Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRAL R.MEHTA
Iships Maritime LLC – Appellant
Versus
MV Antar (Ex-Name Nour Elhuda(Imo 8801606)) – Respondent
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 11th 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 13th September 2025, the signed Memorandum of Agreement was shared with the Plaintiff.
3. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that on 13th 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 11th September 2025. On 19th September 2025, in compliance with Clause 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement
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.
The court affirmed that a maritime claim exists against a vessel when contractual obligations are not met, allowing for the arrest of the vessel to secure the claim.
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.
The supply of bunkers constitutes a maritime claim enforceable in rem under the Admiralty Act, justifying the arrest of the vessel for non-payment.
A breach of contract in maritime agreements may support claims for damages and penalties under the Admiralty Act 2017, classifying such disputes as maritime claims.
The Plaintiff established a prima facie maritime claim for total loss of cargo, warranting arrest of the Defendant Vessel under the Admiralty Act, 2017.
The court reinforced that non-compliance with maritime contract terms grants the claimant the right to secure an arrest of the vessel to recover losses incurred due to breach.
The court established that a maritime claim for lost cargo under the Admiralty Act justifies vessel arrest, with jurisdiction confirmed as the vessel is present within the territorial waters.
The court affirmed that a breach of contract under the Admiralty Act justifies a maritime claim, requiring the defendant to furnish security for damages due to failure in contractual obligations.
A claim for refund of detention charges does not fall within admiralty jurisdiction if it is not connected to a maritime claim involving a vessel.
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
