As per case facts, the plaintiff's agent inadvertently purchased extended container detention free time, which was not required. Despite attempts to cancel the purchase, the defendant refused, citing a non-refundable ... policy, compelling the plaintiff to pay under protest to release the cargo. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a refund and an application for the arrest of a sister vessel, which was later converted to an attachment application. The question arose whether a claim for refund of inadvertently paid container detention charges constitutes a "maritime claim" under Section 4 of The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, thereby invoking admiralty jurisdiction. Finally, the High Court sustained the defendant's preliminary objection, ruling that such a claim does not pertain to the vessel and is not an agreement relating to the carriage of goods or use/hire of a vessel, distinguishing containers from vessels. Thus, it's not a maritime claim, and the plaintiff must file a regular civil suit.