Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Ship Fuels & Trade DMCC – Appellant
Versus
Owners and Parties interested in the Vessel M/v ZHONG PENG YOU YI – Respondent
C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 92 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Prashanth Pratap, Senior Advocate, for Mrs. Deeepika Murali
The court upheld the plaintiffs' admiralty claim, allowing vessel arrest under the Admiralty Act for alleged wrongful withdrawal.
Headnote:The judgment involves an admiralty action under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, where plaintiffs seek security for a maritime claim against the defendant vessel. The plaintiffs assert claims including wrongful withdrawal damages. The court finds prima facie justification for the claims and orders the arrest of the vessel. The plaint was filed citing maritime jurisdiction. The court determined that the claim relates to a maritime claim under applicable law and ordered an arrest warrant for the vessel.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of maritime claim and actions related. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. justification for claims established. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's order for vessel arrest. (Para 4) |
ORDER
In an admiralty action in rem for recovery of a sum of USD 2,615,036.65 towards an alleged maritime claim, the plaintiffs seek security for such claim, including by arrest of the defendant vessel. The second plaintiff is a charterer in a Time Charter Party relating to the defendant vessel, which was previously named as “M/V HT INGOT”. Subsequently, the rights of the second plaintiff were assigned to the first plaintiff.
2. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the defendant vessel would be within the limits of the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court by now. He points out that the second plaintiff made a deposit of USD100,000 at the time of entering into the charter party and also made payments towards bunkers. After pointing out that the charter party was for a term of 12 + 3 months, he submitted that the vessel was used by the plaintiffs only up to 22.05.2024 and that 11 hire invoices relating thereto were paid by the plaintiffs. In the guise of carrying out repairs on the vessel, he submits that the vessel was moved to China and was unavailable to the plaintiffs thereafter. Consequently, he submits that the plaintiffs have a maritime claim in respect of the deposit, the price of bunkers on board as on 25.05.2024 and losses caused due to wrongful withdrawal. He also points out that such losses for wrongful withdrawal have been computed at USD 1,730,025 by using the current hire charges for a similar vessel (USD 22,291 per day) in comparison to the hire charges as per the charter party (USD 16000 per day).
3. Considering the aforesaid, I am prima facie satisfied that the suit claim relates to a maritime claim as per the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. It is also stated that the vessel is likely to sale out of the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court very soon.
4. Therefore, I direct that a warrant of arrest be issued in accordance with the Admiralty Rules of this Court in respect of the vessel M/V ZHONG PENG YOU YI (IMO No.1016161). Issue notice to the respondent returnable on 1 April 2026. Private notice is permitted. Both a copy of this order and the arrest warrant shall be issued before end of day. Counsel for the plaintiffs is permitted to notify this order to the Port authorities for compliance.
