Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh 2026: Jurisdiction, Ship Arrest and Procedure

Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh: the 2026 position

The Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh enacted in 2000 is the statute that decides whether a ship can be held in port for a claim, which court hears the dispute and how the claimant turns an arrest into money. It is a short Act of twelve sections, but almost every maritime claim of real value in Bangladesh runs through it: unpaid ship supplies at Chattogram, cargo damage on a bulk carrier, a mortgagee enforcing against a defaulting owner, crew left unpaid at the outer anchorage, a collision in the Karnaphuli channel.

This guide is a working manual for that statute: jurisdiction, the claims list, arrest, security, limitation, procedure, sale and appeal. Our broader guide to maritime law in Bangladesh covers ports, ship recycling, insurance and the wider regulatory framework; this article stays in the courtroom.

Summary: The Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh passed in 2000 makes the High Court Division the Admiralty Court, lists eighteen heads of maritime claim, allows every claim to proceed in personam and a defined subset in rem, and caps court fees at Tk 1,00,000 (Tk 100 for wage claims). Arrest follows an in rem suit; release almost always requires security, in practice a bank guarantee from a scheduled bank in Bangladesh. Time bars come from the Limitation Act 1908 and the Hague Rules, and liability limits from the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983.

Key point: A claim being on the section 3(2) list is not enough to arrest a ship. The claimant must also fit one of the in rem routes in section 4: an ownership, mortgage or forfeiture claim, a maritime lien, or a claim against a ship beneficially owned by the person liable when the suit is filed. In January 2025 the High Court Division vacated an arrest of bunkers precisely because that second test was not met.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

What the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh enacted in 2000 changed

The Admiralty Court Act 2000 (Act No. 43 of 2000) is dated 27 November 2000. Section 12 repealed the Courts of Admiralty Act 1891 and provided that the English Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861 ceased to apply in Bangladesh, while saving suits already pending under the old law.[1] For the first time, Bangladesh had a self-contained domestic code of admiralty jurisdiction rather than a colonial inheritance.

The practical significance is best seen in what the old law could not do. Before 2000, the High Court Division refused to allow an in rem suit against a sister ship of the same owner that was not involved in the cause of action, holding in Kings Shipping Trading Co v M/s L.S. Lines (1986) BLD 119 that the suit in rem was not maintainable, although an in personam suit was.[11] The 2000 Act reversed that position through section 4(4), and much of modern arrest practice rests on that change.

The Bangla text controls

The Act was passed in Bangla. Section 10 requires the Government to publish an authentic English text by Gazette notification and provides that the Bangla Act prevails over that translation in any conflict.[1] Clause letters (a) to (r) in this article follow the English rendering; where wording matters, work from the Bangla text.

What the Act does not contain

The Act is jurisdictional, not procedural. It does not set out arrest forms, a security regime, a timetable or appeal periods. Section 11 lets the Supreme Court make rules with the President's prior approval, and preserves earlier rules so far as consistent with the Act until new rules are made.[1] Practitioners treat the Admiralty Rules 1912 as those preserved rules, read with the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.[12] Our note on admiralty suits in Bangladesh sets out the statutory text.

High Court Division jurisdiction under section 3

Section 3(1) of the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh relies on is a single sentence: the High Court Division shall be the Admiralty Court.[1] There is no district-level admiralty court and no separate admiralty tribunal. Every admiralty suit is filed in Dhaka, whether the ship lies at Chattogram, Mongla, Payra or an inland terminal.

Single-judge bench

Section 8 allows every suit under the Act to be filed, heard and disposed of before a single judge of the High Court Division exercising admiralty jurisdiction, while the Chief Justice may constitute a bench of two or more judges for a particular suit.[1] Recent orders illustrate the point: the May 2026 arrest of M.V. Princess Jia Jia was ordered by Justice Sikder Mahmudur Razi sitting alone in Admiralty Suit No. 25 of 2026.[8]

Every ship, every flag, every mortgage

Section 3(5) extends the jurisdiction to any ship or aircraft, Bangladeshi or foreign, registered or unregistered, wherever the owner resides or is domiciled, and to mortgages and charges created under foreign law, whether legal or equitable and whether registered or not.[1] "Ship" is defined in section 2 to include any vessel used in navigation. A Panama-flagged bulk carrier with a Greek manager and a Singapore mortgage is as much within reach as a Bangladesh coaster.

