ANAFI SPECIAL MARITIME ENTERPRISE vs MT ANAFI (IMO-9411733) (NOW KNOWN AS MT ANIVUS I
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
Reserved On : 29/10/2026
Pronounced On : 04/11/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6 of 2026
In R/ADMIRALTY SUIT/32/2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 6 of 2026
With
R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7 of 2026
In
R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 8 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (OJ) (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026 In
R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 7 of 2026
In
R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 8 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
ANAFI SPECIAL MARITIME ENTERPRISE
Versus
MT ANAFI (IMO-9411733) (NOW KNOWN AS MT ANIVUS I & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI ADVOCATE GENERAL with MR DEVANG NANAVATI
SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR SHALIN MEHTA SENIOR ADVOCATE and
MR PRATHMESH KAMAT with MR VINAY BAIRAGRA with MR NAKUL JAIN
and MR. NEIL V PATEL and MR. PARAM H. VYAS(19343) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MS FERESHTE SETHNA, MS BHAGYASHREE ANKLESARIA with
MS ADITI SHRIVASTAVA, MR URVIN IRANI, MR AKSHAT C. MEHTA,
MR HIMANSHU SHAH with MR SALIL M THAKORE(5821),
MS PAURAMI B. SHETH & MS SMRITI A TRIPATHY for the
Opponents
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Page 1 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
.
ADMIT
1. The captioned O.J. Appeal No.6 of 2026 (in short
“OJA/6/2026”) has been filed by the plaintiff in Admiralty Suit
No.32 of 2026 (in short “AS/32/2026”) viz. ANAFI Special
Maritime Enterprise (“ANAFI SME” in short), under Section 14 of
the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims)
Act, 2017, (in short, “the Admiralty Act”) challenging the
common judgement and order dated 27.10.2026 passed by the
learned Single Judge, whereby the captioned AS/32/2026 has
been disposed of as dismissed with cost of USD 100,000.
2. Whereas O.J. Appeal No.7 of 2026 (in short “OJA/7/2026”)
has been filed by ANAFI SME claiming to be the disponent
owner of the vessel - MT ANAFI challenging the order
permitting the unconditional withdrawal of Admiralty Suit No.8
of 2026 (in short “AS/8/2026”). An alternate prayer is also
made in OJA/7/2026 to allow withdrawal of AS/8/2026, but
subject to restoring possession of the vessel - MT ANAFI.
3. AS/32/2026 has been dismissed by the learned Single
Judge by invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and on the ground of
suppression of facts. While dismissing AS/32/2026, the learned
Single Judge has also directed the plaintiff to deposit USD
20,000 in the Juvenile Justice Fund, which amount had been
deposited by the plaintiff - ANAFI SME in AS/32/2026 before the
Registry of this Court.
Page 2 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
4. Thus, ANAFI SME, the appellant – original plaintiff of
AS/32/2026 is saddled with total costs of USD 120,000 (one
hundred and twenty thousand dollars).
BRIEF FACTS :
5. The dispute (maritime claim) in both the suits relates to
the vessel - MT ANAFI (IMO-9411733). AS/8/2026 was filed by
plaintiff No.1 - BSL MGC Limited and plaintiff No.2 – ANIVUS I
Shipping Company and AS/32/2026 was filed by the plaintiff -
ANAFI SME, the appellant of OJA/6/2026. The details of the
suits are as under :
ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.8 of 2026
Plaintiff No.1 :
BSL MGC LIMITED
Plaintiff No.2 :
ANIVUS I SHIPPING COMPANY
Defendant No. 1 :
MT ANAFI (IMO-9411733)
Defendant No. 2 :
GEORGIOS SKRIMIZEAS
ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 32 of 2026
Plaintiff :
ANAFI SPECIAL MARITIME ENTERPRISES
(ANAFI SME)
Defendant No.1 :
MT ANAFI (IMO-9411733)
Defendant No.2 :
BSL MGC LIMITED
Defendant No. 3 :
ANIVUS I SHIPPING COMPANY
5.1 AS/8/2026 was instituted by BSL MGC LTD seeking a
decree in favour of plaintiff No.2 - ANIVUS I Shipping Company
and against defendant No.2 – Georgios Skrimizeas, for a sum of
USD 4,175,000 towards damages for loss of charter hire,
Page 3 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
together with interest and costs by holding him in illegal and
unauthorized possession of the vessel-MT ANAFI.
5.2 It is mentioned in the plaint (AS/8/2026) that defendant
No.2 - Georgios Skrimizeas, is a Greek national, who was
appointed as the Master / Captain of defendant No.1 – the
vessel, MT ANAFI. The plaintiffs' case in AS/8/2026, was that
plaintiff No.1 - BSL MGC Limited had entered into a Bareboat
Charterparty Agreement dated 24.05.2018 with Eletson Gas
Limited Liability Company (Eletson Gas LLC) for a period of 07
(seven) years.
5.3 It was further the case of the plaintiffs in AS/8/2026 that
defendant No.2 - Georgios Skrimizeas, the Master / Captain
had no legal authority over defendant No.1 – the vessel, MT
ANAFI, after 31.07.2025, upon expiry of 07 (seven) years
Bareboat Charterparty Agreement, and that he had failed to
hand over possession of the vessel despite the expiry of the
agreement. On these grounds, AS/8/2026 was instituted.
5.4 Upon institution of the suit, the learned Single Judge, vide
order dated 24.01.2026 passed in AS/8/2026, ordered the
arrest of defendant No.1 – the vessel, MT ANAFI.
5.5 It appears that during the pendency of AS/8/2026 and
pursuant to the arrest order dated 24.01.2026 passed by the
learned Single Judge, the representative of BSL MGC Limited
(plaintiff No.1 of AS/8/2026) took possession of the vessel
sometime between 24.01.2026 and 30.01.2026, after
disembarking the Master and the Crew from the vessel.
Page 4 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
5.6 It further appears that after possession of the vessel had
been taken, an affidavit seeking withdrawal of AS/8/2026 was
filed on 23.04.2026 by Mr.Ketan Manojkumar Chhatbar.
5.7 The action of disembarking the defendant No.2 i.e. the
Master of the vessel - MT ANAFI, led to the filing of Civil
Application (OJ) (direction) No.3 of 2026 in AS/8/2026 (in short
“OJCA/3/2026”) by the appellant - ANAFI SME (plaintiff of
AS/32/2026), which claim to be the disponent owner of
respondent No.1 – vessel. A disponent owner is a charterer
who has operational and commercial control of a ship, such as
through a Time or Bareboat Charter, but does not hold the
legal title or ownership of the vessel.
5.8 The same set of circumstances thereafter led to the
institution of AS/32/2026 by the plaintiff - ANAFI SME against
the plaintiffs in AS/8/2026, as well as another defendant -
ANIVUS I Shipping Company.
5.9 The order-sheet reflects that OJCA/3/2026 filed in
AS/8/2026, along with both the suits, was heard together and
orders were passed therein.
5.10 Ultimately, upon hearing the respective parties, the
learned Single Judge, vide impugned judgment and order dated
27.10.2026, permitted the plaintiffs of AS/8/2026 to withdraw
the said suit unconditionally, while dismissing AS/32/2026 with
costs.
5.11 At this stage, it is pertinent to note that AS/32/2026 has
been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by recording that
Page 5 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
the plaint lacks a cause of action under the provisions of Order
VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, and also on the ground of
suppression of facts giving rise to the present appeal.
5.12 Thus, the sole issue that arises for consideration in the
captioned appeal i.e. OJA/6/2026 is whether the learned Single
Judge was justified in dismissing the plaint of AS/32/2026
under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, and also on the ground
of suppression of facts.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT - ANAFI SME :
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Kamal Trivedi, appearing for
the appellant-plaintiff in AS/32/2026, invited the attention of
this Court to the averments made in the plaint and the cause
of action pleaded therein. He submitted that the learned Single
Judge erred in applying the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali, (2020) 7 S.C.C. 366. It was submitted that the
learned Single Judge rejected the plaint on the ground that
although the plaint disclosed a cause of action, upon
consideration of the documents, more particularly the
judgment dated 14.07.2025 passed by the High Court of
Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales
Commercial Court (for short “the UK Court”) and the Arbitral
Partial Awards rendered by consent in the arbitration
proceedings on 25.07.2025 and 13.10.2025, the suit was found
to be vexatious and lacking in a cause of action.
6.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi contended that a bare
perusal of the averments in the plaint would demonstrate that
Page 6 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
the plaintiff had clearly disclosed a cause of action and had
also placed on record the documents in support thereof. He
further submitted that, the plaint came to be rejected upon
consideration of the aforesaid documents, which were
produced by the defendant - BSL MGC Limited along with its
replies, thereby resulting in the dismissal of the suit.
6.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi submitted that the
learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the effect of the
worldwide freezing injunction granted by the UK Court vide
order dated 19.09.2025, restraining the respondent - Eletson
Gas LLC from removing, disposing of, dealing with, or
diminishing the value of the vessel - MT ANAFI. It was further
submitted that the operation of the said freezing injunction
was continued by a subsequent order dated 03.10.2025 and
that, in view of the worldwide freezing injunction, the plaintiff
had specifically contended before the learned Single Judge that
the effect of the judgment dated 14.07.2025 and the Final
Partial Awards rendered by consent on 25.07.2025 and
13.10.2025 would pale into insignificance.
