On 24 June 2026, the Bombay High Court ordered the arrest of the bulk carrier MV Jin Hai He following a claim by HMS Bergbau Singapore Pte. Ltd. for unpaid bunker fuel under the case number 21091 of 2026.
I. Introduction
On 24 June 2026, the Bombay High Court ordered the arrest of the bulk carrier MV Jin Hai He following a claim by HMS Bergbau Singapore Pte. Ltd. for unpaid bunker fuel.
The Court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie maritime claim under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter the “Admiralty Act”). As the vessel was at Mumbai anchorage and expected to leave the jurisdiction shortly, the Court ordered its arrest under Sections 3 and 5(1)(a) of the Act.
II. Background of the Dispute
HMS Bergbau, a Singapore-based supplier of marine fuels, supplied approximately 197.98 metric tonnes of VLSFO bunker fuel to MV Jin Hai He at Port Louis, Mauritius on 23 February 2026. The delivery was evidenced by a bunker delivery note bearing the Master’s signature and the vessel’s stamp.
The plaintiff subsequently issued an invoice for USD 116,614.93, payable by 9 March 2026. Despite repeated demands, the amount remained unpaid. Jeyst Shipping Pte Ltd., which had requested the bunker supply, acknowledged the outstanding debt and made several assurances that payment would be arranged.
After a further promised payment date of 18 June 2026 passed without settlement, HMS Bergbau issued a final notice. As of 19 June 2026, it claimed USD 116,614.93 in principal plus USD 10,103.63 in accrued interest.
III. The Plaintiff’s Position
HMS Bergbau argued that the unpaid bunker supply constituted a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act and sought arrest of the vessel under Section 5(1)(a).
The plaintiff produced an Equasis report identifying Fujian Shipping Co. as the registered owner and evidence showing that MV Jin Hai He was at Mumbai anchorage. The application was urgent because the vessel was expected to leave the Court’s jurisdiction on 24 or 25 June 2026. No caveat against arrest had been filed.
IV. The Court’s Analysis
The Court held that HMS Bergbau had established a prima facie case for arrest. The bunker supply claim qualified as a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(l), while the vessel’s presence at Mumbai anchorage brought it within the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
Accordingly, relying on Sections 3 and 5(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, the Court ordered the arrest of MV Jin Hai He. It also granted the plaintiff liberty to apply for the sale of the vessel if no application to vacate the arrest were made.
V. Conclusion and Practical Implications
The decision demonstrates the importance of ship arrest worldwide as a mechanism for securing unpaid maritime claims. For bunker suppliers, it also highlights the value of maintaining clear evidence of delivery, invoices, payment demands and acknowledgements of outstanding debts.
The case further illustrates the time-sensitive nature of admiralty proceedings. Where a vessel is expected to leave the jurisdiction, prompt action may be necessary to preserve the possibility of arrest and secure the claimant’s position.
