Towage
- BCAS: 7103-1001
- admiraltypractice.com
Towage represents a cornerstone of global maritime commerce, involving the employment of one vessel to assist in the propulsion, maneuvering, or expedition of another. This legal and operational framework is indispensable for ports, harbors, offshore projects, and salvage operations. Under Section 4(1)(j) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter “Admiralty Act, 2017”), the High Courts of India exercise comprehensive admiralty jurisdiction over any claim arising out of towage services, irrespective of whether such services were rendered within Indian territorial waters or upon the high seas [citation:2][citation:8]. The Sixteenth Edition (2026) of this treatise expands upon the foundational principles to incorporate contemporary developments in deep-sea logistics, automation in tug operations, and the dynamic interface between towage and salvage under the 1989 Salvage Convention, as incorporated into Indian jurisprudence.
The legal architecture of towage is multifaceted, drawing from statutory mandates, entrenched judicial principles, and evolving commercial practices. A towage claim in the High Court must be reasonable and, if a specific sum was agreed, that sum must be certain. No subsidiary charges for alleged delays or ancillary services are payable beyond the fixed amount unless explicitly provided within the four corners of the towage agreement. This principle ensures commercial certainty for tug owners and vessel operators alike. The Admiralty Act, 2017 revolutionised the Indian maritime landscape by specifically codifying “towage” as a distinct maritime claim, thereby enabling the arrest of vessels in rem to secure such claims. This statutory recognition aligns Indian law with international conventions on maritime liens and mortgages, although ordinary towage does not typically elevate to the status of a maritime lien — a privilege reserved for salvage and necessaries [citation:2][citation:3].
Jurisdictional Reach of the High Court
The jurisdictional sweep of the High Court under the Admiralty Act, 2017 is notably broad. Unlike the restricted territorial nexus required under previous colonial statutes, modern Indian admiralty law permits the court to entertain towage claims even if the cause of action arose beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone. For instance, if a deep-sea tug tows a disabled floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) unit from the Arabian Sea to a repair yard in Gujarat, the Bombay High Court or the Gujarat High Court retains full admiralty jurisdiction over any dispute regarding the towage fee, negligence, or deviation. This expansive jurisdiction serves the public policy interest of facilitating international trade and ensuring that service providers are not left without a remedy.
In the context of towage, the High Courts have consistently held that the employment of a tug is a voluntary act on the part of the shipowner, analogous to contracting for any other service, and not a compulsory pilotage situation. Consequently, the legal relationship between tug and tow does not automatically bind third parties. In collision scenarios, if a tug towing a vessel collides with a third ship, the tug cannot evade liability merely by arguing that the tow was under compulsory pilotage whose default caused the collision. The tug remains subject to the ordinary rules of navigation and is expected to exercise the skill and care of a reasonably competent tugmaster. This principle protects innocent third-party vessels and maintains discipline in congested waterways.
Ordinary Towage versus Extraordinary Towage
A critical analytical distinction exists between ordinary towage and extraordinary towage. Ordinary towage is confined to vessels that have suffered no injury or structural damage, where the tug merely expedites the vessel’s progress under normal conditions. The remuneration for ordinary towage is typically the standard harbor or coastal fee, and such services do not give rise to a maritime lien. In contrast, extraordinary towage arises when a vessel is disabled, aground, or in need of being towed to a place of safety. This category often overlaps with salvage, but the legal distinction is vital. Extraordinary towage is a contractual service — often for a lump sum — to move a distressed but not yet imminently perilous vessel. If the danger escalates beyond what the parties reasonably contemplated, the character of the service may transmute into salvage [citation:3][citation:8].
Judicial authorities from common law jurisdictions, frequently cited by Indian courts, clarify that mere towage reward is payable when the vessel receiving services is in the same condition it would ordinarily be without encountering damage. However, if a tug company agrees to bring a damaged vessel from one port to another for a fixed sum, that is extraordinary towage. The distinction influences the calculation of remuneration and the availability of possessory liens. For ordinary towage, the tug must release the vessel upon payment of the agreed fee; for extraordinary towage involving peril, the tug may have greater rights, though not equivalent to the maritime lien afforded to salvors.
