In a significant legal development regarding maritime law and arbitration, the High Court at Calcutta recently delivered a comprehensive judgment clarifying the binding nature of consent decrees in admiralty disputes and Admiralty Suits. The decision highlights the critical distinction between actions in rem and actions in personam, especially when dealing with vessel arrests and charter party agreements.
The dispute arose from an admiralty suit, designated as AS (Com) No. 4 of 2024, involving Emami Paper Mills Limited as the plaintiff and the owners and parties interested in the vessel M.V. PH GIANG MINH. The plaintiff had imported a cargo of bleached Hardwood Kraft Pulp from Indonesia to Haldia Port, India. Upon arrival, the cargo was discovered to be damaged. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit and secured an ex parte order to arrest the vessel.
To resolve the issue, the vessel owners entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff. The owners agreed to pay a substantial sum of Rs. 6,51,70,000 to satisfy the claim, leading to a consent decree on September 9, 2024. A vital component of this settlement was a specific clause stipulating that the owners, charterers, operators, and any other interested parties would have no further claims or causes of action against the plaintiff in any jurisdiction.
However, complications emerged during the execution stage. The plaintiff filed an application to enforce this specific clause. In response, the charterer of the vessel, acting as the second defendant, filed a separate application seeking to refer the disputes to arbitration under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The charterer argued that it was not a signatory to the settlement terms, was excluded from the negotiations, and possessed a valid independent arbitration agreement with the plaintiff that should govern their disputes.
The case, documented under execution application EC-COM/384/2025 and IA No. GA-COM/1/2025, required the judicial authority to determine whether the consent decree bound a non-signatory charterer and whether the arbitration clause survived the settlement.
On September 21, 2026, the Court passed the order, delivering a decisive ruling based on the fundamental principles of admiralty jurisdiction. The Court analyzed the requirements for converting an action against a vessel, known as an action in rem, into an action against a specific person or entity, known as an action in personam. For this conversion to occur, a defendant must enter an appearance, submit to the jurisdiction of the Court, and furnish security for the release of the vessel.
In this scenario, while the vessel owners settled the claim financially, no security was ever furnished to formally release the vessel in a manner that would legally convert the nature of the suit. Therefore, the suit remained an action in rem until the consent decree was finalized. Under maritime law, a charterer is considered a party interested in the vessel. Because the action remained in rem, the resulting decree was legally binding on the charterer, regardless of their direct participation in drafting the settlement.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an executing court cannot go behind a finalized decree unless specific statutory exceptions apply. The claims of the plaintiff had crystallized, and the arbitration agreement was deemed exhausted by the passing of the decree. The judicial authority also noted the delayed response of the charterer, who waited almost two years before taking formal legal steps, despite having constructive notice of the vessel’s arrest.
As a result, the Court dismissed the charterer’s application for arbitration and allowed the plaintiff’s execution application, reinforcing the finality of consent decrees in maritime disputes. The Court therefore emphasised that the decree would prevail over the parties and shall be enforceable in accordance with law.
Read the coverage here.