The appellant, PS Marine (a unit of Seaman Multi Trading Pvt Ltd), claimed that it was approached by Marine Engineering Diving Services FZC (MEDS) for the supply of provisions and equipment to the MV Altus Uber, which was owned by MEDS. MEDS did not pay for these supplies. There was already an arrest order against the MV Altus Uber in Mumbai, issued by the Bombay High Court in Admiralty [see Siem Offshore Redri AS v Altus Uber​ (CMI377) and Altus Uber v Siem Offshore Rederi AS​ (CMI511)]. The appellant arrested the defendant vessel, the MV Altus Exertus, in Gujarat on the basis that it was a sister ship of the MV Altus Uber, both being owned by a common owner, MEDS. OPES Shipping Ltd intervened and applied for the arrest order to be vacated on the ground that when the admiralty suit was filed by the appellant on 21 December 2018, the defendant vessel was not under the control or power of MEDS, nor was it a sister ship of the MV Altus Uber as falsely claimed by the appellant.

The single Judge found that: (1) the defendant vessel could not be treated as a sister vessel of the MV Altus Uber; (2) the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case for the arrest of the defendant vessel under s 5(2) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (the Act); and (3) the suit was consequently not maintainable in the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. The single Judge vacated the arrest order and dismissed the appellant's admiralty suit. The appellant appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

In MV Elisabeth v Harwan Investment & Trading (P) Ltd 1993 AIR 1014, 1992 SCR (1) 1003 (CMI883), the Supreme Court held that the Arrest Convention 1952 and other international maritime Conventions paved the way for a more articulate methodology of enforcing and realising maritime claims against vessels. The Supreme Court further elaborated on this in the case of Sunil B Naik v Geowave Commander (2018) 5 SCC 505 (CMI183), referring at length to the Arrest Convention 1999. Subsequently, the admiralty jurisdiction was codified in India by the Act. Article 3(1) of the Arrest Convention 1999 should be compared with ss 5(1) and 5(2) of the Act. Perusal of both indicates that the concept of arrest of sister ships was not introduced into Indian law for the first time by the Act. Although India was not a signatory to the Arrest Convention 1999, the Convention approach was followed as held by the Supreme Court in Naik v Geowave Commander.

Under the Act, the power of arrest for enforcing the maritime claim lies with the coastal Court on the conditions prescribed under s 5(1) of the Act. The arrest of any ship in respect of which a maritime claim is asserted is permissible if:

(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.

The appellant's application for the arrest of the defendant ship was based on the premise that MEDS owned both the MV Altus Uber, the offending vessel, and the MV Altus Exertus, the defendant ship. There was no alternative plea that the defendant vessel was under the control of the owners of the offending ship by way of bareboat charter. The appellant was required to at least adduce prima facie documentary material and evidence to convince the Court that the defendant vessel was also controlled by MEDS, be it as owner or as charterer. In the instant case, the documents supplied were only screenshots of the MEDS website from which it did not emerge that MEDS was either the charterer or the owner of the ship in question. The availability of the ship as mentioned on the website screenshot, which was pressed into service to execute and perpetuate the arrest of the defendant vessel, has to be weighed against the material placed on record in the form of registration of ownership and the registered mortgage produced on behalf of the defendant vessel.

The appellant failed in establishing any claim against the owner or even a prima facie case for MEDS being in control of the defendant vessel, the only contention being that the termination of the bareboat charter was under dispute, without any other prima facie material or documentation. This would not clothe the appellant with entitlement to seek the arrest of the ship when the other side has produced registration of ownership and requisite documentation indicating termination of the bareboat charter prior to the date of arrest.