Disposed

Peninsula Petroleum Limited v. Mv Zhong Chang 258 Imo 9610482

Bombay HC16 Apr 2026JO/46/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bunker supplier sued the vessel MV Zhong Chang 258 in rem for unpaid bunkers supplied at Hong Kong, invoking Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act, 2017. The Court found a prima facie case and ordered arrest of the vessel at Mumbai anchorage, dispensing with the warrant of arrest.

What did the court decide?

Order of arrest of Defendant-Vessel MV Zhong Chang 258 within admiralty jurisdiction; warrant of arrest dispensed with; liberty to apply for sale of vessel.

Peninsula Petroleum Limited vs Mv Zhong Chang 258 Imo 9610482 — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

COMASL 13315-26 @ JOL 13375-26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

¶3

COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 13315 OF 2026

¶4

Peninsula Petroleum Limited ...Plaintiff V/s.

¶5

MV Zhong Chang 258, IMO 9610482

¶6

...Defendant

¶7

WITH JUDGE’S ORDER (L) NO. 13375 OF 2026

¶8

Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy with Mr. Ruchit Goenka and Mr. Abhinav Bhushan i/b Bose & Mitra and Co. for the Plaintiff.

¶9

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 16^th APRIL, 2026

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This matter had been mentioned this morning for being listed on

¶12

the production board at 4.30 p.m., submitting that the Defendant-Vessel MV Zhong Chang 258, IMO 9610482 (the “Defendant-Vessel”) is at Mumbai anchorage within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court and that the Plaintiff has not been paid for supply of bunker to the Defendant-Vessel on the 13^th September, 2025. Accordingly, the matter has been listed on the Production Board at serial no. 501 at 4.30 p.m.

¶13

Ms. Jeejeebhoy, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has submitted that pursuant to the request by one M/s C & R Shipping Limited, on behalf of the Defendant-Vessel and/or the master and/or its owners for supply of upto 850 MT VLSFO RMG 380 at the rate of USD

¶14

Nikita Gadgil 1/5

¶15

COMASL 13315-26 @ JOL 13375-26.doc

¶16

493 per M.T. to the Defendant-Vessel at port of Hong Kong between 12^th to 18^th September, 2025, the Plaintiff issued a sales order confirmation No. 10759720 on 9^th September, 2025 and also simultaneously got the physical supplier to confirm the same on the same date.

¶17

Ms. Jeejeebhoy submits that, thereafter, on the 13^th September, 2025, 808.200 MT of VLSFO RMG came to be supplied to the Defendant-Vessel at Hong Kong, which is evidenced by an acknowledgment of the Chief Engineer of the Defendant-Vessel on the bunker delivery note at Exhibit – E at page 89. Ms. Jeejeebhoy submits that, thereafter, invoice dated 13^th September, 2025 was raised for payment upon M/s C & R Shipping Limited to be paid on the due date, after the credit period of 30 days. Ms. Jeejeebhoy submits that, however, since no payment came after the due date on 24^th October, 2025, a final notice before legal action was addressed to M/s C & R Shipping Limited as well as to the owners and the P & I Club, however, since there had been no response nor any payment to the said notice, a reminder was sent on 28^th October, 2025 to which also there has been no response from M/s C & R Shipping Limited or from the owner.

¶18

Nikita Gadgil 2/5

¶19

COMASL 13315-26 @ JOL 13375-26.doc

¶20

Ms. Jeejeebhoy submits that the claim of the Plaintiff is a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the “Admiralty Act”).

¶21

Ms. Jeejeebhoy submits that there is no caveat against the arrest of the Defendant-Vessel, which is also noted by the Certificate dated 16^th April, 2026 of the Section Officer of the Execution Department as at 4.20 p.m..

¶22

Ms. Jeejeebhoy has taken this Court through various exhibits annexed to the Plaint and submits that until and unless this Court in exercise of its powers under the admiralty jurisdiction, directs arrest of the Defendant-Vessel, no security or payment with respect to the maritime claim would be received.

¶23

Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered her submissions and also having perused the Plaint as well as the various documents annexed to the Plaint, with the assistance of the learned Counsel and noting that the Defendant-Vessel is within the jurisdiction of this Court at Mumbai anchorage, I am convinced that a prima facie case for arrest of the Defendant-Vessel is made out.

¶24

Nikita Gadgil 3/5

¶25

COMASL 13315-26 @ JOL 13375-26.doc

¶26

Accordingly, in view of Section 3 and Section 5(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, I pass the following order:-

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(i) I order the arrest of the Defendant-Vessel named MV Zhong Chang 258, IMO 9610482, 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.

¶29

(ii) Warrant of arrest is dispensed with.

¶30

(iii) If the Defendant-Vessel is found abandoned or unmanned, the office of the Sheriff shall present a report for auctioning the Vessel upon request of the Plaintiff.

¶31

(iv) The Plaintiff is also at liberty to file an application for sale of the Defendant-Vessel provided no application for vacating the order of arrest is made.

¶32

(v) The Judge’s Order is accepted and signed separately.

¶33

(vi) The Plaintiff’s undertaking dated 15^th April, 2026 is accepted.

¶34

(vii) The Plaintiff is at liberty to communicate this order to the Sheriff of Mumbai, the Master of the Defendant-Vessel as well as to the relevant Port and Custom authorities by email/hand delivery.

¶35

Nikita Gadgil 4/5

¶36

COMASL 13315-26 @ JOL 13375-26.doc

¶37

(viii) All concerned to act on a copy of this order, duly authenticated

¶38

by the Associate of this Court.

¶39

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶40

NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL

¶41

Digitally signed by NIKITA YOGESH GADGIL Date: 2026.04.16 20:01:40 +0530

¶42

Nikita Gadgil

¶43

5/5

Peninsula Petroleum Limited v. Mv Zhong Chang 258 Imo 9610482

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peninsula Petroleum Limited v. Mv Zhong Chang 258 Imo 9610482

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shriram Finance Limited vs Sunil Rajaram Bhangar and Anrs

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited vs Rajesh Singh

Visage Holdings and Finance (P) Ltd. vs Sri Krishna Eng. Works and 2 Ors.

SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited vs Arjun Singh

Au Small Finance Bank Limited vs Suhit Jayesh Jhaveri

Hdb Financial Services Limited vs Anil Kisan Chandane