2013 (6) TMI 880 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the plaint.
2. Refund of the amount deposited by the defendant.
3. Validity of the arrest of the vessel.

Summary:

Rejection of the plaint:
The defendant sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit is barred by law and there was no cause of action, invoking Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim did not constitute a maritime lien but only a maritime claim, which would not attach to the vessel after its ownership changed. The court noted that the plaintiff's claim included both maritime claims and maritime liens, and the determination of the nature of the claims required a trial. Consequently, the application for rejection of the plaint (A.No.7370 of 2010) was dismissed.

Refund of the amount deposited by the defendant:
The defendant sought a refund of the amount deposited for the release of the vessel, arguing that the arrest was secured on misrepresentation. The court held that the deposit did not amount to an admission of liability or abandonment of the right to contest the arrest. The plaintiff's claim included items that could constitute a maritime lien, justifying the arrest and the deposit as security. Therefore, the application for refund (A.No.7371 of 2010) was dismissed.

Validity of the arrest of the vessel:
The court examined whether the plaintiff had made out a case for the arrest of the vessel. It was found that the plaintiff's claim included port dues and pilotage fees, which constitute a maritime lien under Article 4 of the International Convention of Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993. The court concluded that the arrest was justified and the amount deposited by the defendant constituted security for the suit claim. The application for the arrest of the vessel (A.No.4772 of 2010) was disposed of with directions to keep the deposited amount in a fixed deposit.

Additional Directions:
The defendant was directed to file a written statement and was given the option to involve the previous owner of the vessel under Order VIII-A CPC. The trial of the suit was to be expedited.