ORDER : M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1. Admit. Advocate Sri. Vipin P. Varghese takes notice for the 1 st defendant and Advocate Smt. Latha Anand takes notice for the 2 nd defendant. 2. Post the suit for the Written Statement of the defendants on 04.07.2025 along with Adml.S. No. 9/2025. I.A. No.1 of 2025 1. This Application is filed by the plaintiff in the captioned Admiralty Suit to issue Warrant of Arrest against the vessel “M.T. VISION” (IMO 9236016) with all her accessories, which is presently anchored at Cochin Port, which is within the territorial waters of India and within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. 2. This is the second suit filed by the very same plaintiff against the very same defendants with respect to the very same vessel in this Court. Earlier, the Applicant filed Adml.S. No.9 of 2025 with respect to its maritime claim of Rs.56,38,03,314/- as unliquidated damages with interest @ 12% per annum against the 1 st respondent alleging breach of contract of the Time Charter-party executed by the Applicant and the owner of the 1 st respondent and consequential losses suffered by the Applicant In I.A.No.1/2025 in Adml.S. No. 9 of 2025, filed by the Applicant, this Court had ordered conditional arrest of the vessel for the plaint claim of Rs.56,38,03,314/- as per interim order dated 13.06.2025. The 1 st respondent did not furnish the security as per the said Order dated 13.06.2025 and hence the said vessel is still under arrest and continuing in Cochin Port. 3. The present suit is filed claiming an amount of Rs.25,74,63,958/-. 4. When this suit and Interim Application came up for admission on 24.06.2025, this Court thought it fit to direct the Applicant to give notice to the first respondent, as the first respondent has already appeared in Adml.S. No. 9/2025. An interim order was also passed directing the second respondent to see that the vessel is not sailed out till 26.06.2025. 5. Today, the first respondent appeared through counsel. Since the first respondent did not get sufficient time to file Counter Affidavit in this Application, the counsel for the first respondent was permitted to advance his contentions opposing the Application. 6. Accordingly, I heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant, Sri. Pratamesh Kamath with Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, Sri. Since the first respondent did not get sufficient time to file Counter Affidavit in this Application, the counsel for the first respondent was permitted to advance his contentions opposing the Application. 6. Accordingly, I heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant, Sri. Pratamesh Kamath with Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, Sri. Vipin P. Varghese and the learned Counsel for the 2 nd respondent, Smt. Latha Anand. 7. The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the claims are for crystallized debts under three specific heads. The claim of the Applicant is that the Charter-party executed by the Applicant with the owner of the first respondent is terminated as per the Termination Notice dated 14.06.2025. On account of the termination, the first respondent has to return the excess charter hire paid by the Applicant & the Security deposit made by the Applicant for the Charter-party and to pay the value of bunkers on re-delivery. According to the learned counsel, these are crystallized debts proved by supporting documents. Since the applicant has made out a prima facie case, the applicant is entitled to get conditional order of arrest of the vessel till furnishing security for the plaint claim by the first respondent. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the plaintiff has no right or authority to issue a Termination Notice on 14.06.2025 as per the Charter-party. The conditional arrest was ordered in the earlier suit on 13.06.2025. The Applicant issued the Termination Notice on the very next day itself. The Charter-party contains an arbitration clause. Without disclosing this material fact, both suits were filed. Hence, there is suppression of material facts in the plaint. The Applicant has approached this Court with unclean hands. The Applicant has been filing suits one after another, raising claims in a piecemeal. The Applicant should have included the claim in the earlier suit itself or should have amended the earlier suit by amending the plaint to incorporate the present claim. If this Court finds that the 1 st respondent is liable to furnish security for the plaint claim, the first respondent is ready to provide a Letter of Undertaking from P and I Club for the plaint claim and it would be sufficient security for the plaint claim. If this Court finds that the 1 st respondent is liable to furnish security for the plaint claim, the first respondent is ready to provide a Letter of Undertaking from P and I Club for the plaint claim and it would be sufficient security for the plaint claim. In such a case, the huge loss to the first respondent on account arrest could be avoided. The learned counsel concluded by submitting that the Application is liable to be dismissed as the Applicant has not made out a prima facie case. 9. In reply, the learned counsel for the Applicant further contended that the arbitration clause is not a bar for the Applicant to seek arrest under Admiralty jurisdiction. In order to substantiate this point, the learned Counsel cited the decision of the Bombay High Court in OSV Crest Mercury 1 (IMO 9724398) v. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1271], in which the Bombay High Court followed its Single Bench decision in Siem Offshore Redri AS v. Altus Uber [2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2730] and its Division Bench decision in Altus Uber v. Siem Offshore Redri AS [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1327]. 10. The counsel for the 2 nd respondent submitted that the 2 nd respondent is only a formal party managing the Port and he has nothing to submit on the dispute between the Applicant and the 1 st respondent. 11. I have considered the rival contentions. 