Plaintiff validly exercised charter options, permitting arrest of the vessel to secure claims based on maritime law, despite Owners' objections.

ORDER :

NIRAL R. MEHTA, J.

[1] Learned Advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the Plaintiff has mentioned this matter for urgent circulation for today as the Defendant No.1 Vessel is likely to be taken out of jurisdiction of this court immediately on completion of her cargo operations. The permission was granted and the present Suit is taken up for passing urgent orders.

[2] Learned Advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the Plaintiff has tendered Draft Amendment. It is allowed. The Plaintiff is permitted to carry out the said amendment on or before 16.03.2026.

[3] Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Saurabh Soparakar assisted by Ms. Paurami Sheth and instructed by Chambers of George Rebello for the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the Plaintiff, as Time Charterers of the 1st Defendant Vessel under a Charterparty dated 4.11.2025 entered into with the Owners of the 1st Defendant Vessel. The present claim arises due to the Owners’ wrongful non-performance of the Charterparty.

[4] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that as per the Clean Fixture Recap incorporated within the Charterparty dated 4.11.2025, the charter period was for “MIN 3 MONTHS + 3 MONTHS + 3 MONTHS + 3 MONTHS IN CHOPT PLUS 15 DAYS ON FIRM PERIOD AND PLUS/ MINUS 15 DAYS ON OPTIONAL PERIOD IN CHOPT.” Additionally, as per the Clean Fixture Recap, the optional period was to be declared by the Plaintiff no later than the 10th day prior to the expiry of the ‘then-current period’. As per the agreed terms, the Charter Hire for the firm period was USD 23,750 per day and for the optional period USD 24,500 per day.

[5] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the 1^st Defendant Vessel was delivered to the Plaintiff on 04.11.2025 at Tallinn Port, Estonia. Pursuant to the Plaintiff’s voyage instructions dated 12.11.2025, the 1st Defendant Vessel undertook a voyage from Ust-Luga, Russia to Mundra, India and thereafter sailed ballast to Ust-Luga. The voyage took approximately 82.5 days.

[6] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff further submitted that parties corresponded with each other through the broking channel. Accordingly by email dated 21.01.2026, the Plaintiff (acting through its agent Fahr Energy and via the broking channel) provided the Owners with the second set of voyage instructions for the Defendant Vessel to load NAPHTHA from Portenergo to Mundra, India. That vide these voyage instructions, the Plaintiff exercised its first option to extend the Charter Party by 3 months. On 27.01.2026 the Owners raised the Charter Hire Invoice for the period between 1.02.2026 to 1.03.2026. The Plaintiff paid the same. On 28.01.2026, loading was completed on the Defendant Vessel and a Bill of Lading was issued and signed by the Master of the 1st Defendant Vessel for discharge at ‘India for Orders’.

[7] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that mid- voyage, on 20.02.2026, the Owners of the Defendant Vessel for the first time belatedly raised an objection and denied that the Plaintiff had validly exercised its option. The Owners claimed the option had lapsed and the Vessel ought to be redelivered to Talinn. This was disputed by the Plaintiff. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that between 20.02.2026 and 6.03.2026 numerous emails were exchanged between the parties where both parties reiterated their positions vis-à-vis the validity of the exercise of option. Further he submits that despite the Owners position that the Charterparty had lapsed, the Owners raised an invoice for Charter Hire for the period between 1.03.2026 to 1.