Bombay High Court
Westfield Limited Energy Resources vs Leighton Eclipse Imo 8357289 on 18 March, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
501. COMASL 9900-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT (L) NO. 9900 OF 2026
Westfield Energy Resources Limited ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Leighton Eclipse, IMO No. 8357289 ...Defendant
WITH
JUDGE'S ORDER (L) NO. 9933 OF 2026
Mr. Prashant Pratap, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, Mr.
Kunal Mehta, Mr. Siddharth Manek, Mr. Naishad Bhatia, Mr. Pratik
Mehta, Chaitanya Tendulkar, Ms. Benifer Dsouza and Mr. Heetkumar
Vachhani i/b Crawford Bayley and Co. for the Plaintiff.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 18th MARCH, 2026
P.C. :
1. Circulation of this matter had been sought by the learned
Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff as it had been submitted that the
Defendant-Vessel, Leighton Eclipse, IMO No. 8357289 (the "Defendant-
Vessel") is within the jurisdiction of this Court at Jaigad Port, Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra and the Plaintiff seeking security for recovery of amounts
for loss and damage to the Plaintiff due to the vessel's non-performance
under the the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime
Claims) Act, 2017 (the "Admiralty Act") by arrest of the Defendant-
Vessel, which may leave the jurisdiction soon, has filed the Suit after
which the matter has been listed on the Production Board at serial no.
501.
Nikita Gadgil 1/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2026 20:35:18 :::
501. COMASL 9900-26.doc
2. Mr. Pratap, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff,
submits that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of USD 7736022
along with litigation costs of USD 30000 aggregating to USD 7766022
along with interest on the principal sum at the rate of 12% per annum
as the Defendant Vessel and/or it's owner has caused loss and damage
to the Plaintiff due to the failure of the Defendant Vessel to perform its
contractual obligations owing to the underlying mechanical defects
which resulted in multiple breakdowns and consequent delays in
completion of the Plaintiff's project and that these delays have caused
substantial loss and damage to the Plaintiff which has constrained the
Plaintiff to institute this Suit.
3. Mr. Pratap draws this Court's attention to the Particulars of Claim
at page 1082 of the plaint which sets out the various heads under
which the claims have been made and submits that the said claims are
maritime claims under Section 4(1)(d) and (h) of the Admiralty Act
and that although in the arbitration proceedings between the registered
owner of the Defendant and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has filed
counterclaim, however, although the registered owner of the Defendant
has been secured by paragraph 5 of the order dated 23 rd December
2025, the only way to secure the Plaintiff's counterclaim is by arresting
Nikita Gadgil 2/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2026 20:35:18 :::
501. COMASL 9900-26.doc
the Defendant Vessel.
4. Mr. Pratap submits that in view of the decision of a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Altus Uber vs. Siem Offshore Rederi
AS with connected matters1 as well as in the case of OSV Crest Mercury
1 (IMO 9724398) vs. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2, this action
in rem is maintainable for arrest of ship in respect of a maritime claim
where disputes have been referred to arbitration and that this Court
may, therefore, in exercise of powers under Sections 3 and 5(1)(a) of
the Admiralty Act order arrest of the Defendant Vessel for the purpose
of providing security against the Plaintiff's maritime claim. Mr. Pratap
has submitted that the Defendant Vessel is in the admiralty jurisdiction
of this Court and tenders across the bar a print out from
marinetraffic.com which indicates that the Defendant Vessel as at 14.30
hours today is at Jaigad, India, having arrived on 27th November 2025.
5. Mr. Pratap has taken this Court through the various exhibits
including the Equasis report which indicates the ownership of the
Vessel, the Charter Party Agreement between the Plaintiff and the
registered owner of the Defendant Vessel, the correspondence between
the parties as well as the Particulars of Claim and the relevant orders of
1 Commercial Appeal (L) No.465 of 2018 in Notice of Motion (L) No.1392 of 2018 in Judge's
Order No.107 of 2018 in Admiralty Suit (L) No.20 of 2018 with connected matters decided on
23-7-2019.