State vessels are excluded

Section 9 provides that nothing in the Act authorises an action in rem against the Republic, or any arrest, detention or sale of ships or aircraft of the army, navy, air force, Bangladesh Rifles, police or Coast Guard.[1] Claims against state entities must proceed in personam, and claimants should check whether a state-owned commercial operator is the true owner before planning an arrest.

The maritime claims list in section 3(2)

Section 3(2) is the gateway to the Admiralty Court. A claim outside the list is not an admiralty claim at all, however maritime its facts. The list is broad, but it is a domestic list: the Act does not give effect to either international Arrest Convention.[1] [10]

The eighteen clauses fall into five practical groups. Clauses (a) to (c) are proprietary: possession and ownership of a ship, its shares and documents, co-owner disputes, and mortgages or charges. Clauses (d) to (h) cover damage done by or to a ship, loss of life or personal injury caused by a defective ship or the default of those operating it, cargo loss and damage, and claims under contracts for carriage of goods or the use or hire of a ship. Clauses (i) to (m) cover salvage, towage, pilotage, necessaries, and building, repair and dock charges.[1]

Clause (n) covers wages of masters and seamen, including sums recoverable as wages under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983. Clauses (o) to (q) cover disbursements by masters, shippers, charterers or agents, general average, and bottomry and respondentia. Clause (r) covers forfeiture and condemnation, release of seized property, droits of admiralty and any admiralty jurisdiction the High Court Division held before the Act.[1] Under section 3(4), salvage extends to services saving life or preserving goods, equipment or wreck.

The table below shows how each group of maritime claims connects to the in rem routes in section 4. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

In personam and in rem: how section 4 decides who can be sued

Section 4 of the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh courts apply is the provision that most often decides an arrest application. Section 4(1) allows admiralty jurisdiction to be exercised in personam in every case, subject to section 5. The in rem routes are narrower and are where claimants succeed or fail.[1]

Three routes to an action in rem

First, under section 4(2), an action in rem lies against the ship or property concerned for claims under clauses (a) to (c) and (r): ownership, co-ownership, mortgages and forfeiture. Second, under section 4(3), an action in rem lies against any ship, aircraft or property subject to a maritime lien or other charge for the amount claimed. Third, under section 4(4), for claims under clauses (d) to (q), an action in rem lies against the ship concerned if the person who would be liable in personam, and who was its owner, charterer or person in possession or control when the cause of action arose, is the beneficial owner of all its shares when the suit is filed.[1]

Sister-ship arrest

The same subsection allows an action in rem against any other ship that the person liable beneficially owns when the suit is filed.[1] This is the sister-ship route that the 1986 Kings Shipping decision had refused under the old law. It has limits: it reaches ships in the same beneficial ownership, not ships held by affiliated single-ship companies, a gap commentators identified soon after the Act came into force.[11] Evidence of beneficial ownership, rather than registered ownership alone, is therefore the most valuable document in a sister-ship application.

Timing of ownership

Two dates matter under section 4(4): when the cause of action arose and when the suit is filed. If the debtor sells the ship before the plaint is presented, the section 4(4) route against that ship is lost, although a maritime lien under section 4(3) survives a change of ownership.[1] [13]

The bunker arrest that failed

The High Court Division's order of 12 January 2025 in Admiralty Suit No. 43 of 2024 shows how strictly these tests apply. A pool operator with claims against a sub-charterer arrested the bunkers on board M.V. Schuyler Trader on 18 December 2024. Justice Zafar Ahmed vacated the arrest on the registered owner's application: there is no maritime lien over bunkers, bunkers cannot be arrested independently of a claim against the ship or its owner, and a contractual lien does not bind a non-party. He also noted that clause (h) claims fall outside section 4(2).[7] Suppliers should read our guide to bunker supplier claims in Bangladesh.

