Settlement as payment security, not novation, and necessaries claims remain enforceable against a vessel on arrest date.

A settlement will not amount to novation under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act if it merely provides a mechanism to secure payment while preserving the original obligation; the underlying debt remains enforceable. Section 63 permits acceptance of a different mode of satisfaction without extinguishing the original bargain. A claim for necessaries supplied to a vessel is a maritime claim, but it does not create a maritime lien under Indian admiralty law. For arrest of a vessel, ownership is assessed on the date of arrest, not merely the date of institution of proceedings, and the claim may be enforced against the vessel if that ownership defence fails.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the agreement dated 18.1.2000 amounted to a novation of the original contract or only a mode of securing performance so that the original claim survived; (ii) whether the claim for necessaries supplied to the vessel created a maritime lien and whether ownership had to be determined on the date of arrest.

Issue (i): whether the agreement dated 18.1.2000 amounted to a novation of the original contract or only a mode of securing performance so that the original claim survived.

Analysis: Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 applies only where the parties substitute a new contract or rescind the old one so that the original contract ceases to operate. Section 63 permits the promisee to accept any satisfaction it thinks fit, including a third-party payment mechanism, without extinguishing the underlying bargain. Read as a whole, the settlement preserved the original debt, added payment machinery through the chartered voyage, and expressly kept alive the right to enforce payment and to arrest the vessel if payment failed. Construed commercially, the document did not replace the original bargain with a new independent contract.

Conclusion: The agreement was not a novation and the original claim remained enforceable; this issue is decided in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the claim for necessaries supplied to the vessel created a maritime lien and whether ownership had to be determined on the date of arrest.

Analysis: A claim for necessaries is a maritime claim, but under the admiralty law applied in India it does not create a maritime lien. A maritime lien is confined to a narrow class of claims and, unlike a mere statutory right in rem, it travels with the vessel. For arrest of a ship in aid of a maritime claim, the relevant ownership is the ownership when arrest is effected, not merely when the suit is instituted. On the facts, the respondent failed to prove that it had become owner of the vessel on the arrest date, and the claim could therefore be enforced against the vessel.

Conclusion: The claim was enforceable by arrest of the vessel, and the respondent's change-of-ownership defence failed; this issue is decided in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the decree in favour of the Appellant against the vessel was restored, with recovery directed from the security furnished.

Ratio Decidendi: A settlement that merely provides a method for securing payment of an admitted debt does not amount to novation if it preserves the original obligation, and a maritime claim for necessaries can be enforced against the vessel on the date of arrest even though it does not create a maritime lien.

---