6.3 In furtherance of his submissions, learned Senior
Advocate Mr.Trivedi also relied upon the order dated
03.07.2025 passed by the Multi-Member Athens Court of First
Instance (for short “the Greek Court”), whereby the application
filed by Eletson Holdings INC. for recognising the US
Bankruptcy Court orders dated 25.10.2024 and 04.11.2024
came to be rejected. He submitted that since the said order
had been relied upon by the UK Court, it would have no impact
on the claim of the defendants-plaintiffs of AS/8/2026.
Page 7 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
6.4 It was submitted that in terms of Clause-47 of the
Bareboat Charterparty Agreement executed between the
defendant - BSL MGC Limited and Eletson Gas LLC, the latter,
through its Kertsikoff Group, exercised its irrevocable purchase
option under the said clause on 24.02.2025, prior to the expiry
of the charter period on 31.07.2025, for purchasing the vessel -
MT ANAFI. It was further submitted that, on 25.06.2025, at the
instance of the defendant - BSL MGC Limited, which was the
commercial operator of the vessel - MT ANAFI, a no-objection
certificate was issued permitting the plaintiff - ANAFI SME, to
deploy the vessel with Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL)
under a Time Charterparty Agreement.
6.5 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi submitted that the
plaintiff - ANAFI SME, in its capacity as the disponent owner of
the vessel - MT ANAFI, entered into a Time Charterparty
Agreement with IOCL on 30.06.2025 for a period of 01 (one)
year, at an all-inclusive rate of USD 753,570 per month.
6.6 It was also asserted by learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Trivedi, that in view of the arrest order dated 24.01.2026
passed by this Court in AS/8/2026, the appellant - ANAFI SME
instituted AS/32/2026, claiming damages of USD 45,21,420
towards the loss of charter hire under the Time Charter Party
Agreement dated 30.06.2025 executed with IOCL.
6.7 It was submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi
that the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the
learned Single Judge and that the relevant documents were
also placed on record in OJCA/3/2026 filed in AS/8/2026.
Page 8 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
Specific averments had been made in the plaint setting out the
circumstances in which AS/32/2026 came to be instituted,
thereby establishing and justifying the plaintiff's cause of
action and right to sue.
6.8 It was contended by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi
that the claims and counter-claims of the respective parties
ought to have been examined in the course of a trial and that
the suit could not have been dismissed at the threshold by
relying upon the aforesaid documents unless they were
proved. It was submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in
observing that the plaintiffs had suppressed the Arbitral
Awards dated 25.07.2025 and 13.10.2025 rendered by the
Arbitral Tribunal, as well as the judgment dated 14.07.2025
passed by the UK Court. In this context, it was submitted that
all the documents were placed on record through OJCA/3/2026
and all the suits and the interim applications were being heard
together and orders were also passed.
6.9 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi further submitted that
the learned Single Judge had never put the plaintiff on notice
that the plaint was liable to be rejected on the ground that it
did not disclose a cause of action. He submitted that during the
course of the proceedings, the plaintiff was directed, vide order
dated 12.06.2026, to deposit costs of USD 20,000 with the
Registry of this Court, which direction was duly complied with
by depositing the said amount.
6.10 It was further submitted by learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Trivedi that vide order dated 01.07.2026, the learned Single
Page 9 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
Judge had kept the suits for orders on 21.07.2026. Thereafter,
the matters came to be adjourned from time to time. On
09.10.2026, an oral order was passed dismissing the suit.
However, no final order was passed on that date and the
matters were thereafter adjourned on various occasions.
Ultimately, on 27.10.2026, only the operative part of the
judgment was pronounced. It was thus contended that the
plaintiff had no opportunity to address the issue concerning the
alleged absence of a cause of action in the plaint.
6.11 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi also drew the
attention of this Court to the issues framed by the learned
Single Judge and submitted that no order framing such issues
had been passed. It was submitted that the plaintiff came to
know of the issues framed only upon obtaining a copy of the
judgment after its pronouncement.
6.12 It was further submitted by learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Trivedi that the issues framed by the learned Single Judge
did not address the effect of the worldwide freezing injunction
granted by the UK Court vide order dated 19.09.2025,
restraining Eletson Gas LLC from dealing with or disposing of
the vessel – MT ANAFI. According to the plaintiff, the said
injunction continued to operate beyond the judgment dated
14.07.2025 passed by the same Court and was also material to
the consideration of the effect of the Arbitral Awards referred
to hereinabove.
6.13 It was also contended that the learned Single Judge was
also impressed with the false and incorrect factual aspect of
Page 10 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
liquidation of the appellant, since the appellant - ANAFI SME is
still carrying on its business, and there is no record of any
minutes of a meeting recoding its liquidation or any order
passed by Greek Court, and hence, the question of appointing
the purported liquidators and withdrawing AS/32/2026 by the
alleged liquidators would not arise.
6.14 In the aforesaid circumstances, learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Trivedi urged that the impugned common judgment and
order may be set aside and both the suits may be restored to
their original files and the respective parties may be afforded
an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective
cases. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Trivedi, placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association
Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr., (2004) 9 S.C.C. 512, Sheo
Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. Sharda Educational Society and Ors.,
2026 S.C.C. OnLine Sc 1977, Alka Gupta vs. Narender Kumar
Gupta, (2010) 10 S.C.C. 141 and Hari Shanker Jain vs. Sonia
Gandhi, (2001) 8 S.C.C. 233.
6.15 Finally, it was submitted by learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Trivedi that the substantial costs imposed by the learned
Single Judge of USD 100,000 over and above the amount of
USD 20,000 deposited by the appellant upon the suggestion of
the learned Single Judge could not have been imposed without
following the procedure prescribed under Section 35A of the
CPC. Thus, it was urged that on this additional ground also the
impugned common judgement and order passed by the
learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.
Page 11 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS :
7. Vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions and the
present appeals seeking to sustain the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, learned advocate
Ms.Sethna, submitted that the learned Single Judge had
precisely dismissed the suit instituted by the appellant -
original plaintiff - ANAFI SME, as the plaintiff had not
approached this Court with clean hands and had suppressed
the material facts. In support of her submissions, she referred
to the various observations recorded by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment and order.
7.1 It was submitted that upon expiry of the Bareboat
Charterparty Agreement dated 24.05.2018, on 31.07.2025, the
plaintiff – ANAFI SME had no authority or subsisting right in
respect of the vessel in question, having ceased to be its
owner or otherwise lacking any entitlement thereto. It was
submitted that ANAFI SME stood dissolved ipso jure on
25.05.2023, upon the expiry of 05 (five) years from the date on
which it ceased to own a vessel.
7.2 While defending the order permitting unconditional
withdrawal of AS/8/2026, learned advocate Ms.Sethna,
submitted that BSL MGC Limited, being one of the plaintiffs in
the said suit, was fully entitled to withdraw the same
unconditionally, particularly since it had discharged all
outstanding dues payable to the Master and Crew of the
vessel.
Page 12 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
7.3 Learned advocate Ms.Sethna submitted that BSL MGC
Limited, being the registered owner of the vessel and one of
the plaintiffs in AS/8/2026, was justified in withdrawing the suit
unconditionally, after fulfilling its obligations towards the
payment of wages and other dues payable to the Master and
Crew.
7.4 It was contended by learned advocate Ms.Sethna that the
shareholders of the appellant-ANAFI SME had never authorised
the plaintiff in AS/32/2026 to deal with the vessel in question in
any manner whatsoever. It was further contended that
Ms.Laskarina Karastamati had no authority to institute the suit
on behalf of ANAFI SME, as she was not a shareholder of the
said entity and, according to the certificate issued by the
Ministry of Shipping and Island Policy of the Hellenic Republic,
ANAFI SME had already stood dissolved ipso jure .
7.5 It was further submitted that in the absence of any Board
resolution authorising Ms.Laskarina Karastamati to represent
ANAFI SME or empowering her to institute an admiralty suit on
its behalf, the learned Single Judge had precisely dismissed the
plaint in AS/32/2026.
7.6 Referring to the findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge on the issues framed and to the judgment dated
14.07.2025 passed by the UK Court, as well as Arbitral Awards
rendered in the arbitration proceedings, learned advocate
Ms.Sethna contended that ANAFI SME had no subsisting
authority or entitlement to deal with the vessel in question.
Page 13 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
7.7 It was further submitted that the plaintiff deliberately
suppressed the aforesaid judgment of the UK Court and the
Arbitral Awards rendered in the arbitration proceedings while
instituting the suit. According to her, the plaintiff cannot seek
to rely upon documents subsequently annexed to OJCA/3/2026
filed in AS/8/2026 to overcome such suppression.
7.8 Learned advocate Ms.Sethna further submitted that
under Section 12 of the Admiralty Act, the procedure
prescribed under the CPC, for the production of documents
along with the plaint is required to be followed, and the plaintiff
cannot seek to rely upon documents subsequently produced in
separate proceedings to overcome its failure to disclose
material facts at the time of instituting the suit.
