This was an appeal against the ruling of a Single Judge rejecting the appellant's application to vacate the interim arrest order of its vessel. The first respondent claimed that it had supplied Very Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (VLSFO) to the appellant vessel. Despite this supply of bunkers, payment was not made. The first respondent had the vessel arrested in New Mangalore Port. The appellant entered an appearance seeking the vacation of the interim arrest order and the immediate release of its vessel. The appellant contended that there was no privity of contract between it and the first respondent, and that the documents relied upon by the first respondent were concocted. The Single Judge rejected the appellant's applications. The appellant appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant argues that this is a commercial dispute within the meaning of s 2(c)(iii) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, and such a claim should be presented to the Commercial Court. Therefore, a claim under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (the Admiralty Act) is not maintainable. The owner of the appellant vessel is Global Emerald Shipping Lines. It did not place or authorise any bunker order with the first respondent. Thus, there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the first respondent.

However, the first respondent contends that it has established a maritime claim under s 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act. The Admiralty Act takes precedence over the Commercial Courts Act. Even if there is an arbitration clause in the bunker agreement, that does not bar an action in rem for arrest of the appellant vessel.

Section 5 of the Admiralty Act empowers the High Court to order the arrest of any vessel within its jurisdiction for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim that is a subject of an admiralty proceeding. The first respondent's claim is covered under s 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act, which states that the High Court may exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim against any vessel arising out of any bunker fuel, equipment (including containers) supplied or services rendered to the vessel etc. Therefore, the claim before the Single Judge was clearly a maritime claim.

Although the appellant contended that the claim constitutes a commercial dispute and therefore lies before the Commercial Court, ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court, it could not demonstrate how the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred. Section 3 of the Admiralty Act states:

3. Admiralty jurisdiction. -

(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, the jurisdiction in respect of all maritime claims under this Act shall vest in the respective High Courts and be exercisable over the waters up to and including the territorial waters of their respective jurisdictions in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act:

Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, extend the jurisdiction of the High Court up to the limit as defined in section 2 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (80 of 1976).

This provision shows that the High Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with maritime claims under ss 4 and 5 of the Admiralty Act. Although the definition of commercial disputes under s 2(1)(c)(iii) of the Commercial Courts Act also covers issues relating to admiralty and maritime law, in the Commercial Courts Act, there is nothing barring the jurisdiction of the High Court relating to the arrest of a vessel under s 5 of the Admiralty Act. Section 3 of the Admiralty Act takes precedence over ss 6 and 7 of the Commercial Courts Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the first respondent's claim was not maintainable.

The other contention was that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the first respondent. The Single Judge rightly opined that the first respondent has an arguable case. The rival contentions and the documents produced on either side showed that there is a case to go to trial.

The appellant did not offer to furnish any security for the maritime claim. If the vessel leaves the territorial waters of the port, the first respondent could be subjected to more hardship and irreparable injury. Therefore those points also tilted in favour of the first respondent. No speck of arbitrariness or perversity is found in the Single Judge's order.

[See also MECK Petroleum DMCC v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel 'Global Falcon' (CMI2524).]