Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Om Freight Forwarders Limited, a company engaged in freight forwarding and bunker supply, filed a civil suit under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, seeking arrest and sale of the defendant vessel M.V. Nereus Progress for recovery of unpaid dues for bunkers supplied. The plaintiff claimed a total sum of Rs.8,82,42,636.70, comprising principal amount of US$73,550.06 (equivalent to Rs.66,10,679.39) and other amounts, along with contractual interest at 18% per annum. The vessel was lying at V.O. Chidambaranar Port, Tuticorin. The plaintiff filed Application No.6081 of 2025 for arrest of the vessel, and the defendant filed Application No.155 of 2026 for rejection of the plaint and setting aside the ex parte order of arrest. The court considered whether the supply of bunkers constitutes a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, which includes 'necessaries' supplied to a vessel. The court held that bunkers are necessaries and the claim is a maritime claim. The court also examined the principles for arrest: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The court found that the plaintiff had a good arguable case, the vessel was likely to leave Indian waters causing irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience was in favor of arrest. The court directed the defendant to furnish a bank guarantee for the principal amount of US$73,550.06 (equivalent to Rs.66,10,679.39) within two weeks, failing which the vessel would be arrested. The defendant's application for rejection of plaint was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Admiralty Law - Arrest of Vessel - Maritime Claim - Necessaries - Supply of bunkers to a vessel constitutes 'necessaries' under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 - The plaintiff, a bunker supplier, claimed unpaid dues for bunkers supplied to the defendant vessel. The court held that the claim for supply of bunkers is a maritime claim within the meaning of the Act, and the plaintiff has a prima facie case for arrest. (Paras 10-15) B) Admiralty Law - Arrest of Vessel - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Injury - The court must consider whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury - The vessel was likely to leave Indian waters, and the plaintiff had no other security. The court found that the balance of convenience was in favor of arrest to secure the claim. (Paras 16-20) C) Admiralty Law - Arrest of Vessel - Security - The defendant offered a bank guarantee as security for the claim. The court directed the defendant to furnish a bank guarantee for the principal amount claimed, failing which the vessel would be arrested. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for arrest of the defendant vessel for a maritime claim under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, and whether the vessel should be arrested and sold.
Final Decision
The court directed the defendant to furnish a bank guarantee for the principal amount of US$73,550.06 (equivalent to Rs.66,10,679.39) within two weeks, failing which the vessel shall be arrested. The defendant's application for rejection of plaint was dismissed.
Law Points
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Arrest of vessel
- Maritime claim
- Necessaries
- Bunker supply
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable injury
- Section 4 Admiralty Act 2017
- Section 5 Admiralty Act 2017
