ORDER : Niral R. Mehta, J. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Pankeet P. Aundhiya along with Arnab Ghosh instructed by Advocate Manoj Khatri. for the Plaintiff mentioned the present matter for urgent circulation and, considering the urgency involved, the present matter is taken up for hearing today. 2. Learned Advocate, Mr, Manoj Khatri representing the Plaintiff submitted that submitted that the Plaintiff has filed the present Admiralty Suit seeking arrest of Defendant No.1 Vessel M.V. SCL MERCURY (IMO No. 9258193) and a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,22,49,164/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty-Two Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Four Only) in connection with a maritime claim arising out of wrongful extraction of excess freight charges and consequential losses under a contract for carriage of goods by sea aboard Defendant No. 1 vessel. 3. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff entered into a BIMCO Liner Booking Note dated 08.05.2025 with Defendant No.2, through Defendant No.3, for carriage of LSAW and Coating Plant equipment (‘cargo’) from Dahej, Gujarat to Dammam, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and, pursuant thereto, from Mumbai to Dammam onboard Defendant No.1 Vessel. Under the said Booking Note, freight was agreed at USD 59 per W/M (Weight or Measurement) basis liner terms, and the booking was made on an estimated cargo volume of approximately 8,500 CBM breakbulk along with 56 containers, as mentioned in the said booking note. The Booking Note also stipulated a laycan period of 15.05.2025 to 22.05.2025 for arrival of the vessel at Mumbai Port. 4. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that Defendant No.1 Vessel failed to arrive within the agreed laycan period of 15.05.2025 to 22.05.2025 and arrived only on or about 06.06.2025, on account of which the Plaintiff incurred additional port storage charges to the tune of Rs. 77,25,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Seven Lacs Twenty Five Thousand Only) at the load port i.e. Mumbai, for which the Plaintiff holds the Defendants wholly liable. 5. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that although the actual breakbulk cargo volume at load port was established by an independent survey at about 6,629.73 CBM, and the containerised cargo volume was 4,721.20 CBM, bringing the total actual cargo volume to approximately 11,350.93 CBM. 5. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that although the actual breakbulk cargo volume at load port was established by an independent survey at about 6,629.73 CBM, and the containerised cargo volume was 4,721.20 CBM, bringing the total actual cargo volume to approximately 11,350.93 CBM. A further independent discharge port survey conducted by Al Abraj Technical Services, Saudi Arabia, at King Abdul Aziz Port, Dammam, during actual discharge operations from 7th July 2025 to 21st July 2025, established the actual breakbulk cargo discharged at 6,974.30 CBM, corroborating the load port survey to within a variance of only 5.2%. However, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 wrongfully inflated the cargo volume to 19,796 CBM and demanded freight on the basis of much such figure. 6. Learned Advocate further submitted that documents placed on record including vessel particulars, the vessel stowage plan, and publicly available information relating to Defendant No. 1 vessel including screenshots obtained from Defendant No. 3's own official website and commercial brochure as well as independent shipping intelligence databases indicate that the cubic carrying capacity of the said vessel is substantially lower than the cargo volume claimed by the Defendants. The stowage plan dated 02.06.2025, prepared by Defendant No. 2's own technical team, discloses the vessel's total cubic capacity at only 11,597.52 CBM Defendant No. 3's own official website and commercial brochure publicly advertise the vessel's cargo carrying capacity as only upto 13,000 CBM. Defendant No.2’s own stowage plan dated 02.06.2025 disclosed vessel cubic capacity of only 11,597.52 CBM, whereas Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 first claimed cargo volume of about 23,000 CBM and ultimately raised invoice on the basis of 19,796 CBM, which is wholly arbitrary, inflated, and contrary even to the vessel’s own disclosed capacity. 7. Learned Advocate further submitted that despite the above, Defendant No. 2 issued a Proforma Tax Invoice No. DI/2025/015658 dated 24.06.2025 calculating freight on the basis of 19,796 CBM, which figure is wholly arbitrary, inflated, and contrary to the vessel's own disclosed capacity and independent survey findings. The Plaintiff was thereafter compelled, under commercial and economic duress, to make payment aggregating to Rs.10,51,44,392/- on 26.06.2025 under protest and duress, and that on the basis of the actual cargo measurements, the Plaintiff has a claim for refund of excess freight charges of Rs.4,22,24,164/-, together with load port storage charges of Rs.77,25,000/- and legal costs and expenses, aggregating to Rs.5,22,49,164/-. 8. 8. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that the Plaintiff addressed demand communications and legal notice to the Defendants; however, despite receipt of the same and despite receipt of the survey reports, the Defendants have failed and refused to refund the excess freight amount or compensate the Plaintiff. 9. