Faisal Fazlani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2026 Latest Caselaw 3739 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3739 Bom
Judgement Date : 15 April, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Faisal Fazlani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 April, 2026

Author: Abhay Ahuja

Bench: Abhay Ahuja

                                         501. COMASL 13071-26 @ JOL 13080-26.doc


                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

           COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 13071 OF 2026

 Huelva Maritime Services                                       ...Plaintiff
            V/s.
 Ro Ro Cargo Ship Adler IMO 9179854                             ...Defendant

                                    WITH
                      JUDGE'S ORDER (L) NO. 13080 OF 2026

 Mr. Dhruva Gandhi with Ms. Bulbul Singh Rajpurohit and Ms. Charmi
 Shah i/b Crawford Bayley and Co. for the Plaintiff.

                           CORAM   :    ABHAY AHUJA, J.
                           DATE    :    15th APRIL, 2026
 P.C. :

 1.       This matter was mentioned this morning for being listed on the

 production board, submitting that the Defendant-Vessel viz. Ro Ro

 Cargo Ship Adler, IMO 9179854 (the "Defendant-Vessel") is within the

 admiralty jurisdiction of this Court and that circulation be granted for

 arrest of the Defendant-Vessel in respect whereof towage services had

 been rendered and payments also been received, however, despite

 admission of liability by the broker of the delayed payment as per Box-

 29 of the BIMCO Agreement in respect whereof the invoices were

 received and correspondence exchanged, the payments have not been

 received. Accordingly, the matter has been listed on the production

 board at serial no. 501 at 4.30 p.m.


 Nikita Gadgil                                                     1/5




::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026                  ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2026 20:39:22 :::
                                          501. COMASL 13071-26 @ JOL 13080-26.doc


 2.       Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits

 that despite agreeing to the outstanding payments qualifying as

 maritime claim under Section 4(1)(j) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and

 Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the "Admiralty Act") and

 offering to settle the claim at 50% of the said amount, no payment has

 been received by the Plaintiff. Mr. Gandhi clarifies that the Plaintiff has

 not accepted 50% of the discount but had only offered 20% discount on

 the basis that the amount of EURO 61040 be received before 11 th

 October, 2025, but after that the amount due would be full again of

 EURO 73600.


 3.       Mr. Gandhi has submitted that although the owner of the

 Defendant-Vessel is of Russian origin, however, they have acted through

 a European broker and the correspondence has been with the email

 addresses in Box-30 of the BIMCO Agreement dated 24 th August, 2025.

 That the delayed payment has been in terms of Box-29 of the said

 BIMCO Agreement, which has not been denied.


 4.       Mr. Gandhi has taken this Court through the documents annexed

 to the Plaint and submits that despite holding up the tug of the Plaintiff

 for towing the Defendant-Vessel from 8th September, 2025 to the 24th

 September, 2025 at Oran in Algeria and despite the admissions as


 Nikita Gadgil                                                     2/5




::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026                  ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2026 20:39:22 :::
                                          501. COMASL 13071-26 @ JOL 13080-26.doc


 above, no payment has been received and therefore, the Plaintiff has

 been constrained to file this suit in rem for the receovery / security of a

 maritime claim under Section 4(1)(j) of the Admiralty Act, so that this

 Court can direct arrest of the Defendant-Vessel, which is within the

 jurisdiction of this Court as can be evidenced from a printout of the

 website marinetraffic.com tendered across the bar, as also copy of the

 Daily Vessel List of the Mumbai Port Authority, Indira Dock also

 tendered across the bar, which indicates that the Defendant-Vessel is at

 the said dock, within the jurisdiction of this Court.


 5.       Mr. Gandhi submits that there is no caveat against the arrest of

 the Defendant-Vessel which is also certified by the Section Officer of the

 Execution Department of this Court as on today at 4.20 p.m.


 6.       Having heard the learned Counsel and having perused the

 various documents annexed to the Plaint, with the assistance of the

 learned Counsel, I am of the prima facie view that a case for arrest is

 well made out: there is a maritime claim within the meaning of Section

 4(1)(j) of the Admiralty Act and the Defendant-Vessel is within the

 admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.




 Nikita Gadgil                                                     3/5




::: Uploaded on - 15/04/2026                  ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2026 20:39:22 :::
                                             501. COMASL 13071-26 @ JOL 13080-26.doc


 7.       Accordingly, in view of the Section 3 and Section 5(1)(a) of the

 Admiralty Act, I pass the following order:-


                                         ORDER

(i) I order the arrest of the Defendant-Vessel named Ro Ro Cargo

Ship Adler, IMO 9179854, lying and being within the Admiralty

Jurisdiction of this Court along with hull, engines, gears, tackles,

machinery, apparels and paraphernalia lying and being presently at

Mumbai or wherever in the territorial waters of India.

(ii) Warrant of arrest is dispensed with.

(iii) If the Defendant-Vessel is found abandoned or unmanned, the

office of the Sheriff shall present a report for auctioning the Vessel upon

request of the Plaintiff.

(iv) The Plaintiff is also at liberty to file an application for sale of the

Defendant-Vessel provided no application for vacating the order of

arrest is made.