A/99/2026 of SAMUDHRAM SHIPPING SERVICES Vs OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN MV RAHIMA IMO NO on 16 October 2026

ORDER

The present Application has been filed direct for sale of the Defendant Vessel “Puravalan 1” currently known as “M.V. Rahima” (IMO No. 9072989) in “as is where is” condition, together with the engines, tackles, cranes, paraphernalia, fixtures, furniture and fittings, presently in territorial waters of India at the Port of Tuticorin, by an Advocate Commissioner duly appointed by this Hon’ble Court and deposit the proceeds of the sale to the credit of the present suit.

2. Heard Ms.R.Nandhini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and Mr.Venkatesan, appearing on behalf of Mr.Ibrahim Ahamed, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Ms.R.Nandhini, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the respondent herein had initially induced the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.28,75,000/- towards allocation of cargo space in the Vessel for a period of six (6) months. Pursuant thereto, a break bulk freight agreement was entered between the parties on 28.02.2022. Thereafter, at the request of the respondent, the applicants have also loaned a sum of USD 80,000 and USD

55,578.58 for discharge of the Vessel that was arrested at the Port of Male. Thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered on 20.07.2023 in that regard and a Charter Agreement also came to be entered on 13.09.2023 upon which a sum of USD 1,85,190.54 was also paid to the respondent. The Vessel was again detained at Port of Male at the orders of the High Court of Maldives which was also released pursuant to the applicants making good the entire money for the release of the Vessel. The Vessel thereafter, travelled to the Port to Tuticorin and under the various orders of arrest and detention the Vessel is still detained and had lost its sea-worthiness. The reason of arrest also is pursuant to failure to pay the crewmen of their salary which arose out of orders of this Court dated 16.06.2023. The amount payable to the crewmen were also disbursed to by the applicant and thereafter, the said suit where the arrest at the behest of the crewmen was also withdrawn as the dispute was settled between them.

4. Even after the withdrawal of the suit, the respondent had failed to seek issuance of release warrant of the arrest of the Vessel and was granted with a warrant of release only on 01.02.2024. It is his contention that neither the Charter Agreement was honoured nor was the amounts repaid by the respondent. Hence, by further order dated 30.04.2024, the Vessel had been subjected to arrest and is anchored in the Port of Tuticorin till date.

5. She would submit that the value of the Vessel has been deteriorating due to continuous arrest and anchoring at Port and it would only be in the interest of the parties to order sale of the Vessel as the respondent had also failed to furnish any security over the suit amount and hence, prays this Court to order sale of the Vessel in as-is, where-is condition and the proceeds of the sale be deposited to the credit of the suit which could be disbursed subject to the result of the suit which would be only beneficial for both the parties.

6. Countering his arguments, Mr.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that a sale of the Vessel could be ordered only as an extraordinary remedy particularly when the Vessel is abandoned, the owner fails to enter appearance, a maritime leave or statutory dues subsist or the preservation of the Vessel is impossible. He would submit that none of the contingency had been shown for the sale of the Vessel and he would submit that the sea-worthiness was directed to be verified by an Expert and if the Report indicates that the Vessel is sea-worthy a judicial sale on the whims and fancies of the applicant need not be ordered by this Court. He would further submit that the sea-worthiness of the Vessel cannot now aid the claim of the application and sea-worthiness of the Vessel should have been assessed prior to the commencement of the voyage. He would submit that the present application is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and hence, prays this Court to dismiss the application.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

8. Pending these applications by order 04.02.2026, recording a finding of the fact that the respondent even after the arrest of Vessel from 06.12.2023 had not chosen to provide any security for the release of the Vessel and if the said situation continues the Vessel would become sea wreck. Thereafter, by considering the Provisions of Section 11(3) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and the Rules 13 & 14 framed thereunder, the Court had given a categorical finding that when the defendant had failed to furnish security for the suit claimed and the ship is stranded in a Port, it would only be deemed to have been abandoned and that in such an event, the plaintiff can take necessary steps to bring the Vessel for sale and the proceeds of such sale could be deposited to the credit of the Suit and the said view was taken by the Court as it involved a right-in-rem. It had categorically given a finding that if there is a failure on the respondent to furnish the securities for the claims made by the applicant, the Court would have been left with no other option to proceed further by appointing an Advocate Commissioner for bringing the Vessel for sale. Thereafter, when the matter was again taken up for hearing on 19.02.2026 for finding out the sea-worthiness of the Vessel, an Expert was also appointed and the Expert had filed a Report. As per the Report, the condition of the Vessel as on the day was found to be unseaworthiness and if some repairs are carried out, the Report would suggest the Vessel would be fit sea-worthy.

9. Be that as it may, when the Court had given a categorical finding in its order dated 04.02.2026 that by application of the Provisions of the Act, 2017 and the Rules framed therein, a failure to furnish security of the suit claim would only result in abandoning of the Vessel by its owner and had observed that if the respondent fails to furnish security, the Court would have no other option except to proceed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to bring the Vessel to sale and even as of this date, except for contesting the claim of the applicant, the respondent had not come forward to furnish any security whatsoever in respect of the suit claim.

10. It is further to be noted that in the interregnum, a third party claimant had also approached this Court seeking himself to be impleaded for participation in the suit, making claims against the respondent Vessel. In that regard, this Court do not find any merits in the claim of the respondents to reject the application.

11. Accordingly, the application stands ordered as prayed for and this Court appoints Mr.Adarsh Subramanian, Advocate (Phone No.8754400961) having Office at AK Law Chambers, “Madhumalathi”, New No.20, Old

No.59, Seethammal Road, Seethammal Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018, as Advocate Commissioner for selling the Vessel M.V. Rahima (IMO No 9072989) anchored in the Port of Tuticorin in the as-in, where-in condition. The learned Advocate Commissioner shall fix the upset price on the sale of the valuation given by the Expert. He would also be entitled to an initial remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only). However, there shall be no order as to costs. 16.10.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GBA

K.KUMARESH BABU, J. GBA A No. 99 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.).No.85 of 2024 16.10.2026