Ship Arrest in Bangladesh: Maritime Claims, Procedure, Security and Sale in 2026

Ship arrest in Bangladesh: the 2026 framework

Ship arrest in Bangladesh is fast, cheap and claimant-friendly, which is exactly why the High Court Division has spent 2025 and 2026 policing its limits. An arrest order can be obtained ex parte within about two days of a file arriving, without counter-security, against a ship lying at the outer anchorage of Chattogram or Mongla. But in a run of decisions the Admiralty Court has returned plaints that lacked a genuine maritime element, vacated arrests founded on a charterer's debt and released ships against a fraction of the claim.

This guide is written for the claimant deciding whether to arrest and for the owner, club or financier on the receiving end. It covers the maritime claims that support an arrest, the 2026 maritime-element rulings, which ships can be arrested, the procedure step by step, port practicalities at Chattogram and Mongla, security and counter-security, wrongful arrest, maritime liens and priorities, judicial sale and the position under the international arrest conventions.

Summary: The High Court Division arrests ships under the Admiralty Court Act 2000 and the Admiralty Rules 1912, not under any international convention. The claim must fall within the closed list in section 3(2) and have a direct and substantial maritime nexus, and an in rem arrest must satisfy the ownership tests in section 4(4). Release is usually against a local bank guarantee, the court can reduce security to a proportionate sum, and a ship left unreleased can be sold pendente lite.

Key point: In July 2026 the Admiralty Court held that, for a contract to be maritime, there must be a direct and substantial nexus between it and the operation, navigation, management or carriage of goods by a ship. A claim recast as a loan lost its maritime character and the plaint was returned. Plead the maritime claim precisely from the first draft.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

How ship arrest in Bangladesh works

Ship arrest in Bangladesh is a statutory remedy exercised by the High Court Division of the Supreme Court sitting in its admiralty jurisdiction under the Admiralty Court Act 2000, with procedure governed by the Admiralty Rules 1912. A claimant institutes an admiralty suit and applies, on affidavit, for a warrant to arrest the ship as security for the claim.[1]

No international arrest convention

Bangladesh has not ratified the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952 or the International Convention on Arrest of Ships 1999.[1] The United Nations depositary list for the 1999 Convention does not include Bangladesh, and nor does the depositary record of parties to the 1952 Convention.[2] [3] The result is that the Act alone defines which claims qualify and which ships can be arrested. Convention concepts such as associated-ship arrest or mandatory counter-security do not apply unless the Act or the court's practice provides for them.

Why claimants choose Bangladesh

Practitioners describe Bangladesh as one of the more advantageous arrest jurisdictions. A ship can be arrested irrespective of her flag, the court can sit outside ordinary hours in urgent cases, arrest is relatively quick and inexpensive, counter-security is not required at the arrest stage and P&I club letters of undertaking are not accepted for release unless the claimant agrees.[1] Ships belonging to the Government of Bangladesh and its disciplined forces cannot be arrested.[1] Those features explain the volume of arrests at Chattogram, but they also explain why the court now looks harder at the claim behind each warrant.

Maritime claims that support a ship arrest in Bangladesh

Section 3(2) of the Act lists the claims within admiralty jurisdiction. They include claims to possession or ownership of a ship, disputes between co-owners, mortgage claims, damage done or received by a ship, loss of life or personal injury, loss of or damage to goods carried, claims arising out of agreements for the carriage of goods or the use or hire of a ship, salvage, towage, pilotage, goods or materials supplied for a ship's operation or maintenance, construction, repair and dock charges, crew wages, disbursements by the master, shipper, charterer or agent, general average, bottomry and forfeiture.[1]

A closed and exhaustive list

The Admiralty Court treats that list as closed. In July 2026 it described admiralty jurisdiction as a special statutory jurisdiction under which the court can entertain only claims that fall strictly within the closed and exhaustive list in section 3(2).[4] A claim that sounds commercial but does not fit a head will not support arrest, however strong it is on the merits.

The maritime element: the 2026 decisions

The most important development in ship arrest in Bangladesh in 2026 is a series of rulings on what makes a claim maritime. Read together, they tell a claimant what the court will and will not accept.

Metrocem: a claim recast as a loan

In Metrocem Cement v M.V. Haji Kayes, decided on 20 July 2026, the plaintiff first sued for mis-delivery of cement clinker, a claim within section 3(2)(g). Faced with a limitation objection, it amended the plaint to treat the transaction as a loan.