Collision claims and section 5

Section 5 restricts in personam claims arising from collisions, manoeuvres and breaches of collision regulations. A Bangladeshi court may hear one only if the defendant ordinarily resides or has a place of business in Bangladesh, the cause of action arose within Bangladesh's internal or national waters or port limits, or a related action is pending or decided in the same court. It may not proceed while the plaintiff's earlier action on the same facts is alive abroad, unless the defendant submits.[1]

Arrest of ships in the Admiralty Court

An arrest is not a separate cause of action. It is an interim order made in an admiralty suit in rem, placing the ship in the custody of the court's Marshal as security for the claim. Our briefing on vessel arrest and release in Bangladesh sets out the statutory record; here we focus on how an arrest is obtained and executed.

The two-stage test

A claimant must show, first, that the claim falls within section 3(2) and, second, that an in rem route under section 4 is open against the particular ship.[10] [12] The court decides both on the papers at the arrest stage, on a prima facie standard, which is why the supporting documents matter so much.

Documents the court expects

A foreign claimant acts through a power of attorney that is notarised and legalised by the Bangladesh mission in its home country; a scanned copy can support the initial filing with the original following.[13] The arrest application, supported by affidavit, should attach the contract or bill of lading, invoices and statements of account, correspondence acknowledging the debt, survey reports for cargo or collision claims, and registry or ownership evidence linking the ship to the person liable.[12]

How the order is executed

The order directs the Marshal of the Admiralty Court to arrest the ship and hold it as security for the claim until further orders. In the Princess Jia Jia matter in May 2026, the court directed the Chattogram Port Authority, the police and the principal officer of the Mercantile Marine Department to carry out the arrest, required the port to provide a tug or speedboat with a pilot, and instructed the harbour master and customs to keep the ship in Bangladeshi waters.[8] The order is served on port and customs authorities, and the ship is refused clearance until released.

Ex parte orders and caveats

Arrest applications are usually heard without notice to the owner, because notice would allow the ship to sail. An owner who anticipates a claim can enter a caveat or caution, which gives it a chance to be heard and can reduce the security it must later provide.[13] A caveat does not prevent an arrest.

Arrest, attachment and detention distinguished

Arrest in rem is not the only route. A claimant with an in personam claim may seek attachment before judgment under section 94 and Order XXXVIII rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which can reach any of the defendant's assets. The courts have been cautious: Unimarine S.A. Panama v Bangladesh (1979) 31 DLR 113 held that ships merely passing through should not ordinarily be attached before judgment without compelling reasons.[10] Separately, section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 lets the Supreme Court detain a foreign ship that has damaged Bangladeshi property until the claim is satisfied or secured.[2]

Security, bank guarantees and release

Release is where most suits under the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh are really decided. The Act says nothing about the form or amount of security, so the court fixes the terms in each case and practice fills the gap.[1]

The bank guarantee standard

The Admiralty Court has long expected security in the form of a bank guarantee issued by a scheduled bank in Bangladesh, in the court's standard wording, which the parties cannot freely alter.[12] The guarantee is usually for the full amount claimed, including interest and costs.[13] Owners should line up a local bank and its counter-indemnity as soon as an arrest is threatened. Our guide to bank guarantees in Bangladesh explains how local banks issue and call guarantees.

P&I club letters of undertaking

Unlike London or Singapore, Bangladesh does not treat a P&I club letter of undertaking as standard security. The court generally accepts an LOU only where the claimant agrees to it.[13] In practice the parties often agree an LOU in return for a consent release order, which saves the owner the cost of a local guarantee.

Reducing excessive security

An owner faced with an inflated claim may apply to reduce the amount of security before furnishing the guarantee, showing that parts of the claim are unsupported or overstated.[12] [13] The court considers the claim on a prima facie basis, so a reduction application should be supported by documents, not argument alone. The release order itself is a certified court order that must be served on port and customs authorities before the ship can sail.[12]

Vacating an arrest altogether

Where the claim does not support an action in rem at all, the better course is an application to recall and vacate the arrest, as the owner did successfully in the Schuyler Trader case.[7] If the jurisdictional objection is strong, providing security first and arguing later may simply hand the claimant a secured position it was never entitled to.

