Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH H. PATILHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. KULKARNI
SOCAR TURKEY PETROL ENERJI DAGITIM SAN Ve Tic A.S. – Appellant
Versus
MV AMOY FORTUNE (IMO 9583639) – Respondent
JUDGMENT [Per Naresh H. Patil,J.] :
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. This appeal arises from an order dated 4 June 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby a notice of motion filed by the respondent in the admiralty suit in question wherein a prayer made by the respondent for setting aside of an ex-parte order of arrest of vessel dated 16 March 2017 and for return of security furnished by the respondent alongwith interest accrued thereon stands allowed.
2. Appellant is the original plaintiff. Respondent is the original defendant namely MV Amoy Fortune. The notice of motion in question was taken out by the owners of the vessel.
3. Briefly stated facts are as under:-
The case of the appellant as set out in the plaint is that the appellant is a company incorporated under the laws of Turkey inter-alia engaged in the business of supplying bunkers to sea-going vessels at various ports. The plaintiff operates in the filed of fuel sa
A maritime claim can be pursued in rem against a vessel owned by a time charterer, provided the owner is liable for the claim, regardless of applicable insolvency laws.
Maritime liens, while surviving ownership changes, are extinguished after six months unless the vessel is arrested, and claims must be filed within this period to be maintainable.
The court ruled that the supplied HSFO was not for the vessel's operation or maintenance under the UK SCA 1981, thus rejecting the Plaintiff's admiralty claim.
A breach of contract in maritime agreements may support claims for damages and penalties under the Admiralty Act 2017, classifying such disputes as maritime claims.
The court affirmed that a breach of contract under the Admiralty Act justifies a maritime claim, requiring the defendant to furnish security for damages due to failure in contractual obligations.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article