Orissa High Court: In an Admiralty suit by Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (‘Plaintiff’) for recovery of amount of Rs. 7,95,47,170/- from the defendant-Vessel namely, MV Debi towards berth hire and penal berth hire charges, V. Narasingh, J. allowed the petition and ordered for the arrest of the Defendant-Vessel.
Background
In the matter at hand, the Plaintiff sought arrest, sequestration, condemnation and sale of the defendant-Vessel for enforcement of its Maritime lien against the defendant-Vessel/ Owner and for recovery of dues of Rs.7,95,47,170/-, inclusive of interest and legal cost of Rs.20,36,345/- and Rs.50,00,000/- respectively, towards berth hire and penal berth hire charges etc., in terms of Section 4(1)(n) read with Section 9(1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Claims) Act, 2017 (‘Act 2017’).
Analysis and Decision
Regarding the maintainability of the Admiralty suit, the Court noted that in M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading (P) Ltd., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433, the Supreme Court said that in admiralty the vessel has a juridical personality, an almost corporate capacity, having not only rights but liabilities (sometimes distinct from those of the owner). The Court also noted that it was laid down that the power of the Court is plenary and unlimited unless it is expressly or by necessary implication curtailed. Absent such curtailment of jurisdiction, all remedies which are available to the Courts to administer justice are available to a claimant against a foreign ship and its owner found within the jurisdiction of the High Court concerned. This power of the Court to render justice must necessarily include the power to make interlocutory orders for arrest and attachment before judgment. The power to enforce claims against foreign ships is an essential attribute of admiralty jurisdiction and it is assumed over such ships while they are within the jurisdiction of the High Court by arresting and detaining them.
Further, the Court referred to Raj Shipping Agencies v. Barge Madhwa, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 651 wherein it was said that the Claimant is not concerned with the owner, and neither is the owner a necessary or proper party. The owner’s presence is not required for adjudication of Plaintiff’s claim and a maritime claimant has a right in rem which he is entitled to exercise by arrest of the ship. The only test he must satisfy is to show that he has prima facie a maritime claim and identify the ship.
Regarding the defendant-Vessel’s application challenging the maintainability of the Admiralty suit, on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party the Narcotic Department and the Customs Department etc., as allegedly 22 packets of contraband of cocaine were detected, the Court said that if the Defendant-Vessel’s contention is to be accepted then Admiralty jurisdiction will be denuded of its special feature and the unique nature of jurisdiction exercised by the Court under the Act, 2017 would be defeated.
Hence, the Court said that the Plaintiff had established that there was “reasonably arguable best case” and that the suit would be infructuous if the order to arrest the Defendant- Vessel is not passed in exercise of the power of the Court under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2017. Thus, the Court ordered that the Defendant-vessel, namely M.V Debi, be arrested at Paradip Port.
[Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd. v. M.V Debi, 2024 SCC OnLine Ori 1058, Order Dated: 23-02-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Advocate PN Kamat, Advocate S.S Mohanty, Advocate N. Naik
For the Defendant: Senior Advocate G. Misra, Advocate S. Biswal
