SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
PANOCO KOREA CO.LTD.V/sMV AURELIAN (IMO NO.9304332)
R/AS/27/2026



##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AS/27/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

0.4799766631563387

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 27 of 2026

==========================================================

PANOCO KOREA CO.LTD.

Versus MV AURELIAN (IMO NO.9304332) & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. JAIMIN R. DAVE with MR MANAV A MEHTA(3246) for the Plaintiff(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

Date : 27/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Jaimin Dave mentioned this matter for urgent circulation today and considering the urgency

involved, the present matter is taken up for hearing today.

2. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Jaimin Dave for the Plaintiff.

3. Ld. Advocate Mr. Jaimin Dave for the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the averments made in the plaint and submitted that on or around January 2026, one Winharvest Matitime Ltd. the registered owners of the Defendant Vessel approached the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant Vessel for supply of approx.300- 500 Mts. of fuel oil (“Bunkers”) to the Defendant

Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by NIHAL PATEL(HC02355) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 28 20:19:23 IST 2026

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AS/27/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

0.4799766631563387

Vessel at Port Klang, Malaysia between 31st January 2026 – 4th February 2026. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the supply was confirmed by the Plaintiff and a bunker confirmation was issued by the Plaintiff wherein the Buyers were stated to be “MV AURELIAN and / or Owners/Charterers/ Managers/ Operators/ Agents and/or Winharvest Matitime Ltd”. It is further submitted that the said confirmation also mentioned that the supply will be as per the Plaintiff’s general terms and condition (General, Standard Terms and Conditions for the Sale of Marine Fuels) which are available on

http://www.panoco.co.kr

4. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave further submitted that on 31st January 2026, the Plaintiff through its physical supplier supplied 287.538 Mts. of bunkers via Bunker Delivery Note dated 31 January 2026 to the Defendant Vessel at Klang Port,

Malaysia.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave further submitted that the Master/Chief Engineer of the Defendant Vessel acknowledged the said Bunkers by endorsing upon the Bunker Delivery Note

and accepted without raising any protest and/or demur.

6. Learned Advocate Mr. Dave further submitted that Pursuant to the supply of bunkers to the Defendant Vessel, the

Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by NIHAL PATEL(HC02355) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 28 20:19:23 IST 2026

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AS/27/2026 ORDER DATED: 27/03/2026

0.4799766631563387

Plaintiff issued Invoice dated 20th February 2026 bearing Invoice No. PNOK24940 on account of the Defendant Vessel and/or owners/ charterers/Operators/ Managers/ Winharvest Matitime Ltd. for an amount of USD 120,765.96. Ld. Advocate submitted that the Invoice provided that the due date of the

invoice was 1st March 2026.

7. Ld. Advocate Mr. Dave for the Plaintiff further submitted that due date for Invoice was 1st March 2026 but the Defendant Vessel and/or owners/ charterers/Operators/ Managers/ Winharvest Matitime Ltd. have failed and neglected

in making outstanding payment.

8. Ld. Advocate Mr. Dave further submitted that Defendants have raised a purported quality claim in respect of the bunkers supplied; however, as per the applicable ‘Terms and Conditions’, the stipulated period for raising such a claim had already expired. The Ld. Advocate submitted that without prejudice to the foregoing, and in good faith, the Plaintiff proposed that a joint testing of samples be undertaken; however, the same was refused by by the Defendants, and no further response was received thereafter. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that, such a claim does not suspend or affect the Defendants’ obligation to make full payment of the

Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by NIHAL PATEL(HC02355) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downlo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top