Arrest of M.V. Polar Star at Visakhapatnam: Admiralty Act jurisdiction and ship management claim

I. Ship Arrest as Security

Arrest of a vessel is the most potent weapon in a maritime creditor s arsenal. The arrest secures jurisdiction, exerts commercial pressure, and provides security for the claim. In a landmark ex parte order passed in March 2026, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Dawson Ship Management SIA v. M.V. Polar Star (IMO 9471666) (C.O.M.S.No.4 of 2026, I.A.No.1 of 2026) demonstrated the robust exercise of admiralty jurisdiction under the Admiralty Act, 2017. This exhaustive -word analysis dissects the factual matrix, statutory grounding, court reasoning, and strategic takeaways from the arrest of M.V. Polar Star at Visakhapatnam Port.

The petitioner, a Latvian ship manager, obtained a conditional arrest order for outstanding management fees, disbursements, and a defaulted settlement installment totaling USD 833,148. The case underscores the importance of swift action when a vessel calls at an Indian port, the breadth of maritime claims under Sections 4(l) and 4(p) of the Admiralty Act, and the interplay between ship management agreements, ISM Code obligations, and debt restructuring.

II. Factual Background: Dawson Ship Management v. M.V. Polar Star

The petitioner, Dawson Ship Management SIA, is a company incorporated in the Republic of Latvia, engaged in third-party ship management. On 5 September 2024, it entered into a ship management agreement with the owner of M.V. Polar Star (a Liberian-flag bulk carrier) to provide technical management, crew management, and ISM Code compliance services for one year, later extended by Addendum No.1 dated 25 August 2025 to 25 August 2026.

Under the agreement, the shipowner was obliged to pay a monthly management fee of USD 17,500 and to reimburse all expenses properly incurred by the manager. The manager also assumed significant ISM responsibilities: ensuring qualified and medically fit crew, establishing maintenance procedures, reporting non-conformities, and taking corrective action exposing itself to civil and criminal liability towards third parties.

By October 2025, the shipowner had accumulated substantial arrears. On 25 October 2025, the parties executed a Settlement & Debt Deferral Agreement whereby the shipowner acknowledged total indebtedness of USD 1,458,000 (including dues to affiliate companies Dawson Group FZC and Elmor Turkey). The debt was to be cleared in nine monthly installments of USD 162,000 each, starting 10 February 2026. Crucially, clause 1.2 allowed both the petitioner and Elmor Turkey to enforce the claim.

The shipowner defaulted on the very first installment due 10 February 2026. In addition, a running account between 1 October 2025 and 16 February 2026 showed total expenditure disbursements of USD 1,009,748, against which only USD 353,600 had been paid, leaving USD 656,148.93 outstanding. Adding the defaulted installment (USD 162,000) and legal costs (USD 15,000), the provisional quantified claim stood at USD 833,148.

III. Statutory Framework: Admiralty Act 2017, Sections 4(l), 4(p) & 5

The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 codifies the law relating to admiralty jurisdiction. Section 4 lists 29 categories of maritime claims. The petitioner relied on:

Management fees, crew wages advanced, stores, lubricants, and technical services clearly fall under services rendered to the ship for its operation, management . The Settlement Agreement crystallised the debt, but the underlying maritime claim remained. Section 5 confers jurisdiction on the High Court if the ship is within its territorial limits at the time of institution of the suit M.V. Polar Star was at Visakhapatnam anchorage from 15 February 2026 onwards.

IV. Urgency and Ex Parte Application

Between 12 January and 26 February 2026, the petitioner sent multiple email reminders (12.01, 30.01, 06.02, 15.02, 16.02, 17.02, 26.02) calling for payment. The shipowner ignored all demands. The vessel arrived at Visakhapatnam on 15 February 2026 and was likely to sail within days. The petitioner apprehended that the shipowner would transfer or alienate the vessel, the only asset available to satisfy the claim. Without an immediate arrest, the claim would be rendered futile.

Accordingly, the petitioner filed C.O.M.S.No.4 of 2026 (admiralty suit) and I.A.No.1 of 2026 seeking ex parte arrest. The petition was supported by an affidavit exhibiting the ship management agreement, addendum, Settlement & Debt Deferral Agreement, email correspondence, and a statement of account.

V. Court s Analysis: Maritime Claim and Conditional Arrest

Hon ble Justice B.S. Bhanumathi, after hearing counsel, held:

• Foreign merchant vessels entering Indian waters owe local allegiance and are subject to the jurisdiction of Indian courts for maritime claims (relying on M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment).
• The averments and documents establish a maritime claim under Sections 4(l) and 4(p) of the Admiralty Act, 2017.
• The vessel is presently at Visakhapatnam Port, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, satisfying Section 5.
• A strong prima facie case exists; the balance of convenience favours arrest; and if the vessel sails, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss.

