This was an appeal by Mohammed Raees Khan, the sole proprietor of Golden Star Marine FZE and the owner of the MV Golden Pride, which was sold by the Court and subsequently scrapped. The appellant argued that the vessel should not have been arrested since the claim of the first respondent, GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd (GAC), was not a maritime claim under s 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (the Act) [which gives domestic effect to the Arrest Convention 1999 in India].

GAC had filed an admiralty suit against the vessel claiming an indemnity for unpaid port charges for the vessel which the second respondent, the Port of Mumbai (PoM), might look to it for payment. GAC was the appellant's agent. In May 2018, GAC was appointed to provide agency services to the vessel during its stay at Mumbai. The agency charges were agreed, and the appellant was to pay port charges to PoM. Port charges were to be paid in advance but despite repeated reminders, the appellant did not pay. GAC had given an undertaking to PoM to pay all dues for all vessels calling under its agency. As GAC feared that PoM would look to it for payment of its charges, and might even not permit vessels to call under its agency, GAC called upon the appellant to pay.

GAC then filed an action in rem against the vessel claiming that it was liable to pay PoM its dues. According to GAC, although its claim was in the nature of indemnity, the underlying claim would be a maritime claim against the vessel under ss 4(1)(l), 4(1)(n), and 4(1)(p) of the Act. The appellant contended that GAC's claim did not fall within the admiralty jurisdiction.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

GAC's claim is a maritime claim under s 4 of the Act. Section 4(1) of the Act says 'The High Court may exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim, against any vessel, arising out of any - ...'

In Renusagar Power Co Ltd v General Electric Co (1984) 4 SCC 679 the Supreme Court held:

Expressions such as 'arising out of' or 'in respect of' or 'in connection with' or 'in relation to' or 'in consequence of' or 'concerning' or 'relating to' the contract are of the widest amplitude and content and include even questions as to the existence, validity and effect (scope) of the arbitration agreement.

Moreover, in s 4(1)(n) of the Act the expression used is 'dues in connection with any port, harbour, canal, dock or light tolls, other tolls, waterway or any charges of similar kind chargeable under any law for the time being in force'. There is a good deal of the widest amplitude in the words 'arising out of' on the one hand, and the terminology 'dues in connection with port etc' on the other. The words 'arising out of' and 'in connection with' are of wide nature and can take in their sweep a maritime claim which is made against any vessel where there are dues of any vessel to the port, including a claim by an agent who has to be indemnified against a port's claim. It need not be a claim only by the port, but it can be even by an agent on an indemnity action, as in this case.

The Supreme Court also held in Rajinder Singh v State of Punjab (2015) 6 SCC 477 that the expression 'in connection with' is of widest amplitude and content.

Finally, the Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty Court) held in The Conoco Britannia (1972) 1 Lloyd's Rep 342 that as long as the subject matter of the claim is a maritime claim, any indemnity claim in respect of the same would also be a maritime claim.