Wrongful arrest and costs

Bangladesh has no statutory regime for damages for wrongful arrest, and there is no established practice of awarding them.[13] The Admiralty Court does not routinely require counter-security from an arresting claimant. The owner's protection lies in vacating the arrest quickly, in costs, and in compensatory costs under section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows up to Tk 50,000 where a claim or defence is shown to be false or vexatious.[3] That limited exposure is one reason Bangladesh is regarded as a claimant-friendly arrest jurisdiction.

Limitation: time bars and limits of liability

The word limitation carries two meanings in admiralty work, and both matter. The first is the time within which a suit must be filed. The second is the shipowner's right to cap its total liability for an incident. The Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh adopted in 2000 contains neither; both come from other statutes.

Time bars under the Limitation Act 1908

The Act sets no limitation periods of its own, so the Limitation Act 1908 applies according to the nature of the claim. Its First Schedule provides three years for compensation for breach of contract (Article 115), two years for compensation for misfeasance or nonfeasance independent of contract not otherwise provided for (Article 36), three years for wages not otherwise provided for (Article 102), and six years for suits for which no period is provided elsewhere (Article 120).[4] The correct article depends on how the claim is characterised, and that characterisation should be settled before the plaint is drafted, not after a limitation objection.

The Hague Rules one-year bar

For cargo carried from ports in Bangladesh, the Hague Rules scheduled to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 discharge the carrier and the ship from all liability for loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery or the date when the goods should have been delivered. Written notice of loss must be given at the port of discharge on removal of the goods, or within three days if the damage is not apparent, and liability is limited to £100 per package or unit unless value was declared in the bill of lading.[5] Our guide to cargo loss and short delivery claims covers the evidence.

Seafarers and limitation

Section 220 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 excludes from the computation of any limitation period the time during which a seaman party to the suit was a serving seaman.[2] Combined with the Tk 100 court fee for wage claims under section 7 of the Admiralty Court Act and the seaman's lien discussed below, this makes crew wage claims among the most robust claims in the system.[1]

Shipowners' limitation of liability

Section 471 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 allows the owner of any ship, Bangladeshi or not, to limit liability for loss of life, personal injury or property damage caused without its actual fault or privity. As printed in the official text, the limits are Tk 5,000 per ton of gross tonnage where only life and injury claims arise, Tk 1,500 per ton where only property claims arise, and Tk 5,000 per ton in aggregate where both arise, with life claims having priority over the first Tk 1,500 per ton.[2] Section 476 extends "owner" to the charterer, manager and operator.

Limitation proceedings in the Supreme Court

Under section 472, where several claims are made or apprehended, the owner may apply to the Supreme Court to determine the amount of its liability, distribute it rateably among claimants, stay proceedings in other courts, exclude claimants who do not come in within a set time, and require security from the owner.[2]

Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh procedure: from plaint to judgment

The procedure under the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh practitioners follow combines section 6 of the Act, the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the preserved Admiralty Rules. The sequence below reflects how a typical in rem suit runs, from first instructions to final decree.

Swipe or scroll →

The plaint and the defendant's description

Section 6 requires every admiralty suit to be instituted by a written, signed and verified plaint under the Code of Civil Procedure. In an action in rem, the defendant may be described as "owner and parties interested" in the named ship or property, which solves the common problem of not knowing exactly who owns a foreign ship on the day of filing.[1]

Court fees

Section 7 applies the Court Fees Act 1870 to admiralty suits, but caps the fee at Tk 1,00,000 for every claim other than wage claims under clause (n), for which the fee is Tk 100. Fees may be paid in stamps or in cash to the Registrar of the Supreme Court or a person the Registrar authorises.[1]

Listing, written statement and trial

After filing, the suit and any arrest application are listed before the admiralty bench, with urgent arrest applications taken up without delay. Once the ship is released against security, the suit proceeds as an ordinary civil suit: the defendant files a written statement, issues are framed, documents are exhibited and witnesses examined. A suit pursued without adjournments can conclude within about six months, but in most cases a contested suit takes a couple of years.[12]

Nautical assessors

Section 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the court, in any admiralty cause of salvage, towage or collision, to summon two competent assessors to assist it, and requires it to do so if either party asks.[3]

