Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2459
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
Aquarro Logistics And Trading L.L.C-FZ, A Free Zone Limited - Appellant
Versus
M.T. Vision (IMO. 9236016) (AND HER OWNERS AND ALL OTHER PERSONS CONCERNED AND/OR INTERESTED IN HER) A VESSEL FLYING THE FLAG OF ANTIGUA & BARBUDA TOGETHER WITH HER HULL, TACKLE, MACHINERY, BOATS, BUNKERS, EQUIPMENT, PARAPHERNALIA AND ALL OTHER APPURTENANCES PRESENTLY IN THE PORT AND HARBOUR OF COCHIN, WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF INDIA AND WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT, REPRESENTED BY HER MASTER., PIN - 682009
I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN ADML.S. NO. 11 OF 2025
Decided on : 26-06-2025
For the Appellant :M/s. PRANOY K.KOTTARAM,SIVARAMAN P.L,ATHUL BABU & SREENAND UDAYAN and Sri. PRATAMESH KAMATH (BY ORDER), Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. VIPIN P. VARGHESE, Smt. LATHA ANAND, Advocate
An action in rem can occur under admiralty jurisdiction despite the presence of an arbitration clause in a charter-party. The court maintained jurisdiction to arrest the vessel for securing maritime claims.
Headnote:(A) Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 - Sections 4 and 5 - Warrant of Arrest - The Court, under its admiralty jurisdiction, issued a conditional order to arrest the vessel for the plaintiff’s maritime claim of Rs.25,74,63,958/- based on crystalline debts in relation to the terminated charter-party. (Paras 1, 2, 12, 15, 17)
(B) Action in Rem vs. Personam - It was emphasized that an action in rem, which involves the vessel, cannot be converted into an action in personam merely due to the presence of an arbitration clause in the charter-party. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed an admiralty suit against the vessel for unliquidated damages relating to a charter-party, following a prior suit on similar grounds. The claim is based on termination of the charter-party and associated financial losses. (Paras 2, 4, 12)
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the applicant established a prima facie case warranting arrest, emphasizing the importance of arrest for security in maritime claims. (Paras 15, 16)
Issues: Whether the presence of an arbitration clause precludes the arrest of the vessel and whether the termination notice issued was valid. (Paras 8, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court asserted that the maritime jurisdiction allows for an arrest of the vessel irrespective of the arbitration clause, and the action in rem cannot be referred to arbitration. (Paras 13, 15)
Result: Conditional order of arrest of the vessel was issued.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial facts of the case and parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and terminations. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's reasoning and application of law. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. conditional order of arrest issued. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
1. Admit. Advocate Sri. Vipin P. Varghese takes notice for the 1st defendant and Advocate Smt. Latha Anand takes notice for the 2nd defendant.
2. Post the suit for the Written Statement of the defendants on 04.07.2025 along with Adml.S. No. 9/2025.
I.A. No.1 of 2025
1. This Application is filed by the plaintiff in the captioned Admiralty Suit to issue Warrant of Arrest against the vessel “M.T. VISION” (IMO 9236016) with all her accessories, which is presently anchored at Cochin Port, which is within the territorial waters of India and within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.
2. This is the second suit filed by the very same plaintiff against the very same defendants with respect to the very same vessel in this Court. Earlier, the Applicant filed Adml.S. No.9 of 2025 with respect to its maritime claim of Rs.56,38,03,314/- as unliquidated damages with interest @ 12% per annum against the 1st respondent alleging breach of contract of the Time Charter-party executed by the Applicant and the owner of the 1st respondent and consequential losses suffered by the Applicant In I.A.No.1/2025 in Adml.S. No. 9 of 2025, filed by the Applicant, this Court had ordered conditional arrest of the vessel for the plaint claim of Rs.56,38,03,314/- as per interim order dated 13.06.2025. The 1st respondent did not furnish the security as per the said Order dated 13.06.2025 and hence the said vessel is still under arrest and continuing in Cochin Port.
3. The present suit is filed claiming an amount of Rs.25,74,63,958/-.
4. When this suit and Interim Application came up for admission on 24.06.2025, this Court thought it fit to direct the Applicant to give notice to the first respondent, as the first respondent has already appeared in Adml.S. No. 9/2025. An interim order was also passed directing the second respondent to see that the vessel is not sailed out till 26.06.2025.
5. Today, the first respondent appeared through counsel. Since the first respondent did not get sufficient time to file Counter Affidavit in this Application, the counsel for the first respondent was permitted to advance his contentions opposing the Application.
6. Accordingly, I heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant, Sri. Pratamesh Kamath with Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. Vipin P. Varghese and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, Smt. Latha Anand.
7. The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the claims are for crystallized debts under three specific heads.
The claim of the Applicant is that the Charter-party executed by the Applicant with the owner of the first respondent is terminated as per the Termination Notice dated 14.06.2025. On account of the termination, the first respondent has to return the excess charter hire paid by the Applicant & the Security deposit made by the Applicant for the Charter-party and to pay the value of bunkers on re-delivery. According to the learned counsel, these are crystallized debts proved by supporting documents. Since the applicant has made out a prima facie case, the applicant is entitled to get conditional order of arrest of the vessel till furnishing security for the plaint claim by the first respondent.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the plaintiff has no right or authority to issue a Termination Notice on 14.06.2025 as per the Charter-party. The conditional arrest was ordered in the earlier suit on 13.06.2025. The Applicant issued the Termination Notice on the very next day itself. The Charter-party contains an arbitration clause. Without disclosing this material fact, both suits were filed. Hence, there is suppression of material f
