Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MAUNA M.BHATT
Kishan Minerals – Appellant
Versus
Ssl Visakhapatnam(Imo 9137521) – Respondent
ORDER :
MAUNA M. BHATT, J.
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sukumar Tirthani for the Plaintiff.
2. Learned Advocate Mr. Sukumar Tirthani has sought permission for urgent circulation of the matter as Defendant Vessel is likely to leave the admiralty jurisdiction of this court today itself and urgent orders are required to be obtained. It is submitted that the Defendant Vessel is the sister vessel of MV TBC Badrinath, offending vessel.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Sukumar Tirthani submitted that the maritime claim arises for losses caused to the plaintiff on account of misdelivery of cargo, that is release of cargo without the production of Original Bills of Lading.
4. It is submitted that sell and purchase of 10,000 MTs of RG6 Grade Ball Clay and 3500 MTs of Feldspar was negotiated between the Plaintiff (seller) and One Future Ceramic and Porcelain, Saudi Arabia (Buyer) and two purchase orders, PO 0006264-1 and PO-0006290-2 for FOB (free on board) Kandla Port were issued. The payment mode was finalized by way of irrevocable Letter of Credit. Pursuant to the purchase orders, the Plaintiff issued invoices dated 918 and 919, both dated 20/06/2025. The total invoiced value of the cargo under the afo
The court upheld maritime law providing for vessel arrest to secure claims arising from misdelivery of cargo without original Bills of Lading, establishing the defendants' liability for financial los....
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 establishes that a maritime claim under the Admiralty Act allows the arrest of a vessel for wrongful freight charges and related damages, ensuring claim security.
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 supply of bunkers constitutes a maritime claim enforceable in rem under the Admiralty Act, justifying the arrest of the vessel for non-payment.
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.
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.
Arbitration clause necessitates maintaining status quo during dispute resolution; prima facie case established for interim relief due to potential irreparable loss from vessel detention.
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.
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
