JUDGMENT : Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. 1. The application, G.A. No. 2303 of 2018 is at the instance of Fareast Marine Service Hongkong Ltd., a company carrying on business from 902 Shun Kwong Commercial Building, 8, Des Voeux Road West, Hongkong (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”), who caims itself to be the Bareboat Charterer of the vessel ‘M.T.ACQUAIUS’. The applicant has prayed for, inter alia, vacating of the order dated August 10, 2018 passed by this Court in G.A. No. 2260 of 2018 filled by the plaintiff. By the said order, this Court directed the Marshall to arrest the vessel ‘M.T.ACQUAIUS’ (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant vessel”) presently berthed at Haldia Port. The plaintiff in the suit, however, presses its application G.A. No. 2260 of 2018 and prays for extension of the said order dated August 10, 2018. Thus both the applications are taken up for hearing. 2. The facts leading to the application, G.A. No. 2303 OF 2018 are that on August 10, 2018 the plaintiff filed the admiralty suit claiming, inter alia, a decree for a sum of AED 15,251,702.60, equivalent to INR 28,06,31,328 and arrest of the defendant vessel. In the suit the plaintiff also filed an application, that is, an affidavit-of-arrest praying for arrest of the defendant vessel. 3. In the plaint as well as in the affidavit of arrest the plaintiff has made out a case that on June 17, 2017 it had entered into a Sale and Purchase Contract with one Mobin International Ltd., a company carrying on business from 2403 Ahmed Abderrahim Al Attar, Trade Centre, Dubai, UAE (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mobin International’) under which the latter sold to the plaintiff 18,000 MTS of gas oil (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said goods’). Upon payment of AED 13,070,408.00 to Mobin International the plaintiff claims to be the owner of the said goods. The plaintiff further claims that on the basis of the said purchase, it executed a back to back contract of sale of the said goods with Faqeesh Jewellery (Establishment) of Abu Dbhabi, UAE (represented in the transaction by its financier, namely, “Digat Enjaz Hadramout For Investment”) and it undertook to supply the said goods at Yemen. The plaintiff further claims that on the basis of the said purchase, it executed a back to back contract of sale of the said goods with Faqeesh Jewellery (Establishment) of Abu Dbhabi, UAE (represented in the transaction by its financier, namely, “Digat Enjaz Hadramout For Investment”) and it undertook to supply the said goods at Yemen. According to the plaintiff, on June 21, 2017 Mobin International had entered into a charter party with the owners of the defendant vessel, Evergreen Shipping Ltd. for shipment of the goods purchased by the plaintiff under the said Sale and Purchase Contract dated June 17, 2017 and delivery thereof at the port of Mukalla, Yemen. Thus, Mobin International had nominated the defendant vessel for carriage of the goods from the port of Khor Fakkam, UAE to the Mukalla Port, Yemen. The plaintiff claims that the said goods were loaded on board the defendant vessel at the port of Khor Fakkam, UAE towards the end of June 2017 and in acknowledgement of receipt of the said goods on board the vessel, her Master, representing the vessel and her owners, issued a Bill of Lading bearing no. MOB/QT/001/19/06/17 which was although dated June 29, 2017 had been signed and stamped by the Master of the defendant vessel on or about July 6, 2017. The plaintiff has disclosed the copies of the three originals of the said Bills of Lading dated June 29, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017’). In the said Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 disclosed in the affidavit of arrest, the plaintiff is named as ‘Shipper’, Digat Enzaz Hadramout For Investment is named as “Consignee” and the port of discharge for the goods is mentioned to be Mukalla, Yemen. According to the plaintiff, in response to its query made on July 8, 2017 the seller Mobin International forwarded to it an e-mail message received from the Master of the defendant vessel confirming that the vessel had departed from the port of Khor Fakkan and was on her way towards the discharge port as instructed. Even on July 11, 2017 and July 12, 2017 the Master of the defendant vessel had informed the concerned parties that the vessel was prosecuting her voyage to the Mukalla Port. Even on July 11, 2017 and July 12, 2017 the Master of the defendant vessel had informed the concerned parties that the vessel was prosecuting her voyage to the Mukalla Port. However, on July 14, 2017 the plaintiff for the first time came to learn that the defendant vessel was changing her route to Hamriyah Port. By an e-mail dated July 14, 2017 the plaintiff forwarded a copy of the said Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 to the Master of the defendant vessel claiming title over the goods on board the vessel and called upon it not to deviate from its route to Mukalla Port, Yemen. By the said e-mail the plaintiff issued the first reminder/gentle warning to the Master of the defendant vessel before proceeding for further legal action. Copies of the