IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 30 of 2026 ==========================================================

NATIONAL CHEMICAL CARRIERS COMPANY LIMITED Versus UACC MARAH (IMO NO. 9489091) & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Plaintiff(s) No. 1 MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Plaintiff(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Date : 03/04/2026 ORAL ORDER

1. Learned Advocate Mr. Rushang D. Mehta 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. Rushang D. Mehta for the Plaintiff.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Rushang D. Mehta for the Plaintiff has invited the attention of this Court to the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the Plaintiff had entered into a Charterparty dated 10.03.2021 read with the Charter Novation Agreement dated 17.05.2022. It is submitted that under the said Charterparty, the Defendant Vessel was let on charter to the Plaintiff for a period extending up to July 2028.

4. It is submitted that on 18.03.2026, Defendant No. 2 purported to cancel the Charterparty by invoking Clause 33 thereof on the alleged ground of outbreak of war/hostilities. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submitted that such purported cancellation is ex facie wrongful, invalid, and not in accordance with the terms of the Charterparty, inter alia, on the ground that the conditions precedent for invocation of Clause 33 were not satisfied, including the requirement of involvement of the flag state of the vessel, and further that the notice was not issued within a reasonable time.

5. It is further submitted that the said wrongful cancellation amounts to a repudiatory breach of the Charterparty by Defendant No. 2, which was accepted by the Plaintiff, resulting in termination of the Charterparty. It is submitted that despite opportunities, Defendant No. 2 failed to perform its contractual obligations and instead sought to renegotiate the Charterparty on revised commercial terms.

6. Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff has further submitted that as a consequence of the said repudiatory breach, the Plaintiff is facing substantial losses, including differential hire on account of increased market rates of hire, loss of advance hire paid, value of bunkers remaining on board, and value of tank cleaning chemicals.

7. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the Plaintiff’s principal claim is towards (i) USD 11,324,300.00 being differential hire as per market rates, (ii) USD 223,311.08, towards advance hire paid under the Charterparty, (iii) USD 371,218.66 towards bunkers remaining on board, and (iv) USD 23,904.74 towards Tank Cleaning Chemicals remaining on board. The damages for non-performance have been calculated basis the difference between the prevalent market charter rate currently being offered for vessels similar to that of the Defendant Vessel and the hire rate under the Charterparty.

8. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the Plaintiff’s claim is a recognized maritime claim within Sections 4(1)(h) r/w 4(1)(l) r/w 5(1)(a) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (“Admiralty Act”).

9. The Ld. Advocate submitted that at the time when the maritime claim arose in March 2026 and when the arrest is sought to be effected, the ownership of the Vessel continues with Defendant No. 2.

10. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta for the Plaintiff and also considered the averments made in the plaint herein declared at Ahmedabad on 03.04.2026 filed by the advocate for the Plaintiff herein and the affidavit of Mr. Pratik Prajapati, the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff above named affirmed on 03.04.2026 in support of the arrest. On a reading of the plaint and annexures thereto, prima facie it appears that the Plaintiff’s claim in the Plaint is in the nature of a m