ORDER I.A No.6 of 2024 V. Narasingh, J. This is an application filed by the Defendant. 2. In I.A No.1 of 2024 arising out of the present suit was filed seeking arrest of the Defendant-Vessel. And, by order dated 23.02.2024 this Court directed for arrest, recall of which is being sought by the Defendant by filing present I.A No.6 of 2024. 3. Relevant extracts of the cause title and the prayers made in the I.A are culled out hereunder for convenience of reference: 'IN THE MATTER OF : An application for the release of the Vessel which was arrested by the Order Dt.23.03.2024 of this Hon'ble Court in ADMLS No.1 of 2024 IN THE MATTER OF : An application for the Release of the Vessel under Section 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.' 'xxx xxx xxx 1. The order dated February 24, 2024, passed in ADMLS No.1 of 2024 be vacated and/or recalled; 2. To direct release of the Vessel M.V. DEBI upon furnishing of appropriate security without prejudice to the right and contentions of the Vessel and her owners for the period upto and until 30.11.2023 at the first instance as an ad-interim measure; 3. The suit being ADMLS No.1 of 2024 be stayed till the disposal of the present application; 4. Ad-interim orders in terms of prayers above; 5. The costs of the present application be paid by the Plaintiff; 6. Such other and/or further order or orders be passed and directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.' 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakar appearing for the Defendant submitted, inter alia, that since there is no privity of contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the suit in its present form is not maintainable. Hence, the logical fall out is that the arrest order needs to be vacated. To fortify his submission, learned Senior Counsel filed his written note of submissions. One of the contentions raised is that the order of arrest, vacation of which is being sought, should be deemed to be an ex parte order. 5. Hence, the logical fall out is that the arrest order needs to be vacated. To fortify his submission, learned Senior Counsel filed his written note of submissions. One of the contentions raised is that the order of arrest, vacation of which is being sought, should be deemed to be an ex parte order. 5. It is his further submission that in the face of non-existence of the pre-condition as envisaged under Section 5(1)(a) and/or 5(1)(b) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2017') invocation of admiralty jurisdiction of this Court by the Plaintiff and seeking arrest of the Vessel is not at all entertainable. 6. In this context, it is relevant to quote Paragraphs-28 to 30 of I.A No.6 of 2024 filed at the behest of the Defendant. '28. That the arrest of any Vessel could be ordered where the Hon'ble Court has reasons to believe that any of the circumstances described in Section 5(1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 ('Admiralty Act') exists. It is respectfully submitted that the Court must record its prima facie satisfaction with substantial basis corroborated from records of this case that the circumstances and conditions enumerated in Section 5(1) of the Admiralty Act does exists in the case at hand. 29. That in the present case, the Applicant was not liable for the claim when the maritime claim is alleged to have arisen since that is the real position of fact, no contrary evidence has been tendered by the Respondent while obtaining the Arrest Order. SSLL is the disclosed agent of the Charterer being DAVA. The said Charterer never owned the Vessel nor is the demise charterer of the Vessel, whether when the alleged maritime claim arose or when the arrest was affected. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination the conditions stipulated under Section 5(1)(a) and/or 5(1)(b) of the Admiralty Act ever existed. 30. That the aforesaid conditions are mandatory for obtaining an order of arrest. Unless such specific pre-conditions are found to be met from the evidence disclosed prima facie by the party seeking an order of arrest, no order of arrest can even be contemplated. 30. That the aforesaid conditions are mandatory for obtaining an order of arrest. Unless such specific pre-conditions are found to be met from the evidence disclosed prima facie by the party seeking an order of arrest, no order of arrest can even be contemplated. In the present case, none of the mandatory pre-conditions under Section 5 of the Admiralty Act stood fulfilled and the arrest permitted by the order dated February 24, 2024, was consequently obtained wrongfully and illegally by the Respondent.' 7. The Judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant are as under: Balwant Rai Saluja and another Vrs. AIR India Limited and others, (2014) 9 SCC 407 ; Georim Oil Corporation Vrs. M.V. Flag Mersinidi and others, 2014 SCC OnLine BOM 479, Union of India and others vrs. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi & others, (2004) 3 SCC 628 ; and Arjun Singh vrs. Mohindra Kumar & others, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 43 ,referred to in Paragraphs-4, 5, 14 & 19 respectively of the written note of submissions. 8. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff Mr. Kamat resisted the application for recall of the order of arrest and consequential prayer for release of the vessel by filing his objection and written note of submission to fortify his stand and relied on the following judgments: 'Barkat Ali and another vrs. Badrinarain (Dead) By LRs, (2008) 4 SCC 615 ; M/s. Euro Properties and Investments (P) Ltd. vrs. Mr. T. Paul Rajan, C.S No.449 of 1999 disposed of on 06.11.2020) and Chairman, Life Insurance Corpn. and others vrs. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker, (2005) 6 SCC 188 ' 9. While passing the order in I.A No.1 of 2024 directing for arrest by order dated 23.02.2024 this Court disposed of Caveat Petition No.1 of 2024 as not maintainable and thereafter the matter on merits relating to I.A No.1 of 2024 arising out ADMLS No.1 of 2024 seeking arrest was taken up for consideration. 9-A. While considering such prayer, the specific stand of the Defendant herein relating to non-joinder of the parties, lack of privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the claims being not covered under Section 4(1)(n) of the Act, 2017 and lien under Section 9(1)(d) was taken into consideration. 9-A. While considering such prayer, the specific stand of the Defendant herein relating to non-joinder of the parties, lack of privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the claims being not covered under Section 4(1)(n) of the Act, 2017 and lien under Section 9(1)(d) was taken into consideration. 9-B. This Court also took note of the stand of the Defendant that the Defendant is only liable to pay charges in terms of Scales of Rates (Annexure-2 of the plaint) till 30.11.2023. 10. It is relevant to note that Prayer No.2 in the present I.A is also to the said effect. The same is again quoted hereunder for convenience of ready reference. '2. To direct release of the Vessel M.V. DEBI upon furnishing of appropriate security without prejudice to the right and contentions of the Vessel and her owners for the period upto and until 30.11.2023 at the first instance as an ad-interim measure.' (Emphasized) 11. It was also noted by this Court, while considering I.A No.1 of 2024 arising out of ADMLS No.1 of 2024, that in the absence of the owner Asia Pacific Shipping Company Limited no relief can be granted. 12. Paragraphs-18, 19-A, 23, 23-A of the order dated 23.2.2024 passed in I.A. No.1 of 2024 arising out of ADMLS No.1 of 2024 evidencing the stand of the Defendant is quoted hereunder: '18. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Misra for the Defendant during the course of submission that the suit is not maintainable, inter alia, for non joinder of parties, there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the claim as being made is not covered under Section 4(1)(n) of Act, 2017 and lien under Section 9(1)(d) of Act, 2017 as claimed. And, because of the ongoing criminal investigation which is being carried out by the authorities under the N.D.P.S Act and Customs Act, the claim has to be negated. And prayer for arrest order under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2017 does not merit consideration. xxx xxx xxx 19-A. As such, the Defendant is only liable to pay the charges till 30.11.2023 in terms of Scale of Rates (SOR) at Annexure-2 of the plaint and the demand of additional sum as stated in Paragraph-33 of the plaint and extracted hereinabove is usurious. xxx xxx xxx 23. xxx xxx xxx 19-A. As such, the Defendant is only liable to pay the charges till 30.11.2023 in terms of Scale of Rates (SOR) at Annexure-2 of the plaint and the demand of additional sum as stated in Paragraph-33 of the plaint and extracted hereinabove is usurious. xxx xxx xxx 23. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Defendant that since all the invoices and notices have been raised admittedly against the Seaways Shipping and Logistics Limited, Asia Pacific Shipping Co. Ltd. and Dava PTE. Limited by Email/Speed Post at Annexure-20 (Dt.08.02.2024) as agent of the Defendant, owner of vessel in question M.V. DEBI and charterer in Indian Waters respectively, in their absence the suit is not maintainable. 23-A. It is his submission that their non-joinder in the facts of the present case raises serious doubts regarding bona fide of the Plaintiff and hence, 'discretionary relief' under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2017 should be refused.' 