Judicial sale, priorities and enforcement

If no security is provided, the arrest leads towards sale. The court can order a sale pendente lite where the ship is deteriorating, abandoned or accruing port charges that erode the fund; otherwise sale follows judgment. The Marshal conducts the sale by public auction, and the proceeds are held in court pending distribution.[12] [13]

Priorities in the sale proceeds

Section 4(7) of the Act lets the High Court Division, having ordered a sale, decide all questions of title to the proceeds and the priority of competing claims within the same jurisdiction.[1] The Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 supplies the top of the ranking: under section 479, the seaman's lien for wages under section 477 has precedence over all other liens or charges on the ship, and the master's lien under section 478 ranks next.[2] Below those, English priority principles are applied in practice.

Mortgagees

Under section 43 of the 1983 Ordinance, a registered mortgagee recovers the mortgage debt by proceedings in the High Court Division, which may direct the sale of the ship in execution of its decree; the mortgagee has no right of private sale merely by virtue of the mortgage.[2] Ship finance enforcement in Bangladesh is therefore a court process, and our banking and finance litigation practice plans for it at the documentation stage. Our note on registered ship mortgages and maritime lien terminology explains the vocabulary.

Enforcing the decree

Where security has been given, enforcement is usually simple: the court directs payment out of the deposit or encashment of the bank guarantee in favour of the decree-holder.[13] Where it has not, the decree is executed under the Code of Civil Procedure against the ship or other assets. Our guide to execution cases in Bangladesh covers the execution process.

Appeals from the Admiralty Court

Because the Admiralty Court is the High Court Division itself, there is no intermediate appeal. An aggrieved party goes to the Appellate Division under Article 103 of the Constitution. Appeals as of right under Article 103(2) are confined to cases such as a certified substantial question of constitutional interpretation or punishment for contempt; in other cases, which covers ordinary admiralty decisions, an appeal lies only with leave of the Appellate Division under Article 103(3).[6]

The preserved Admiralty Rules point in the same direction: rule 59 of the Admiralty Rules 1912 is reported as allowing no appeal from an order or judgment of the admiralty judge except on a question of law, and then only with leave.[12] In practice, the commercial pressure of a detained ship means the decisive battle is fought at first instance. Our guide to civil appeals in Bangladesh explains Appellate Division practice.

Admiralty, arbitration and the commercial courts

Many maritime contracts call at Bangladeshi ports carrying London or Singapore arbitration clauses. The Admiralty Court remains relevant because arrest is primarily a means of obtaining security, and the claimant may want security in Bangladesh while the merits are decided abroad. Whether the court will retain security pending a foreign arbitration depends on the clause, the claim and the in rem connection, and should be analysed before filing with our international arbitration practice. See our overview of arbitration law in Bangladesh and our guide to freight and charterparty claims.

Choosing the right forum

The Act does not expressly oust the ordinary civil courts, so a pure in personam money claim can be brought in a civil court, but only the Admiralty Court can proceed in rem and arrest a ship.[10] The Commercial Court Ordinance 2026, issued in January 2026 and since enacted in April 2026 as the Commercial Courts Act 2026 (Act No. 23 of 2026), created district-level commercial courts for business disputes including import and export and the transportation of goods.[9] [14]

The role of an admiralty court lawyer

An admiralty court lawyer working under the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh does more than draft a plaint. The value lies in speed and coordination across several institutions, with a ship that may sail on the next tide.

For claimants

Claimant-side counsel tests the claim against section 3(2) and the section 4 routes before anything is filed, identifies the right ship and the right defendants, arranges the legalised power of attorney, drafts the plaint and arrest application, presents it to the admiralty bench and follows the order to Chattogram or Mongla so that it is served before the ship clears. Counsel then negotiates the form and amount of security and, where the owner engages, a settlement.

For owners, clubs and charterers

Owner-side counsel files caveats where a claim is threatened, analyses whether the arrest can be vacated, arranges a scheduled-bank guarantee or negotiates an agreed LOU, applies to reduce excessive security and obtains and serves the release order. For a major casualty, counsel also considers a limitation application under section 472 of the 1983 Ordinance.[2]

Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh: mistakes to avoid

The same errors recur in admiralty matters in Bangladesh, on both sides of the dispute.

