Shivkumar Iyer Partner Bose & Mitra & Co

Shivkumar Iyer Partner Bose & Mitra & Co. www.bosemitraco.com

T IME C HARTERPARTY It being a business contract, should be drafted in a plain and clear way so as to avoid conflicts. However, there are various standard forms to assist parties. But there still exists disputes.

What kind of disputes? The disputes with relation to the meaning, interpretation of the clauses under the standard forms. Parties changing the clauses in the standard forms, in order to take their individual factors into account.

C HARACTERISTICS OF A T IME C HARTERPARTY Charparties are examples of contracts in which one party, the charterer, is entitled to exercise some control over the conduct of an employee of the other party, the ship owner - Gaskell

The Characteristics: Lease of the Commercial Capacity of the Ship by the Charterer. Navigational Control of the Ship retains with the Shipowner. The division of incurred expenses between the Shipowner and the Charterer. The division of Risk Allocation between the Shipowner and the Charterer.

Lease Contract of Hire C ONTRACT FOR P ROVISION OF S ERVICES

Practical Uses of Time Charterparty For the shipowner, the principal advantage is higher economic security as compared to voyage charter.

R ISK A LLOCATION : Charterer carries the risk of Delay. Charterer is obliged to pay a number of expenses, such as bunker and port fees. Charterer carries the risk of arranging trips for the ship.

T IME C HARTERPARTY F ORMS NYPE 1993 NYPE 1946 SHELLTIME 4 INTER-CLUB AGREEMENT 1996 ASBATIME BALTIME GENTIME 1999 LINERTIME SUPPLYTIME

U NDERSTANDING THE I MPORTANT P ROVISIONS OF S TANDARD F ORMS

S AFE P ORTS A Charterer has the right to nominate a Port of Call, but he is under an obligation to nominate only Safe Ports.

Most Charterparties contain a clause to this effect. NYPE 1993, clause 5: The Vessel shall be employed in such lawful trades between safe ports and safe places as the Charterers shall direct. NYPE 1946 also provides for this but the situation is not as clear. NYPE 1946, line 27: the charterer may order the ship between safe ports and/or ports. However, at line 68, it is stated that the charterer may load or discharge cargo in any dock or at any wharf or place.

NYPE 1946 Forms

What constitutes a S AFE P ORT ?

"a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship - Sellers, L.J. in Leeds Shipping v Socit Franaise Bunge (The Eastern City) [1958] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 127

S AFE P ORT W ARRANTIES 1. Absolute and Qualified Warranties 2. Prospectively Safe 3. Breach of the charterers primary obligation to nominate a port which is prospectively safe.

1. Absolute and Qualified Warranties - If the clause provides that the vessel shall be employed "between safe port and/or ports" (NYPE 1946, line 27), the principles established in The Eastern City Case shall apply. - If the warranty as to safety is qualified, other factors are brought into the equation and the owners protection is reduced. For instance, the Shelltime 4 contains a qualification of due diligence obligation on the charterers. - Saga Cob Case[1991] 2 Lloyd's Rep 545

2. Prospectively Safe The relevant time at which the port must be prospectively safe is the time when the vessel will be: - approaching, - Using, and - departing from it.

3. Breach of the Charterers obligation to nominate a prospectively safe port The owners are allowed a reasonable time to consider whether the charterers have nominated a safe port. If the owners, expressly or impliedly, accept an order to proceed to an unsafe port, they will be treated as having waived their right to refuse to comply with the order.

However, the owners will not be treated as having waived their right to claim damages from the charterers if they suffer loss due to the unsafety of the port unless they have also expressly waived their right to claim such damages - the "Kanchenjunga"

S AFE B IRTH W ARRANTIES The main differences between a safe port and a safe berth warranty are demonstrated in the judgment of APJ Priti Case [1987] 2 Lloyd's Rep 37.

The APJ Priti Case The vessel was fixed to carry cargo to "one/two safe berths Bandar Abbas, one/two safe berths Bandar Bushire, one/two safe berths Bandar Khomeini in charterers option". While proceeding to Bandar Bushire, the vessel was damaged by an Iraqi missile. The Court of Appeal held that the only express promise under the terms of the charter was that, when the order was given to proceed to a particular berth, that berth was prospectively safe. This promise did not extend to cover the approach voyage to the port.