12. On perusing the plaint and documents produced along with it, I find that the payment of hire charges of AED 4,126,145.56 by the Applicant is proved by Document No.10 dated 24/05/2025. The Applicant claimed that it is for the period from 30.05.2025 to 29.06.2025. According to the Applicant, the excess charter hire after the date of termination is for 15.08 days, starting from 14.06.2025 at 12.30 p.m. to 29.06.2025. The said excess charter hire for 15.08 days is calculated at USD 558,837.50. The payment of Security Deposit of USD 1,140,000 is proved by Document No.11. The quantities of Bunker on delivery and the alleged re-delivery are proved by Document Nos.13 to 15. Document No.15 is the Master’s Certificate dated 14.06.2025. On the basis of these documents, the Applicant has valued the bunker on 14.06.2025 at USD 1,062,436.86. Thus, the total claim under these three heads is calculated at USD 2,761,274.36, corresponding to Rs.25,74,63,958/-. The quantities of Bunker on delivery and the alleged re-delivery are proved by Document Nos.13 to 15. Document No.15 is the Master’s Certificate dated 14.06.2025. On the basis of these documents, the Applicant has valued the bunker on 14.06.2025 at USD 1,062,436.86. Thus, the total claim under these three heads is calculated at USD 2,761,274.36, corresponding to Rs.25,74,63,958/-. Going by the Conditional Order of arrest passed by this Court on 13.06.2025, it is clear that the Applicant could not utilise the vessel after 13.06.2025. The cause of action for the present claim arose on the termination of the Charter-party. Since the Charter-party was not terminated at the time of filing the earlier suit, I am of the view that the present claim could not have been included in the earlier suit. Whether the Applicant is entitled to issue a Termination Notice or whether the Termination Notice is valid or not are matters to be considered in the suit. 13. In OSV Crest Mercury I (supra) , the Bombay High Court held that an action against the vessel is an action in rem; that an action against the owner of the vessel (which forms the subject matter of the arbitration) is an action in personam; that an action in rem is converted into an action in personam only when the defendant: (a) enters an appearance; (b) submits to the jurisdiction of the court; and (c) furnishes security for release of the vessel; that until these three conditions are fulfilled, the question of an action in rem being converted into an action in personam does not arise; and that merely because the dispute is amenable to arbitration does not ipso facto imply that the defendant vessel cannot be arrested in an action in rem. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Altus Uber (supra) categorically ruled that it cannot be said that the Court has no jurisdiction to arrest vessel or maintain an arrest where the purpose the plaintiff is simply to obtain security for the award in arbitration proceedings and that the purpose of the plaintiff in invoking the admiralty jurisdiction cannot affect the existence the said jurisdiction. 14. It is a settled law that an action in rem is not an action which can be referred to arbitration. 14. It is a settled law that an action in rem is not an action which can be referred to arbitration. Rule 2(f) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Rules, 2019 defines ‘suit in rem’ as an admiralty action in rem for enforcement of any of the maritime claims stipulated in Section 4 of the Act. The action for arrest against the vessel is an action in rem in view of Section 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017. Such an action in rem against the vessel cannot be referred to arbitration. In the admiralty jurisdiction, the proceedings are against the vessel and not against the owner of the vessel. Hence, I am of the view that the presence of an arbitration clause in the Charter-party does not in any way interdict an action for arrest under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The presence of an arbitration clause in the Charter-party is not a material point to be pleaded in an action for arrest of the vessel under admiralty jurisdiction. Hence absence of pleading with respect to arbitration by the Applicant would not amount to a material suppression. 15. I prima facie find that the Plaint claim will come under Clause (h) of Section 4(1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, and hence this Court have admiralty jurisdiction over the vessel. The Applicant is entitled to invoke admiralty jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 5 for the arrest and detention of the vessel in order to obtain security for the plaint claim. Once the Applicant has proved an arguable maritime claim against the 1 st respondent, the Applicant is entitled for a conditional order of arrest requiring to furnish security for the plaint claim. The order of arrest and security could not be substituted by a Letter of Undertaking from P and I Club. The Letter of Undertaking from P and I Club could not be accepted as security in lieu of arrest under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. 16. The order of arrest and security could not be substituted by a Letter of Undertaking from P and I Club. The Letter of Undertaking from P and I Club could not be accepted as security in lieu of arrest under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. 16. In view of the averments in the Plaint & the Affidavit filed in support of the Application and the documents produced along with the plaint, I am satisfied that an arguable maritime claim is made out by the Applicant, warranting a conditional order of arrest of the 1 st respondent vessel. 17. Accordingly, the following conditional order of arrest is issued. 1. The 1 st respondent vessel by name “M.T. VISION” (IMO9236016) along with her hull, tackle, engine, machinery spares, gear, apparel, paraphernalia, furniture etc. presently anchored in the Cochin Port is ordered to be arrested until Rs.25,74,63,958/- is deposited by the 1 st respondent in this Court or until security for the said amount is furnished by the 1 st respondent to the satisfaction of this Court. 2. It is ordered that the 2 nd respondent shall execute the Warrant and effect the arrest, seizure and detention of the said vessel “M.T. VISION” (IMO 9236016) along with her hull, tackle, engines, machinery, boards, bunkers, equipment, peripherals and other appurtenances as ordered above. 3. It is made clear that this Order will not in any way prevent the loading and unloading of cargo of the Vessel.