JUDGMENT : 1. In this application the plaintiff in the admiralty suit has prayed for arrest of the vessel M.V. Nepenthe (hereinafter referred to as “the said ship”) which is registered in the name of the defendant no. 2, a company incorporated under the appropriate laws of the Republic of Liberia and has its registered office at 80, Broad Street, Monrovia, Liberia. The said ship is plying with the flag of Liberia. The plaintiff’s case in the suit is that its maritime claim against the said ship is on account of supply of necessaries made to another ship M.V. Arybbas registered in the name of the defendant no. 3, which is also a company incorporated under the appropriate laws of Republic of Liberia. According to the plaintiff, although the ships, namely, M.V. Nepenthe and M.V. Arybbas and the said vessel are registered in the names of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies respectively but, the same are beneficially owned by the defendant no. 4, another company also incorporated under the appropriate laws of the Republic of Liberia and all the three companies have their office in Greece at 25, Poseidonos Avenue, Moschato, 183 44 Piraeus, Greece. The plaintiff has alleged although the defendant no. 4 is the common Ship Manager/Commercial Manager of the said vessel and M.V. Arybbas, but it is the defendant no. 4 company which floated the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies to evade making payment of the expenses incurred in operation of the vessels which are beneficially owned by it including the said vessel and M.V. Arybbas. In the plaint the plaintiff has asserted that the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies have been fraudulently incorporated by the defendant no. 4 to take advantage of their separate corporate identity. The defendant no. 4 company is the controlling mind of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies and the defendant nos. 2 and 3 ostensibly owning one vessel each have been created solely to defeat the maritime claims which may be enforced against the vessels of which the defendant no. 4 is the owner. The beneficial owner of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies is the defendant no. 4 and the said defendants have perpetrated fraud upon the plaintiff. The defendant nos. 4 is the owner. The beneficial owner of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies is the defendant no. 4 and the said defendants have perpetrated fraud upon the plaintiff. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 are devices of fraud and this is a fit case for lifting of the corporate veil of all the defendant companies. The plaintiff has stated that it shall give further particulars of fraud upon complete and faithful discovery by the defendant companies. 2. On January 12, 2018 when the plaintiff moved this application ex-parte, this Court passed an ad-interim order directing arrest of the said vessel, which was lying at Dimond Harbour, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. This application was made returnable on January 15, 2018. On the returnable date, the defendant nos. 1 and 3 appeared before this Court and prayed for vacating of the order of arrest dated January 12, 2018. On January 15, 2018 the defendant nos.1 and 3 also sought for an opportunity to file an affidavit and they were allowed to do so. On January 17, 2018 an affidavit was filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 and 3 which was affirmed by one Gurupada Pal, alleging himself to be the authorised representative of the said defendants. In the said affidavit, the defendant nos. 1 and 3 disclosed a copy of an affidavit affirmed by one Mr. Kalliopi Iliopoulou, an alleged director of the defendant no. 3 and a copy of another affidavit affirmed by Ms. Fanouria-Eirini Delavinia, an alleged director of the defendant no. 4. Although the said Gurupada Pal in its said affidavit sought leave to produce the originals of the said affidavits affirmed by Mr. Kalliopi Iliopoulou and Ms. Fanouria-Eirini Delavinia on behalf of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 respectively at the time of hearing of this application but the same were produced before this Court today, after the hearing of this application was concluded on January 19, 2018. 3. Kalliopi Iliopoulou and Ms. Fanouria-Eirini Delavinia on behalf of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 respectively at the time of hearing of this application but the same were produced before this Court today, after the hearing of this application was concluded on January 19, 2018. 