A dispute regarding the possession or ownership of a vessel constitutes a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, justifying the arrest of the vessel under Section 5(1)(d) to secure the claim if the vessel is within the court's jurisdiction.

P.C. :

1. Circulation of this matter had been sought this morning, submitting that the Defendant No.1-Vessel-LPG Nisyros, IMO No. 9412062 against which the maritime claim has arisen is likely to leave the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the matter be listed on the Production Board. Accordingly, the matter has been listed on the Production Board at serial no. 501.

2. Mr. Narichania, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs submits that the Plaintiff No.1, the registered owner of the Defendant No.1-Vessel had earlier entered into a Bareboat Charter Party Agreement with one Eletson Gas LLC, wherein there was also a purchase option to the Bareboat Charterer at a pre-determined price. Mr. Narichania has submitted that in a Bareboat Charterer party, the appointment of the master and the crew is with the charterer and that pursuant to the same the charterer had appointed the master and crew. That the charter party expired on 29th August, 2025 and that the charterer exercised its option to purchase the Defendant No. 1-Vessel, however, the purchase could not be completed, which led to reference of the dispute to arbitration. That the arbitral tribunal has awarded in favour of the Plaintiff giving the following findings with the consent of the parties:-

(1) the Bareboat Charter Agreements have expired on the following dates:

(i) the Anafi BBCP expired on 31st July, 2025.

(ii) the Tilos BBCP expired on 31st July, 2025.

(iii) the Nisyros BBCP expired on 29th August, 2025.

(2) as a result of the expiry of the Bareboat Charter Agreements, the rights conferred upon the Eletson Gas LLC to purchase the Vessels pursuant to Clause 47 have been extinguished, and may no longer be exercised by Eletson Gas LLC, or any other party.

(3) the absence of completion of the purchase of the vessels pursuant to the terms of the Purchase options had the effect that (a) title to the Vessels remained with the respective Claimant without any further obligation to transfer the same to the Respondent, (b) the Bareboat Charter Agreements no longer imposed any fetter upon the Claimants’ rights of ownership in and possession of the vessels or their ability to sell those vessels on such terms and in such manner as they see fit, and (c) the Respondent was required forthwith to redeliver the Vessels to the respective Claimant in accordance with Clause 46 fo the Bareboat Charter Agreements.

3. Mr. Narichania submits that pursuant to the said award dated 13th October, 2025, request was made on behalf of the Plaintiff No.1 to the then Captain / Master of the Defendant No.1-Vessel to disembark, however, the said request was not heeded to, after which by another email dated 27th January, 2026, instructions to redeliver the Defendant No.1-Vessel within 24 hours were also sent to the master, which was also not complied with.

4. Mr. Narichania submits that the Plaintiff No. 1 has by a share purchase agreement dated 31st July, 2025 with the Plaintiff No.2 whereby the parties have decided to enter into the sale and purchase of the shares of the Plaintiff No.1 and it is upon the Plaintiff No. 1, therefore to obtain possession of the Defendant No.1-Vessel for the purposes of the share purchase agreement. Mr. Narichania submits that, therefore, the dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is regarding the possession of the Defendant No.1-Vessel. That the Defendant No.2 is the present master of the Defendant No. 1-Vessel. Referring to section 4(1) (a) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the “Admiralty Act”), Mr. Narichania submits that dispute regarding the possession or the ownership of a Vessel or the ow