Justice Sikder Mahmudur Razi held that, for a contract to be maritime, there must be a direct and substantial nexus between the contract and the operation, navigation, management or carriage of goods by a ship, and that a claim the plaintiff itself characterised as a loan was not a maritime claim. The plaint was returned under Order VII rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the interim order vacated and the Marshal directed to return the ship's certificates of registry.[4]

The court protected the plaintiff on limitation for the time spent in the Admiralty Court if it refiled in the Commercial Court or ordinary civil court.[4] The lesson is blunt: an amendment designed to cure a limitation problem can destroy jurisdiction, and the arrest with it.

Amuse Nowshin: money advanced to a vessel's business

Two weeks earlier, in a suit against the fishing vessel F.V. Amuse Nowshin, investors sought recovery of Tk 2.5 crore advanced to the defendants' fishing business, together with arrest and sale of the vessel. The court held that the claims were contractual, that nothing showed the vessel had incurred a maritime liability, and that merely because a dispute concerns a fishing vessel does not convert every contract connected with its business into a maritime claim. It also noted that the vessel was mortgaged to a bank and the plaintiffs claimed no priority over that charge. The plaint was returned.[7]

Sea Lead: a broad reading of section 3(2)(h)

The opposite result came in May 2026 in Sea Lead Shipping v Everbest Logistics, a container line's claim of about USD 1.4 million against its former local agent for unaccounted revenue and 90 detained containers. The court held that the words "relating to" in section 3(2)(h) invite a broad construction, that an agency agreement under which the agent arranged berthing, filed manifests and handled cargo and containers is maritime, that containers are treated as goods carried by sea even when empty at inland depots, and that a later memorandum of understanding choosing the competent courts of Dhaka did not oust the Admiralty Court.[5]

What the decisions mean in practice

The dividing line is the substance of the claim. Freight, hire, cargo, containers, ship agency, bunkers ordered by the owner and crew wages are maritime. Investment, general loans and trading debts that merely involve a ship are not. A claimant should identify the section 3(2) head in the plaint, plead the facts that connect the claim to the ship's operation or carriage, and resist any temptation to plead alternative non-maritime theories that the court may treat as the real case.

Which ship can be arrested

Having a maritime claim is only half the test. To proceed in rem, the claimant must also show that the particular ship is answerable for it.

Section 4(4) and the ownership test

For claims under clauses (d) to (q) of section 3(2), section 4(4) allows an action in rem where the person who would be liable in personam was, when the cause of action arose, the owner or charterer of, or in possession or control of, the ship, and, when the action is brought, that person is the beneficial owner of all the shares in the ship; alternatively, the claim can proceed against any other ship that person then beneficially owns.[6] Two dates matter: when the claim arose and when the suit is filed.

Sister ships, associated ships and charterers

A sister ship beneficially owned by the person liable can be arrested; a ship owned by an associated company cannot. A ship on bareboat charter can be arrested for the bareboat charterer's liability, but a time-chartered ship cannot be arrested for the time charterer's debt. The court will pierce the corporate veil only where separate entities were deliberately created to avoid liability.[1]

Alter-ego theories fail without evidence

In BanBridge Navigation v M.V. Majestic Vera, the claimant arrested a bulk carrier on a sister-ship or alter-ego theory over a charterparty debt owed by Global American Transport LLC. Once the true registered and beneficial owner intervened, the arrest was vacated on 30 June 2025 and the ship and owner were struck out.[6] The same charterer's debts had prompted an earlier failed arrest of bunkers aboard M.V. Schuyler Trader at Mongla, vacated on 12 January 2025 because the claim was against a sub-charterer and bunkers cannot be arrested independently of the ship.[11] Chasing a charterer's debt through ships it does not own is the most common route to a vacated arrest.

