Gujarat High Court
Monjasa Ltd vs M.T. Alpine Duke (Imo 9470909) on 13 October, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 2 of 2023
In
R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 3 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/O.J.APPEAL NO. 2 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
MONJASA LTD.
Versus
M.T. ALPINE DUKE (IMO 9470909)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SN SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS PAURAMI B. SHETH(841) for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR HARSH N PAREKH(6951) for
the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 13/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) INDEX SECTIONS PAGE NOS.
I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 02 Page 1 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined SECTIONS PAGE NOS. II. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS BEFORE THIS COURT FACTS 03 III. CONTENTIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF. 06 IV CONTENTIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT. 07 V. QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL 09 VI THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAW RELATING TO ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IN INDIA 10 VII. OVERVIEW OF THE 2017 ACT 12 VIII. REQUIREMENT OF FRAMING A RULE RELATING TO THE IMPLEADMENT OF THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL AS A 34 DEFENDANT IN AN ACTION IN REM SEEKING FOR THE ARREST OF THE. VESSEL. IX. CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE 37 X. CONCLUSION AND FINAL ORDER 45 I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Monjasa, the plaintiff, started an action in rem on 07.01.2019, against the vessel MT Alpine Duke hereinafter referred to as the "Arrested vessel") stating that it had supplied bunkers to MT Megacore Philomena Page 2 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vessel') on 24.11.2017 at St Eusatius Anchorage and had issued an invoice dated 01.12.2017, but the sums due on this account remained unpaid and they had therefore a maritime claim.
2. The claim made was for a sum of USD 399,413 with interest at 2% per month.
3. It contended that the arrested vehicle, though stated to be owned by Blizzard Navigation Inc (hereinafter referred to as the 'registered owner') and the offending vehicle, which was stated to be owned by Hurricane Navigation Inc, were ultimately controlled and beneficially owned by Oxygen Maritime Management Inc (hereinafter referred to as "the alleged beneficial owner") and hence it was entitled to seek for arrest of a sister ship ( i.e., the arrested vessel) for the recovery of the maritime claim.
II. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS BEFORE THIS
COURT:
4. On 07.01.2019, the learned single judge ordered the arrest of the vehicle MT Alpine Duke.
5. On 10.01.2019, Blizzard Navigation Inc, the owners of the arrested vehicle entered appearance and offered Page 3 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined security for the release of the arrested vessel.
6. On 11.01.2019, a learned single judge of this court ordered release of the arrested vehicle, subject to furnishing of a security by the owners of the arrested vessel.
7. On 15.01.2019, the owners offered security by making a cash deposit of USD 405,200/- and the vessel was released. The said amount has since been ordered to be invested in a Fixed Deposit and is thereby earning interest.
8. On 09.05.2019, a written statement was filed by the owners of the arrested vessel and thereafter on 04.07.2019, an application for vacating the ex-parte order of arrest was also filed.
9. On 14.11.2022 (i.e., after about 30 months) the learned single judge, on hearing the arguments, proceeded to vacate the order of arrest that had been granted on 07.01.2019 and ordered the security furnished by Blizzard Navigation Inc to be returned to them in the following terms:
"17. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the documents on record, the law is well-settled with Page 4 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined regard to the vacating of interim order of arrest granted under section 5 of Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The Court is required to see the prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss on the basis of the documents produced by both the sides i.e. by the plaintiff along with the plaint as well as the defendant while filing an application for vacating the arrest on the facts of each case.
18. In the facts of the present case, the plaintiff has relied upon the Sea Web Report to file its maritime claim. Except the Sea Web Report, there is nothing to rebut the prima-facie evidence produced on behalf of the applicant - owner of the defendant Vessel which has prima-facie demonstrated that Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. has nothing to do with the ownership of the defendant Vessel. The owner of the defendant Vessel M/s Blizzard Navigation Inc. is not owned in any manner by Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. There is also a Shipping Management Agreement between M/s Blizzard Navigation Inc. and Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. entered into in the year 2014. Hence, prima-facie it appears that Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. is not the owner of the defendant Vessel in any manner nor has any connection with regard to the ownership of the defendant Vessel nor Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. has any financial interest except the shipping management services provided by it to the defendant Vessel under the agreement entered into between the parties. In such circumstances the applicant has been successful to make out prima- facie case to vacate the order of arrest of the defendant Vessel."
10. As against this vacation of the order of arrest and the consequential order permitting the defendant to secure refund of the security furnished, this appeal has been preferred.
Page 5 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined III. CONTENTIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF:
11. Sri. Soparkar, Learned Senior Counsel put forth the following contentions:
11.1. In an action in rem, if an arrested vessel was ordered to be released or the security furnished was ordered to be returned, the entire action would stand frustrated and the possibility of the recovery of the maritime claim would be lost forever and hence the impugned order was unsustainable.
11.2. In an action in rem, if the plaintiff established a prima facie case, even if it was a difficult case, neither the order of arrest could be be vacated nor the order directing the refund of security can be passed.
11.3. The documents produced by the plaintiff clearly established that the arrested vessel and the offending vessel were ultimately controlled and beneficially owned by M/s Oxygen Maritime Management Inc and therefore the order of arrest was legally valid in view of S. 5(2) of the 2017 Act.
11.4. The Sea Web reports produced were acceptable and credible documents which established the ownership Page 6 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined of the arrested vessel and these documents indicated that as on the date of the arrest Oxygen Maritime Management Inc was indeed the beneficial owner of the arrested vessel.
11.5. The documents produced clearly indicate that the beneficial owner of the arrested vessel and the offending vessel was one and the same i.e., Oxygen Maritime Management and this was borne out by the fact that the Directors of all the Companies were common, and the registered addresses of the registered owners were also the same.
