R.BANUMATHI, J - (1.)THESE appeals arise out of the order of learned single Judge in A.Nos.4337 and 4810 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge declined to pass an order of arrest of Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy holding that claim of supply of necessaries do not constitute a "maritime lien".
(2.)PLAINTIFF is an Import and Export Company and they are also engaged in the business of Clearing and Forwarding Agency which includes supply of various necessaries to Vessel in Dock. Case of PLAINTIFF is that Defendant in the course of business would lie anchored in the Indian Ports at various places at various points of time, particularly in Chennai and Tuticorin Ports. When the ship is so anchored, the PLAINTIFF would supply various necessaries to the Defendant at the request of the Master of the Vessel. PLAINTIFF would raise invoices and as such, maintaining a running Account with the Defendant. It is averred that PLAINTIFF has been supplying necessaries to the Defendant for several years and an outstanding amount to the credit of the PLAINTIFF stood at US $270,386.56 as at 19.3.2009. Defendant confirmed the aforesaid dues by their fax letter dated 27.4.2009 sent by one Asif, affixing the seal of the company. Even after such confirmation of balance outstanding, the Defendant availed the services of the PLAINTIFF for the value of US $28,519.93. After negotiations, Defendant issued a letter of authority dated 22.7.2009 to the PLAINTIFF to authorize the PLAINTIFF to sell Defendant's sister Vessel MV Maafaru. PLAINTIFF realized a sum of US $150,000 and out of the sale proceeds, a sum of US $27,000 towards release of the sister Vessel from the arrest of another creditor which was settled by the PLAINTIFF was adjusted and interest charges and crew charges at US $48,669.58 and US $23,810.07 respectively were also adjusted. After adjusting the sale proceeds of MV Maafaru as stated above, the total outstanding of the Defendant stood at US $248, 386.14 and the said amount is outstanding from 16.2.2010.
Alleging that the Defendant has not made any payment despite repeated demands, Plaintiff has filed the suit C.S.No.708 of 2010 invoking admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. According to Plaintiff, they supplied stores, lube oil and other essentials to Defendant and therefore, Plaintiff is having maritime lien and an action in rem against the ship MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy. Stating that Defendant's Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy is now berthed in Kannur Port, Kerala for loading cargo and it is expected to remain in the Port for another couple of days, Plaintiff has filed the suit :- (a) for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,26,75,328.46 together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of realisation; (b) for the arrest and sale of Defendant Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy (Ex: MV Hikaadhoo carrier); and (c) for a direction to adjust the sale proceeds of Defendant Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy (Ex: MV Hikaadhoo carrier) against the suit claim.

On application filed by the 1st Respondent/Impleading party in A.No.4810 of 2010, 1st Respondent was ordered to be impleaded in the suit. Case of 1st Respondent/Impleading party is that they are carrying on the business of purchase of old Vessel for the purpose of breaking and one such Vessel is MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy which was registered at Maldives. According to 1st Respondent/Impleading party, Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy is not owned by M/s.Marine Exports and Trading Company Private Limited (METCO) and Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy was originally owned by Ms. Nazea Abdul Guddoos and after due negotiation, MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy was purchased by the 1st Respondent/Impleading party under Memo of Agreement dated 24.6.2010. 1st Respondent firm took possession of the Vessel from Male, Maldives for sailing to Kannur, Kerala for breaking up. According to 1st Respondent/Impleading party, sale of the Vessel took place as early as on 24.6.2010 to the 1st Respondent and 1st Respondent-Impleading party is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of any claim for supply of the alleged essentials. Plaintiff's agreement with METCO is for the ship MV Mafaaru and not for the ship MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy. Further case of 1st Respondent/Impleading party is that there is no essential or necessaries supplied to MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy and on false representation, MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy was wrongly arrested by the Plaintiff. There is no claim of "maritime lien" against MV Dhuvaafaru. If at all there is any claim, it can only be in personam against the owner of the Vessel and no claim in rem will lie. Hence, 1st Respondent/Impleading party prayed for revoking the order of arrest of Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy dated 11.08.2010 passed by the learned single Judge.

(3.)UPON consideration of the rival contention of parties and after referring to the decision reported in Interaccess case [2009 (3) CTC 611], learned single Judge held that Plaintiff is seeking recovery of money from the Defendant for various necessaries supplied to the Defendant which means that Plaintiff cannot seek for an order of arrest of the Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru as the claim for supply of necessaries do not constitute a maritime lien though it certainly constituted a maritime claim.
Challenging the impugned order of learned single Judge and placing reliance upon (2004) 9 SCC 512 [Liverpool and London S.P. & I Association Limited v. M.V.Sea Success I and another], Mr.AV.K.Ezhilmani, learned counsel for Appellant contended that to assume admiralty jurisdiction, learned single Judge ought to have ordered arrest of the Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy. Placing reliance upon 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 [M.V.Elisabeth and others v. Harwan Investment and Trading Private Limited, Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco-de-gama, Goa], learned counsel for Appellant would contend that when maritime claim is not defined in the Statutes, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the maritime lien and while so, the learned single judge erroneously held that the suit is based on supply of necessaries only and it does not enjoy the maritime lien. Learned counsel for Appellant would further contend that even assuming that supply of necessaries do not give rise to maritime lien, the substantial claim of Plaintiff consists of Port dues, pilotage, tax etc. which enjoys maritime lien and the suit is based on bonafide claim and rightful maritime lien against the Vessel MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy.