Section 5. Arrest of vessel in rem
(1) The High Court may order arrest of any vessel which is within its jurisdiction for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim which is the subject of an admiralty proceeding, where the court has reason to believe that—
(a) the person who owned the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected; or
(b) the demise charterer of the vessel at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is the demise charterer or the owner of the vessel when the arrest is effected; or
(c) the claim is based on a mortgage or a charge of the similar nature on the vessel; or
(d) the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the vessel; or
(e) the claim is against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the vessel and is secured by a maritime lien as provided in section 9.
(2) The High Court may also order arrest of any other vessel for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim, in lieu of the vessel against which a maritime claim has been made under this Act, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1):
Provided that no vessel shall be arrested under this sub-section in respect of a maritime claim under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4.
How courts have applied section 5
- A bareboat/demise charterer remains a charterer despite termination notice until physical re-delivery and repossession by owner.1
- A time charterer does not qualify as a demise charterer under Section 5(1)(b).2
- Sister-vessel arrest requires prima facie proof of ownership or charter control at the relevant time.3
- Arrest is maintainable under Section 5(1)(a) where the vessel was owned by the defendant when the claim arose and continues to be so owned.4
- Unpaid bunker supplies, ship supplies and necessaries are maritime claims supporting arrest under Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(2).5,6
- Courts require prima facie evidence of the claim and jurisdiction; bare denials do not defeat arrest.7,8
Read the full overviewShow less· 4 paragraphs
The admiralty judgements here mostly concern arrest of vessels in rem under Section 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, and the recurring question is whether the claimant has made out a prima facie case for arrest. Courts have ordered arrest where the claim fell within Section 4(1) and the vessel was within the court's jurisdiction, particularly for unpaid charter hire, bunkers, ship supplies and necessaries. Conversely, arrest has been refused or vacated where the claimant failed to establish the statutory requirements, such as the liable party's ownership or charter control of the vessel at the relevant time, or where the claim was based on an indemnity under a settlement agreement rather than a maritime claim directly.8,5,6,4,3,9
The distinction between a demise charterer and a time charterer is critical under Section 5(1)(b). Courts have held that a bareboat/demise charterer does not cease to be the charterer merely upon contractual termination by notice; physical re-delivery and repossession by the owner are essential, and the doctrine of constructive re-delivery is not accepted as it could prejudice third parties. This reasoning supports arrest where the vessel is under a bareboat charter and the claim is for unpaid hire from that charterer. A time charterer, however, does not qualify as a demise charterer for the purposes of Section 5(1)(b).1,10,2
Sister-vessel arrest under Section 5(2) has been addressed in several judgements. Courts require prima facie material establishing the liable party's ownership or charter control of the sister vessel at the relevant time; website screenshots and bare denials are insufficient against documentary evidence of ownership and charter termination. Where two vessels shared a common owner and one had left Indian ports, arrest of the remaining vessel as sister vessel was allowed. The proviso prohibits arrest of an 'other vessel' for a claim under Section 4(1)(a).3,6,2,7
Many matters were resolved not on the merits but through settlements, withdrawals, or security arrangements. Courts dismissed arrest petitions as withdrawn upon settlement memos or counsel's statements, releasing the vessel. Where security was deposited in lieu of arrest, courts directed its return when the arrest was vacated or the claim failed. In one case, the suit was closed after an arbitral award showed the defendant's claim far exceeded the plaintiff's claim.11,12,13,3,1,14
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 5
Admiralty 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 - Arrest petition - Withdrawal. Zurbagan Shipping LLC (UAE) filed Civil Petition No. 282 of 2024 under Section 5 read with Section 3 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims Act praying for arrest of the vessel C.S. Flourish (IMO No.
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…
DismissedOpenIn an admiralty suit, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's application as withdrawn after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the interim arrest order against the respondent vessel was dissolved and it was directed to be released from the port.
