CASE NAME: Dawson Ship Management SIA v. M.V. Polar Star (2026)
CASE NO.: Commercial Suit No. 4/2026
COURT: High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Admiralty Jurisdiction)
DATE: 5-03-2026
QUORUM: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI
FACTS:
Dawson Ship Management SIA is a company incorporated in Latvia. It provides ship management services to ship owners is the plaintiff in this case. Here, the respondent is the vessel M.V. Polar, is a bulk carrier ship flying the flag of Liberia, which anchored at the port of Vishakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh.
On 5 September 2024, the petitioner entered a Ship Management Agreement with the respondent. Under this agreement, it was agreed by the petitioner to provide several services which are – technical management of the ship, crew management (appointing master and crew for the ship), arranging dry-docking and surveys, purchasing stores and lubricants, maintaining compliance with safety rules such as ISM Code and ISPS Code and ensuring the ship complies with the international maritime safety measures.
Here, the agreement was initially valid for a span of one year from 10 September 2024 to 10 September 2025. Later, an Addendum dated 25 August 2025 extended the agreement for 2 years, meaning the agreement would end on 25 August 2026. The ship owners owed a sum of USD 17,500 per month as the management fees to the plaintiff and reimburse all the expenses being incurred by Dawson for operating the vessel. The ship owner failed to pay the required amount. On 25 October 2025, the owner of the ship admitted that it owed USD 1,458,000 to Dawson and its affiliated companies namely Dawson Group FZC of the UAE and Elmor Shipping Denizcilik Ltd. Sirketi of Istanbul, Turkey.
A Settlement and Debt Deferral Agreement was signed by both the parties, and it was stated in the agreement that the respondent would pay the debt in 9 instalments, each comprising of USD 1,62,000 and the payments begin from 10th February 2026. It was stated that the Elmor Turkey was to receive the nine instalments of US 162,000 from the ship owners for and on behalf of the petitioner. However, the ship owner failed to pay the first instalment to the plaintiffs.
- The plaintiff calculated the outstanding amount as – Running Account Dues – USD 656,148
- First Unpaid Instalment – USD 162,000
- Legal costs – USD 15,000
Total claiming the amount to be USD 833,148
Many attempts were made to recover the amount by emailing the ship owners on various dates from January to February 2026 which includes 12 jan, 30 jan, 6 feb, 15 feb, 16 feb,17 feb, 26 feb but the respondent ignored all the mails and gave no reply.
And during that duration the vessel arrived at the Vishakhapatnam Port on 15th February 2026 and was expected to leave soon. Here the petitioner feared that if the ship sailed away from this port it would be impossible to get the payment back and hence approached the court asking for the arrest of the vessel.
ISSUES:
In this case, the court had to decide the following issues:
- Whether the petitioner has a valid maritime claim against the vessel.
- Whether the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has admiralty jurisdiction over the foreign vessel anchored at Visakhapatnam Port.
- Whether the court should order the arrest of the vessel M.V. Polar Star to secure the petitioner’s claim.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017.
The case mainly involves 2 provisions of this act, which are-
- Section 4 of the act which defines the Maritime Claims.
Here, the petitioner relied on Section 4(I) and 4(p) which includes the claims relating to the ship management services rendered to a vessel.
- Section 5 of the act deals with the power of the courts to arrest a vessel to secure maritime claims.
ARGUMENTS:
APPELLANT:
The counsel of the plaintiff (M/s. Indus Law Firm) argued that they provided all the technical and crew management services under a valid agreement established between both the parties, but the ship owner failed to pay. Therefore, they had a maritime claim of USD 833,148 from the respondents. The owner of the ship had already admitted that he owes the debt of USD 1,458,000 in the Settlement and Debt Deferral Agreement. Here, it was stated by the counsel of the petitioner that the liability of the respondent was clear and undisputed.
Hereby, the ship owner failed to pay the first instalment of USD 162,000 which was due on 10th February 2026. This shows the breach of the settlement agreement. And even when the plaintiff sends emails, they have ignored all of them and did nothing. To arrest the vessel at the Visakhapatnam Port is the only option to reclaim money, if the ship sails from the port it would be impossible to recover the money and thus the petitioner request for an ex-parte arrest order against the vessel.
RESPONDENT:
In this case, no arguments were presented by the respondent and the order stated that no counsel appeared for the respondent. Therefore, in this case, the court only considered the petitioner’s submissions and documents only.
ANALYSIS:
The court examined the facts and the legal principles of this case and explained an important principle that – A foreign ship entering a port temporarily submits to the authorities of that country. Therefore, in this case, a foreign merchant ships entering Indian waters are a subject to Indian law and jurisdiction. This principle was even established in the case of M.V. Elisabeth. Here, the court relied on a famous case – M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd 1992 SCR (1) 1003, which established that foreign ships entering Indian territorial waters submit to the jurisdiction of Indian Courts.
The court also found that the petitioner had provided all the ship management services and it’s the owner of the ship who failed to fulfil the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the claim clearly fell within Section 4 of the Admiralty Act.
Here, the Indian court has the jurisdiction over the vessel as it anchored in the Indian waters (Visakhapatnam Port), the Andhra Pradesh High Court has the territorial jurisdiction of the ship claiming the Admiralty jurisdiction over the vessel. The court also accepted the petitioner’s concern that if the vessel left the territory of Indian waters, it would become impossible to recover the amount. The court here concluded the petitioner’s claim is legally valid enough to justify arrest of the vessel until the payment is made or until some security is being provided.
JUDGEMENT:
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed a conditional arrest order of the vessel M.V. Polar Star along with the hull, engines, gears, bunkers, machinery, equipment, all the parts of the vessels. The arrest of the vessel will remain till the ship owner deposits the USD 833,148 in court or provides security for that amount.
It was stated that the Port Officer of Visakhapatnam Port was directed to execute the order. And after arresting the vessel, the port officer must submit a compliance report within 2 weeks. The court from its orders does not stop the loading or the unloading of the cargo. And it was said to the lawyers of the petitioner should inform the respondents about the orders.
CONCLUSION:
This case demonstrates that how the admiralty law protects the maritime creditors. The court in this case concluded that the petitioner had valid maritime claims and hence the issuance of the arrest order of the vessel is valid to protect the claims of the petitioner.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: MEENAKSHI DANGI.
Read the judgment copy here.
