SAMUDHRAM SHIPPING SERVICES vs OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN MV RAHIMA IMO NO

A No. 99 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
PRONOUNCED ON
17.09.2026
16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
A No. 99 of 2026
in C.S.(COMM.DIV.).No.85 of 2024
1. M/s.Samudhram Shipping Services,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory
Vasuki Kasi
Having its Registered Office at
New No. 66,Old No. 142, Swamy Naicken
Street, Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002.
2. M/s.Marwa Impex Private Limited
Represented by its Director
Vasuki Kasi
Having its Registered Office at
New No. 66, Old No. 142,
Swamy Naicken Street,
Chintadripet, Chennai 600 002
..Applicant(s)
Vs
Owners and Parties Interested
In M.V. Rahima (IMO No 9072989),
a motor vessel, flying the flag of St.Kitts and
Nevis, Presently lying at the Port of Tuticorin and
Represented herein by its Master.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:- Application filed to direct for sale of the Defendant Vessel
“Puravalan 1” currently known as “M.V. Rahima” (IMO No. 9072989) in “as is
where is” condition, together with the engines, tackles, cranes, paraphernalia,
fixtures, furniture and fittings, presently in territorial waters of India at the Port
of Tuticorin, by an Advocate Commissioner duly appointed by this Hon’ble
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:53 pm )

A No. 99 of 2026
Court and deposit the proceeds of the sale to the credit of the present suit.
For Applicant(s): Ms.R.Nandhini
For Respondent(s): Mr.Venkatesan
for Mr.Ibrahim Ahamed
ORDER
The present Application has been filed direct for sale of the Defendant
Vessel “Puravalan 1” currently known as “M.V. Rahima” (IMO No. 9072989)
in “as is where is” condition, together with the engines, tackles, cranes,
paraphernalia, fixtures, furniture and fittings, presently in territorial waters of
India at the Port of Tuticorin, by an Advocate Commissioner duly appointed by
this Hon’ble Court and deposit the proceeds of the sale to the credit of the
present suit.
2. Heard Ms.R.Nandhini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicants and Mr.Venkatesan, appearing on behalf of Mr.Ibrahim Ahamed,
learned counsel for the respondent.
3. Ms.R.Nandhini, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would
submit that the respondent herein had initially induced the applicant to pay a
sum of Rs.28,75,000/- towards allocation of cargo space in the Vessel for a
period of six (6) months. Pursuant thereto, a break bulk freight agreement was
entered between the parties on 28.02.2022. Thereafter, at the request of the
respondent, the applicants have also loaned a sum of USD 80,000 and USD
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:53 pm )

A No. 99 of 2026
55,578.58 for discharge of the Vessel that was arrested at the Port of Male.
Thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered on 20.07.2023 in that
regard and a Charter Agreement also came to be entered on 13.09.2023 upon
which a sum of USD 1,85,190.54 was also paid to the respondent. The Vessel
was again detained at Port of Male at the orders of the High Court of Maldives
which was also released pursuant to the applicants making good the entire
money for the release of the Vessel. The Vessel thereafter, travelled to the Port
to Tuticorin and under the various orders of arrest and detention the Vessel is
still detained and had lost its sea-worthiness. The reason of arrest also is
pursuant to failure to pay the crewmen of their salary which arose out of orders
of this Court dated 16.06.2023. The amount payable to the crewmen were also
disbursed to by the applicant and thereafter, the said suit where the arrest at the
behest of the crewmen was also withdrawn as the dispute was settled between
them.
4. Even after the withdrawal of the suit, the respondent had failed to seek
issuance of release warrant of the arrest of the Vessel and was granted with a
warrant of release only on 01.02.2024. It is his contention that neither the
Charter Agreement was honoured nor was the amounts repaid by the
respondent. Hence, by further order dated 30.04.2024, the Vessel had been
subjected to arrest and is anchored in the Port of Tuticorin till date.
5. She would submit that the value of the Vessel has been deteriorating
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:53 pm )

