Bombay HC Orders Arrest of Vessel DLB Kenenna at Dabhol Port in USD 18 Million Maritime Claim

Bombay High Court arrests vessel DLB Kenenna at Dabhol Port on an ex-parte admiralty application, holding that pending arbitration does not bar an action in rem for the unsecured balance of a USD 18 million charter-party claim.

On 1 June 2026, Justice Farhan P. Dubash of the Bombay High Court, sitting in its Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction in the Commercial Division, ordered the ex-parte arrest of the vessel DLB Kenenna (IMO: 8354562) at Dabhol Port, Maharashtra. The order was passed on an application by Leighton Offshore Eclipse Pte Limited, a Singapore-incorporated company, which claims approximately USD 18.03 million from the owners of the vessel under a Charter Party Agreement dated 29 August 2024. The court held that the pendency of an arbitration between the plaintiff and the vessel's beneficial owner was not a bar to entertaining the admiralty suit or granting the arrest. The vessel is to remain under arrest until the plaintiff's claim is satisfied or adequate security is furnished.

The Charter Party Dispute and the Claim

The plaintiff's claim arises from the Charter Party Agreement of 29 August 2024 under which the plaintiff's vessel, Leighton Eclipse, was operated by the owners of the defendant vessel. The aggregate claim is approximately USD 18.03 million (USD 1,80,33,278.98), covering losses and damages from the operation of Leighton Eclipse, non-payment of charter hire, interest on delayed payments, non-payment of crew salaries, TDS reimbursement, and other supplies including equipment hire, replacement parts, repairs, and reinstatements.

The plaintiff already holds security of USD 10.75 million in the pending arbitration, obtained pursuant to an order of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 23 December 2025 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The present suit seeks to secure the balance unsecured claim of USD 6,677,472.99 plus INR 4,00,71,841.40 plus AED 4,54,906.50 plus SGD 82,402.98 — amounting to approximately USD 7,283,278.98. The plaintiff also claimed interest at one-month compounded Singapore Overnight Rate Average (SORA) plus 2% on the principal sum from the date of filing until payment or realisation.

Registered Owner Versus Beneficial Owner

A central issue before the court was whether the defendant vessel could be arrested when its registered owner, Westfield Subsea Ltd (“WSL”), is a different entity from the party against whom the arbitration is pending, namely Westfield Energy Resources Ltd (“WERL”).

Senior Advocate Rahul Narichania, appearing for the plaintiff, drew the court's attention to an Equasis report showing WSL as the registered owner. He then placed material on record to establish that WSL is a shell company, listed as “inactive” in the records of the Corporate Affairs Commission, Nigeria. The material showed that WSL and WERL share the same Managing Director, the same management team, and the same office address in Nigeria. WERL had also shown the defendant vessel as its asset on its website, LinkedIn page, corporate profile, and in media releases.

A statement of claims and a chart showing the nexus between WERL and WSL were tendered and marked as Exhibits X-1 and X-2. The court considered paragraph 321 of the plaint and the documents on record and found a prima facie nexus between the two companies. On this basis, the plaintiff contended — and the court accepted at the prima facie stage — that WERL is the real and beneficial owner of DLB Kenenna.

Whether Pending Arbitration Bars an Action in Rem

The defendant vessel's owners could argue that the existence of an ongoing arbitration between the plaintiff and WERL should preclude the admiralty court from entertaining a fresh suit and ordering arrest. The court addressed this squarely.

Mr. Narichania relied on two judgments of the Bombay High Court: Siem Offshore Redri AS v. Altus Uber, reported at 2018 SCC Online Bom 2730, and OSV Crest Mercury 1 v. Vision Projects Technologies Pvt. Ltd., reported at 2024 SCC Online Bom 1271. Both decisions held that an action in rem is maintainable for the arrest of a ship in respect of a maritime claim even where disputes are pending in arbitration.

Justice Dubash accepted this position. The court held that the pendency of the arbitration between the plaintiff and WERL is not a bar to entertaining the present suit or granting the order of arrest. The court further accepted the submission that an action in rem is maintainable despite a concurrent in personam action in arbitration.

The court also noted that the security already furnished in the arbitration is not sufficient to cover the entire claim — particularly because several claims arose after the Arbitral Tribunal's order of 23 December 2025 — and that arrest of the vessel is required to secure the balance unsecured amount.

Arrest of a Vessel Owned by the Beneficial Owner

On the question of arresting a vessel whose registered owner on paper is a different company, Mr. Narichania cited the Bombay High Court's order dated 24 March 2015 in MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. v. The State of Maharashtra (in the matter of MV MSC Clementina). That order supported the proposition that arrest can be granted against a vessel of a real and/or beneficial owner even if another company is shown as the registered owner.

Justice Dubash found that the claim in the plaint is a maritime claim as defined under Section 4(l)(d), (h), (l), (m), and (p) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, and that the plaintiff is entitled to proceed against the defendant vessel under Section 5 of the Act. The court found that the defendant vessel, being at Dabhol Port/Anchorage, Maharashtra, and within the territorial waters of India, is within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

Balance of Convenience and Prima Facie Case

After perusing the plaint and its annexures, the court found that a prima facie case for arrest was made out. Justice Dubash held that the balance of convenience lies with the plaintiff and that almost irreversible prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the reliefs were denied. The plaintiff's advocate also confirmed that the Registry had produced the Caveat Register and that no valid caveat against arrest existed in respect of the defendant vessel.

Order

Justice Dubash ordered the arrest of DLB Kenenna, along with her hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, fixtures, appurtenances, and paraphernalia, at Dabhol Port/Anchorage, until the satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. The warrant of arrest was dispensed with.

The plaintiff was permitted to forward a copy of the communication from the office of the Sheriff of Mumbai, along with a copy of the order, by fax, email, hand delivery, or RPAD to the Port and Customs authorities. All concerned authorities, including Port and Customs, were directed to act on production of an authenticated copy of the order or on receipt of it by email from the plaintiff's advocate.

If the defendant vessel is not released by furnishing security or bail within eight weeks of service of the arrest order, or if no application to vacate the arrest is filed, or if the vessel is found abandoned or unmanned, the plaintiff may apply to the office of the Sheriff of Mumbai. Upon such application, the Sheriff is directed to present a report for auctioning the vessel within fourteen days from the date of receiving communication from the plaintiff's advocate or from the date of knowledge of abandonment.