1. The above Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant i.e. Defendant No. 1 Vessel -- m.v. AODABAO inter alia for the following reliefs:

"(a) That this Honble Court be pleased to vacate and/or set aside the order of arrest of the 1st Defendant vessel M.V. AODABAO dated 7th March 2016;

(b) That this Honble Court be pleased to order and direct the Plaintiff to deposit in this Honble Court a sum of USD 250,000.00 as security towards the loss and damage sustained by the owners of the 1st Defendant vessel as a result of the order of arrest dated 7th March 2016."

2. The circumstances in which the Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant, are briefly set out hereunder:

2.1 The Plaintiffs Siva Bulk Limited is a Company registered in Singapore and engaged in the business of shipping. Defendant No. 1 -- m.v. AODABAO is a Vessel flying the flag of Hong Kong and currently at Port Alang, Bhavnagar District, Gujarat. Defendant No. 2 -- m.v. AO HONG MA is a Vessel which is also flying the flag of Hong Kong.

2.2 On 11th November, 2015, the Plaintiffs chartered Defendant No. 2 Vessel m.v.AO HONG MA from Cross Ocean Shipping Limited, Samoa. The Plaintiffs then gave on sub-charter the said Vessel to Al Ghurair Resources LLC, Dubai, for carrying cargo of wheat from Canada to the Persian Gulf. After loading the cargo, the said Vessel enroute to the Persian Gulf was arrested at Singapore by the Bank of Communication Co. Ltd., Hong Kong, claiming $ 13 million under first priority mortgage dated 29th July, 2011.

2.3 On 4th February, 2016, the English Solicitors of the Plaintiffs issued a notice to Cross Ocean Shipping putting the Vessel off-hire and reserving their rights in respect of all losses.

2.4 On 17th February, 2016, the English Solicitors of the Plaintiffs addressed an e-mail to Cross Ocean calling upon them to take immediate steps for release of the Vessel.

2.5 On 19th February, 2016, Al Ghurair Resources LLC, chartered another Vessel m.v. Antonie Oldendorff for transferring the cargo from Defendant No. 2 Vessel which was under arrest at Singapore.

2.6 On 22nd February, 2016, Al Ghurair Resources raised an invoice upon the Plaintiffs for US $ 379,337.20 for charter hire of the Vessel m.v. Antonie Oldendorff.

2.7 On 7th March, 2016, the Plaintiffs terminated the charter party with Cross Ocean Shipping in respect of Defendant No. 2 Vessel, as the said Vessel was under arrest and not in a position to perform the charter party.

2.8 On 7th March, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the present Suit for arrest of Defendant No. 1 Vessel claiming a sum of US $ 15,84,760 and Singapore Dollars 850,831.0. Out of this, an amount of US $ 5,00,000.00 was towards legal costs. The Plaintiffs along with the Plaint, filed and relied upon a separate compilation of documents running into 90 pages.

2.9 The Plaintiffs have alleged in the Suit that both the Vessels i.e. m.v. AODABAO (Defendant No.1) and m.v. AO HONG MA (Defendant No.2) are beneficially owned by COSCO. In support of its contention that the beneficial ownership of both the vessels is with COSCO, China, the Plaintiffs relied on the Equasis Ship Folder for Defendant Nos.1 and 2 Vessels (Pages 1 to 13 of the Plaintiffs compilation of documents). The full form of the abbreviation COSCO is shown by Equasis as China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co., in the address column of the Registered Owner of the Defendant No. 2 Vessel.

2.10 On the same day i.e. 7th March 2016, the Plaintiffs moved this Court seeking an order of arrest of Defendant No.1 Vessel. This Court, inter alia, on the basis of the Plaintiffs representation that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels are both beneficially owned by COSCO, on 7th March, 2016 passed an order of arrest of Defendant No. 1 Vessel.

2.11 The Owners of the Defendant No.1 Vessel - M/s. Aodabao Shipping (HK) Company Ltd., through their Attorneys addressed an e-mail dated 8th March, 2016 to Equasis, and inter alia recorded that the Defendant No. 1 Vessel was arrested in the Port of Alang, India on 7th March, 2016. The ground on which the said Vessel was arrested was that she was a vessel beneficially owned by COSCO. The Attorneys on behalf of the Owners of Defendant No.1 further recorded that the record stating that the beneficial owner of the ship was COSCO is wrong. They further clarified that other than that, the ships Technical Manager being COSCO Shanghai Shipmanagement Co. Ltd., she has nothing to do whatsoever with COSCO. It was further recorded that the wrong information posted by Equasis in the public domain has caused serious damage to the Owners of Defendant No.1. The Attorneys representing the Owners of the Defendant No.1 Vessel therefore called upon Equasis to immediately clarify that their record was incorrect. Since Equasis obtains the data of ships from IHS Maritime and Trade (IHS), Equasis forwarded the said letter dated 8th March 2016 to IHS. Thereafter correspondence ensued between the Attorneys representing the Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel and IHS. IHS by its e-mail dated 8th March, 2016 addressed to the Attorneys representing the Owners of Defendant No. 1 Vessel recorded that they are looking into the grievance registered by the Owners of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel, and made the following point:

Please note that we do not accept that any arrest was made on reliance of any information listed in the Equasis database. We would like to remind you of the aims and objectives of the Equasis website and refer you to the various disclaimers of Equasis and its providers. Neither Equasis nor its providers accept any liability in this matter and reserve all their rights (emphasis supplied).

2.12 Subsequently IHS by its e-mail dated 9th March, 2016, addressed to the Attorneys representing the Owners of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel, inter alia, recorded that the records of Equasis have been amended and the Beneficial Owner Field will now read as "unknown. By the said e-mail, IHS also recorded that they will continue to investigate/research the ultimate parent company before the Vessel was taken for breaking up.

2.13 After carrying out the aforesaid correspondence with IHS/Equasis, Defendant No. 1 moved the above Notice of Motion for vacating/setting aside the Order of Arrest dated 7th March, 2016.