A No. 99 of 2026
due to continuous arrest and anchoring at Port and it would only be in the
interest of the parties to order sale of the Vessel as the respondent had also
failed to furnish any security over the suit amount and hence, prays this Court to
order sale of the Vessel in as-is, where-is condition and the proceeds of the sale
be deposited to the credit of the suit which could be disbursed subject to the
result of the suit which would be only beneficial for both the parties.
6. Countering his arguments, Mr.Venkatesan, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent would submit that a sale of the Vessel could be
ordered only as an extraordinary remedy particularly when the Vessel is
abandoned, the owner fails to enter appearance, a maritime leave or statutory
dues subsist or the preservation of the Vessel is impossible. He would submit
that none of the contingency had been shown for the sale of the Vessel and he
would submit that the sea-worthiness was directed to be verified by an Expert
and if the Report indicates that the Vessel is sea-worthy a judicial sale on the
whims and fancies of the applicant need not be ordered by this Court. He would
further submit that the sea-worthiness of the Vessel cannot now aid the claim of
the application and sea-worthiness of the Vessel should have been assessed
prior to the commencement of the voyage. He would submit that the present
application is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and hence, prays this
Court to dismiss the application.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:53 pm )

A No. 99 of 2026
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before
this Court.
8. Pending these applications by order 04.02.2026, recording a finding of
the fact that the respondent even after the arrest of Vessel from 06.12.2023 had
not chosen to provide any security for the release of the Vessel and if the said
situation continues the Vessel would become sea wreck. Thereafter, by
considering the Provisions of Section 11(3) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and
Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and the Rules 13 & 14 framed
thereunder, the Court had given a categorical finding that when the defendant
had failed to furnish security for the suit claimed and the ship is stranded in a
Port, it would only be deemed to have been abandoned and that in such an
event, the plaintiff can take necessary steps to bring the Vessel for sale and the
proceeds of such sale could be deposited to the credit of the Suit and the said
view was taken by the Court as it involved a right-in-rem . It had categorically
given a finding that if there is a failure on the respondent to furnish the
securities for the claims made by the applicant, the Court would have been left
with no other option to proceed further by appointing an Advocate
Commissioner for bringing the Vessel for sale. Thereafter, when the matter was
again taken up for hearing on 19.02.2026 for finding out the sea-worthiness of
the Vessel, an Expert was also appointed and the Expert had filed a Report. As
per the Report, the condition of the Vessel as on the day was found to be
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:53 pm )

A No. 99 of 2026
unseaworthiness and if some repairs are carried out, the Report would suggest
the Vessel would be fit sea-worthy.
9. Be that as it may, when the Court had given a categorical finding in its
order dated 04.02.2026 that by application of the Provisions of the Act, 2017
and the Rules framed therein, a failure to furnish security of the suit claim
would only result in abandoning of the Vessel by its owner and had observed
that if the respondent fails to furnish security, the Court would have no other
option except to proceed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to bring the
Vessel to sale and even as of this date, except for contesting the claim of the
applicant, the respondent had not come forward to furnish any security
whatsoever in respect of the suit claim.
10. It is further to be noted that in the interregnum, a third party claimant
had also approached this Court seeking himself to be impleaded for
participation in the suit, making claims against the respondent Vessel. In that
regard, this Court do not find any merits in the claim of the respondents to reject
the application.
11. Accordingly, the application stands ordered as prayed for and this
Court appoints Mr.Adarsh Subramanian, Advocate (Phone No.8754400961)
having Office at AK Law Chambers, “Madhumalathi”, New No.20, Old
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:53 pm )

A No. 99 of 2026
No.59, Seethammal Road, Seethammal Colony, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018 ,
as Advocate Commissioner for selling the Vessel M.V. Rahima (IMO No
9072989) anchored in the Port of Tuticorin in the as-in, where-in condition. The
learned Advocate Commissioner shall fix the upset price on the sale of the
valuation given by the Expert. He would also be entitled to an initial
remuneration of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only). However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
16.10.2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:53 pm )

A No. 99 of 2026
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
GBA
A No. 99 of 2026
in C.S.(COMM.DIV.).No.85 of 2024
16.10.2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 07:06:53 pm )