Navin Shetty vs Commander, Coast Guard Region (East) & Ors.

The prayer in this Writ Petition is for a Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.09.2026 and to take all necessary steps in accordance with law to secure and detain the vessel MT SKIRON (ex MAGNUS), IMO No.9247443, presently lying at the Chennai Port.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the said vessel and its owners are due and liable to the petitioner to pay USD 23,753.86 (approximately Rs.12,00,000/-). In respect of the said claim, earlier, when the said vessel was lying at the Sikka Port in the State of Gujarat, the petitioner filed Admiralty Suit No.57 of 2026 before the High Court of Gujarat and by an order, dated 05.09.2026, the Court passed an order of arrest. However, inspite thereof, the Vehicle had given a miss and sailed off the Sikka Port. Subsequently, the petitioner learnt that flag and other identities are changed, however, the I.M.O.No.9247443 remains the same. In view thereof, the said vessel, now, presently known as MT SKIRON owned by the fourth respondent Company, is now anchored at the Chennai Port. Therefore, the petitioner seeks an order directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner so as to enforce the orders of the High Court of Gujarat.

Ms.Deepika Murali, learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that every authority, including the respondent Nos.1 to 3, have a public duty to see that the orders of the Court are complied with. When an interim order of arrest had been passed and when the vessel escaped from the port in violation of the order, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have a duty to ensure that the orders of the Court are duly implemented. In this regard, when the vessel is presently within the jurisdiction of this Court, a Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable. Therefore, this Court should issue a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to ensure that the vehicle is secured and detained so that further orders can be passed by the High Court of Gujarat in that regard.

Dr.G.Babu, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel takes notice for the first respondent. Mr.H.Karthik Seshadri, learned Counsel takes notice for the second respondent. Mr.Prathamesh Kamat, learned Counsel takes notice for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 would submit that the prayer in this Writ Petition is in the nature of arrest of a ship and as such, can be made only under the appropriate jurisdiction of the Court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be said that the vehicle moved out of the Sikka Port in violation of the Court order. The vehicle was not even within the limits of the port and as on date, when the order was passed, the vehicle was not within the territorial limits of the High Court of Gujarat and therefore, the contention is not tenable. It is his further submission that the liability arose with reference to the erstwhile owner and cannot be enforced and there are several considerations to be considered under the Maritime Jurisdiction in order to enforce the liability as against the present owner. He would submit that when the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Maritime Law, and even if a suit is filed, he would submit that the matter will be contested on merits and it will not be contested on the bar of res judicata etc.

I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

Firstly, on a careful perusal of the relief prayed for, it can be seen that it is in the nature of the arrest of a vessel, which order can be issued only in exercise of the Maritime Jurisdiction in the Original Side of this Court. It is true that this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or for that matter, any other Court upon being brought to the notice that any order of the Court being violated, should naturally extend a helping arm to the petitioner, who approaches the Court in order to ensure that the Court orders are to be complied with. That can be extended even in the instant case, if the petitioner has no other remedy. Even as per the case of the petitioner, the vessel was within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat. Once the Court has jurisdiction and passed an order of arrest and if, according to the petitioner, in violation of the order, the vehicle sails away from the Sikka Port, an appropriate application in the same pending suit can be made for issuing of directions to the Chennai Port authority or for that matter, Commander of Coast Guard Region or Customs authority. Therefore, that remedy is still available for the petitioner.

Furthermore, it is only an interim order of arrest that was passed in the suit and if the vessel is again berthed in the Chennai Port, the petitioner also has a remedy of filing of a fresh suit in the Maritime Jurisdiction of this Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner has very efficacious alternative remedy which can be immediately exercised by the petitioner, this is not a fit case where this Court should entertain a Writ Petition, though, in an extraordinary situation, where a litigant needs the help of the Court to ensure compliance of the Court order, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be maintainable and can also be entertained. In view of the efficacious alternative remedies available to the petitioner, in this case, I am not excising the jurisdiction.

Keeping open the liberty of the petitioner to avail the alternative remedies of moving this Court for appropriate relief under the Maritime Jurisdiction or moving the very same High Court of Gujarat by way of further applications, this Writ Petition is disposed of. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would plead that some breathing time should be granted to the petitioner to move the Original Side of this Court as there is a reasonable apprehension that the ship may swiftly move out of the jurisdiction. It is for the petitioner to move the appropriate bench of this Court dealing with the subject and move the application as expeditiously by tomorrow itself (i.e., 18.09.2026). There shall be no order as to costs.