Arbitration clause necessitates maintaining status quo during dispute resolution; prima facie case established for interim relief due to potential irreparable loss from vessel detention.

ORDER :

MAUNA M. BHATT, J.

1) Learned Adv. Mr. Rushang D. Mehta has mentioned this matter for urgent circulation for today for passing urgent orders on account of Diwali vacation of this Court from 17.10.2025. The permission was granted and the present Petition is taken up for passing urgent orders at 4:30 pm.

2) Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi submits that the dispute under the present Petition arises from the Respondent illegally detaining the Vessel on account of an alleged shortage of cargo covered under bills of lading issued for and on behalf of the Petitioner.

3) Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi submits that the Petitioner has issued bills of lading nos. YTTP1 and YTTP2 (both issued on 27.8.2025) (“Bills of Lading”), under which M.V. Trinidad Pearl (IMO NO. 9659737) (“Vessel”) is said to have carried 40,000 MT of Di ammonium phosphate (“Cargo”) in bulk from Yantai (China) to Mundra/Pipavav. In particular, the Bills of Lading show the Consignee to be the Respondent and further specifically incorporate the arbitration clause in the Charterparty dated overleaf in the bill of lading.

4) Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi submits that the Vessel reached Mudra and completed discharge operations. On 6.10.2025, the draught survey carried out by the Surveyor’s for the Charterers, Shippers, Vessel reported discharge of 40,000.027 MT of Cargo, which confirmed that there is no shortage of Cargo. However, only the draught survey carried out by the Respondent and the Terminal report discharge of 39,724.618 MT of Cargo, thereby alleging a shortage of about 275 MT of Cargo.

5) Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi submits that despite the Vessel being ready in all respects to depart from Mundra on 6.10.2025, she was not granted a no dues certificate from Terminal (who is acting as the nominated agent of the Respondent) on account of the Master of the Vessel refusing to sign the documents (including the draught surveys of the Terminal/Receiver) without remarks and accept the reported alleged shortage. Since the Terminal was acting as an agent of the Respondent, Learned Senior Counsel submits that it was apparent that the Vessel was being held up/detained at the behest of the Respondent.

6) Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi submits that to settle the Cargo shortage issues, another draught survey was proposed to take place at anchorage on 13.10.2025 - by the Surveyors appointed by the Shippers, Charterers, Respondent, Supplier. The Petitioner was asked to participate in this survey which was proposed to be final and binding on all parties. The Petitioner wrote to Respondent and Terminal stating inter alia that they would be attending the same on a without prejudice basis and any survey report would be signed by the Master of the Vessel with appropriate remark. To confirm attendance for the survey, the Petitioner requested the Respondent and Terminal for their written confirmation for the Petitioner’s terms of attendance. However, no response was received. The Petitioner deputed the Vessel Surveyor to attend the draught survey (on 13.10.2025) pursuant to which Surveyor’s for the Charterers, Shippers, Vessel reported discharge of 40,000.047 MT of Cargo, which confirmed that there is no shortage of Cargo. However, only the draught survey carried out by the Respondent and the Terminal report discharge of 39,713.262 MT of Cargo, thereby alleging a shortage of 286.738 MT of Cargo.

7) Learned Advocate General Mr. Kamal Trivedi further submits that there is no denial to the fact that any dispute arising out of the Bills of Lading will be eventually referred to arbitration and it become