3. The defendant nos.1 and 3 who are presently contesting the suit and pressed for vacating of the order of arrest of said vessel, contended under the Indian law a company is a separate juristic entity, its shareholders do not own the assets of the corporate entity and therefore, in an admiralty suit the Court cannot permit lifting of the corporate veil to make the shareholder of a corporate entity to be the owner of the ship belonging to the incorporated company. The said defendants urged that under the Indian law no one can maintain an admiralty suit for arrest of a ship to enforce its maritime claim against another ship on the plea that both the ships are beneficially owned by one company although they are registered in the names of two separate companies. In support of such contention, they cited a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Dong Do and Another vs. Ramesh Kumar & Co. Ltd. (2000) 1 Cal. LT. 367, a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Lufeng Shipping Co. Ltd. vs. M.V. Rainbow Ace and Another, (2013) 7 Bom. C.R. 700 : (2013) 4 AIR Bom. R. 1412 and a single Bench decision of the Bombay High Court Kimiya Shipping INC vs. M.V. Western Light, (2014) 7 Bom. C.R. 39. It was further submitted that a Special Leave Petition filed against the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of M.V. Rainbow Ace (supra) was rejected by the Supreme Court on July 16, 2013 and a copy of the said order dated July 16, 2013 was produced by the contesting defendants before this Court. 4. It was further contended that in any event, in the present case the averments of the plaintiff in its plaint do not disclose any particulars to show that the defendant no. 4 company in fact owns and controls the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies. 4. It was further contended that in any event, in the present case the averments of the plaintiff in its plaint do not disclose any particulars to show that the defendant no. 4 company in fact owns and controls the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies. Further, there is lack of pleading in the plaint with regard to the particulars of any fraud allegedly committed by the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 upon the plaintiff. It was submitted by the defendant nos.1 and 3 that from the statements made in the said affidavits affirmed by Mr. Kalliopi Iliopoulou and Ms. Fanouria Eirini Delavinia on behalf of the defendant nos. 3 and 4, respectively and the documents disclosed therein, it is evident that there is no common shareholder or director of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 companies. Therefore, the said affidavits affirmed by Mr. Kalliopi Iliopoulou and Ms. Fanouria-Eirini Delavinia on behalf of the defendant nos. 3 and 4, respectively falsifies the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies are owned or controlled by the defendant no. 4, company. Urging all these grounds, the defendant nos. 1 and 3, pressed for vacating of the order of dated January 12, 2018, arresting the said vessel. 5. On January 18, 2018 the plaintiff, also filed two affidavits, the first, a supplementary affidavit and the second, an affidavit in reply to the said affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants nos. 1 and 3. In the said affidavits the plaintiff disclosed the web page of the website of the defendant no. 4(www.probulk.eu) and a report on the defendant no. 4, published by Info Spectrum, which, according to the plaintiff, is a reputed and reliable provider of data for due diligence, credit reporting and risk management consultancy of shipping companies. Relying on the said printouts of the web-site of the said defendant no. 4 and Info Spectrum’s report, the plaintiff strongly contended that the said documents substantiate that it is the defendant no. 4 company which beneficially owns both, the said vessel and M.V. Arrybas and the defendant no. 4 is also providing services of ship manager to both the said ships. It was urged that in the plaint, the plaintiff has made specific pleadings about the beneficial ownership of the said vessel and M.V. Arrybas and the website of the defendant no. 4 company which beneficially owns both, the said vessel and M.V. Arrybas and the defendant no. 4 is also providing services of ship manager to both the said ships. It was urged that in the plaint, the plaintiff has made specific pleadings about the beneficial ownership of the said vessel and M.V. Arrybas and the website of the defendant no. 4 as well as the report of the said Info Spectrum substantiate the said case made out by the plaintiff in its plaint. So far as the copies of the affidavits disclosed by the defendants nos.1 and 3 in the affidavit affirmed by the alleged authorised representative of the defendant no. 3, Sri Gurupada Pal, are concerned, it was submitted that the purported certificate of incumbency relating to the defendant no. 3 discloses the directors/officers of the company as of September 30, 2016 and the said Certificate of Incumbency does not disclose the present Directors of the defendant no. 3. According to the plaintiff, even the affidavit affirmed by Ms. Fanouria-Eirini Delavinia, discloses a Certificate of Incumbency of the defendant no. 4, mentioning the directors/officers of the said company as on October 15, 2015 and not the present directors of the defendant no. 4. 