Section 4. Maritime claim
(1) The High Court may exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim, against any vessel, arising out of any—
(a) dispute regarding the possession or ownership of a vessel or the ownership of any share therein;
(b) dispute between the co-owners of a vessel as to the employment or earnings of the vessel;
(c) mortgage or a charge of the same nature on a vessel;
(d) loss or damage caused by the operation of a vessel;
(e) loss of life or personal injury occurring whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of a vessel;
(f) loss or damage to or in connection with any goods;
(g) agreement relating to the carriage of goods or passengers on board a vessel, whether contained in a charter party or otherwise;
(h) agreement relating to the use or hire of the vessel, whether contained in a charter party or otherwise;
(i) salvage services, including, if applicable, special compensation relating to salvage services in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatens damage to the environment;
(j) towage;
(k) pilotage;
(l) goods, materials, perishable or non-perishable provisions, bunker fuel, equipment (including containers), supplied or services rendered to the vessel for its operation, management, preservation or maintenance including any fee payable or leviable;
(m) construction, reconstruction, repair, converting or equipping of the vessel;
(n) dues in connection with any port, harbour, canal, dock or light tolls, other tolls, waterway or any charges of similar kind chargeable under any law for the time being in force;
(o) claim by a master or member of the crew of a vessel or their heirs and dependents for wages or any sum due out of wages or adjudged to be due which may be recoverable as wages or cost of repatriation or social insurance contribution payable on their behalf or any amount an employer is under an obligation to pay to a person as an employee, whether the obligation arose out of a contract of employment or by operation of a law (including operation of a law of any country) for the time being in force, and includes any claim arising under a manning and crew agreement relating to a vessel, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of sections 150 and 151 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958);
(p) disbursements incurred on behalf of the vessel or its owners;
(q) particular average or general average;
(r) dispute arising out of a contract for the sale of the vessel;
(s) insurance premium (including mutual insurance calls) in respect of the vessel, payable by or on behalf of the vessel owners or demise charterers;
(t) commission, brokerage or agency fees payable in respect of the vessel by or on behalf of the vessel owner or demise charterer;
(u) damage or threat of damage caused by the vessel to the environment, coastline or related interests; measures taken to prevent, minimise, or remove such damage; compensation for such damage; costs of reasonable measures for the restoration of the environment actually undertaken or to be undertaken; loss incurred or likely to be incurred by third parties in connection with such damage; or any other damage, costs, or loss of a similar nature to those identified in this clause;
(v) costs or expenses relating to raising, removal, recovery, destruction or the rendering harmless of a vessel which is sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned, including anything that is or has been on board such vessel, and costs or expenses relating to the preservation of an abandoned vessel and maintenance of its crew; and
(w) maritime lien.
Explanation.— For the purposes of clause (q), the expressions “particular average” and “general average” shall have the same meanings as assigned to them in sub-section (1) of section 64 and sub-section (2) of section 66 respectively of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 (11 of 1963).
(2) While exercising jurisdiction under sub-section (1), the High Court may settle any account outstanding and unsettled between the parties in relation to a vessel, and direct that the vessel, or any share thereof, shall be sold, or make such other order as it may think fit.
(3) Where the High Court orders any vessel to be sold, it may hear and determine any question arising as to the title to the proceeds of the sale.
(4) Any vessel ordered to be arrested or any proceeds of a vessel on sale under this Act shall be held as security against any claim pending final outcome of the admiralty proceeding.
