Introduction:

The Orissa High Court, in a case involving the Singaporean cargo vessel ‘MV Propel Fortune (IMO 9500699), ruled on the release of the vessel which was arrested at Paradip Port due to non-payment of dues for the supply of necessaries. The ship was detained on December 30, 2024, at the request of the plaintiff, MH Bland S.L., a port agency, for an outstanding claim of €9,363.45 along with interest and litigation costs amounting to a total of Rs. 15,56,100/-. The Court, after considering the urgency of the matter, granted a release order upon the defendant offering a demand draft for the outstanding dues.

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

MH Bland S.L., represented by Advocate Ishwar Mohanty, argued that they had provided necessary goods and services to the ‘MV Propel Fortune’ under a contract, for which invoices had been raised on June 11, 2024. Despite multiple requests, the defendant failed to settle the outstanding dues. The plaintiff, seeking to secure payment, filed the suit under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, and sought the arrest of the ship to ensure the recovery of the dues. They pointed out that the vessel was scheduled to leave the port on December 31, 2024, and unless immediate action was taken, the case would be rendered futile. Citing the provisions of the Act, the plaintiff emphasized the need for the vessel’s detention to safeguard their interests and prevent irreparable damage.

Defendant’s Arguments:

On the other hand, the defence represented by a team of advocates including Soumya Jyoti Biswal and A. Mohanty, argued that the payment for the supplies had already been made, contrary to the plaintiff’s claims. They informed the Court that the liability was discharged by a deposit made about the goods supplied. Despite this, the plaintiff raised objections, and the matter of the vessel’s release was taken up urgently on December 31, 2024. The defendant’s counsel proposed a solution by offering a demand draft of Rs. 15,56,100/- in favour of the Registrar (Judicial) to resolve the dispute and secure the vessel’s release.

Court’s Judgment:

The Court, led by Justice Murahari Sri Raman, considered the urgency and gravity of the situation, particularly the scheduled departure of the vessel. After reviewing the details of the claim, the Court found that the suit was maintainable under the admiralty jurisdiction, as the claims for goods supplied and services rendered to the vessel fell under the purview of maritime claims. The Court also observed that unless the vessel was arrested, irreparable damage could ensue, and the balance of convenience was tilted in favour of the plaintiff.

The Court then proceeded to order the arrest of the vessel on December 30, 2024, invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Admiralty Act, as the vessel was set to depart Paradip Port the following morning. The plaintiff was granted permission to communicate the order to the Marshall of the Court by the relevant rules. However, upon further developments on December 31, 2024, the defendant offered to provide a demand draft of Rs. 15,56,100/- to secure the release of the vessel. The plaintiff, after some deliberation, did not object to this offer.

In response, the Court ordered that the defendant’s vessel be released immediately from arrest upon receipt of the demand draft. The Court further instructed that upon proper acknowledgement of the draft, the vessel would be free to leave Paradip Port. This judgment highlights the application of maritime law in resolving disputes relating to non-payment for services rendered to vessels and emphasizes the importance of judicial intervention in ensuring timely payment for goods supplied to vessels.