3. The Defendant No. 1 in its Affidavit in- Support of the above Notice of Motion has annexed the following documents in support of its case that COSCO is not the Beneficial Owner of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel:

(i) Certificate issued by the Registrar of Ships, Maritime Department, Hong Kong, China (Exh. 1 pages 26 and 27 of the Notice of Motion) showing Aodabao Shipping (HK) Co., Hong Kong, as the Owner of the Defendant No.1 Vessel;

(ii) Certificate of Incorporation of Aodabao Shipping (HK) Co. Ltd. dated 10th July, 2013, issued by the Registrar of Companies, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region, (Exh. 2 page 28 of the Notice of Motion)

(iii) Documents issued by the Registrar of Companies, Hong Kong showing that 50 per cent of the Share Capital (5000 Shares) of the Company Aodabao Shipping (HK) Co. Ltd. -- Owner of Defendant No.1 Vessel, is held by Sun Xian Liang, who is also a Director of the Company and the balance 50 per cent of the Share Capital (5000 Shares) is held by Mr. Chen Dong Sheng, who is also a Director of the Company and both of whom are Chinese Nationals.

(iv) E-mails exchanged between the Chinese Attorneys of Defendant No. 1 and IHS/Equasis, to correct the Equasis Website which shows COSCO as the Beneficial Owner of the Defendant No.1 Vessel, including the response of IHS/Equasis dated 9th March, 2016, wherein Equasis has confirmed that it has amended the records to show the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No.1 Vessel as "unknown" ( Exh. 6 at page 34 of the Notice of Motion).

4. In the Affidavit in- Support of the Notice of Motion, Defendant No. 1 also pointed out that COSCO is an entity owned by the Govt. of the Republic of China, and therefore it can never be alleged, and such allegations ought not to be countenanced, that the Government of a sovereign country is indulging in fraudulent activities of setting up a sham company to defraud creditors. Such scurrilous submissions ought to be rejected at the threshold and an arrest ought not to be sustained on the basis of such a submission. Defendant No. 1 further stated in its Affidavit-in-Support of the Notice of Motion that COSCO was merged by the Chinese Government with another State owned Company China Shipping (Group) Company and the merged entity was approved by the State Council of China on 4th January, 2016 with the new entity being named as China Cosco Shipping Corporation Ltd. ( Exh. 7 page 40/41 of the Notice of Motion). Therefore, COSCO as an entity did not exist on the date of the arrest, which is 7th March, 2016, and hence could not be the Beneficial Owner in any event. The merger of these two Companies is also reported in the Economic Times on 4th January 2016 (Exh. 8 at page 42 of the Notice of Motion). It is further stated in the Affidavit-in-Support of the Notice of Motion that in fact the Lloyds List published on 10th December, 2015, provided the details of the approval of the merger plan between COSCO and China Shipping to form a new entity named China COSCO Shipping Group.

5. The Plaintiffs filed their Affidavit in- Reply to the above Notice of Motion dated 16th March, 2016. Faced with the above facts relied upon by Defendant No.1 and Equasis backing out of the information provided on its Website that the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1 is COSCO, the Plaintiffs now relied on Lloyds List Intelligence Report (Pages 18 and 28 of the Plaintiffs Affidavit-in-Reply dated 16th March, 2016) wherein the Beneficial Owner of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel was once again shown as China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company (COSCO). The Plaintiffs therefore obviously did not dispute in their reply that the abbreviation COSCO stood for China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company. The Plaintiffs also did not deny/dispute the documents pertaining to the Shareholding and Directorship of the Company Aodabao Shipping (HK) Co. Limited, the Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel. However the Plaintiffs in their Affidavit-in-Reply submitted that the Court is empowered to pierce the corporate veil and identify the true/real owner of the Defendant Vessels.

6. The Plaintiffs filed a further Affidavit dated 23rd March, 2016 and brought on record the data obtained from a mobile application known as "Findship" in support of its case that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels are beneficially owned by COSCO. The Plaintiffs have also produced the print out of a Website www.marinelike.com and have contended that the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel is COSCO Shanghai Shipmanagement Co. Ltd.

7. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed another Affidavit i.e. Affidavit- in-Sur-Rejoinder dated 31st March, 2016. In this Affidavit, the Plaintiffs tried to substantially change its stand by contending that COSCO, apart from being a well-known acronym for China Ocean Shipping Group Co., is also an acronym for Cross Ocean Shipping Company Ltd., and that this is borne out by the explanatory mail sent by Lloyds List Intelligence on 30th March, 2016. The Plaintiffs have now suggested in the Sur-Rejoinder, through the new Lloyds List Intelligence Report that Mr. Sun Xian Liang and Mr. Chen Dong Sheng are the Beneficial Owners of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels. The Plaintiffs have annexed several documents to its Sur-Rejoinder and have also avoided to clearly explain the purpose for which some of the documents were relied upon.

8. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs has submitted:

8.1 that what is stated in the Report of Equasis viz. that COSCO is the Beneficial Owner of both the Vessels i.e. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is correct, though Equasis has on its Website removed the earlier noting that COSCO is the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel, and replaced it by the word "unknown". Equasis has in its letters/e-mail dated 9th March 2016 recorded that they will continue with their research qua the ultimate parent Company of Defendant No.1;

8.2 That the Lloyds List Intelligence Reports, the Report of Equasis, the Findship Report and the Marine Like Report, show COSCO to be the Beneficial Owner of both Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is therefore not possible that all the Websites would make the same mistake of giving the same information pertaining to the Beneficial Ownership of the Defendant No.1 Vessel. In so far as Lloyds List Intelligence Vessel Reports are concerned, the Commercial Documents Evidence Act, 1939 states that this Court shall presume the genuineness of various documents issued by Lloyds. Further, this Court (Coram: K.R. Shriram, J.) in the case of MSC Clementina has in its Order dated 24th March, 2016, relied on the Lloyds List Intelligence Reports while upholding orders of arrest. In pargraph 42 of the said Order, the Learned Judge observed, "It is alleged by the Plaintiffs that Lloyds List Directories search indicates that the Defendant No. 1 vessel was part of the fleet of Defendant No.2...."

8.3 That COSCO, apart from being a well-known acronym for China Ocean Shipping Group is also an acronym for Cross Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd., which fact is borne out by the explanatory mail sent by Lloyds List Intelligence on 30th March, 2016.

8.4 That Lloyds List Intelligence by its e-mail dated 30th March, 2016 has stood by its initial report implicating Cross Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd.

