This was an application by an intervener, Green Ocean Seaways Pvt Ltd (GOS), to recall and/or vacate the order of arrest of the MV Green Ocean-1 on the ground that it was the owner of the vessel and, as such, the vessel should not have been arrested for the purpose of providing security for a maritime claim owed to the plaintiff by the second defendant. GOS said that under an agreement dated 26 June 2020 it had agreed to purchase the vessel from the second defendant. GOS referred to a bill of sale dated 20 June 2020 and other documents in support of its ownership of the vessel, including a declaration of ownership dated 22 March 2021 and the Certificate of Indian Registry dated 1 April 2021. GOS submitted that the steps taken and the documents relied upon in support of ownership were steps pursuant to the agreement in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1958 required to effect the vessel's transfer. GOS referred to s 5(1)(a) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction of Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (the 2017 Act), which says that arrest of any vessel can be made for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim, if the person who owned the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected.

The plaintiff said that the agreement and the bill of sale were documents prepared in collusion and connivance between the second defendant and GOS to evade the maritime claim of the plaintiff. It also submitted that the second defendant and GOS are controlled by the same set of persons and have devised the agreement and the transfer documents to deprive the plaintiff of its legitimate claims. The transaction between the second defendant and GOS should therefore be held to be a sham transaction and the arrest of the vessel should be allowed to continue.

Held: The arrest order is vacated and the vessel is released.

The maritime claim of the plaintiff arose with regard to its transaction with the second defendant concerning another vessel, the Madurai Meenakshi. The plaintiff can, for such maritime claim, have any other vessel of the second defendant arrested under the provisions of s 5(2) of the 2017 Act. However, the arrest of any vessel of the second defendant, as in the instant case, has to be in compliance with the provisions of s 5(1) of the 2017 Act. The documents produced by GOS and the chain of events with regard to obtaining such document prima facie establish the ownership of the vessel by GOS. The prima facie view as to ownership is further strengthened by the provisions of s 3 of the Commercial Documents Evidence Act 1939. The documents mentioned in Pt I of the Schedule to the 1939 Act referred to by GOS in support of its ownership convinces this Court as to its ownership as on the date of arrest ie 9 April 2021. Once the ownership of GOS is established, the arrest of the vessel cannot be allowed to continue in view of ss 5(1) and 5(2) of the 2017 Act.