The Bombay High Court has clarified that a dispute over the possession of a vessel, even in the absence of a traditional maritime debt, qualifies as a maritime claim under the Admiralty Act, 2017. This ruling affirms the court’s power to order arrest of a vessel to secure ownership or possession rights, reinforcing the statutory framework for in rem proceedings in India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute centers on the refusal of the master and crew of the vessel LPG Nisyros to redeliver the vessel to its registered owner, Neon Limited, following the expiry of a bareboat charter party and the failed exercise of a purchase option. The charterer, Eletson Gas LLC, had been granted the right to purchase the vessel under Clause 47 of the charter agreement, but failed to complete the transaction. An arbitral tribunal, by consent of the parties, ruled that the purchase option had lapsed and that title to the vessel remained with Neon Limited. Despite this award, the vessel remained in the physical control of the charterer’s appointed master, who refused to disembark or surrender possession.
Procedural History
- The Plaintiffs filed Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No. 3198 of 2026 seeking arrest of the vessel.
- No prior arrest or interim order had been sought.
- The Plaintiffs submitted evidence of the arbitral award, communications demanding redelivery, and proof of the vessel’s presence in Indian territorial waters.
- No caveat had been filed against arrest.
Relief Sought
The Plaintiffs sought the arrest of the vessel LPG Nisyros under Section 5(1)(d) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, to secure their claim over possession and ownership. They also sought liberty to apply for sale of the vessel if no application to vacate the arrest was filed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a dispute over the possession of a vessel, arising from a failed purchase option after expiry of a bareboat charter, constitutes a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, thereby justifying arrest under Section 5(1)(d).
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate for the Plaintiffs, argued that the refusal to redeliver the vessel after the arbitral award constituted a clear infringement of ownership rights. He relied on Section 4(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, which explicitly includes disputes relating to the possession or ownership of a vessel as a maritime claim. He further cited Section 5(1)(d), which permits arrest where the claim relates to ownership or possession, and emphasized that the vessel was physically present within the court’s jurisdiction. He submitted documentary evidence including the arbitral award, emails demanding redelivery, and port authority records confirming the vessel’s location.
For the Respondent
No appearance or submission was made on behalf of the Defendants. The Court noted the absence of any caveat against arrest and the lack of opposition to the application.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and purposive interpretation of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Admiralty Act, 2017. It held that the statutory language is broad and inclusive, encompassing not only traditional maritime claims like salvage or collision, but also disputes over possession arising from contractual failures. The Court observed that the arbitral award had conclusively established the Plaintiffs’ ownership and the charterer’s obligation to redeliver. The continued retention of the vessel by the master, despite repeated demands, amounted to a wrongful deprivation of possession.
"The refusal to redeliver the vessel, even after a binding arbitral award, constitutes a continuing infringement of the registered owner’s rights, which falls squarely within the ambit of a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(a)."
The Court rejected any narrow construction that would limit maritime claims to financial debts. It emphasized that the Admiralty Act was enacted to align Indian law with international standards, including the 1999 International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, which recognizes possession disputes as actionable in rem. The presence of the vessel within Indian territorial waters, confirmed by port authority records and Marine Traffic data, satisfied the jurisdictional requirement under Section 3. The absence of a caveat and the prima facie nature of the claim further justified immediate arrest without a warrant.
The Verdict
The Plaintiffs succeeded. The Court held that disputes over vessel possession constitute a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(a) and that arrest under Section 5(1)(d) is permissible to secure such claims. The vessel LPG Nisyros was ordered arrested, with liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply for its sale if no application to vacate the arrest was filed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Possession Disputes Are Actionable In Rem
- Practitioners may now initiate arrest proceedings for any vessel wrongfully retained after contractual termination, even without a monetary claim.
- Arbitral awards confirming ownership or possession rights can serve as the foundation for admiralty arrest applications.
- The burden shifts to the possessor to demonstrate lawful retention; silence or non-compliance constitutes prima facie wrongful possession.
Documentary Evidence Is Sufficient for Jurisdiction
- Port authority records and satellite tracking data (e.g., Marine Traffic) are admissible and sufficient to establish a vessel’s presence within jurisdiction.
- No physical inspection or affidavit from port officials is mandatory if credible digital or official records are produced.
- Courts will accept contemporaneous, verifiable evidence over speculative assertions.
Arrest Can Proceed Without Warrant in Clear Cases
- Where no caveat is filed and the claim is prima facie strong, courts may dispense with the warrant requirement under Section 5(2).
- This expedites enforcement in time-sensitive cases where vessels may flee jurisdiction.
- Practitioners should ensure undertakings are filed promptly and clearly articulate the nature of the possession claim.
