AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant / Original Plaintiff; Mr. Bharucha, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant No.1; Mr. Pratap, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant No.4; Mr. Kamat, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.6 to 10 and Mr. Manek, learned Advocate for Defendant No.11. Parties are referred to as Plaintiff and Defendants for convenience.
Plaintiff - Indian Oil Corporation Limited has filed the present Interpleader Suit seeking declarative reliefs and urged the Court to hear the Interim Application for Interim Reliefs in view of the exigency involved in the present case.
This Suit is filed by Plaintiff as Interpleader Suit against 11 Defendants under the provisions of Section 88 and Order XXXV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”). Plaintiff is a public sector company engaged in India’s Petroleum Sector and in the course of its business charters Vessels from shipping companies, both foreign and domestic, to transport crude oil and petroleum products like LPG. In the present case, Plaintiff is the Charterer of LPG Carrier called Anafi (for short “the said Vessel”).
According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 Anafi Special Maritime Enterprise (for short “Anafi SME”) is a Greek Special Maritime Enterprise and it is described as “disponent owner” of the said Vessel who chartered the said Vessel to Plaintiff under a Time Charter dated 30.06.2025. Total duration of the Time Charter was 2 years (and renewable for a further period of 1 year) and according to Plaintiff the Time Charter is valid and successive. Defendant No. 1 is the immediate contractual counterparty of Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 has asserted that it has authority to provide crew, services and give instructions regarding operation of the said Vessel and Plaintiff is required to pay charter hire to Defendant No.1 which was done prior to August 2025.
It is Plaintiff's case that Defendant No.2 – Eleston Gas LCC (for short “EG LLC”) company incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands has asserted that it is the bareboat charterer and operator of the said Vessel under a Bareboat Charter Party executed by the “registered owner” of the said Vessel. NOC dated 25.06.2025 is relied upon by Plaintiff in this regard and Plaintiff believes that Defendant No.2 in turn has entered into an Agreement / arrangement with Defendant No.1 and the said Bareboat Charter Party is nothing but a form of a sub-charter of the said Vessel to Defendant No.1.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.3, Eleston Holdings Inc. (for short “EHI”) is a company registered in Liberia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands and is the purported holding company of Defendant No.2 - EG LLC. According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.3 is currently involved in bankruptcy and arbitration proceedings in the US and the UK, however its representatives have asserted ownership and/or control over Defendant No.2 - EG LLC and/or the said Vessel, as well as over the person operating the said Vessel and further demanded amendments to the Time Charter.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.4, BSL MGC Limited (for short “BSL”) is a company incorporated in the Isle of Man and is the “Registered Owner” of the said Vessel. According to Plaintiff, Defendant No. 4 has claimed that the Bareboat Charter granted by it to Defendant No. 2-EG LLC expired on 31.07.2025 and this resulted in automatic termination of all sub-charters and therefore Plaintiff should either pay charter hire directly to Defendant No.4 - BSL or cease using the said Vessel.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.5, EMC Gas Corporation (for short “EMC”) a company based in Piraeus, Greece, serves as the Technical and Commercial Manager of the said Vessel. Plaintiff executed the Time Charter with Defendant No.1 after relying upon the NOC dated 25.06.2025 issued by Defendant No.5 and the NOC on instructions of the purported “Registered Owner” i.e. Defendant No. 4 -BSL.
According to Plaintiff, Defendant Nos.6 to 10 (OCM Maritime Gas 1–5 LLC) are Greek entities forming part of the OCM Maritime Gas group and are Claimants in the English High Court proceedings (CL-2025-000285 at London). According to Plaintiff they have obtained an ex parte interim freezing order dated 19.09.2025 against Defendant No.2 - EG LLC thereby restraining dealing with and/or diminishing the value of the said Vessel alongwith further disclosure obligations on Defendant No.2 - EG LLC .
According to Plaintiff, Defendant No.11 - Reshamwala Shipbrokers (for short “RKR”) carries on business from Mumbai however its exact constitution is unknown and Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Suit plaint upon disclosure. It is Plaintiff’s case that Defendant No.11 - RKR acted as intermediary in the Time Charter, routed several material communications at all times as if authorized by the “Registered Owners” and Defendant No. 1.
It is Plaintiff’s case in the Suit Plaint that Defendant Nos.1 to 11 have raised competing claims of ownership and other rights / entitlement over the said Vessel and / or concerned with claims of ownership of the said Vessel. Plaintiff claims to be a neutral stakeholder in the dispute but since it has taken the said Vessel on charter from Defendant No.1 and is facing competing claims from multiple parties, Plaintiff being concerned about interruption in its charter over the said Vessel and its ability to continue to use the same for its operation has approached this Court by filing this Interpleader Suit.
Averments in the Suit plaint are that Plaintiff is desirous of continuing with the Time Charter of the said Vessel and is desirous to make payment of charter hire as agreed by the Time Charter Agreement executed between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to whomsoever is entitled or even in this Court subject to it being permitted to operate the said Vessel and its operation not being interfered with for the remaining tenure of the charter.
Time Charter Party Agreement dated 03.06.2025 is appended at Exhibit “A” at page No.65 of the Suit plaint which is referred to and relied upon by all parties while making their respective submissions. Prima facie it is seen that Time Charter Party Agreement is for a total period of 2 years and hire payment is USD 25,119$ per day. Time Charter is in favour of Plaintiff created by Defendant No.1 describing itself as “disponent owner” of the said Vessel. Time Charter Party Agreement is accompanied by NOC issued by Defendant No.5 authorising Defendant No.1 to charter the Vessel to Plaintiff by registered owner i.e. Defendant No.4.
Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiff – Indian Oil Corporation Limited has taken me through various documents appended to Suit plaint pleading aforesaid facts. He would submit that Plaintiff did not have notice or indication of any dispute regarding ownership, control or authority over the said Vessel or any chain of Charters at the time of hire. He would submit that Plaintiff is regular in making hire payment and service charges under the Time Charter including bunker delivery payment to Defendant No.1 who provided the Vessel. He would submit that first intimation of dispute regarding ownership or control of the Vessel was intimated to Plaintiff by email dated 05.08.2025 addressed by Defendant No.3 – EHI wherein it stated that it controlled Defendant No.2 – EG LLC as well as the said Vessel and further requested amendment by executing an Addendum to reflect the current status of the said Vessel informing that Plaintiff's contractual counterparties lacked Authority over the Vessel.
