PITCL V MV DEBI

ADMIRALTY SUIT: COURT CAN ISSUE DIRECTIONS FOR ARREST OF VESSEL IF THE MARITIME CLAIM AND MARITIME LIEN IS NOT PAID

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Plaintiff, Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd. (hereby referred to as PICTPL) is a concessionaire of the Paradip Port and operates a multipurpose clean cargo terminal catering to various customers. The Defendant is a Vessel named as MV Debi, who was overstayed at the berth of PICTPL.

Hence, the present Admiralty suit has been brought by the Plaintiff for recovery of berth hire and penal berth hire charges of Rs. 7,95,47,170/- from the Defendant vessel.

The Plaintiff prayed for the arrest, sequestration, condemnation and sale of the defendant Vessel for enforcement of its Maritime lien against the defendant and for recovery of dues of Rs.7,95,47,170/-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, hereby referred to as the Act.

CONTENTION OF THE PLAINTIFF

The Plaintiff claims that the overstay of the Defendant vessel is a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(n) read with maritime lien as per Section 9 (1)(d) of Act, 2017 and thereby seeks arrest of the Defendant Vessel in exercise of the power of the Admiralty Court under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2017 for enforcement of such claim and lien pending disposal of the suit.

Further, since the arrest of the defendant vessel by the order dated 23.02.2024, the expenses with respect to defendant vessel were mounting and the value of the vessel was depreciating, affecting the sea worthiness of the vessel. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for the sale of defendant vessel M. V Debi. The provisions relating to sale are enumerated in Section 11(3) of the Act, read with Rule 16 of The Orissa High Court Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as “Admiralty Rules, 2020”).

CONTENTION OF THE DEFENDANT

The defendant challenged the maintainability of the admiralty suit, inter alia, for non-joinder of parties, i.e the Narcotic Department and the Customs Department. It was also claimed that there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the claim as being made is not covered under Section 4(1)(n) of Act, 2017 and lien under Section 9(1)(d) of Act, 2017.

The defendants also claimed that the prayer for arrest order under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2017 does not merit consideration because of the ongoing criminal investigation which is being carried out by the authorities under the N.D.P.S Act and Customs Act.

COURT FINDINGS

The Court noted the pleadings of the defendant in challenging the maintainability of the admiralty suit and remarked that if the contention of the Defendant is to be accepted on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party that is the Narcotic Department and the Customs Department, then Admiralty Jurisdiction will be denuded of its special feature as distinct from the common law forum which are governed under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and such approach will defeat the unique nature of jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the 2017 Act.

The Court also noted that the 2017 Act and the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021 operate in clearly distinct and designated fields. There is no overlap and interplay between the two laws as was argued by the Defendant, that can assert that had the Port Authorities been impleaded as parties there could have been effective adjudication without, ipso facto resorting to the punitive measure of arrest as envisaged under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2017.

JUDGEMENT

Following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Chrisomar Corporation vs MJR Steels Private Limited and another (2018) 16 SCC 117 and of the Madras High Court in Value Shipping Limited vs Owners (Application No. 138 and 479 of 2023 in C.S (Comm. Div.) No. 4 of 2024 disposed on 02.02.2024), the Court held that interest and legal costs along with the principal amount is to be regarded as maritime claim.

Hence, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in M.V. Elisabeth 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 433 and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. M.V. Kapitan Kud, (1996) 7 SCC 127 and on a conspectus of the materials on record, the Court held that ex facie the Plaintiff has been able to establish that he has “reasonably arguable best case”.

An enforceable maritime claim in terms of Section 4(1)(n) read with Section 9(1)(d) of the Act, 2017 and prima facie has been able to fortify its stand that the suit will be rendered infructuous unless the order to arrest the Defendant is passed in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2017. Accordingly, the order for arrest of Defendant Vessel M V Debi was passed.

Further, the order passed on 23.02.2024 was modified through order dated 20.08.2024 and Defendant Vessel M V Debi was placed for sale.