Both maritime claims cases in Bangladesh do not have to provide relief for the capture of a foreign vessel; they may merely be an action for the recovery of money (commonly referred to as a Money Suit) arising out of a deal for the carriage of goods by sea. As a result, all maritime claims do not have to result in the invocation of admiralty sovereignty, i.e., the capture of the offending ship. Since there is no express language in the Act that obviates the authority of civil courts [Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure], such pure and basic maritime claims could well be adjudicated by civil courts as suits of civil existence. An admiralty claimant may use the attachment to prove his or her assertion and secure pre-judgment protection in such cases. On the plaintiff's request, the court may issue an order for the vessel to be attached before judgment is rendered within its jurisdiction [Section 94(b) and Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure]. But, according to the decision in Unimarine S.A. Panama Vs Bangladesh (1979) 31 DLR 113, ships brought into the court's jurisdiction on the spur of the moment should not be attached until judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code "unless there are other valid grounds." As a result, it is up to the court to decide what constitutes "compelling grounds" to take action under the preceding provision.
A foreign ship can be seized by a court of law when within Bangladeshi jurisdiction under section 490 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 1983. (Supreme Court). This power may be used against a foreign ship that is accused of causing harm to government property, as well as any Bangladeshi person or corporation. Though an order of detention often forbids a ship from traveling, the distinction between a ship's 'Arrest' and 'Detention' is important to understand. Arrest is more severe than incarceration, both technically and potentially. Detention is a situation that the ship encounters more often throughout the course of her service. It is less stringent than detention, both in terms of cause and effect.
Procedure to Apply for Revocation of Ship Arrest-
The best way to release a ship from arrest is through issuing a bank guarantee by a local bank furnishing it as security for any violation. The entire amount claimed requires to be covered by the Bank Guarantee and the same needs to cover including interest and costs.
Nevertheless, sometimes the court reduces the amount of security if the defendant cans prima facie proof that the claim is overstated.
However, an arrest can be lifted without security if it is established that the vessel has been wrongly arrested and the vessel has no liability to the plaintiff.
However, if it is proven that the vessel was wrongfully seized and that the vessel has no responsibility to the complainant, the detention will be lifted without the need for immunity. However, creating false detention takes 3(three) to 4(four) days for the court to make a ruling on the matter. It should be remembered that the P&I Club's LOI/LOU is not accepted to lift the warrant, but the court will consider an LOI if the complainant agrees to accept it. The release order can be received within a day of receiving the security.
The prisoner still has the possibility of contesting the arrest in the case of a ship arrest. A caution/caveat may be filed to do this. This is done for two reasons: first, to avoid false detention by dishonest claimants, and second, to reduce the amount of protection required for the ship's release by explaining the true story to the court. While the Admiralty Law requires an assurance to be given along with a warning or caveat, the Bangladesh court no longer requires this.