6. It was submitted by the plaintiff that although Ms. Fanouria-Eirini Delavinia, in her affidavit affirmed on behalf of the defendant no. 4 has held out herself to be a present director of the defendant no. 4, but neither the website of the defendant no. 4 nor the said Info Spectrum’s report discloses the said Ms. Fanouria-Eirini Delavinia to be a director of the defendant no. 4. It was further submitted that, the defendant nos.3 and 4 have disclosed their respective purported Certificate of Incumbency by withholding the names of the present directors and shareholders of the said companies and the same has been done with the intention to mislead this Court. In its affidavit in reply, the plaintiff has further disclosed an electronic mail dated January 16, 2018 issued by the defendant no. 4 to the members of the shipping industry wherein the defendant no. 4 has mentioned that the plaintiff has arrested one of its vessels for an alleged debt of USD 165000.00 on account of expenses of which it has no evidence or information. It was strongly contended by the plaintiff that the defendant no. 4 to the members of the shipping industry wherein the defendant no. 4 has mentioned that the plaintiff has arrested one of its vessels for an alleged debt of USD 165000.00 on account of expenses of which it has no evidence or information. It was strongly contended by the plaintiff that the defendant no. 4 has caused issuance of the said electronic mail being widely circulated in the shipping industry of the world, only after the order of arrest of the said vessel being passed by this Court on January 12, 2018, with an intention to malign the plaintiff and to create pressure on the latter to withdraw the present suit. Even the defendants nos. 2, 3 and 4, are incorporated under the appropriate laws of Liberia and they all have their respective offices at the same address, namely No. 25, Poseidonos Avenue, Moschato, 18344 Piraeus, Greece. The plaintiff submitted since all the companies, namely, the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are companies incorporated in Liberia operating out of Greek territory with exemption from financial and other disclosure it is facing difficulty to have access to records of the said companies. 7. On the strength of the documents disclosed by the plaintiff in its said supplementary affidavit and the affidavit in reply as mentioned above, it was strongly contended that when the defendants nos. 1 and 3 have not been able to substantiate the contents of its own website or the report of Info Spectrum, to be untrue. According to the plaintiff, it has made out a prima facie case to substantiate that both the said ships M.V. Arrybas and the said vessel are beneficially owned by the defendant no. 4. 8. Before distinguishing the judgments cited by the defendant nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff first relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool and London S.P. and I Association Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Another, (2004) 9 SCC 512 . The plaintiff relied on paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and paragraphs 146 to 157 of the said decision and submitted that in the said case in its plaint the plaintiff sought for and obtained arrest of the first defendant vessel, M.V. Sea Success claiming the said vessel to be a sister ship of the vessels “Sea Ranger” and “Sea Glory” which were all beneficially owned by the defendant no. 2 and it was the defendant no. 2, who was also in the management of all the three vessels. According to the plaintiff, on the basis of the case made out by the plaintiff in the plaint, in the said case of M.V. Sea Success I (supra), in paragraph 147 of the said decision the Supreme Court held that determination on such assertion of the plaintiff with regard to the beneficial ownership of all the vessels by the defendant no. 2 would amount to determination of a question of fact and in paragraph 148 of the said decision the Supreme Court held that beneficial ownership of a ship is not a question of fact alone. It was stressed by the plaintiff that in paragraphs 152 to 157 of the said decision in the case of M.V. Sea Success (supra) the Supreme Court further held that a fact which is within the special knowledge of the defendant need not be pleaded in the plaint and the question as to whether the plaintiff in the said case had been able to show the beneficial ownership of the defendant no. 2 in respect of all the three ships is a matter which was required to be gone into in the suit. It was strongly contended that in the said case of M.V. Sea Success (supra), the Supreme Court refused the prayer of the defendants in the suit to reject the plaint, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the plaint filed by the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and directed for trial of the suit. While dealing with the decisions of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of M.V. Rainbow Ace (supra), the plaintiff submitted that it is well settled law that a decision of a Court should not be read as a statute and it should be read in the contextual facts in which such decision was rendered. Therefore, in the said case when the person, who was alleged by the plaintiff to be the beneficial owner of the ship arrested, as well as that of other two sister vessels had filed his affidavit substantiating that he had no connection whatsoever with the vessels, who was arrested in the suit the Division Bench held that the principle of lifting of corporate veil could not be applied. It was further submitted that in paragraph 9 of the said decision, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court categorically held: “.......Therefore the issue to be examined is whether the Indian Corporate Law accepts the proposition that in the absence of allegation of fraud, it is open to ignore the independent owner of the properties of the limited company. The plaintiff contended even in the single Bench decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of M.V. Western Light (supra) it was held that when in an admiralty suit the plaintiff’s alleges fraud to have been committed by a beneficial owner of a ship, the plaintiff can maintain a claim for lifting of the corporate veil. With regard to the Division Bench decisions of this Court in the case of M.V. Dong Do and Another (supra) the plaintiff submitted that it is a fact that in the said case the Division Bench rejected the contention of the plaintiff to lift the corporate veil to ascertain the beneficial owner of the arrested vessel but in paragraph 19 of the said decision the Court held that admittedly the arrested ship did not belong to the owner of the vessel M.V. Kim Dong against whom the plaintiff claimed its maritime claim and the averments in the plaint were absolutely vague and insufficient to make out a case for beneficial ownership of the two vessels remaining with the same owner.” 9. It was further submitted that in view of the clear findings of the Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Sea Success (supra), the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in paragraph 11 of the said decision was not correct to hold that in the said case of Sea Success (supra) that there was no issue of lifting of corporate veil. It was next submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Sea Success (supra), the decision of the single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of M.V. Western Light (supra) has no manner of application in the present case. 10. In reply, it was submitted by the defendant nos.1 and 3 that in the present case, onus lies on the plaintiff to substantiate in its pleadings that the defendant no. 4 is the beneficial owner of the defendant nos. 10. In reply, it was submitted by the defendant nos.1 and 3 that in the present case, onus lies on the plaintiff to substantiate in its pleadings that the defendant no. 4 is the beneficial owner of the defendant nos. 2 and 3, which the plaintiff has miserably failed to do. Relying on the decision of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in the case of Siva Bulk Ltd. vs. M.V. Aodabao, (2016) 4 Bom. C.R. 251 it was submitted that this Court should not entertain any plea on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis of the said Info Spectrum’s report, which is not a report by any accredited Statutory Authority. 11. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 and 3, as well as the pleadings of the respective parties. From the averments made in the plaint it is clear that the cause of action of the plaintiff in the suit against the said vessel, registered in the name of the defendant no. 3 is that for realisation of its dues on account of services rendered to M.V. Arybbas registered in the name of the defendant no. 2 on the ground that both the vessels are beneficially owned by the defendant no. 4. The plaintiff has also pleaded fraudulent object of the incorporation of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 being the registered owners of the said vessel and M.V. Arybbas, respectively by the beneficial owner defendant no. 4. Therefore, as pointed out by the plaintiff in this case, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sea Success (supra), when the Court accepted the issue of beneficial ownership of a vessel by a company to be an issue of both facts and law and that the fact relating to such an issue may be within the special knowledge of the defendant and this issue is required to be gone into suit, (particularly paragraphs 146 to 157 thereof), there is no scope to hold that the plaint filed by the plaintiff discloses no cause of action or that the plaintiff has not been able to make out any prima facie case to arrest the said vessel. 12. 12. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case M.V. Sea Success (supra) neither the Division Bench decision of this Court in M.V. Dong Do (supra), nor the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of M.V. Rainbow Ace (supra) and M.V. Western Light (supra) can be held to have laid down that the Indian law, under no circumstances, permits this Court to ascertain the beneficial ownership of a vessel to remain with a company/person in whose name the vessel is not registered or to lift the corporate veil of the concerned corporate entities to find out the beneficial owner of vessel sought to be arrested in the admiralty suit. From a reading of the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the said case of M.V. Rainbow Ace (supra) and M.V. Western Light (supra) it is clear that in the said cases the respective plaintiffs made out no case that the relevant defendant company was created fraudulently, so as to only defeat the maritime claims against the company in whose name the vessel giving rise to the maritime claim in favour of the plaintiff is registered. In the