Gujarat HC Dismisses ANAFI SME’s Vessel Claim, Orders Its Representative to Pay $100,000 for Suppressing Foreign Rulings

BSL MGC Limited and Anivus I Shipping Company, claiming ownership of MT ANAFI, obtained an arrest order in Admiralty Suit No. 8 of 2026 and later sought to withdraw that suit unconditionally.

ANAFI SME, claiming to be the vessel’s disponent owner under an arrangement with Eletson Gas LLC and asserting a claim for lost hire under a time charter with IOCL, filed Admiralty Suit No. 32 of 2026 seeking relief concerning the vessel, including its arrest and possession.

The dispute over Eletson Gas’s control and the purchase option under the bareboat charter had been addressed in an English court judgment dated 14 July 2025 and arbitral awards dated 25 July and 13 October 2025.

ANAFI SME did not disclose those decisions in its plaint.

The parties also disputed whether ANAFI SME had been dissolved and whether liquidators had been validly appointed; the Court did not finally determine that question.

The Court applied Sections 4 and 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017: Section 4 identifies maritime claims, including disputes concerning possession or ownership of a vessel and agreements for its use or hire; Section 5 permits arrest in rem in specified circumstances to secure a maritime claim.

Under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaint may be rejected if, on a meaningful reading, it discloses no cause of action; Order 7 Rule 14 requires production of documents relied upon by the plaintiff.

Relying on Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. M.V. Kapitan Kud, the Court stated that an admiralty action should be terminated as hopeless only where the plaintiff’s claim is hopeless beyond doubt; an arguable, though difficult, case should proceed to trial.

It also applied Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanushali on meaningful scrutiny of the plaint and relied on Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas for the requirement to disclose material facts and the consequences of suppressing them.

For withdrawal of Suit No. 8, the Court relied on the plaintiff’s position as dominus litis and its right to withdraw under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC.

The Court permitted withdrawal of Suit No. 8 because its plaintiffs no longer wished to pursue it, and ANAFI SME—never a party to that suit—could not prevent its withdrawal.

On Suit No. 32, the Court treated the English judgment and arbitral awards as establishing that the Kertiskoff Group lacked authority to act for Eletson Gas, that the bareboat charter expired on 31 July 2025, and that the purchase option was no longer exercisable; it concluded that ANAFI SME therefore lacked a subsisting right to possession or control of the vessel.

It further found that the IOCL time charter had been entered into on authority associated with the Kertiskoff Group after the English judgment, and that ANAFI SME had not established an agency or sub-charter arrangement supporting its claimed right to deploy the vessel.

Although the plaint pleaded a cause of action on its face, the Court considered the foreign judgment and awards, which had been produced by the defendants, because it regarded them as material documents deliberately omitted by ANAFI SME; it held that the claim was illusory and vexatious and that the suppression disentitled the plaintiff to relief.

The Court did not finally resolve ANAFI SME’s dissolution or the validity of the liquidators’ appointment.

Suit No. 32 of 2026 was dismissed for lack of a sustainable cause of action, and the Court found no basis to continue the arrest or grant ANAFI SME possession and control of MT ANAFI.

The US$20,000 deposited with the Registry was directed to be transferred in equal shares to the specified proposed legal-services and advocates’ welfare funds, subject to their creation.

Costs of US$100,000 were ordered against Ms. Laskarina Karastamati/ANAFI SME in favour of the owners of the vessel, payable within four weeks of upload of the judgment.

The vessel was directed not to be released for 24 hours after upload to facilitate consideration of IOCL’s separate Admiralty Suit No. 51 of 2026; the Court declined to continue the arrest under either disposed suit.