srk １ app-L-557-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODGING) NO.557 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.956 OF 2010 Simit Singapore Pte. Limited ... Appellant Versus Gulf Rocks KSC and others. ... Respondents Mr.Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Mr. Ashish Kamat and Mr. Ashar i/by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the appellant. Mr. Prashant Pratap with Mr. H.G. Pratap for respondent Nos.3,4,6 to 10. Mr. U.J. Makhija with Msw. Manjiri Shah i/by M/s. Motiwala & Co. for respondent No.2. Mr. N.S. Fadia for respondent No.5. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. Tuesday, August 24, 2010 P .C. The appellant company is engaged in the business of rendering salvage services to vessels and/or properties thereon. Respondent No.1 is a registered owner of the vessel m.v. Khalijia-3 (`the vessel' for short). The appellant had rendered salvage services to the vessel and or the cargo on board of the vessel. Respondent No.2 is the Mumbai Port Trust. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 are persons, who claimed to be the owners of the cargo and/or parties interested in the cargo which was on board the vessel, when the appellant rendered salvage services to the vessel, her cargo, bunkers, stores and/or the properties on board the vessel 2. The appellant herein filed Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.956 of srk ２ app-L-557-10 2010 and obtained ad-interim orders on 13th August, 2010 under which respondent Nos.3 to 10 were restrained from removing the cargo. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge vacated the injunction when the Court was informed that the appellant had moved the arbitrator who passed an order directing the respondents to furnish security in the sum of US$ 7.000.000. The appellant produced the said order also before the learned Single Judge and prayed for its enforcement. The learned Single Judge, however, by the impugned order dated 18th August, 2010 did not continue the ad-interim order dated 13th August, 2010 on the ground that the appellant had moved the arbitrator at London without informing the court and also on the ground that since the appellant has already been granted an order by the arbitrator requiring the cargo owners to furnish security, no further orders were required to be passed for continuing the ad-interim order passed on 13th August, 2010. 3. The learned Single Judge, however, continued the ad-interim order to enable the appellant to have further recourse in accordance with law. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 18th August, 2010, the appellant moved this appeal on 18th August, 2010 and the ad-interim relief granted by the learned Judge was ordered to be continued till next date of hearing i.e. today. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the ad- interim relief granted by the learned Single Judge is not continued and the appellant is not allowed to recover the salvage charges and obtain security of the same as already ordered by the arbitrator, and if the cargo is removed by the respondents, the appellant will loose its maritime lien and will have no other recourse. srk ３ app-L-557-10 6. The learned counsel for the private respondent Nos.3 and 4 have opposed the appeal and submitted that the arbitrator has passed the order for security on the basis of an exaggerated claim made by the appellant and also on the basis of the invoice value of the cargo without taking into account the serious damage already caused to the cargo. It is submitted that the present value of the cargo will not be more than Rs.45 crores and that the appellant cannot ask for more than 25% of the said value meaning thereby maximum security which the appellant can ask for would be Rs.11.25 crores. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the security of the above will not be sufficient when the arbitrator has already required the private respondents to furnish security in the sum of US$ 7,000,000. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, we are not required to go into the merits of the controversy between the parties about the exact value of the goods and the amount of salvage charges payable by the private respondents to the appellant. In view of the urgency on the part of the private respondents in removing the goods as further damage is likely to be caused if the goods are not permitted to be removed, we partly allow the appeal and direct that upon the furnishing of security in the form of bank guarantees of any Nationalised bank, to be furnished by respondent Nos.3 to 10 for a sum of Rs.14 crores (Rupees Fourteen crores only), the appellant and the Port Trust shall permit respondent No.3 to 10 to remove the cargo salvaged from the vessel from the Port to the extent of their respective ownership. 9. `The bank guarantees shall be kept alive during pendency of the arbitration proceedings and shall abide by the outcome of the arbitral proceedings. srk ４ app-L-557-10 10. This order also shall not come in the way of the parties to apply for appropriate orders. 11. The bank guarantees for the above total sum of Rs.14 crores shall be payable by each of the cargo owners respondent Nos.3 to 10 proportionate to the quantities mentioned in Bill of Lading at Exhibits B1 to B13 of the petition. 12. It is further clarified that on the respective parties among respondent Nos.3 to 10 furnishing security in compliance with the said direction, they shall be permitted to remove their own cargo without waiting for the security to be furnished by the other cargo owners. 13. This order shall also not come in the way of the Port Trust in recovering charges from the respective cargo owners, prior to the release of the goods. 14. Liberty to apply in case of any difficulty. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.