Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim has ordered the arrest of the marine vessel MSC AKITETA II, which is presently anchored at Vizhinjam Port within the Court's admiralty jurisdiction. Acting upon an application filed by the State of Kerala, the Court directed that the vessel be arrested and detained until the deposit of Rs. 9,531 Crores or the furnishing of adequate security by the vessel's managers. The action stems from a maritime claim involving environmental damage allegedly caused by another vessel, MSC ELSA - 3, managed by the same entity.

The Court found that the State of Kerala had presented an arguable maritime claim against the vessel and its affiliated entities, thereby invoking jurisdiction under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The Court directed that the port authorities execute the warrant of arrest while clarifying that the order does not prevent loading or unloading of cargo. The matter is posted for further consideration on 10 July 2025.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores FIR Over Alleged Gold Loan Fraud | Says Patna HC Erred In Treating Complaint As Malicious Without Trial Evidence

The plaintiff in the case, the State of Kerala, acting through its Special Secretary of the Environment Department, filed a suit in the Kerala High Court seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,531 Crores against the vessel MSC AKITETA II and its associated entities. The relief was sought under maritime claims arising out of environmental damage allegedly caused by a sister vessel, MSC ELSA - 3 (IMO No. 9123221), which had capsized and sank in the coastal waters of Kerala.

The vessel MSC AKITETA II (IMO No. 9220847), flying the Liberian flag, is presently anchored at the Adani Vizhinjam Port within the territorial waters of India and hence falls within the admiralty jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court.

According to the plaintiff, MSC ELSA - 3, a vessel managed by the second respondent (Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A.), capsized in Kerala's coastal waters, resulting in significant oil pollution and environmental degradation. The cargo of 643 containers aboard the vessel allegedly contributed further pollution. The plaintiff claims that the incident caused environmental damage, economic losses to fishermen, and adverse effects on the marine ecosystem and coastal interests.

The claims are supported by multiple statutory grounds under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. Specifically, the plaintiff invoked Section 4(1) of the Act to establish a maritime claim against the respondents, seeking enforcement under Section 5 through the arrest of a sister vessel.

The compensation of Rs. 9,531 Crores is divided into three components:

• Rs. 8,626.12 Crores claimed as environmental damage computed according to Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines;

• Rs. 378.48 Crores for preventive, remedial, and restoration measures undertaken or required by the State;

• Rs. 526.51 Crores as economic loss suffered by local fishermen.

These amounts are substantiated by the plaintiff through 42 documentary records. Among these, Document No. 1 allegedly shows that the second respondent, Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A., holds substantial interest in the registered owner of MSC AKITETA II. Document No. 2 similarly purports to demonstrate that MSC ELSA - 3 is also under the management and operational control of the same entity. The plaintiff asserts that these two vessels are sister ships and that the arrest of MSC AKITETA II is legally valid under the admiralty law framework.

During the hearing, Advocate General Sri K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, instructed by Government Pleader Smt. Parvathy Kottol, appeared for the applicant. Advocate Sri Pranoy K. Kottaram appeared for the first respondent, having filed a caveat, and stated that his appearance was limited to the first defendant vessel. He sought time until 10 July 2025 to report whether he would also represent the second to fourth defendants. Advocate Sri Roshen D. Alexander appeared for the fifth respondent, Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd.

Given the assertion of maritime claims and the presence of the vessel within Indian territorial waters, the plaintiff moved an interlocutory application (IA No. 1 of 2025) seeking a conditional warrant of arrest. The Court, considering the affidavit, plaint, and accompanying documents, proceeded to examine whether the conditions under the Admiralty Act had been met to justify arrest of the vessel.

The Court recorded the following in its assessment of the plaintiff's claims and documentary submissions: "I, prima facie, find that these documents would prove that MSC ELSA III and MSC AKITETA II are registered in the name of two sister/subsidiary companies of the 2nd respondent and both the vessels are managed, operated, controlled and owned by the 2nd respondent."

The Court further observed: "Accordingly, both these vessels are, prima facie, sister vessels."

The Court found that since the vessel MSC AKITETA II was anchored at Vizhinjam Port within Indian territorial waters, the Court's admiralty jurisdiction was attracted: "This Court has admiralty jurisdiction over the same as per the provisions of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) 2017."

Examining the statutory provisions invoked, the Court stated: "I prima facie find that averments in the plaint and in the Affidavit in support of this Application and the documents produced by the Applicant would make out a maritime claim against the respondents 1 and 2 under S.4(1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) 2017 to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court conferred under S.5 for the arrest and detention of the 1st respondent vessel in order to obtain security for the plaint claim."

Satisfied with the strength of the plaintiff's submissions, the Court concluded: "I am satisfied that an arguable maritime claim is made out by the Applicant warranting a conditional order of arrest of the 1st respondent vessel till the 1st respondent furnishes security for the plaint claim."

The Court addressed the procedural aspect concerning service of notice to other respondents: "Advocate Sri. Pranoy.K.Kottaram submitted that he has instructions for appearing only for the 1st defendant vessel and he prayed for posting on 10.07.2025 in order to enable him to report whether he will be able to take notice for the defendants 2 to 5."

In light of this, the Court deferred issuance of notice to the second to fourth defendants and posted the matter for further hearing.

Also Read: Delhi HC Terminates Arbitrator’s Mandate | Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias And Entry 1 Ineligibility Cited | Prior Supervisory Relationship Defeats Arbitral Neutrality

The Court passed the following conditional directives: "The 1st respondent vessel by name 'MSC' AKITETA II (IMO 9220847) along with her hull, tackle, engine, machinery spares, gear, apparel, paraphernalia, furniture etc. presently anchored in the Vizhinjam Port is ordered to be arrested until Rs.9,531 Crores is deposited by the 1st respondent in this Court or until security for the said amount is furnished by the 1st respondent to the satisfaction of this Court."

Further, the execution responsibility was assigned to the port authority: "It is ordered that the 5th respondent shall execute the Warrant and effect the arrest, seizure and detention of the said vessel 'MSC' AKITETA II (IMO 9220847)' along with her hull, tackle, engines, machinery, boards, bunkers, equipment, peripherals and other appurtenances as ordered above."

The Court also ensured continuity of commercial activity: "It is made clear that this Order will not in any way prevent the loading and unloading of cargo of the Vessel."

Finally, the Court listed the matter for further hearing: "List the I.A for further consideration on 10.07.2025."

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Advocate General, instructed by Smt. Parvathy Kottol, Government Pleader

For the Respondents: Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram, Advocate for 1st Respondent; Sri. Roshen D. Alexander, Advocate

Case Title: State of Kerala v. M V MSC AKITETA II & Ors.

Case Number: Adml.S. No. 12 of 2025

Bench: Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim