ORDER : NIRAL R. MEHTA, J. [1] Learned Advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the Plaintiff has mentioned this matter for urgent circulation for today as the Defendant No.1 Vessel is likely to be taken out of jurisdiction of this court immediately on completion of her cargo operations. The permission was granted and the present Suit is taken up for passing urgent orders. [2] Learned Advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the Plaintiff has tendered Draft Amendment. It is allowed. The Plaintiff is permitted to carry out the said amendment on or before 16.03.2026. [3] Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Saurabh Soparakar assisted by Ms. Paurami Sheth and instructed by Chambers of George Rebello for the Plaintiff has placed reliance on the averments made in the plaint and submitted that the Plaintiff, as Time Charterers of the 1st Defendant Vessel under a Charterparty dated 4.11.2025 entered into with the Owners of the 1st Defendant Vessel. The present claim arises due to the Owners’ wrongful non-performance of the Charterparty. [4] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that as per the Clean Fixture Recap incorporated within the Charterparty dated 4.11.2025, the charter period was for “MIN 3 MONTHS + 3 MONTHS + 3 MONTHS + 3 MONTHS IN CHOPT PLUS 15 DAYS ON FIRM PERIOD AND PLUS/ MINUS 15 DAYS ON OPTIONAL PERIOD IN CHOPT.” Additionally, as per the Clean Fixture Recap, the optional period was to be declared by the Plaintiff no later than the 10th day prior to the expiry of the ‘then-current period’. As per the agreed terms, the Charter Hire for the firm period was USD 23,750 per day and for the optional period USD 24,500 per day. [5] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the 1 st Defendant Vessel was delivered to the Plaintiff on 04.11.2025 at Tallinn Port, Estonia. Pursuant to the Plaintiff’s voyage instructions dated 12.11.2025, the 1st Defendant Vessel undertook a voyage from Ust-Luga, Russia to Mundra, India and thereafter sailed ballast to Ust-Luga. The voyage took approximately 82.5 days. [6] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff further submitted that parties corresponded with each other through the broking channel. Accordingly by email dated 21.01.2026, the Plaintiff (acting through its agent Fahr Energy and via the broking channel) provided the Owners with the second set of voyage instructions for the Defendant Vessel to load NAPHTHA from Portenergo to Mundra, India. [6] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff further submitted that parties corresponded with each other through the broking channel. Accordingly by email dated 21.01.2026, the Plaintiff (acting through its agent Fahr Energy and via the broking channel) provided the Owners with the second set of voyage instructions for the Defendant Vessel to load NAPHTHA from Portenergo to Mundra, India. That vide these voyage instructions, the Plaintiff exercised its first option to extend the Charter Party by 3 months. On 27.01.2026 the Owners raised the Charter Hire Invoice for the period between 1.02.2026 to 1.03.2026. The Plaintiff paid the same. On 28.01.2026, loading was completed on the Defendant Vessel and a Bill of Lading was issued and signed by the Master of the 1st Defendant Vessel for discharge at ‘India for Orders’. [7] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that mid- voyage, on 20.02.2026, the Owners of the Defendant Vessel for the first time belatedly raised an objection and denied that the Plaintiff had validly exercised its option. The Owners claimed the option had lapsed and the Vessel ought to be redelivered to Talinn. This was disputed by the Plaintiff. The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that between 20.02.2026 and 6.03.2026 numerous emails were exchanged between the parties where both parties reiterated their positions vis-à-vis the validity of the exercise of option. Further he submits that despite the Owners position that the Charterparty had lapsed, the Owners raised an invoice for Charter Hire for the period between 1.03.2026 to 1.04.2026. On 2.03.2026, the Owners accepted receipt of payment. [8] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that on 8.03.2026, the Plaintiff (i) Reiterated that it had validly declared its right to extend the Charterparty by the 1st option period of 3 monhts (ii) further declared and exercised its option of the remaining 2 option periods of 3 monts each; (iii) stated that it did not intend to prematurely redeliver the Defendant Vessel to Tallinn port, Estonia and (iv) Instructed the Master to proceed to load port Ust - Luga, Russia after completing its discharging operations at Sikka. [9] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that on 9.03.2026 the Plaintiff followed up with the Owners on