said e-mails have been disclosed in the affidavit of arrest. The plaintiff claims that ultimately the defendant vessel committed a breach of contract of carriage as evidenced by the said Bill of Lading issued to itself and on or about July 25, 2017 the vessel discharged the said goods at Hamriyah Port, UAE. It is claimed that the Master of the defendant vessel handed over the goods to some unknown party, with whom the plaintiff has no relation whatsoever. Thus, the plaintiff claims to have suffered loss by wrongful delivery of its said goods by the defendant vessel for AED 13,270,408. On the ground of the loss suffered by wrongful delivery of the said goods by the defendant vessel at Hamriyah Port, the plaintiff claims to enjoy a maritime claim in law against the defendant vessel which legitimately entitles it to procure arrest, condemnation and sale of the defendant vessel. On the basis of the said Bill of Lading dated June 29,2017 the plaintiff has filed the admiralty suit and the application, G.A No.2260 of 2018 for arrest of defendant vessel berthed at Haldia Port, within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. 4. On August 10, 2018 the plaintiff moved the application G.A. No. 2260 of 2018 ex-parte. On the basis of the said Bill of Lading dated June 29,2017 the plaintiff has filed the admiralty suit and the application, G.A No.2260 of 2018 for arrest of defendant vessel berthed at Haldia Port, within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. 4. On August 10, 2018 the plaintiff moved the application G.A. No. 2260 of 2018 ex-parte. On the basis of the case made out by the plaintiff in its plaint and the affidavit of arrest as mentioned above, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted before this Court that the plaintiff has a maritime claim against the defendant vessel, under Section 4(1)(f) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2017”) and pressed for arrest of the defendant vessel. 5. Considering the averments made in the plaint and affidavit in support of arrest and the documents disclosed by the plaintiff, on August 10, 2018 this Court passed the order directing the Marshall to forthwith arrest of the defendant vessel. By the said order this Court, however, directed that if the defendant deposits the amount of INR 206,06,31,328.00 as security with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court the order of arrest of the defendant vessel shall stand automatically vacated. The application was made returnable on August 13, 2018. As directed by this Court, on August 10, 2018 itself the Marshall of this Court arrested the defendant vessel and the order of arrest was also served upon the Master of the defendant vessel. However, on the returnable date none appeared on behalf of the defendant vessel and the application for arrest of the defendant vessel was directed to appear before this Court on August 14, 2018. On August 14, 2017 a learned advocate appeared before this Court and submitted that he has been instructed to represent the owners of the defendant vessel before this Court. He, had, however not filed the Vokalatnama and at the instance of the said advocate, the matter was adjourned till August 17, 2018. On August 17, 2018 the present application, GA No.2303 of 2018 was filed. 6. As mentioned earlier, in the present application the applicant claiming itself to be Bareboat Charterer of the defendant vessel has prayed for vacating of the order of arrest of the defendant vessel passed by this Court on August 10, 2018. On August 17, 2018 the present application, GA No.2303 of 2018 was filed. 6. As mentioned earlier, in the present application the applicant claiming itself to be Bareboat Charterer of the defendant vessel has prayed for vacating of the order of arrest of the defendant vessel passed by this Court on August 10, 2018. The applicant has disclosed the charter party dated June 5, 2015 entered into between itself and the owner of the vessel, Evergreen Shipping Limited which is claimed to be still remaining valid. As per the said charter party dated June 5, 2015 the applicant is to remain the charterer of the defendant vessel for a period of 5 years, with its option to purchase at third year and fourth year. Under the said charter party, the applicant has to pay the insurance charges and other incidental charges to operate and run the defendant vessel as well as all expenses towards maintenance and operation of the defendant vessel. The Masters, Officers and all Crew of the vessel shall also be the servants of the applicant for all purposes. Under the said charter party the applicant as the Bare Boat Charterer, has also to indemnify the owners against any loss or damage or expenses incurred by the owners arising out of or in relation to the operation of the vessel by the charterer and if the vessel is arrested or otherwise detained by any reason or claims or lien arising out of her operation by the applicant, it has to take all reasonable steps to secure that within a reasonable time the vessel is released, including the provisions of bail. Even the technical management of the vessel shall be the responsibility of the applicant charterer during the period of charter and it shall appoint the manager, Fareast Ship Management Hongkong Limited to undertake all technical management of the vessel. On the strength of the said charter party dated June 5, 2015 the applicant claims to be the person interested in the defendant vessel to contest the present suit filed by the plaintiff and to file the present applicant for obtaining the said order dated August 10, 2018 vacated. 