7.9 It was further contended that the plaintiff also suppressed
the fact that the freezing injunction granted by the UK Court on
19.09.2025 had been discharged by an order dated
17.02.2026. It was submitted that such suppression amounts
to fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of material facts,
thereby justifying the rejection of the plaint by the learned
Single Judge in reliance upon the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben (supra) .
7.10 It was further submitted that the institution and
continuation of the suit in the aforesaid circumstances would
amount to an abuse of the process of law, as the plaintiff is
seeking to re-agitate issues that, according to the defendants,
have already attained finality by virtue of the orders passed by
the UK Court and the awards rendered in the arbitration
Page 14 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
proceedings. It was, therefore, contended that the suit was
rightly dismissed as an abuse of the process of the Court.
7.11 Learned advocate Ms.Sethna placed reliance upon the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.V. Elisabeth and
Others vs. Harwan Investment and Trading Private Limited,
1993 Supp. (2) S.C.C. 433, and relying upon the principles laid
down therein, submitted that procedural rules are required to
be developed and applied by Courts with a view to securing
justice in accordance with substantive law. It was further
contended that where substantive law recognises the rights of
an aggrieved party but the statute does not expressly provide
a remedy or prescribe a specific procedure for its enforcement,
it is incumbent upon the Court to devise an appropriate
procedure, drawing upon analogous principles and practices
recognised in other legal systems, to ensure that justice is
done.
7.12 In support of her submissions, learned advocate
Ms.Sethna, placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay
High Court in the case of S.N. Shipping Services Private Limited
vs. Caramara Shipping Company Limited, 1999 S.C.C. OnLine
Bom 495. She also relied upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Union of India,
(2024) 8 S.C.C. 767.
7.13 In support of her submission that AS/8/2026 was rightly
permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally, learned advocate
Ms.Sethna, placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh vs. Vijay Pal Singh,
(2018) 12 S.C.C. 584.
Page 15 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
CIVIL APPLICATION (HEARING IN OJA/7/2026 IN AS/8/26) :
8. OJA/7/2026 has been preferred by the appellant - ANAFI
SME, a company incorporated under the laws of Greece, which
had earlier filed OJCA/3/2026 in AS/8/2026.
8.1 It was the case of the appellant that it is the disponent
owner of the vessel - MT ANAFI, which was arrayed as
defendant No.1 in AS/8/2026. Upon learning of the order of
arrest dated 24.01.2026 passed by this Court in respect of the
said vessel, the appellant immediately approached this Court
by filing OJCA/3/2026, seeking the vacation of the interim order
of arrest dated 24.01.2026.
8.2 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta, appearing for
the appellant - ANAFI SME, submitted that the plaintiffs in
AS/08/2026 had suppressed the order dated 19.09.2025
passed by the UK Court, granting a worldwide freezing
injunction restraining Eletson Gas LLC from disposing of or
otherwise dealing with the vessel in question. It was further
submitted that the operation of the said injunction was
extended by a subsequent order dated 03.10.2025.
8.3 Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta, further submitted
that in view of the aforesaid orders, the plaintiffs in AS/8/2026
were not entitled to institute the suit and obtain an order of
arrest in respect of the vessel.
8.4 It was further submitted by learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Mehta that the appellant, in its capacity as the disponent
owner of the vessel, had deployed MT ANAFI with IOCL under a
Page 16 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
Time Charter Party Agreement dated 30.06.2025. On account
of the arrest of the vessel, the appellant had ceased to receive
the charter hire payable under the said agreement and had
been prevented from commercially deploying the vessel with
any third party.
8.5 It was contended by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta
that by suppressing material documents and relevant
information, the plaintiffs in AS/8/2026 obtained an order of
arrest that directly prejudiced the appellant's commercial and
financial interests. The appellant was, therefore, constrained to
approach this Court by filing an application seeking the
vacation of the interim order of arrest.
8.6 It was further submitted by learned Senior Advocate
Mr.Mehta that the learned Single Judge, without adequately
examining the consequences of the arrest order and its grave
financial implications for the appellant, permitted the plaintiffs
to withdraw AS/8/2026 unconditionally.
8.7 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned
Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta submitted that AS/8/2026 ought not
to have been permitted to be withdrawn unconditionally and
that the proceedings ought to have been brought to their
logical conclusion after considering the appellant’s objections
to the order of arrest. He placed reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Kalabharti Advertising vs.
Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Ors., (2010) 9 S.C.C. 437.
Page 17 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN
OJA/7/2026.
9. Vehemently opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned
advocate Ms.Sethna submitted that the appellant - ANAFI SME,
had no locus standi to file the captioned OJA/7/2026 in
AS/8/2026 in the first place. It was contended that no
application was filed by the appellant seeking to implead itself
as a party to AS/8/2026, consequently, the present appeal was
also not maintainable.
9.1 It was further submitted that the right to challenge the
order in question, if any, was vested with defendant No.1 in
AS/8/2026 and not in ANAFI SME, which had preferred the
present appeal. On this ground, learned advocate Ms.Sethna
urged that the appeal deserved to be dismissed as not
maintainable. In support of this submission, she placed
reliance upon the judgment dated 13.10.2025 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in OJ Appeal No.2 of 2023, and
further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Kalabharti Advertising (supra ) would not apply
since the same deals with the writ proceedings.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION :
10. The learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties have addressed this Court at considerable length on
the merits of the matter attempting to establish their
respective rights to possession / ownership / agency in respect
of the vessel - MT ANAFI. However, since the learned Single
Judge has rejected the plaint - AS/32/2026 by invoking the
Page 18 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC and also on the
ground of suppression of facts, we confine our analysis and
scrutiny to these aspects only.
DISCUSSION ON THE FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF
PROCEEDING IN THE SUITS :
11. We shall now proceed to examine the circumstances in
which the appellant – plaintiff - ANAFI SME instituted
AS/32/2026.
12. The facts emerging from the pleadings and the material
available on record are as follows :
(A) The plaintiffs - BSL MGC Limited and ANIVUS I Shipping
Company instituted AS/8/2026 before this Court, seeking, inter
alia , the following relief as set out in Paragraph No.23(a)(b):
“… … … to pass an order and decree in favour of the Plaintiff No.2
and against the Defendant No.2 Georgios Skrimizeas in the sum of
USD 4,175,000 as damages for loss of charter hire along with
interest … … … ”
b) …….and further hold that Defendant No.2 Georgios Skrimizeas was
in illegal & unauthorised possession of the Defendant No.vessel
from 01.08.2025 till the date of filing of the present suit:
(B) Upon presentation of the suit, the matter was listed on
24.01.2026. On the same date, the learned Single Judge
directed the Customs Authorities to arrest, seize, or detain
defendant No.1 – the vessel - MT ANAFI. By the said order,
further directions were issued restraining defendant No.2 -
Georgios Skrimizeas (Master of the Ship), from tampering with
or taking custody of the vessel. This was an interim injunction
order passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
Page 19 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
(C) Pursuant to the injunction order dated 24.01.2026,
defendant No.2 (AS/8/2026), Georgios Skrimizeas, along with
the crew, disembarked from the vessel in question by
30.01.2026. This fact emerges from the pleadings and is also
admitted by the plaintiffs in AS/8/2026. In so far as the
disembarkation of the Master and Crew is concerned, there are
rival allegations. It was the case of the plaintiffs of AS/8/2026,
that on payment of wages / salaries and the provisions of the
other amenities the Captain and the Crew voluntarily left,
whereas the plaintiff – ANAFI SME in AS/32/2026 asserted that
possession of the vessel had been forcibly taken. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that the learned Single Judge vide order dated
24.01.2026 had only ordered the arrest of the vessel, and no
order was passed in AS/8/26 directing the Master and Crew to
vacate the vessel or to hand over possession of the vessel.
13. When the matter was listed before the learned Single
Judge on 30.01.2026 in OJ Civil Application (for Direction) No.1
of 2026, the following order was passed:
“Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar with learned advocate
Mr. Manav Mehta sought time to file rejoinder. However, under the
instructions to show bona fides, without prejudice to any rights and
contention, also assured to this Court that the representatives of
the plaintiffs shall disembark from the vessel by tomorrow.
Let these applications be listed for further consideration on 6th
February 2026.”
14. Thus, the aforesaid order indicates that the
representatives of the plaintiffs of AS/8/2026 were present on
the vessel, and an assurance was given on their behalf to
disembark from the vessel.
Page 20 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
15. Upon noticing the aforesaid developments, the
applicants-MT ANAFI along with Georgios Skrimizeas, (claiming
to be the captain of the vessel) filed OJCA/3/2026, seeking the
vacation and recall of the ex parte interim order dated
24.01.2026 passed in AS/8/2026 since they claimed to have
suffered loss due to the arrest of the vessel.
16. The aforesaid civil application was listed along with
AS/8/2026.
17. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff-ANAFI SME instituted
AS/32/2026 on 17.04.2026 claiming loss of charter hire under
the agreement with IOCL amounting to USD 45,21,420 along
with litigation costs. Further declaration was also prayed
against the Defendant and all interested in the Vessel that the
plaintiff is entitled to possession and control of the Vessel MT-
ANAFI.
