This was a suit brought by the plaintiff, Synergy Shipping Pvt Ltd (SS), against the defendant vessel MV Anushree Fame (ex Royal Pisces) while berthed at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. SS claimed to be a shipping agent of the defendant vessel. The defendant vessel was previously owned by SKS Logistics Ltd (SKS). SKS had appointed SS as an agent while the defendant vessel was at Visakhapatnam, and SS claimed to have rendered certain services, including payment of port dues on behalf of SKS.

SS claimed a maritime lien over the defendant vessel. The defendant vessel disputed its liability.

Held: Claim dismissed.

To institute an admiralty action, the claim must be a maritime claim falling within the purview of s 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (the Act). In this case, since the claim arises from a cause of action in 2008, the relevant international Conventions apply. But, more or less, the category of maritime claims enumerated in s 4 of the Act is similar to the enumerated maritime claims mentioned in the international Conventions. All maritime claims are not maritime liens. But all maritime liens are maritime claims. The maritime lien is one of the most striking peculiarities of admiralty law. It gives rights against a vessel. This right survives despite the sale of the offending ship. The maritime lien is a privileged lien which has a priority over other liens under the admiralty jurisdiction. The maritime lien attaches to the ship, and it travels with the ship irrespective of change of ownership, but extinguishes when the ship has been sold through a judicial sale.

This suit was filed prior to the coming into force of the Act. Hence, the Act may not be applicable, since it does not stipulate that it is retrospective. However, prior to the coming into force of the Act, the courts in India adopted the international Conventions whenever there was no specific Indian statute pertaining to a particular subject under admiralty law. Neither the Act nor any of the international maritime Conventions specifically defines a maritime lien. However, India is a signatory to the MLM Convention 1993, which in art 4.1 recognises the following claims against the owner, demise charterer, manager, or operator of the vessel as a maritime lien:

(a) claims for wages and other sums due to the master, officers and other members of the vessel's complement in respect of their employment on the vessel, including costs of repatriation and social insurance contributions payable on their behalf;

(b) claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury occurring, whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of the vessel;

(c) claims for reward for the salvage of the vessel;

(d) claims for port, canal, and other waterway dues and pilotage dues;

(e) claims based on tort arising out of physical loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel other than loss of or damage to cargo, containers and passengers' effects carried on the vessel.

SS claims that since it paid port dues, it falls within the purview of art 4.1.d of the Convention, and therefore, it is entitled to exercise a maritime lien over the defendant vessel despite the change of ownership. However, as seen from art 6 of the Convention [sic: see art 9], a maritime lien is extinguished: (i) after a period of six months from the time when the claims secured thereby arose unless, prior to the expiry of such period, the vessel has been arrested or seized, such arrest or seizure leading to a forced sale; or (ii) at the end of the period of 60 days following the sale to a bona fide purchaser of the vessel, such period to commence on the date on which the sale is registered in accordance with the law of the State in which the vessel is registered following the sale, whichever period expires first.

Even assuming that SS has a maritime lien, this suit is time-barred under art 6 of the Convention as it was filed by SS beyond six months from the date when the cause of action arose. Even under s 9 of the Act, the maritime lien is extinguished after the expiry of a period of one year from the date when the cause of action arose.

The suit was filed by SS against the defendant vessel only in August 2010, ie after more than two years from the date when the cause of action arose, which is beyond both the limitation period prescribed under art 6 of the Convention, and the period prescribed under the Act. SS has also not filed the suit within a period of 60 days from the date of sale of the defendant vessel to the present owners. Having admitted to the change of ownership, art 6.b.ii of the Convention is triggered. This suit ought to have been filed within 60 days from when the sale of the defendant ship to the new owners was registered in accordance with the law of the State in which the vessel is registered. Section 9(2) of the Act also makes it clear that maritime liens, excepting those for crew claims, for which the limitation period is two years, shall be extinguished after the expiry of a period of one year unless the vessel has been arrested or seized, and such arrest or seizure has led to a forced sale by the High Court.

SS's suit is thus hopelessly barred by the law of limitation of actions as the maritime lien claimed by SS was extinguished under art 6 of the Convention.