Praxis Energy Agents SA (the plaintiff) filed an admiralty suit to enforce a maritime claim against the MT Pratibha Neera (the defendant). After the suit was filed, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was heavily encumbered and sought to amend its pleadings to include additional defendants. Eight defendants were proposed. These included sister ships of the defendant (or their sale proceeds, where applicable) and Pratibha Shipping Co Ltd (the owner of the defendant).

Pratibha Shipping Co Ltd was in liquidation and was represented by three liquidators. Two of the three liquidators opposed the amendment, submitting that the inclusion of sister ships or their sale proceeds was not permissible according to the Arrest Conventions 1952 and 1999. They argued that the Arrest Convention 1952 allows for the arrest of a sister ship to secure a claimant's claim (arts 3.1 and 3.2), but this does not mean that the maritime claim of the particular ship (art 1.1) applies to the sister ship. They also submitted that, when a shipowning company is under liquidation, the maritime claim cannot be secured by the arrest of another ship (referring to arts 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Arrest Convention 1999).

Held: The requested amendment would not be allowed.

The plaintiff had already obtained an order of arrest of the MT Prathibha Neera. It was therefore not entitled to arrest any of the other sister ships.

A plaintiff can arrest either the particular ship or a sister ship (art 3.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952), but not both ships or multiple ships (The Banco [1973] P 137, interpreting the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (enacted in the United Kingdom to give effect to the Arrest Convention 1952)).

The position under the Arrest Convention 1999 may also be considered because it is part of India's national law (Chrisomar Corp v MJR Steels Pvt Ltd MANU/SC/1173/2017; AIR 2017 SC 5530). Article 5 of the Arrest Convention 1999 does not entitle the plaintiff to seek multiple arrests. The plaintiff cannot arrest more than one ship for the same maritime claim, unless a specified exception applies. Here, the security provided was not inadequate (art 5.2.a) and it was not a situation where the person who has already provided security was unable or unlikely to fulfil some or all of its obligations (art 5.2.b). Inadequate security can only mean security inadequate for the plaintiff's claim, not for all claims against the MT Pratibha Neera, and security can only be up to the maximum value of the MT Pratibha Neera. The provision of security cannot be considered inadequate just because the arrested ship has been heavily encumbered. Since no alternative security was provided by the shipowner, it was open for the plaintiff to apply for the sale of the MT Pratibha Neera and to enforce its claim against the sale proceeds.

Multiple arrests are not permissible under the Arrest Convention 1952 or the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017. If multiple arrests are not permissible, the plaintiff cannot bring an action against other sister ships or their sale proceeds or seek a decree against them.