18. On 12.06.2026, the learned Single Judge passed a
common order in AS/8/2026 and AS/32/2026, along with three
applications listed before the Court. By the said order, the
learned Single Judge directed the appellant-plaintiff in
AS/32/2026 to deposit USD 10,000 in respect of each suit,
aggregating to USD 20,000, with the Registry of this Court.
19. The aforesaid amount of USD 20,000 was subsequently
deposited, as recorded in the further order dated 15.06.2026
passed by the learned Single Judge.
20. On 01.07.2026, when all the matters, including the civil
applications, were listed, the learned Single Judge passed a
Page 21 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
common oral order directing that “the matters be listed for
orders on 21.07.2026”.
21. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respective
parties exchanged their replies and supporting documents.
22. During the course of hearing of the appeals, the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties before this
Court asserted that when the matters were listed for orders on
09.10.2026, the dismissal of the suit was orally declared,
however, the matters were adjourned thereafter on several
occasions and, following eight adjournments, the impugned
judgment and order came to be pronounced on 27.10.2026.
We are not examining the rival submissions, since the original
record does not show any such order passed on 09.10.2026. It
was also asserted before us by the learned Senior Advocates
appearing for the appellant – ANAFI SME, that they came to
know about the issues having been framed only after they
received a copy of the oral judgment, and that the parties were
never informed of the framing of the issues. It was further
submitted that the appellant - plaintiff of AS/32/2026 was
never apprised by the learned Single Judge that the plaint did
not disclose cause of action. The said statement has been
controverted by learned advocate Ms.Sethna and it was
submitted that the plaintiff was well aware of the issue of lack
of cause of action in its plaint, since the defendants had raised
the issue in their reply.
23. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the
relevant observations and findings recorded by the learned
Page 22 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
Single Judge that weighed with the Court in dismissing
AS/32/2026 while simultaneously permitting the unconditional
withdrawal of AS/8/2026.
ANALYSIS OF THE COMMON IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
ORDER :
24. Upon an elaborate consideration of the documents
produced by the respective parties, the learned Single Judge
framed four issues in Paragraph No.28 of the impugned
judgment. The said issues are reproduced hereinbelow:
“(i) Whether the plaintiffs of Admiralty Suit No.8 of 2026 are
entitled to withdraw the suit unconditionally;
(ii) Whether the plaintiff of Admiralty Suit No. 32 of 2026 M/s
ANAFI SME, could have instituted the Admiralty Suit or whether the
ANAFI SME is under liquidation and consequently whether the
liquidators would be entitled to seek withdrawal of the Admiralty
Suit;
(iii) Whether the plaintiff of Admiralty Suit No. 32 of 2026, ANAFI
SME, is able to establish a maritime claim for loss of charter hire
under the IOCL time charter party and for security of such maritime
claim whether vessel MT ANAFI is required to be arrested.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff of Admiralty Suit No. 32 of 2026, M/s
ANAFI SME, is entitled for possession and control of defendant No.1
vessel MT ANAFI.”
25. As submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr.Trivedi,
appearing for the plaintiff in AS/32/2026, we do not find any
separate order on record framing the aforesaid issues. Thus, it
appears that the issues referred to hereinabove were
incorporated and answered in the impugned judgment itself.
26. From the tenor of the judgement it appears that while
answering the Issues Nos.(i) to (iv) on the basis of the
submissions advanced by the respective parties and the
Page 23 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
documents considered by the learned Single Judge, the learned
Single Judge also proceeded to examine whether the plaint in
AS/32/2026 disclosed a cause of action or not. The relevant
observations in this regard are reproduced hereinbelow:
“42. The plaintiff – ANAFI SME had preferred Admiralty Suit No.32
on the strength of existence of bare boat charter party agreement
between Eletson Gas LCC – represented through the Kertiskoff
Group, who had exercised purchase exercise option notice, which
was irrevocable as per the Clause 47 of the bare boat charter party
agreement, was on the date of filing of the Admiralty Suit, a
completely false averment, which ANAFI SME had no right to make,
post the decisions of the Arbitral Tribunals and the High Court of
England and Wales referred to hereinabove. The issue sought to be
sidestepped by an over simplifying argument that ANAFI SME was
not a party to the aforesaid proceedings, could not be
countenanced on account of the fact that the parties to the above
referred litigations, i.e. the arbitration proceedings as well as the
proceedings before the High Court of England and Wales were the
same inasmuch as, respondent No. 9 before the High Court of
England and Wales was Ms. Laskarina Karastamati, who was
represented through a learned Counsel before the High Court of
England and Wales, is the same party, who had authorized Mr. Raju
Desai to file the proceedings before this Court on behalf of M/s
ANAFI SME, as discernible from a power of attorney signed by Ms.
Laskarina Karastamati as Director and Secretary of ANAFI SME.
Again, the purchase exercise option notice issued on behalf of
Eletson Gas LLC as represented though the Kertiskoff Group, which
is exhibited in the Admiralty Suit dated 24.02.2025 is also signed by
Ms. Laskarina Karastamati. M/s Eletson Gas LLC through the
Kertiskoff Group including Ms. Laskarina Karastamati having
participated in the arbitration proceedings at the first instance by
nominating an arbitrator and later on contesting the proceedings
before the High Court of England and Wales, wherein Ms. Laskarina
Karastamati was a party respondent represented through a Counsel,
could not feign ignorance about the arbitral proceedings as well as
the proceedings before the learned High Court of England and
Wales. Again, the proceedings had resulted in a substantive
declaration against the Kertiskoff Group of which Ms. Laskarina
Karastamati was a party inasmuch as, the Kertiskoff Group was
declared as not controlling M/s Eletson Gas LLC and the proceedings
finally declaring that the bare boat charter party agreement
between M/s Eletson Gas LLC and M/s BSL MGC Limited as regards
vessel MT ANAFI having expired on 31.07.2025. Thus, the Admiralty
Suit No. 32 of 2026 being initiated on the strength of a contention
as regards the existence of bare boat charter party agreement and
an irrevocable purchase option notice, exercised by the charterer,
was a completely invalid and false contention, which could not and
Page 24 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
ought not to have been raised by the plaintiff ANAFI SME. Since
there did not exist a bare boat charter party agreement between
BLS MGC and Eletson Gas LLC post 31.07.2025 and since the
purported right of ANAFI SME – plaintiff flowed from the existence of
such bare boat charter party agreement, therefore upon expiry of
the bare boat charter party, ANAFI SME, who claims to be an agent
or a sub-charterer of M/s Eletson Gas LLC, would automatically
cease to have any right or claim over the vessel MT ANAFI, which
was the vessel in question as per the charter party.
xxx...
45. The case of the plaintiff also being that as the agent/sub
charterer from M/s Eletson Gas LLC, the plaintiff had entered into a
time charter party agreement with M/s IOCL and whereas on
account of the arrest of vessel MT ANAFI in Admiralty Suit No. 8 of
2026, the plaintiff had suffered severe losses and it was therefore
requested to this Court to direct the defendants to compensate the
plaintiff for the loss occurred.
45.1 The above being the best prima facie case advanced on
behalf of the plaintiff.
46. The issue which would arise at this stage for consideration
being whether the prima facie case sought to be made out by the
plaintiff has any merit or is vexatious and hopeless beyond doubt to
refuse any relief and furthermore, whether having regard to the
statutory prescription under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, the Admiralty Suit is bereft of any cause of action
requiring the plaint to be rejected.”
27. Thereafter, placing reliance on the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Dahiben (supra), the learned
Single Judge proceeded to hold as under:
“52. Before travelling any further, it would be apposite to observe
here that on a plain reading of the plaint, the plaint does disclose a
cause of action, yet, upon adverting to documents, more
particularly the decision of the learned High Court of England and
Wales dated 14.07.2025 as well as the final partial awards by
consent dated 25.07.2025 and 13.10.2025, it would be
unambiguously clear that the suit is vexatious, and clearly lacks a
cause of action. The question being whether the documents in
question, which were not part of the suit, could be relied upon by
this Court. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to Order 7
Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which is reproduced
hereinabove at paragraph No. 23.7 in the order of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in case of Dahiben (supra). Order 7 Rule 14(1) inter alia
envisages that the plaintiff when he sues upon a document or relies
upon a document in his power or possession, then he shall enter
such document and shall produce it in the Court where the plaint is
presented etc. The interplay between Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 7
Page 25 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
Rule 11(a) has been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court at
paragraph No. 23.8, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down
that documents filed along with the plaint are required to be taken
into consideration for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule
11(a).
52.1 As against the same, this Court notices that the documents in
question referred to hereinabove, though being absolutely relevant
to the cause of the plaintiff, had not been placed on record. As
observed hereinabove, the same would be a clear case of
suppression and the effect thereof would be considered by this
Court later on. It is also noticed that the documents in question
have been annexed by the defendants in their reply to the plaint
and whereas neither the same are controverted nor their veracity is
disputed, rather the only submission coming forth in that regard
being that the said documents would not be relevant, since ANAFI
SME was not a party to the said proceedings.
