[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Neon Limited vs Lpg Nisyros Imo No 9412062 on 30 January, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 3198 OF 2026
Neon Limited & Anr. ...Plaintiffs
V/s.
LGP Nisyros IMO No. 9412062 & Anr. ...Defendants
WITH
JUDGE'S ORDER NO. 3303 OF 2026
Mr. Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prasad Shenoy, Mr.
Prateek Pansare, Dr. Shrikant Hathi, Mr. Pritish Das i/b Brus Chambers
for the Plaintiffs.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 30th JANUARY, 2026
P.C. :
1. Circulation of this matter had been sought this morning,
submitting that the Defendant No.1-Vessel-LPG Nisyros, IMO No.
9412062 against which the maritime claim has arisen is likely to leave
the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the matter be listed on the
Production Board. Accordingly, the matter has been listed on the
Production Board at serial no. 501.
2. Mr. Narichania, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Plaintiffs submits that the Plaintiff No.1, the registered owner of the
Defendant No.1-Vessel had earlier entered into a Bareboat Charter Party
Agreement with one Eletson Gas LLC, wherein there was also a
Nikita Gadgil 1/7
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:33:59 :::
501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
purchase option to the Bareboat Charterer at a pre-determined price.
Mr. Narichania has submitted that in a Bareboat Charterer party, the
appointment of the master and the crew is with the charterer and that
pursuant to the same the charterer had appointed the master and crew.
That the charter party expired on 29th August, 2025 and that the
charterer exercised its option to purchase the Defendant No. 1-Vessel,
however, the purchase could not be completed, which led to reference
of the dispute to arbitration. That the arbitral tribunal has awarded in
favour of the Plaintiff giving the following findings with the consent of
the parties:-
(1) the Bareboat Charter Agreements have expired on the
following dates:
(i) the Anafi BBCP expired on 31st July, 2025.
(ii) the Tilos BBCP expired on 31st July, 2025.
(iii) the Nisyros BBCP expired on 29th August, 2025.
(2) as a result of the expiry of the Bareboat Charter
Agreements, the rights conferred upon the Eletson Gas LLC
to purchase the Vessels pursuant to Clause 47 have been
extinguished, and may no longer be exercised by Eletson Gas
LLC, or any other party.
(3) the absence of completion of the purchase of the vessels
pursuant to the terms of the Purchase options had the effect
that (a) title to the Vessels remained with the respective
Claimant without any further obligation to transfer the same
to the Respondent, (b) the Bareboat Charter Agreements no
longer imposed any fetter upon the Claimants' rights of
ownership in and possession of the vessels or their ability to
sell those vessels on such terms and in such manner as they
Nikita Gadgil 2/7
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:33:59 :::
501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
see fit, and (c) the Respondent was required forthwith to
redeliver the Vessels to the respective Claimant in accordance
with Clause 46 fo the Bareboat Charter Agreements.
3. Mr. Narichania submits that pursuant to the said award dated
13th October, 2025, request was made on behalf of the Plaintiff No.1 to
the then Captain / Master of the Defendant No.1-Vessel to disembark,
however, the said request was not heeded to, after which by another
email dated 27th January, 2026, instructions to redeliver the Defendant
No.1-Vessel within 24 hours were also sent to the master, which was
also not complied with.
4. Mr. Narichania submits that the Plaintiff No. 1 has by a share
purchase agreement dated 31st July, 2025 with the Plaintiff No.2
whereby the parties have decided to enter into the sale and purchase of
the shares of the Plaintiff No.1 and it is upon the Plaintiff No. 1,
therefore to obtain possession of the Defendant No.1-Vessel for the
purposes of the share purchase agreement. Mr. Narichania submits that,
therefore, the dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants is
regarding the possession of the Defendant No.1-Vessel. That the
Defendant No.2 is the present master of the Defendant No. 1-Vessel.
Referring to section 4(1) (a) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and
Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the "Admiralty Act"), Mr.
