Back
Orders Immediate Discharge of LPG Cargo Over Explosion Risk at Jaigarh Port
In an urgent hearing late on , Justice Abhay Ahuja of the allowed the immediate discharge of over 1,880 metric tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) from the LPG Amir Gas at Jaigarh Port. The order came after , the port operator, warned that the vessel's deteriorating condition posed an imminent explosion risk threatening the port, surrounding infrastructure, and human lives.
A Looming Disaster at Jaigarh Port
The court was informed that the vessel had been under arrest since , with strict orders not to discharge its hazardous cargo. However, moved the court on an emergency basis, highlighting that the volatile LPG required constant cooling to prevent catastrophic heating. The port's technical report warned that an explosion could be felt over a 5–10 kilometer radius, potentially damaging nearby industrial installations, including an electricity manufacturing plant.
Inspection Reveals Critical Deficiencies
A survey by the on , uncovered grave defects: the LPG cargo main cooling pump was non-operational, the water sprinkler firefighting system had failed, the inert gas system (which prevents combustion by lowering oxygen in tanks) was broken, and the vessel's had expired since . The court noted that these deficiencies made safe storage of the cargo "extremely fragile and degraded," putting the crew and environment at severe risk.
Court Steps In: for
Considering the exigent circumstances, the court ruled that any party depositing the sum of AED 34,78,481 (the total of two invoices owed to the plaintiff) as security would be permitted to discharge the LPG. The plaintiff,
, immediately agreed to deposit the amount by
. Upon confirmation of the deposit, the court directed the plaintiff to
"immediately take steps to discharge the cargo, keeping in mind, the safety concerns and the requirements and action to be taken as per the report of inspection."
Directions for Repairs, Supplies, and Insurance
The court imposed several conditions to ensure safety and prevent further deterioration. The plaintiff must supply 50 MT of marine gas oil and 10 kiloliters of lube oil within 24 hours and continue fuel supplies as required. All emergency repairs identified in the inspection—specifically addressing the cooling pump, sprinkler system, inert gas system, and other critical defects—must be carried out until the cargo is fully discharged. The vessel's owner (Defendant No. 3) was ordered to provide adequate food and fresh water to the crew and obtain valid within one week.
Disaster Authorities Put on Notice
Justice Ahuja did not stop at
. Recognizing the potential for a large-scale catastrophe, the court issued
to the Director General of Shipping, the
, the
, and the
. These bodies were directed to cooperate in the safe discharge and, crucially, to plan for the cargo's removal even if the security amount was not deposited, in order to
"avert a disaster/catastrophe that may result pursuant to the leakage of the LPG Cargo."
Key Observations
The court made several critical observations that underscore the urgency:
"If the temperature of the cargo is not maintained by use of cooling pumps, there is a very high risk of the cargo heating up and exploding risking the lives of the crew on board and causing large scale damage."
"Considering the catastrophic consequences that a large scale release of LPG may result due to fire or explosion… this Court also deems it appropriate to issue urgent and immediate notice to the Director General of Shipping, State Disaster Management Authority…"
"The Plaintiff to take immediate steps to discharge the cargo, keeping in mind, the safety concerns and the requirements and action to be taken as per the report of inspection."
The Court's Final Decision
The allowed the Interim Application to the extent of permitting upon and issued comprehensive orders for emergency repairs, supplies, and insurance. The was vacated, but the arrest of the vessel LPG Amir Gas will continue. The matter is to be listed again on , for compliance and further consideration of the vessel's shift to anchorage. The court also clarified that the plaintiff's expenditures on bunker, lube oil, and repairs can be recovered as in priority.
This judgment stands as a stark reminder of the maritime judiciary's power to act swiftly to protect life, property, and the environment when technical defects threaten to turn a commercial dispute into a disaster.