How courts have applied section 4
- Claims for unpaid charter hire and demurrage fall within clauses (g) and (h), for crew wages within clause (o), for bunker price within clause (l), for port dues within clause (n), and for disputes on a vessel sale contract within clause (r).1,2,3,4,5
- Admiralty and maritime law issues are commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, and the Admiralty Act 2017 did not displace that Act for suits of specified value.6,7,8,9
- A bareboat/demise charterer remains liable despite contractual termination until physical re-delivery and repossession by the owner; constructive re-delivery is not accepted.10,11
- A sister-vessel arrest requires prima facie material of the liable party's ownership or charter control of the vessel at the relevant time.12
- A bunker delivery note bearing the vessel's seal raises a prima facie case of privity, not conclusively decided at an interlocutory stage.13
- Supply of bunkers is a maritime claim but does not by itself create a maritime lien.14
- An order adding a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC in an admiralty suit is not appealable to the Commercial Appellate Division.15
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern when the High Court's admiralty jurisdiction under Section 4 can be invoked, how the enumerated claims in sub-section (1) are interpreted, and the interplay of the Admiralty Act with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Several orders granted arrest of vessels or summary judgment on the strength of claims fitting the statutory heads: unpaid charter hire and demurrage were held to be maritime claims under clauses (g) and (h); wages of crew and master were claims under clause (o) carrying a maritime lien; a bunker supplier's price was a claim under clause (l); port dues were a claim under clause (n); and a dispute arising out of a contract for sale of a vessel was a claim under clause (r).6,7,8,9,2,4,3,5,1
Courts also repeatedly addressed jurisdictional questions around Section 4. A consistent line holds that issues relating to admiralty and maritime law are 'commercial disputes' under Section 2(1)(c)(iii) of the Commercial Courts Act, and that the Admiralty Act 2017 did not displace that statute; suits of specified value instituted after the Commercial Courts Act came into force had to be filed in the Commercial Division, and plaints filed elsewhere were liable to be returned. By contrast, another judgement held that the Commercial Courts Act does not bar vessel arrest proceedings under Section 5 of the Admiralty Act. On appeals, an order adding a party in an admiralty suit was held not appealable to the Commercial Appellate Division, reading Section 14 of the Admiralty Act harmoniously with Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.6,7,8,9,13,15
Several judgements turn on the identity of the person liable and the character of the charter. Arrest was upheld against a bareboat or demise charterer, with courts holding that contractual termination of the charter does not end the charterer's status until physical re-delivery and repossession, and that the doctrine of constructive re-delivery is not accepted. Conversely, for a sister-vessel arrest, the court required prima facie material establishing ownership or charter control of the defendant vessel at the relevant time; website screenshots and bare denials did not suffice against documents showing ownership and termination of the bareboat charter before arrest. A bunker delivery note bearing the vessel's seal raised a prima facie case of privity, which could not be conclusively decided at the interlocutory stage. Supply of bunkers was held to be a maritime claim but not a maritime lien.10,11,12,13,14
Several substantive outcomes rested on proof rather than on the scope of the claim. Summary judgment was granted for the principal amount and interest where the erstwhile owner admitted the claim and entered into a consent agreement for settlement from the sale proceeds, for crew wages verified by successive Commissioner reports, and for port dues evidenced by bills and notices that went unobjected. A suit was dismissed where the plaintiff's proposed amendment sought to recast the proceeding entirely, and another was dismissed as withdrawn after a settlement. Jurisdiction over maritime claims was described as vesting exclusively in the High Courts.16,3,5,1,17,13
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 4
Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy versus Banque Cantonale De Geneve
Outcome: AllowedAdmiralty appeal maintainability; addition of party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC not appealable; Section 14 Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 harmonised with Section 13 Commercial Courts Act 2015 and Order 43 Rule 1 CPC; conflicting non-obstante clauses; harmonious construction;
AllowedOpenAdmiralty/Maritime law — Arrest of vessel — Maritime claim against bareboat (demise) charterer who is not the de jure owner — Maintainability of action in rem against a ship owned by a third party. ONGC contracted with Reflect Geophysical Pte. Ltd.
DismissedOpenAdmiralty law — Maritime claim and maritime lien — Supply of bunkers and other necessaries to a foreign vessel is a maritime claim (Brussels Convention 1952, Art. 1(k)) but does not create a maritime lien;
AllowedOpenAdmiralty Act 2017 S.5(1)(a)/(b) vessel arrest; demise charter vs time charter; Clause 26 owner responsible for navigation, insurance, crew; in personam claim against time charterer does not justify arrest of registered owner's vessel; security Rs.15,13,25,036/- withdrawal upheld;
DismissedOpenAdmiralty suit; arrest of vessel in rem; Ocean Jade (IMO:9660750); Ocean Morganite (IMO:9676498); Paradip Port; Alphard Maritime Ltd.; Samson Maritime Ltd.; USCL; Settlement Agreement; Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration; Gujarat admiralty suit AS(R) 3/2025; Transfer Petition (Civil) 906-907/2025 dismissed;
DismissedOpenAn arrested foreign vessel appealed rejection of its application to vacate interim arrest in a bunker fuel supply maritime claim. The Division Bench held the claim fell under the Admiralty Act, prima facie case was made out on the bunker confirmation and delivery note bearing the vessel's seal, and dismissed the…
DismissedOpen
Show 6 more
Ime General Insurance Limited Vs the Owner and Parties Interested in the Vessel M v Vsl Ssl Kolkata and Ors.
Outcome: Dismissedadmiralty jurisdiction; Commercial Courts Act 2015; Commercial Division; Commercial Court; Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017; section 17 repeal; Letters Patent 1865 Clause 31; maritime claim; marine insurance premium; vessel M.V. VSL SSL Kolkata; return of plaint;
DismissedOpenLumbini General Insurance Limited Vs the Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M v Vsl Ssl Kol and Ors.