8.5 That the Defendant No.1s Advocate sought to give an impression before this Court that the first Defendant is unaware of who Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. is. However, the same is belied by the Charter Party dated 18th July, 2015, in respect of the first Defendant Vessel where Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. is described as the head-owner of Defendant No.1. The first Defendants initial act before this Court of having nothing to do with the offending vessel/Cross Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. was thus deliberately misleading;

8.6 The first Defendants attempts to distance itself from COSCO was an obvious strategy. For three years, they allowed its Vessel to be described in all major Shipping Intelligence Websites as being owned by COSCO and reap the benefits of such description. In February, 2016, when they had defaulted on bank loans and on the Charter Party with the Plaintiffs relating to the Second Defendant Vessel, it attempted to insulate their only available unencumbered asset being the First Defendant Vessel, and sell the First Defendant Vessel for breaking, by entering into an alleged MoU dated 5th February, 2016.

8.7 That the dishonest attempt on the First Defendants part to distance itself from COSCO is evident from the contradictions in its Affidavit. On page 22, para 13 of the Affidavit-in- Support-of- Notice of Motion, the First Defendant categorically states, "The Owners of the 1st Defendant vessel have no connection whatsoever with ...COSCO.." On page 38 of the same Affidavit (Exhibit-8), in an email dated 8th March 2016 to Equasis, the 1st Defendants Lawyers state, "..other than that the ships technical manager is COSCO Shanghai Shipmanagement Co. Ltd. she has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with COSCO."

8.8 That the allegations of Beneficial Ownership, sham company, fraudulent conduct etc. have all been pleaded in paragraph 2A of the Plaint. With the benefit of trial and a scrutiny of the evidence, this Honble Court will certainly conclude that the 1st Defendant Vessel is liable for the Plaintiffs claim.

8.9 That the 1st Defendant continues to withhold evidence from this Court for which an adverse inference must be drawn. 11 documents were sought for by the Plaintiffs Advocate on 9th March 2016 on page 29 of the Plaintiffs Affidavit-in-Reply dated 16th March 2016 (Exhibit-9). The 1st Defendant has refused to provide most of these documents. These documents will shed light on the true state of affairs. No prejudice will be caused to the 1st Defendant if it is called upon to disclose the same -- the hesitation on its part to do so is suspect.

8.10 That in the case of MSC Clementina, the learned Single Judge (Coram: K.R. Shriram, J.), had ordered such disclosure. The disclosure has been stayed by the learned Division Bench. This, however, seems to be an unreasoned and interim measure granted and continued by consent.

8.11 The fact that the reports may be accompanied by standard formal disclaimers, does not take away their accuracy. The reports have been accurate in their reporting of otherwise confidential information, like the date of purchase of vessel. There is no reason to, at the threshold and without further investigation, dismiss their stand that COSCO is the Beneficial Owner of the Vessel especially when all of them have independently arrived at the same conclusion.

8.12 That it cannot be conclusively stated at this stage, that the First Defendant Vessel is not owned by COSCO. The issues raised are triable and it is submitted that even if this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs case is weak, it ought to uphold the arrest as long as the Plaintiffs case is not an impossible one. The reports relied upon by the Plaintiffs in their evidence, bear out that the Plaintiffs have an arguable case. The submission of the Plaintiffs is fortified by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in VSNL vs. m.v. Kapitan Kud (1996) 7 SCC 127 [LQ/SC/1995/1108] ).

9. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant No. 1 Vessel has made the following submissions:

9.1 That from the documents relied upon by the Defendant No.1 and set out hereinabove, it is apparent that COSCO is not the Beneficial Owner of the first Defendant Vessel. The Owner is Aodabao Shipping HK Co. Ltd., whose Shareholders are Sun Xian Liang and Chen Dong Sheng. There is no beneficial owner. Thus Defendant No. 1 has produced direct primary evidence with regard to the ownership of the first Defendant Vessel and the Shareholders of the Registered Owner of the first Defendant Vessel. None of this is disputed by the Plaintiffs.

9.2 That the Equasis Report cannot be relied upon in any event. In fact the Equasis Report itself states that they do not rule out any inadvertent omissions or inaccuracies and are not responsible for the data displayed on the website. Thus, this document has no evidentiary value in light of the direct authentic evidence of ownership and shareholding details produced by Defendant No.1, and not disputed by the Plaintiffs in their Affidavit-in-Reply. In any event, Equasis have themselves corrected their data and removed COSCO as the Beneficial Owner upon Defendant No. 1 pointing out to Equasis the error committed by them.

9.3 That Lloyds List Intelligence categorically states in its "terms and conditions of website use" under the heading "accessing our site" that, "you must not rely on the information on the site and you acknowledge that you must take appropriate steps to verify the information before acting upon it".

9.4 That the Lloyds List Intelligence Report relied upon by the Plaintiffs in their Affidavit-in-Reply indicates that the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1 was COSCO before 12th November, 2013. That the first Defendant Vessel was purchased by its present owners on 12th November, 2013 from its previous owner Purva Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S. who are a Turkish Company and the previous name of the Vessel was PRUVA. Hence after 12th November, 2013, Aodabao Shipping (HK) Co. Ltd. became the Owners of the first Defendant Vessel.

9.5 That there can be no question of relying on information obtained by the Plaintiffs from websites which is demonstrably incorrect and unreliable. In fact, the documents produced by the Plaintiffs at Exhibit-C of their further Affidavit dated 23rd March, 2016, shows that the Owner of the Vessel is COSCO Shanghai Ship Management. This can never be correct because this is not only contradictory to the Plaintiffs own case that COSCO is the Beneficial Owner (and not COSCO Shanghai Ship Management Ltd.), but also because COSCO Shanghai Ship Management themselves arrested Defendant No. 1 Vessel in Admiralty Suit (L) No. 138 of 2016 filed in this Court on 4th March, 2016, and the claim was settled on 7th March, 2016. An owner would not arrest its own ship as sought to be suggested by the Plaintiffs by reference to Exhibit-C of their further Affidavit dated 23rd March, 2016. The document at Exhibit-B of the Plaintiffs further Affidavit is also incorrect and there is no authenticity to the document which is printed on plain paper.

9.6 That the information obtained from websites ought not to be accepted unless there is some independent corroborative material especially when the source of information is not disclosed. Reliance on such unverified information for the purpose of obtaining an arrest of a ship can lead to disastrous consequences for an innocent ship-owner as can be seen in the instant case.