11.6. The documents produced by the defendant were internal documents and had come into existence after the date of the arrest and they had thus no evidentiary value.
11.7. The order of the learned single judge, in effect, brought the suit to an end and amounted to a rejection of the plaint and was therefore unsustainable.
IV. CONTENTIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-DEFENDANTS:
12. Sri. Mihir Joshi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant put forth the following contentions.
Page 7 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined 12.1. plaint itself disclosed that the arrested vessel was owned by Blizzard Navigation Inc while the offending vessel was owned by Hurricane Navigation Inc and therefore the order of arrest was illegal.
12.2. The assertion that both Blizzard Navigation Inc and Hurricane Navigation Inc were beneficial owned by the same entity Oxygen Maritime Management Inc was wholly without any basis and therefore the Learned Single Judge had no other option but to vacate the order of arrest.
12.3. The plaint averments regarding ownership of the vessel were vague and were not supported by any credible documents justifying the arrest of the vessel. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff were essentially extracts from a third-party private entity and could not be the basis to determine the ownership of the vessels.
12.4. The defendant had, in fact, contacted the agency which had issued the documents produced by the plaintiff and they had in turn informed it that the entry regarding Oxygen Maritime Management has since been corrected and hence no credence could be given to the documents which had been produced in support of the maritime claim.
Page 8 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined 12.5. The plaintiff had already initiated proceedings against the offending vessel in the United States for recovery of its maritime claim and had also recovered a part of its claim and had initiated the present proceedings for recovery the remainder of the claim, which it was not even certain apnd therefore the claim for arrest of the vessel owned by Blizzard Navigation Inc was untenable.
12.6. There was no allegation of fraud in the plaint order to lift the corporate veil and there was no due diligence made regarding the ownership of the arrested vessel. The commonality of address or directors would not establish beneficial ownership of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc and there was thus no infirmity in the impugned order which necessitate an interference.
V. QUESTION INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL
13. In the light of the pleas and the submissions put forth, the singular question that would arise for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the Learned Single Judge was justified in vacating the order of arrest and granting a refund of the security furnished by the defendant while securing the Release order?
14. In order to answer this question, a discussion on the Page 9 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined law relating to Admiralty would be necessary.
VI. THE EVOLUTION OF THE LAW RELATING TO ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IN INDIA
15. Maritime law is that branch of law which governs the activities relating to the seas and includes everything from disputes relating to transportation of goods and passengers, including shipping, cargo contracts, environmental protection, collision between vessels, disputes between ship owners, salvage etc., The exercise of jurisdiction by Courts in respect of these matters is referred to as the Admiralty jurisdiction.
16. In India, historically, the issues relating to admiralty jurisdiction were, in fact, regulated by the laws made by the British Parliament, namely:
1. The Admiralty Court Act, 1840.
2. The Admiralty Court Act, 1861
3. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 and
4. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891.
17. These laws continued to be applied in the country even after we gained independence and the Constitution was framed, by virtue of Art 372 of the Constitution of India, i.e., the general saving provision, which continued Page 10 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined the laws which were subsisting immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.
18. The 1st Law Commission of India, in fact, in its 5 th report, recommended the repeal of the aforesaid British statutes along with other laws by the framing of Indian laws. However, this recommendation was not accepted, and only certain other British statutes were repealed, thereby, facilitating the continuance of the aforesaid British enacted laws.
19. In the year 1992, the consequences of applying the British laws and the incongruities, which resulted thereby, was highlighted by the Apex Court in the case of M.V. Elisabeth and others v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 and it was highlighted emphatically that there was a glaring need for codification of the law relating to the Admiralty jurisdiction.
20. The Law Commission, in 1994, suo moto took notice of this judgment and the prevailing anomalous situation and submitted its 151st report on Admiralty jurisdiction and made recommendations for the initiation of a legislative exercise to have a codified Indian law relating to Admiralty.
Page 11 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
21. In 2017, i.e., 13 years after the 1994 recommendation of the Law Commission and 25 years after the decision of the Apex Court in MV Elizabeth's case, the parliament enacted the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as the '2017 Act').
VII. AN OVERVIEW OF THE 2017 ACT
22. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2017 Act reads as follows:
"The present legal framework for admiralty jurisdiction in India flows from laws enacted by the British which confer admiralty jurisdiction only to those High Courts which were established under the Letters Patent, 1865. Subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in its judgement in M.V. Elisabeth And Others Vs. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. to codify and clarify the admiralty laws in the country, the Law Commission of India also in its 151st Report recommended for enacting a new admiralty Act for India.
2. The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Bill, 2016 consolidates the existing British era laws on civil matters of admiralty jurisdiction of courts, admiralty proceedings on maritime claims, arrest of vessels and related issues in line with modern trends in the maritime sector and in uniformity with prevalent international practices.
3. The Bill also proposes to confer admiralty jurisdiction on High Courts of coastal States. This jurisdiction extends up to Indian territorial waters. The Central Government is empowered to further extend, by a notification, upto exclusive economic zone or any other Page 12 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined maritime zone of India or islands constituting part of the territory of India. The Bill covers every vessel irrespective of place of residence or domicile of owner. However, warships and naval auxiliary or other vessels used for non-commercial purposes are beyond its purview. Though inland vessels and vessels under construction are excluded from its application, the Central Government is empowered to make it applicable to these vessels also, by a notification, if necessary. The Bill provides for adjudication of identified maritime claims and, to ensure security against maritime claims, arrest of vessels in certain circumstances. The Bill also provides for inter se priority on maritime lien. The liability in respect of selected maritime claims on a vessel passes on to its new owners by way of maritime liens subject to a stipulated time limit. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 shall be applicable in respect of aspects on which provisions are not laid down in the Bill. The Bill also deals with admiralty jurisdiction in personam and the order of priority of maritime claims.
4. It is proposed to repeal four archaic admiralty laws on civil matters, namely, (a) the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, (b) the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, (c) the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891, and (d) the provisions of the Letters Patent, 1865 in so far as it applies to the admiralty jurisdiction of the Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts, as those provisions would become redundant with the enactment of this Legislation.
5. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives."
23. The 2017 Act was enacted with the following stated objective:
"An Act to consolidate the laws relating to admiralty jurisdiction, legal proceedings in connection with vessels, their arrest, detention, sale and other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto."Page 13 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
24. It is thus clear that the law was enacted with the objective of consolidating the laws relating to admiralty jurisdiction and proceedings in connection with vessels, their arrest, detention, sale and incidental matters.
25. This 2017 Act has been divided into 5 chapters. The First Chapter deals with the Preliminary aspects of the legislation.
26. Section 2(a) defines Admiralty jurisdiction to mean the jurisdiction exercisable by a High Court under S. 3 in respect of maritime claims specified under the Act.
27. Section 2(b) defines an admiralty proceeding as a proceeding before a High Court exercising admiralty jurisdiction.
28. A conjoint reading of these two definitions would mean that a proceeding before a High Court in relation to a maritime claim would mean the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction by the High Court.
29. Section 2(c) defines an arrest to mean detention or restriction for removal of a vessel by order of a High Court to secure a maritime claim including seizure of a vessel in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or order.
Page 14 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
30. Section 2(e) defines a High Court to mean that it is High Court of the 8 coastal states.
31. Section 2(f) defines a maritime claim to mean a claim referred to in S.4 of the Act.]
32. Section 2(g) defines a maritime lien to mean a claim against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator referred to clauses (a) to (e) of Section 9.
33. Chapter II of the 2017 Act deals with the Admiralty jurisdiction and Maritime claims and contains 9 sections.
34. Section 3 of the Act declares that the jurisdiction in respect of all maritime claims under the Act would vest in the respective High Courts and would be exercisable over the waters up to and including the territorial waters of their respective jurisdictions.
35. Section 4(1) of the Act declares and enumerates the maritime claims over which the High Court would have the jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim, against any vessel. There are 21 claims enumerated therein, which would constitute a maritime claim on which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction. These disputes basically cover every aspect relating to a vessel and the transportation of goods and passengers in Page 15 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined the vessels. It may be pertinent to state here that a dispute regarding the ownership of a vessel and the incidental rights relating to ownership is also construed as a maritime claim under Section 4 of the Act.
36. Section 4(2) empowers the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, to determine any question relating to a maritime claim as enumerated under Section 4(1) to settle any account outstanding and unsettled between the parties in relation to a vessel and also direct the sale of the vessel or a share of it. The said sub section also empowers the High Court to pass such other orders as it may think fit. Thus, the High Court has been conferred comprehensive powers to deal with all issues arising out of a maritime claim and it also has the power to direct the vessel to be sold for settlement of a maritime claim.
37. Section 4(3) empowers the High Court to also determine any question relating to the title to the proceeds of the sale. This subsection would also indicate that the High Court is empowered to deal with the proceeds of the sale of the vessel and also the person entitled to the same.
38. A combined reading of subsections (1) to (3) of Section 4 leaves no room for doubt that the High Court Page 16 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined while determining any question in respect of a maritime claim is empowered to determine all aspects in relation to the vessel and its working and in this regard it can pass such orders as it deems fit, including ordering the sale of the vessel in order to settle any outstanding and unsettled account and it can also hear any question regarding the title to the proceeds of the sale. The High Court would thus have comprehensive powers in respect of all the matters relating to a vessel including its ownership, the liabilities of its owners to third parties when it determines any maritime claim against it.
39. Section 4(4) declares that where any vessel is ordered to be arrested or any proceeds of a vessel on sale shall be held as security against my claim pending final outcome of the final outcome of the admiralty proceeding. This subsection would indicate that while determining any maritime claim, the High Court can order the arrest of the vehicle, and this arrest would be subject to the final outcome of the admiralty proceedings. This sub section also clarifies that if the vessel is ordered to be sold, the proceeds of the sale should be kept as security against any claim subject to the final outcome of the admiralty proceeding.
40. A plain reading of Section 4 in its entirety would indicate that the High Court is empowered to determine Page 17 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined any question relating to a maritime claim against a vessel and while so doing, it can also order the arrest of the vessel and if the vessel is sold under the provisions of the Act, the same should be kept as security to the claim, pending the final outcome of the admiralty proceeding. The power to arrest a vessel is one of the incidental powers conferred on a High Court while it is determining a maritime claim in an admiralty proceeding.
41. Section 5 of the Act specifically provides for the Arrest of a vessel in rem and reads as follows:
"5. Arrest of vessel in rem.--(1) The High Court may order arrest of any vessel which is within its jurisdiction for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim which is the subject of an admiralty proceeding, where the court has reason to believe that--
(a) the person who owned the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected; or
(b) the demise charterer of the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the demise charterer or the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected; or
(c) the claim is based on a mortgage or a charge of the similar nature on the vessel; or
(d) the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the vessel; or
(e) the claim is against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the vessel and is secured by a maritime lien as provided in section 9.
(2) The High Court may also order arrest of any Page 18 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined other vessel for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim, in lieu of the vessel against which a maritime claim has been made under this Act, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1):
Provided that no vessel shall be arrested under this sub-section in respect of a maritime claim under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4."
