Common Management Not Enough To Treat Vessels As Sister Ships For Arrest: Kerala High Court

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, allowed an application filed by the charterer and parties interested in the vessel MT Ocean Faye and its ship manager, holding that the plaintiff had no right to arrest the vessel in connection with its claim against the ship manager.

The Court consequently dismissed the admiralty suit and directed release of a security deposit of ₹1,03,88,900, along with accrued interest.

The suit was instituted by Lighthouse Marine Service India Pvt. Ltd., a Government of India-licensed Recruitment and Placement Service, claiming amounts allegedly due for crew-manning services. According to the plaintiff, it had provided crew to three vessels—MT Eastern Pearl, MT Fast Kathy and MT Sea Fidelity—managed by the second defendant, a Dubai-based ship manager. The plaintiff sought to secure its claim by arresting MT Ocean Faye.

An earlier order dated May 31, 2024 had directed arrest of MT Ocean Faye until ₹1,03,88,900 was deposited or security was furnished. The amount was subsequently deposited by way of demand draft, following which the vessel was released. The amount was thereafter kept in a fixed deposit with Canara Bank.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claim was against the ship manager and not against the vessel or its owner. They contended that MT Ocean Faye could not be treated as a sister vessel of the vessels for which services were allegedly rendered merely because all of them were managed by the same entity.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, relied on Sections 5(1)(e) and 9(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, contending that the claim constituted a maritime lien relating to wages and that the vessel could therefore be arrested. It also alleged that changes in ownership and vessel names had been made in the context of sanctions and that the relevant vessels were managed by the same entity.

The Court held that Section 5(1)(a) requires common ownership between the vessel in respect of which the maritime claim arose and the vessel sought to be arrested. The Court noted that there was no case that the vessels named in the invoice were owned by the person who owned MT Ocean Faye.

"The different Vessels managed by a Ship Manager will not become sister Vessels for the purpose of ordering arrest under Section 5(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act," the Court held.

The Court also rejected the plaintiff's reliance on the maritime lien provisions. Section 9(1)(a) recognises a maritime lien for claims relating to wages and other sums due to the master, officers and other members of a vessel's complement in respect of their employment on that vessel.

The Court emphasised that the statutory language required the employment to have been on the vessel against which the lien was asserted. In the present case, the plaintiff had not claimed that the wages in question related to crew members provided to MT Ocean Faye.

"Maritime lien could not be claimed on a sister Vessel or on another Vessel managed by the same Ship Manager," the Court observed.

Finding that the plaintiff had no right to maintain an action for arrest of MT Ocean Faye, the High Court held that it consequently lacked jurisdiction to entertain the admiralty suit itself. The Court allowed the interlocutory application, dismissed Admiralty Suit and directed the Registry to release the ₹1,03,88,900 security deposit, together with accrued interest, to Defendant No.1.

Case Title: Light House Marine Service India Pvt. Ltd. v Charterer and Parties Interested in the Vessel MT Ocean Faye

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 473

Counsel for Petitioner: Shibu Joseph, Ajith Viswanathan, Sayed Mansoor Bafakhy Thangal, M. Sriram, Haira

Counsel for Respondent: Jikku Seban George, Latha Anand, Deeptu Susan George