JUDGMENT Milind N. Jadhav, J. - Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. By the present Interim application, Defendants are seeking an order to vacate the order of arrest dated 01.04.2022 and permit the 1st Defendant Vessel to sail within the territorial limits of Maharashtra and/or Bombay Port i.e. within 12 Nautical Miles (for short "NM") while under arrest pending the hearing and final disposal of the interim application. 3. On 09.05.2022, the 1st Defendant filed a praecipe seeking an urgent hearing and pressed for ad-interim reliefs in view of the advancing monsoon season. Both the learned counsel have made elaborated submissions and have been heard extensively. They have also filed written submissions of their arguments. 4. Mr. Dhond, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf on the applicants - Defendants submits that the 1st Defendant Vessel be allowed to continue trading and physically supply bunkers within Bombay Port and/or the territorial limits of the State of Maharashtra whilst under arrest. He submits that considering the order of arrest the Defendants are ready and willing to offer security by giving the following undertakings to secure the apprehension of the Plaintiff in the present suit: i. that the 1st Defendant Vessel will continue to remain under valid H&M and P&I Insurance cover; ii. that the 1st Defendant Vessel shall trade at all times within 12NM of the Bombay Port and/or within the territorial waters of Maharashtra; iii. that the 1st Defendant Vessel shall not create any charges superior to that of the Plaintiff during the period it is allowed to sail and carry out bunker operations; iv. that all charges towards crew and port expenses shall be paid by the Defendants; that the Defendants shall submit an undertaking to this effect; v. that the Defendants shall submit a written undertaking that it shall not sail away from the jurisdiction of the Bombay Port at any time; 4.1. He has made the following submissions in support of the present application:- i. that since the 1st Defendant Vessel is engaged in the business of trading and physical supply of bunkers and has an existing and on going bunker supply transport contract with Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short "IOCL") and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short "BPCL") for transportation of their fuel within Bombay Port Trust; the 1st Defendant Vessel be allowed to carry out these obligations; ii. that since the 1st Defendant Vessel has received several inquiries from private sector bunker traders for supply of fuel and barging support services and it being one of the three only vessels of large size within Bombay Port which can supply and transport bunker fuel in larger quantities to the outer anchorage areas of Bombay Port Trust within 12NM; the 1st Defendant Vessel be permitted to continue its operation; viii. that in so far as the 1st Defendant Vessel's mortgage is concerned it undertakes to continue repayment as per scheduled; that the current market value of the 1st Defendant Vessel is 15 crores and the outstanding mortgage amount is Rs.8 crores; that recently the 1st Defendant Vessel's mortgage has been taken over by Kotak Mahindra Bank from Bank of Baroda and the 1st Defendant Vessel shall undertake to service the mortgage on time; iv. that Defendant No.2 is the registered owner of several vessels including the 1st Defendant Vessel; that Defendant No.2 has an approximate annual turnover of Rs.72 crores (F.Y. 2020-21); that the claim of $1,416,293 in the present suit is against the vessel Tresta Star which is owned by M/s. Tresta Trading and the Defendant No.2 has 100% share holding in Tresta International and Tresta Trading which are highly profitable companies; that Tresta Trading is the principle debtor of the Plaintiff and not Defendant No.2; that the claim of the Plaintiff is seriously disputed by the Defendants and the same is an inflated claim; v. that the Plaintiff will not suffer any prejudice if the Defendants are allowed to continue bunker supply related operations within 12NM while under arrest as prayed for. 4.2. Mr. 4.2. Mr. Dhond, in support of his submissions has referred to and relied upon the following authorities to contend that the Defendants have placed on record adequate material for making out a reasonable case for grant of permission to ply; that the Defendants shall provide various undertakings as required, inter alia, pertaining to the 1st Defendant Vessel, its insurance cover, its seaworthiness, all other statutory undertakings as required etc.; that in several cases this Court has permitted sailing of vessels under arrest for providing bunkering facilities; that the claim of the Plaintiff does not allege any fraud played by the Defendants in respect of its claim; that the permission sought squarely falls within the provisions of Rule 1069 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 (for short "OS Rules") and the Defendants desire to service the contracts issued by IOCL and BPCL within the limits of Bombay Port: i. Wizdoms Naik International Ltd. Vs. DSV Gerimal NM/1891/2018 in COMaS/46/2018, order dated 12.10.2020; ii. CM Trading Company Vs. Barge Veer Ekadanta and anr. JO/43/2018 in COMaSL/6/2018, order dated 12.03.2018; iii. NHL Development Co. Ltd. Vs. MV Orissa and anr. JO/154/2016 in COMaSL/93/2016, order dated 18.08.2016; iv. amba Shipping & Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. MV Sumayla One and Ors. COMaSL/1/2020, order dated 22.01.2020 5. PER CONTRa, Mr. Shyam Kapadia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs has vehemently opposed grant of ad-interim reliefs as prayed for by the Defendants. He has also drawn my attention to the affidavits-in-Reply dated 12.04.2022, 18.04.2022 and 26.04.2022 filed by the Plaintiff and contended as follows: i. that the Defendant's application for interim relief to allow the 1st Defendant Vessel to sail while under arrest is barred by the provisions of Section 2(c) of the admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claim) act, 2017, Rule 1069 of the OS Rules regulating admiralty procedure and practice, the ratio of the decision in the case of MV Elisabeth Vs. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 , and the arrest order dated 01.04.2022 in the present case; ii. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 , and the arrest order dated 01.04.2022 in the present case; ii. that arrest of the 1st Defendant Vessel means that the vessel and all bunkers onboard thereon also stand arrested and in the event if commercial deployment of the 1st Defendant Vessel is allowed at the outer anchorage of the Bombay Port within 12NM, it will deplete the number of bunkers and violate the arrest order; iii. that allowing bunkering operation during monsoon shall result in several tortuous claims / accident claims / environmental claims due to spillage / pollution claims / creation of encumbrances and third party interest in the form of additional maritime liens etc.; iv. that unforeseen casualty cannot be ruled out resulting in defeating the claim of the Plaintiff and charge on the 1st Defendant Vessel; v. that the Defendants have the financial capacity to secure the claim of the Plaintiff considering their positive net worth; vi. that there have been instances in the past of the Defendant No.2 not honouring its undertaking; vii. that the Defendants' claim of having existing bunker transport obligations towards IOCL and BPCL are denied by the Plaintiff; 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the materiel on record. Submissions made by the counsel are on pleaded lines. 7. The Defendants have placed on record an email document dated 19.05.2022 addressed by the area Manager of (I&C) of BPCL to the Defendant No.2 referring to the LOI awarded for supply of Black Oil and White Oil to the Outer anchorage as the barge contractor intimating the Defendant No.2 to fill the bunkering orders of BPCL under the contract. The said document is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Further the copies of the contract have also been placed on record by the Defendants in the pleadings (rejoinder). 8. It is seen that the claim of the Plaintiff is $1,416,293 along with interest @ 4.5 % per annum. This claim is with respect to the liability of the vessel Tresta Star belonging to M/s. Testa Trading which is a 100% subsidiary of Defendant No.2. This claim cannot be adjudicated or decided at this stage and is the subject matter of the suit. This claim is with respect to the liability of the vessel Tresta Star belonging to M/s. Testa Trading which is a 100% subsidiary of Defendant No.2. This claim cannot be adjudicated or decided at this stage and is the subject matter of the suit. Even in the present Interim application, the Defendants have prayed for vacating the order of arrest of the vessel on various grounds stated in the application. That relief is also not being considered just now. The justifiability of the Plaintiff's claim will be subject to the outcome of the proceedings in the present suit. However considering the objections raised by the Plaintiff, if during bunkering operations the 1st Defendant Vessel was to meet with any accident / collision / casualty and/or suffer any loss or become completely unusable or a wreck, then the Plaintiff's claim shall defeated. Further today when the vessel is under arrest, the bunkers on the vessel also stand attached and are under arrest, hence if the 1st Defendant Vessel carries out bunkering operations and depletes the onboard bunkers, its potential market value certainly goes down and this would be detrimental to the claim of the Plaintiff, if ultimately proved. Further considering the financial net worth of the Defendants which have been placed on record and for the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that at this stage to permit the Defendants to operate the 1st Defendant Vessel, at this stage would result in defeating the Plaintiff's claim. Hence the claim of the Plaintiff at this stage needs to be secured. 9. In view of the above, the interim relief sought for by prayer clause (d) stands allowed subject to the Defendants furnishing a security in the amount of $1,416,293 (either by deposit of the said amount in this Court or by a furnishing a bank guarantee of a Nationalized Bank to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court). The bank guarantee shall carry an interest rate of 4.5% per annum and shall be kept alive till the hearing and final disposal of the suit or as ordered by this Court. 10. In the event if the Defendants deposit the aforesaid amount as directed or furnish the bank guarantee, then the 1st Defendant Vessel is permitted to ply within 12NM in the territorial limits of Maharashtra and/or Bombay Port while under arrest. 10. In the event if the Defendants deposit the aforesaid amount as directed or furnish the bank guarantee, then the 1st Defendant Vessel is permitted to ply within 12NM in the territorial limits of Maharashtra and/or Bombay Port while under arrest. The Defendants shall furnish an undertaking that no third party charge or encumbrances will be created in respect of the 1st Defendant Vessel, all statutory safety norms and port regulations will be complied with in terms of the regulations and all crew and port expenses shall be paid on a timely basis. 11. In the event if the Defendants comply with the above directions, instruments of release to be dispensed with; parties are at liberty to communicate this order alongwith proof of the necessary compliance by the Defendants to the Port authorities, Custom Officers, Coast Guards etc. to act upon an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court associate. 12. Stand over after one week before the regular Court for further hearing on the Interim application.