[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Rashmi Metaliks Limited vs Owners And Parties Interested In Vessel ... on 22 May, 2026
A No. 2181 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22-05-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
A No. 2181 of 2026
AND
C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 145 OF 2026
Rashmi Metaliks Limited
A Company incorporated under the laws of India,
Having its Registered address at Premlata
Building, 6th Floor,39 Shakespeare Sarani,
Kolkata 700 017, India Represented by its
Constituted Attorney Mr.Udayakumar
Gunasekaran.
..Applicant
Vs
Owners and Parties interested in Vessel M V
ALDO (IMO 1086817)
A foreign flagged bulk carrier vessel flying the flag
of the Republic of Malts, together with her hull,
tackle, engines, gears, plant, machinery, articles,
things, appurtenant, things apparel and other
Paraphernalia on board, presently lying at
V.C.Chidambaranar Port, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu,
within Indian territorial waters and represented by
its Master.
..Respondent
Rashmi Metaliks Limited
A Company incorporated under the laws of India,
Having its Registered address at Premlata
Building, 6th Floor,39 Shakespeare Sarani,
Kolkata 700 017, India Represented by its
Constituted Attorney Mr.Udayakumar
Gunasekaran.
..Applicant(s)
Vs
Owners and Parties interested in Vessel M V
ALDO (IMO 1086817)
__________
Page1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A foreign flagged bulk carrier vessel flying the flag
of the Republic of Malts, together with her hull,
tackle, engines, gears, plant, machinery, articles,
things, appurtenant, things apparel and other
Paraphernalia on board, presently lying at
V.C.Chidambaranar Port, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu,
within Indian territorial waters and represented by
its Master.
..Respondent(s)
To order Interim Arrest of the Vessel MV V ALDO, flying the flag
of the Republic of Malta, having IMO No.1086817 now lying at
V.O.Chidambaranar Port, Tuticorin, together with her hull, engines,,gear,
tackle, machinery, articles, things, bunkers, apparel, plant, furniture and all
other appurtenances presently at V.O.Chidambaranar Port, Tuticorin, pending
disposal of the present suit.
For Applicant : Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan,
Senior Counsel for
Ms.Avanti Balachander,
Mr.Soorya Shrinivas V,
Mr.Sanjana P Shankar
Order
The plaintiff is a manufacturer of Iron Ductile Pipes. It entered into a
contract for sale of such pipes with one M/s. Batiments Industries Services et
Travax Publics. The quantity being of 34,650 pipes. The total value of the
contract being USD 62,77,500. The plaintiff entered into a contract for shipment
of these goods with the defendant. Two holds, namely, Hold-1 and Hold-5 were
utilised for the purpose of shipping the materials from Haldia to Mauritania.
__________
Page2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The plaintiff asserts that the goods were properly loaded and secured and that it
was duly certified by the Master.
2. On 03.04.2026, the plaintiff was informed by the Master of the ship
that on account of improper loading of the goods, the Cargo had suffered
damage. It was alleged the damage was to such an extent that it has affected the
seaworthiness of the vessel. The plaintiff, by reply, pointed out that the Cargo
had been properly secured and certified and it does not lie to the mouth of the
Master to blame the damage on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff called
upon the vessel to be moved to Tuticorin Port, so as to enable the parties to
conduct a joint survey for assessment of the damage said to have been suffered
to the Cargo. The plaintiff has also made it clear that it has no intention to
continue with the voyage through the defendant. Prior to doing so, the defendant
insisted a payment of USD 11,00,000 as a condition precedent to move the
vessel into the port of Tuticorin. The plaintiff under protest paid the amount.
The vessel is currently docked at Tuticorin. However, fearing that the entire
Cargo has been damaged, the plaintiff has come forth with the suit for recovery
of money and interim arrest of the vessel.
3. In terms of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime
Claims) Act, 2017, the ductile pipes are covered as “goods” under Section 2(1)
__________
Page3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(d). It is also a maritime claim granting jurisdiction to this Court under Section
4(1)(f) to 4(1)(h) of the aforesaid legislation.
4. It is urged by Mr.Sricharan Rangarajan appearing for Ms.Avanti
Balachander that the vessel could leave Tuticorin at any moment. He states that
the goods have been discharged and the vessel is ready to sail to its next
destination. He urges that in such an event, it would be well nigh impossible for
the plaintiff to recover its dues.
5. Though it is a commercial dispute within the meaning under Section
2(1)(c)(iii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the plaintiff cannot be called
upon to undergo a mandatory pre-mediation process under Section 12A, as there
is an eminent urgency in this matter. The aspect of urgency has to be set out
before dispensing with the requirement of pre-mediation. I am satisfied about
the urgency. Hence, Section 12A has not been insisted.
6. The documents filed along with the plaint show that the agreement
between the plaintiff and the defendant is to ship the Cargo that belonged to the
plaintiff. The E-mail from the Master shows that the vessel and goods suffered
damage. Despite the fact that the plaintiff requested the defendant to bring the
vessel to Tuticorin port for the purpose of assessment of damage, the defendant
__________
Page4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
urged that unless and until a sum of USD 11,00,000 is paid, the vessel would
not be brought.
7. The aforesaid facts read with the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and
Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 makes out a prima facie case in
favour of the plaintiff. In case, the vessel is not arrested and it sails away from
India, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and prejudice. Hence, I am
inclined to grant an ex-parte order of arrest.
8. As there is an apprehension that the defendant vessel might sail out of
the jurisdiction of this Court, I am inclined to grant the interim relief sought for.
Accordingly, the vessel M V ALDO (IMO 1086817) is directed to be arrested.
9. Ms.Avanti Balachander shall ensure that notice is served to the
defendant privately including Email by 27.05.2026. She shall also inform the
appropriate authorities regarding this order.
10. Call this matter on 27.05.2026.
22-05-2026
nl
Note: Registry is directed to issue notice of warrant of arrest today i.e., on
22.05.2026
__________
Page5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.
nl
AND
C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 145 OF 2026
22-05-2026
__________
Page6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
