Bombay High Court
Gac Shipping India Private Limited vs Mv Taurus 24 Imo 9359820 on 13 February, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
904. COMASL 5198-26 @ JOL 5412-26.doc
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 5198 OF 2026
GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff
V/s.
M V. Taurus 24 IMO 9359820 ...Defendant
WITH
JUDGE'S ORDER (L) NO. 5412 OF 2026
Mr. Arnab Ghosh with Mr. Manoj Khatri for the Plaintiff.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 13th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :
1. This matter has been circulated expressing urgency submitting
that the Defendant No. 1-Vessel M. V. Taurus 24, IMO 9359820 (the
"Defendant No.1-vessel"), is within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court as indicated by a printout from www.marinetraffic.com at 9.09
am today and it was yesterday as well when the Suit was lodged on a
claim for the outstanding amounts for the agency services rendered by
the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1-vessel of Rs. 15,50,180.68 being
maritime claim under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction
and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the "Admiralty Act") in
addition to legal costs and for arrest of the Defendant No. 1-vessel
towards recovery of the same.
Nikita Gadgil 1/6
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:40:38 :::
904. COMASL 5198-26 @ JOL 5412-26.doc
2. Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel appears for the Plaintiff and submits
that the Plaintiff is in the business of rendering agency as well as other
ancillary services to vessels at various ports. That the Plaintiff was
approached by the Defendant No. 2, who is the registered owner of the
Defendant No.1-vessel (as per the Equasis report at Exhibit-B.), for
rendering services in respect of the Defendant No.1 after which the
Plaintiff, shared their quotation dated 25 th September, 2024 with the
Defendant No.2.
3. Mr. Ghosh submits that the quotation based the charges as well
as the terms and conditions for the services to be rendered by the
Plaintiff was accepted by the Defendant No.2 by endorsing signature
and stamp.
4. Mr. Ghosh submits that the Plaintiff in pursuance of the said
agreement rendered agency services which included inward-outward
clearance of the vessel, seeking permission from the custom authorities
and other ancillary services such as hiring of car, supply of medicines,
ship sanitation certificate, medical chest inspection, surveys etc. to the
Defendant No.1-vessel, which services have been duly acknowledged by
the representatives of the Defendant No.2 without any dispute or
demur as to the quantity or quality of the supplies made by the Plaintiff
Nikita Gadgil 2/6
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:40:38 :::
904. COMASL 5198-26 @ JOL 5412-26.doc
to the Defendant No.1-vessel. That upon rendering such services, the
Plaintiff raised invoices. That by email dated 24 th October, 2025, by the
Plaintiff to the Defendant No.2, it was clearly stated that the net
amount receivable as on 24 th October, 2025 was Rs. 31,32,025.83 and
that thereafter, by an undertaking the Defendant No. 2 has
acknowledged that a total of INR 31,32,025.83 towards agency support
services are due in part respect whereof a cheque dated 10 th November,
2025 for Rs. 20,40,550.66 was also given to the Plaintiff. Mr. Ghosh
submits that however, the said cheque was dishonoured on 27 th
November, 2025.
5. Mr. Ghosh further submits that thereafter, the payment of Rs.
10,00,000/- was made on 27 th November, 2025, bringing the
outstanding down to Rs. 15,50,180.68. That, thereafter, requests and
reminders for the said outstanding amounts have been made, however,
there has been no response from the Defendant No.2. The last of such
correspondence, Mr. Ghosh submits, is of 28th January, 2026, whereby
time to make payments of the outstanding balance had been granted
till 30th January, 2026 and that since no payments came through, the
Suit has been filed.
Nikita Gadgil 3/6
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:40:38 :::
904. COMASL 5198-26 @ JOL 5412-26.doc
6. Mr. Ghosh has also taken this Court through the quotation, terms
and conditions, invoices, correspondence between the parties, letter
confirming the outstanding liability, ledgers, bank statements as well as
correspondence demanding the outstanding payments in support of his
contentions.
7. Mr. Ghosh has also taken this Court to the Equasis report at
Exhibit B which indicates that the registered owner of the Defendant
No.1-vessel is the Defendant No.2.
8. Mr. Ghosh has submitted that the claim for agency services falls
under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act and is a maritime claim
under the Admiralty Act and that this Court may direct arrest of the
vessel in terms of Section 5 of the Admiralty Act for the purposes of
providing security against the said maritime claim.
9. Learned Court Associate has tendered a certificate dated 13 th
February, 2026 from the Section Officer of the Execution Department of
this Court at 10.50 am, which indicates that no caveat has been
registered against the arrest of the Defendant No.1-vessel, M. V. Taurus
24, IMO 9359820.
Nikita Gadgil 4/6
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:40:38 :::
904. COMASL 5198-26 @ JOL 5412-26.doc
10. Having heard Mr. Ghosh, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and
having considered his submissions and also having perused the various
documents and exhibits annexed to the Plaint, with his assistance, I am
of the prima-facie view that the claim of the Plaintiff is a maritime
claim within the meaning of Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act. The
only test that has to be satisfied to arrest a ship in an action in rem is
that the Plaintiff has a maritime claim and the res/ship is identified and
within the jurisdiction of this Court, which criteria appear to have been
met.
11. Accordingly, a case for arrest of the Defendant No.1- vessel has
been made out. In view of Sections 3 and 5 of the Admiralty Act, this
Court, having jurisdiction to direct arrest of the Defendant No.1-Vessel,
passes the following order :
ORDER
(i) I order the arrest of the Defendant-Vessel named M. V. Taurus 24, IMO 9359820, lying and being within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court along with hull, engines, gears, tackles, machinery, apparels and paraphernalia lying and being presently at Mumbai or wherever in the territorial waters of India. Nikita Gadgil 5/6 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:40:38 :::
904. COMASL 5198-26 @ JOL 5412-26.doc
(ii) Warrant of arrest is dispensed with.
(iii) If the Defendant No.1-vessel is found abandoned or unmanned, the office of the Sheriff shall present a report for auctioning the Vessel upon request of the Plaintiff.
(iv) The Plaintiff is also at liberty to file an application for sale of the Defendant No.1-vessel provided no application for vacating the order of arrest is made.
(v) The Judge's Order is accepted and signed separately.
(vi) The Plaintiff's undertaking dated 10 th February, 2026 is accepted.
(vii) The Plaintiff is at liberty to communicate this order to the Sheriff of Mumbai, the Master of the Defendant No.1-Vessel as well as the relevant Port and Custom authorities by email/hand delivery.
(viii) All concerned to act on a copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) Nikita Gadgil 6/6 ::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:40:38 :::