Section 5(1) states that the High Court may order the arrest of a vehicle which is within its jurisdiction for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim which is the subject of an admiralty proceeding. Thus, the power to arrest a vessel is available to the High Court when the vessel is within its jurisdiction (i.e., within its territorial waters) and this power is conferred for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim in an admiralty proceeding.
42. The power to arrest a vessel is conferred essentially to provide security to a maritime claim in an admiralty proceeding, which would mean that there must be an admiralty proceeding in the High Court for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of a vessel by an action in rem i.e., the power to proceed against a thing as against the normal jurisdiction of proceeding against a person ( i.e., an in personam proceeding).
43. Since Section 3 declares that the High Court would have jurisdiction over the territorial waters of a High Court, the High Court will secure jurisdiction over the Page 19 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined vessel only when the vessel enters ts territorial waters. In other words, for a High Court to invoke its admiralty jurisdiction, the vessel must have entered the territorial waters of the State in which the High Court is situate and should presently be inside the territorial waters. As a corollary, if the vessel is outside the territorial waters, the High Court would not possess jurisdiction to determine any maritime claim in respect of the vessel. Simply put, the presence of a vessel within its territorial waters is the sine qua non for the High Court to secure its admiralty jurisdiction.
44. However, by virtue of Section 5(1), in order to exercise the power to arrest a vessel, the High Court must have reason to believe that the five situations enumerated in Section 5(1) exist.
45. The first situation is that the High Court must have reason to believe that the person who owned the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and continues to be the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected.
46. This would therefore mean that the High Court is required to form an opinion that the person who owned the vessel is alone responsible for the maritime claim and that he actually owns the vessel when the arrest is to be Page 20 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined effected. Primarily, therefore, the question of ownership of the vessel and that too as on the date of the arrest would have to be ascertained by the High Court before it orders the arrest of the vessel.
47. It must also be borne in mind that Section 5(1) emphasises that the arrest of a vessel can be ordered in respect of a maritime claim, which is the subject matter of an admiralty proceeding. In other words for the arrest of vessel there must be an existing admiralty proceeding in expect of a maritime claim and before this step of ordering an arrest is exercised, the High Court must have reason to believe that the owner of the vessel alone is liable and he continues to be the owner of the vessel when the arrest is being ordered.
48. The wording of this section leaves no room for doubt that in an admiralty proceeding where a maritime claim is to be determined, the ownership of the vessel is fundamentally required to be ascertained. This would therefore mean that an inquiry into the ownership of the vessel would be absolutely necessary. If the determination of the ownership of the vessel is necessary for the arrest, the presence of the owner in such a proceeding would be absolutely essential since the owner or the alleged owner would be the best person to answer the question relating to the ownership of the vessel. In Page 21 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined the absence of the owner, the question of the ownership over the vessel and the determination whether that owner alone was responsible cannot be effectively determined.
49. A person in charge of the vessel may not be interested in preventing the arrest in order to avoid the liability of a claim that he has created and may not resist the arrest of the vessel and the consequential sale of the vessel. If the liability of the owner of the vessel is to be determined, his presence would be absolutely essential.
50. It is no doubt true that the person in charge of the vessel may inform that owner about the arrest and this may prompt the owner to rush to the court and seek for lifting the order of arrest, but, a maritime claim could also be one in which the ownership of the vessel itself is itself to be determined, and thus any person who claims ownership rights would have to be arrayed as he would be a necessary party.
51. The second situation where an arrest can be ordered is when the demise charterer of the vessel is liable for the maritime claim and he continues to be the demise charterer of the owner at the time of the arrest. A demise charterer would be the person who had hired the vessel and has full possession and control of the vessel and would be responsible for all the operational aspects of the Page 22 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined vessel. Since he is, in effect, the temporary owner and is responsible for the vessel, the liability that he has created by the use of the vessel would also enable the arrest of the vessel and the question whether he is the demise charterer or not would also be a question which would have to be ascertained before the vessel is ordered to be arrested.
52. The section makes it clear that the question of the liability of the demise charterer will have to be ascertained as on the date the maritime claim arose and that he continued to be demise charterer as on the date of the arrest. This would thus indicate that the question as to whether the demise charterer is in lawful possession of the vessel will have to examined before an arrest is ordered.
53. The third situation is that the High Court should have reason to believe that the claim was based on a mortgage or a charge on the vessel. Obviously for this ascertainment also, the question of ownership of the vessel would have to be examined.
54. The fourth condition is that the High Court should have reason to believe that the claim relates to the ownership of possession of the vessel. Necessarily for such determination, the question of who owns the vessel Page 23 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined or whether the possession of the vessel is lawful or not will have to be ascertained. This question would obviously constitute a facet of ownership of the vessel.
55. The fifth condition is that the High Court must have reason to believe that the claim is against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the vessel and it is secured by a maritime lien.
56. Section 6 of the Act states that the High Court may exercise admiralty jurisdiction by an action in personam in respect of any maritime claim referred to in Section 4(1)(a) to (w) of the Act. This exercise of jurisdiction by an action in personam is however subject to the provisions of Section 7.
57. The wording of this section makes it clear that power has been conferred on the High Court to also exercise its jurisdiction by an action in personam i.e., an action against a person. This would however be subject to the person being within the jurisdiction of the Court. If a person is outside the jurisdiction of the Court, it is obvious that the Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction by an action in personam. If the person, however, accedes to the jurisdiction of the High Court, by virtue of Section 7, it can decide by an action in personam.
Page 24 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
58. It is to be noticed here that the High Court, whether it exercises its jurisdiction in action in rem or an action in personam, it would necessarily have to examine the ownership or lawful possession over the vessel in the event it chooses to order the arrest of the vessel.