7. The applicant prays for vacating of the order dated August 10, 2018 directing arrest of the defendant vessel principally on three grounds. 7. The applicant prays for vacating of the order dated August 10, 2018 directing arrest of the defendant vessel principally on three grounds. In the first place, the applicant contends that the Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 disclosed by the plaintiff in its affidavit of arrest, to base its cause of action to file the present suit, has not been issued by the Master of the defendant vessel, Capt. Muhammed Imran Bhatti and the same is a manufactured document. According to the applicant, from the various documents disclosed by the plaintiff in its affidavit of arrest, as well those disclosed in this application it is clear that the name of the Master, who was in command of the defendant vessel during the months of June and July, 2017 was Muhammed Imran Bhatti and not Mr. Muhammed Imran Batti, as appearing in the Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 disclosed by the plaintiff. The applicant further submits that from the port clearance certificate issued by the Government of Sharjah, disclosed in the affidavit of arrest, it is evident that the defendant vessel arrived the port of Khor Fakkan on July 3, 2017 and departed from the said port on July 5, 2017. The applicant contends that the Master of a vessel can issue the Bill of Lading to a Shipper only after the goods are loaded on board the vessel and not otherwise. Therefore, when the defendant vessel arrived the port of Khor Fakkan only on July 3, 2017 there was no scope or occasion for the Master of the defendant vessel to issue the said Bill of Lading in favour of the plaintiff on June 29, 2017. 8. The applicant relies upon an e-mail dated July 14, 2017, disclosed the plaintiff in its affidavit-of-arrest, whereby it forwarded a copy of the said Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 to the Master of the defendant vessel and claimed title/ownership over the goods on board the defendant vessel. By referring to an e-mail dated July 16, 2017 issued by the Master of the defendant vessel to the plaintiff, disclosed in its present application, the applicant strenuously contends that the Master of the defendant vessel categorically stated that he had not issued the said Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017. By referring to an e-mail dated July 16, 2017 issued by the Master of the defendant vessel to the plaintiff, disclosed in its present application, the applicant strenuously contends that the Master of the defendant vessel categorically stated that he had not issued the said Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017. In the said e-mail dated addressed to the plaintiff, the Master of the defendant vessel referred to the statements of facts to the effect that on June 30, 2017 the vessel discharged cargo at the port of Hamriyah and loaded fresh cargo at the port of Khor Fakkam on July 07, 2017 and, as such, it was not possible for him to issue the said Bill of Lading on June 29, 2017. With the said e-mail dated July 16, 2017 the Master of the vessel forwarded to the plaintiff all the relevant documents to the plaintiff. Urging these facts, the applicant contends that there is sufficient proof that the Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 relied upon by the plaintiff is a manufactured document. The applicant further relies upon a Bill of Lading dated July 5, 2017 issued by the Master of the defendant vessel Md. Imran Bhatti in favour of Silk Road Petroleum FZE describing itself to be the Shipper. In the said bill of lading dated July 5, 2017 the port of loading of the cargo is mentioned as Khor Fakkam Port, UAE and the port of discharge was Mukalla, Yemen. According to the applicant, admittedly, the said Mobin International had obtained charter of the defendant vessel for a period of 30 to 90 days. Silk Road Petroleum FZE had contracted to sell the said goods to Mobin International and the latter in its turn entered into the said sale and purchase contract dated June 17, 2017 with the plaintiff. Since Mobin International had not paid the entire consideration amount to Silk Road Petroleum FZE, the title to the said goods had not passed in favour of Mobin International and, as such, in the said Bill of Lading dated July 5, 2017 it was mentioned that the consignee was “TO THE ORDER OF SILK ROAD PETROLEUM FZE” and even Silk Road Petroleum FZE was also mentioned as the “Notify Party”. The applicant submits that although the defendant vessel left the Khor Fakkam Port, UAD for discharge of the cargo to Mukalla Port, Yemen, but since there was a dispute between Mobin International and Silk Road Petroleum FZE the defendant vessel changed its course and came back to Hamriyah port and discharged the cargo. The applicant asserts that since the