Arrest procedure step by step

The mechanics of ship arrest in Bangladesh are simple; the discipline lies in the preparation. The claimant presents a plaint, pays the court fee, which practitioners report as Tk 1,00,000 for an ordinary suit and Tk 100 for a wages claim, and files an arrest application supported by an affidavit stating the claimant, the nature of the claim, the property to be arrested and that the claim is unsatisfied.[1]

Hearing and the order

The application usually appears in the cause list on the next working day, or the same day on a supplementary list if the court accepts the urgency. If a prima facie case is shown, the court admits the suit, directs summons and orders arrest as security for the claim. The application is heard ex parte unless the owner has lodged a caveat, and the Marshal serves the order on payment of his fee.[1] In MV Telerig the court admitted the suit and ordered arrest on the day the plaint was presented, 23 December 2025.[9]

Documents and power of attorney

About 48 hours are needed from receipt of the documents and power of attorney. The power of attorney must be notarised and attested by the Bangladesh mission in the claimant's country, but the court will accept a scanned copy at filing if the authenticated original follows with stamp duty paid. Supporting documents and correspondence are filed with the suit; originals are needed at trial.[1]

Arrest in support of foreign arbitration

Many charterparties provide for London arbitration. The Admiralty Court will arrest for pre-award security: in Grandee Central East Shipping v M.V. Princess Jia Jia, the claimant sought compensation and pre-award security over a charterparty with a London arbitration clause, the arbitration had begun, and the ship was arrested at Chattogram on 18 February 2026.[8] But in MV Telerig the court said arrest in aid of arbitration presupposes a prima facie maintainable maritime claim and full disclosure, and it criticised the claimant for not disclosing the London arbitration clause when seeking ex parte arrest.[9] Disclose the clause and plead the claim as security for the arbitration.

Parallel claimants

Arrest attracts other creditors. In April 2025 two High Court benches ordered the arrest of the LPG carrier Captain Nikolas on successive days in separate admiralty suits by different claimants, after a fire during a ship-to-ship transfer, and the port authorities enforced the orders.[14] An owner should assume that the first arrest will be followed by others once it becomes known in the port.

Swipe or scroll →

Chattogram and Mongla: port practicalities

In practice, most ship arrest in Bangladesh happens at the outer anchorage of Chattogram, where ships wait to berth or lighter cargo, with a smaller share at Mongla. The order is executed by the Marshal with the port authority, and release orders are communicated to both.[9]

The cost of detention

Detention is expensive for the owner and creates pressure to settle. When the Captain Nikolas was arrested in April 2025, it had already been at the Chattogram outer anchorage since October 2024 and its local agent put fixed daily costs at about USD 45,000.[14] Crew wages, provisions, bunkers, agency fees and port dues continue throughout an arrest, and unpaid crew may themselves become claimants with priority.

Other detention powers

Arrest by the Admiralty Court is not the only way a ship can be held. The Principal Officer of the Mercantile Marine Department can detain an unseaworthy ship under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983; the High Court Division can detain a foreign ship for damage caused anywhere to the Government or a Bangladeshi party; customs can detain a ship pending such an application; and the Chittagong Port Authority can detain a vessel until security is given for damage and channel-clearance costs. A ship can also be attached before judgment, arrested in execution of a decree, and attached after being beached for scrap.[1] A release from admiralty arrest does not cure a separate port or customs detention.

Working with the port

Owners should instruct the local agent to obtain written confirmation from the port when a release order is served, and claimants should make sure the Marshal and port receive the warrant before the ship completes cargo operations. Timing matters most at Chattogram, where a ship can sail within hours of discharging. TRW's ports, terminals and maritime infrastructure practice advises on port-side issues.

Security and release from arrest

An arrested ship is released when the owner deposits the claim amount in court or furnishes a bank guarantee from a local bank. A P&I club letter of undertaking is accepted only if the claimant agrees. A release order can be obtained the same afternoon if the lawyer receives acceptable security in the morning.[1]

How much security

The guarantee has traditionally been expected to cover the full claim with interest and costs, although the court sometimes reduces it where the owner shows prima facie that the claim is inflated, and an owner can apply after release to reduce a guarantee already given.[1]

The March 2026 Princess Jia Jia order moved the law further for anyone defending a ship arrest in Bangladesh. Relying on S. M. Monirul Islam v MV You Bang, 51 DLR (AD) 90, the court held that rules 23 and 31 of the Admiralty Rules do not limit its discretion and that security is not to be fixed mechanically at the full amount claimed. Against a claim of USD 2,775,136, mostly a refund of freight on a completed voyage, it fixed security at USD 250,000, saying that "the just balance lies in moderation".[8]

Choosing the right response

An owner has three options: pay security and sail, apply to vacate the arrest, or apply to reduce security. Applications to vacate or reduce can take one to two weeks to hear, which is why an owner under commercial pressure often posts security first and contests later.[1] Where the claim is plainly outside section 3(2) or section 4(4), however, attacking jurisdiction first can free the ship without any security. Our guide to the ship release bank guarantee in Bangladesh covers wording and timing, and our note on vessel arrest and release covers the owner's side.