Types of Towage Services in Modern Maritime Industry
The contemporary maritime industry classifies towage into three primary operational domains, each with distinct legal and practical characteristics:
(i) Deep Sea Towage: This involves long-distance transportation of vessels, offshore rigs, floating dry docks, power plant barges, and even decommissioned naval ships across oceans and between continents. Ocean-going tugs deployed for deep-sea towage possess substantial bollard pull capacities—often exceeding 200 tonnes—long fuel ranges, and dynamic positioning systems (DP2) to maintain station in adverse weather. These tugs are also frequently contracted for salvage and standby duties along major shipping routes. Recent additions to global fleets, such as the POSH Courage class of anchor handling tugs, demonstrate the trend toward multipurpose vessels capable of intercontinental FPSO tows and complex deepwater mooring installations [citation:10]. The legal framework for deep-sea towage often involves choice of law clauses, limitation of liability under the LLMC Convention, and detailed best endeavors clauses that allocate risk for unforeseen weather or mechanical breakdowns during long transits.
(ii) Coastal and River Towage: Smaller, more versatile tugs operate along coastlines, major navigable rivers (such as the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Godavari), and short sea passages. These tugs are essential for towing or pushing barges laden with bulk cargo, construction materials, or grain. Coastal towage supports India’s ambitious Sagarmala Programme by enhancing port connectivity and promoting inland water transport. The legal issues here often involve implied contracts, customary tariffs, and safety regulations prescribed by state maritime boards. Unlike deep-sea towage, coastal towage contracts are frequently oral or implied through repeated course of conduct, and courts have held that masters have implied authority to engage such services when reasonably necessary for the safe and proper performance of the voyage [citation:4].
(iii) Harbor Towage: Within the confined precincts of ports such as Mumbai, Kandla, Chennai, Vizhinjam, and Paradip, harbor towage is often mandatory for berthing, docking, undocking, and lock transits. Harbor tugs are highly maneuverable, equipped with azimuth stern drives (ASD) or Voith Schneider propellers, allowing them to push or pull vessels with precision. In many major ports, towage services are provided by specialized operators under long-term period contracts or administered by port trusts under statutory tariffs. Disputes in harbor towage frequently involve allegations of negligent maneuvering causing fender damage, allisions with piers, or delays due to insufficient tug power. The standard of care required is that of a skilled harbor tug master familiar with local currents and berth configurations.
Towage Contracts: Formation, Terms, and Implied Obligations
Towage services are typically rendered pursuant to formal contracts that specify the scope of work, remuneration, duration, and allocation of liabilities. These contracts may be voyage-specific, time-based, or period contracts covering multiple tows over a specified period. The UK Standard Towage Conditions (UTC) are frequently incorporated by reference, even in Indian contracts, due to their detailed allocation of risk and limitation of liability clauses. However, Indian courts will examine such standard terms for consistency with public policy and the Admiralty Act, 2017.
Importantly, even where no written agreement is signed, a towage contract may be implied from the conduct of the parties, especially where the master has consistently accepted similar terms on previous occasions. In exigent circumstances — such as a sudden engine failure in a busy channel — the master has implied authority to engage towage services without prior owner approval. This implied authority is a necessity of maritime commerce, ensuring that vessels can secure immediate assistance without bureaucratic delay. The remuneration in such cases must be reasonable, and the tug owner must prove the necessity and fairness of the charges.
A fundamental element of any towage contract is the “best endeavors” clause. The tug is ordinarily obliged to use its best endeavors to protect the tow, the cargo, and the environment. However, this is not a guarantee of success; it is an obligation to act with due diligence and seamanship. If an event that was reasonably anticipated occurs — such as a predictable squall — the tug’s actions to preserve safety are considered part of the contract, and no extra remuneration is due. Conversely, if the tow is imperilled by an event entirely outside the reasonable contemplation of the parties (e.g., a sudden tsunami, piracy attack, or unprecedented mechanical failure of a shipboard system), the tug’s services may be treated as salvage, warranting additional reward under the “no cure, no pay” principle [citation:5][citation:8].
Demarcation Between Towage and Salvage: The Legal Frontier
The most litigated frontier in towage law is the demarcation between a towage contract and a salvage operation. A towage contract is normally negotiated without imminent peril, and remuneration is agreed in advance. Salvage, on the other hand, is a pure maritime service rendered in the face of danger, where the salvor is rewarded only upon success (no cure, no pay) and the reward is assessed post-service based on factors such as the value of property saved, the skill of the salvor, and the degree of risk incurred. The Lloyd’s Open Form (LOF) is the archetypal salvage contract, but its use implies a submission to London arbitration and English law, which may not always suit Indian parties [citation:5].
