Bombay High Court Directs Plaintiff to Bear Costs of Discharge and Storage of Arrested Cargo in Admiralty Suit. The court held that a party who secures an order of arrest of cargo cannot insist that the shipowner bear the costs of discharging and storing the cargo, as the shipowner is not a party to the arrest and the cargo is in custodia legis.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-19 08:46:49

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a Notice of Motion filed by the owner of the vessel m.v. Ocean 39 (the ship interests) seeking directions against the plaintiff, Cupid Shipping Pte Ltd., to offload cargo that was arrested at the plaintiff's instance and to permit the ship to sail out. The plaintiff had obtained an ex parte order of arrest of cargo on 15 March 2016, but no order was sought or granted for arrest of the ship. The ship interests argued that the classification of the ship was about to expire and it needed to sail to a foreign port for dry-docking. All parties agreed that the cargo should be separated from the ship to avoid further detention, but they could not agree on who should bear the substantial costs of discharge and subsequent storage. The court framed the issue as whether the plaintiff, who secured the arrest of cargo, can refuse to bear these costs and insist that the shipowner bear them. The court appointed Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate, as amicus curiae. The court held that since the cargo is in custodia legis at the instance of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must bear the costs of discharge and storage. The shipowner is not a party to the arrest and cannot be compelled to bear these costs. The court directed the plaintiff to deposit the estimated costs with the Prothonotary and Senior Master within one week, and upon deposit, the ship interests were to arrange for discharge and storage. The ship was permitted to sail out immediately after discharge.

Headnote

A) Admiralty Law - Arrest of Cargo - Costs of Discharge and Storage - The plaintiff who obtained an ex parte order of arrest of cargo cannot refuse to bear the costs of discharging and storing the cargo, as the cargo is in custodia legis and the shipowner is not a party to the arrest. The court directed the plaintiff to bear the costs of discharge and storage, and permitted the ship to sail out. (Paras 1-7)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff who secured an order of arrest of cargo laden on board a ship (but not the ship itself) can refuse to bear the costs of discharge and storage of the cargo and insist that the shipowner bear such costs.

Final Decision

The court directed the plaintiff to bear the costs of discharge and storage of the cargo. The plaintiff was ordered to deposit the estimated costs with the Prothonotary and Senior Master within one week. Upon deposit, the ship interests were to arrange for discharge and storage. The ship was permitted to sail out immediately after discharge.

Law Points

Admiralty law
arrest of cargo
custodia legis
costs of discharge and storage
burden on arresting party

Case Details

2016 LawText (BOM) (06) 94

Notice of Motion No. 1410 of 2016 in Admiralty Suit No. 19 of 2016

2016-06-27

S.J. Kathawalla, J.

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, along with Mr. Kunal Shah, instructed by M/s. Bhatt & Saldanha, for the Applicant; Mr. Bimal Rajsekhar, along with Ms. Richa Sahay, instructed by Mr. Ashwin Shankar for the Plaintiff; Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Advocate, amicus curiae; Ms. S. Priya for M/s. Siva Agencies.

Hoang Anh Shipping JSC (ship interests)

Cupid Shipping Pte Ltd. (plaintiff)

Nature of Litigation

Notice of Motion by shipowner seeking direction to offload arrested cargo and permit ship to sail out.

Remedy Sought

Direction against plaintiff to offload cargo and permit ship to sail out, with costs of discharge and storage to be borne by plaintiff.

Filing Reason

Shipowner sought to separate cargo from ship to allow ship to sail for dry-docking, as classification was about to expire.

Previous Decisions

Ex parte order of arrest of cargo dated 15 March 2016 obtained by plaintiff; no order for arrest of ship.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff who secured arrest of cargo can refuse to bear costs of discharge and storage. Whether the shipowner can be compelled to bear such costs.

Submissions/Arguments

Ship interests argued that the cargo is in custodia legis at plaintiff's instance, so plaintiff must bear costs. Plaintiff argued that the shipowner should bear costs as the cargo is on board the ship.

Ratio Decidendi

A party who secures an order of arrest of cargo must bear the costs of discharging and storing the cargo, as the cargo is in custodia legis and the shipowner is not a party to the arrest.

Judgment Excerpts

The issue which therefore falls for the immediate consideration of this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Plaintiff herein, who has secured an order of arrest over cargo laden on board the ship m.v. Ocean 39 (but has neither sought nor obtained any order for the arrest of the ship) can:- a. refuse to bear the costs of (i) discharge of the cargo; and (ii) its consequential storage until the question of the Plaintiff’s entitlement to proceed against the cargo is decided by this Court; and b. insist that the owner of the ship interests bear this cost.

Procedural History

Plaintiff obtained ex parte order of arrest of cargo on 15 March 2016. Shipowner filed Notice of Motion seeking offloading of cargo and permission for ship to sail. Court appointed amicus curiae and heard parties. Judgment reserved on 21 June 2016 and pronounced on 27 June 2016.