said cases there were no allegation of any fraudulent intention on the part of the beneficial owner of the vessels. Even in paragraph 9 of the decision in the case of M.V. Dong Do (supra) the Division Bench of this Court held that a sister ship would include the ships belonging to two different concerns only if there is a common beneficiary, but the said proposition cannot be said to be absolute one and each case has to be considered keeping in view of the factual back-drop involved. In paragraph 17 of the said decision the Division Bench further found that no statement had been made in the plaint that the ships although belonging to different companies, the companies were constituted with a view to commit fraud on its creditors. For all these reasons, I am unable to accept the contention advanced by the defendant nos. In paragraph 17 of the said decision the Division Bench further found that no statement had been made in the plaint that the ships although belonging to different companies, the companies were constituted with a view to commit fraud on its creditors. For all these reasons, I am unable to accept the contention advanced by the defendant nos. 1 and 3 that in the aforementioned decisions, either the Division Bench of this Court or the Bombay High Court has laid down any law to the effect that under the Indian law, in an admiralty suit, the Court does not permit lifting of the corporate veil to make the shareholder of a corporate entity, the owner of the property belonging to the incorporated company and to ascertain the beneficial owner of a vessel. 13. Even the owners of the arrested vessel in the case of Dong Do (supra) produced various documents which clearly went to show that the ships which were alleged to be the sister vessel of the other not only belong to two different concerns, but also they were registered as being owned by different companies and had been transacting business separately. Till now the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 have not disclosed any document to substantiate present shareholdings and their Board of Directors. 14. Considering the facts of the case as discussed above, I find that there is substance in the contention raised by the plaintiff that the respective certificates of incumbency of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 do not substantiate that the defendant no. 4 company has no beneficial interest in the defendant nos. 2 and 3 companies or in the two vessels in question. Even the website of the defendant no. 4 does not disclose that Ms. Fanouria-Eirini Delvinia, who has affirmed the said affidavit disclosing herself to be a director of the defendant no. 4 company, is at all a director of the defendant no. 4. The defendant no. 4, is aware of the arrest of the said vessel and it had also issued the electronic mail dated January 16, 2018, a copy whereof has been disclosed by the plaintiff in its affidavit-in-reply. However, the defendant no. 4 has not appeared before this Court as yet. Even in the said electronic mail dated January 16, 2018 the defendant no. 4 has not disputed to be the beneficial owner of the defendant no. However, the defendant no. 4 has not appeared before this Court as yet. Even in the said electronic mail dated January 16, 2018 the defendant no. 4 has not disputed to be the beneficial owner of the defendant no. 2 and 3. Neither the defendant no. 3, nor the defendant no. 4 has yet disclosed any documentary evidence to substantiate that the contents of the said Info Spectrum’s report asserting both the vessels, M.V. Arybbas and the said vessel to be beneficially owned by the defendant no. 4 to be incorrect. In the said case of M.V. Aodabao, the case made out by the plaintiff itself was contrary to the reports collected from the website of different agencies and the plaintiffs were unable to contradict the documents produced by the defendant no. 1 showing that COSCO was not beneficial owner of the vessel in question and, as such, presently I am unable to convince myself to reject the report of Info Spectrum. 15. For the reasons as aforesaid, I find the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for continuance of the order of arrest of the said vessel namely, M.V. Nepenthe. Even the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff for continuance of the order of arrest of the said vessel. Accordingly, the prayer of the defendant no. 1 and 3 for vacating of the order of arrest dated January 12, 2018 is rejected. The said order of arrest dated January 12, 2017 which was subsequently extended from time to time is confirmed. 16. Needless to mention that any of the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 may obtain release of the said arrested vessel upon furnishing requisite security to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar, Original Side of this Court. 17. With the above directions, GA No. 138 of 2018 stands disposed of. 18. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 19. The Marshall is directed to communicate the operative portion of this order to the Port Authorities, Customs Authorities and Coastguard Authorities. 20. Urgent certified photostat copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.