Counter-security and wrongful arrest

Counter-security is not required when the court orders a ship arrest in Bangladesh. The only routine protection for the owner is the court's power under the Code of Civil Procedure to order security for costs where all plaintiffs reside abroad and hold no sufficient immovable property in Bangladesh.[1]

When the court imposes counter-security

The court can nonetheless impose counter-security as a condition of release. In Shanghai Lisheng Oil v MT Gala, a claim of about USD 53.5 million for non-delivery of Omani crude, the court admitted the suit and ordered arrest on 9 March 2022, then on 25 August 2022 released the tanker against a USD 10 million guarantee from the owner and directed the plaintiff to provide a USD 1 million guarantee as counter-security to cover three years' interest on the owner's guarantee. In March 2025 it refused further counter-security against the owner's USD 14.26 million counterclaim for wrongful arrest, applying the bad-faith or gross-negligence test in The Evangelismos.[10]

Wrongfully issued arrests

In MV Telerig, decided on 13 January 2026, a time charterer had arrested the ship for non-delivery of steel billets that were never carried to a Bangladeshi port. The court held that the charterer lacked locus standi for an in rem cargo claim, that the statutory conditions for arrest were not met and that the arrest order was wrongfully issued, and it released the vessel without requiring any security.[9] Damages for wrongful arrest remain hard to win, but vacating an unfounded arrest is not. Our guide to wrongful ship arrest in Bangladesh covers the damages test and the owner's counterclaim in detail.

Maritime liens and priorities

Whether a claim is a maritime lien or only a statutory right in rem decides whether it survives a sale of the ship. A maritime lien survives a change of ownership and the ship can still be arrested; an ordinary maritime claim does not, if ownership changed before the suit was filed.[1]

Statutory liens for wages

Sections 477 and 478 of the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 give seamen and masters a lien on the ship for wages, which cannot be forfeited by agreement. Section 479 gives the seaman's lien precedence over all other liens or charges on the ship, with the master's lien next. In October 2025, in MT Fadl-E-Rabbi, the court decreed two engineers' unpaid wages, relying on their continuous discharge certificates as proof of engagement, with recovery from the proceeds of a ship already sold at auction in another suit.[13]

Other liens and English priorities

No other Bangladeshi statute creates maritime liens, but the court follows the English law of maritime liens and, where proceeds are insufficient for all claimants, the English law of priorities.[1] In broad terms that places wages and other maritime liens ahead of a registered mortgage, and the mortgage ahead of statutory rights in rem for necessaries such as bunkers and supplies. The table below summarises how common claims behave. On a phone, scroll it sideways.

Lenders should read our note on registered ship mortgages and maritime liens before relying on a power of sale in the loan documents.

Judicial sale of an arrested ship

If the owner does not release the ship, the claimant can apply for sale pendente lite. The court sells by auction through the Marshal and holds the proceeds, which are paid out when claims are decreed. Practitioners report that a sale can be completed within two to three months of the arrest order, longer if the order of arrest or sale is challenged.[1]

How the proceeds are shared

The proceeds become a fund over which every claimant competes, and that contest can outlast the ship by many years. M.V. Hearty Falcon was sold at auction on 30 May 2013 for Tk 25.20 crore. Nine suits were filed against her. By March 2025, after a 1 per cent Marshal's fee and payments under three execution orders, Tk 3.21 crore remained, the court applied a proportionate distribution to a decree-holder's claim and kept the execution open until two pending suits were decided.[12]

Practical lessons for creditors

Three points follow. A creditor who learns that a ship has been arrested by someone else should file its own suit promptly, because the fund is distributed among those with claims before the court. A decree is not the end: execution against the sale proceeds is a separate proceeding, and distribution may wait for other suits. And buyers at judicial sale should take advice on the title and deletion documents the court will issue, so that the ship can be re-registered free of prior claims. Our guide to admiralty suits in Bangladesh explains the trial stage.

After the arrest: the merits, foreign parties and time limits

An arrest is security; it does not by itself decide where the merits will be tried.