He would submit that on 08.08.2025 Plaintiff was notified that Bareboat Charter between Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.2 expired on 31.07.2025 which automatically terminated all sub-charters including Plaintiff's Time Charter and resultantly Plaintiff was asked to not make further payment to Defendant No.1 or Defendant No.2 without entering into a fresh Charter party Agreement with Defendant No.4. He would submit that Plaintiff sought urgent clarification and formal undertaking from Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and demanded confirmation of their Authority and sought indemnity against third-party claims, however, Defendant No.1 supported Defendant Nos.2 and 5 and assured Plaintiff that Defendant No.2 was the lawful operator of the Vessel and in turn relied on the Greek Court judgment which refused recognition of US bankruptcy plan for Defendant No.3 and assured that Plaintiff's right under the Time Charter was unaffected.
He would submit that despite repeated reminders, Defendant No.1 declined to issue declaration and indemnity to Plaintiff and maintained that Plaintiff was not entitled to the same as Time Charter was being performed as agreed by parties. He would submit that in the meanwhile, Defendant No.4 issued a legal notice dated 03.09.2025 to Plaintiff thereby demanding cessation of use of the said Vessel in furtherance to compensation for the use of the said Vessel after 31.07.2025.
He would submit that Plaintiff in its reply dated 10.09.2025 asked for documentary evidence of title and authority of Defendant No.4 and informed that it received competing claims from other entities and that it did not have any direct involvement in the claims / disputes. He would submit that on 16.09.2025, Defendant No.4 provided certain documents in support of its claim of ownership however Plaintiff noted certain discrepancies in the updated Q88 (a document which enlists details of the ships) wherein the “disponent owner” was filed as “N/A”, thus adding to the uncertainty regarding the chain of Authority over the said Vessel. He would submit that Defendant No.11 who acted as an intermediary at the time of the Time Charter was also contacted to confirm the correctness of the documents and explanation was sought from him.
He would submit that on 24.09.2025, Plaintiff was placed on notice of Freezing Order issued by the English High Court at the instance of Defendant Nos.6 to 10 thereby restraining Defendant No.2 from dealing with its assets, including the said Vessel and imposing disclosure obligations. He would submit that this order was forwarded to Plaintiff by Defendant No.11.
He would therefore submit that although order dated 24.09.2025 does not prohibit continuation of the Time Charter, however this development jeopardizes and significantly issues risk of action against the said Vessel which would ultimately hamper the interest and business of Plaintiff if the Vessel is impounded or arrested.
He would submit that there are multiple incidents which took place in the interregnum when Defendant No.4's representatives boarded the said Vessel while Plaintiff's cargo was abroad without authorization and they were disembarked at the Port of Oman upon order. He would submit that on 09.10.2025, Plaintiff received notice from Defendant No.4 demanding payment of charter hire and deal with it in respect of said Vessel within 24 hours time. Hence, he would submit that Plaintiff is now faced with adverse, competing and mutually contradictory claims from Defendant Nos.1 to 11 whereby there is conflicting entitlement to the charter hire as also authority and control of the said Vessel. He would submit that there are multiple action of claims instituted abroad however Plaintiff is not party to any of them. He would submit that Plaintiff is not in a position to evaluate its position viz-a-viz them and hence the Interpleader Suit.
He would submit that there is no escape from the fact that Plaintiff is exposed to imminent risk of multiple liability, arrest of the said Vessel and / or disruption to its critical LPG supply chain.
He would submit that Plaintiff has no connection with the lis between Defendants but due to multiple communication, letters and legal notices received by it, Plaintiff apprehends unnecessary and involuntary involvement in the entitlement dispute between Defendants, arrest of Vessel, injunction and regulatory action.
He would submit that Plaintiff is ready and willing pay, deposit future hire charges with the person directed by Court or in any manner as directed as Plaintiff is willing to continue the Time Charter for the agreed period. As Plaintiff is a disinterested stakeholder, he would urge the Court to protect and safeguard rights of Plaintiff from risk of double payment, arrest of Vessel and disruption to its LPG Supply Chain. Hence, in that view of the matter, he would urge the Court to decide the question at the interim stage - As to whom does the Plaintiff is liable to pay charter hire and accept as the person as a counterpart to the Time Charter for future transactions for the remaining tenure?
Mr. Bharucha, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant No.1 has drawn my attention to the Affidavit - in - Reply filed by Mr. Satish Chande, Constituted Attorney on behalf of Defendant No.1 appended at page No.148 of the Interim Application. On the point of jurisdiction, he would submit that various proceedings have commenced and are pending in various Courts / Arbitral Tribunals and various orders having been passed by those Courts have restrained change in ownership or possession of the said Vessel. He would however submit that the foreign proceedings concerning ownership or possession of the said Vessel have no bearing on Plaintiff's contractual obligations or entitlement under the Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025. He would submit that the issue of ownership and possession of the Vessel are subject to the jurisdiction of Greek Courts which are already seized of the dispute and have passed appropriate orders. Hence, Plaintiff seeking determination of ownership and possessory rights in respect of the said Vessel is a matter beyond this Court's jurisdiction as the said Vessel flies the flag of Greece and no part of cause of action relating to ownership and possession has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
He would submit that Defendant No.2 does not exercise control over the said Vessel but it concerns shareholders who control Defendant No.2 for exercising purchase options on its behalf in respect of three Vessels including Anafi. He would submit that Defendant No.3 is not the purported holding company of Defendant No.2, however Defendant No.2 is an independent company and Defendant No.3 is only a common unit holder.
He would submit that dispute arising from the Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025 is governed by Clause 65, which provides for Arbitration, and therefore dispute is not amenable to the jurisdiction of a civil court. He would submit that only Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are parties to the Time Charter and none of the other Defendants are privy to it or entitled to claim any rights thereunder. He would submit that Clauses 7 and 8 of the Time Charter expressly stipulate that in consideration of services rendered by Defendant No.1, Plaintiff is liable to make advance monthly charter hire payment to Defendant No. 1.
He would submit that Defendant No.1 has performed its obligations under the Time Charter Party without any default, a fact admitted by Plaintiff in the plaint, and that Plaintiff has likewise made regular charter hire payment to Defendant No.1. He would further submit that Defendant No.4 has never claimed any contractual entitlement to the charter hire under the Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025, but only alleged its termination and urged Plaintiff to enter into a fresh contract with it. Therefore he would submit that very basis of Interpleader Suit and the Interim Application does not require adjudication since under the Time Charter Party only Defendant No.1 is entitled to receive the charter hire and none of the other Defendants are parties to or have rights under the same.
