Charterers statement of Fact

I. The Parties

II. The Time Charter Party

The Owners claimed to have entered into a Time Charter Party with the Charterers
for hire of a tug-boat. The Charter Party incorporated in itself an arbitration clause….

III. The actions of Vessel during the course of Hire.

The Charterers instructed the Master of the tug-boat to proceed with connection of
the tow-line to commence towing. The tow commenced at 0010 hours on 17th April. The
tow stopped due to the breaking of the tow line and resumed at 1725 on 18th April 2016.
The tow was completed at 1515 hours on 21st April 2016. The vessel M/V OCEAN
CRYSTAL-XVI remained anchored from 23rd April 2016 until 5th May 2016 as the
owners failed to arrange necessary permission from the concerned authorities The owners
were called by the officials deputed at the relevant time at the site to obtain requisite
permission from the Custom Authority, but no steps were taken in this regard despite
assurances. Meanwhile, the vessel was operational until 21st April 2016 and remained
idle after 23rd April 2016 awaiting instructions from the charterers.

IV. The Disputes Raised

Due to the deficiency in services which were ought to be provided by the Owners,
Charterers suffered great monetary loss. The charterers had to carry out the inspection at
the earliest as the rig was about to be deployed under contract with a renowned Public
Sector Undertaking. On account of deficiency, as claimed by the charterers on the
Owner’s part, the inspection by a renowned agency got delayed and resultantly the entire
process was effected. Moreover, the rig “Marine Fortune” till date could not be deployed
and was lying idle. The Charterers disputed the amount alleged by the owners but at the
same time conveyed the owners that necessary steps would be taken to settle the bonafide
amount. The charterers had started the process of ascertaining the damages suffered due
 to deficiency of services on the owner’s part. The charterers also initiates action against
the owners for playing fraud and making incorrect promises and representations.
V. The Invocation of Arbitration
The Owners invoked the Arbitration Clause pursuant to clause 34 of the Charter Party
dated 8th April 2016. They appointed Mr. David as their arbitrator in terms of Arbitration
Act, 1996 and called upon the charterers to appoint theirs. The appointment concerns the
amount due and all and any disputes or differences arising from the charterer’s failure to
pay the charter hire, bunker and interest in violation of the Charter Party.
While reserving the right to file a suit seeking a declaration, injunction and damages
before a civil court at Delhi, the Charterers filed a counter/reply submissions on 10th
February before the arbitration tribunal. Having appointed an arbitrator of their own, the
charterers challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal and the validity of the
agreement on the whole. They claimed that the agreement and the arbitration clause being
an inoperative document is null and void. The disputes will now be heard by this
arbitration tribunal.