• Arresting on a claim with no in rem route: a claim against a charterer or sub-charterer will not support arrest of a ship the debtor does not beneficially own, as Schuyler Trader shows.[7]
• Filing after the ship is sold: the section 4(4) route depends on beneficial ownership when the suit is filed.[1]
• Waiting for the original power of attorney: the ship can sail while legalisation is pending; file on a scanned copy where the court allows it.[13]
• Assuming an LOU will be accepted: without the claimant's agreement, owners should expect to provide a local bank guarantee.[13]
• Letting the Hague Rules year run: negotiations with a carrier or club do not stop time unless an extension is agreed in writing.[5]
• Ignoring the guarantee terms: guarantee validity, renewal and claim periods should be diarised from the day the guarantee is issued.

What to watch in 2026 and beyond

Three developments will shape practice under the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh relies on. First, the Princess Jia Jia order of May 2026 shows the court acting quickly for necessaries suppliers with documented claims.[8] Second, the jurisdictional discipline of Schuyler Trader is likely to be argued in every arrest that relies on a charterer's debt.[7] Third, the new commercial courts may draw some in personam carriage and trade disputes away from the Admiralty Court, while leaving arrest, security and judicial sale where they are.[14]

The procedural framework has not caught up with the 2000 Act: practice still rests on the Admiralty Rules 1912 preserved by section 11, and the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 remains the operative merchant shipping law.[2] [12] Until both change, outcomes will depend on preparation, documents and speed. If a ship is about to leave port, or one of yours has just been arrested, contact TRW.

Frequently asked questions

Which court hears admiralty cases in Bangladesh?

The High Court Division of the Supreme Court, which section 3(1) of the Admiralty Court Act 2000 makes the Admiralty Court. Suits are heard by a single judge unless the Chief Justice constitutes a larger bench under section 8.[1]

What claims fall under the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh?

The eighteen heads in section 3(2), including ownership and mortgage claims, collision and damage, personal injury, cargo loss, carriage and hire, salvage, towage, pilotage, necessaries, repairs, crew wages, disbursements, general average, bottomry and forfeiture.[1]

Can a foreign-flag ship be arrested in Bangladesh?

Yes. Section 3(5) applies the jurisdiction to any ship, Bangladeshi or foreign, registered or not, wherever its owner lives, provided the claim fits an in rem route under section 4.[1]

Is sister-ship arrest allowed in Bangladesh?

Yes, under section 4(4), for claims under clauses (d) to (q), against another ship beneficially owned by the person liable when the suit is filed. It does not reach ships owned by separate affiliated companies.[1] [11]

What security is needed to release an arrested ship?

In practice, a bank guarantee from a scheduled bank in Bangladesh in the court's standard wording, usually for the claim, interest and costs. A P&I club LOU is generally accepted only with the claimant's agreement.[12] [13]

How much is the court fee for an admiralty suit?

Court fees follow the Court Fees Act 1870 but are capped at Tk 1,00,000 per suit under section 7. Crew wage claims under clause (n) carry a fee of Tk 100.[1]

Can bunkers be arrested separately from the ship?

No. In January 2025 the High Court Division held in the Schuyler Trader case that there is no maritime lien over bunkers and that bunkers cannot be arrested independently of a claim against the ship or its owner.[7]

What is the time limit for a cargo claim?

For cargo carried from Bangladeshi ports, the Hague Rules require suit within one year after delivery or the date the goods should have been delivered. Other claims follow the Limitation Act 1908, for example three years for breach of contract.[4] [5]

Can a shipowner limit its liability in Bangladesh?

Yes. Section 471 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 limits liability by reference to gross tonnage for incidents occurring without the owner's actual fault or privity, and section 472 allows the owner to apply to the Supreme Court to fix and distribute the fund.[2]

Can an admiralty judgment be appealed?

Yes, to the Appellate Division under Article 103 of the Constitution. Outside the limited cases of appeal as of right, an appeal requires leave of the Appellate Division.[6]