He has drawn my attention to the subject matter of the Interpleader Suit, as pleaded by Plaintiff which is essentially “continued performance / specific performance” of the Time Charter Party. He would submit that a plain reading of the plaint would show that the dispute does not concern a “debt”, “sum of money”, or any “movable” or “immovable” property within the meaning of Section 88 and Order XXXV CPC, rendering the Suit wholly incompatible with the statutory scheme of an Interpleader Suit and is therefore liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He would submit that that the subject matter in dispute is with regard to “whom the charter hire payment be made?”. He would submit that such payment does not fall under the term “debt” which is capable of adjudication.
He would vehemently argue that rival claims put forth and sought to be adjudicated are not in respect of the same debt infact they arise from wholly different causes of action. He would submit that it is settled law that for an interpleader suit to be maintainable the rival or adverse / competing claims faced by Plaintiff must be related to the “same” debt, sum of money or property.
He would submit that in the present case, payment of charter hire is inseparably linked to the services provided and performed under the Time Charter Party by which parties are governed. To simplify, he would submit that Plaintiff's obligation to pay charter hire under the Time Charter Party continues as long as Defendant No.1 continues to perform its contractual obligations.
In support of his above submissions he has referred to and relied upon the meaning and nature of "Time Charter" explained in the Book Time Charters - Sixth Edition1. He has drawn my attention to the decision of the Singapore High Court in the case of Precious Shipping Public Company Ltd and Ors. Vs. O.W. Bunker Far East (Singapore) Pte Ltd. and Ors and Other matter2 wherein the Singapore High Court has evaluated the essence of Interpleader proceedings which is important for adjudication of the present case before the Court.
He would submit that even assuming that Defendant No.1 does not own or possess the Vessel, neither Defendant No.3 nor Defendant No.4 can claim charter hire from the Plaintiff as the Time Charter Party is a contract for services rendered by the disponent owner i.e. Defendant No. 1 and not a proprietary arrangement and therefore hire charges are consideration for such services which in this case are provided by Defendant No.1 to ensure uninterrupted performance. Hence, he would submit that Plaintiff is not a neutral stakeholder but is directly interested in securing continued performance of the Time Charter Party.
He would submit that claims raised by Defendant Nos.1 and 4 qua the Plaintiff are entirely distinct, arising from separate causes of action and independent legal relationship. He would submit that Defendant No.1’s claim is founded on a subsisting Time Charter Party, whereas no contract exists between Plaintiff and Defendant No.4; consequently, nature and extent of Plaintiff’s liabilities toward both Defendants are fundamentally different. He would submit that conditions precedent for maintaining an Interpleader Suit are prima facie not satisfied in the present case, rendering both the Interpleader Suit and Interim Application ex facie not maintainable.
He would submit that as there is a subsisting valid Time Charter Party between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 the contractual obligation under the Time Charter Party cannot be suspended or modified by the Court as Court cannot rewrite the Contract as it is a mutual agreement between parties thereto and must be interpreted according to its express terms. He would submit that Plaintiff in the present case precisely seeks rewriting of the contractual obligations under the guise of an Interpleader Suit which is contrary to settled legal principles of law.
He would submit that even though Plaintiff received the first notice from Defendant No.4 on 08.08.2025 however it is an admitted position that Plaintiff continued payment of charter hire to Defendant No.1 till October 2025. Hence, he would submit that this consistent conduct establishes that Plaintiff itself recognised Defendant No.1 as the party entitled to payment under the Time Charter Party.
He would submit that Plaintiff's prayer for specific performance of the Time Charter Party is legally untenable, as Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant No.1 to continue rendering services while simultaneously attempting to suspend its own payment obligations, despite Defendant No.1 having fully performed its obligations of providing service without default. He would submit that Interpleader Suit cannot be used to restrain Defendant No.1 from exercising its contractual or statutory remedies.
He would submit that the Time Charter Party expressly provides that all disputes between parties are subject to Arbitration under Clause 65, which Plaintiff is attempting to circumvent. He would submit that in the present Suit and Interim Application Plaintiff essentially seeks a determination as to which Defendant is entitled to charter hire under the Time Charter Party which a matter arising directly from the contract governed by the Arbitration Clause. Hence, he would submit that this Court lacks jurisdiction and the dispute must be referred to Arbitration and the Interpleader Suit and Interim Application ought to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Mr. Pratap, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant No.4 has drawn my attention to the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Mr. Siddhesh Sham Kshirsagar, Constituted Attorney on behalf of Defendant No.4. Mr. Pratap supports and adopts the principal submission and arguments advanced by Mr. Bharucha which for brevity sake are not repeated herein. He would submit that Defendant No.4 is the “registered owner” of the said Vessel which is registered at the port of Piraeus, Greece, hence it flies the Greek flag. He would submit that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present Interpleader Suit as it is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
He would submit that Plaintiff under the guise of Interpleader Suit is certainly seeking specific performance of a Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025, which is merely a sub-charter and which stands automatically terminated consequent upon its expiry, by efflux of time of the Head Charter Party namely the Bareboat Charter Party dated 24.05.2018 as on 31.07.2025 since it is now continued thereafter.
He would submit that specific performance of the Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025 is impermissible under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. He would submit that the Time Charter Party in the above facts cannot be continued in the manner as sought as its performance is contemplated for over two (2) years which this Court cannot supervise.
He would submit that no relief can be claimed against Defendant No.4 by Plaintiff as no privity of contract exists between Plaintiff and Defendant No.4. He would therefore submit that Defendant No. 4 is entitled to re-delivery of said Vessel and Plaintiff's continued use of Vessel after expiry of the Bareboat Charter Party is illegal. He would submit that the question of Plaintiff's continued use of said Vessel cannot be adjudicated in an Interpleader Suit.
He would submit that NOC dated 25.06.2025 issued by Respondent No.5 – EMC does not hold any legal significance as it merely carries a rubber stamp of Respondent No.4 without any signature or authentication. He would submit that affixation of rubber stamp of Respondent No.4 on NOC does not confer any authority on the person issuing it. He would submit that NOC issued by Respondent No.5 cannot in any manner change, alter or amend the written contract between Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.4 i.e. the Bareboat Charter Party which has admittedly come to an end on 31.07.2025.
He would submit that Plaintiff failed to undertake even basic verification with Defendant No.1 i.e. “disponent owner” regarding subsistence or duration of the Head Charter Party i.e. Bareboat Charter Party before entering into the sub-charter i.e. Time Charter Party. Hence, he would submit that such omission reflects lack of complete due diligence on the part of Plaintiff.
He would submit that Plaintiff is not a neutral stakeholder as it seeks to continue its usage of the said Vessel for its cargo and has a direct commercial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. He would submit that despite repeated notices by Defendant No.4 to stop using the said Vessel after expiry of the Bare Boat Charter Party, Plaintiff has continued its operations and now seeks protective orders under the guise of an Interpleader Suit which is liable to be dismissed at the threshold for the above reasons. He would submit that Plaintiff seeks judicial protection to continue performance of the contract that has already ceased to exist and thereby to perpetuate illegal and unauthorised use of the said Vessel.
He would submit that reliefs sought by Plaintiff are vague and exceed the scope of an Interpleader Suit as it seeks to continue the Time Charter Party and restrain withdrawal of the said Vessel and declaratory reliefs. He would submit that Plaintiff cannot secure continuation of a terminated Commercial Arrangement or use the said Vessel belonging Defendant No. 4 without any contractual privity.
In support of his submissions he has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court and the Karnataka High Court in the case of Mangal Bhikaji Nagpase Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.3 and Drolia and Karnataka Realty LLP. Vs. Mr. Pradeep Annaiyappa4.
He would submit that the core dispute concerns title, possession and control of a foreign-flagged Vessel and internal disputes of ownership of the Vessel qua of Defendant No.2. He would submit that the said issues are already sub-judice before Foreign Courts and Arbitral Tribunals, therefore entertaining the Suit itself risks conflicting rulings and multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, he would urge the Court to dismiss the Suit itself in the interest of justice.
Mr. Kamat, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.6 to 10 has drawn my attention to the Affidavit - in - Reply filed by Mr. M Sharulatha - authorised Signatory of Defendant Nos.6 to 10. He would submit that Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 are foreign entities and not present within the jurisdiction of this Court.
He would submit that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction over Defendant Nos. 6 to 10, as none of these entities carry on business within this Court's jurisdiction and no cause of action has arisen against them. He would submit that leave to Plaintiff under Clause 12 is expressly granted subject to Defendant Nos. 6 to 10's right to raise all jurisdictional objections. He would submit that Plaintiff does not have any privity, relationship, claim, demand or even communication with Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 qua the said Vessel and therefore no legally sustainable cause of action exists to invoke jurisdiction of this Court against his Defendants.
Next, he would submit that the Interpleader Suit as filed by Plaintiff is not maintainable as interpleader action under Section 88 of CPC as no adverse claims by Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 are even made against Plaintiff in respect of the said Vessel, hire, or any sums under the Time Charter Party. He would submit that Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 are neither parties to the Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025 nor claim any entitlement under it.
He would submit that it is settled law that Interpleader Suit requires a neutral stakeholder however, Plaintiff is an interested commercial user concerned with uninterrupted usage of the said Vessel and therefore not a neutral custodian which dilutes the essence of an Interpleader Suit. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Society for Health and Social Transformation and Another Vs. Kimtu Devi and Ors.5 wherein the Court has elaborated upon the significant aspects of Section 88 and Order XXXV of CPC concerning invoking of interpleader action.
He would submit that Defendant Nos.6 to 10 are beneficiaries under the English Law governing Guarantees executed on 23.02.2022 by Defendant No. 2 – EG LLC and have initiated English Commercial Court proceedings (Claim No. CL-2025-000414) for recovery of dues under the said Guarantees. He would submit that in those proceedings, a Worldwide Freezing Order dated 19.09.2025 is granted and continued on 03.10.2025, restraining Defendant No.2 from dealing with its assets (including possibly the said Vessel) up to USD 17 million. He would however submit that the Worldwide Freezing Order expressly permits ordinary course dealings. He would submit that Plaintiff itself acknowledges in paragraph No.26 of the Suit plaint that the Worldwide Freezing Order does not prohibit continuation of the Time Charter Party, therefore in that case Plaintiff's apprehensions are unfounded and cannot justify any relief against Defendant Nos. 6 to 10. He would submit that in any event Plaintiff depositing security in terms of charter hire has no nexus whatsoever with Defendant Nos.6 to 10 and their claims.
He would submit that the Worldwide Freezing Order has been issued after due judicial consideration and any injunction granted by this Court restraining Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 would directly interfere with the orders of the English Court and undermine its jurisdiction. He would therefore submit that Plaintiff's attempts to seek restrain not only to the existing proceedings but even hypothetical future proceedings is impermissible in law, as anti-suit injunction cannot be granted in anticipation of unknown future actions.
He would submit that Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 have never made any claim against Plaintiff, nor threatened arrest, detention or coercive measures against the said Vessel, despite which Plaintiff seeks to restrain Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 from exercising lawful rights under the Guarantees and Worldwide Freezing Order and despite there being no claim by them against Plaintiff. Hence, he would submit that such reliefs amount to an overreach, fall wholly outside the scope of interpleader action and seek to use the Interpleader Suit as a shield against legitimate foreign proceedings to which Plaintiff is not even a party.
He would submit that the Time Charter Party contains an off-hire remedy in the event of deprivation of use and the Worldwide Freezing Order does not interfere with ordinary course of operations of the said Vessel. He would submit that no injunction or relief of any nature can therefore be granted against Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 and the Interim Application filed by Plaintiff therefore deserves to be rejected in the interest of justice.
Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiff in his brief Rejoinder to Defendants’ submissions has drawn my attention to the three (3) respective Affidavits-in-Rejoinder dated 03.12.2025 filed by Mr. Anurag Sachdev authorized signatory of Plaintiff appended at page 377 onwards to contend that Plaintiff is a neutral stakeholder facing rival and adverse claims over charter hire payment for the said Vessel under the Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025. He would submit that Plaintiff claims no interest in the inter se disputes amongst Defendants and is seeking nothing more but directions from this Court regarding payment of charter hire and protection against multiple proceedings and its rights under the Time Charter Party.