59. The power to exercise jurisdiction by an action in personam would however not be available to a High Court in respect of a maritime claim which has arisen in resect of a damage or loss of life or personal injury in respect of the following three situations i.e.,
1. When it relates to a collision between vessels.
2. The carrying out or the omission to carry out a manoeuvre of a vessel or vessels.
3. The non compliance on the part of one or more of the collision regulations made under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.
60. This power can, however, be exercised only if the cause of action has arisen, either partly or wholly in India or if the defendant actually resides voluntarily or works for gain in India.
61. Section 8 of the Act declares that whenever a vessel is sold by the High Court under the 2017 Act, the vessel would vest with the purchaser free from all encumbrances.
Page 25 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
62. Section 9 of the Act prescribes the inter se priority on maritime lien. A maritime lien relates to five claims which are relatable to the working of the vessel and arise out of the use of the vessel. These would include claims for wages and other sums due to persons under the employment of the vessel, claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury which occur directly due to the use of the vessel, the claims for reward for salvage services, claims for port, canal and other dues related to the vessel and claims which are based on tort arising out of loss or damage caused due to the operation of the vessel.
63. In other words, any claim which arises out of the use of the vessel and is directly relatable only to the use of the vessel would constitute a maritime lien and since the claim is based on the use of the vessel, sub section (2) of S. 9 makes it clear that the said maritime lien would continue even if the ownership changes or the registration changes. This lien would however stand extinguished after a period of one year (two years if it relates to the wages to the employees of the vessel) if the vessel has not been arrested or sold by the High Court in the meanwhile. It is to be noticed here that in respect of a maritime lien, the question of ownership of the vessel is not an issue since the maritime lien would continue even if the ownership changes and the claim would be relatable to a claim which arose due to the operation of Page 26 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined the vessel.
64. Section 10 of the Act provides for priority of claim in relation to a maritime lien and it states that the claim on the vessel would have priority when there is a maritime lien followed by a registered mortgage and charge on the vessel.
65. Section 11 seeks to grant a measure of protection to the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator or crew of the vessel by empowering the High Court to impose a condition on the claimant while ordering or permitting an arrest of a vessel to provide an unconditional undertaking to pay such sums of money as determined by the Court for any loss or damage which may be incurred as a result of the arrest of the vessel.
66. Sub section (3) of Section 11 makes it clear that if the owner or demise charterer abandons the vessel after its arrest, the High Court would have the power to auction the vessel and appropriate the proceeds of the auction in such manner as it may deem fit within a period of 45 days from the date of the arrest, which can be extended by a further period of 30 days.
67. Thus, even when the vessel is ordered to be arrested for recovery of a maritime lien, the law seeks to protect Page 27 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator or crew of the vessel by empowering the High Court to impose a condition that the person seeking arrest of the vehicle undertakes to pay such sums of money as the High Court may deem fit, if it ultimately comes to the conclusion that the arrest was unjustified.
68. It is to be noticed here that while exercising admiralty jurisdiction, and as a consequence while ordering the arrest of a vessel, the High Court should have reason to believe that the owner or demise charterer was responsible for the maritime claim (when it arose) and continued to be the owner or demise charterer when the arrest was ordered. There is thus an obligation on the Court to examine the ownership or lawful possession of the vessel whenever it decides to exercise its power to order the arrest of a vessel.
69. Chapter III of the Act deals with Procedure and Appeals. S. 12 states that the provisions of the CPC would apply to all proceedings under the Act in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. This provision therefore mandates that an admiralty proceeding would have to be decided as per the procedure prescribed by the CPC so long as it was not inconsistent with any other provisions of the 2017 Act.
Page 28 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
70. Thus, the 2017 Act is an act which creates and defines the admiralty jurisdiction of a High Court and also specifies the kind of maritime claim and maritime lien which can be adjudicated upon by the High Court. The Act also empowers the High Court to order the arrest of a vehicle with the objective of securing security for the claim which has been raised before it.
WHETHER THE OWNER OF A VESSEL WOULD HAVE TO BE ARRAYED AS A DEFENDANT IN AN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDING UNDER THE 2017 ACT
71. In order to exercise this power to order arrest of a vessel, however, the High Court will have to necessarily form an opinion that the owner of the vessel was liable for the maritime claim when it arose and continued to be the owner of the vessel when the order of arrest is to be made. This would therefore mean that the High Court should form an opinion as to who is the owner of the vessel and therefore it is necessary that the owner be made a party to the proceedings.
72. As noticed above, S. 12 of the Act makes the provisions of the CPC applicable to a proceeding under the 2017 Act, so long as the application of the provisions are not inconsistent with the 2017 Act.
73. If the provisions of the CPC apply, then, the Page 29 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined provisions relating to the Parties to suits (Order I), Frame of the suit (Order II) would automatically be applicable.
74. Order I Rule 3 stipulates as to who may be joined as defendants and it reads as follows:
"3. Who may be joined as defendants. - All persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where -
(a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and
(b) if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise."
75. Thus, if any right to relief in respect of the same act (or series of acts) or transaction (or series of transactions) is alleged against persons, such persons will have to be joined as defendants.
76. In a suit, in which the title over a thing is to be ascertained, the person whose title over that thing is to be determined will have to necessarily arrayed as a defendant and the absence of such a person would result in the failure of the suit itself on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties.
77. The impleading of the thing alone against which an action can be taken and an interim measure can be obtained will not be sufficient, even though the law may Page 30 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined permit an action against that thing in certain jurisdictions such as Admiralty jurisdiction.