the 1st Defendant Vessel’s best ETA at Ust Luga after completion of discharge operations at Sikka. [9] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that on 9.03.2026 the Plaintiff followed up with the Owners on the 1st Defendant Vessel’s best ETA at Ust Luga after completion of discharge operations at Sikka. On 10.03.2026 the Owners (through the broking channel) inter alia refused to accept the voyage instructions to Ust Luga and insisted on redelivery to Tallinn. They also alleged that the Charterparty had since lapsed. [10] The Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that in summary, the Owners’ raised the following allegations questioning the validity of Plaintiff’s exercise of its 1st option of 3 months (i) A formal declaration in the form of a specific legal notice was mandatory under the Charterparty. Issuance of voyage instructions or Bills of Lading did not amount to declaration; (ii) option should have been declared no later than 10 days prior to the expiry of the firm period i.e. by 25.01.2026. Plaintiff failed to do so. (iii) Owners invoiced the Plaintiffs for Charter Hire from 1.02.2026 to 1.04.2026 at the firm period rate rather than the optional period rate. This proves that both parties were acting under the ‘Final Voyage’ provisions as per Clause 19 of the Charterparty. (iv) The acceptance of voyage instructions was solely to allow the Defendant Vessel’s ‘Final Voyage’ in accordance with Clause 19 of the Charterparty which allows the Plaintiff to complete the ‘Final Voyage’ at the “same rate and conditions” (v) Under Clause 19 of the Charterparty, the Plaintiff was required not to order a voyage that would reasonably be expected to exceed the ‘redelivery window’ i.e. beyond 19.02.2026. Since no option was declared, the Owners treated the voyage as an overlap (vi) The Master and the Owners are required to follow the Plaintiff’s operational instructions while the Defendant Vessel is under the charter and the same does not represent a waiver of their legal rights. In counter to the above allegations, he submitted that the Plaintiff validly exercised its 1st option to extend the charter period by 3 months and thereafter the 2nd and 3rd options for additional 3 + 3 months. He submitted that (i) By conduct, the Plaintiff unambiguously exercised its option. The Plaintiff’s instructions dated 21.01.2026 was for a voyage, which by nature and duration, extended well beyond the firm period and would take an approximate period of 84 days (nearly 3 months). He submitted that (i) By conduct, the Plaintiff unambiguously exercised its option. The Plaintiff’s instructions dated 21.01.2026 was for a voyage, which by nature and duration, extended well beyond the firm period and would take an approximate period of 84 days (nearly 3 months). The Owners were aware that such a voyage could not be undertaken within the firm period allegedly ending by 04.02.2026 (or the 15 day buffer period for redelivery after the firm period) and would necessarily extend well into the option period of 3 months. No reasonable person would understand the Plaintiff’s voyage instructions as anything other than an exercise of its option rights. (ii) Even assuming the firm period expired on 04.02.2026 the Plaintiff declared its option within the requisite time frame of 10 days prior to the expiry of the ‘then - current period’. (ii) The Owners accepted and acted upon the Plaintiff’s voyage instructions dated 21.01.2026 by loading cargo on 28.01.2026, raising hire invoices for months of Feb and March 2026, issuing bills of lading, etc. No contemporaneous protest / objection to the voyage instructions was raised. The two hire invoices for the period from 01.02.2026 to 01.04.2026, were undoubtedly beyond the alleged firm period ending on 04.02.2026. The Owners conduct thus, showed that they understood the Plaintiff to have exercised its option and they acted on that basis. They are now estopped from denying that position. (iii )The first time any objection was raised by the Owners was on 20.02.2026 which is highly belated and a mere afterthought. The Vessel was already en route to India after having loaded cargo from Ust Luga. The Owners were seeking to take advantage of a sharp increase in market rates for charterparties by non performing. (iv) Alternatively, Parties contemplated the vessel to do voyages from Russia to India to Russia which takes about 85 - 90 days (including cargo operations, sailing time, congestion at port, etc.) and therefore spilt the Charter Period in intervals of 3 months. Thus, when the second voyage instructions were given, it unequivocally implied the 1st option for 3 months was being exercised; (v) The Charterparty does not prescribe any form in which the declaration is required to be made. The relevant test is whether a reasonable