for supply of bunkers was already secured by the order of the Dubai Court, the learned Judge noted that the claim in the present suit essentially related to the interest component at 2% per month on the said principal amount which, as per the plaint, would come to US$ 512,615.09. Applying the provisions of the Act of 2017, the learned Judge noted that as per Section 5(1)(a) thereof, arrest of a vessel could be made only if the person who owned the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose was liable for the claim and was the owner of the vessel when the arrest was effected or under Section 5(1)(b), if the demise charterer of the vessel, at the time when the maritime claim arose, was liable for the claim and was the demise charterer or the owner of the vessel when the arrest was effected. As the first defendant vessel was on a time charter with the third defendantcharterer when the bunker supply was made and the endorsement on the Bunker Delivery Note dated 14.06.2013 made it clear that supply of bunkers was not on the account of the vessel or its owner, the learned Judge held that there was no privity of contract between the owner of the vessel and the plaintiff. Having regard to the legal position and the specific endorsement on the Bunker Delivery Note dated 14.06.2013, the learned Judge held that prima facie there was no liability on the part of the owner of the vessel and if at all there was any liability, it would be that of the third defendant-charterer only. The learned Judge was quick to add that he was not expressing any opinion about the liability of the third defendant-charterer who had not entered appearance as on that date and concluded that the plaintiff had not made out a case for arrest of the vessel and that the arrest appeared to be wrongful. The learned Judge therefore directed refund of the amount of Rs.3,38,30,096/- deposited by the first defendant vessel, through its owner, with accrued interest. Point (a) was answered accordingly.