Article 17 of the Salvage Convention 1989 (adopted into Indian jurisprudence via the Admiralty Act, 2017) explicitly states that a salvage reward is payable only where the services rendered exceed what can be reasonably considered due performance of a pre-existing contract, such as a towage agreement. Therefore, for a towage contract to be converted into a salvage operation, the tug must satisfy two cumulative conditions: (a) the services performed were of an extraordinary nature not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of the towage contract; and (b) the remuneration under the towage contract would be manifestly inadequate compensation for the risks and services actually undertaken [citation:5].
A classic illustration is the disabled vessel scenario. Suppose a ship suffers engine breakdown while in normal navigation. It is not in imminent peril (no sinking or fire), but it cannot proceed. The shipowner calls a tug under a pre-existing period contract for towage. The tug tows the vessel to a safe anchorage. If nothing extraordinary occurs, this remains ordinary or extraordinary towage, and only the contract rate is payable. However, if during the tow a severe storm arises, the tow line parts, the tug must perform a dynamic reconnection in heavy seas, and narrowly prevents the tow from grounding on a lee shore, the nature of the service changes. The tug may claim salvage on the basis that the services exceeded the reasonable scope of the towage contract. Courts examine each case on particular facts, including whether the tug’s crew displayed salvific skill beyond mere towing [citation:3][citation:8].
To avoid ambiguity, sophisticated towage contracts often include an express clause excluding any right to salvage remuneration, or alternatively, define the scope of “extraordinary services” that will be compensated at a higher tariff without full salvage arbitration. Such express clauses are generally upheld unless they contravene public policy. The public policy of most maritime nations, including India, is to encourage salvage to preserve life and property at sea; therefore, clauses that completely exclude any salvage reward in the face of life-threatening peril may be scrutinized strictly.
Remedies, Liens, and In Rem Proceedings
One of the most potent remedies for a towage provider is the action in rem against the towed vessel. Under the Admiralty Act, 2017, once a towage claim arises, the claimant may arrest the vessel (or a sister ship under the same beneficial ownership) to obtain security for the claim. This right of arrest exists regardless of whether the towage services were rendered in Indian waters or abroad, provided the vessel is within Indian jurisdiction at the time of filing. The arrest mechanism is swift and effective, often compelling shipowners to provide bank guarantees or P&I club letters of undertaking to secure release. For tug operators, the ability to arrest ensures that they are not forced into a race of diligence in a foreign forum [citation:8].
Nevertheless, it is crucial to note that ordinary towage does not create a maritime lien. A maritime lien is a privileged claim that travels with the vessel regardless of change of ownership and is typically reserved for salvage, wages, collisions, and necessaries in some jurisdictions. Towage, being a contractual service in the ordinary course, gives rise to a statutory right in rem but not a maritime lien. This distinction affects priority in the distribution of proceeds when the vessel is sold by court order. Salvage creditors rank higher than towage creditors. The legal rationale is that a salvor who risks life and property to save a vessel from total loss deserves a preference over a tug that merely expedites a routine voyage [citation:3]. However, if towage services are performed in circumstances that border on salvage (e.g., towing a vessel off a reef after it grounded in a storm), the court may reclassify the claim as salvage to grant a maritime lien.
Liability, Negligence, and Limitation of Liability in Towage
The standard of care in towage is that of reasonable skill and competence. A tug master must possess knowledge of the towing vessel’s capabilities, the sea state, the characteristics of the tow (such as its displacement and windage), and the navigational hazards along the route. Negligence may arise from a failure to inspect towing gear, using insufficient bollard pull for the conditions, or deviating from the agreed route without justification. If a tug negligently allows the tow to drift into shallows or collide with a bridge, the tug owner is liable for the resulting damage to the tow and third parties.
However, both tug and tow owners are entitled to limit their liability under the LLMC Convention 1976, as given effect in India, unless the damage results from their personal act or omission committed with intent to cause such loss or recklessly with knowledge that such loss would probably result. The limitation fund is calculated based on the tonnage of the vessel involved. This principle prevents crippling unlimited claims and promotes predictable risk allocation in international shipping. For towage operations, it is common for contracts to include “knock-for-knock” liability clauses, where each party bears its own property damage and assumes liability for its own personnel, regardless of fault. Indian courts generally enforce such clauses as long as they are clearly communicated and do not violate public policy in cases of gross negligence.
Insurance and Risk Management in Towage Operations
Modern towage operations are heavily insured. Tug owners carry hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity (P&I) cover for third-party liabilities, and often specific towage liability insurance. The towed vessel’s owners also carry insurance, but disputes frequently arise between insurers regarding which policy responds to a particular loss. The standard towage contract will require the tow to maintain full insurance and to waive subrogation rights against the tug in certain cases. The interplay between the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, and the Admiralty Act, 2017, is complex, and Indian courts have emphasized that towage claims must be adjudicated with a view to the underlying insurance arrangements to avoid multiple litigations.
