The suit by Patanjali alleged short delivery of 5000 Metric Tonnes (MT) of RBD Palm Olein (Edible Grade), which was supposed to be delivered at Kakinada Port.
According to the plea, Patanjali received only 4930.840 MT, resulting in a shortage of 68.734 MT or 1.37%. Letters highlighting the apparent discrepancy and requesting monetary compensation, as well as a legal notice, were sent, but the Master of the vessel did not respond to any of them, it was was claimed.
Hence, Patanjali contended that they had a maritime claim falling under Section 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(f) of The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act against the vessel for which they filed the suit and prayed for arrest of the ship.
The suit by Auriga Shipping Management said that it entered into a ship management agreement with the owner of the vessel but the owner had not paid them the annual management fee in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
As a result, Auriga contended that they had a maritime claim falling under Section 4(1)(o) and 4(1)(p) of The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act. They also prayed for the arrest of the ship.
Source: Barandbench
