Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 125 (GUJ)

Iships Maritime LLC v. MV Antar (Ex-Name Nour Elhuda (Imo 8801606))

2026-03-02

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 the Plaintiff as “buyer” and Nour Elhuda Shipping Co LLC as “seller” entered into a Memorandum of Agreement dated 11 th September 2025 for sale of the Defendant Vessel for a consideration of USD 1,555,000 as the vessel approached the end of its trading life. Ld. Advocate submitted that vide an email dated 13 th September 2025, the signed Memorandum of Agreement was shared with the Plaintiff. 3. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that on 13 th September 2025, an invoice was duly raised and issued to the Plaintiff via email of even date by one Mr. Youssef Haikal, the representative of seller towards the deposit of 10% of the total sale consideration, in accordance with Clause 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11 th September 2025. On 19 th September 2025, in compliance with Clause 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11 th September 2025, Plaintiff remitted the contractual deposit amount of USD 155,500 to the escrow account expressly nominated and authorized by the Sellers under the said Memorandum of Agreement. The said account was designated and confirmed by the Sellers. The Ld. Advocate further submitted that the Plaintiff vide email of even date, shared the remittance advice evidencing the said transfer. The Sellers, thereafter, vide email dated 22 nd September 2025, unequivocally con receipt of the deposit. 4. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that on 29 th October 2025, the Plaintiff addressed an email to Mr. Youssef Haikal (a representative of the Owners of the Defendant Vessel) with reference to the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11 th September 2025 and Addendum No. 1 and No. 2 in respect of Defendant Vessel, recording that pursuant to Addendum No. 2 dated 17 th October 2025, the cancelling date stood extended to 25 th October 2025. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that despite the agreed extension, the owner of the Defendant Vessel failed to effect valid and compliant delivery of the Vessel within the contractual timeframe, and material compliance deficiencies continued to subsist. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that despite the agreed extension, the owner of the Defendant Vessel failed to effect valid and compliant delivery of the Vessel within the contractual timeframe, and material compliance deficiencies continued to subsist. Public maritime databases continued to indicate that the vessel remains registered under Russian ownership, with home port Vladivostok, and classification by the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping, both of which are under sanctions which resulted in Plaintiff’s banking institutions declining to process the Letter of Credit for the Defendant Vessel. This led to the violation of Clause 27 under Memorandum Of Agreement. 5. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that in the circumstances, and upon expiry of the extended Cancelling Date without lawful delivery, the Plaintiff treated the Memorandum of Agreement as terminated in accordance with its express terms and called upon the Defendants to forthwith refund the 10% deposit to the remitting account, with confirmation of SWIFT details and value date, while expressly reserving all contractual and legal rights. 6. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that in response to the Plaintiff’s termination notice dated 29th October 2025, one Paradise Marine, purporting to act on behalf of the Sellers, issued a “without prejudice” communication alleging that the Plaintiff was in default under the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11 th September 2025 and asserting that the Agreement stood terminated on account of the Plaintiff’s alleged breach. The said communication further claimed entitlement to forfeit the 10% deposit, alleged that additional expenses of USD 250,000 had been incurred, denied the sanctions-related concerns raised by the Plaintiff as “fake and fraudulent,” and threatened legal proceedings against the Plaintiff while stating that the Defendant Vessel would be sold to alternative buyers. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that subsequently, the Plaintiff on the same day addressed an email to Mr. Youssef Haikal on without prejudice basis reiterating its position under the Memorandum of Agreement dated 11 th September 2025 and Addendum No. 1 and No. 2 in respect of Defendant Vessel. 7. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that the Plaintiff categorically rejected the allegations of default and stated that no valid Notice of Readiness had been tendered in accordance with Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Agreement, and that the Defendant Vessel had not been ready for delivery within the extended cancelling date of 25 th October 2025 as per Addendum No. 2. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that the Plaintiff categorically rejected the allegations of default and stated that no valid Notice of Readiness had been tendered in accordance with Clause 6 of the Memorandum of Agreement, and that the Defendant Vessel had not been ready for delivery within the extended cancelling date of 25 th October 2025 as per Addendum No. 2. The Plaintiff further invoked Clause 17 (Sellers’ Default) and Clause 27 (Sanctions), recording that its end buyers i.e. Ayan Shipbreakers bankers had declined to process the Letter of Credit owing to sanctions-related compliance concerns linked to the Defendant Vessel’s ownership history, and consequently demanded immediate refund of the 10% deposit together with all attendant rights and remedies. 8. The Plaintiff submits that despite receipt of the contractual deposit and repeated assurances, the Defendants failed and neglected to perform their contractual obligations and wrongfully repudiated the agreement, thereby causing financial loss and damages to the Plaintiff. 9. Ld. Advocate Mr. Manav Mehta further submitted that the amounts paid by the Plaintiff remain unlawfully retained by the Defendants and constitute a maritime claim within the meaning of Section 4(1)(r) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 regarding dispute arising out of a contract for the sale of the Defendant Vessel. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in rem against the Defendant Vessel for security for its claim and further damages suffered by the Plaintiff and is entitled to an order of arrest of the Defendant Vessel. 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 under the provision of Section 5(1) (a) and (d) of the Admiralty Act, 2017 for the purpose of securing and recovering their maritime claim. The Plaintiff is entitled to return of security amount of USD 155,500 along with interest amounting to USD 171,000 plus payment of USD 72,920 being the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the differential between the agreed contractual price per LDT and the prevailing market rate per LDT; and along with legal cost of USD 20,000 aggregating to USD 263,920 as per particulars of claim and further interest on principle amount at the rate of 2% per month from date of suit till its realization against the Defendant Vessel as per particulars of claim. Ld. Advocate Mr. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that consequently, the Plaintiff is entitled to an arrest of the Defendant Vessel together with her hull, tackle, engines, machinery, boats, apparel and other paraphernalia for the purpose of securing their claim in suit. 10. It is further submitted that despite repeated demands, notices and communications addressed by the Plaintiff calling upon the Defendants to refund the amounts and compensate the Plaintiff for breach, the Defendants have failed to discharge their liabilities. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta further submitted that the Defendant Vessel was being circulated for recycling and/or further sale in the Alang region, and formally notified the concerned association and its members and authorities that it maintained an active maritime claim against the Defendant Vessel and her Owners, cautioning that any dealings or transactions in respect of the Defendant Vessel would be undertaken at the concerned party’s own risk and subject to the Plaintiff’s rights. 11. Ld. Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that the Plaintiff apprehends that the Defendants are attempting to dispose of or beach the Defendant Vessel for demolition at Alang, which would defeat and frustrate the Plaintiff’s maritime claim unless immediate protective orders are granted. 12. The Plaintiff has placed on record material indicating that the Defendant Vessel is presently lying within the territorial waters of India at Alang/Bhavnagar Port , falling within the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the Vessel is a scrap-bound vessel and is liable to be beached or dismantled imminently, thereby creating urgency warranting immediate arrest. 13. Learned advocate for the Plaintiff submits that the action in rem against the Defendant Vessel is maintainable as the maritime claim subsists against the Vessel and the beneficial owner thereof, and arrest of the Vessel is necessary to secure the Plaintiff’s claim pending adjudication. 14. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Manav Mehta for the Plaintiff and also considered the averments made in the plaint herein declared at Ahmedabad on 02.03.2026 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 02.03.2026 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. 15. Upon hearing Learned Advocate Mr. Ashok Prajapati, the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff above named affirmed on 02.03.2026 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. 15. 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 ANTAR (EX- NAME NOUR ELHUDA (IMO 8801606) along with her hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, equipment and all appurtenances, at present lying at Port and harbor of Alang/Bhavnagar 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 Alang/Bhavnagar Port do effect the arrest, seizure or detention of the Defendant Vessel at present lying at Alang/Bhavnagar Port or within the Indian territorial waters or 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 263,920 with further interest at the rate of 2% per month on principal claim calculated from date of suit till its realization against the Defendant Vessel as per particulars of claim, till payment/or realization, the said Warrant of Arrest would not be executed against the Defendant Vessel at present lying at Alang/Bhavnagar Port within the Indian territorial waters. 16. The Port Officer and the Customs Authorities at Alang/Bhavnagar Port are directed to arrest the Defendant Vessel i.e ., MV ANTAR (EX- NAME NOUR ELHUDA (IMO 8801606) at present lying at Alang/Bhavnagar Port within the Indian territorial waters and to keep the Defendant Vessel under arrest until further orders of this Court. 16. The Port Officer and the Customs Authorities at Alang/Bhavnagar Port are directed to arrest the Defendant Vessel i.e ., MV ANTAR (EX- NAME NOUR ELHUDA (IMO 8801606) at present lying at Alang/Bhavnagar Port 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 Alang/Bhavnagar Port 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. 17. The Registry is directed to send this order to Port and Customs at Alang/Bhavnagar Port at following addresses: cusdiv-bvr@nic.in cusprevhg-jmr@nic.in gmbad@sancharnet.in info.bhavnagar@ gmbports .in rahul.parmar@icegov.in alanggmb@yahoo.com sbyalangcdbvr199@gmail.com pogmbalang@gmail.com shrushtilogistic@gmail.com Rogpcb-bhav@gujarat.gov.in shrushtilogistic@gmail.com 18. It is further directed that Authorities at Alang/Bhavnagar Port shall act on Email copy of the order and take the Defendant Vessel i.e. MV ANTAR (EX- NAME NOUR ELHUDA (IMO 8801606) under arrest immediately. 19. Notice to the Defendants returnable on 23.03.2026. 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 of filing Written Statement as required under the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 shall commence from the date of service of the warrant of arrest/ order of arrest upon the Defendant Vessel through her owner or any other person interested in the Vessel through email by the Plaintiff. 20. It is also open for the Plaintiff to communicate the above order by Email to the Port and Customs authorities at Alang/Bhavnagar Port and the Authorities at Alang/Bhavnagar Port are directed to act on Email message with an ordinary copy of this order. Direct Service is permitted today.