Gujarat High Court Directs Arrest of Merchant Ship ‘MT Syrma’

The Gujarat High Court recently directed the port and customs authorities at Deendayal Port, Kandla to arrest a merchant ship, MT Syrma.

This action was taken in response to two separate suits filed by Patanjali Foods and Auriga Shipping Management.

A single bench of Justice Nikhil S Kariel ordered the arrest of the ship along with its hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, equipment, and all appurtenances.

Patanjali’s suit alleged a shortfall in the delivery of 5000 Metric Tonnes (MT) of RBD Palm Olein (Edible Grade), which was supposed to be transported to Kakinada Port.

The actual amount received by Patanjali was only 4930.840 MT, resulting in a shortage of 68.734 MT or 1.37%. Despite sending letters and a legal notice, the Master of the vessel failed to respond to any of the communications. Patanjali claimed that this constituted a maritime claim falling under Section 4(1)(d) and 4(1)(f) of The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act. Consequently, they filed the suit and requested the ship’s arrest.

Auriga Shipping Management’s suit stated that they had entered into a ship management agreement with the vessel’s owner, who failed to pay them the annual management fee as stipulated in the agreement.

Auriga argued that this constituted a maritime claim falling under Section 4(1)(o) and 4(1)(p) of The Admiralty (Jurisdiction & Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act. They also sought the arrest of the ship.

As a condition for the order, both plaintiffs submitted a written undertaking to the Court’s Registrar, pledging to pay damages as compensation if the defendants were prejudiced by the order.

The Court issued a notice returnable on June 26 and instructed the Registrar to issue a warrant for the arrest of the ship, which is currently docked at Deendayal port. The port and customs authorities were directed to carry out the arrest, seizure, or detention of the vessel within Indian territorial waters.

To avoid execution of the arrest warrant, the Court clarified that the claimed sums, along with legal fees and interest, must be deposited with the Court.