9.7 That a Division Bench of this Court in the case of LuFend Shipping Co. Ltd. vs. M.V.Rainbow Ace (AIR 2013 Bombay 1412)has rejected the submission that the concept of beneficial ownership by itself implied the concept of lifting the corporate veil. In any event, the corporate veil of the Owners of Defendant No. 1 cannot be lifted because the maritime claim is against Defendant No. 2, and no documents have been produced by the Plaintiffs to show who are the shareholders of the Owners of Defendant No.2. Defendant No. 1 has stated that the Shareholders of the Owner of Defendant No. 1 are not the Shareholders of the Owners of Defendant No. 2 (Para 15 page 24 of the Affidavit-in-Support). This is not denied by the Plaintiffs in their Affidavit-in-Reply. In para 19 of the said decision, the Division Bench has noted, "A prima facie case cannot be made merely on suspicion. The arrest of a vessel on the basis of suspicion certainly causes more injury to a third party than the Plaintiff. Thus, the balance of convenience would be against the arrest of the vessel".

9.8 That the party liable in personam in respect of the Plaintiffs claim is Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd., who chartered the Defendant No. 2 Vessel to the Plaintiffs under a Charter Party dated 11th November, 2015. Consequently the Plaintiffs are required to prove their claim and obtain a decree against Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. However, Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd., the party liable in personam has not even been joined in the present Suit and the Plaintiffs can never obtain a decree in the present Suit in respect of its claim, and is therefore not entitled to any security.

9.9 That the Plaintiffs have made false and misleading statements in the Plaint as set out in the Written Submissions dated 31st March,2016.

9.10 That the judgment of this Court in MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company vs. m.v. MSC Clementina (supra) is misplaced. In that case the vessel MSC Chitra which caused the oil pollution was on demise charter to MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company. Hence the party liable in personam was the demise charterer MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company. The vessel MSC Clementina which was arrested was also on demise charter to MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company. Security had been furnished by the demise charterer MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company. In these circumstances, the court declined to return the security, as the security had been furnished by the demise charterer who admittedly was liable in respect of the claim.

9.11 That the judgment in the case of VSNL vs. MC Kapitan Kud (supra) does not assist the Plaintiffs.

9.12 That the Commercial Documents Evidence Act,1939 is not applicable to the Lloyds List Intelligence Report produced by the Plaintiffs.

9.13 That Defendant No. 1 was sold to buyers at Alang for demolition by a Memorandum of Agreement dated 5th February, 2016. Under the Agreement the Vessel was to be delivered to the buyers on or before 15th March,2016. In view of the order of arrest dated 7th March,2016 the Vessel could not be delivered to the buyer. Consequently, the Owners of Defendant No. 1 Vessel were forced to renegotiate the price of the Vessel and a new price was agreed by Addendum dated 15th March, 2016. The reduced price was US $ 2,001,315.20 as against the original sale price of US $ 2,180,805.00 as set out in Clause 1 of the MoA (Exh.C at page 14 of the Affidavitin-Rejoinder). Thus the direct consequence of the arrest of the first Defendant Vessel was a loss of US $ 179,489.80 to the Owners of Defendant No.1 vessel. In addition standing costs of keeping the Vessel under arrest of atleast US $ 5000.00 per day towards crew wages, bunkers, port charges, agency fees, insurance etc. are being incurred from the date of the arrest. This is a direct loss suffered by Defendant No. 1 as a result of the arrest and it is submitted that the Plaintiffs be directed to deposit an amount of USD $ 2,50,000.00 in this Court as prayed for in the Notice of Motion.

9.14 That it is apparent from the Plaintiffs Affidavit-in-Sur-Rejoinder dated 31st March, 2016, which was filed after the Counsel for Defendant No. 1 had completed his submissions in rejoinder on 30th March, 2016, that the Plaintiffs are attempting to confuse and mislead this Court by producing a plethora of documents which are picked up from websites and which contain information that is neither genuine nor authentic and calculated to mislead the Court.

9.15 That the first Defendant can demonstrate from the Plaintiffs own documents produced along with their Sur-Rejoinder that neither COSCO is the Beneficial Owner of the first Defendant Vessel which is their pleaded case in the Plaint, and on the basis of which they have obtained an order of arrest, nor are Mr. Sun Xian Liang and Mr. Chen Dong Sheng the Beneficial Owners of the second Defendant Vessel m.v. AO HONG MA as the Plaintiffs now seek to allege in a completely new case in the Sur-Rejoinder.

9.16 That the Plaintiffs in its Sur-Rejoinder stated on oath that COSCO referred to in various Intelligence Reports is Cross Ocean Shipping and not China Ocean Shipping Group Company. This is false to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs who claims to be one of the worlds leading dry bulk shipping Companies; (Paragraph 11 of the Plaintiffs Affidavit-in-Reply dated 16th March, 2016).

9.17 That the Plaintiffs have stated in the Plaint that COSCO is the Beneficial Owner of the first Defendant Vessel and also of the second Defendant Vessel. The Plaintiffs now suggest in their Sur-Rejoinder by reference to new Lloyds Intelligence Report that Mr. Sun Xian Liang and Mr. Chen Dong Sheng are the Beneficial Owners of the aforesaid two Vessels. Not only is this a new case, but is completely contrary to their original pleadings in the Plaint, and on which short point alone, the order of arrest ought to be vacated, as the Plaintiffs now accept that COSCO is not the Beneficial Owner of the two Vessels.

9.18 That the Plaintiffs new case that Mr. Sun Xian Liang and Mr. Chen Dong Sheng are the Beneficial Owners of the two ships, is also incorrect, as is clear from the Plaintiffs own documents produced along with their Affidavit-in-Sur-Rejoinder.

9.19 That in view of the Plaintiffs having relied on the e-mail dated 30th March, 2016 addressed by Lloyds List Intelligence to the Plaintiffs Solicitor/s P & I Club, the ultimate Beneficial Owner of the second Defendant Vessel is Mr. Guo Bin. Thus the Plaintiffs own document demonstrates that Mr. Sun Xian Liang and Mr. Chen Dong Sheng are not the Beneficial Owners of the second Defendant Vessel.

9.20 Further attempts are being made by the Plaintiffs to deliberately mislead this Court by producing documents without even explaining what these documents are, so as to protect themselves from any charge of making a false Affidavit and committing contempt of Court.