Nikita Gadgil 3/7
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:33:59 :::
501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
Narichania submits that dispute regarding the possession or the
ownership of a Vessel or the ownership of any share therein is a
maritime claim, which can be determined by this Court by exercising
jurisdiction. However, since the vessel is presently within the
jurisdiction of this Court, which Mr. Narichania seeks to establish by
tendering across the bar a statement of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port
Authority (Bulk Terminal) dated 30th January, 2026 and a photocopy of
the screenshot of the Marine Traffic website, submitting that this Court
order arrest of the Defendant No. 1-Vessel under Section 5(1) (d) of the
Admiralty Act to secure the maritime claim.
5. Mr. Narichania submits that there is failure to redeliver the
Defendant No.1-Vessel, which the Plaintiffs are apprehending is being
commercially exploited by some other persons by changing the masters
and the crew.
6. Mr. Narichania has taken this Court through various exhibits and
annexures in support of his aforesaid contentions.
7. It is submitted that there is no caveat registered against the arrest
of the Defendant No. 1- Vessel. The Court Associate has also tendered
the certification from the Section Officer of the Execution Department
Nikita Gadgil 4/7
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:33:59 :::
501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
from the office of the Prothonotary & Senior Master, which indicates
that as on 30th January, 2026 at 2.50 p.m. there is no Caveat filed
against the arrest of the Defendant No.1-Vessel.
8. The statement of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority (Bulk
Terminal) tendered by Mr. Narichania indicates that the Defendant
No.1-Vessel which arrived on 25th January, 2026 at 04.48 hours has
filed documents in compliance on 29 th January, 2026 at 20.25 hours. A
printout of the screenshot of the marinetraffic.com with respect to the
current location of the Defendant No.1-Vessel indicates that the
Defendant No.1-Vessel is at anchor on 30th January, 2026 07:38 UTC.
9. It is observed from the Section 4 of the Admiralty Act that any
dispute regarding the possession or ownership of the vessel or the
ownership of any share therein is a maritime claim under Section 4(1)
(a) of the Admiralty Act and the High Court may exercise jurisdiction to
hear and determine any question of maritime claim. In the facts of this
case as noted above, although there is an award in favour of the
Plaintiff No.1 for redelivery of the Defendant No.1-Vessel, however,
despite communications, no redelivery has been effected to the Plaintiff
No. 1, who is the registered owner of the Defendant No.1-Vessel, nor
Nikita Gadgil 5/7
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:33:59 :::
501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
the Captain / Master, presently the Defendant No.2 has disembarked.
10. Therefore, there is a prima facie case made out with respect to a
maritime claim under Section 4(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act ,regarding
the possession of the Defendant No.1-Vessel. Under Section 5(1)(d) of
the Admiralty Act, the High Court may order arrest of any vessel which
is within its jurisdiction for the purposes of providing security against
the maritime claim, which is subject to admiralty proceedings where
the Court has reason to believe that the claim relates to the ownership
or possession of the vessel.
11. Accordingly, having heard the learned Senior Counsel, in view of
the case prima facie case of maritime claim under Section 4(1)(a) of
the Admiralty Act, as this Court has reason to believe that the claim
relates to the ownership or possession of the Defendant No.1-Vessel and
the tests for the arrest of a vessel in an action in rem of the Plaintiff
having a maritime claim and the Defendant No.1-Vessel being within
the jurisdiction of this Court having been met, and in view of Section 3
and Section 5 of the Admiralty Act, this Court, having jurisdiction to
direct arrest of the Defendant-Vessel, the following order is passed:-
Nikita Gadgil 6/7
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 22:33:59 :::
501. COMASL 3198-26.doc
ORDER
(i) I order the arrest of the Defendant-Vessel named LPG Nisyros,
IMO No. 9412062 , 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) 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.
(iv) The Judge's Order is signed separately.
(v) The Plaintiff's undertaking dated 29th January, 2026 is accepted.
(vi) All concerned to act on a copy of this order, duly authenticated
by the Associate of this Court.
(vii) The Plaintiff is at liberty to communicate this order to the Sheriff
of Mumbai, the Master / Captain of the Defendant-Vessel, Port and
Custom authorities by email/hand delivery.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