defendant vessel nominated by Mobin International did not deliver the said goods at the port of Mukalla in terms of Clause 27 of the Sale and Purchase Contract dated June 17, 2017 the plaintiff filed a legal proceeding in the competent court at Sharjah against Mobin International and obtained an order of attachment of the tankers which, according to it, contained the goods delivered by the defendant vessel at Hamriyah Port. Subsequently, Silk Road Petroleum FZE intervened in the said legal proceeding and filed an application before the said Sharjah Court for vacating of the said order of attachment. By referring to a decision of the Court of the first instance at Sharjah dated February 25, 2018, an English translated copy whereof has been disclosed in the vacating application, the applicant submits that after considering the said Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 relied upon by the plaintiff and other documents it was held by the Court of the first instance at Sharjah that the goods which were attached by the plaintiff did not belong to itself and, in fact, the said goods belonged to Silk Road Petroleum FZE who had purchased the same from National Iranian Oil Company on July 4, 2017. The plaintiff challenged the said decision before the Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal by filing two appeals which were also rejected. 9. It was the second ground urged by the applicant that the plaintiff has, in the plaint filed in the suit as well as in the affidavit of arrest, suppressed the factum of it having filed the said legal proceeding before the said Sharjah Court against Mobin International and the above decisions of the Court of the first instance and the appellate Court at Sharjah. In pursuit of its second ground of suppression of material facts, the applicant further asserts that neither in the plaint nor in the affidavit of arrest there is any whisper by the plaintiff of its receipt of the e-mail dated July 16, 2017 issued by the Master of the vessel categorically stating that he had not issued the said Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017. 10. The third ground urged by the applicant is that admittedly the Charter party of Mobin International in respect of the defendant vessel has expired long time back and the plaintiff filed the said proceeding before the Sharjah Court against Mobin International not as a Charterer of the defendant vessel, but as the seller under the sale and purchase contract dated June 17, 2017. In any event, when Mobin International is no more the Charterer of the defendant vessel, any claim of the plaintiff arising out of failure or refusal by Mobin International the charterer of the defendant vessel to deliver the said goods at Mukalla Port, Yemen cannot and does not give rise any maritime claim against the defendant vessel under the Act of 2017. Urging all these grounds, the applicant strongly presses for vacating of the order of arrest dated August 10, 2018. 11. On the other hand, opposing the prayer of the applicant, the plaintiff contends that the applicant does not have any locus to file the application for vacating of the order dated August 10, 2018 passed by this Court. According to the plaintiff, the owner of the defendant vessel is Evergreen Shipping Limited and the website of ‘Sea Wave’ does not disclose the applicant to be the Bareboat Charterer of the defendant vessel. The plaintiff submits when Mobin International was the Charterer of the defendant vessel and the Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 had been issued by the owner of the defendant vessel, the plaintiff’s claim in the present suit falls within the term ‘maritime claim’ under Section 4(1)(f) and (g) of the Act of 2017. With regard to the other contentions raised on behalf of the applicant for vacating of the order dated August 10, 2018 the plaintiff submits that the decision of the Courts at Sharjah do not have any bearing on the claim of the plaintiff in the present admiralty suit against the defendant vessel. With regard to the other contentions raised on behalf of the applicant for vacating of the order dated August 10, 2018 the plaintiff submits that the decision of the Courts at Sharjah do not have any bearing on the claim of the plaintiff in the present admiralty suit against the defendant vessel. Thus, it cannot be held that the plaintiff has suppressed any material fact from this Court by not disclosing the filing of the said proceeding before the Sharjah Court and the orders passed therein. It is further contended that the allegations made by the Master of the defendant vessel in its said e-mail dated July 16, 2017 denying issuance of the Bill of Lading dated June 29, 2017 is belied by the fact that the same Master issued various other e-mails to the plaintiff indicating the movement of the defendant vessel. Therefore, it cannot be said that by not disclosing the said e-mail dated July 16, 2017 issued by the Master of the defendant vessel the plaintiff has suppressed any material fact which has any bearing on the plaintiff’s claim in the instant admiralty suit filed to enforce its maritime claim against the defendant vessel. The plaintiff disputes the correctness of the bill of lading dated July 5, 2017 issued by the Master of the defendant vessel in favour of Silk Road Petroleum FZE. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chrisomar Corporation vs. MJR Steels Private Ltd reported in 2017 SCC OnLine 1104 the plaintiff asserts that in the facts of the present case it has a maritime claim against the defendant vessel under the Act of 2017. Urging all these, the plaintiff submits that the applicant is not entitled to obtain any ad-interim order in its applicant G.A. No. 2303 of 2018 and this Court should allow it to file an affidavit-in-opposition to the application filed by the applicant. 12. I have considered the materials on record as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the applicant. Considering the Charter Party dated dated June 5, 2015 entered into between the applicant and the owner of the vessel namely, Evergreen Shipping Limited and the other documents disclosed in this application I find the applicant is the Bareboat Charter of the defendant vessel and, as such, it is a person interested in the defendant vessel. Considering the Charter Party dated dated June 5, 2015 entered into between the applicant and the owner of the vessel namely, Evergreen Shipping Limited and the other documents disclosed in this application I find the applicant is the Bareboat Charter of the defendant vessel and, as such, it is a person interested in the defendant vessel. The plaintiff’s cause of action in the instant admiralty suit is based on the bill of lading dated June 29, 2017 allegedly issued by the Master of the defendant vessel. In the plaint as well as in the affidavit of arrest the plaintiff has asserted the issuance of its e-mail dated July 14, 2017 addressed to the Master of the defendant vessel claiming its right over the goods lying on board of the defendant vessel on the strength of the said bill of lading dated June 29, 2017. The factum of issuance of the e-mail dated July 16, 2017 by the Master of the defendant vessel in response to the plaintiff’s e-mail dated July 14, 2017 is not disputed by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the omission on its part to disclose the said e-mail dated July 16, 2017 does not amount to suppression of any material fact. In the said e-mail dated July 16, 2017 the Master of the defendant vessel in clear and unambiguous term stated that he had not issued the said bill of lading dated June 29, 2017 and also mentioned the facts for which there was no occasion for him to issue the said bill of lading dated June 29, 2017. The plaintiff has not replied to the said e-mail dated July 16, 2017 disputing the assertion of the Master of the defendant vessel that he had not issued the said bill of lading dated June 29, 2017. Thus, the only conclusion that can be arrived at in this case is that the plaintiff has accepted the statement made by the Master of the defendant vessel that he had not issued the bill of lading dated June 29, 2017. This can be the only reason for which the plaintiff has not disclosed the said e-mail dated July 16, 2017 of the Master of the defendant vessel and such omission does not fall short of suppression of a material fact. In these facts, I find that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant vessel. This can be the only reason for which the plaintiff has not disclosed the said e-mail dated July 16, 2017 of the Master of the defendant vessel and such omission does not fall short of suppression of a material fact. In these facts, I find that the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant vessel. The plaintiff obtained the said order dated August 10, 2018 directing arrest of the defendant vessel by suppressing material facts from this Court. In the facts of the instant case, I also find substance in the contention by the applicant that by not disclosing the fact of itself filing the proceedings before the Court of the first instance and the appellate Court at Sharjah and the decisions passed therein in the plaint and the affidavit of arrest the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this Court. 13. For the reasons as aforesaid, the application filed by the plaintiff being G.A. No. 2260 of 2018 is dismissed and the order of arrest dated August 10, 2018 stands vacated, with costs assessed at Rs.10,000,00/- (Rupees Ten Lakh only) to be paid by the plaintiff to the applicant, within a period of two weeks from date. In default, the applicant shall be free to realise the amount of costs from the plaintiff in accordance with law. The applicant shall also be entitled to recover from the plaintiff the cost and damages suffered by it on account of wrongful arrest of the defendant vessel. 14. The Marshall is directed to forthwith communicate the operative portion of this order to the Master of the defendant vessel, the Authorities of the Kolkata Port Trust, Customs Authorities and other concerned Authorities for immediate release of the defendant vessel. 15. With the above directions, the application G.A. No. 2303 of 2018 stands allowed. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff prays for stay of operation of the operative portion of this order. Such prayer is considered and rejected. 17. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.