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff’s claim is a maritime claim within the meaning of Section 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, inter alia being a claim arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship and claims in relation to loss caused in connection therewith. 10. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that the present action is maintainable in rem against Defendant No.1 Vessel under Section 5 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, as Defendant No.2 is the owner of Defendant No.1 Vessel and the maritime claim arises directly out of carriage of goods by sea aboard the said vessel. 11. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that Defendant No.1 Vessel is presently lying at/within Hazira Port and within the territorial waters and admiralty jurisdiction of this Court, and unless the Defendant Vessel is arrested, the Plaintiff will be left without security for its maritime claim. 12. I have heard the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and have also perused the averments made in the plaint, the affidavit in support, and the documents annexed with the plaint. Prima facie, it appears that the Plaintiff has made out a maritime claim under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 arising out of carriage of goods by sea, wrongful freight demand, and consequential losses in connection therewith, and that Defendant No.1 Vessel is liable to be arrested under Section 5 of the said Act. 13. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ad-interim relief of arrest of the Defendant Vessel. 14. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Port Officer and Customs Authorities at Hazira Port at the following email addresses: Hazira Port a. Shahzad.athar@adani.com b. Kashyap.desai@adani.com c. Pranav.choudhary@adani.com d. Jeyaraj.Thamburaj@adani.com e. ahppl.ceooffice@adani.com f. Vivek.singh@adani.com g. labhesh.rathod@adani.com h. Anand.marathe@adani.com i. Dhiraj.Tank@adani.com j. Jayesh.Chandan@adani.com k. Shah.Mehul2@adani.com Gujarat Maritime Board (if vessel in Gujarat waters) a. pomungmb@gmail.com b. traffic.gmb@gmail.com Customs Authorities a. commr-cushzr@nic.in b. adc-cushzr@nic.in 15. The Port Officer and Customs Authorities shall act upon an email copy of this order and immediately take steps to effect arrest of the Defendant No.1 Vessel M.V. SCL MERCURY (IMO No. 9258193). 16. Notice to the Defendants is returnable on 27.03.2026. 17. It is clarified that the Defendant No.1 Vessel is permitted to carry out cargo operations while remaining under arrest. 18. It is open to the learned Advocate for the Plaintiff to communicate the above order by email to the concerned authorities and to the Owners / persons interested in the Defendant Vessel, and the concerned authorities are directed to act upon an ordinary copy of this order received by email. 19. Direct Service through Email is permitted today. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER (a) Upon hearing learned Advocate for the Plaintiff and and upon the Plaintiff giving an undertaking in writing to pay such sums by way of damages as this Court may award as compensation in the event of the Defendant Vessel sustaining any prejudice by this order, I do order that the Registrar of this Court shall issue a Warrant for the arrest of Defendant No.1 Vessel M.V. SCL MERCURY (IMO No. 9258193) along with her hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture and all appurtenances. (b) The Warrant of Arrest shall be executed at any time of the day or night including Sundays and holidays. (c) The Port Officer and Customs Authorities at Hazira Port are directed to arrest, detain and keep under arrest Defendant No.1 Vessel M.V. SCL MERCURY (IMO No. 9258193), if found within the territorial waters of India, until further orders of this Court. (d) In the event the Defendants or any person interested in Defendant No.1 Vessel deposits before this Court a sum of Rs.5,22,49,164/- (Rupees Five Crores Twenty-Two Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Four Only) together with further interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization, the Warrant of Arrest shall not be executed. (e) The Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the Port Officer and Customs Authorities at Hazira Port by email and/or fax and/or such other electronic mode as may be available.The Port and Customs Authorities shall act upon an email copy of this order and immediately take steps to effect arrest of Defendant No.1 Vessel. (e) The Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the Port Officer and Customs Authorities at Hazira Port by email and/or fax and/or such other electronic mode as may be available.The Port and Customs Authorities shall act upon an email copy of this order and immediately take steps to effect arrest of Defendant No.1 Vessel. (f) Notice to the Defendants is made returnable on 27.03.2026. (g) It is clarified that Defendant No.1 Vessel is permitted to carry out cargo operations while remaining under arrest, subject to further orders of this Court. (h) It is open to the learned Advocate for the Plainti communicate the above order by email to the concerned authorities and to the Owners / persons interested in Defendant No.1 Vessel, and the concerned authorities are directed to act on an ordinary copy of this order received by email. (i) At this stage, Mr. Pratik Khubchandani for M/s Vyas Associates appears and states that he is under instructions from the owner of the defendant vessel and requests for liberty to file appearance and move an appropriate application before the returnable date for release of the vessel. Permission as prayed for is granted. Direct service is permitted today.