He would submit that Plaintiff has nowhere in its Suit plaint prayed for determination or adjudication of any foreign ownership or possession dispute between Defendants or third parties. He would submit that Plaintiff has filed this suit solely due to dispute regarding validity and subsistence of Time Charter Party as Defendant No.4 in its letter has stated automatic termination of the Time Charter Party and further demanded charter hire payment to be paid to it. He would submit that Greek Court proceedings and territorial jurisdiction has no nexus with present lis as Plaintiff’s case squarely falls within the jurisdiction of this Court as cause of action has arisen within its jurisdiction.
He would submit that Plaintiff seeks narrowly-tailored protection tied to payment and deposit of charter hire to avoid double liability and disruption. He would submit that interim prayers are sought to preserve status quo and in no way prejudice Defendant No.1’s jurisdictional objections. He would submit that present claim cannot be referred to Arbitration as dispute travels beyond the scope of Time Charter Party as there are third party claims with respect to use of said Vessel and to receive charter hire. Hence, he would submit that present Suit and Interim Application are premised on adverse, mutually inconsistent claims by Defendants 1 to 10 regarding entitlement to hire as Clause 65 of the Time Charter Party binds only Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and therefore it does not cover the subject matter of rival claims of multiple parties.
He would submit that Plaintiff’s relief against Defendant No.4 is statutory and not contractual as under the CPC contractual relationship between parties is not necessary or required to maintain an Interpleader action. He would submit that the present Suit raises limited stakeholder question and does not seek to enforce or rewrite the Time Charter Party.
He would fairly submit that the Worldwide Freezing Order does not obviate stakeholder relief. He would submit that the said order does not carve out or identify the payee for the hire stream nor binds all rivals to treat tranche-wise deposits / payments as a complete discharge pro tanto nor precludes coercive steps against Plaintiff within India.
Hence, he would submit that Court’s intervention is necessary to ensure proper deposit of hire and protection of the charter hire, for preserving status quo and protecting Plaintiff from multiple liabilities pending resolution of the dispute between Defendants.
I have heard, Mr. Dhond, learned Senior Advocate for Plaintiff; Mr. Bharucha, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant No.1; Mr. Pratap, learned Senior Advocate for Defendant No.4; Mr. Kamat, learned Advocate for Defendant Nos.6 to 10 and Mr. Manek, learned Advocate for Defendant No.11 at length and with their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by the learned Advocates of the respective parties at the bar have received due consideration of the Court.
Two questions arise for determination in the lis between the parties for deciding the Interim Application:-
Whether the Interpleader Suit and Interim Application filed by Plaintiff is maintainable in the facts of the present case?
Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff?
In present proceedings, it is seen that Plaintiff Indian Oil Corporation Limited has prayed for the following reliefs in the Suit Plaint:-
“14.The Applicant therefore prays that pending the final hearing the suit this Hon’ble Court
A. Subject to the Plaintiff making payment of depositing / the hire when the same falls due, with the person or persons or body or account directed by this Hon’ble Court, this Hon’ble Court grant an injunction restraining Respondent No.1 to 11, their servants, agents, or representatives, from (i) withdrawing the said Vessel from the Time Charter; (ii) depriving denying the Plaintiff the use and/or enjoyment of the said Vessel; (iii) instituting, prosecuting, or pursuing any legal arbitral, or regulatory proceedings or from continuing proceedings or actions, if already instituted by Respondent No.1 to 11 against the Applicant in any forum, whether in India or abroad, concerning the entitlement to hire under the Time Charter dated 30 June 2025, or pursuing coercive actions including but not limited to demands for payment, threats of arrest or detention of the said Vessel or complaints to regulatory authorities, pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit;
B. Permit and direct the Applicant to deposit with this Hon’ble Court, or into a Court-approved interest-bearing escrow account, all future charter hire as and when it becomes due and payable under the Time Charter dated 30 June 2025 for the said vessel henceforth, as the Court may direct;
C. grant ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above, including leave to the Applicant to effect deposits of hire as and when they fall due and to receive discharge for each tranche so deposited;
D. In the alternative to prayers above, approve and direct the implementation of a tripartite or multi-party Court-escrow quiet enjoyment mechanism, whereby i) hire is paid into escrow and treated as good discharge; (ii) Respondents 1 to 11 are restrained from arresting, detaining, or interfering with the said vessel in relation to the Applicant’s use under the Time Charter for the escrow period; and (iii) any change in the vessel’s management, flag, or ownership is promptly notified to the Court and all parties;
E. Such further and other reliefs this Hon’ble Court may deem fit;
F. Costs.”
Suit is nomenclatured as Interpleader Suit under Section 88 of CPC. Plain reading of the reliefs sought by Plaintiff - Indian Oil Corporation Limited show that Plaintiff seeks specific performance of Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025 for the remaining tenure upto 2 years (initially one year and thereafter extendable for further period of 1 year at the option of Indian Oil Corporation Limited). In the same breath Plaintiff has prayed for various / multiple declaratory reliefs, permanent injunction, order of indemnity and costs.
Section 88 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides for maintainability of Interpleader Suit and it reads as thus:-
“88.Where interpleader suit may be instituted.— Where two or more persons claim adversely to one another the same debt, sum of money or other property, movable or immovable, from another person, who claims no interest therein other than for charges or costs and who is ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant, such other person may institute a suit of interpleader against all the claimants for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment or delivery shall be made and of obtaining indemnity for himself:
Provided that where any suit is pending in which the rights of all parties can properly be decided, no such suit of interpleader shall be instituted.”
Order XXXV of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is relevant and reads thus:-
“ORDER XXXV INTERPLEADER
1.Plaint in interpleader suit.—In every suit of interpleader the plaint shall, in addition to the other statements necessary for plaints, state—
(a)that the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject-matter in dispute other than for charges or costs;
(b)the claims made by the defendants severally; and
(c)that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants.
2.Payment of thing claimed into Court.—Where the thing claimed is capable of being paid into Court or placed in the custody of the Court, the plaintiff may be required to so pay or place it before he can be entitled to any order in the suit.
3.Procedure where defendant is suing plaintiff.—Where any of the defendants in an interpleader-suit is actually suing the plaintiff in respect the subject-matter of such suit, the Court in which the suit against the plaintiff is pending shall, on being informed by the Court in which the interpleader-suit has been instituted, stay the proceedings as against him; and his costs in the suit so stayed may be provided for in such suit; but if and in so far as, they are not provided for in that suit, they may be added to his costs incurred in the interpleader-suit.