Jurisdiction over the merits

The court usually accepts jurisdiction over the substantive claim once the ship is arrested, but may decline to decide the merits where the parties agreed a foreign jurisdiction, and where maritime arbitration is pending it keeps the arrest as security and stays the suit. A contested suit typically takes three to four years to reach judgment.[1]

When the ship drops out

Majestic Vera shows what happens when the arrest fails. After the ship and her owner were struck out, the claimant tried to continue in personam against the Marshall Islands and Delaware companies it said were liable. On 10 June 2026 the court held that the in rem jurisdiction under section 4(4) depended on an arrestable vessel, that the remaining defendants had no residence, business or assets in Bangladesh, that the charter was performed between India and Japan, and that a defendant appearing only to challenge jurisdiction had not submitted to it. The plaint was returned.[6] For a foreign claimant against foreign parties, the right ship is the only route into the Bangladeshi court.

Limitation

The Admiralty Court applies the Limitation Act 1908, and periods vary by claim; Metrocem turned partly on whether the cargo claim was out of time under Articles 30 and 31 and whether a three-year period under Article 115 applied to a contractual claim.[4] Calculate limitation before arresting, because a time-barred plaint will be rejected and the security returned.

Who is involved in a Bangladeshi arrest

An arrest at Chattogram or Mongla brings several institutions into play at once.

Mistakes to avoid in a ship arrest in Bangladesh

• Arresting for a charterer's debt: unless the charterer owns the ship, the arrest will not survive a challenge.[1] [11]
• Pleading the claim as a debt: a maritime claim recast as a loan loses its maritime character.[4]
• Hiding the arbitration clause: non-disclosure counted against the claimant in Telerig.[9]
• Relying on alter-ego theories without evidence: the true owner's intervention ended the Majestic Vera arrest.[6]
• Owners accepting the claim figure: security can be reduced to a proportionate sum on evidence.[8]
• Creditors waiting for the sale: the proceeds are shared among claimants before the court, often pro rata.[12]

What to watch in 2026 and 2027

The Admiralty Court's 2025 and 2026 orders have tightened ship arrest in Bangladesh without changing the statute. The maritime-nexus test in Metrocem, the broad reading of section 3(2)(h) in Sea Lead, proportionate security in Princess Jia Jia and the territorial limits in Majestic Vera together set the agenda for every new arrest application.[4] [5] [6] [8] Expect owners to test the maritime element and the section 4(4) ownership facts at the first hearing, and claimants to plead both with far more precision than before.

Whether you need to arrest a ship before she sails or to release one that should never have been arrested, the analysis begins with sections 3 and 4 of the Act. TRW acts for claimants, owners, P&I clubs, charterers, suppliers and lenders before the Admiralty Court through its admiralty and maritime disputes practice. For an urgent arrest or release, contact our Dhaka team.

Frequently asked questions

Which court arrests ships in Bangladesh?

The High Court Division of the Supreme Court, exercising admiralty jurisdiction under the Admiralty Court Act 2000 and the Admiralty Rules 1912.[1]

Is Bangladesh party to the Arrest Conventions?

No. Bangladesh has not ratified the 1952 or 1999 Arrest Conventions, so arrest depends entirely on the Admiralty Court Act 2000.[1] [2]

How quickly can a ship be arrested in Bangladesh?

Usually within about 48 hours of receiving the documents and power of attorney, and sometimes on the day the plaint is presented.[1] [9]

What is the maritime element requirement?

In July 2026 the Admiralty Court held that a contract is maritime only if there is a direct and substantial nexus between it and the operation, navigation, management or carriage of goods by a ship.[4]

Can a sister ship be arrested in Bangladesh?

Yes, if the person liable beneficially owns it when the suit is filed. A ship owned by an associated company cannot be arrested.[1] [6]

Does the claimant have to give counter-security?

Not at the arrest stage. The court can impose it as a condition of release, as it did with USD 1 million in MT Gala.[1] [10]

Will the court accept a P&I club letter of undertaking?

Only if the claimant agrees. The standard security is a bank guarantee from a local bank or a cash deposit in court.[1]

Must security equal the full amount claimed?

No. In March 2026 the court held security is not to be fixed mechanically at the full claim and set USD 250,000 against a claim of about USD 2.78 million.[8]

Can an arrested ship be sold before judgment?

Yes. If the owner does not release the ship, the court can order a sale pendente lite, typically within two to three months, and hold the proceeds for the claimants.[1]

Which claims rank first against the sale proceeds?

Seamen's wages. Section 479 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 gives the seaman's lien precedence over all other liens and charges, followed by the master's lien.[13]