Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAUNA M.BHATT
Alliance Carrier Ship Management – Appellant
Versus
M.V. XIN Long Yun -58 (IMO No. 9896971) – Respondent
ORDER :
MAUNA M. BHATT, J.
1. Learned Advocate Mr. Pankeet Aundhiya, mentioned this matter for urgent circulation today and considering the urgency involved , the present matter is taken up for hearing today.
2. Heard Learned Mr. Pankeet Aundhiya for the Plaintiff.
3. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the averments made in the plaint and submitted that Plaintiff as the Charterer and Longi Shipping Ltd as the owner and/or ship manager of the Defendant Vessel entered into a Charter Party agreement dated 15th August 2024 for a period of about 12 months. After the execution of the said charter party, the Plaintiff was delivered with the vessel in August 2024 in China and the Plaintiff initiated its voyage from UAE to India. In accordance with the agreed terms for hire payment, the Plaintiff consistently made timely hire payments upon receipt of the corresponding invoices of 1st Hire to 6th Hire from the Owners evidenced by the confirmation email received from the Owners acknowledging the receipt of payment.
4. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that on 17 February 2025, the Owners of the vessel, through their broker, issued the invoice for the 7th hire cove
The unilateral termination of a charterparty without proper notice or justification constitutes a breach of contract, allowing the aggrieved party to seek damages through admiralty law.
![Om Freight Forwarders Limited vs Owners and Parties Interested in M.V. Nereus Progress [IMO 9170913] - 2026 Supreme(Mad) 225](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_2.png)
A bareboat charter-party can only be effectively terminated by actual recovery of possession; mere notice of termination without overt acts does not suffice, affording protection under maritime law.
Plaintiff validly exercised charter options, permitting arrest of the vessel to secure claims based on maritime law, despite Owners' objections.
The Plaintiff validly exercised multiple options to extend a charterparty, justifying a maritime claim and a warrant of arrest against the vessel for damages.
The court ruled that damages for wrongful arrest were not warranted as the Plaintiff did not act with malice or gross negligence in obtaining the Warrant of Arrest.
The court held that a maritime claim under the Admiralty Act justifies the arrest of a vessel to secure a buyer's interests in case of the seller's breach of agreement.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