52.2 This Court also notices that the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena
of decisions, foremost of which has been referred by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Dahiben (supra), i.e. T. Arivandandam v.
T.V. Satyapal, reported at (1977) 4 SCC 467 , where it has been
laid down that reading of the plaint should be meaningful and not
formal when it comes to deciding whether the plaint is manifestly
vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a right to sue.
In the considered opinion of this Court, to give full effect to the
provisions of the statute, i.e. to decide whether a suit discloses a
cause of action or an illusion of cause of action is created by clever
drafting or by suppressing relevant documents, then the
documents, which ought to have been placed on record by the
plaintiff, i.e. such documents which go to the root of the issue, if
they are on record in any manner whatsoever, could be considered
by the Court. The reason for this Court coming to such a conclusion
being that a Court while considering an application under Order 7
Rule 11(a) is to find out whether the plaint discloses a cause of
action. If a cause of action is disclosed by clever drafting and as a
necessary extension by suppressing documents, which would
otherwise disclose lack of cause of action, then such documents
could be necessarily and have to be considered by the Court so as
to ensure that manifestly vexatious proceedings should be brought
to an end. If such a course is not adopted, then an overtly clever
and dishonest litigant would suppress material facts and material
documents thereby creating an illusion of cause of action and
whereas even though such documents would be disclosed by the
defendants in their reply, a Court, though realizing that a suit is
manifestly vexatious or meritless, would be rendered powerless to
take any action. That, in the considered opinion of this Court, could
never be the intent of the statute. The statue and the decisions of
the Hon’ble Apex Court explaining the statute, very clearly laying
down that upon a meaningful reading of the plaint, if it is clear that
the plaint is manifestly vexatious and not disclosing any cause of
Page 26 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
action, then the Courts are under an obligation to put an end to
such a litigation. That being the intent of the statute as explained
by the Hon’ble Apex Court an overtly clever and dishonest litigant
could not be permitted to resort to strict interpretation of the
provisions as explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court to claim that
since document though absolutely relevant, having not been placed
by the plaintiff along with the plaint, could not be referred to by the
Court while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11(a) to find
out whether the plaint discloses cause of action or not. Such an
interpretation, rendering the intent of the provisions otiose, should
not be perpetrated.
52.3 In the considered opinion of this Court, since the documents,
i.e. the decision of the learned High Court of Wales and the final
partial arbitration awards by consent dated 25.07.2025 and
13.10.2025, clearly revealing the lack of authority of ANAFI SME to
sue for possession and control over vessel MT ANAFI and also
clearly reflecting the lack of authority of ANAFI SME to enter into a
time charter party agreement with IOCL, the same have to be relied
upon while deciding as to whether a cause of action is made out by
the plaintiff or not.
52.4 As noticed hereinabove, the plaintiff, has made out a case as
regards being the agent/sub charterer of M/s Eletson Gas LLC as
controlled by the Kertiskoff Group, who had entered into a bare boat
charter party with the defendant – BSL MGC Limited for vessel MT
ANAFI for a period of seven years and since the bare boat charter
party contains a purchase option, which if invoked, is irrevocable,
and since such purchase option had been invoked by the Kertiskoff
Group on behalf of M/s Eletson Gas LLC, therefore ANAFI SME was
entitled to possession and control of vessel MT ANAFI and under
such authority ANAFI SME had entered into the time charter party
agreement with M/s IOCL, and the arrest of vessel in Admiralty Suit
No. 8 of 2026 having disrupted the time charter party agreement,
ANAFI SME is entitled to damages.
52.5 As against the same, this Court has noticed that by virtue of
judgment dated 14.07.2025 by the learned High Court of England
and Wales, the Kertiskoff Group have been declared as not having
any control over Eletson Gas LLC, inter alia insofar as the bare boat
charter party concerning vessel MT ANAFI, therefore as a direct
consequence thereof, the plaintiff would not be entitled to claim any
right of possession or control over vessel MT ANAFI. This Court has
also noticed that the time charter party agreement entered into
between ANAFI SME and IOCL was on basis of an authority by Mr.
Vassilis Kertiskoff vide email dated 16.07.2025, which is also, post
the judgment of learned High Court of England and Wales. This
Court has also noticed that the judgment of the learned High Court
of England and Wales has become final inter party.
Page 27 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
52.6 This Court has also noticed that the arbitration proceedings
were initially attempted to be contested by the Kertiskoff Group for
M/s Eletson Gas LLC as well as by the Adam Spears Group as having
control over Eletson Gas LLC and after the decision of the learned
High Court of England and Wales, the Kertiskoff Group having been
declared as not having control over Eletson Gas LLC, the
proceedings had been contested by the Adam Spears Group for
Eletson Gas LLC, and whereas vide the awards referred to
hereinabove, it has been finally decided that the purchase option
exercise by Eletson Gas LLC, has become ineffective and the vessel
MT ANAFI should be returned to the registered owner BSL MGC
Limited. The awards also finally declaring that the BSL MGC Limited
could retain control over vessel MT AMAFI without any fetters, as
imposed by the bare boat charter party between Eletson Gas LLC
and BSL MGC Limited. The above documents very clearly reveal the
lack of authority of ANAFI SME to sue for possession and control of
vessel MT ANAFI and also clearly reveal that ANAFI SME was not
entitled to enter into the time charter party agreement with M/s
IOCL. Thus, apparently, upon consideration of the above said
documents, the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is
required to be put to an end.”
28. The learned Single Judge thereafter, placing further
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Manjula and Ors. vs. D.A. Srinivas, 2026 INSC 465, held as
under:
“53.2 Considered from the perspective of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court hereinabove also, it would clear that the
plaintiff has resorted to suppression of facts, which facts go to the
root of the issue and upon consideration of such facts, the plaint
being dis-entitled to the lis, the plaint is liable to be rejected.
The questions No. 3 and 4 are answered accordingly.”
29. Ultimately, while permitting the unconditional withdrawal
of AS/8/2026 and dismissing AS/32/2026, the learned Single
Judge directed that the amount of USD 20,000 deposited by
the plaintiff in AS/32/2026 be transferred to the Gujarat High
Court Legal Services Authority (Juvenile Justice Fund). The
learned Single Judge further directed the appellant-plaintiff -
ANAFI SME in AS/32/2026 to pay costs quantified at USD
Page 28 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
100,000 to the “owners of the vessel MT ANAFI” i.e. the
plaintiffs of AS/8/2026.
30. A holistic reading of the judgment and order passed by
the learned Single Judge makes it evident that considerable
reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 14.07.2025
passed by the UK Court, as well as the arbitral awards passed
by consent on 25.07.2025 and 13.10.2025 by the Tribunal,
London in arbitration proceedings. On the basis of the
aforesaid judgment and awards, the learned Single Judge
concluded that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action
and the plaintiffs had suppressed these material facts and,
ultimately, held the plaintiffs of AS/8/2026 to be “the owners of
the vessel MT ANAFI” .
31. As referred to hereinabove, in paragraph No.52 of the
impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge, while
acknowledging that the plaint disclosed a cause of action,
proceeded to consider the aforesaid judgment of the UK Court
and the arbitral awards and, on that basis, held that the suit
was vexatious and clearly lacked a cause of action. In support
of this conclusion, reliance was placed on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Dahiben (supra) .
RELEVANCE OF UK COURT JUDGEMENTS AND ARBITRAL
AWARD :
32. Before adverting to the findings recorded by the learned
Single Judge on the question of absence of a cause of action in
the plaint, we consider it appropriate to clarify that the
appellant - plaintiff of AS/32/2026 had vehemently disputed
Page 29 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
the applicability of the judgment dated 14.07.2025 passed by
the UK Court, as well as the arbitral awards dated 25.07.2025
and 13.10.2025. It was the appellant's specific case that the
aforesaid judgment and awards did not apply to it and could
not enure to the benefit of the defendants therein, namely, the
plaintiffs of AS/8/2026, particularly in view of the worldwide
freezing injunction granted by the very same Court i.e. the UK
Court, vide order dated 19.09.2025, which was subsequently
extended by an order dated 03.10.2025.
33. Since the aforesaid UK Court order has been brought to
our notice, without expressing any opinion at this stage on its
applicability to the present proceedings, we may note that the
commercial claim which culminated in the grant of the freezing
injunction before the UK Court was instituted by OCM Maritime
Gas 1 LLC to OCM Maritime Gas 5 LLC against Eletson Gas LLC.
The freezing injunction dated 19.09.2025 unequivocally
records as under:
"3. Until the return date or further order of the court:
(1) The respondent must not remove from England and Wales any
of its assets which are in England and Wales up to the value of USD
17,000,000; or
(2) In any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of
its assets whether they are in or outside England and Wales up to
the same value. ”
34. This prohibition includes the following assets in particular:
“(1) The vessels 'Anafi', 'Tilos' and 'Nisiros', and the benefit of any
option or other rights in respect of those vessels."
35. In fact, it was pointed out before this Court, by referring
to the written submissions filed on behalf of the present
Page 30 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
opponents-defendants of AS/32/2026 that the aforesaid
worldwide freezing injunction continued to operate until
17.02.2026. It was contended that the appellant - plaintiff –
ANAFI SME of AS/32/2026 had failed to disclose and had
suppressed the material fact that the worldwide freezing
injunction came to be discharged by the UK Court on
17.02.2026.
