The appellant was an import and export company, and also supplied various necessaries to vessels in dock. The appellant supplied necessaries to Marine Exports & Trading Co Pvt Ltd (METCO) at the request of the masters of METCO's vessels. The plaintiff maintained a running account with METCO. The appellant's invoices were not paid. After negotiations, METCO issued a letter of authority dated 22 July 2009 to the appellant to authorise the appellant to sell one of METCO's vessels, the MV Maafaru. The appellant realised a sum of USD 150,000 out of the sale proceeds. After taking into account the sale proceeds of the MV Maafaru, METCO's total outstanding debt stood at USD 248,386.14.

The appellant alleged that it had a maritime lien and an action in rem against the MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy, and sought and obtained an arrest order. The respondent intervened, contending that it was a shipbreaking company, and that it, rather than METCO, owned the MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy. According to the respondent, it purchased the MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy from METCO some two months before the arrest. The respondent took possession of the vessel from Male, Maldives, for sailing to Kannur, Kerala, for breaking up. The respondent argued that it was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any claim for supply of the alleged essentials. The appellant's agreement with METCO was for the MV Mafaaru and not for the MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy. The respondent also contended that there was no supply of necessaries to the MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy and that the vessel was thus wrongfully arrested by the plaintiff. There was no maritime lien against the MV Dhuvaafaru. If there was any claim at all, it could only be in personam against the owner of the vessel, and no claim in rem would lie. The respondent applied to a single Judge for the order of arrest of the MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy to be revoked.

After referring to Interaccess Marine Bunkering Ltd v Allauddin 2009 (3) CTC 611, [2009] 6 MLJ 158 (CMI1482), the single Judge held that the appellant was seeking recovery of money from METCO for various necessaries supplied to METCO, which meant that the appellant could not seek an order of arrest of the MV Dhuvaafaru, as the claim for supply of necessaries did not constitute a maritime lien, although it certainly constituted a maritime claim.

The appellant appealed, placing reliance upon Liverpool & London SP&I Association Ltd v MV Sea Success I (2004) 9 SCC 512 (CMI884) and MV Elisabeth v Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd AIR 1993 SC 1014, (1993) Supp 2 SCC 433 (CMI883). The appellant contended that when a maritime claim is not defined in the statutes, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the concept of a maritime lien, and that the single Judge erroneously held that the appellant's suit was based on supply of necessaries only and does not enjoy a maritime lien. Even assuming that the supply of necessaries does not give rise to a maritime lien, a substantial part of the appellant's claim consisted of port dues, pilotage, tax etc, which enjoyed a maritime lien.

The respondent argued that the appellant had not rendered any service to the MV Dhuvaafaru Galaxy giving rise to a maritime lien, and that the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court was being abused by the appellant.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

In the admiralty jurisdiction, the rights of parties are mostly governed by custom, usage and practice, which is why the Supreme Court in MV Elisabeth observed that Indian statutes lag behind the development of international law in comparison to contemporaneous statutes in England and other maritime countries. Although these Conventions have not been adopted by legislation, the principles incorporated in the Conventions are themselves derived from the common law of nations as embodying the felt necessities of international trade and are, as such, part of the common law of India, and applicable for the enforcement of maritime claims against foreign ships.

India is a signatory to the MLM Convention 1993. Article 4 of the Convention gives a list of maritime liens.

On the facts of this case, the appellant has alleged that it has been supplying necessaries to METCO for several years. The amount claimed goes towards the 'supply of necessaries' like stores, water, fruit and vegetables. That apart, the appellant itself is an exporter of onion and potatoes, etc. Bunkering charges debited to the account is not an essential supply. By perusal of the statement, it is seen that supply of necessaries, export charges and other port charges have been claimed from METCO. The appellant has clubbed all the claims together, namely, supply of necessaries, export charges, lube oil, port service charges, etc. Port service charges and charges for other essentials are not separately decipherable. The appellant's claim is only in respect of the charges towards supply of necessaries, coupled with other charges which do not constitute a maritime lien giving rise to an action in rem. The order passed by the single Judge does not warrant any interference, as no arrest is warranted.