recipient, with knowledge of the background facts reasonably available to the parties, would have understood the relevant communication to constitute a declaration of the option. The relevant test is whether a reasonable recipient, with knowledge of the background facts reasonably available to the parties, would have understood the relevant communication to constitute a declaration of the option. (vi) No redelivery of the Defendant Vessel to Tallinn port, Estonia was contemporaneously demanded by the Owners at the time the Plaintiff exercised its option. (vii) No redelivery notices were issued by the Plaintiff. Thus, Clause 19 was not applicable. Clause 19 was a mechanism to prevent operational absurdity at the expiry of a charter period. It did not determine whether the charter period has been extended. The 21.01.2026 Voyage Instructions was not a marginal overrun of a few days but necessitated charter performance over months. (viii) When the Owners raised the Hire invoices for Feb and March 2026 basis the firm charter hire rate as opposed to optional period charter hire rate, the Plaintiff paid for the same without prejudice to its right on the applicable charter hire rate. It paid in the ordinary course to avoid operational disruption and preserve commercial continuity. Further, Plaintiff expressly followed up with Owners for additional invoices accounting for the differential charter hire payable for the option period. The Owners failed to do so. The Owners subsequent invoicing conduct cannot retrospectively determine whether the option had already been declared. (ix) Alternatively, the Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the firm period was stated to be for a “min” of 3 months and could be extended by the Parties, which the Parties did by conducting the voyage to Sikka on the firm period hire rate. This thereby extended the ‘current period’ within which the Plaintiff was required to exercise its option under the Charterparty. Having done so, and even assuming the voyage instructions on 21.01.2026 do not constitute a valid exercise of the option, the Plaintiff validly exercised its option to extend the Charter for a further 3 months post the extended firm period by its email dated 08.03.2026. (x) the Owners’ subsequent emails and notices are a last-ditch effort to profit from the subsequent rise of the current market prices on account of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East / Israel / Iran /US. [11] Ld. Sr. (x) the Owners’ subsequent emails and notices are a last-ditch effort to profit from the subsequent rise of the current market prices on account of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East / Israel / Iran /US. [11] Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the Owners’ emails since 20.02.2026 till 10.03.2026 made it amply clear that they had no intention to perform the Charterparty by adhering to the voyage instructions provided on 08.03.2026 even though the Plaintiff had validly exercised its option to extend the charter period by 3 + 3 + 3 months and paid advance charter hire till 1.04.2026. Further, the Owners demanded that the Defendant Vessel be prematurely redelivered to Tallinn, Estonia. Accordingly, vide email dated 11.03.2026, the Plaintiff was compelled to hold the Owners in repudiatory breach and terminate the Charterparty dated 04.11.2025. [12] The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff’s principal claim is towards (i) USD 12,509,500 towards damages for non performance of the balance optional period extending to 254 days. (ii) return of excess charter hire of USD 352,958.43 (iii) value of bunkers of board to the tune of USD 427,458. The damages for non-performance have been calculated basis the increase in the Time Charter market Hire. The Plaintiff contends that the market has risen by 3 times, to a time charter rate of approx.. USD 74,000 Accordingly, the Plaintiff has calculated its damages at the rate of USD 49,250 per day for the balance 254 days. USD 49,250 is the difference between market hire rate of USD 74,000 minus contractual hire rate for the optional period being USD 24,500. The Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that TC hire rates for tankers has exponentially increased – in most cases by 3 times - inter alia as a result of the of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Further, he stated that the Plaintiff’s Charterparty dated 4.11.2025 was for Russian oil trade and that there is no readily available published index to indicate the precise increase in the TC marker rate. Further, the number of Vessels engaged in Russian oil trade and available in the market are highly restricted. The Plaintiff sought quotations for alternate / substitute Time Charters, however at present no response has been forthcoming. As far its claim for