4.Procedure at first hearing.—(1) At the first hearing the Court may—
(a)declare that the plaintiff is discharged from all liability to the defendants in respect of the thing claimed, award him his costs, and dismiss him from the suit; or
(b)if it thinks that justice or convenience so require, retain all parties until the final disposal of the suit.
(2)Where the Court finds that the admission of the parties or other evidence enable it to do so, it may adjudicate the title to the thing claimed.
(3)Where the admissions of the parties do not enable the Court so to adjudicate, it may direct—
(a)that an issue or issues between the parties be framed and tried, and
(b)that any claimant be made a plaintiff in lieu of or in addition to the original plaintiff, and shall proceed to try the suit in the ordinary, manner.
5.Agents and tenants may not institute interpleader suits.—Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to enable agents to sue their principals, or tenants to sue their landlords, for the purpose of compelling them to interplead with any persons other than persons making claim through such principals or landlords.
Illustrations
(a)A deposits a box of jewels with B as his agent. C alleges that the jewels were wrongfully obtained from him by A, and claims them from B. B cannot institute an interpleader-suit against A and C.
(b)A deposits a box of jewels with B as his agent. He then writes to C for the purpose of making the jewels a security for a debt due from himself to C. A afterwards alleges that C's debt is satisfied, and C alleges the contrary. Both claim the jewels from B. B may institute in interpleader-suit against A and C.
6.Charge for plaintiff's costs.—Where the suit is properly instituted the Court may provide for the costs of the original plaintiff by giving him a charge on the thing claimed or in some other effectual way."
From a reading of above provision the essential prerequisites for institution of Interpleader Suit under Section 88 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are threefold, viz; (i) that Plaintiff faces adverse claims from two or more persons claiming adversely to each other the same debt, sum of money, movable or immovable property; (ii) that Plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter in dispute other than for charges or costs and (iii) that Plaintiff should after depositing the money or delivery of chattel in Court or to the rightful claimant upon adjudication, drop out of the Suit with a mere claim for costs.
In this regard attention is invited to the averments made in paragraph Nos.10, 29, 30 and 41 of the Suit Plaint which are reproduced below:-
"10.The Plaintiff is a neutral stakeholder in this dispute. It has taken the 'said Vessel' on charter from Defendant No. 1. It is now facing mutually adverse and competing claims from multiple parties, who are arrayed as Defendants herein, regarding entitlement to charter hire and authority over the vessel. Simply put, the Plaintiff is being asked by the conflicting Claimants to recognize their claims and not those of persons opposing them and/or making competing/conflicting claims, failing which adverse consequences will follow. The primary adverse consequence that the Plaintiff is most concerned about is an interruption in its charter over the 'said Vessel' and its ability to continue to use the same for its operations. The Plaintiff is desirous of continuing with this Time Charter and will recognize the rights/entitlement of and/or will make payment of charter hire to the appropriate person who is entitled so that its operation of the said Vessel is not interfered with. Since payment to one Defendant potentially exposes it to a claim by others, the Plaintiff has, in these circumstances, been left with no option but to file this inter-pleader suit.
11.xxxxxx
28.xxxxxx
29.In light of the above, the Plaintiff is now faced with (at least two, if not more) adverse, competing, and mutually contradictory claims from Defendants No. 1-11, asserting contradictory and conflicting entitlement to charter hire, authority to control or interfere with the said Vessel and threatening to take steps, action or measures qua/against the said Vessel and the Plaintiffs, if their demands are not acceded to. Many of these claims involve understanding of the implications (if any) of actions instituted abroad in proceedings where the Plaintiff is not a party. The Plaintiff is still not in a position to fully evaluate its position vis a vis them. What is stated herein is on the basis of what the Plaintiff believes, to the best of its information is the factual position. There is however no escape from the fact that the Plaintiff is exposed to the imminent risk of double or multiple liability, arrest of the Vessel, and/or disruption to its critical LPG supply chain. The Plaintiff, having acted bona fide seeks the protection of this Hon'ble Court by way of an interpleader suit, praying for protection from interference with the Time Charter in view of ongoing inter se disputes between the Defendants and/or other third parties and the risk of double payment by the Plaintiff until such time till the issues of (i) who, in fact and/or in law has/is said to have, chartered the said Vessel to the Plaintiff; and (ii) to whom the Plaintiff must recognize and pay hire to are clearly determined by a court of appropriate jurisdiction. The Plaintiff accordingly seeks appropriate interim and final directions and injunctions pending such determination.
30.The Plaintiff has acted in good faith and seeks to protect its legal and contractual rights under the Time Charter, besides which it has no interest in the lis between the Defendants. The Plaintiff apprehends that it will get needlessly dragged into inter se ownership and entitlement dispute between the Defendants, in view of the several communications and letters received by it. It is keen to continue with the Time Charter for the agreed period and prays that this Hon'ble Court protect its rights. It would also be in the interest of all parties that the question of who the Plaintiff is to pay hire to and accept as the person who it is to look to as being its counterpart to the Time Charter is resolved at the absolute earliest.
31.xxxxxx
40.xxxxxx
41.The Plaintiff has made every effort to clarify the situation, including seeking formal declarations and indemnities from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, requesting certified proof of title and relevant orders from Defendant No. 4, and engaging with all parties through its legal counsel. Despite these efforts, the parties remain intransigent, each insisting on its own entitlement and threatening adverse action against the Plaintiff if it complies with the rival claimants. The Plaintiff's overriding concern is to continue the performance of the Time Charter and the national LPG supply program, while avoiding the risk of double payment, vessel arrest, or regulatory intervention."
In the above paragraphs, Plaintiff has expressly admitted its intention of continuing with the service and use of the said Vessel under the Time Charter Party executed with Defendant No. 1 and seeks enforcement of its contractual rights under the same for the balance tenure of 2 years. This prima facie shows that Plaintiff is admittedly interested in the subject matter of the dispute and does not wish to drop out of the suit after depositing the Vessel or chattel in Court or as directed with a claim for costs.