78. An admiralty proceeding in relation to a maritime claim is essentially and normally only against a vessel. However, while proceeding against the vessel by ordering its arrest, the High Court under Section 5 is required to form a definitive opinion about the owner's liability to the maritime claim not only at the time the maritime claim arose but also as the time when the order of arrest is to be passed. It therefore becomes imperative that the owner of the vessel be impleaded even in an admiralty proceeding under the 2017 Act.
79. Though the traditional principle relating to an action in rem recognised the right to proceed against only the thing by considering a vessel to be a distinct juristic entity, by virtue of the clear mandate in Section 5(1)(a) requiring the High Court to form an opinion that the owner of the vessel was liable to the claim and is the owner when the arrest is to be effected, it becomes necessary for the owner of the vessel to be arrayed as a defendant. This would also be in consonance of the requirement of O 1 R 3 of the CPC which is made applicable to an admiralty proceeding under the 2017 Act by virtue of Section 12 of the Act.
Page 31 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
80. An argument is however put forth that an action in rem is only against a thing, and the owner of the thing is not really a necessary party in such a proceeding. It is also argued that the moment an arrest is ordered, the owner would appear to answer the claim and therefore the impleadment of the owner would be superfluous. In our view, this argument cannot be accepted simply because the High Court will have to form an opinion and should have reason to believe that the owner is in fact liable for the claim. Obviously, such an opinion cannot be formed in the absence of the owner.
81. An argument is also put forth that the plaintiff will have no knowledge about the ownership of the vessel and therefore the impleadment of the owner will not be necessary. This argument cannot be accepted since the essential requirement of the law is that the Court will have to ascertain the ownership of the vessel if it has to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction. If the owner is not arrayed as a party, the ascertainment of the ownership would not be complete and would be doubtful.
82. It is stated at the Bar that there are documents, such as IMO number which would indicate numbers which are permanent and is used to identify a vessel. It is stated that this number would describe classification of the vessel and it would also contain the ownership details of Page 32 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined the vessel. It is stated that these details may may not have been updated.
83. If every vessel is registered in the country of its origin and is assigned an IMO number by an organisation i.e., International Maritime Organisation (IMO), which is established by the United Nations and this number will indicate its registration and its ownership and would be in public domain, the production of such documentation would not be difficult for any plaintiff.
84. It is also stated at the Bar that there are several private entities who have web portals which would indicate the ownership of the vessel. It would therefore not be difficult for a plaintiff to produce this document so as to facilitate the High Court to make an ascertainment of the ownership of the vessel.
85. It is to be stated here that the owner, as stated in the above mentioned documents, if notified, would always be in a position to appear before the High Court and inform the Court if he has transferred ownership and this would enable the Court to proceed against the true and actual owner. Even in cases relating to the liability of a demise charterer or a manager or a operator of the vessel, the owner would definitely be able to throw light as to who is actually liable for the maritime claim and Page 33 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined whether the vessel can be proceeded against.
86. It must be kept in mind that the ultimate objective of the law is to enable the maritime claim to be recovered against the vessel after the Court is satisfied that owner of the vessel is liable for the claim. This is because the law of the sea recognises the fact that a maritime claim can be recovered only against the vessel as its ownership may vest with a person of a foreign jurisdiction and recovery of the claim by proceeding in that country would be difficult and extremely difficult.
87. It must also be kept in mind that the cause of action for the maritime claim would have arisen in a country other than that of the vessel's registration or the owner's place of residence and hence recovery of a maritime claim would be difficult against the owner and it is for this precise reason, the law enables a party to proceed against a vessel whenever it comes within the jurisdiction of any court which possesses admiralty jurisdiction. It will therefore have to be held that in every action in rem in which an arrest of the vessel is sought, the plaintiff will have to array the owner of the vessel as a defendant.
VIII. REQUIREMENT OF FRAMING A RULE
RELATING TO THE IMPLEADMENT OF THE
OWNER OF THE VESSEL AS A DEFENDANT IN
AN ACTION IN REM SEEKING FOR THE
ARREST OF THE. VESSEL
Page 34 of 46
Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
88. As far as the State of Gujarat is concerned, the High Court has not framed Rules as provided under S. 16 of the Act. Having regard to the above conclusion arrived at in respect of the necessity of arraying the owner of the vessel as a defendant to an admiralty proceeding, the High Court should frame a Rule which requires the plaintiff to array the owner of the vessel as a defendant and also cause the production of a document which details the ownership of the vessel, such as an IMO extract, an extract from the Lloyd's register or the extract of a reliable web portal. This would greatly assist the High Court to form a definite opinion as to whether the owner of the vessel is personally liable at the time when the maritime claim arose and also when the order for arrest is to be made, thereby satisfying the mandate of S. 4 and S. 5 of the Act.
89. The argument that the owner of a vessel need not be made a party since the claim is an action in rem and it would be sufficient to array only the vessel, as held by the Apex Court in MV Elizabeth's case, cannot be accepted. It is to be stated here that when the Apex Court rendered its decision in 1992, the 2017 Act was not in existence and the Apex Court was considering a case in which the jurisdiction of the Andhra High Court in exercising its admiralty jurisdiction was being questioned on the ground that the said High Court had no jurisdiction under Page 35 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined the then existing laws. The Apex Court on a comparison of the traditional principles governing admiralty jurisdiction which were regulated in India under the colonial laws held that there did exist jurisdiction in the High Courts and the High Courts could devise procedural rules to exercise the admiralty jurisdiction. However, the Apex court pointed out the pressing need for a statute to be enacted to clearly regulate the admiralty jurisdiction. Thus, the principles laid down there in relation to an action in rem in MV Elizabeth's case cannot ipso facto apply after the 2017 Act has been enacted and brought into force.
90. Once there is a statute which defines and regulates the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction, it would not be proper to rely upon traditional principles of admiralty jurisdiction, and it would be essential the law as enacted after the judgment was pronounced be applied. Consequently, the reliance placed in MV Elizabeth's case to contend that an action in rem would enable a plaintiff to proceed against the vessel would be incorrect.
91. As already pointed above, since S. 5 (1) (a) of the Act clearly stipulates that the Court can order the arrest of a vessel in action in rem only if it has reason to believe that the owner of the vessel was responsible for the claim when the maritime claim arose and continued to be the Page 36 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined owner when the order of arrest is being passed, the High Courts are bound to ascertain the ownership of the vessel and for this exercise, the presence of the owner in such a proceeding, even if it is an action in rem, would be absolutely necessary.
IX. CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE
92. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff claims that it had supplied bunkers to the offending vehicle and the owner of the vessel was liable for the claim of the plaintiff. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff contends that the owner of the offending vessel and the arrested vessel is Oxygen Maritime Management and it is liable for the claim. Sea web reports are produced to contend that the registered owner of the arrested vessel, Blizzard Navigation Inc is a subsidiary of Oxygen Maritime Management and hence it can be arrested by virtue of S. 5 (2) of the Act.
93. The defendant, however, claims that the owner of the arrested vehicle is Blizzard Navigation Inc and it is not liable in any way for the maritime claim. It also contends that the owner of the offending vessel is Hurricane Navigation Inc and therefore the claim cannot lie against the owner of the arrested vessel. It also denies that Oxygen Maritime Management Inc is not the beneficial owner of both the arrested and the offending Page 37 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined vessel.
94. The defendant has entered appearance, through Blizzard Navigation Inc and has stated that Blizzard Navigation Inc is the registered owner of the arrested vessel. It has also produced the Ship Management Agreement dated 20-02.2014 to contend that the owner of the arrested vessel i.e., Blizzard Navigation Inc had entered into a ship management agreement with Oxygen Maritime Management Inc, whereby Oxygen Maritime Inc is given the task of managing and operating the offending vessel for which a monthly management fee of US$ 19,314.58 was agreed to be paid by the registered owners. It is contended that Oxygen Maritime Management is only a ship manager/operator of the arrested vessel and it had no ownership rights over the vessel for it to be liable for the maritime claim.
95. The plaintiff has produced a Sea-Web report dated 5th October 2018 relating to Oxygen Maritime management Inc as Ex-C along with the plaint. In this exhibit, the Company Type of Oxygen Maritime Management is shown as the 'Beneficial Owner' and in the Column pertaining to Relationships, it is stated that Blizzard Navigation (registered owner of the offending vessel) and Hurricane Navigation (registered owner of the arrested vessel) are the subsidiary companies of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. Page 38 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
96. Further, in the Group Owned Fleet, Ship Managed fleet column, Operated fleet column and the DOC (Document of Compliance) holder fleet column, the name of both the arrested vessel (Alpine Duke) and offending vessel (Megacore Philomena) are included, thereby meaning that the Oxygen Maritime Management Inc has a fleet of vessels and it is the owner of both the vessels and it also manages and operates both the vessels along with two other vessels. Thus, prima facie, there is material to show that the arrested vessel and the offending vessel are owned by Oxygen Maritime Management Inc and by virtue of S. 5 (2), the plaintiff can seek for arrest of a sister ship owned by the same owner even though it has a claim over another vessel to which it had supplied bunkers.
97. The defendant after filing its written statement in which it denied the sea web report has filed an 'Affidavit to Bring on Record Further Documents' dated 23.01.2023, wherein it has stated as follows:
"3. That upon the arrest of the Vessel being effected on 07.01.2019 and the Plaint filed in the instant suit with all annexures being made available to the Owners, the Owners immediately took up the same with their Managers namely Oxygen Maritime Management Inc ("Manager/s"), showing the incorrect data which had been recorded by IHS on the Seaweb Report. The contents of the data as available on the Seaweb Report were denied and disputed by the Owners.Page 39 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined The Managers immediately on 12th February 2019 issued an email to the customer care email id of the IHS Markit (from which the data is taken as available on the Seaweb site) bringing to their attention that the information available on their website was inaccurate and further called upon them to rectify the information immediately. A copy of the email dated 12th February 2019 is annexed hereto as "Annexure A".
4. It is stated that an Associate Manager from IHS Markit replied on the same day i.e., 12th February 2019 apologising for any inconvenience caused by any information'derived from within the IHS Markit Maritime Portal and informing that the same shall be reviewed and corrected. A copy of the email dated 12th February 2019 is annexed hereto as "Annexure B".
5. It is stated that subsequently the Managers received an email from the Executive Director from IHS Markit dated 13th February 2019 confirming that the information on the website was corrected and provided full profile on Oxygen Maritime Management Inc. showing Oxygen Maritime Management Inc as only the Managers of the arrested Vessel and not the beneficial Owners. They confirmed that the records were amended accordingly. A copy of the email dated 13th February is annexed hereto as "Annexure C".
6. Further, the amended Seaweb report clearly reflects Oxygen Maritime Management Inc only to be the Ship Manager, Technical Manager, and Operator whereas Blizzard Navigation Inc to be the Registered Owners of the Vessel is annexed hereto as "Annexure D". There was no further reference of Blizzard Navigation Inc, i.e. the Owners being in the beneficial Ownership of the Managers. The amended SeaWeb Report does not indicate that the Oxygen Maritime Management Inc (Managers) are beneficially owned by Blizzard Navigation Inc (Owners). Therefore, the SeaWeb Report relied upon by the plaintiff in support of its Page 40 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined contention that the Vessel was owned by the Oxygen Maritime Management Inc is misplaced; more particularly when the Company itself acknowledged its mistake and has amended the said Report."
