INDIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Gautam Bhatikar, Deeksha Dev Singh and Isha Patil, Phoenix Legal
The Act defines a vessel as any ship, boat or sailing vessel that may or may not be mechani - cally propelled. While determining maritime claims under the specified conditions, the courts may settle any outstanding accounts between parties with regard to the vessel. They may also direct that the vessel or a share of it be sold. With regard to a sale, courts may determine the title to the proceeds of such sale. In Saba International Shipping and Project Investment Private Limited v The Owners and Parties interested in the Vessel M.V. Brave Eagle , previously known as M.V. Lima-I , and Others ((2002) 2 CHN 280 at 287–288 and 289–290), the High Court differentiated between a maritime claim and a maritime lien, and held as follows: “All cases of maritime lien are based on maritime claims but all maritime claims do not give rise to a maritime lien on the ship. Normally a lien in the general law is a rather limited right over someone else’s property. It is a right to retain possession of that property usually to receive a claim.” The courts in India have recognised a maritime lien for indemnities for injuries to crew mem - bers under Section 9(1)(b) of the Admiralty Act, provided the claim is directly connected to the operation of the vessel. Under the Admiralty Act, the High Court has power to exercise jurisdiction to hear and deter - mine any question on a maritime claim, against any vessel, arising out of the use or hire of the vessel, inter alia, contained in a charterparty. Therefore, the liabilities resulting from contracts for chartering a vessel would be considered as a maritime claim under Section 4 of the Admi - ralty Act.
Admiralty jurisdiction can be invoked, and a ship can be arrested in respect of any claim for build - ing, equipping or repairing said ship. 4.3 Liability in Personam for Owners or Demise Charterers Section 5(1) of the Admiralty Act, inter alia, pro - vides that a vessel may be arrested where the court has reason to believe that the person who owned/demise chartered the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable in per - sonam for the claim and is the owner/demise charterer of the vessel when the arrest is affect - ed. However, in the case of maritime liens, there is no requirement for in personam liability of the owner/demise charterer and the claimant can proceed in rem against the vessel, regardless of her ownership. The Supreme Court has held that the supply of necessaries and/or bunkers does not constitute a maritime lien under Indian law (Chrisomar Corp v MJR Steels Pvt Ltd (2018) 16 SCC 117). There - fore, in order to effect the arrest of a vessel for necessaries or bunkers, privity of contract (ie, in personam liability of the owner or demise char - terer of the vessel) will have to be made out. 4.4 Unpaid Bunkers The bunker supplier cannot arrest the vessel if the supply is at the order of the charterer and not at the order of the owner or bareboat charterer. In the case of Dan Bunkering Pte Ltd v Best Excellence Corporation Ltd (Civil Application No 1 of 2019 in Admiralty Suit No 8 of 2019), the court held that Section 9 of the Admiralty Act, which codifies maritime liens and restricts them to only five categories of claims, does not extend to claims for unpaid bunker supplies. The court ruled that a contractual lien could not bind the owner of the vessel, particularly when there was
214 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook