The court confirmed that maritime claims under the Admiralty Act, 2017 allow arresting a vessel for dues irrespective of ownership, emphasizing the ship's distinct legal personality.

ORDER :

1. The Plaintiff prays for a decree against the Defendant, inter alia, to pay a sum of Rs.7,95,47,170/- in terms of Section 4 (1)(n) read with Section 9 (1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2017”) and as an interim measure in I.A No.1 of 2024 seeks arrest of the Defendant-Vessel in consonance with Section 5 (1) of the Act, 2017.

2. For convenience of reference Section 4 (1)(n), Section 9 (1)(d) and Section 5 (1) of the Act, 2017 are quoted hereunder:

“4. Maritime claim:

(1) The High Court may exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim, against any vessel, arising out of any:

xxx xxx xxx

(n) dues in connection with any port, harbour, canal, dock or light tolls, other tolls, waterway or any charges of similar kind chargeable under any law for the time being in force.”

“9. Inter se priority on maritime lien:

(1) Every maritime lien shall have the following order of inter se priority, namely:-

xxx xxx xxx

(d) claims for port, canal, and other waterway dues and pilotage dues and any other statutory dues related to the vessel;”

“5. Arrest of vessel in rem:

(1) The High Court may order arrest of any vessel which is within its jurisdiction for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim which is the subject of an admiralty proceeding, where the court has reason to believe that:

(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;

(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;

(c) the claim is based on a mortgage or a charge of the similar nature on the vessel;

(d) the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the vessel;

(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.

(2) The High Court may also order arrest of any other vessel for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim, in lieu of the vessel against which a maritime claim has been made under this Act, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1):

Provided that no vessel shall be arrested under this sub-section in respect of a maritime claim under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4.”

3. Heard Mr. P.N. Kamat being assisted by Mr. S.S Mohanty and Mr. N. Naik, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Mr. Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the Defendant along with Mr. Biswal.

4. During the course of consideration of I.A No.1 of 2024 seeking arrest of the Defendant vessel in terms of Section 5 (1) of the Act, 2017, it came to fore that Caveat Petition No.1 of 2024 has been filed at the behest of the Defendant.

5. It is apt to note here that the said Caveat Petition was filed under Section 148 -A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Rule 5 of Chapter VI of the Orissa High Court Rules.

6. The Plaintiff has brought the suit seeking arrest, sequestration, condemnation and sale of the Defendant Vessel for enforcement of its Maritime lien (which includes a maritime claim) against the Defendant vessel/Owner and for recovery of dues of the Plaintiff towards berth hire and penal berth hire charges etc. in terms of Section 4 (1)(n) read with Section 9 (1)(d) of the Act, 2017 for a sum of Rs.7,95,47,170/- which is inclusive of interest and legal cost of Rs.20,36,345/- and Rs.50,00,000/- respectively.

7. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff opposed the right of audience as sought to be exercised by