12-A. And, the finding of this Court in Paragraph-35-A of the order dated 23.02.2024 runs thus: '35-A. Hence, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in M.V. Elisabeth (supra) and Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vrs. M.V. Kapitan Kud, (1996) 7 SCC 127 and on a conspectus of the materials on record, this Court holds that ex facie the Plaintiff has been able to establish that he has 'reasonably arguable best case'. And, an enforceable maritime claim in terms of Section 4(1)(n) read with Section 9(1)(d) of the Act, 2017 as enumerated in Paragraph-33 of the plaint (as extracted above) and prima facie has been able to fortify its stand that the suit will be rendered infructuous unless the order to arrest the Defendant is passed in exercise of the power of this Court under Section 5(1) of the Act, 2017.' 13. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the Procedure and Appeals dealt with under Chapter III of the Act, 2017. 13-A. Section 12 deals with application of Code of Civil Procedure and Section 14 deals with Appeal. For ready reference Sections 12 and 14 of the Act, 2017 are culled out hereunder: '12. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the Procedure and Appeals dealt with under Chapter III of the Act, 2017. 13-A. Section 12 deals with application of Code of Civil Procedure and Section 14 deals with Appeal. For ready reference Sections 12 and 14 of the Act, 2017 are culled out hereunder: '12. Application of Code of Civil Procedure.-The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall apply in all the proceedings before the High Court in so far as they are not inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. 14. Appeal.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from any judgment, decree or final order or interim order of a single Judge of the High Court under this Act to a Division Bench of the High Court.' (Emphasized) 14. As already noted the contentions raised in I.A No.6 of 2024 of the petition for seeking recall of the order directing arrest of vessel were pleaded, considered and adjudicated. 15. This Court is of the considered view that in the present I.A, the Defendant in the guise of the current application nomenclatured as an application for recall/vacation is in fact seeking review of the order dated 23.2.2024 in I.A No.1 of 2024 which is untenable and more so in terms of Section 14 of the Act, 2017 extracted hereinabove. 15-A. A bare perusal of the said Section 14 of the Act, 2017, it is evidently clear that consciously, considering the ramification of the interim order, the legislature has provided for assailing such interim order in intra court appeal to a Division Bench. 16. The stand of the Defendant that the order, recall of which is being sought may be deemed to be an ex parte order as stated in the written note of argument adverted to hereinabove is untenable. With respect, it is stated that proper instructions were not at the command of the learned Senior Counsel on this aspect. 17. Paragraph-2 of the I.A reads as under: '2. That the Applicant is the registered owner of the Vessel. A copy of the registration certificate of the Vessel issued by Panama Maritime Authority is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-1.' 18. 17. Paragraph-2 of the I.A reads as under: '2. That the Applicant is the registered owner of the Vessel. A copy of the registration certificate of the Vessel issued by Panama Maritime Authority is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-1.' 18. It would be apposite to extract Annexure-1 of the I.A for convenience of ready reference and referred to in the aforementioned Paragraph. 18-A. On a bare perusal of the said Annexure-1, it can be seen that 'Asia Pacific Shipping Company Limited' is the registered owner. 18-B. It may be relevant at this stage to refer to the form of Vakalatanama filed in the present Admiralty Suit. The same is culled out hereunder for ready reference: 19. It is thus manifestly clear that the owner was represented before this Court through counsel while the prayer of the Plaintiff in I.A No.1 of 2024 for arrest of the vessel was taken up for consideration. And, the same gets support from the letter of authority of Asia Pacific Shipping Company Limited, which is filed along with Vakalatanama and the memorandum filed by then learned Senior Counsel and it was stated in the memorandum that the learned Senior Counsel was appearing on behalf of the Defendant being instructed by the learned counsel Mr. Rahul Ray, who is one of the Advocates who filed Vakalatanama on behalf of the Defendant. No fresh Vakalatanama has been filed in the case at hand and the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Thakar has filed his appearance memo. 20. On a conspectus of the materials on record, this Court does not find any merit in I.A No.6 of 2024. 21. Accordingly, I.A No.6 of 2024 stands rejected.