Kerala High Court Rejects Admiralty Suit Against M.V. Korea Chemi Owners | Cites Lack Of Jurisdiction In Offshore Collision Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain an admiralty suit filed against two foreign defendants in relation to a collision involving a foreign vessel. Invoking Section 3 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, the Court rejected the suit as barred by law. It directed the Registry to return the security deposit of ₹1 crore, previously submitted by the defendants to avoid arrest of the vessel, along with accrued interest. The application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was accordingly allowed, and no costs were awarded.
The applicants, designated as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, represented the interests of the foreign vessel M.V. Korea Chemi, flying the flag of the Republic of Korea, then anchored within the Nhava Sheva Port limits under Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Mumbai. The vessel was involved in a collision on 19 October 2023 at 10:20 PM with the fishing boat “Mercy Annai” while the latter was operating 48 nautical miles off the coast of Kerala, beyond India’s territorial waters.
Plaintiffs, six fishermen from Tamil Nadu, alleged that due to the vessel’s gross negligence and violation of international maritime safety conventions and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, two plaintiffs were thrown overboard and all sustained mental, physical, and economic damages. The vessel was alleged to have continued navigation without providing assistance. The plaintiffs initiated an admiralty suit before the Kerala High Court, seeking compensation of ₹1 crore, arrest and sale of the vessel, and other reliefs.
The vessel’s owners furnished security of ₹1 crore to avoid interim arrest, reserving their jurisdictional objections. Subsequently, the applicants filed an interlocutory application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint for lack of jurisdiction and alleging the suit was barred under the Admiralty Act, 2017.
The applicants contended that the incident occurred beyond the Court’s territorial jurisdiction and that, at the time of filing, the vessel was anchored outside Kerala—specifically in Mumbai’s Nhava Sheva Port. They asserted that admiralty jurisdiction, being an action in rem, necessitated the presence of the vessel within the territorial jurisdiction of the arresting court. They further argued that the plaint failed to disclose a valid cause of action, contained unsubstantiated and vague allegations, and amounted to abuse of court process.
In response, the plaintiffs claimed the application lacked merit and was procedurally defective. They argued that the Court retained admiralty jurisdiction over marine casualties occurring within India’s Exclusive Economic Zone under both statutory and international conventions. The plaintiffs invoked Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and placed reliance on prior case law, including M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1993 SC 1014), arguing that admiralty powers were inherent in coastal High Courts and not limited by the Admiralty Act, 2017.
They also contended that any decree would become infructuous if the vessel's security was returned, given the absence of other recoverable assets in India. The plaintiffs alleged serious harm from the incident and sought to maintain proceedings for justice and compensation.
The Court recorded: “It is settled that rejection of a plaint being an action of great consequence, it should be done with great circumspection and care.”
Further, the Court stated: “Order VII Rule 11(d) specifically allows for the rejection of a plaint if the suit is barred by any law, which includes the court’s lack of jurisdiction.”
Discussing the limits of admiralty jurisdiction, the Court noted: “Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of ‘maritime claims’ vested with this Court is exercisable over the waters including ‘Territorial waters’ that extends up to 12 nautical miles.”
Regarding the applicability of international conventions and prior judicial precedent, the Court stated: “The dictum laid down in M.V. Elisabeth… stands modified and varied. The Admiralty jurisdiction as had been inherently vested with the High Courts as higher courts of record, stand modified and restructured by the enactment of Admiralty Act, 2017.”
Addressing Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, the Court observed: “The provision could be invoked against a foreign vessel only when the vessel is within the territorial waters of India.” It added: “When a foreign vessel is berthed in a port which is within the jurisdiction of another High Court it cannot be said that the vessel is within the territorial waters of this High Court.”
Rejecting the plaintiffs’ reliance on overlapping statutes, the Court remarked: “Section 3 of the Admiralty Act, 2017 does not confer jurisdiction in this Court to exercise admiralty jurisdiction over the 2nd defendant vessel lying in Nhava Sheva Port in Mumbai within the State of Maharashtra.”
The Court concluded: “It is an admitted fact that neither did the alleged collision of the 2nd defendant vessel with the fishing boat happen within the jurisdictional limits of this Court nor did the 2nd defendant vessel ever happen to be present or available within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.”
The Court, upon conclusion of its analysis, found that it did not possess the jurisdiction to entertain the suit as against defendants 1 and 2, holding that the exercise of such jurisdiction was barred under Section 3 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.
In consequence, the suit against the said defendants was rejected. The Registry was directed to return the security deposit of INR One Crore, currently maintained in an interest-bearing account, along with the accrued interest, to the counsel representing the first and second defendants.
The interlocutory application, I.A. No. 1 of 2024, was accordingly allowed without any order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Amitava Majumdar, M/s. Pranoy K. Kottaram, Sivaraman P.L., Amitava Majumdar
For the Respondents: M/s. Yash Thomas Mannully, G. Santhosh Kumar (P), Soman P. Paul
Case Title: Siluvaipichai Francies & Ors. v. M.V. Korea Chemi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:IO:KER:13
Case Number: I.A. No. 1 of 2024 in Adm. Suit No. 8 of 2023
Bench: Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
[Read/Download order]