9.21 Exhibit-H at page 15 of the Sur-Rejoinder is a sub- charter from Cross Ocean Shipping to Visa Chartering. The Vessel AODABAO was on charter to Cross Ocean Shipping from the owners since 2013, and this was conveyed by the Chinese Attorneys of Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiffs Advocate as far back as 8 March 2016 by e-mail dated 8th March 2016, which is at page 30 of the Affidavit in Reply of the Plaintiffs. Even the Lloyds List Intelligence Report at Exhibit-D of the Sur-Rejoinder states that Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. is a third party operator which includes charterers.

9.22 It was finally submitted that the Notice of Motion be therefore allowed.

10. I have gone through and considered the contents of the Plaint, the Affidavits filed by the Parties along with its Annexures, the Compilation of Documents tendered in Court and the submissions made by the Learned Advocates appearing for the Parties.

11. The Plaintiffs state that they have a maritime claim. This arises out of claim against Defendant No.2 Vessel. The Plaintiffs have alleged in the Suit that both the Vessels i.e. m.v. AODABAO Defendant No. 1 and m.v. AO HONG MA -- Defendant No. 2 are beneficially owned by COSCO. As set out hereinabove, in support of its contention that the beneficial ownership of both the Vessels is COSCO, China, the Plaintiffs have in the Plaint relied only on the Equasis ship-folder for Defendant Nos.1 and 2 Vessels (Pages 1 to 13 of the Plaintiffs Compilation of Documents). Though the Plaintiffs have in the Plaint nowhere stated the full form of the abbreviation COSCO, the same is shown by Equasis as China Ocean Shipping (Group) Co. in the address column of the Registered Owner of the Defendant No. 2 Vessel, which document is submitted along with the Plaint by the Plaintiffs and relied upon by them.

12. On the basis of the representation made in the Plaint by the Plaintiffs that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels are both beneficially owned by COSCO, this Court passed an order of arrest of Defendant No. 1 Vessel dated 7th March, 2016. Immediately thereafter i.e. on 8th March, 2016, the Owners of the Defendant No.1 Vessel M/s. Aodabao Shipping (HK) Company Ltd. through their Attorneys immediately addressed a letter to Equasis and inter alia recorded that the Defendant No. 1 Vessel was arrested in the Port of Alang, India on 7th March, 2016 on the ground that she was a vessel beneficially owned by COSCO. The information posted by Equasis in the public domain that Defendant No. 1 Vessel is beneficially owned by COSCO is incorrect and has caused serious damage to the Owners of COSCO. They further clarified that other than that the Ships Technical Manager being COSCO Shanghai Shipmanagement Co. Ltd., she has nothing whatsoever to do with COSCO.

13. Since Equasis obtains the data of ships from IHS Maritime and Trade (IHS), Equasis forwarded the said letter dated 8th March 2016 to IHS. However, Equasis/IHS neither disclosed the source of their information regarding Defendant No. 1 Vessel being beneficially owned by COSCO, nor did they contend that the information given by Equasis/IHS was correct. It is therefore obvious that Equasis/IHS had no material in support of the information/data displayed on its website pertaining to the beneficial ownership of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel. Instead, Equasis relied on its various disclaimers set out in its Report itself, namely that they do not rule out any inadvertent omissions or inaccuracies, and are not responsible for the data displayed on the website, and stated that neither Equasis nor its providers accept any liability in the matter. In any event, Equasis went ahead and amended its records by deleting its earlier information that the Beneficial Ownership of Defendant No. 1 Vessel was with COSCO and replacing the same by showing the Beneficial Ownership of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel as unknown. As a face saving measure, IHS/Equasis also recorded that they will continue to investigate /research the ultimate parent company before the first Defendant Vessel was taken for breaking up. However, as expected, until the above matter was reserved for orders on 12th April, 2016, Equasis has not reverted with any information to the Owners of Defendant No.1.

14. Armed with the above material and also with the Certificate issued by the Registrar of Ships, Maritime Department, Hong Kong, China, showing Aodabao Shipping (HK) Company as the Owner of the Defendant No.1 Vessel, the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies, Hong Kong showing that Aodabao Shipping (HK) Company was incorporated on 10th July 2013; and the Certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies, Hong Kong showing that 50 per cent of the Share Capital of the Company Aodabao Shipping (HK) Co. Ltd. Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel is held by Sun Xian Liang, and the balance 50 per cent of the Share Capital is held by Chen Dong Shen, who are both Directors of Aodabao Shipping (HK) Company and Chinese Nationals, Defendant No. 1 filed the above Notice of Motion inter alia seeking an order vacating and/or setting aside the order of arrest of the first Defendant Vessel dated 7th March, 2016. As already mentioned hereinabove, Defendant No. 1 in its Affidavit-in-Support of the Notice of Motion, also pointed out that COSCO is an entity owned by the Govt. of the Republic of China and therefore it can never be alleged that the Government of a sovereign country is indulging in fraudulent activities of setting up a sham company to defraud creditors. It was also pointed out that COSCO was merged by the Chinese Government with another state-owned Company China Shipping ( Group) Company and the merged entity was approved by the State Council of China on 4th January, 2016, with the new entity being named as China Cosco Shipping Corporation Ltd. (Exh. 7 page 40/41 of the Notice of Motion). Therefore, COSCO as an entity did not exist on the date of the arrest which is 7th March, 2016 and hence could not be the Beneficial Owner in any event.

15. Faced with the above facts, and more particularly the fact that Equasis withdrew the data earlier displayed by it to the effect that the Defendant No. 1 is beneficially owned by COSCO, the Plaintiffs now relied on Lloyds List Intelligence Report (Pages 18 and 28 of the Plaintiffs Affidavit-in-Reply dated 16th March, 2016) wherein the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel is once again shown as China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company (COSCO). The Plaintiffs therefore did not dispute in its reply that the abbreviation COSCO meant -- China Ocean Shipping (Group) Company or that COSCO was merged by the Chinese Government with another Chinese state-owned company China Shipping (Group) Company, and the merged entity was approved by the State Council of China on 4th January, 2016, and on the date of arrest COSCO as an entity did not exist. The Plaintiffs also did not deny/dispute the documents pertaining to the Shareholding and Directorship of the Company Aodabao Shipping (K) Co. Ltd., the Owner of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel. Instead, the Plaintiffs submitted in its Affidavit-in-Reply that this Court is empowered to pierce the corporate veil and identify the true/real owner of the Defendant Vessels.

