Back
Lighthouse Marine Service's Arrest of Vessel MT Ocean Faye Deemed Wrongful by
The has ruled that a vessel cannot be arrested solely because it is managed by the same ship manager against whom a arises, in the absence of . Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, allowing an application by the charterer and parties interested in the vessel MT Ocean Faye , dismissed an brought by crew manning agent and ordered the refund of a ₹1,03,88,900 security deposit with accrued interest.
A Claim Against the Manager, Not the Vessel
The dispute arose when Lighthouse Marine Service, a -licensed recruitment and placement service, filed an seeking to arrest MT Ocean Faye. The plaintiff claimed it had provided crew to three vessels— MT Eastern Pearl , MT Fast Kathy and MT Sea Fidelity —managed by , a Dubai-based ship manager. For services rendered in , the plaintiff raised an invoice of USD 1,13,534 (equivalent to ₹94,44,308.76) against the ship manager.
On , the Court ordered the arrest of MT Ocean Faye, then at Cochin Port, until ₹1,03,88,900 was deposited or security furnished. The vessel's stakeholders complied, depositing the amount via demand draft, and the vessel was released. The money was placed in a fixed deposit with .
The defendants—charterer and ship manager —moved to vacate the arrest, arguing that the plaintiff's claim was against the ship manager and not against the vessel or its owner. They contended that MT Ocean Faye could not be treated as a of the three vessels for which crew had been supplied merely because all were managed by the same entity.
Plaintiff’s Argument
Lighthouse Marine Service countered that its claim fell under read with of the , and thus constituted a for . The plaintiff also alleged that ownership and name changes of vessels (including MT Ocean Faye being renamed Glacia ) were part of a strategy to evade sanctions, and that the ship manager's liability could be pursued against any vessel under its management.
is Key
The Court examined the provisions of the Admiralty Act and held that requires between the vessel in respect of which the arose and the vessel sought to be arrested. The plaintiff had not claimed that the three vessels mentioned in its invoice were owned by the person who owned MT Ocean Faye.
"The different Vessels managed by a Ship Manager will not become sister Vessels for the purpose of ordering arrest under of the Admiralty Act,"Justice Hakhim observed.
Turning to the argument under , the Court emphasised that a lien for arises only when the claimant's employment was on the vessel itself. The plaintiff acknowledged that the crew had been provided to three other vessels, not to MT Ocean Faye.
" could not be claimed on a or on another Vessel managed by the same Ship Manager,"the Court added.
Decision and Implications
Finding that the plaintiff had no right to maintain an action for arrest of MT Ocean Faye, the High Court held that it lacked to entertain the suit itself. The Court allowed the defendants' application, dismissed No. 5 of 2024, and directed the Registry to release the ₹1,03,88,900 security deposit, together with accrued interest, to the charterer.
The ruling clarifies that under the Admiralty Act, 2017, mere is insufficient to justify an arrest. The decision reinforces the requirement of for arrests and confines maritime liens strictly to claims arising from employment on the specific vessel.
