Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 124 (GUJ)

HMS Bergbau Dubai Fzco v. MV Honcho (IMO 9602978)

2026-02-27

NIRAL R.MEHTA

body2026
ORDER : Niral R. Mehta, J. Learned Advocate Mr. Manav Mehta mentioned this matter for urgent circulation today and considering the urgency involved, the present matter is taken up for hearing today. 1. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Manav Mehta for the Plaintiff. 2. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta for the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the averments made in the plaint and submitted that on or around October 2025, one Aum Commodities FZCO as managers and agents of the owners of the Defendant Vessel approached the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant Vessel and/or owners and/or charterers and/or managers and/or operators for supply of 500 Mts. of fuel oil ("Bunkers") to the Defendant Vessel at Trinidad, Pointe A Pierre on 2-3 October 2025. 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 "Master and / or Owners and / or Managing Owners and/or operators and/or charterers of MV Honcho and/or Aum Commodities FZCO". It is further submitted that the said confirmation also mentioned that the supply will be as per the Plaintiff's general terms and condition(Standard Terms and Conditions for the Sale of Marine Bunker Fuels, Lubricant and Other Products) which are available on https://hms-ag.com/gtc-marine-fuels/. 3. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that on 13 October 2025, the Plaintiff through its physical supplier supplied 500.34 Mts. of bunkers via Marine Bunker Receipt dated 13 October 2025 to the Defendant Vessel at Pointe A Pierre Port. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta 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. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that Pursuant to the supply of bunkers to the Defendant Vessel, the Plaintiff issued Invoice dated 14 October 2025 bearing no. RA25D0011 on account of the Defendant Vessel and/or owners/ charterers/ disponent owners/ Managers/ Aum Commodities FZCO for an amount of USD 340,231.20. Ld. Advocate submitted that the Invoice provided that the due date of the invoice was 27 November 2025. 6. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta for the Plaintiff further submitted that due date for Invoice was 27 November 2025 but the Defendant Vessel and/or owners/charterers/ Disponent owners/ Managers/ Agents and/or Aum Commodities FZCO have failed and neglected in making outstanding payment. 7. Ld. Advocate Mr. 6. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta for the Plaintiff further submitted that due date for Invoice was 27 November 2025 but the Defendant Vessel and/or owners/charterers/ Disponent owners/ Managers/ Agents and/or Aum Commodities FZCO have failed and neglected in making outstanding payment. 7. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that Aum Commodities FZCO as managers/agents of the registered owner and the Defendant Vessel has admitted and acknowledged the liability to pay. Ld. Advocate further submitted that despite repeated reminders by the Plaintiff to make the outstanding payment, the Defendant Vessel and/or owners/ charterers/ Disponent owners/ Managers/Agents and/or Aum Commodities FZCO have failed and neglected to make the payment. 8. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Defendant Vessel and her Owner are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff is entitled to for payment for its claim for the principal amount of USD 340,231.20 along with interest at the rate of 2% per month amounting to USD 20,413.87 calculated from the due date of the invoice, i.e. 27 November 2025 till the date of the suit together with legal cost of USD 12,000 aggregating to USD 372,645.07 with further interest on USD 340,231.20 at the rate of 2% per month from the date of the suit till payment as per particulars of claim and for security of the said claim. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Plaintiff's claim arises by reason of bunkers supplied to the Defendant Vessel at the request of managers/agent/authorised person and entity of the Defendant Vessel. The supplies were made to the faith and credit of the Defendant Vessel. It is further submitted that the supply of bunker fuel gives rise to and/or constitutes a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(1) of the Admiralty Act, 2017. This can be enforced in rem by arrest of the Defendant Vessel. Ld. Advocate submitted that in the circumstances the Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in rem against the Defendant vessel and is entitled to an order of arrest of the Defendant vessel. 10. Ld. This can be enforced in rem by arrest of the Defendant Vessel. Ld. Advocate submitted that in the circumstances the Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in rem against the Defendant vessel and is entitled to an order of arrest of the Defendant vessel. 10. Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that the Plaintiff thus has a maritime claim falling under Section 4 (1) (1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 for supply of bunker fuel to the Defendant Vessel at the instance and request of managers and/or agent and/or registered owners of the Defendant Vessel and hence consequently entitled to proceed against the Defendant vessel in rem in order to exercise the said maritime claim. Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff further submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to an arrest of the Defendant Vessel together with her hull, tackle, engines, machinery, boats, apparel and other paraphernalia under the provision of Section 5(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, 2017 for the purpose of securing and recovering their maritime claim. 11. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Manav Mehta for the Plaintiff and also considered the averments made in the plaint herein declared at Ahmedabad on 27.02.2026 filed by the advocate for the Plaintiff herein and the affidavit of Mr. Ashok Prajapati, the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff above named affirmed on 27.02.2026 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 maritime claim. 12. Upon hearing Learned Advocate Mr. Ashok Prajapati, the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff above named affirmed on 27.02.2026 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 maritime claim. 12. Upon hearing Learned Advocate Mr. Manav Mehta and upon the Plaintiff giving an undertaking in writing to pay such sums by way of damages as this Court may award as compensation in the event of the Defendant Vessel sustaining any prejudice by this order, I do order that the Registrar of this Court do issue a warrant for the arrest of the Defendant vessel MV HONCHO (IMO 9602978) along with her hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, equipment and all appurtenances, at present lying at Port and harbor of Deendayal Port within the Indian territorial waters and that the Warrant of Arrest be executed at any time of the day or night or on Sundays or holidays and I do further order that the Port Officer and the Customs Authorities at Deendayal Port do effect the arrest, seizure or detention of the Defendant Vessel at present Iying at Deendayal Port or within the Indian territorial waters of such other place wherever she may be within the territorial waters of India and I do further order that in the event of the Defendants and/or those interested in her depositing in this Court for securing and/or satisfying the Plaintiff's claim of USD 372,645.07 with further interest at the rate of 2% per month on principal claim calculated from the due date of the invoice, i.e. 27 November 2025 till payment/or realization, the said Warrant of Arrest would not be executed against the Defendant Vessel at present lying at Deendayal Port, Kandla within the Indian territorial waters. 13. The Port Officer and the Customs Authorities at Deendayal Port are directed to arrest the Defendant Vessel i.e. MV HONCHO (IMO 9602978) at present lying at Deendayal Port, Kandla within the Indian territorial waters and to keep the Defendant Vessel under arrest until further orders of this Court. It is further ordered that the Port Officer and the Customs Officer at Deendayal Port, Kandla shall also intimate about this order to the Master / Chief Engineer of the Defendant Vessel and effect the warrant of arrest for the Defendant Vessel through email. 14. It is further ordered that the Port Officer and the Customs Officer at Deendayal Port, Kandla shall also intimate about this order to the Master / Chief Engineer of the Defendant Vessel and effect the warrant of arrest for the Defendant Vessel through email. 14. The Registry is directed to send this order to Port and Customs at Deendayal Port at following addresses: Customs at Deendayal Port at following addresses: dydirector@kandlaport.gov.in, harbourmaster@kandlaport.gov.in, dyconservator@kandlaport.gov.in, srdydirector@kandlaport.gov.in, dycvo@kandlaport.gov.in, vo@kandlaport.gov.in, kandlacustoms@gmail.com. hmofficekpt@gmail.com, trafficmanager@kandlaport.gov.in, komal.patel@gov.in, signaldpt@kandlaport.gov.in, commr-cusKandla@nic.in, cvo@kandlaport.gov.in, signaldpt@deendayalport.gov.in, trafficmanager@deendayalport.gov.in, harbourmaster@deendayalport.gov.in, dyconservator@deendayalport.gov.in, dycvo@deendayalport.gov.in, cvo@deendayalport.gov.in, Secretary@deendayalport.gov.in, commmr-cusDeendayal@nic.in, dydirector@deendayalport.gov.in 15. It is further directed that Authorities at Deendayal Port shall act on Email copy of the order and take the Defendant Vessel i.e. MV HONCHO (IMO 9602978) under arrest immediately. 16. Notice to the Defendants returnable on 27.03.2026. The Plaintiff is permitted to serve to the Defendant Vessel through her Owner or interested person through email. It is made clear that it will be open for the Defendants to approach this Court even prior to the returnable date with adequate notice to the Plaintiff. The period for filing written statement as required under provision of Order 8 Rule 1 shall commence from the date of service of the warrant of arrest through her owner or any other person interested in the vessel, through email by the plaintiff. 17. It is also open for the Plaintiff to communicate the above by Email to the Port and Customs authorities at Deendayal Port and the Authorities at Deendayal Port are directed to act on Email message with an ordinary copy of this Order. Direct Service is permitted today.