Rather to the contrary Plaintiff seeks to continue with the Time Charter Party and deposit / make payment of the hire in Court or as directed by Court conditional upon Court granting protection from interference with the Time Charter Party and seeks injunctive reliefs to restrain all Defendants from commencing legal proceedings against Plaintiff for termination of the Time Charter Party or withdrawing the said Vessel services or taking any coercive action against the Plaintiff. Once this position is established from a mere reading of the suit plaint and reliefs prayed for, it is evident that Plaintiff is interested in the subject matter i.e. the said Vessel and Time Charter Party without delivering the said Vessel and cannot drop out of the suit with a claim for costs. Mr. Dhond has made a categorical statement on instructions that Plaintiff desires to continue use of the said Vessel for its operations and is interested in continuing its use under the Time Charter Party. Thus Plaintiff is essentially seeking specific performance of the Time Charter Party in view of dispute of ownership of the Vessel inter se between the Defendants. Plaintiff when it entered into Time Charter Party on 30.06.2025 was put on notice by Defendant No. 1 that it was the disponent owner of the Vessel. Hence Plaintiff now cannot feign ignorance and seek specific performance since post 31.07.2025 the Bareboat Contract i.e. the Head Charter Party came to an end and it has stood renewed further. If this position subsists and is so evident from the pleadings, then Interpleader action is not maintainable under Section 88 readwith Order XXXV of CPC. This position is reiterated by this Court in the case of Mangal Bhikaji Nagpase (supra) in paragraph No.7 which is reproduced below.
“7.It will have, therefore, to be seen as to whether, firstly, the suit as filed was maintainable. It will be seen that in the present suit, the plaintiff is not an outsider. In an interpleader suit, the contest is between the defendants for title and the plaintiff has got nothing to do with that contest. In this respect, Rule 1(a) of Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandatorily requires the plaintiff to state that he claims no interest in the subject matter in dispute other than for charges or costs. Now, if we were to see the plaint in the present matter, such statement is very conspicuously absent and, indeed, even if there is any trace of such a statement by stretching the averments, the subsequent application made vide Exhibit 32 gives a complete go-by. In that application, the plaintiff displays a marked interest in the suit property. This position is obtained from Rule 4 also where, in the very first hearing, the Court can grant a declaration discharging the plaintiff from all the liability of the defendants and ask the defendants to interplead, by framing necessary issue/s. Where, therefore, the plaintiff claims any interest in the concerned property, the interpleader suit has to necessarily fail. Section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also clear in this behalf. There has to be a contest between two or more persons in respect of the property, while the plaintiff can claim no interest in the property other than for charges or costs, and that there should be a readiness on the part of the plaintiff to pay or deliver the said property to the original claimant. In short, the language of the section itself suggests that a plaintiff can file an interpleader suit firstly, for obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment of delivery should be made and, secondly, for obtaining an indemnity for himself. A look at the plaint, and more particularly the amendment application made, completely takes the suit out of the four corners drawn by section 88 and Order 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court were, therefore, right in holding that the interpleader suit filed at the instant of the plaintiff, wherein the plaintiff had clearly shown his own interest, was not tenable and that finding must be confirmed.”
The aforesaid ratio has been reiterated by the Singapore High Court in the case of Precious Shipping Limited and Ors. (supra) which is relied upon by the Defendants. Paragraph 58 and 60 of the said decision read thus:-
“58.... As it is the essence of interpleader proceedings that the person who has interpleaded has no title himself he naturally drops out of the suit...
59.xxxxxx
60.... The applicant, having disclaimed any interest in the subject matter of the dispute, “drops out” and is released from the proceedings...”
Another issue which raises jurisdictional claim is that the Plaintiff has sought adjudication as to whether Defendant No.1 / Defendant No. 4 is the entity entitled to immediate possession of the said Vessel as per prayer clause (A) in the suit plaint. Pleadings in this regard placed on record by all parties are ad-idem. Issue relating to ownership / possession of the said Vessel qua Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 is sub-judice before various foreign Courts / Tribunals including the Greek courts which have passed various orders of status quo qua registration of the said Vessel which is registered in Greece. The British Court has passed certain interim directions qua the said Vessel in Arbitration proceedings. In that view, this Court cannot then have jurisdiction to adjudicate and entertain the issue of ownership or give its prima facie findings to determine the present Interim Application. That apart, the Time Charter Party between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 as per clause 65 provides arbitrability of dispute between parties in Mumbai before a 3 member Tribunal, therefore this is one more reason why the lis filed by Plaintiff by means of present Interpleader Suit cannot be litigated in Court.
There is one more critical issue which prima facie goes to the root of the matter. Since present Suit is filed as Interpleader Suit by Plaintiff, prima facie, it is seen and even argued by Plaintiff that claim faced from Defendant No.1 is for payment of hire charges which is contractual under the Terms and Conditions of Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025, next it is pleaded and argued that claim faced by Plaintiff from Defendant No. 4 is for damages / tort for wrongful and illegal use of the said Vessel. Thus admittedly claim faced by Plaintiff from Defendant No. 4 is a claim in Tort / damages since there is no contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant No.4. Further it is pleaded and argued that claim faced from Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 for future unknown actions which is on the face of record hypothetical. From a plain understanding of the aforesaid three claims, it is clear that legal liability of Plaintiff is not for the same debt qua the Defendants. It is seen that qua Defendant No.1 claim is contractual under the Time Charter Party whereas claim of Defendant No.4 is for damages for wrongful use and possession. Further the claim qua the other Defendants is for unknown future actions. Thus on the face of record qua the three claims causes of action are clearly distinct and separate and admittedly quantum of debt / sum of money claimed by Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 4 is not the same and therefore when there are such adverse claims faced by Plaintiff which are completely different in nature, requirement of filing Interpleader Suit is clearly not satisfied on the face of record.
The purpose of interpleader Suit is that the Plaintiff will have to show that it is liable to only one claimant and the relief which the court affords him is against double vexation in respect of one liability. Once it is prima facie seen that Plaintiff's liability to Defendants i.e. Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 4 and Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 being distinct and separate then interpleader relief is not maintainable. In the present case, in paragraph Nos.35, 40 and 41 of the suit plaint, Plaintiff has specifically averred as follows:-
“35.The Plaintiff submits that the risk of double or multiple liability, as well as the threat of arrest, injunction, and regulatory action, is both real and imminent.
