Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 256
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA
NEON LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
LPG NISYROS IMO NO 9412062 – Respondent
COMASL/3198/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rahul Narichania, Prasad Shenoy, Prateek Pansare, Shrikant Hathi, Pritish Das
Under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017, disputes concerning the possession or ownership of a vessel constitute a maritime claim, permitting the court to order the arrest of the vessel within its jurisdiction to secure such claims.
Headnote:(A) Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 - Sections 4(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) - Dispute regarding possession or ownership of a vessel - Maritime claim - Arrest of vessel to secure claim - Where the registered owner of a vessel has an arbitral award for redelivery after the expiry of a Bareboat Charter Party, but the vessel is not redelivered, such a dispute regarding possession constitutes a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(a) - If the vessel is within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court may order the arrest of the vessel under Section 5(1)(d) for the purposes of providing security against the maritime claim. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The registered owner of a vessel had entered into a Bareboat Charter Party Agreement with a charterer. Following the expiry of the agreement, an arbitral tribunal awarded that the rights of the charterer to purchase the vessel were extinguished and ordered the immediate redelivery of the vessel to the owner. Despite subsequent requests, the vessel was not redelivered. The registered owner sought the arrest of the vessel to obtain possession, specifically for the purposes of completing a share purchase agreement.
Findings of Court:
There is a prima facie case for a maritime claim regarding the possession of the vessel. As the vessel is within the jurisdiction of the Court and no caveat is registered against its arrest, the conditions for ordering the arrest to secure the claim are satisfied.
Issues: Whether a dispute regarding the possession of a vessel constitutes a maritime claim allowing for the arrest of said vessel under the Admiralty Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, any dispute regarding possession or ownership of a vessel is a maritime claim. Under Section 5(1)(d), the High Court may order the arrest of a vessel within its jurisdiction to provide security against such a claim if the Court has reason to believe the claim relates to ownership or possession.
Result: Arrest of the Defendant-Vessel ordered.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
admiralty and maritime law
-
maritime claims
- possession and ownership disputes
- arrest of vessels
-
maritime claims
-
practice and procedure
- jurisdiction
-
injunctions and orders
- warrant of arrest
##PAGE1##
501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 3198 OF 2026
Neon Limited & Anr. ...Plaintiffs
V/s.
LGP Nisyros IMO No. 9412062 & Anr. ...Defendants
WITH
JUDGE’S ORDER NO. 3303 OF 2026
Mr. Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prasad Shenoy, Mr.
Prateek Pansare, Dr. Shrikant Hathi, Mr. Pritish Das i/b Brus Chambers
for the Plaintiffs.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 30th JANUARY, 2026
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
Nikita Gadgil 1/7
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 12:59:36 :::
##PAGE2##501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
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
Nikita Gadgil 2/7
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 12:59:36 :::
##PAGE3##501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
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
r