36. However, the plaintiffs of AS/8/2026, who are also the
defendants in AS/32/2026, were unable to dispute that the
worldwide freezing injunction granted by the UK Court covered
the vessel - MT ANAFI, which is the subject matter of both the
suits, and remained in operation till 17.02.2026 i.e. after the
UK Court order and the partial arbitral awards.
37. The plaintiff of AS/32/2026 also disputed the applicability
of the judgment dated 14.07.2025 passed by the UK Court, as
well as arbitral awards , upon which the learned Single Judge
placed reliance while concluding that the plaint did not disclose
a cause of action and that there was suppression of material
facts. It was their specific case that the aforesaid judgment
and arbitral awards would not apply to them, particularly in
view of the fact that ANAFI SME is incorporated in Greece and
is wholly owned by Eletson Gas LLC. It was further contended
that the order dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Multi-Member
Court of First Instance at Athens, Greece, rejecting the
application preferred by Eletson Holdings Inc. for recognition of
the aforesaid order passed by the US Court (which has been
relied upon by the UK Court), would also have a bearing on the
issue. According to the plaintiffs, the Greek Court had rejected
Page 31 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
the application on the ground that recognition of the said order
would be contrary to the national public policy of Greece, being
inconsistent with the fundamental legal principles of Greek law.
It is also asserted that the appellant - ANAFI SME is still
operational and there is no liquidation, and it has the authority
to file the suit.
38. Thus, the overall facts establish that the documents
relied upon by the learned Single Judge were matters of
serious dispute between the parties and their applicability had
been specifically contested and controverted by the plaintiffs.
Without a trial, the efficacy and evidentiary value of such
documents in establishing the maritime claim cannot be
summarily rejected by resorting to the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC.
39. It is not in dispute that all the proceedings, namely,
AS/8/2026 and AS/32/2026 and the civil applications filed
therein, were being heard together by the learned Single Judge
from the stage of filing and came to be disposed of by a
common oral judgment and order.
40. All the documents relied upon by the respective parties
formed part of the record of the admiralty suits, including the
affidavits-in-reply and the civil applications filed therein.
41. There are rival claims and counter-claims by the
respective parties. The plaintiffs of AS/8/2026 claim to be the
lawful owners of the vessel - MT ANAFI, whereas the plaintiff of
AS/32/2026 disputes the said claim of ownership. The latter
Page 32 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
instituted their suit after noticing that, pursuant to the interim
order of arrest passed by this Court in AS/8/2026, the Captain
and crew members were forcibly disembarked from the vessel
and possession was sought to be taken by the plaintiffs. These
developments prompted the plaintiff of AS/32/2026 to first file
OJCA/3/2026, seeking vacation of the interim order, and
thereafter to institute AS/32/2026, claiming damages of USD
45,41,420 towards loss of charter hire under the Time
Charterparty Agreement dated 30.06.2025 entered into with
IOCL, allegedly arising from the arrest of the vessel - MT ANAFI
on 24.01.2026. These facts, indubitably disclose a valid cause
of action, and are required to be adjudicated in trial.
42. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the Power of
Attorney issued in favour of the Curtis Group, appointing two
liquidators, did not confer the requisite authority upon them. In
particular, it is their case that the liquidator who filed the
affidavit seeking withdrawal of AS/32/2026 viz.
Mr.Sabindrakumar Brijendra Singh, was not duly authorised to
do so.
FACET OF CAUSE OF ACTION IN PLAINT OF AS/32/2026 :
43. For the purpose of determining whether the plaint of
AS/32/2026 discloses a cause of action, it would be apposite to
refer to the relevant averments made therein. The relevant
paragraphs of the plaint are reproduced hereinbelow :
“5. The Plaintiff is filing the present Suit in extreme haste as the
Plaintiff has learnt that the Defendant Vessel is likely to be taken
out of the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Courtany time by her alleged
Owners upon withdrawal of the Suit filed by them for possession of
the Defendant no. 1 Vessel so to defeat the Plaintiff's claim. In view
Page 33 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
of the same, the Plaintiff reserves its right under O II, R 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to enhance/amend its claim.
18. On 24 January 2026, the Registered Owners sought and
obtained ex parte arrest of the Defendant vessel from this Hon'ble
Court, contending that it was entitled to possession and redelivery
of the ship due to the expiry of the bareboat charter. The Registered
Owners did not disclose that Eletson Gas had exercised its
irrevocable purchase option under Clause 47 of the Bareboat
Charterparty on 24 February 2025.
20. On 4 February 2026, the Plaintiff filed an interim application
(Civil Application (OJ) No. 3 of 2026 in Admiralty Suit No. 8 of 2026)
( "Vacating Application") in the suit, contesting the 'First Arrest of
the vessel, which was obtained by the Registered Owners by
suppressing material facts. The Plaintiff craves to refer to and rely
on the pleadings in the interim application (Civil Application (OJ) No.
3 of 2026 in Admiralty Suit No. 8 of 2026), if needed.
21 On 25 January 2026, between approximately 17:10 hours and
19:40 hours, while the Defendant Vessel was lying at outer
anchorage, Deendayal Port, Kandla, certain persons, unlawfully
boarded the Defendant Vessel claiming that have been permitted to
sign on board by the concerned Authority at the behest and
instance of the Registered Owners.
22. In light of the Registered Owners' plain illegal acts of
overreaching this Hon'ble Court's order and taking the law into their
own hands, the Plaintiff was constrained to file OJCA No. 2 of 2026
in the First Arrest suit inter alia seeking disembarkation of the
Registered Owners' unauthorised crew from the Defendant Vessel.
34. Because of the Registered Owners'illegal actions, the master
and the crew of the vessel, who were lawfully appointed by the
Plaintiff, had to disembark. Registered Owners then unconditionally
withdrew their suit (i.e, Admiralty Suit No. 8 of 2026) without
providing any reason.
52 The cause of action arose when the Registered Ownersfrustrated
the purchase option exercised by Eletson Gas and eventually
arrested the Defendant vessel on 24 January 2026, thus resulting in
the Plaintiff's own interest in the Defendant Vessel, which it had
validly received from Eletson Gas, being affected. The Plaintiff
ceased to receive the charter hire under the IOCL Charter Party
from 24 January 2026 and lost the charter hire. The cause of action
further arose when the Registered Owners illegally de-registered
the vessel from the Greek registry without the permission of this
Hon'ble Court. The present Suit is therefore within time. The
Plaintiff's claim is not barred by the period of limitation as
contemplated in the Limitation Act 1963.”
Page 34 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
44. Thus, a plain reading of the plaint - AS/32/2026 does
indicate that the plaintiff has pleaded the relevant facts
constituting the cause of action and the circumstances that led
to the institution of the said suit. The issue of disembarkation
of the Captain and crew members, whether voluntary or
forcible, is also a triable issue. However, the learned Single
Judge has discarded the same as illusory by holding it to be a
creation of clever drafting.
SCOPE OF ORDER VII RULE 11(a) OF THE CPC IN
CONTEXT OF AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PLAINT :
45. We may now proceed to examine the findings recorded
by the learned Single Judge while dismissing AS/32/2026 by
invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC,
placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in
the cases of Dahiben (supra ) and Manjula and Ors.
(supra ) . The said decisions reiterate and reaffirm the authority
of the Court to reject the plaint by resorting to the provisions of
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for avoiding unnecessary
prolongation of trial proceedings if the suit does not conform to
the parameters as laid down in the clauses specified therein. It
is trite that while examining the scope and ambit of Order VII
Rule 11(a) of the CPC, a duty is cast upon the Court to
determine whether the plaint discloses a cause of action by
scrutinizing the averments made therein, read in conjunction
with the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, or whether the
suit is barred by any law.
46. It has further been held that where a document is
referred to in the plaint and forms the basis of the plaintiff's
Page 35 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
claim, such document is required to be treated as part of the
plaint. The Court must, therefore, examine whether the
assertions made in the plaint, read along with such documents,
are contrary to any statutory provision or judicial dictum so as
to warrant rejection of the plaint at the threshold.
47. The Supreme Court has also cautioned that, while
examining whether the plaint discloses a cause of action on
the basis of its averments and the documents annexed thereto,
the pleas raised by the defendant in the written statement or
in an application seeking rejection of the plaint on merits are
irrelevant and cannot be taken into consideration. If the
averments in the plaint are taken in their entirety, together
with the documents relied upon, the Court is required to
examine whether they would entitle the plaintiff to a decree.
The Supreme Court has further clarified that, where the
allegations in the plaint prima facie disclose a cause of action,
the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the truth or
otherwise of those allegations.
48. The Supreme Court, while referring to its decision in the
case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 S.C.C. 467
has reiterated that what is required to be examined is whether
the plaint discloses a real cause of action or whether the same
is merely illusory and has been created by clever drafting.
49. In the present proceedings, the respective parties have
asserted rival maritime claims of ownership/possession over
the vessel - MT ANAFI, relying upon various documents, the
Page 36 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
genuineness, effect and applicability of which are themselves
disputed by the respective parties.