"The charterers next relevant obligation was to nominate a berth or berths for the vessel within the declared port. I think it plain that on the express language of this charter the charterers promised that the berth or berths nominated would be prospectively safe for the vessel.. Since, on the construction I prefer, the charterers had not promised that the port they declared would be safe, I do not accept that the vessels passage to and from a nominated berth should be treated as including any part of the voyage to or from the port. It would only include movement within the port to and from a nominated berth." - Lord Justice Bingham

Practical Difficulties for the Charterers once a claim is advanced by the Owners Unwillingness of Port authority to co-operate with the Charterers in defending the litigation against the owners claim. The likelihood of an investigation going to an extent that the Charterers didnt hope to undertake before ordering a vessel to a particular port.

In a charterparty chain, the head charterer will have to face the claim from the owners, even if he had little involvement in selecting the port of Loading/ Discharge. This danger can be mitigated to an extent by amending the safe port warranty under the Charterparty.

For instance, Shelltime 4, clause 4(c) provides: Charterers shall use due diligence to ensure that the vessel is only employed between and at safe places (which expression when used in this charter shall include ports, berths, wharves, docks, anchorages, submarine lines, alongside vessels or lighters, and other locations including locations at sea) where she can safely lie always afloat.

Can this clause cause any problems?

What kind of problems? What constitutes Due Diligence? Contradiction of Due Diligence by other terms in the Charterparty.

Problems faced by the Owners Charterers can escape liability by showing that the danger could have been overcome by the exercise of good navigation and seamanship by the crew. Crew paid mere lip service to the on board ISM procedures.

S ET O FF & E QUITABLE S ETOFF A Charterers obligation to pay the full amount of agreed, contractual, charter hire on or before its due date is absolute. An owners right to withdraw its ship in the event of delayed payment is also absolute

D EDUCTIONS Charterer is entitled to make limited deductions from their Charter Hire, when: there is an express right of deduction under the terms of the charterparty; the charterer is entitled to an adjustment, following a period of off-hire; the charterer has a claim for damages, for which they are permitted to set-off against hire otherwise due and payable.

Both the New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) forms and the Shelltime 4 form make express provision for valid deductions from hire in certain scenarios, such as:

NYPE 1946 Line 65 & 66 : Cash for vessels ordinary disbursements at any port may be advanced as required by the Captain, by the Charterers or their Agents, subject to 2 % commission and such advance shall be deducted from Hire Clause 20 : Fuel used by the vessel while off-hire, also for cooking, condensing water, or for grates and stove to be agreed to as to quantity, and the cost of replacing same, to be allowed by the owner

Clause 15 : That in the event of loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery or equipment, grounding, detention and other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost; and if upon the voyage the speed be reduced by defect in or breakdown of any part of her hull, machinery or equipment, the time so lost, and the cost of extra fuel consumed in consequences thereof, and all extra expenses shall be deducted from the hire

NYPE 1993 Clause 11(d) : Cash for vessels ordinary disbursements at any port may be advanced as required by the, subject to 2 % commission and such advance shall be deducted from Hire. Clause 17 : If upon the voyage the speed be reduced by the effect in, or breakdown of, any part of her hull, machinery or equipment, the time so lost, and the cost of any extra bunkers consumed in consequence thereof, and all extra proven expenses may be deducted from the hire.

SHELLTIME 4 Clause 19. If when a payment of hire is due hereunder Charterers reasonably expect to redeliver the vessel before the next payment of hire would fall due, the hire to be paid shall be assessed on Charterers reasonable estimate of the time necessary to complete Charterers programme up to redelivery, and from which estimate Charterers may deduct amounts due or reasonably expected to become due for (i) disbursements on Owners behalf or charges for Owners account pursuant to provision 190 hereof, and (ii) bunkers on board at redelivery pursuant to Clause 15.

Clause 21 (v) : the vessel shall be off-hire from the commencement of such loss of time until she is again ready and in an efficient state to resume her service from a position not less favourable to Charterers than that at which such loss of time commenced; provided, however, that any service given or distance made good by the vessel whilst off-hire shall be taken into account in assessing the amount to be deducted from hire. - Contd.

