Gujarat HC Revives ANAFI SME’s Charter-Hire Suit After MT ANAFI’s Arrest, Says Disputed Vessel Claims Need Trial

BSL MGC Limited and ANIVUS I Shipping Company filed Admiralty Suit No. 8 of 2026 concerning MT ANAFI and obtained an order arresting the vessel.

ANAFI Special Maritime Enterprises (ANAFI SME), claiming to be the vessel’s disponent owner and to have chartered it to IOCL, alleged that the arrest disrupted the charter and caused loss of hire. It filed Admiralty Suit No. 32 of 2026 seeking damages and relief concerning possession and control of the vessel.

The Single Judge permitted unconditional withdrawal of Suit No. 8 and dismissed Suit No. 32 under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, relying on foreign-court and arbitral decisions and alleged suppression of material facts; costs were imposed and ANAFI SME’s deposit was directed to be transferred to the Juvenile Justice Fund. ANAFI SME appealed both orders.

Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC requires the Court to assess whether the plaint, read meaningfully and as a whole with the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, discloses a cause of action; the defendant’s competing pleas and disputed evidence cannot ordinarily be used to decide the truth of the pleaded case at this stage.

A weak claim, or one whose allegations may ultimately be difficult to prove, is not for that reason liable to rejection if it raises a question fit for adjudication (Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I, (2004) 9 SCC 512).

T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467, Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, (2020) 7 SCC 366, and Manjula v. D.A. Srinivas, 2026 INSC 465, permit rejection where meaningful reading shows a real absence of cause of action, including a sham claim created by clever drafting or material suppression; that power must be applied consistently with the limits of Order VII Rule 11(a).

Section 12 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 makes the CPC procedure applicable to admiralty suits.

For Appeal No. 7, the Court held that ANAFI SME could not appeal in its own capacity as alleged disponent owner without obtaining the Court’s leave, particularly while its status and interest in the vessel remained to be determined.

The plaint pleaded that ANAFI SME had authority to operate the vessel, entered into an IOCL time charter, and suffered loss of hire following the arrest; it also sought relief concerning possession and control of the vessel. Those averments disclosed a cause of action, even though the defendants relied on UK proceedings and arbitral awards said to negate ANAFI SME’s authority.

The applicability and effect of those materials, as well as the rival claims to ownership, possession and agency, were contested questions requiring adjudication at trial, not a merits determination under Order VII Rule 11(a).

The suppression allegation did not justify threshold dismissal in the circumstances: the suits and applications had been heard together, and the plaint referred to the related application in which the relevant documents had been placed on record. The competing allegations of suppression likewise required examination in the proceedings.

Appeal No. 7 stood differently: ANAFI SME had filed it in its own capacity without leave, although its asserted interest in the vessel remained unresolved; the Court therefore dismissed it without deciding whether withdrawal of Suit No. 8 was otherwise proper.

Appeal No. 7 was dismissed as not maintainable in the form filed, without a determination on the legality or propriety of permitting withdrawal of Suit No. 8.