENTHE is owned by Keletros. A report from a British agency by the name of InfoSpectrum Ltd. has been relied upon by the plaintiff to demonstrate that Probulk is ultimately controlled by a person by the name of Alexandros Tsakos, whether individually or along with another individual, and that Probulk is the ultimate owner of both M. V. ARYBBAS and M. V. NEPENTHE though through individual single ship owning companies. The claim of the plaintiff on account of the supplies amounts to slightly over Rs.1 crore (Indian). The plaintiff claims that the invoices were duly raised on the relevant vessel and its owners and the plaintiff has remained unpaid.
(3.) The principal ground urged by the appellants, the persons interested in M. V. NEPHENTHE, is that the claim of the plaintiff and whatever may have been said in the plaint and the affidavit of arrest could not have resulted in M. V. NEPHENTHE being detained by this Court. In such context, Article 3(2) of the International Convention of Arrest of Ships of 1999 has been placed. Since such provision is the key issue in this matter, the same is quoted: "Article 3: Exercise of right of arrest 1 2. Arrest is also permissible of any other ship or ships, which when the arrest is effected, is or are owned by the person who is liable for the maritime claim and who was, when the claims arose: (a) owner of the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose; or (b) demise charterer, time charterer or voyage charterer of that ship.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.