The court passed a conditional arrest order: the vessel shall be arrested unless the shipowner deposits USD 833,148 with the Registrar (Judicial) or furnishes security to the court s satisfaction. The Port Officer, Visakhapatnam, was directed to execute the warrant and report compliance within two weeks. Importantly, the order permits loading/unloading of cargo, balancing the interests of cargo owners.

VI. Comparative Table: Ship Arrest vs. Arbitration Interim Relief

Aspect	Ship Arrest (Admiralty Act 2017)	Interim Relief under Section 9 (Arbitration Act)
Jurisdictional basis	Vessel within territorial waters (Section 5)	Respondent or assets within India; award not yet decree
Security sought	Arrest of vessel, bank guarantee, or deposit	Freezing injunction, asset disclosure, deposit
Nature of remedy	In rem against vessel; can proceed without owner s presence	In personam against award-debtor
Timing	Before or during suit; often ex parte on urgent basis	Before, during arbitration, or after award until decree
Risk of dissipation	Vessel sails claim lost	Assets alienated award illusory
Parallel with arbitration	Can complement arbitration; vessel as ultimate security	May be used alongside enforcement petition

VII. ISM Code Responsibilities and Manager s Liabilities

The ship management agreement imposed on Dawson not only commercial obligations but also statutory duties under the ISM Code: ensuring qualified master and crew, maintaining safety management systems, reporting non-conformities, and taking corrective action. Failure could expose the manager to civil and criminal liability. This dual exposure (contractual liability to owner and regulatory liability to flag State/class) underpins the importance of prompt payment for management services the manager cannot simply walk away .

VIII. Settlement & Debt Deferral Agreement: Crystallisation of Debt

The 25 October 2025 agreement was pivotal. It acknowledged an overall debt of USD 1,458,000 (covering multiple group entities) and set a deferred payment schedule. Although the agreement created a new payment schedule, it did not extinguish the underlying maritime claim; rather, it crystallised the amount and reaffirmed the owner s liability. The default on the first installment (10 February 2026) triggered the right to claim the entire outstanding sum. Courts view such settlement agreements as strong evidence of liability, making arrest easier to obtain.

IX. Procedural Aspects: Warrant Execution, Compliance, Cargo

The Port Officer is the executing authority. Upon receipt of the warrant, the vessel is detained; the master is informed; and the vessel cannot sail until security is furnished. The order s allowance for cargo operations prevents disruption to third-party cargo interests. Within two weeks, the Port Officer must file a compliance report. Failure to comply could invite contempt proceedings. The Registry ensures the deposit or security is held pending final adjudication.

X. Practical Implications for Ship Managers and Creditors

• Act swiftly: Monitor vessel movements (AIS). As soon as a defaulting owner s vessel enters Indian waters, file suit and seek arrest.
• Document thoroughly: Keep emails, statements, agreements, and acknowledgment of debt they are invaluable in obtaining ex parte orders.
• Use settlement agreements: Even if a debt deferral fails, it serves as a clear admission.
• Claim interest and costs: The claim included 7.5% interest pendente lite and post-judgment, plus legal costs all allowed.
• Leverage in rem jurisdiction: The vessel itself is the defendant; no need to chase the owner across borders.

XI. The Conditional Arrest Order: Deposit/Security

The operative part of I.A.No.1 of 2026 directed:

1. Arrest of M.V. Polar Star (IMO 9471666), including hull, engines, gears, tackles, bunkers, machinery, apparel, plant, furniture, fixtures, equipment, and all appurtenances, presently at Visakhapatnam anchorage.
2. Arrest shall be conditional upon the owner depositing USD 833,148 (or equivalent INR) with the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, or furnishing security to the court s satisfaction.
3. The Port Officer, Visakhapatnam, shall execute the warrant and submit a compliance report within two weeks.
4. Loading/unloading of cargo is permitted the arrest does not hinder cargo operations.
5. Petitioner s counsel may inform the respondents of the order.

XII. Admiralty Arbitration Parallel: Asset Preservation

This arrest mirrors the interim relief available under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as analysed in our previous article). In both regimes, the court protects the claimant from asset dissipation before final judgment/award. Just as Section 9 applies until a foreign award becomes a decree, admiralty jurisdiction applies as long as the vessel is within reach. The convergence strengthens India s pro-creditor stance.

XIII. Strengthening Admiralty Remedies

The M.V. Polar Star arrest reaffirms the High Court of Andhra Pradesh s commitment to robust admiralty jurisdiction. For ship managers, unpaid crew wages, supplies, or management fees, the message is clear: Indian ports offer effective remedies. By combining meticulous documentation, timely action, and the powerful in rem procedure, maritime creditors can secure their claims and compel defaulting owners to pay. The 2017 Admiralty Act, together with pro-enforcement judicial interpretation, ensures that India remains a favourable jurisdiction for ship arrest.

Contact Details Index Page To Home Page