Court dismisses admiralty suit by manning agent, holds that a vessel cannot be arrested for claims arising against another vessel merely because both are managed by the same ship manager; orders refund of Rs.1.03 crore security deposit
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of vessel arrest powers under India's admiralty law, the Kerala High Court has vacated the arrest of the vessel MT Ocean Faye and dismissed an admiralty suit filed by Lighthouse Marine Service India Pvt. Ltd., a government-licensed manning agent, holding that the plaintiff had no legal basis to arrest the vessel for claims that arose in connection with entirely different ships.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, delivering the order on August 5, 2026, in I.A. No.1 of 2025 in Admiralty Suit No.5 of 2024, ruled that common management of vessels by the same ship manager does not make them "sister vessels" under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, and that a maritime lien for crew wages can only attach to the specific vessel on which the crew served — not to any other vessel in a fleet.
Background of the Dispute:
Lighthouse Marine Service India Pvt. Ltd., a Recruitment and Placement Service Licence Holder of the Government of India, served as the manning agent for vessels operated by Star Voyages Shipping Services LLC ("Defendant No.2"), a Dubai-based ship manager. The plaintiff had provided crew members to three vessels — MT Eastern Pearl, MT Fast Kathy, and MT Sea Fidelity — all managed by Defendant No.2, and raised an invoice dated July 20, 2023, for USD 1,13,534.00 (approximately Rs.94.44 lakh) for crew wages for June 2023.
When the payment remained outstanding, the plaintiff filed an admiralty suit before the Kerala High Court in May 2024, seeking the arrest of a different vessel — MT Ocean Faye (IMO: 9321689) — which happened to call at the Port of Cochin and was also managed by the same ship manager, Defendant No.2. The Court initially ordered the arrest on May 31, 2024. The charterer and parties interested in MT Ocean Faye (Defendants Nos.1 and 3) promptly deposited Rs.1,03,88,900 by way of demand draft to secure the vessel's release, and the amount was placed in a fixed deposit.
The Legal Challenge:
The charterer and One Marine Services LLC (Defendant No.3) filed an application challenging the arrest, arguing that the plaintiff's claims were neither against them nor against MT Ocean Faye, but solely against the ship manager, Defendant No.2. They contended that arresting a vessel managed by the same entity did not satisfy the statutory requirements for arrest under the Admiralty Act, which demands common ownership — not merely common management.
The plaintiff countered by arguing that the claim fell under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 9(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, asserting a maritime lien for crew wages. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants had a pattern of changing vessel ownership and names to circumvent financial sanctions, pointing to evidence that MT Ocean Faye had been renamed "Glacia" under the same IMO number.
The Court's Ruling:
Justice Abdul Hakhim conducted a meticulous examination of the statutory framework and rejected the plaintiff's arguments on both grounds.
First, the Court held that under Section 5(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, arrest requires common ownership between the vessel against which the claim arises and the vessel sought to be arrested. Since there was no evidence that MT Eastern Pearl, MT Fast Kathy, MT Sea Fidelity, and MT Ocean Faye shared common ownership, the "sister ship" doctrine could not be invoked merely because they shared a common ship manager.
Second, addressing the maritime lien argument under Sections 5(1)(e) and 9(1)(a), the Court held that maritime lien for crew wages attaches only to the specific vessel on which the crew was employed. Since the plaintiff's crew had served on three other vessels and not on MT Ocean Faye, no maritime lien could attach to MT Ocean Faye.
The Court consequently declared the arrest wrongful, dismissed the admiralty suit for want of jurisdiction, and directed the Registry to release the entire security deposit of Rs.1,03,88,900 with accrued interest to Defendant No.1.
This judgment serves as an important precedent reinforcing that admiralty jurisdiction and the powerful remedy of vessel arrest must be strictly construed, and that ship managers' control over multiple vessels cannot be equated with the ownership nexus required by law.
Bottom Line:
Admiralty Law - A vessel cannot be arrested under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, for claims against another vessel managed by the same ship manager unless it is proven to be a sister vessel with common ownership or there exists a maritime lien against the arrested vessel.
Statutory Provision(s): Section 2(1)(g), Section 5(1)(a), Section 5(1)(e), Section 9(1)(a), Section 9(1), Section 9(2) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017
