High CourtsSingle Bench

Centralog D O O vs Owners And Parties Interested In

Madras High Court · Decided on 2 February 2026 · Citation: (2026) 02 MAD CK 1673

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Anand Venkatesh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 39 Rule 3A · Admiralty (Jurisdiction And Settlement Of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 — Section 4(1)(l)(n)(t)
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 532 Of 2026 In Civil Suit (Comm. Div.) No. 32 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 451 words

N. Anand Venkatesh, J

1.

This application has been filed for arrest of the Vessel M.V.Sea Moon (IMO 9647344) together with her hull, tackle, Engines, Machinery, apparel, equipment, stores and all other appurtenances presently lying at Chennai Port or wherever found within the territorial waters of India.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff and carefully perused the materials available on record.

3.The case of the applicant is that on 07.3.2025, the registered owner of the Vessel approached the applicant in its capacity as agent to provide essential supplies to the Vessel. The applicant issued an invoice dated 04.6.2025 after all the services were provided and there was a total outstanding to the tune of EUR-108,252.46. In the absence of response from the respondent, the applicant issued a letter of demand dated 20.08.2025, calling upon the registered owner to pay the amounts due and payable.

4.It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the owner had acknowledged the debts through their communication dated 11.9.2025. It is under these circumstances, the suit has been filed before this Court for recovery of money. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has a maritime claim against the respondent Vessel under Section 4(1)(l)(n)(t) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and therefore is entitled to assert its maritime claim for the recovery of the amounts due and payable to the applicant.

5.This Court is of the considered view that a prima facie case has been made out by the applicant/plaintiff for grant of arrest. The balance of convenience and irreparable hardship has also been established by the plaintiff.

6.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that to protect the interest of the plaintiff suit claim, this Court is inclined to grant an order of arrest of the defendant Vessel, which is now lying at Chennai Port, Chennai, which is within the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Since the vessel carries IMDG in a container, the container shall be offloaded before the vessel is arrested. Accordingly, there shall be an order of arrest of the defendant Vessel MV Sea Moon (IMO 9647344), as prayed for in this application.

7.Notice to the respondent/defendant returnable by 24.02.2026. Private Notice is also permitted. The applicant shall comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC.

8.

Registry is directed to issue Warrant of Arrest as per the Admiralty Rules of this Court forthwith. The learned counsel for the plaintiff is permitted to communicate this order to all the authorities including the Master of the defendant Vessel, through all modes of service including by email. On receipt of such communication, the Authorities shall act upon the same immediately.