50. In this context, we may refer to the observations of the
Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool & London S.P. & I
Association Limited (supra) , which have been considered in
the cases of Dahiben (supra ) and Manjula & Anr. (supra ).
These decisions assume significance since they were rendered
in the context of complex issues relating to maritime claims.
51. The Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool & London
S.P. & I Association Limited (supra) , while examining the
admiralty dispute relating to the ownership of the sister
vessels and the applicability of the provisions of Order VII Rule
11(a) of the CPC, has held thus:
“143. The Club has pleaded that the vessel is a sister ship of 'Sea
Ranger' and 'Sea Glory' owned and possessed by the second
defendant. The Club has also pleaded that the defendant No. 2 is
beneficial owner of the first defendant ship. Determination on such
assertions would amount to determination of question of fact. If the
'Vessel' denies or disputes the same; an issue in that behalf will
have to be framed and decided.
144. Beneficial ownership of a ship is not a question of fact alone.
It is a mixed question of fact and law. In William Vs. Wilcox [(1838) 8
Ad. & EL 331] it is held:
"It is an elementary rule in pleading that when a state of facts
is relied, it is enough to allege it simply, without setting out
the subordinate facts which are the means of proving it or the
evidence sustaining the allegations."
xxx…...
146. It may be true that Order 7 Rule 11(a) although authorises
the court to reject a plaint on failure on the part of the plaintiff to
disclose a cause of action but the same would not mean that the
averments made therein or a document upon which reliance has
been placed although discloses a cause of action, the plaint would
be rejected on the ground that such averments are not sufficient to
prove the facts stated therein for the purpose of obtaining reliefs
claimed in the suit. The approach adopted by the High Court, in this
behalf, in our opinion, is not correct.
Page 37 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
xxx……
150. In the aforementioned backdrop, the question as to whether
the Club had been able to show that the Respondent No. 1 is a
sister ship of "Sea Glory" and "Sea Ranger" admittedly belonging to
the first respondent is a matter which is required to be gone into in
the suit.
152. So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises
some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the
case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it
out. The purported failure of the pleadings to disclose a cause of
action is distinct from the absence of full particulars. [See Mohan
Rawale (supra)]
153. Beneficial ownership is not a pure question of fact. It is a
mixed question of law and fact. xxxx…….”
52. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the plaint of
AS/32/2026 does disclose a cause of action. In paragraph
No.52 of the plaint, the appellant - plaintiff has elaborately
mentioned the cause of action. The overall averments also
reveal the circumstances leading to the maritime claim
premised on the Time Charter Agreement with IOCL. The
appellant has also claimed to be its agent and to be in lawful
possession of the vessel. The prayers is made for such
declaration. In the plaint, the appellant has also highlighted the
ownership dispute between Eletson Gas LLC and the opponent-
defendants BSL MGC Limited and ANIVUS I Shipping Company,
as well as the dispute involving Adam Spears Group and
Kertsikoff Group over Eletson Gas LLC. The appellant has
asserted its right on the basis of the “irrevocable” purchase
option under Clause 47 of the Bareboat Charterparty dated
24.02.2025, and the “no objection” given to the plaintiff on
25.06.2025 by EMC Gas Corporation to deploy the vessel to
IOCL on a time charter. It is claimed in the plaint that EMC Gas
Page 38 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
Corporation is controlled by the Kertisikoff Group, and that EMC
Gas Corporation had granted the “no objection” at the behest
of BSL MGC Limited, the defendant-present opponent. The
issue of disembarkation of the Master and Crew itself is heavily
contested. All these documents are annexed to the plaint. As
held by the Supreme Court in the case of Liverpool & London
S.P. & I Association Limited (supra) , the question of
ownership of a vessel is required to be framed as an issue and
adjudicated upon. The question of beneficial ownership of a
ship is not merely a question of fact, but involves a mixed
question of fact and law. However, the learned Single Judge,
while allowing the unconditional withdrawal of AS/8/2026 filed
by the present opponents has declared them to be the owner
of the vessel – MT ANAFI on the strength of the UK Court
judgement and arbitral award.
53. In this set of facts which form part of the plaint, the
dismissal of the suit does not conform to the foregoing
observations of the Supreme Court. It has also been held by
the Apex Court that, albeit Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC
empowers the Court to reject a plaint where the plaintiff fails to
disclose a cause of action, the provision cannot be invoked
merely because the averments made in the plaint or the
documents relied upon by the plaintiff are considered
insufficient to establish the facts asserted or to prove the
plaintiff's entitlement to the reliefs claimed. Where the
averments in the plaint, if read as a whole and in conjunction
with the documents relied upon, disclose a cause of action, the
plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold merely on the
Page 39 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
ground that the plaintiff may ultimately fail to establish its
case.
54. In the present case, the maritime claims raised in both
the suits viz. AS/8/2026 and the subsequently instituted AS/32/
2026, are intricately intertwined with the rival claims of two
groups asserting their respective rights of
ownership/possession over the vessel MT ANAFI, and their
respective charter party agreements. Curiously, the present
defendants-plaintiffs-BSL MGC LTD of AS/8/2026 after the
disembarkation of the Master and Crew on the strength of the
arrest order dated 24.01.2026, filed an affidavit dated
23.04.2026 through one Ketan Manojkumar Chhatbar to
withdraw the suit unconditionally, and the same was also
allowed to be withdrawn, while declaring them to be the
owners of the vessel in question. From the order dated
30.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, it is manifest
that the representatives of the opponent were present on the
vessel, and were directed to disembark. Thus, the plaintiffs of
AS/8/2026, i.e., the present opponents, who claim ownership of
the vessel and got their own vessel arrested, had the Master
and Crew disembarked, and thereafter withdrew the suit
unconditionally.
55. The respective parties have founded their claims on the
documents referred to hereinabove, while each side has
accused the other of suppressing material facts and
documents.
Page 40 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
56. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and particularly
having regard to the highly contested and disputed questions
arising from the documents relied upon by the respective
parties, which are placed on record, and the other attendant
facts, it cannot be held and concluded that the plaint in
AS/32/2026 fails to disclose a cause of action or that the cause
of action pleaded therein is vexatious. The validity, effect and
applicability of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff,
particularly in the face of the rival contentions raised by the
defendants, are matters which require examination and
adjudication in the course of trial. The suit could not, therefore,
have been brought to an end by holding that the plaint did not
disclose a cause of action or that the claim was vexatious, and
simultaneously declaring the ownership of the vessel.
57. Unless the documents and their evidentiary value are
examined during the trial, the declaration of ownership in
favour of the plaintiffs of AS/8/2026 was uncalled for. The issue
of ownership, possession and agency in respect of the vessel -
MT ANAFI involves examination of facts and law. Hence, the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge declaring the
ownership of the vessel, without putting the issues to trial,
demands interference.
ISSUE OF SUPPRESSION OF FACTS :
58. We shall now examine the question as to whether the
alleged suppression of material facts, as contended by
defendant Nos.2 and 3 in AS/32/2026, and which appears to
have weighed with the learned Single Judge, could have
Page 41 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
constituted a ground for rejecting the plaint. The learned Single
Judge has placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in the case of Manjula & Ors. (supra ). The
Supreme Court has reiterated the principles of law enunciated
in the case of Dahiben (supra ). The Apex Court has reiterated
thus:
“ 9.3. Once the plaint is presented for institution, and before it is
admitted, it is the duty of the trial court to verify the contents of the
plaint and ensure that all legal requirements are satisfied before
admitting the plaint. A trial court cannot mechanically admit the
plaint and register the suit. Admission of the plaint cannot be a
mechanical process by which the note of the registry is merely
endorsed by the court. If, at the stage of admission of the plaint, the
trial court, upon a meaningful reading of the plaint, comes to the
conclusion that the plaint is liable to be rejected, it shall reject the
plaint. It is not necessary for the trial court to wait for the defendant
to enter appearance and seek rejection of the plaint. Once the court
finds that the suit is frivolous, without jurisdiction, instituted without
compliance with prerequisites, fails to disclose a real cause of
action, suppresses material facts, or is barred by law but couched in
clever drafting to create an illusion of a cause of action, it must
reject the plaint with costs. (See T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal
[(1977) 4 SCC 467; 1977 SCC OnLine SC 286.] )”
59. The aforesaid principles of law relating to the rejection of
a plaint at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC
and on suppression of facts are required to be applied very
cautiously while examining the heavily contested maritime
claims in an Admiralty Suit involving action in rem. The
Admiralty Act, 2017 is a specialized piece of legislation
governing complex maritime claims and actions in rem. The
initiation of an action in rem triggers an automated legal chain
reaction, emanating from the judicial arrest of a vessel,
followed by the determination of claimant priorities. The suit is
filed in great haste for obtaining the arrest of the vessel,
having regard to the consequences that follow upon its release
Page 42 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
and the question of its possession. Keeping in mind these
quintessential features of an admiralty suit involving high-
stake maritime claims, it is evident from the relevant
averments made in the plaint of AS/32/2026 that, on the basis
of the bundle of facts, the plaintiffs had explained that the suit
was instituted in extreme haste, as they had learnt that the
defendant-vessel was likely to be taken out of the jurisdiction
of this Court by her alleged owners, namely, the present
opponents-original defendants, after the alleged forcible
disembarkation of the Master and Crew by taking advantage of
the arrest of the vessel ordered by this Court. The appellant-
plaintiff had also reserved their right under Order II Rule 2 of
the CPC to enhance or amend their claim.