(c) In the event of the vessel deviating .for any cause or purpose mentioned in Clause 21(a), the vessel shall be off- hire from the commencement of such deviation until the time when she is again ready and in an efficient state to resume her service., provided, however, that any service given or distance made good by the vessel whilst so off-hire shall be taken into account in assessing the amount to be deducted from hire.

Clause 21 (b)(1)(ii): from a reduction or an increase in the average speed of the vessel, compared to the speed guaranteed in Clause 24(a) then an amount equal to the value at the hire rate of the time so lost or gained, as the case may be, shall be deducted from or added to the hire paid from an increase or a decrease in the total bunkers consumed, compared to the total bunkers which would have been consumed had the vessel performed as guaranteed in Clause 24(a), an amount equivalent to the value of the additional bunkers consumed or the bunkers saved, as the case may be, based on the average price paid by Charterers for the vessels bunkers in such period, shall be deducted from or added to the hire paid.

Clause 30 : Should the master require advances for ordinary disbursements at any port, Charterers or their agents 398 shall make such advances to him, in consideration of which Owners shall pay a commission of two and a half per 399 cent, and all such advances and commission shall be deducted from hire.

E QUITABLE S ET -O FF There are 3 criterie for Equitable Set-Off against Charter Hire as has been laid off in The Nanfri case 5 [1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep 132. They can be listed as:

both the claim and counterclaim must arise from the same contract (i.e. charterparty); the counterclaim must be directly connected with the claim; and there must be a manifest injustice in allowing the claim to be asserted without taking into account the counterclaim.

The breach (by an owner) must genuinely deprive the charterer as to the use of the ship itself for this to entitle them not to pay the owner in full for hire otherwise due. Allowable deductions:- Breach of a speed and performance warranty; Failure to load a full cargo; Time lost by having to dispose of contaminated cargo as a result of an owners breach of contract; Delay due to an owners failure to perform hold- cleaning obligations.

If the claim does not relate to the use of the ship itself, it will be considered as an invalid deduction from hire. Deduction Not Allowed: Compensation for damage to cargo; Failure to keep accurate logs; The masters involvement in producing false documentation from bunker suppliers; An owners breach of duty, when acting as bailee of the charterers bunkers; Refusal by a master to load bunkers.

Valid & Invalid deduction by Charter Adjudication by the Judge. Might result in returning some or all of the deductions. If deduction valid, then owners withdrawal may be treated as a breach.

E QUITABLE S ET -O FF POSITION IN I NDIA The Apex Court in numerous judgments has held, that for the purpose of seeking set off of the claim by way of equitable set off, two rival claims should arise from out of the same contract or transaction and must flow from closely connected dealings and transactions which gives rise to the subject matter of the claim of the respondent herein.

Express Duty of Seaworthiness in Charterparty The contract for the Carriage of Goods by Sea often provides an express duty to provide a seaworthy vessel especially in case of charterparties, as opposed to the bills of lading, which are more likely to be subject to the Hague/Hague - Visby Rules or the Hamburg Rules where the duty is already expressed. For instance: SYNACOMEX 90 voyage charterparty cl.2 provides that The said vessel being tight, staunch and in every way fit for the voyage...

NYPE 1946: Line 21 & 22 provides that vessel on her delivery to be ready to receive the cargo with clean swept holds and tight, staunch, strong and in every way fitted for service, having water ballast, winches and . NYPE 1993: Clause 2,provides that The vessel on her delivery shall be ready to receive the cargo with clean swept holds and tight, strong and in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service, having water ballast and with sufficient power to operate all cargo handling gear simultaneously Shelltime 4 Clause 1 & 2

In The Fjord Wind [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 191, the charterparty contained two seaworthiness clauses, cl.1 provided that the said vessel being tight, staunch and strong and in every way fit for the voyage, shall with all convenient speed proceed to [the river Plate]...and there load... while cl.35 was a paramount clause incorporating the US COGSA 1936 or the Canadian Water Carriage of Goods Act 1936, which enacted the Hague Rules. Although the court decision in this case was that the shipowner has to exercise due diligence to provide seaworthy vessel because of the paramount clause, had this clause not existed the carriers duty would have been an absolute duty to provide a seaworthy vessel that would be clear from cl.1.

