Failure to furnish security may justify judicial sale of a stranded vessel.

The applicants claimed that they had paid or advanced money to the respondent in connection with cargo space, loans, vessel release costs and a charter agreement, but that the respondent had failed to repay the amounts or honour the agreement.

The vessel, M.V. Rahima, was arrested and remained detained at the Port of Tuticorin. The applicants sought its judicial sale, arguing that its value was deteriorating and that the respondent had provided no security for the suit claim.

The respondent opposed sale, arguing that it was an extraordinary remedy and that the vessel’s seaworthiness should first be considered.

In an earlier order dated 4 February 2026, the Court had addressed the consequences of the respondent’s failure to provide security; an expert later reported that the vessel was unseaworthy in its then condition but could become seaworthy if repairs were carried out.

The Court relied on Section 11(3) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and Rules 13 and 14 framed under the Act.

Applying those provisions, the Court had previously held that where a defendant failed to provide security for the suit claim and the vessel remained stranded in port, the circumstances could be treated as abandonment, permitting steps to bring the vessel to sale and deposit the proceeds to the credit of the suit.

The Court further considered its prior finding that continued detention without security could result in the vessel becoming a sea wreck.

The Court treated its earlier finding on the consequences of non-provision of security as applicable: despite the vessel’s arrest and the opportunity to furnish security, the respondent had still provided none.

The expert’s report that repairs could restore seaworthiness did not displace the basis for sale, which was the continued failure to secure the claim and the risk associated with the vessel remaining detained.

The Court therefore rejected the respondent’s objection to sale.

It appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct the sale and directed that the upset price be fixed by reference to the expert’s valuation. The Commissioner was awarded initial remuneration of ₹1,00,000; there was no order as to costs.