60. In paragraph No.20 of the plaint, the plaintiff has
specifically referred to the interim application, being
OJCA/3/2026 filed in AS/8/2026, whereby the plaintiffs had
challenged the arrest of the vessel on the ground that the
same had been obtained by suppressing material facts. The
appellant-plaintiff has expressly stated that it craves leave to
refer to and rely upon the pleadings in the said interim
application. The judgement of the UK Court, along with the
arbitral awards, was placed on record in the said application
and was very much a part of the record.
61. The appellant-plaintiff has also specifically referred to the
orders passed by the Greek Court and alleged that the
defendants had committed fraud upon this Court by
suppressing the aforesaid material facts in AS/8/2026, thereby
obtaining an order of arrest of the vessel. It was further alleged
Page 43 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
that the deregistration of the vessel from the Greek Registry,
without obtaining permission from this Court, was illegal.
62. It is the specific case of the appellant in AS/32/2026 that,
by virtue of Clause 47 of the Bareboat Charterparty, it was the
disponent owner of the defendant vessel and were in lawful
possession thereof as on 24.01.2026, when the vessel came to
be arrested.
63. We may reiterate that it has been explicitly contended
that Clause 47 of the Bareboat Charterparty provided for a
purchase option, which was exercised by the plaintiffs before
the expiry of the charter period on 31.07.2025. It is further
their case that, pursuant to the lawful authorisation and the
no-objection granted by Eletson Gas LLC, they became the
authorised agents and were placed in lawful possession of the
vessel, thereby enabling them to commercially deploy the
same as disponent owners. Acting upon the aforesaid no-
objection and authorisation, the plaintiffs entered into a Time
Charterparty with IOCL on 30.06.2025. According to the
plaintiffs, consequent upon the order of arrest passed by this
Court on 24.01.2026 in AS/8/2026, the vessel was detained
and could not be commercially deployed, resulting in loss of
charter hire. It was on this basis that AS/32/2026 came to be
instituted, seeking a decree against the defendants towards
the loss of charter hire under the IOCL Time Charterparty. Thus,
the issue of the arrest of the vessel and the consequences
which followed thereafter do not remotely suggest that there
was no cause of action or that no right to sue had accrued to
the appellants to file AS/32/2026.
Page 44 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
64. The captioned suits and the attached Civil Applications
were listed and heard together, and common orders were also
passed. Thus, upon an overall consideration of the pleadings,
the documents relied upon and the averments made in the
plaint, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single
Judge fell into error in rejecting the plaint in AS/32/2026 by
invoking Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC, as well as on the
ground of alleged suppression of material facts by the plaintiff.
We do not find that the pleadings demonstrate that either the
cause of action or the maritime claim was vexatious or was
artificially created by concocting facts and suppressing
material documents.
65. The rival claims and contentions of the respective parties,
including the allegations of suppression and the issues arising
therefrom, require examination and adjudication in the course
of trial. In view of the seriously contested questions, which are
founded upon documentary evidence and involve rival claims
of ownership and possession of the vessel, the plaint could not
have been rejected at the threshold by invoking Order VII Rule
11(a) of the CPC or on the ground of suppression of facts.
66. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.V.
Elisabeth and Others (supra) , as well as the proposition of
law sought to be canvassed by the opponents, would not come
to their rescue in the facts of the present case, particularly in
view of the fact that the procedure governing admiralty suits is
regulated by the provisions of the CPC, as envisaged under
Section 12 of the Admiralty Act, 2017. There cannot be any
cavil with the legal proposition cited on behalf of the
Page 45 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
opponents in the present appeal; however, the same will not
apply to the facts as discussed hereinabove. Since we have
determined that the plaint discloses a cause of action, which is
not illusory in nature and is not an artefact of clever drafting,
the decisions relied upon by learned advocate Ms.Sethna
cannot come to the rescue of the opponents.
MAINTAINABILITY OF OJA/7/2026 :
67. The issue of maintainability of OJA/7/2026 by the
appellant - ANAFI SME is raised by the opponents-defendants
Nos.3 and 4 (plaintiffs of AS/8/2026). OJA/7/2026 is filed in the
captioned AS/8/2026, challenging the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge, to the extent that the
learned Single Judge permitted the unconditional withdrawal of
AS/8/2026.
68. The cause title of OJCA/3/2026 filed in AS/8/2026, reveals
that the said application was filed in the name of “M.T. ANAFI
(her owners and/or managers and/or master and all other
persons concerned with or interested in her)”, whereas
OJA/7/2026 is filed by ANAFI SME.
69. Thus, although OJCA/3/2026 was filed in the name of the
vessel “M.T. ANAFI”, OJA/7/2026 has been preferred by “ANAFI
Special Maritime Enterprise”, claiming that it is the disponent
owner of the vessel and that it was operating the vessel at the
time of its arrest on 24.01.2026.
70. In our considered opinion, OJA/7/2026, as preferred by
ANAFI SME in its own capacity, is not maintainable in the facts
Page 46 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
and circumstances of the present case, without obtaining leave
of the Court, more particularly when the question of ownership
and operation of the vessel in question is yet to be examined
and adjudicated upon in the respective suits.
71. It is true that a maritime claim is recognized as a claim in
rem. However, that principle, by itself, would not confer an
automatic right upon ANAFI SME to maintain the present
appeal in its own capacity by projecting itself as a disponent
owner, albeit in AS/8/2026, filed by BSL MGC Limited & ANR,
the vessel - MT ANAFI - defendant, is made a party by
describing it as “and Owners and/or managers and/or master”.
It was always open for the appellant to either seek the leave of
the Court or to file an appeal as one of the original defendants
in AS/8/2026. Nothing prevented the original defendants from
filing an O.J. Appeal against the unconditional withdrawal of the
said suit. Thus, without examining the issue relating to the
legality and propriety of permitting the withdrawal of
AS/8/2026 unconditionally, we are dismissing the captioned
OJA/7/2026 for the reasons set out hereinabove.
ORDER :
72. We have also noticed that, although this Court does not
have separate rules regulating the procedure to be followed in
admiralty suits, the procedure prescribed under the provisions
of the CPC is required to be followed while adjudicating such
suits, as mandated by Section 12 of the Admiralty Act.
Page 47 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
73. We may succinctly observe that if the plaint discloses a
valid cause of action and a right to sue and warrants a full-
fledged trial, the pleadings in the form of a written statement
of defence, the reply, if any, and the intervention applications
of creditors are required to be completed by passing
appropriate separate orders at every stage.
74. The procedure prescribed under Order XIV of the CPC is
required to be followed for framing the issues. A separate order
containing specifically numbered issues, setting out the precise
questions of fact and law arising between the parties, is
therefore required to be passed at the stage of framing issues,
upon completion of the pleadings.
75. The documents produced by the respective parties are
also required to be dealt with in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the CPC. Upon their admissibility being
considered and the documents being duly admitted in
evidence, they are required to be marked with appropriate
exhibit numbers.
76. Upon framing of the issues, the trial proceeds in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the CPC,
which may include the examination of witnesses and the
recording of their depositions. Depending upon the nature of
the dispute, such witnesses may include the master or captain
of the vessel, members of the crew and other persons having
relevant knowledge of the facts in issue.
Page 48 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
FINAL DIRECTIONS AND ORDER:
77. On the substratum of the foregoing analysis, O.J. Appeal
No.6 of 2026 stands allowed , whereas O.J. Appeal No.7 of
2026 stands dismissed . The oral judgment dated 27.10.2026
passed by the learned single judge is quashed and set aside.
The amount of USD 20,000 deposited by the appellant-
plaintiff–ANAFI Special Maritime Enterprises is ordered to be
returned. Accordingly, the Registry shall do the needful. As we
are setting aside the impugned judgment and order, the
direction to deposit costs of USD 1,00,000 will also not survive.
Since O.J. Appeal No.6 of 2026 is confined only to AS/32/2026,
the same is ordered to be revived and restored to its original
file. The parties are directed to maintain the status quo with
regard to the vessel - MT ANAFI, and she will remain arrested
until further orders are passed in this regard in Admiralty Suit
No.32 of 2026.
78. We further clarify that we have not examined the matter
on merits, nor have we expressed any opinion on the validity,
legality, effect or applicability of the documents relied upon by
the respective parties. Nothing stated in the present order shall
be construed to have establish the ownership/ possession/
agency of the vessel MT ANAFI. All the rights and contentions
of the respective parties are left open, including the right to
produce the documents on which reliance is or will be placed.
In this regard, it will be open to the learned Single Judge to
pass appropriate orders while hearing Admiralty Suit No.32 of
2026.
Page 49 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026
C/OJA/6/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 04/11/2026
(GJHC240832992026)
79. The connected Civil Applications accordingly do not
survive and stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
MAHESH/1-2
Page 50 of 50
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Wed Nov 04 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 05 03:10:24 IST 2026