Admiralty — arrest of vessel — Section 5(1)(a)/(b), Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 — demise charter vs time charter — OSA No. 4 of 2025 (High Court of Karnataka, per D K Singh J, with Venkatesh Naik T J) against the learned Single Judge's order dated 23.07.2025 on I.A.No.1/2025 vacating the arrest of the vessel 'C.S. Flourish' (IMO No.9438365) and permitting respondent No.1 to withdraw the security of Rs.15,13,25,036/- deposited under the order dated 05.08.2024 in lieu of arrest. The appellant, charterer under a Time Charter Party dated 06.01.2023 with respondent No.3 (Continental Dry Bulk Limited), urged that respondent No.3 was a demise charterer/disponent owner, entitling it to arrest the Vessel under Section 5(1)(b) for its arbitration claim of approx. Rs.14,96,50,036/- plus USD 20,000 costs with interest at 18% per annum. Held: under Section 5(1)(a) arrest lies only where the person who owned the vessel when the claim arose is liable and remains owner at arrest; under Section 5(1)(b) only for a claim against the demise charterer; under Clause 26 of the respondent No.1–respondent No.3 charter the owner remained responsible for navigation, insurance, crew and all other matters, so respondent No.3 was a mere time charterer, not a demise charterer; the petition nowhere pleaded a demise charter and the claim was purely in personam against respondent No.3, hence no entitlement to arrest respondent No.1-Vessel in rem. Finding no error in the impugned judgment, the appeal was dismissed and pending IAs disposed of. The court also noted non-disclosure of the appellant's prior Russian arrest proceedings. Relied on EPOCH ENTERREPOTS vs M.V.WON FU, [2003] 1 SCC 305.
