JUDGMENT : Anoop V. Mohta, J. Being aggrieved by Order dated 24 March, 2014, the Appellant-original Plaintiff has preferred this Appeal. The learned Judge in Notice of Motion taken out for a direction to furnish additional security as a condition precedent for release of Defendant No.1-vessel has been decided that the Appellant is adequately secured and, therefore, no additional security or re-arrest is required and thereby rejected the Motion with costs. 2. The basic events, as relevant, are required to be noted as under :- On 27 June 2003, Defendant No.2 entered into a ship building contract with a shipyard in China for building, construction launching and equipping Defendant No.1. On 22 December 2004, Defendant No.2 transferred its rights under the Ship building contract to M/s. Horsham Shipping Company under a Novation Agreement. On 16 March 2005, Horsham entered into a loan agreement with Plaintiff to finance the building, construction launching and equipping of Defendant No.1 in China. On 16 June, 2005, Defendant No.2 and Horsham entered into a further supplemental agreement to the loan agreement under which various amounts were lent to Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.1 was to be mortgaged as security in favour of Plaintiff. In the event of defaults, there were various default clauses, which were included as well. 3. In August, 2006, Defendant No.1 was delivered to Horsham. On 18 August, 2006, first priority mortgage was created in favour of Plaintiff by Horsham and was registered with the Registrar of Ships, Malta. Under the terms, creation of further mortgage and transferring the vessel without prior consent of the mortgagee was forbidden. In July 2010, Horsham began to default on the repayment of the loans. 4. On 1 August 2011, Plaintiff learnt from the Department of Economic Development of the Isle of Man that Horsham was struck of the Register and dissolved. It further learnt that Defendant No.1 vessel was allegedly sold to a company based in Panama and steps were being taken to register the vessel and its name was changed to m. v. Dianthe. On 25 August 2011, Plaintiff's letter to Horsham and Defendant No.2 placing the facts on record and stating that the Loan Agreement has been seriously breached. On 6 November 2011, Plaintiff filed an Admiralty Suit No. 2987 of 2011. Vacation Court granted an interim order in favour of Plaintiff directing the arrest of the vessel. On 25 August 2011, Plaintiff's letter to Horsham and Defendant No.2 placing the facts on record and stating that the Loan Agreement has been seriously breached. On 6 November 2011, Plaintiff filed an Admiralty Suit No. 2987 of 2011. Vacation Court granted an interim order in favour of Plaintiff directing the arrest of the vessel. On 9 November 2011, the order of Arrest passed by the Vacation Bench was confirmed by the Regular Court. On 7 September 2012, Notice of Motion No. 2746 of 2012 was filed by Plaintiff praying for sale of Defendant No.1-vessel. On 13 December 2012, Defendant No.2 filed a Notice of Motion No. 3132 of 2012 in the Admiralty Suit No. 2 of 2012 for furnishing security for the Release of the Vessel. The learned Single Judge passed an order directing Defendant No.2 to furnish security in the sum of INR 98.53 crores. On 24 December 2013, Defendant No.2 was unable to furnish security in terms of the order. Therefore, the Single Judge allowed the sale application of Plaintiff and ordered the sale of the vessel. 5. On 4 February 2014, neither did RBI file an affidavit as directed, nor did the SEBI or UCO Bank confirm the query on remittance of money out of India. The Division Bench passed the impugned order allowing Appeal No. 40 of 2014 setting aside the order of the sale of the vessel. On 10 March 2014, an SLP was dismissed, however, Plaintiff was granted liberty to make appropriate application before appropriate forum for appropriate reliefs. On 18 March 2014, Chamber Summons was partly allowed and enforcement costs were allowed to be added to the claim. On 24 March 2014, Notice of Motion for additional security was rejected with very heavy costs on the basis that the appellant was sufficiently secured. Therefore, the present Appeal. 6. Both the learned counsel read and referred the pleadings and the compilation of documents and the respective judgments in support of their rival contentions. 7. Considering the submissions so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, even based upon the judgments so cited need to be decided in this Appeal keeping in mind that the main prayer was only for direction to furnish additional security. It is not the case that there is no security furnished. 7. Considering the submissions so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, even based upon the judgments so cited need to be decided in this Appeal keeping in mind that the main prayer was only for direction to furnish additional security. It is not the case that there is no security furnished. The learned Judge even observed that “the security provided reasonably covers the reasonably best arguable case of the plaintiff in its entirety.”. The learned Judge has further recorded as under : “18. The power to extract security is a very strong power and must not be used oppressively. The court therefore, has power to control security to prevent any abuse of the process of the court or the use of court procedure in an oppressive way. The power to arrest the ship is a very drastic power and to insist that she remain under arrest, unless security of a certain amount is given is equally a drastic power. The court at the same time, must ensure that the plaintiff is not left without sufficient security to cover its reasonably best arguable case. The court should also keep in mind whether the plaintiff is reasonably and adequately secured or not and security cannot be ordered for whatever amount the plaintiff asks for.” 8. The submissions, therefore, so made that lawyers fees and expenses incurred should form part of the enforcement cost, as it constitute a maritime claim and/or the enforcement cost be included as a security, need not be decided further in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as the finding is given by the learned Judge that the Appellant is fully secured by the deposit of Rs. 114.50 crores furnished by the Respondents. 9. The Suit is pending so also rival contentions subject to evidence and deliberations on the issues by and between the parties. Therefore, the prayer of Notice of Motion so decided and rejected, in our view, in the present Appeal, need no further discussion as the learned Judge, at the time of final hearing and/or disposal of the main matter, will pass an appropriate order even on these issues. The decision, at this interim stage, on the issues so raised, even if any, cannot be treated as final for all the purposes. The decision, at this interim stage, on the issues so raised, even if any, cannot be treated as final for all the purposes. We are inclined to keep all points open for the Appellant to agitate as and when the matter will be finally heard and decided. All contentions are kept open as the purpose was only for the additional security. The learned Judge as, on merits, considered rival contentions and rejected the case, in our view, need no interference as there is no perversity or illegality in the reasoned order so passed on the aspects of the additional security. 10. Therefore, by keeping all contentions open, we are inclined to pass the following order : ORDER (a) The Appeal is dismissed. (b) There shall be no order as to costs.