excess charter hire, the Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff made payment of hire in advance till 1.04.2026. Further, the number of Vessels engaged in Russian oil trade and available in the market are highly restricted. The Plaintiff sought quotations for alternate / substitute Time Charters, however at present no response has been forthcoming. As far its claim for excess charter hire, the Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff made payment of hire in advance till 1.04.2026. After accounting for off-hire periods and other disbursements, the Owners owes the Plaintiff USD 352,958.43 towards excess charter hire not earned. As regard its claim for bunkers, the Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that under the Charterparty, the Plaintiff is entitled to the price of bunkers on board the Vessel as on termination, since the same was supplied by and paid for by the Plaintiff during the Charter. Over and above the Principal claim, the Plaintiff claims legal costs and interest from the date of filing of the suit. [13] The Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the Plaintiff’s claim is a recognized maritime claim within Sections 4 (1) (g) r/w 4 (1) (h) r/w 5(1)(a) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 [“Admiralty Act”]. Separately, the Plaintiff has a contractual lien on the Vessel for its claims. [14] The Ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that at the time when the maritime claim arose in February 2026 and when the arrest is sought to be effected, the ownership of the Vessel continues with the Plaintiff’s counterparty. [15] Heard Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Saurabh Soparakar assisted by Ms. Paurami Sheth for the Plaintiff and considered the averments made in the plaint herein declared at Ahmedabad on 12.03.2026 filed by the Advocate for the Plaintiff herein and the affidavit of Mr. Raju Desai, the Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff above named affirmed on 12.03.2026 in support of the arrest. On a reading of the plaint and Exhibits thereto, prima facie it appears that the Plaintiff’s claim in the Plaint is in the nature of a maritime claim and this court is entitled to pass order directing arrest of the 1st Defendant Vessel. On a reading of the plaint and Exhibits thereto, prima facie it appears that the Plaintiff’s claim in the Plaint is in the nature of a maritime claim and this court is entitled to pass order directing arrest of the 1st Defendant Vessel. [16] 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 1st 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, MT ROUTE (IMO 9281853) along with her hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, equipment and all appurtenances, at present lying at Sikka 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 Sikka Port do effect the arrest, seizure or detention of the Defendant Vessel at present lying at Sikka 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 principal Amount of USD 13,289,917/- with legal cost aggregating sum of USD 14,589,917/- with further interest @ 12 % per annum on the principal sum of USD 13,289,917 from date of filing of the suit till payment/ realisation as per particulars of claim, the said Warrant of Arrest would not be executed against the Defendant Vessel at present lying at Sikka Port, within the Indian territorial waters. [17] The Port Officer and the Customs Authorities at Sikka Port are directed to arrest the Defendant Vessel i.e. MT ROUTE (IMO 9281853) at present lying at Sikka 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 Sikka 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. It is further ordered that the Port Officer and the Customs Officer at Sikka 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. [18] The Registry is directed to send this order to Port and Customs at Sikka Port at following addresses: Mithilesh.K.Singh@ril.com port_operation.centre@ril.com krupanidhi.tripathi@ril.com info.jamnagar@gmbports.in ops.jam@gmbports.in ashoo.mote@ril.com chsikka2012@yahoo.com custjmr@nic.in commr-custjmr@nic.in pojam.gmb@gmail.com [19] It is further directed that Authorities at Sikka Port shall act on email copy of the order and take the Defendant Vessel i.e. MT ROUTE (IMO 9281853) under arrest immediately. [20] Notice to the Defendants returnable on 9 th April 2026. The Plaintiff is permitted to serve to the Defendant Vessel through her Owner or interested person through email. [21] It is also open for the Plaintiff to communicate the above order by Email to the Port and Customs authorities at Sikka Port and the Authorities at Sikka Port are directed to act on email message with an ordinary copy of this order. [22] 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. Direct Service is permitted today.