Case Title:
1. Auriga Shipping Management Pte Ltd vs MT Syrma R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 10 of 2023
2. Patanjali Foods Ltd vs MT Syrma R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 12 of 2023
Summary
The Gujarat High Court has directed the Port Officer and Customs Authorities at Deendayal Port, Kandla, to seize the merchant ship MT Syrma, along with its hull, engines, gearing, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, equipment, and all appurtenances, in response to separate lawsuits submitted by Patanjali Foods and Auriga Shipping Management. Patanjali Foods claimed that 5000 Metric Tonnes of RBD Palm Olein were not delivered as scheduled to Kakinada Port. Auriga Shipping Management Pte claimed that the owner had neglected to pay the annual management fee in accordance with the agreement. The court ordered the Registrar to issue a warrant for the apprehension of the Defendant Vessel.
About the case
The Gujarat High Court has directed the Port Officer and Customs Authorities at Deendayal Port, Kandla to seize the merchant ship MT Syrma, as well as its hull, engines, gearing, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, equipment, and all appurtenances.
The bench of Justice Nikhil S Kariel has issued the directive in response to separate lawsuits submitted by Patanjali Foods and Auriga Shipping Management. In their lawsuit, Patanjali Foods claimed that 5000 Metric Tonnes (MT) of RBD Palm Olein (Edible Grade) were not delivered as scheduled to Kakinada Port.
Bhakuni Insurance Surveyors, on behalf of Patanjali, issued a Letter of Apparent Discrepancy and a Letter lodging a monetary claim as a result of the shortage. The Master and Owner of the Defendant Vessel did not respond to either letter. Therefore, Patanjali argued that they had a maritime claim that was covered by Sections 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(f) of The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act. They requested the arrest of the Defendant Vessel.
Auriga Shipping Management Pte claimed in their lawsuit that they had engaged into a ship management agreement with the owner of MT Syrma. However, the owner had neglected to pay the annual management fee in accordance with the agreement. Their argument was that this was a maritime claim under Sections 4(1)(o) and 4(1)(p) of The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act. Auriga also prayed for the vessel’s apprehension.
The court ordered the issuance of a notice that is returnable on June 26 after hearing the plaintiffs’ counsel and receiving a written undertaking from the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the court instructed the Registrar to issue a warrant for the apprehension of the Defendant Vessel MT Syrma, which is currently situated at Deendayal Port, Kandla, within the Indian territorial waters.
The court directed the Port Officer and Customs Authorities at Deendayal Port, Kandla to arrest, seize, or detain the Defendant Vessel in order to enforce the arrest. It was directed that the arrest warrant be executed at any hour of the day or night, including Sundays and holidays. The court also stated that the Defendant Vessel’s arrest should be maintained until further orders are issued.
The court, however, stated that the defendant may approach the court prior to the returnable date, provided that the plaintiff is provided with sufficient notice.