16. On 23rd March, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an Affidavit and brought on record the data obtained from a mobile application known as "Findship" (Exh. B of the Affidavit) in support of its case that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels are beneficially owned by COSCO. The Plaintiffs also produced the print-out of a website www.marinelike.com (Exh. C of the Affidavit) and have contended that the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel is COSCO Shanghai Shipmanagement Co. Ltd. Therefore, on the Plaintiffs own showing there was a contradiction qua the beneficial owner of Defendant No.1 i.e. the Lloyds List Intelligence Report and the mobile application known as Findship having imparted information that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels are beneficially owned by COSCO and the website www.marinelike.com showing COSCO Shanghai Shipmanagement Company Ltd. as the beneficial owner of the Defendant No. 1 Vessel. Again, as submitted by Defendant No.1, this cannot be correct since COSCO Shanghai Ship Management themselves had arrested Defendant No. 1 Vessel in Admiralty Suit (L) No. 138 of 2016 filed in this Court on 4th March, 2016, and the claim was settled on 7th March, 2016. It is incredulous to believe that an owner would arrest its own ship as is sought to be suggested by the Plaintiffs by reference to Exhibit-C of their further Affidavit dated 23rd March, 2016. The authenticity of the document at Exhibit-B of the Plaintiffs further Affidavit is also doubtful since the said document is printed on plain paper.

17. The Defendant No. 1 has pointed out in its Affidavit-in- Reply that COSCO is an entity owned by the Government of the Republic of China, and that it can never be alleged that the Government of a sovereign country is indulging in fraudulent activities of setting up a sham Company to defraud creditors. Moreover, Defendant No. 1 has also pointed out that COSCO was already merged by the Chinese Government with another state-owned Company China Shipping (Group) Company, and the merged entity was approved by the State Council of China on 4th January, 2016 with the new entity being named as China Cosco Shipping Corporation Ltd. ( Exh. 7 page 40/41 of the Notice of Motion). Therefore COSCO as an entity did not exist on the date of the arrest, which is 7th March, 2016, and hence in any event could not be the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiffs now filed another Affidavit i.e. Affidavit-in-Sur-Rejoinder dated 31st March, 2016. As set out hereinabove, in this Affidavit, the Plaintiffs tried to substantially change its stand by contending that COSCO, apart from being a well-known acronym for China Ocean Shipping Group Co., is also an acronym for Cross Ocean Shipping Company Ltd. and that this is borne out by the explanatory mail sent by Lloyds List Intelligence on 30th March, 2016. The Plaintiffs have now suggested in the Sur-Rejoinder through the new Lloyds List Intelligence Report that Mr. Sun Xian Liang and Mr. Chen Dong Sheng are the Beneficial Owners of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels.

18. The Plaintiffs contention that Defendant No. 1 for three years allowed its Ship to be described in all major Shipping Intelligence websites as being owned by COSCO and reaped the benefits of such description has no merit whatsoever. Defendant No. 1 cannot be expected to answer why various websites have chosen to describe COSCO as the beneficial owner. What matters is the correctness of the information displayed on the websites. If the information is unreliable or doubtful, the Court cannot be expected to give credence to it merely because Defendant No.1 did not object to the wrongful portrayal of COSCO as the beneficial owner, even assuming they were aware of it. In any event, but for a bald allegation, there is nothing on record to show that the information was displayed on all major Shipping Intelligence websites with the authority or approval of Defendant No.1.

19. Therefore, to sum up, the Plaintiffs first relied on the Equasis Report and stated in the Plaint that COSCO is the beneficial owner of the first Defendant Vessel and also of the second Defendant Vessel. The Equasis Report gave the full form of COSCO as China Ocean Shipping Group Co. Equasis thereafter backed out of the information earlier displayed by it on its website qua the beneficial ownership of the Defendant No. 1 vessel and replaced COSCO by unknown. The Plaintiffs thereafter relied on Lloyds List Intelligence Report and a mobile application known as Findship in support of its case that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels are beneficially owned by COSCO. The Lloyds List Intelligence Report showed the full form of the abbreviation COSCO as China Ocean Shipping Group Co. The Lloyds List Intelligence Report also categorically states in its "terms and conditions of website use" under the heading "accessing our site" that, "you must not rely on the information on the site and you acknowledge that you must take appropriate steps to verify the information before acting upon it". Interestingly the Plaintiffs simultaneously also relied on the print out from a website www.marinelike.co showing COSCO Shanghai Shipmanagement Co. Ltd. as the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No.1 Vessel thereby contradicting the Plaintiffs own case that the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel is COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Group Co.). The Plaintiffs in their Sur-Rejoinder now refer to an e-mail dated 30th March, 2016 by Lloyds List Intelligence Report which suggests COSCO to be Cross Ocean Shipping Company Ltd., which earlier according to the Lloyds List Intelligence Report was China Ocean Shipping Group Co. The Plaintiffs now suggest in their Sur-Rejoinder by reference to new Lloyds Intelligence Report that Mr. Sun Xian Liang and Mr. Chen Dong Sheng are the Beneficial Owners of the aforesaid two Vessels. Therefore the Plaintiffs who were even earlier not consistent qua the beneficial ownership of Defendant No. 1 Vessel have now come up with a new case which is completely contrary to their original pleadings in the Plaint on the basis of which they sought the arrest of the Defendant No.1 Vessel. It is one thing to rely upon additional material later in point of time to bolster the case pleaded but it is quite another thing to change the case originally pleaded in the plaint. Again, interestingly the Plaintiffs have relied on the e-mail dated 30th March, 2016 addressed by Lloyds List Intelligence to the Plaintiffs P & I Club Solicitors stating that, Both Cross Ocean Shipping Company Ltd. and Cross Ocean Shipping (Holding) Company are believed to be owned by Mr. Guo Bin. Therefore, according to the Plaintiffs themselves, Mr. Guo Bin is the Owner of Cross Ocean Shipping (Holding) Ltd. who is the Owner of AO HONG MA Shipping Company Ltd. which in turn owns the second Defendant Vessel AO HONG MA. Consequently, the ultimate Beneficial Owner of the second Defendant Vessel is Mr. Guo Bin. Thus the Plaintiffs own documents also demonstrate that Mr. Sun Xian Liang and Mr. Chen Dong Sheng are not the Beneficial Owners of the second Defendant Vessel.