40.The Plaintiff is exposed to a real and immediate risk of double or even multiple liability. If it continues to pay hire to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance with the Time Charter, it faces the threat of legal action, arrest, and regulatory sanction from Defendant No. 4, BSL, who claims that all sub-charters have been terminated and that only Defendant No. 4 is entitled to receive hire. Conversely, if Plaintiff pays hire to Defendant No. 4 or withholds payment from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (counterparties to Time Charter), it risks being treated as being in breach of the Time Charter, and withdrawal of the said Vessel and/or facing claims for damages, and jeopardizing the uninterrupted supply of LPG, which is a matter of national importance. The presence of the English Freezing Order dated 19 September 2025 (mentioned above) and the conflicting decisions of foreign courts and arbitral proceedings only heightens the risk as the Plaintiff cannot safely determine which party is lawfully entitled to receive hire or to direct the performance of the Time Charter. The said Vessel’s documentation has also become uncertain, with recent (as of September 2025) Questionnaire 88 forms listing different technical and commercial operators and omitting the disponent owner, further clouding the question of authority. Copies of the conflicting Questionnaire 88 forms are annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “N”.
41.The Plaintiff has made every effort to clarify the situation, including seeking formal declarations and indemnities from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, requesting certified proof of title and relevant orders from Defendant No. 4, and engaging with all parties through its legal counsel. Despite these efforts, the parties remain intransigent, each insisting on its own entitlement and threatening adverse action against the Plaintiff if it complies with the rival claimants. The Plaintiff’s overriding concern is to continue the performance of the Time Charter and the national LPG supply program, while avoiding the risk of double payment, vessel arrest, or regulatory intervention.”
Plaintiff's case is that it has filed Interpleader Suit to avoid double liability. Once such admission is made and from the record it emanates that admitted liabilities faced by Plaintiff from Defendant No. 1 are as per contract, from Defendant No. 4 are in damages and from other Defendants for unknown future actions, then these liabilities qua the Defendants are distinctly different and separate in quantum and therefore cannot qualify as "same debt". That apart plain reading of Section 88 along with Order XXXV of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 prima facie show that Plaintiff has to obtain relief of discharge in an Interpleader Suit without any liability other than for charges or costs. This the Plaintiff is clearly unwilling to do. Rather it seeks specific performance of the Time Charter Party. It is seen that Plaintiff in the present case has sought for very wide reliefs rather declaratory and mandatory reliefs in the nature of specific performance of the Time Charter until its Tenure is over, permanent injunction restraining Defendant its. 1 and on any other Defendant (Defendant Nos. 2 to 11) from withdrawing the Charter depriving or denying the Plaintiff use and enjoyment of the said Vessel, restraint from instituting / prosecuting / continuing any legal / arbitrable / regulatory proceedings in any forum against Plaintiff whether in India or abroad concerning entitlement of the said Vessel, from pursuing any coercive action including but not limited to demand of payment / threats / detention of the said Vessel and restraint on pursuing any complaint before any regulatory authority, for indemnity and costs. The aforesaid wide reliefs prayed for by Plaintiff cannot be granted in an Interpleader Suit by this Court.
It is also prima facie seen that the NOC dated 25.06.2025 issued by Defendant No.5 – EMC is devoid of any evidentiary or contractual value. It is seen that the NOC bears only a rubber stamp of Respondent No.4 and is not authenticated by any signature or authorised endorsement. Hence, in these circumstances, a mere rubber stamp without any proof of authority or authentication cannot confer validity upon the document or establish that its contents represent acts or decisions of Defendant No.4.
On the issue of due diligence, it is seen that Plaintiff has miserably failed to exercise due diligence expected of the undertaking of the nature of the Plaintiff in any commercial transaction. It is seen that Plaintiff did not conduct any due diligence before entering into the sub-charter i.e. the Time Charter Party despite being clearly aware that Defendant No. 1 was the disponent owner of the Vessel. It is seen that Plaintiff did not verify with Defendant No.1 i.e. the disponent owner whether the Head Charter Party i.e. Bareboat Charter Party continued and / or subsisted and for how long after entering into Time Charter Party or about duration and validity of the Head Charter Party which in turn would constitute a fundamental premise for creation of a valid sub-charter in favour of Plaintiff. This omission to seek verification from the “owner” or the “disponent owner” amounts to a significant lapse on the part of Plaintiff. A prudent charterer, before entering into a commercial contract is expected to confirm subsistence of the superior / head charter under which its rights are derived. Hence, from the above it is clear that failure of Plaintiff to undertake such due diligence would result in Plaintiff bearing the consequences of its own negligence.
Apart for the aforesaid issues which prima facie allow the court to determine the Interim Application there are several other submissions made by Plaintiffs, Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 4, Defendant No. 6 to 10 on the issue of “disponent ownership” of the said Vessel, on timeline of various events pursuant to the Time Charter Party dated 30.06.2025, rights of parties governed thereafter, issues relating to ownership / possession of the said Vessel, on interim Award passed by the British Court and its injunctive relief qua the said Vessel Anafi and pendency of various disputes between parties in various Courts / Forums in the Greek Court especially where the Vessel is registered for determining ownership of the said Vessel. Defendant Nos. 6 – 10 represented by Mr. Kamat have argued that since they have not asserted any claim for hire against Plaintiff under the Time Charter Party or any rival claim to that of Defendant Nos. 1 and 4’s purported claims, the Interpleader Suit qua them is not maintainable. I have considered the above submissions made by parties for deciding the Interim Application.
On considering rival submissions, for the purpose of granting interim relief including the request made by Plaintiff that in view of rival claims of Defendant No. 1 and 4 this Court should step in as the Plaintiff has no lis with either / or any of the Defendants and wishes to honor the Time Charter Party agreement conditions until its tenure is over without any hindrance, however for the observations and findings which are elucidated herein above the action of the Plaintiff to file Interpleader Suit not being maintainable and the Plaintiff not occupying a neutral / disinterested position and its desire to continue the Time Charter Party, I am not inclined to accept the Plaintiff's case for interim relief. Both the questions framed in paragraph No. 20 are therefore answered in the negative. Hence Interim Application (L) No. 34706 of 2025 is rejected and disposed.
Interim Application is disposed.
After the above Judgment is pronounced in Court, Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Applicant / Plaintiff would submit that Applicant / Plaintiff is a public sector undertaking and they may have to take immediate steps, the present Judgment be stayed to enable them to challenge its legality and validity before the superior Court.
I have considered the request made by Mr. Patil. However in view of the findings which are returned in the aforesaid Judgment, I am not inclined to accede to the request made by Mr. Patil. Hence, request for stay is rejected.