Outcome: DismissedCalcutta High Court, Admiralty Original Side, Ravi Krishan Kapur, J., judgment dated 05.09.2024 in AS 6-11 of 2019 (with GA 3-5/2023): maintainability of admiralty suits post-Commercial Courts Act 2015; maritime claims as 'commercial disputes' (s.2(1)(c)(iii)); ss.3, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16 CC Act;
DismissedOpenSiddhartha Insurance Ltd. Vs the Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M .v. Vsl Ssl Kolkata and Ors.
Outcome: DismissedAdmiralty suits filed post-commencement of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 were held maintainable only before the Commercial Division. The court rejected the plaintiffs' transfer applications and allowed return of plaints for presentation before the Commercial Division.
DismissedOpenSiddhartha Insurance Limited Vs the Owners and Parties Interestedin the Vessel M.V Vsl Ssl Kolkata
Outcome: DismissedAdmiralty jurisdiction vs Commercial Courts Act 2015; maintainability of admiralty suit before Ordinary Original Division after CC Act; s.2(1)(c)(iii) CC Act admiralty and maritime law as commercial dispute; Commercial Division exclusive forum;
DismissedOpenCockett Marine Oil Dmcc Vs Tug Red Eagle (Imo 7613002) and Her Owners and/or Managers
Outcome: DisposedIn a suit in rem for bunkers under the Admiralty Act, the High Court of Gujarat passed a decree on admission based on a consent agreement. The plaintiff is entitled to the claim sum and to be paid from the realised sale proceeds of the arrested vessel.
DisposedOpenP. S. Marine (a Unit of Seaman Multi Trading Pvt. Ltd.) Vs M.V. Altus Exertus (Imo 7909463)
Outcome: DismissedA supplier sought security from an alleged sister vessel for unpaid supplies to another vessel. The Court dismissed the appeal because ownership or charter control supporting arrest was not established prima facie. It directed return of the security deposit, subject to a temporary undertaking against withdrawal.
DismissedOpen
Madras High Court Commercial Division; C.S(COMM.DIV.) No.249 of 2024 with A.No.6480 of 2024 and A.Nos.903 & 2534 of 2025; Getc Fze versus Owners and parties interested in Vessel Avadh (IMO No.9564358);
WithdrawnOpenOwners And Parties Interested in M.v.Nereus Progress (Imo 9170913) Vs Om Freight Forwarders Limited
Outcome: DismissedAdmiralty arrest and vacation thereof; demise/bareboat charterparty termination; whether physical re-delivery and repossession are essential; gratuitous bailee; constructive re-delivery rejected; BARECON 2017/BARECON 2019 BIMCO forms;
DismissedOpenBombay High Court Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction; Judges Order No. 55 of 2026 in Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No. 14996 of 2026; Ability Line S.A. v. M.V. Shebelle IMO 9385594; vessel arrest; suit in rem; admiralty jurisdiction; maritime claim; Section 4(1)(g); Section 4(1)(h); Section 5(1)(a); Section 3;
DisposedOpenAdmiralty summary judgment; Order XIII-A CPC; crew wages; maritime claim s.4(1)(o); maritime lien s.9(1)(a); Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017; priority of claims ss.9 and 10; MT Aeon IMO 9576818 ex-MT Selene; sale proceeds; Prothonotary and Senior Master release;
DisposedOpenBunker supplier sued the vessel MV Zhong Chang 258 in rem for unpaid bunkers supplied at Hong Kong, invoking Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act, 2017. The Court found a prima facie case and ordered arrest of the vessel at Mumbai anchorage, dispensing with the warrant of arrest.
DisposedOpenBombay High Court (Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J. — Summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC granted to the Board of Mumbai Port Authority for its maritime claim of port/statutory dues under Section 4(1)(n) read with Section 9(1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of…
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Bombay High Court (Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J. — Summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC granted to the Board of Mumbai Port Authority for its maritime claim of port/statutory dues under Section 4(1)(n) read with Section 9(1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of…
DisposedOpenAdmiralty summary judgment; Order XIII-A CPC; crew wages; maritime claim s.4(1)(o); maritime lien s.9(1)(a); Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017; priority of claims ss.9 and 10; MT Aeon IMO 9576818 ex-MT Selene; sale proceeds; Prothonotary and Senior Master release;
DisposedOpenBombay High Court (Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J. — Summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC granted to the Board of Mumbai Port Authority for its maritime claim of port/statutory dues under Section 4(1)(n) read with Section 9(1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of…
DisposedOpenBombay High Court (Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction), Abhay Ahuja, J. — Summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC granted to the Board of Mumbai Port Authority for its maritime claim of port/statutory dues under Section 4(1)(n) read with Section 9(1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of…
DisposedOpen