20. It is therefore clear that the Plaintiffs have relied on unreliable documents which are inconsistent. The Plaintiffs have also taken different stands in different affidavits which belies and contradicts the Plaintiffs case as pleaded in the Plaint that COSCO is the Beneficial Owner of the first Defendant Vessel and also of the second Defendant Vessel. The Defendant No. 1 has correctly submitted that the Plaintiffs have relied on information obtained from websites which are now found to be demonstrably incorrect and unworthy of credence. They ought not to be allowed to rely on the same unless such websites disclose the source of their information and confirm that it is correct. I am also in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the Defendant No.1 that reliance on such unverified information for the purpose of obtaining the arrest of a ship can lead to disastrous consequences.

21. The Plaintiffs have submitted that so far as Lloyds List Intelligence Vessel Reports are concerned, the Commercial Documents Evidence Act, 1939 states that this Court shall presume the genuineness of various documents issued by Lloyds. As correctly submitted on behalf of Defendant No.1, the Commercial Documents Evidence Act, 1939 refers to Lloyds Register of Shipping in Part I of the Schedule. The Lloyds List Intelligence Report produced by the Plaintiffs is not the Lloyds Register of Shipping. The submission that the Lloyds List Intelligence Report is the Lloyds Register of Shipping is incorrect. The Lloyds Register of Shipping is a Register that is maintained by Lloyds, London, wherein the name of the registered owner of the ship and the technical specifications of the ship are listed and updated from time to time. Even the Lloyds Register of Shipping may not be infallible but it is a useful source to ascertain the identity of the owners of a ship. In my view, the Plaintiffs cannot draw any support from the following statement found in the order dated 24th March, 2016, passed by Justice K.R. Shriram in MSC Clementina that, "It is alleged by the Plaintiffs that Lloyds List Directories search indicates that the Defendant No. 1 vessel was part of the fleet of Defendant No.2....".

22. The Plaintiffs were unable to contradict the documents produced by the Defendant No.1 referred to in paragraph 3 above. In light of this the documents relied upon by the Plaintiffs cannot have much evidentiary value especially since they are based on research carried out by third party agencies with various disclaimers issued vis a vis the reliability of the information supplied by them. Such material cannot have more credibility than the documents produced by Defendant No.1 referred to in paragraph 3 above. Therefore in my view when a Plaintiff seeks arrest, based on reports available on websites to prove the beneficial ownership of a vessel; depending on the facts of the case and the nature of evidence produced, the Court may in its discretion pass an order for a limited period to enable the owner of the vessel to approach the Court with material to prove to the contrary.

23. The Plaintiffs have in their Affidavit-in-Reply to the Notice of Motion submitted that this Court is empowered to pierce the corporate veil and identify the true/real owner of the Defendant Vessels. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of LuFeng Shipping Co. Ltd. vs. M.V. Rainbow Ace (supra) rejected the submission that, the concept of ascertaining the beneficial ownership by itself implied the concept of lifting the corporate veil. In para 19 of the said decision, the Division Bench has inter alia observed as under:

"The appellant had also submitted that while considering the application for vacation of said arrest of the vessel, the Court is required to consider not only the prima facie case but balance of convenience and irreparable injury involved in the matter. The above proposition is indisputable. However, a prima facie case cannot be built merely on suspicion. The arrest of the vessel on the basis of the suspicion raised certainly causes more injury to a third party than the Plaintiff. Thus, the balance of convenience would be against the arrest of the vessel. In the case of Aventicum 1978 Vol. I LLOYDs Law Reports 184 Queens Bench Division (Admiralty Court) has held that onus is upon the Plaintiff to show that the person against whom it is sought to invoke Admiralty Jurisdiction is the person who beneficially owns both the vessel in respect of which maritime claim has arisen as well as the vessel which is sought to be arrested. The Court found that there were a number of factors to indicate that there is very close connection between two companies such as common address etc. yet the Court on the basis of the evidence before it held that there was no positive evidence produced by the Plaintiff which could establish the beneficial ownership of the vessel sought to be arrested is in the same person as in respect of the vessel in which maritime claim arose. The appellant has not been able to establish that even prima facie that respondent No. 2 vessel is in the beneficial ownership of Wang Wendong. In the circumstances the impugned order has to be upheld".

In any event, as correctly submitted on behalf of Defendant No.1, the corporate veil of the owners of Defendant No. 1 cannot be lifted because the maritime claim is against Defendant No. 2, and except taking different stands at different times no documents have been produced by the Plaintiffs to show as to who are the shareholders of the owners of Defendant No.2. It is settled law that shareholders have no right in the property of the Company. A shareholder who buys shares in a Company does not buy any interest in the Company which is an independent juristic person. Defendant No. 1 has stated that the shareholders of the owner of Defendant No. 1 are not shareholders of the owners of Defendant No. 2. The corporate veil cannot be lifted unless a compelling case is made out by the Plaintiffs, since the doctrine stands as an exception to the principle that a company is a legal entity separate and distinct from its shareholders. This doctrine should be applied in a restrictive manner and only in scenarios wherein it is evident that the Company was a mere camouflage or sham deliberately created by persons exercising control over the Companies to evade liability. Merely because the Directors and Shareholders of two companies are common, it does not make them one and the same. The application would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and should be used sparingly only in appropriate cases where the circumstances and facts so warrant. The facts and circumstances of the present case do not warrant the exercise of piercing the corporate veil, as the Plaintiffs have relied upon contradictory and unreliable evidence, and have failed to satisfy the test of piercing the corporate veil. It is also pertinent to note that the Plaintiffs have not made COSCO (the party who it claims to be Beneficial Owner of both Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 Vessels) a party to the Suit. COSCO being a necessary and/or proper party to the Suit ought to have been impleaded by the Plaintiff. It is no answer to say that since Defendant No.2 has been made a party to the Suit it is unnecessary to join COSCO as party Defendant to the Suit. Defendant No. 2 is a Vessel and has not been arrested by this Court. Defendant No. 2 is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. At best it could be said that the Plaintiffs action against Defendant No. 2 is an action in rem. An action in rem becomes an action in personam when the owner enters appearance in the proceedings to defend the vessel. Since Defendant No. 2 vessel was/is not within the territorial waters of India and has not been arrested, nobody has come forward to enter appearance on its behalf. In these circumstances it was necessary for the Plaintiffs to make COSCO a party to the Suit. The Plaintiffs at their own peril took no steps to implead COSCO despite Defendant No. 1 squarely raising the said objection.

24. The submission made on behalf of Defendant No.1 that the Plaintiffs have produced documents without even explaining what these documents are, so as to protect themselves from any charge of making a false affidavit, is in my view correct. For example, the Plaintiffs have produced documents at Exhibit-J to the Sur-Rejoinder, and in oral submissions stated that on page 28, against the Vessel m.v. Aodabao, the name of Cross Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd. is shown as the owner. This is incorrect. The last column on each page shows the name of the party to whom the vessel mentioned in the first column has been chartered, and the third column refers to the date of the charter party. This will be evident from page 30 where the first Defendant Vessel Aodabao is mentioned, and against which the name Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. appear the words 4 to 7 months period written below, which show that the vessel was chartered to Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. for 4 to 7 months period which is a time charter. Next to the word Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. it is stated via Hanson Broker Company Ltd. This is the name of the broker through whom the charter party was negotiated (Page 11 Exhibit-4). That the last column refers to the charterer and not the owner can be further demonstrated by taking an example of the ship m.v. OCEAN CRYSTAL on top of page 28 against which the name Samsara Shipping Co. Ltd. is shown. Samsara Shipping Ltd. is an Indian Company and is not the owner of the vessel m.v. OCEAN CRYSTAL. Samsara Shipping Ltd. have chartered the vessel m.v. OCEAN CRYSTAL through Clarksons who are a leading firm of ship-brokers in London (Page 12 Exh.5). Thus in the last column appearing on each page the name of the Charterer is mentioned, and not the owner of the ship. This is why the Plaintiffs have not explained the document in their Affidavit, as it would have amounted to knowingly making a false statement and misleading the Court.

25. Exhibit-H at page 15 of the Sur-Rejoinder refers to a sub-charter of the first Defendant Vessel. The words on top of the page at the beginning of the message state, Below clean fix recap for such fixture. A sub fixture is a sub-charter (Page 13 Exh. 6). This is a sub-charter from Cross Ocean Shipping to Visa Chartering. The Vessel Aodabao was on charter to Cross Ocean Shipping from the owners since 2013 and this was conveyed by the Chinese Attorneys of Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiffs Advocate as far back as 8th March, 2016 by email dated 8th March, 2016, which is at page 30 of the Affidavit-in-Reply of the Plaintiffs. Even the Lloyds List Intelligence Report at Exhibit-D of the Sur-Rejoinder states that Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. is a third party operator which includes charterers. In view of what is stated hereinabove, there is no credible evidence to even prima facie establish that Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. is the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No.1. The reference by the Plaintiffs to the charter party dated 18th July, 2015 where Cross Ocean Shipping Ltd. is described as head owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel does not make Cross Ocean Shipping, the owner of Defendant No. 2 Vessel. Had Cross Ocean Shipping been the owner of both Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 Vessels, the Plaintiffs would have sought arrest on the basis of arrest of "sister ship", rather than arrest on the basis of "beneficial ownership". Both are separate and distinct concepts recognised by law. A beneficial owner is one who owns all the shares in the ship. No evidence has been furnished to even remotely establish that COSCO, whether it is China Ocean Shipping Group Company or Cross Ocean is the beneficial owner of both Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels.

26. I am therefore of the view that the Plaintiffs have miserably failed in establishing, even prima facie, that the Beneficial Owner of Defendant No. 1 Vessel and the Defendant No. 2 Vessel is COSCO. As against this, the Defendant No. 1 has produced direct primary evidence in regard to the ownership of the first Defendant Vessel and the shareholders of the registered owner of the first Defendant Vessel. The Judgment in the case of VSNL vs. MV Kapitan Kud (supra) does not assist the Plaintiffs who have miserably failed to rely upon any credible material to establish that the Defendant No.1 Vessel is beneficially owned by COSCO. The test laid down in the VSNL vs. M.V. Kapitan Kud (supra) case cannot be stretched by the Plaintiffs to the point of absurdity. In my view the material relied upon by the Plaintiffs does not even satisfy the test as set out in the said case. The Plaintiffs having failed to make out even a prima facie case to discharge the initial burden of proof that the Beneficial Owner of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Vessels is COSCO, cannot be heard to state/argue that the Defendant No. 1 Vessel should provide disclosures as sought by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs cannot ask the Defendant No. 1 to prove their allegation/case without making out even a prima facie case as alleged by them in the Plaint. The Plaintiffs who have failed to even prima facie establish their case on the strength of which they have approached this Court and obtained an ex-parte order of arrest, cannot be allowed to press for confirmation of the same only by raising a pointer to the pleadings of the Defendant No. 1 or to their conduct. It is settled law that the Plaintiff who approaches the Court should succeed on the strength of its own case rather than the weakness of the Defendants case. The Plaintiffs have failed to discharge the initial burden of proof that was upon it. The Plaintiffs cannot on the basis of the material produced by it (which is doubtful), require Defendant No. 1 to furnish security for the Plaintiffs claim in the Suit. The Court cannot also maintain the arrest of the vessel on the basis of surmise, bald allegation, conflicting evidence which compound the confusion. It would be vexatious and oppressive and an abuse of the process of the Court to maintain the arrest of Defendant No.1. No equity minded Court would countenance continuation of the order of arrest for a single day more in the facts and circumstances of the case. The order of arrest of Defendant No. 1 Vessel was thus wrongfully obtained. In my view the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the test for maintaining the order of arrest. The balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in favour of Defendant No.1. In view thereof, the order of arrest dated 7th March, 2016 is vacated unconditionally. As far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, the Defendant No. 1 has alleged that the loss caused to the Defendant No. 1 till the date of the filing of the Notice of Motion, is US $ 250,000.00. The Defendant No. 1 is granted liberty to take out a fresh Motion seeking the loss caused to it till date, which shall be decided on its own merits. The Notice of Motion is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed off. The Plaintiffs to pay costs of the Notice of Motion to the Defendant No.1. Instrument of Release is dispensed with. The Port, the Customs Authorities and all concerned authorities shall act upon a copy of this Order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.