DismissedOpen
Show 6 more
P. 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.
DismissedOpenOm Freight Forwarders Limited Vs Owners and Parties Interested in M v Nereus Progress Imo 9170913
Outcome: AllowedAdmiralty arrest and vacatur; bareboat/demise charter termination by notice versus repossession; gratuitous bailee; Section 5(1)(b) Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017; maritime claim under Section 4(1)(h); MV NEREUS PROGRESS IMO 9170913; V.O.Chidambaranar Port Tuticorin;
AllowedOpenMadras 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);
WithdrawnOpenNila Logisitics LLP Vs Owners And Parties Interested In Motor Tug (m T) Intan T3501 Imo (9424338)
Outcome: DisposedMadras High Court Commercial Division, C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.134 of 2024, decided 29-01-2026 by N. Anand Venkatesh, J. Admiralty suit under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (Section 5(2), Section 3) read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC,…
DisposedOpenRashmi Metaliks Limited Vs Owners and Parties interested in Vessel M v Aldo (Imo 1086817)
Outcome: DisposedMadras High Court (K. Kumaresh Babu, J.), Application No.2181 of 2026 in C.S(COMM.DIV) No.145 of 2026, decided 18-06-2026 — Admiralty: release of arrested vessel.
DisposedOpenOrder XIII-A CPC summary judgment in an admiralty suit; Bombay High Court Admiralty & Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction (Commercial Division), Abhay Ahuja J.; Raj Shipping Agencies Limited v. Barge Madhwa; decree of Rs. 1,88,67,826 with further 12% interest and Rs. 8,50,000 costs;
DisposedOpen
Owners 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;
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.
DisposedOpenCashwell Agencies a Partnership Firm Vs Owners and Parties interested in the Vessel Mv Star Jakarta Imo No 9528287
Outcome: DisposedMadras High Court, Commercial Division — admiralty vessel-arrest application A No. 1068 of 2026 in C.S.(Com.Div.) No. 72 of 2026 (decided 27-02-2026) by N. Anand Venkatesh J. — ship supplier Cashwell Agencies (Tuticorin) arrested MV STAR JAKARTA (IMO No.
DisposedOpenOrder XIII-A CPC summary judgment in an admiralty suit; Bombay High Court Admiralty & Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction (Commercial Division), Abhay Ahuja J.; Raj Shipping Agencies Limited v. Barge Madhwa; decree of Rs. 1,88,67,826 with further 12% interest and Rs. 8,50,000 costs;
DisposedOpenBombay High Court admiralty arrest order; Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No. 4717 of 2026; Judge's Order No. 16 of 2026; Shreeji Shipping Services (India) Limited v. Diamond (IMO No. 1036941) & Anr.; Kamal Khata, J.; decided 9 February 2026;
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction) — Abhay Ahuja, J.; order dated 25 July 2025 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 35 of 2024, Seak’nct Marine and Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Ambar IMO 9548770 and others (interlocutory case-management order).
WithdrawnOpenBombay High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction; Integr8 Fuels Inc. (Applicant/Plaintiff) v. Madhwa and Anr (Defendants); Interim Application No 1663 of 2025 in Commercial Admiralty Suit 8 of 2025; Abhay Ahuja, J.; order dated 07-11-2025; summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC (Commercial Courts Act 2015);
DisposedOpenBombay High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction; Integr8 Fuels Inc. (Applicant/Plaintiff) v. Madhwa and Anr (Defendants); Interim Application No 1663 of 2025 in Commercial Admiralty Suit 8 of 2025; Abhay Ahuja, J.; order dated 07-11-2025; summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC (Commercial Courts Act 2015);
DisposedOpenBombay High Court, Commercial Division (Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction) — Abhay Ahuja, J.; order dated 25 July 2025 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 35 of 2024, Seak’nct Marine and Offshore Pvt. Ltd. v. Ambar IMO 9548770 and others (interlocutory case-management order).
WithdrawnOpen