Section 9. Inter se priority on maritime lien
(1) Every maritime lien shall have the following order of inter se priority, namely
(a) claims for wages and other sums due to the master, officers and other members of the vessel's complement in respect of their employment on the vessel, including costs of repatriation and social insurance contributions payable on their behalf;
(b) claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury occurring, whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of the vessel;
(c) claims for reward for salvage services including special compensation relating thereto;
(d) claims for port, canal, and other waterway dues and pilotage dues and any other statutory dues related to the vessel;
(e) claims based on tort arising out of loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel other than loss or damage to cargo and containers carried on the vessel.
(2) The maritime lien specified in sub-section (1) shall continue to exist on the vessel notwithstanding any change of ownership or of registration or of flag and shall be extinguished after expiry of a period of one year unless, prior to the expiry of such period, the vessel has been arrested or seized and such arrest or seizure has led to a forced sale by the High Court:
Provided that for a claim under clause (a) of sub-section (1), the period shall be two years from the date on which the wage, sum, cost of repatriation or social insurance contribution, falls due or becomes payable.
(3) The maritime lien referred to in this section shall commence—
(a) in relation to the maritime lien under clause (a) of sub-section (1), upon the claimant's discharge from the vessel;
(b) in relation to the maritime liens under clauses (b) to (e) of sub-section (1), when the claim arises,
and shall run continuously without any suspension or interruption:
Provided that the period during which the vessel was under arrest or seizure shall be excluded.
(4) No maritime lien shall attach to a vessel to secure a claim which arises out of or results from—
(a) damage in connection with the carriage of oil or other hazardous or noxious substances by sea for which compensation is payable to the claimants pursuant to any law for the time being in force;
(b) the radioactive properties or a combination of radioactive properties with toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of nuclear fuel or of radioactive products or waste.
How courts have applied section 9
- Unpaid crew wages are maritime claims under Section 4(1)(o) with a maritime lien under Section 9(1)(a) ranking at priority No. 1.1,2
- Port and statutory dues are maritime claims under Section 4(1)(n) with a lien under Section 9(1)(d).3,4
- A maritime lien attaches to the vessel, travels with it, and subsists wherever the action is commenced; supply of bunkers is a maritime claim but not a lien.5
- A crew recruitment agency's reimbursement claim is not a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(o); it is paid from the residue after crew wages and port dues.6
- Summary judgment is granted where no real prospect of defence exists, as when the owner fails to appear or claims are verified by Commissioner reports.7,1,8
- Summary judgment is refused where triable issues exist, such as the validity of a settlement or causation of injury.9
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here primarily concern claims for unpaid crew wages and port/statutory dues against the sale proceeds of arrested vessels, and how courts applied the maritime lien priorities in Section 9 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. Crew wage claims were consistently held to be maritime claims under Section 4(1)(o) carrying a maritime lien under Section 9(1)(a), and port dues were held to be maritime claims under Section 4(1)(n) with a lien under Section 9(1)(d). In several cases, where the shipowner failed to appear or file a written statement, courts granted decrees on implied admission, recognising the maritime lien and directing payment from the sale proceeds.1,3,2,10,7,11
Courts also examined the scope of maritime liens. Supply of bunkers and necessaries was held to be a maritime claim (under the Brussels Convention 1952) but not a maritime lien; a maritime lien attaches to the vessel, travels with it, and subsists wherever the action is commenced. A crew recruitment agency's claim for reimbursement of wages paid on behalf of the owners was not a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(o), and the agency received only the residue after settlement of crew wages, port dues, and expenses. In determining priorities, crew wage claims ranked equally and first, while port dues were maritime claims with statutory priority. The question of whether a registered mortgagee has priority over the Admiralty Act regime under the Merchant Shipping Act was raised but the headnotes are incomplete on the final holding.5,6,1,12,13,14
Several judgements involved summary judgment applications under Order XIII-A of the CPC. Courts granted summary judgment where there was no real prospect of a successful defence and no compelling reason for trial, particularly where Commissioner reports verified the claims and no objections were raised. However, summary judgment was dismissed where there were disputed factual issues such as the adequacy of a quit-claim settlement, validity of an indemnity letter, and causal proximity between an injury and death, which required trial. The Admiralty Act's provisions on maritime liens, including their continuation despite change of ownership and the statutory period of one year (two years for wage claims), were noticed in the context of these claims.1,3,8,2,9,5,7,11
By court
Outcomes
Judgements applying section 9
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;
AllowedOpenThe High Court of Gujarat granted a decree on admission to a seafarer claiming unpaid wages against the sale proceeds of an arrested vessel. The Court held that the failure by the vessel's erstwhile owner to file a written statement despite notice amounted to an admission of liability, entitling the claimant maritime…
Any other modeOpenThe High Court granted a decree on admission against the sale proceeds of the vessel Nand Aparna for unpaid crew wages. Relying on the respondent's failure to appear or rebut claims, the court held the dues were admitted and enforced a maritime lien under the Admiralty Act.
Any other modeOpenAdmiralty priorities; registered mortgage versus maritime lien; Section 52 Merchant Shipping Act 1958 versus Sections 9(2), 9(4) and 10 Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017; sale proceeds represent the ship; action in rem continues against sale proceeds;
DisposedOpenAdmiralty priorities; registered mortgage versus maritime lien; Section 52 Merchant Shipping Act 1958 versus Sections 9(2), 9(4) and 10 Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017; sale proceeds represent the ship; action in rem continues against sale proceeds;
DisposedOpenAdmiralty priorities; registered mortgage versus maritime lien; Section 52 Merchant Shipping Act 1958 versus Sections 9(2), 9(4) and 10 Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017; sale proceeds represent the ship; action in rem continues against sale proceeds;
DisposedOpen
Show 3 more
Admiralty priority determination; inter se priority of maritime liens and maritime claims; Section 9 Admiralty Act 2017 crew wages first priority; Section 10 order of maritime claims — maritime lien, registered mortgage, other claims; claims in same category rank equally; MT AEON IMO 9576818 sale proceeds;
DisposedOpenSuit by a seaman's widow for enhanced damages against vessel owners despite an earlier USD 25,000 quit-claim settlement. The defendants sought summary judgment contending the death was unconnected with the injury and outside maritime claims.
DismissedOpenCompeting claims to a vessel's sale proceeds concerned unpaid crew wages, port dues and recruitment-agency reimbursement. The court decreed wage claims and apportioned proceeds towards port dues and expenses. It held the agency's reimbursement claim was not maritime, but awarded it the residue and accrued interest.
DecreedOpen
Admiralty 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…
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 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…
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…
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…
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;
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