1. Petitioner's vessel was arrested, scrapped and sold against dues payable to the Bombay Port Trust, pursuant to orders passed by the Bombay High Court in a suit instituted by the first respondent in High Court's Admiralty jurisdiction.

2. The trial judge (i.e., learned Single Judge of the High Court) vide order dated 24.03.2021 had disposed of two interlocutory applications, namely, I.A. No. 8290/2021 and I.A. No. 7724/2021. I.A. No. 8290/2021 was filed by the present petitioner, one of the defendants in the suit, to vacate the order of arrest of the vessel. The said application was rejected by the trial judge against which commercial appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned order, the Division Bench affirmed the order of the trial judge on I.A. No.8290/2021. The other Commercial Appeal No.12 of 2023 impugning order passed on I.A. No.7724 of 2021 was dismissed on the statement made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner in the following terms:

                   Mr. Kapadia had made a statement that he is not pressing the appeal in which learned single Judge's decision to allow the Interim Application of the auction procedure namely Interim Application (L) No. 7724 of 2021 was allowed. Hence, we are not considering the same and dispose it.

3. What is clear from the order of the Division Bench is that the counsel representing the present petitioner had made a statement that he was not pressing the issue of said vessel being sold for scrap and not as a trading vessel.

4. While the matter was pending before this Court, the Admiralty Suit stood disposed of vide order dated 31 January 2025, which reads as under:

                   1. Today, when the matter is called out. Mr. Fernandes, learned counsel, appearing for the Defendant No.2 -Mumbai Port Authority submits that since the Defendant No.2 has already been paid Rs.1,31,27,146/-, the question of invoking indemnity/ undertaking would not arise and therefore, nothing would survive in the Suit.

                   2. Both the learned counsels submit that the Suit can be accordingly disposed of. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Suit stand disposed.

                   4. Connected Application too accordingly stand disposed.

                   5. Refund of Court fees as per rules.

5. It is not shown to us that the present petitioner, who was one of the defendants in the aforesaid suit, had applied for restoration of the suit. In such circumstances, when the Admiralty Suit has already been disposed of and a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner's counsel that issue of said vessel being sold as scrap and not as a trading vessel is not being pressed, we do not find a good reason to entertain these special leave petition(s) which are against an interim order passed in the said Suit.

6. Consequently, these special leave petition(s) are disposed of by leaving the question of law, if any, open for adjudication in an appropriate proceeding.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.