Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 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.

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 NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined whether the vessel can be proceeded against.

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. NEUTRAL CITATION C/OJA/2/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined

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 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.