Calcutta High Court
Emami Paper Mills Limited vs The Owners And Parties Interested In The ... on 22 July, 2025
OCD- 64
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMERCIAL DIVISION
E.C. (COM) No. 384 of 2025
EMAMI PAPER MILLS LIMITED
-VS-
THE OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL
M.V. PH GIANG MINH (IMO NO. 9481623) & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao
Date : 22.07.2025
Appearance:
Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Sr. Adv.
... for the Decree Holder.
THE COURT:
1.
The Decree Holder had initially filed a suit being A.S (COM) No. 4 of
2024 against the defendants praying for arrest of Vessel being M.V. PH
GIANG MINH (IMO NO. 9481623) along with her hull, tackle, engines,
apparel, equipment, machinery, articles, things, stores and other
paraphernalia on board the Vessel, a decree for permanent injunction
directing the Vessel not to sail from the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble
Calcutta High Court or not to deal with the Vessel in any manner
except in favour of the Decree Holder and decree for a sum of USD
8,85,600 equivalent to INR 7,63,77,480/- to be paid by the defendant
no. 2 in aid of the arbitration as per Clause 30 of the Contract and
allied prayers.
2. When the Decree Holder has filed the suit on 4th August, 2024, the
Decree Holder had also prayed for interim order and accordingly this
Court had passed an interim order directing the Arrest of the Vessel
being M.V. PH GIANG MINH (IMO NO. 9481623) along with her hull,
tackle, engines, apparel, equipment, machinery, articles, things, stores
and other paraphernalia on board the Vessel.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the parties have settled their dispute
by entering into Terms of Settlement. As per the settlement arrived
between the parties, this Court by an order dated 9th September, 2024,
released the Vessel, namely, M.V. PH GIANG MINH (IMO NO. 9481623)
and the suit filed by the Decree Holder, is decreed by consent in Terms
of Settlement arrived between the parties.
4. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, Learned Senior Advocate representing the
Decree Holder, submits that after the Admiralty Suit has been decreed
by this Court and all claims and counterclaims between the parties
arising out of the Fixture Note dated 26th June, 2024 has been settled,
the Judgment Debtor No. 2 sought to re-agitate the issue and make a
claim on the Decree Holder by an email dated 22nd April, 2025. He
submits that the claim was made on the alleged ground that Head
Owners have threatened to commence Arbitration proceedings against
the Judgment Debtor No. 2 and have, accordingly, made a claim
against the Judgment Debtor No. 2.
5. Mr. Banerji submits that the Decree Holder had immediately sent reply
to the email on 30th April, 2025, stating the true and correct facts with
regard to the final adjudication of the Admiralty Suit and the decree
passed by this Court dated 9th September, 2024. He submits that
inspite of receipt of the reply, the Judgment Debtor No. 2 through its
Advocates issued an email dated 9th May, 2025 and sought to make a
claim on the Decree Holder and also demanded a counter security from
the Decree Holder in respect of the threatened Arbitration proceedings.
He submits that the Decree Holder had sent the reply to the said email
on 16th May, 2025.
6. Mr. Banerji submits that again by an email dated 9th June, 2025, the
Advocates of the Judgment Debtor No. 2 have threatened the Decree
Holder for initiation of the Arbitration proceeding with respect to the
alleged claims. The decree holder has sent a reply on 12th June, 2025.
He submits that again on 13th June, 2025, the Judgment Debtor No. 2
had again issued an email through the Advocate. The Decree Holder
had denied the claims of the Judgment Debtor No. 2 and also called
upon the Judgment Debtors not to proceed with the Arbitration
proceeding as the claim of the parties have already settled by the decree
passed by this Court.
7. Mr. Banerji submits that without considering the reply of the Decree
Holder, the Judgment Debtor no. 2 had again sent an email dated 1st
July, 2025, intimating that they have initiated an Arbitration
proceeding before the London Maritime Arbitrators Association in terms
of the alleged Arbitration agreement. He submits that there is no
subsisting Arbitration agreement between the parties as alleged by the
Judgment Debtor No. 2 and the Arbitration proceeding sought to be
instituted by the Judgment Debtor No. 2 is without any jurisdiction.
8. Mr. Banerji submits that the final order dated 9th September, 2024
passed by this Court resultant decree by consent which had
extinguished or prospective and retrospective disputes between the
Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtors be enforced and executed.
9. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Decree Holder, perused the
materials on record. During the pendency of A.S. (COM) No. 4 of 2024,
parties have entered into Terms of Settlement and as per the Terms of
Settlement, it was agreed between the parties towards purchased of
damaged 1330 Mts of Cargo forming relevant subject-matter of the suit,
M/s. Cellpap Mercantile LLP shall directly pay to the plaintiff a sum of
Rs. 6,51,70,000/- without any adjustment or deduction whatsoever.
The entire claim of the Admiralty Suit shall stand satisfied, settled and
fulfilled with the plaintiff receiving the aggregate amount of USD
224,148.59 corresponding to INR 6,51,70,000/-. Upon complete and
satisfactory receipt of the aforesaid sums in the bank account specified
in these terms, the Decree Holder have no cause of action or maritime
claim surviving against the Vessel, namely, M.V. PH GIANG MINH (IMO
NO. 9481623) or her Owners, the captain and crew, operator, manager,
protection and indemnity (P&l) insurers, or any other person or
company related to the said vessel or transportation, nor will the
Decree Holder filed any other claim or take any preservation measures
against the sister ships belonging to the same Owner/Manager of the
said Vessel. Likewise the Owners of the defendant no. 1 Vessel or her
Charterers/ Captain and crew, Operators, Managers, Agents, P&I
Insurers, P&I Club, P&I Correspondence, Bareboat Charterers,
Disponent Owners or any party interested in the said Vessel shall not
have any claim or cause of action or grievance against the
plaintiff/Decree Holder in any jurisdiction of the world.
10. This Court finds that the parties have settled their disputes once for all
and this Court has accepted the Terms of Settlement between the
parties. In the Settlement, it is categorically mentioned that the
Judgment Debtors shall not have any claim or cause of action or
grievance against the Decree Holder in any jurisdiction of the world but
inspite of the decree passed by this Court by making the Terms of
Settlement as part of the decree, the Judgment Debtor No. 2 had issued
notices upon the Decree Holder for initiation of Arbitration proceeding.
11. This Court finds that the Judgment Debtor No. 2 has ignored the
decree passed by this Court in Terms of Settlement entered between the
parties, thus this Court finds that the plaintiff has made out a prima
facie case and balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of
the plaintiff. This Court also finds that if at this stage, an ad interim
injunction is not granted by restraining the Judgment Debtor No. 2 for
initiation of any Arbitration proceeding involving the Decree Holder/
plaintiff, the Decree Holder will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
12. In view of the above, the Judgment Debtors are restrained from
proceeding in any Arbitration proceeding before London Maritime
Arbitrators Association in connection with or arising out of the Fixture
Note dated 26th June, 2024 against the Decree Holder and the
Judgment Debtors are further restrained from taking any further steps
against the Decree Holder on the basis of their notice dated 1st July,
2025 or any other steps in the Arbitration proceeding till 20th August,
2025.
13. The Decree Holder/ plaintiff is directed to serve the copy of execution
application along with documents to the Judgment Debtors
immediately and to file affidavit of service on the returnable date.
14. List the Matter on 20th August, 2025.
(Krishna Rao, J.)
p.d/-
