SUNIL B. NAIK v. GEOWAVE COMMANDER

p. 515 Copy page pinpoint

[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

of an admiralty proceeding, where the court has reason to believe A that— xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (b) the demise charterer of the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the demise charterer or the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected; or” B

68Copy pinpoint68. The aforesaid is in consonance with Article 3 of the 1999 Convention and, thus, must be read in that context (incidentally the Bill was introduced on 21.11.2016 and passed by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha on 10.3.2017 and 24.7.2017 respectively. It was published in the Gazette on 9.8.2017 but is still not notified). The incident in this C question is, thus, prior to beginning of this exercise. The expression “the vessel”, “owner” and “demise charterer”, thus, must be read in the aforesaid context and the maritime claims in respect of 16 trawlers and Orion Laxmi cannot be converted into a maritime claim against the respondent ship not owned by Reflect Geophysical. D

69Copy pinpoint69. The appellants have neither any agreement with the owners of the respondent vessel nor any claim against the respondent vessel but their claim is on account of their own vessels hired by the charterer of the respondent vessel. There is no claim against the owners of the respondent vessel. E

70Copy pinpoint70. The result of the aforesaid is that the appeals are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

71Copy pinpoint71. The interim order dated 17.5.2013 stands dissolved and the amount along with accrued interest thereon is to be remitted back to the owners of the respondent vessel, who deposited the same before the F Bombay High Court in pursuance of the interim order.

Nidhi Jain Appeals dismissed.