2 2024 SCC Online Bom 1271.
Nikita Gadgil 3/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2026 20:35:18 :::
501. COMASL 9900-26.doc
this Court in support of his contentions.
6. The Court Associate has tendered certificate of the Section
Officer of the Execution department as at 2.45 p.m. today which
indicates that a caveat is filed against the arrest of the Defendant Vessel
by Advocate J. Sagar Associates. When this Court has pointed out the
same to Mr. Pratap, Mr. Pratap has submitted that the said caveat is to
be rejected and the notice to the caveator is to be dispensed with, in as
much as, the said caveat is not in accordance with Rule 1072 of the
Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, which requires two
undertakings to be given (i) to enter appearance in person or by
Vakalatnama in the Suit and (ii) to give security in the Suit. That,
although an undertaking has been given to enter appearance, however,
there is no undertaking to give security. That in view of the decision of
this Court in the case of OSV Crest Mercury 1 (IMO 9724398) vs.
Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which has clearly
observed albeit in the context of a contrasting caveat under Section
148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") that a caveator in
an admiralty action, who desires to prevent arrest any ship gives two
undertakings :- (i) to enter appearance in-person or by filing a
Vakalatnama in any Suit that may be instituted against the Vessel and
Nikita Gadgil 4/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2026 20:35:18 :::
501. COMASL 9900-26.doc
(ii) to give security in such Suit for a sum not exceeding the amount
stated in the praecipe or to pay the said amount into the Registry and
unless these two special requirements in a Caveat under Rule 1072 are
met, no notice is required to be given to the Caveator prior to the
arrest.
7. Mr. Pratap submits that the undertaking to enter appearance and
to give security or to pay money in Court serve a definite purpose and
that if the requirements of Rule 1072 are not met, the caveat is to be
rejected and the notice is to be dispensed with.
8. Mr. Pratap has also tendered across the bar a decision of this
Court dated 8th June 2018 in the case of Wizdoms Naik International
Limited vs. DSV Gerimal (IMO No.7932240)3 where against a claim of
the Plaintiff in excess of USD 2.3 Million when security of only Rs.1
lakh was offered, the Court observing that it was a settled law that if
the Plaintiff satisfies the Court that the amount of security mentioned
in the caveat is so low that it does not secure it's interest, in such a
case, the Plaintiff will also be entitled to move the Court for dispensing
with the requirement of serving notice, and therefore, the notice was
dispensed with in the said case and the Vessel was directed to be
arrested on the basis of a prima facie case made out.
3 Judges Order (L) No.115 of 2018 in Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No.21 of 2018
Nikita Gadgil 5/7
::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2026 20:35:18 :::
501. COMASL 9900-26.doc
9. Mr. Pratap submits that in the facts of this case as there is no
undertaking for giving security, this Court may dispense with the notice
to the caveator and direct arrest of the Defendant Vessel.
10. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and having considered
his submissions as above and also having perused the judgments cited
and also having perused the Plaint and the various documents and
exhibits annexed to the Plaint and being of the prima facie view that a
case for arrest of the Defendant-Vessel has been made out, the
following order is passed:-
ORDER
(i) The notice to Caveator is dispensed with.
(ii) I order the arrest of the Defendant-Vessel named Leighton Eclipse,
IMO No. 8357289, 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 Jaigad Port, Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra or wherever in the territorial waters of India.
(ii) Warrant of arrest is dispensed with.
(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.
Nikita Gadgil 6/7
::: Uploaded on – 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:35:18 :::
501. COMASL 9900-26.doc
(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.
(v) The Judge’s Order is accepted and signed separately.
(vi) The Plaintiff’s undertaking dated 18th March, 2026 is accepted.
vii) The Plaintiff is at liberty to communicate this order to the Sheriff
of Mumbai, the Master of the Defendant-Vessel, relevant Port including
Jaigad Port, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra 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.)
Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2026.03.18
21:42:00
+0530Nikita Gadgil 7/7
::: Uploaded on – 18/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 19/03/2026 20:35:18 :::