Recent Operational and Regulatory Developments
The sixteenth edition (2026) acknowledges the significant technological and regulatory shifts in towage. India’s labour reform programme, including the implementation of the four Labour Codes, has enhanced safety and social security protections for dock workers and tug crew members, reducing employment-related liabilities for towage operators [citation:1]. Additionally, the expansion of the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021, has given port trusts greater autonomy to enter into long-term towage concession agreements, fostering competition and efficiency. Environmentally, the push for green shipping has led to the introduction of hybrid and electric harbor tugs at major ports, reducing emissions and noise pollution. The legal framework is adapting to these changes, with new contractual clauses addressing sustainability targets and carbon intensity indicators.
The global market for towage has seen consolidation and fleet modernization, with leading offshore service providers adding high-bollard pull, DP2-class vessels to handle the next generation of ultra-large container ships and floating offshore wind installations. In India, the strategic importance of towage is underscored by the increasing number of Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) and LNG carriers calling at Indian ports, requiring specialized escort tugs capable of emergency braking and firefighting. Towage contracts now routinely include emergency response and pollution control addenda, recognizing that the tug is often the first responder in a port emergency [citation:10].
Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
Given the international nature of towage, arbitration is the preferred mode of dispute resolution. Many towage contracts specify arbitration in London, Singapore, or Mumbai under institutional rules such as the LMAA, SIAC, or the Mumbai Maritime Arbitration Centre (MMAC). The Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended, supports the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards relating to towage disputes, subject to limited public policy grounds. However, when a vessel is arrested in India as security for a towage claim, the Indian court retains supervisory jurisdiction over the arrest and the release of security, even if the substantive dispute is referred to arbitration elsewhere. This dual regime requires towage claimants to coordinate carefully between court proceedings and arbitration to avoid costs.
Distinction from Pilotage and Other Services
It is also essential to distinguish towage from pilotage. Pilotage is the compulsory or voluntary navigation of a vessel by a licensed pilot who is an expert in local waters. The pilot acts as an advisor but does not typically contract for propulsion or towing. While pilotage is also listed in Section 4(1)(k) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, it gives rise to different claims and does not involve the employment of a tug’s power. Towage, by contrast, is a physical assistance service. The legal liability of a pilot is governed by specific pilotage acts and generally excludes the pilot’s personal liability beyond a nominal amount, whereas a tug owner faces full tort liability for negligence.
Practical Guidance for Stakeholders
For shipowners and charterers, the key takeaway is to ensure that towage contracts are clear, written, and cover contingencies such as mechanical breakdown, adverse weather, and deviations. The towage contract should specify whether the tug is undertaking “ordinary” or “extraordinary” services and whether any salvage rights are waived or retained. For tug owners, maintaining accurate logs, charts, and communication records is vital to justify claims and defend against allegations of negligence. The use of voyage data recorders (VDRs) on modern tugs is becoming standard practice and provides objective evidence in disputes. Additionally, engaging experienced admiralty lawyers to draft or review towage contracts can prevent costly litigation. India’s leading shipping law firm, Brus Chambers, advises on the full spectrum of towage contracts, from standard harbor agreements to complex deep-sea towage projects, ensuring compliance with the Admiralty Act, 2017 and international conventions [citation:6].
Towage remains a dynamic and legally complex field, indispensable for the functioning of modern ports, the safety of navigation, and the viability of offshore energy projects. The Sixteenth Edition (2026) of this chapter reaffirms the robust legal framework established by the Admiralty Act, 2017, while adapting to new technologies, environmental imperatives, and commercial exigencies. The High Courts of India continue to play a pivotal role in interpreting towage contracts, balancing the rights of tug owners and shipowners, and upholding the highest traditions of maritime law. By clearly distinguishing towage from salvage, recognizing the significance of extraordinary services, and providing effective remedies such as ship arrest, Indian admiralty law ensures that towage claims are resolved with fairness, efficiency, and legal certainty.
As global shipping volumes increase and vessels grow larger, the demand for reliable and legally sound towage services will only intensify. Stakeholders who understand the legal nuances — from the formation of implied contracts to the enforcement of limitation of liability — will be best positioned to navigate this challenging yet rewarding sector of maritime commerce. This comprehensive analysis serves as the definitive guide to towage law in India, reflecting the latest statutory updates and best practices for the sixteenth edition.