A claim for refund of detention charges does not fall within admiralty jurisdiction if it is not connected to a maritime claim involving a vessel.

JUDGMENT :

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

The relief sought for in the suit and the relief sought for in the application and the facts of the present case were succinctly captured in the earlier order passed by this Court on 29.09.2025 and for proper appreciation, the same is extracted hereunder:

“The plaintiff has sought for the following relief:

“The Plaintiff therefore prays for Judgment and decree:

(a)For a decree in favour of Plaintiff and against the 1st Defendant Vessel, Motor Vessel (M.V) Maersk Stadelhorn Having IMO 9726671 and her owners and all persons interested in her for an amount of Rs.10,68,754/- towards damages and legal cost of Rs.1,31,246/- total amounting to Rs.12,00,000/- with further interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit till its realization as per Particulars of Claim.

(b)To pass an order that the 1 st Defendant Motor Vessel (M.V) Maersk Stadelhorn Having IMO 9726671 together with her Hull, tackle, engines, Machinery, articles, things, appurtenant presently lying at Adani Ennore Container Terminal (AECTPL) within the territorial waters of India be arrested by a warrant of arrest by this Hon'ble Court and the same be condemned in respect of the claim herein and ordered to be sold along with the Hull, tackle, engines, Machinery, articles, things, appurtenant and the net sale proceeds thereof be ordered to the satisfaction of the Plaintiff claim herein.”

2.The plaintiff had raised two invoices, one on 04.08.2025 for a sum of Rs.1,59,783.80 with the due date for payment on 08.08.2025. The invoice had been raised by the plaintiff's Customs House Agent M/s.SAK Impex Shipping Services. The defendant, who provides the containers, grants 14 days free time for the plaintiff to remove its articles from the containers and return the same to the defendant. The plaintiff claims that despite having this 14 days free time, by inadvertence, an employee of the Customs House Agent had purchased additional 7 days time. This invoice was raised on 06.08.2025.

This resulted in the defendants raising an additional invoice for a sum of Rs.10,68,754/- (inclusive of GST) with payment date by 14.08.2025. It is not in dispute that the payments under both the invoices were made. The plaintiff claims the payment on the second invoice was 'under protest'.

3.On 12.08.2025, an e-mail was sent by the plaintiff's agent to the defendant seeking immediate cancellation of the invoice seeking additional 7 days time purchased by inadvertence. The vessel carrying the containers arrived in India on 08.08.2025. The cargo was discharged on the very same day. The plaintiff took delivery of the cargo on 17.08.2025 and returned the empty container on 18.08.2025.

4.Noticing that the additional 7 days time purchased was absolutely unnecessary and one caused by inadvertence, the plaintiff on 12.08.2025 sent an e-mail to the Officers of the defendant pointing out the mistake and sought for cancellation. This was followed up with series of e-mails on 14.08.2025 onwards.

5.On 25.08.2025, the plaintiff received an e-mail from the dispute resolution cell of the defendant that, being a purchase made voluntarily, it is the policy decision of the defendant not to reverse the same. They also extracted the policy decision in the e-mail which stated as follows:

“By accepting the terms above, you agree to become a payer for the invoice, which will be sent for the purchase of detention free days (Freetime extension contract) and to make the payment for the invoice within 24 hours of receiving it. Kindly note that once purchased, this charge for the Free time extension contract is non-refundable.” 6.Despite drawing the attent