The court affirmed the Plaintiff's right to arrest the Defendant vessel based on maritime claim provisions, affirming that contractual breaches and associated sanctions justified immediate action.

ORDER :

Niral R. Mehta, J.

Learned Advocate Mr. Manav Mehta mentioned this matter for urgent circulation today and considering the urgency involved, the present matter is taken up for hearing today.

1. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Manav Mehta for the Plaintiff.

2. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta for the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the Plaintiff as “buyer” and Nour Elhuda Shipping Co LLC as “seller” entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated 11^th September 2025 for sale of the Defendant Vessel for a consideration of USD 1,555,000 as the vessel approached the end of its trading life. Ld. Advocate submitted that vide an email dated 13^th September 2025, the signed Memorandum of Agreement was shared with the Plaintiff.

3. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that on 13^th September 2025, an invoice was duly raised and issued to the Plaintiff via email of even date by one Mr. Youssef Haikal, the representative of seller towards the deposit of 10% of the total sale consideration, in accordance with Clause 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11^th September 2025. On 19^th September 2025, in compliance with Clause 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11^th September 2025, Plaintiff remitted the contractual deposit amount of USD 155,500 to the escrow account expressly nominated and authorized by the Sellers under the said Memorandum of Agreement. The said account was designated and confirmed by the Sellers. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the Plaintiff vide email of even date, shared the remittance advice evidencing the said transfer. The Sellers, thereafter, vide email dated 22^nd September 2025, unequivocally con receipt of the deposit.

4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that on 29^th October 2025, the Plaintiff addressed an email to Mr. Youssef Haikal (a representative of the Owners of the Defendant Vessel) with reference to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11^th September 2025 and Addendum No. 1 and No. 2 in respect of Defendant Vessel, recording that pursuant to Addendum No. 2 dated 17^th October 2025, the cancelling date stood extended to 25^th October 2025. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that despite the agreed extension, the owner of the Defendant Vessel failed to effect valid and compliant delivery of the Vessel within the contractual timeframe, and material compliance deficiencies continued to subsist. Public maritime databases continued to indicate that the vessel remains registered under Russian ownership, with home port Vladivostok, and classification by the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping, both of which are under sanctions which resulted in Plaintiff’s banking institutions declining to process the Letter of Credit for the Defendant Vessel. This led to the violation of Clause 27 under Memorandum Of Agreement.

5. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that in the circumstances, and upon expiry of the extended Cancelling Date without lawful delivery, the Plaintiff treated the Memorandum of Agreement as terminated in accordance with its express terms and called upon the Defendants to forthwith refund the 10% deposit to the remitting account, with confirmation of SWIFT details and value date, while expressly reserving all contractual and legal rights.

6. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that in response to the Plaintiff’s termination notice dated 29th October 2025, one Paradise Marine, purporting to act on behalf of the Sellers, issued a “without prejudice” communication alleging that the Plaintiff was in default under the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11^th September 2025 and asserting that the Agreement stood terminated on account of the Plaintiff’s alleged breach. The said communication further claimed entitlement to forfeit the 10% deposit, alleged that additional expenses of USD 250,000 had been incurred, denied the sanctions-related concerns raised by the Plaintiff as “fake and fraudulent,” and threatened legal proceedings against the Plaintiff while stating that