In The Aquacharm, [1982] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 7, it was held that if Hague/Hague-Visby Rules are incorporated into a time charterparty then seaworthiness should be given its usual meaning i.e. the vessel should be fit to encounter the peril of the voyage and she should be fit for that particular voyage. - Lord Denning

Implied Duty of Sea worthiness in Charterparty The carrier is under an implied obligation to make the vessel seaworthy at the time of delivery, and this obligation is an absolute one. - Lord Ardwall In Giertsen and Others V. Gorge Turnbull & Company, (1908) 16 S.L.T. 250. However, the duty is not a continuous one.

S PEED C LAIM One of the Undertaking that the Time Charters provide is Speed Claim. This can be seen in the clauses such as:

NYPE 1946; Lines 9-11: ...and capable of steaming, fully laden, under good weather conditions about... knots on a consumption of about... tons of... best grade fuel oil... NYPE 1993; Lines 18-19: "speed about...knots, fully laden, in good weather conditions up to and including maximum force...on the Beaufort winscale, on a consumption of about...long/metric tonnes of..."

E FFECTS OF SUCH A C LAUSE Is it a condition or an innominate term?

When is the Warrant valid? At the beginning? or is it continuing?

Caveats to the extent of Warranty Without Guarantee It dilutes owners obligation in respect to speed and performance to not more than a mere estimate given in good faith. - The Lipa (2002) Lloyds Law Report 17 Good Weather Ships performance s warranted as a capability of certain speed, using certain fuel consumption in good weather only. - The Gas Enterprise case, [1993] 2 Lloyds Rep 352.

About/ All Details About This phrase or acronym is normally understood to mean that a margin of 0.5 knots should be allowed for ships speed. - The Al Bida Case, [1987]1 Lloyds Rep 124 Currents Are factored into calculations as to speed and performance. However, some believe that it should be applied only where the effect of current is clear on a particular voyage.

How is the warranty considered? Log Book Routing Company Data Other sources

I NTER - CLUB N EW Y ORK P RODUCE E XCHANGE, 1996 An agreement between various clubs (almost all P&I club- See the 1996 Preface) which apportion the responsibility between the shipowner and the time charterer for claims arising under the NYPE Form

NYPE 1943: Clause 8 provides, The Charterers are to load, stow and trim the Cargo at their expense under the supervision of the Captain NYPE 1993: Clause 27 provides, The cargo claims between the Owners and Charterers shall be settled in accordance with the Inter- Club NYPE Agreement. No such provision in ShellTime 4

How does it help? The scheme of apportionment helps to eliminate disputes. It is two fold: either 100% liability on the shipowner/ charter or 50-50 liability on the shipowner and the charterer.

Can the Liability be shifted Completely to Owner? In the case of: Unseaworthiness Pilferage, act or neglect of others Error or fault in navigation or management of the vessel

Apportionment of Claim The ICA provides, inter alia, as follows: (8) Cargo claims should be apportioned as follows: (a) Claims in fact arising out of unseaworthiness and/or error or fault in navigation or management of the vessel: 100% Owners save where the Owner proves that the unseaworthiness was caused by the loading, stowage, lashing, discharge or other handling of the cargo, in which case the claim shall be apportioned under sub-Clause (b).

(b) Claims in fact arising out of the loading, stowage, lashing, discharge, storage or other handling of cargo: 100% Charterers unless the words "and responsibility" are added in Clause 8 or there is a similar amendment making the Master responsible for cargo handling in which case: 50% Charterers 50% Owners save where the Charterer proves that the failure properly to load, stow, lash, discharge or handle the cargo was caused by the unseaworthiness of the vessel in which case: 100% Owners

(c) Subject to (a) and (b) above, claims for shortage or overcarriage: 50% Charterers 50% Owners Unless there is clear and irrefutable evidence that the claim arose out of pilferage or act or neglect by one or the other (including their servants or sub-contractors) in which case that party shall then bear 100% of the claim. (d) All other cargo claims whatsoever (including claims for delay to cargo): 50% Charterers 50% Owners Unless there is clear and irrefutable evidence that the claim arose out of the act or neglect of the one or the other (including their servants or sub-contractors) in which case that party shall then bear 100% of the claim.

A LLOCATION OF R ESPONSBILITY At common law, the Owners are obliged to load, stow, trim and discharge the cargo. Owners can, however, endeavor to include clauses in the charterparty that serve to transfer these obligations to charterers.

NYPE 1946: Clause 8 has the effect of shifting to the Charterers the primary responsibility of loading, stowing and trimming the Cargo. His responsibility will be limited to the extent the master exercises supervision and limits the Charterers control of the stowage - Court Line v. Canadian Transport (1940) 67 L1L. Rep 161 (HL)

The terms such as responsibility and supervision has the effect of switching prima facie responsibility for the proper performance onto the Owners shoulders. Responsibility will only be imposed upon the charterers if they actively intervene in the conduct of the specified operations and if this intervention is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss or damage in question.

Stevedore Damage Responsibility for stevedore damage is apportioned to Charterers and will only switch from the charterers to the owners if the master either: actively interferes in the conduct of such operations, or negligently fails to intervene in the conduct of such operations to ensure the safety of the vessel, crew and cargo; Provided such act or omission is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss or damage in question.

P ARTIES HAVE A CHOICE OF AMENDING THE CONTRACT Common amendment to clause is insertion of "and responsibility" after the word "supervision" at line 77. Amendment has the effect of switching prima facie responsibility for the proper performance of the specified operations onto the Owners shoulders. Responsibility will only be imposed upon the charterers if they actively intervene in the conduct of the specified operations and if this intervention is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss or damage in question.

Words which have been held NOT to transfer the responsibility from owners to charterers:- "Charterers being allowed to appoint a head stevedore at the expense and under the inspection and responsibility of the Master for proper stowage". - "The Helene". See also Sack v. Ford; Union Castle v. Borderdale. "Stevedores to be appointed by the Charterers but employed and paid for by the Owners at current rate - Harris v. Best.

Words which have been held to transfer the responsibility from the Owners to the Charterers:- "Charterers are to loadstow and trim the cargo at their expense under the supervision of the Captain." - Court Line v. Canadian Transport12 See also, Filikos v. Shipmair13.

Responsibility for safe loading and seaworthiness In The Imvros [1999] 1 Lloyds Rep 848 Ship Owner let vessel to Charterer for one time charter trip and the Cargo was loaded and stowed under directions of Charterers. Part of deck cargo was lost and vessel damaged If owner of deck cargo successfully claims against S/O under B/L, S/O will be entitled to an indemnity from Chaterer? The Judge went on to say so long as the loading was carried out badly enough to put other cargo at risk but not the vessel, the charterers would be liable; however, at the moment that the loading was so badly carried out that the entire vessel itself became unseaworthy then responsibility would fall upon the owners and the charterers would be relieved of it.

NYPE 93: Drafters of the NYPE 93 form sought to make the starting position more favourable to the owners by expanding the scope of clause 8 Clause 8 of the NYPE 93 form provides as follows: "and the Charterers shall perform all cargo handling, including but not limited to loading, stowing, trimming, lashing, securing, dunnaging, unlashing, discharging, and tallying, at their risk and expense, under the supervision of the Master". This clause provides that these operations are to be carried out at the risk and expense of the charterers under the supervision of the master. As the clause is drawn, prima facie responsibility for these operations will rest with charterers.

Shelltime 4 The Owners are responsible for the operations of loading, stowage and discharging cargo. Where, however, the charterers provide and pay for stevedores, responsibility for operations performed by them may be transferred to the charterers. Clause 16 imposes the responsibility on the owners for stowage while for all the other operations of stevedores the responsibility is transferred to the Charterers. However, indemnity provisions provide that that pilots, tugboats or stevedores who are employed by the charterers "shall be deemed to be the servants of and in the service of owners and under their instructions."

Thus, the charterers will only be under a responsibility if they actively interfere in the relevant operations and their intervention is the immediate and proximate cause of the loss.

H IRE AND W ITHDRAWAL

Provisions relating to Hire and Withdrawal are provided under Clause 5 of NYPE 1946, Clause 11 of NYPE 1993 and Clause 9 of Shelltime 4. These provisions can be crystallized into: The obligation to pay hire in advance. The time and mode of payment The Charterer`s right to make deductions from hire The Owner`s right to withdraw

The obligations to pay hire functions as remuneration for ship-owners services under time charterparty and covers ship-owners expenses which they incur in relation to the services they provide. The obligation to pay hire is an absolute obligation. Any default leads to breach of Time Charterparty.

What is a Condition and a Warranty? The term Condition refers to a contractual duty, a breach of which entitles the innocent party to treat himself as discharged from further performance under the contract, and to claim damages for loss sustained by the breach. Conversely, a warranty is a contractual undertaking, a breach of which does not entitle the innocent party to treat himself as discharged, but to claim damages only.

Whether the obligation to pay is a condition or a warranty? In Kuwait Rocks Co v. AMN Bulkcarriers Inc (The Astra) [2013] EWHC 865 (Comm), it was held that the obligation to pay hire on time in clause 5 of NYPE was a condition (whether accompanied by an anti-technicality clause or not), any breach of which will give rise to a claim for damages for loss of bargain following termination.

Then came the Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co., Ltd [2015] EWHC 718 (Comm), wherein it was held that it is not necessarily a condition.

So where are we now finally? After The Astra, Owners could withdraw their vessel from charterers service and claim damages for loss of profit after only a few missed or part hire payments, or even a single such payment. However, the situation is now taken back to the position before the Astra. Now the owners are required to prove a repudiation or renunciation by charterers if they wish to claim damages for loss of profit. A mere failure will not suffice.

The decision in this case does not affect Owners right to withdraw the vessel from charterers service, if the charter gives them that right, nor does it affect their entitlement to claim unpaid hire that has already fallen due. What it will affect is owners entitlement to damages for loss of bargain for the unexpired charter period.

Issues related to Bunker supplied under Charterparty Bunker fuel is one of the largest expenses in ships operation. The NYPE form requires the charterers to provide and pay for all the fuel while the vessel is on hire. Issue arises in difficult market conditions, where the bunker suppliers are faced with: - delays in payment, - non-payment or - requests to provide credit terms.

Arrest Threat Ship arrest so as to obtain security for a claim and potentially prepare for a judicial sale of the vessel. In addition, ship arrest constitutes a considerable pressure on the ship owner to settle the claim.

I NDIAN P OSITION In Chemoil Adani Pvt Ltd versus m.v. Hansa Sonderburg & Ors, The Bombay High Court confirmed the order of arrest of the vessel 'Hansa Sonderburg' where the bunker supply was requisitioned by time charterer of the vessel and supply of bunker oil was made by the bunker supplier on the vessel although there was no privity of contract with the vessel owner and bunker supplier.

M ARITIME L IEN The issue of whether an unpaid bunker trader will have the right to a maritime lien would differ from one jurisdiction to another. Under English Law, maritime liens are strictly limited to a number of claims (such as salvage claims damages caused by the ship and crew wages) and bunker traders will not have a maritime lien.

Indian Position In the case of Epoch Enterrepots v. MV Won Fu, The Supreme Court has defined maritime liens to exist and restricted to events of (a) damage done by a ship; (b) salvage; (c)seamen's and master' swages; (d) master's disbursement; and (e) Bottomry; and in the event a maritime lien exists in the aforesaid five circumstances, aright in rem is said to exist

A mere acknowledgement on a bunker receipt by a crew member, would not entitle a bunker supplier to arrest the vessel in the absence of satisfactory evidence to show privity between the owner and the bunker supplier. - Gulf Petrochem Energy Pvt Ltd v. MT Valor Bombay High Court

In O. Konavalov v. Commander, Coast Guard Region and Ors, (2006) 4 SCC 620, The Supreme Court of India has held that one of the distinctive features of admiralty practices in proceedings in rem which are against the maritime property, i.e., the vessel, cargo or freight as the case may be. Bunkers are not included therein. the arrest of bunkers on board a vessel is not subject to the admiralty jurisdiction of the courts in India.

New BIMCO Clause The new BIMCO Bunker Non-Lien Clause for Time Charter Parties provides a pre-emptive mechanism to protect owners by requiring time charterers to inform their counterparty, the seller, at the outset that bunkers ordered are being supplied for their account and that no lien can be placed over the vessel. It includes a provision requiring a Non-Lien Notice and a right of the Master to even refuse the delivery of bunkers for Charterers failure to issue the same.

Documents

Shivkumar Iyer Partner Bose & Mitra & Co