98. The above averments would indicate that the entries in Sea Web reports were indeed published by the entity i.e., the Sea Web portal, thereby authenticating the documents produced by the plaintiff.
99. The defendant, admittedly, requested the Sea-Web portal entity to correct the inaccurate entries which showed that Oxygen Maritime Management was the beneficial owners. The email reply of the entity dated 13- 02-2019 is relied upon to contend that Oxygen Maritime Management Inc is shown as Technical Manager for the arrested vessel (Alpine Duke) and the full profile of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc is shown to comprise of a fleet of only two vessels Alpine Duke (arrested vessel) and Alpine Marina.
100. The defendant has also produced the Ship Detail Report in which the Group Owner is shown as "Unknown" as against the earlier Sea Web report relating to the Company detail of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc, which showed it was the Group owner of several vessels including the arrested vessel and the offending vessel.
Page 41 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
101. It is to be stated here that the defendant, pursuant to the email reply which purports to have corrected the errors, has however not produced the corrected 'Company Detail' of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc to indicate the entries relating to the relationships of the company which had stated that Blizzard Navigation Inc and Hurricane Navigation were subsidiary companies had been corrected. Similarly, no document to show the entry relating to the Group Owned Fleet column which had earlier stated that the arrested vessel and the offending vessel were a part of the group which owned, managed, operated and was the DOC holder fleet had been corrected has also been produced by the defendant.
102. In the absence of a corrected copy of the Company detail report relating to Oxygen Maritime Management Inc to show that the two companies Blizzard Navigation Inc and Hurricane Navigation Inc were not its subsidiary companies and that the arrested vessel and the offending vessel were not part of the Group fleet of Oxygen Maritime Management, at this stage, it cannot be said, prima facie, that it is not the beneficial owner of the arrested and offending vessel.
103. The question as to whether Oxygen Maritime Management is the beneficial owner or not will have to be Page 42 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined necessarily determined after the trial of the suit and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of ordering an arrest or while considering the request for vacation of the order of arrest.
104. The learned single judge has committed an error in not recording a finding regarding the ownership of the vessel with reference to the Company Detail Report of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc and it has also not noticed that there was no corrected Company Detail report produced to indicate that the entries regarding Blizzard Navigation Inc and Hurricane Navigation Inc being subsidiary companies of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc had been corrected.
105. As already observed above, in the absence of the corrected copy of the Company Detail Report and the fact that the defendant sought for correction of the entries in the documents which the plaintiff had produced, it will have to be presumed that the records produced by the plaintiff were authentic and these documents did indicate that Oxygen Maritime Management Inc was, prima facie, the beneficial owner of the two vessels and these two vessels were a part of its fleet, thereby making the arrested vessel a sister ship, liable for arrest for the maritime claim against the offending vessel.
Page 43 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
106. The argument that the plaintiff had not made out a case for lifting the corporate veil advanced by Ld Sr Counsel Mihir Joshi cannot be acceded to because the plaintiff has produced documents which prima facie indicate that the registered owner of the arrested vessel and the offending vessel were both subsidiary companies of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc and hence it would not be necessary to lift the corporate veil.
107. Similarly, the argument that there was commonality of address or directors did not establish beneficial ownership need not be considered as the documents produced by the plaintiff indicates that the owners of the arrested and offending vessel were subsidiaries of Oxygen Maritime Management Inc had not been discredited by the defendant.
108. The decisions relied upon by him in this regard, i.e.:
(a) Lufeng Shipping Company Ltd. v. MV Rainbow Ace, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 733
(b) Lufeng Shipping Company Ltd. v. MV Rainbow Ace, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1790
(c) Siva Bulk Ltd. v. M.V. Aodabao, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 3539;
(d) Aurobindo Pharam Limited v NYK Theseus (IMO No. 9356701) and Ors,, Bombay High Court, IA No. 540 of 2020 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 14 of 2020 (Order dated 7th June 2023);Page 44 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
(e) Aurobindo Pharam Limited v NYK Theseus (IMO No. 9356701) and Ors,, Bombay High Court, Commercial Appeal (L) No. 18060 of 2023 (Order dated 10th August 2024);
(f) MV Silvia Glory (IMO 9622942) v. Dan Bunkering (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Gujarat High Court, CA No.1 of 2019 in Admiralty Suit No.8 of 2019 (Order dated 21 August 2020)
(g) Polygreen International DMCC and Ors v. MT Pamboor 2 (IMO No. 9914852) and anr. 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1704 would be of no avail.
X CONCLUSION AND FINAL ORDER:
109. We are therefore of the view that the learned single judge was not justified in vacating the order of arrest and we accordingly set aside the order and restore the order releasing the vessel subject to the defendant furnishing a security. The security furnished pursuant to the said order, which has been ordered to be invested in a fixed deposit shall be continued till the disposal of the suit.
110. The appeal is thus ALLOWED.
111. The High Court, while framing the Rules under S. 16 of the Act shall ensure that the requirement of impleading the owner of the vessel as a defendant is incorporated as observed in his judgment.
112. The appellant shall also implead Oxygen Page 45 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined Maritime management Inc as the 2nd defendant in the suit in order to enable the said company to state its relationship with the vessel and to produce documents in regard to its subsidiary companies and also fleet of vessels of the company. The learned single judge shall on consideration of the material placed by it form an opinion as to whether it is the group owner of the two companies which own the arrested and offending vessels and pass appropriate orders.
113. Pending Civil Application stands DISPOSED OF.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J) OMKAR Page 46 of 46 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 23:35:40 IST 2025