International Convention for Arrest of Ships (1999) and Indian Admiralty Framework
- BCAS: 7103-1001
- admiraltypractice.com
Where statutes are silent and remedy has to be sought by recourse to basic principles, it is the duty of the court to devise procedural rules by analogy and expediency. Action in rem, as seen above, were resorted to by courts as a devise to overcome the difficulty of personal service on the defendant by compelling him to enter appearance and accept service of summons with a view to furnish security for the release of the res; or, in his absence, proceed against the res itself, by attributing to it a personality for the purpose of entering a decree and executing the same by sale of the res. This is a practical procedural device developed by the courts with a view to rendering justice in accordance with substantive law not only in cases of collision and salvage, but also in cases of other maritime liens and claims arising by reason of breach of contract for the hire of vessels or the carriage of goods or other maritime transactions, or tortious acts, such as conversion or negligence occurring in connection with the carriage of goods. Where substantive law demands justice for the party aggrieved, and the statute has not provided the remedy, it is the duty of the court to devise procedure by drawing analogy from other systems of law and practice. To the courts of the "civil law countries" in Europe and other places, like problems seldom arise, for all persons and things within their territories (including their waters) fall within their competence to deal with. They do not have to draw any distinction between an action in rem and an action in personam.
It is likewise within the competence of the appropriate Indian Courts to deal, in accordance with the general principles of maritime law and the applicability of provisions of statutory law, with all persons and things found within their jurisdiction. The power of the court is plenary and unlimited unless it is expressly or by necessary implication curtailed. In the absence of such curtailment of jurisdiction, all remedies, which are available to the courts to administer justice, are available to a claimant against a foreign ship and its owner found within the jurisdiction of the concerned High Court. This power of the court to render justice must necessarily include the power to make interlocutory orders for arrest and attachment before judgment.
India did not sign and consequently did not ratify or promulgate either the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships, signed at Brussels on 10 May 1952 and at Geneva on 12 March 1999 but the principles were adopted by Supreme Court of India judgements in m.v. Elizabeth and in m.v.ea Success matter as part of the common law of India and applicable for the enforcement of maritime claims against foreign ships as is held. Although the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 has imported most of the articles from the conventions to the act, there are some grey areas not covered; the admiralty court will have to deal with them with recourse to the Geneva Convention 1999 as a statement of customary international law. The 1999 Convention expanded the list of maritime claims from 17 under the 1952 Brussels Convention to 22 categories, introduced specific provisions for environmental claims (Article 1(1)(d)), created a more detailed regime for sister ship arrest under Article 3(2), and codified protections against wrongful arrest under Article 6. These provisions now inform Indian court procedures even in the absence of formal ratification.
The scope and nature of the Admiralty jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India have been examined and ascertained in several landmark judgments that harmonize the common law with the modern statutory regime. The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court is dependent on the presence of the foreign ship in Indian waters and founded on the arrest of that ship. This jurisdiction can be assumed by the concerned High Court, whether or not the defendant resides or carries on business, or the cause of action arose wholly or in part, within the local limits of its jurisdiction. Once a foreign ship is arrested within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court, and the owner of the ship has entered appearance and furnished security to the satisfaction of the High Court for the release of the ship, the proceedings continue as a personal action.
A foreign vessel, no matter what flag she flies, owes temporary and local allegiance to the sovereign of any port to which she comes. Moreover, the persons in such a vessel likewise must obey the laws and regulations of the port. Such jurisdiction is discretionary. Once a foreign vessel passes out of territorial waters, she owes no further duty to the place, which she has left, unless there is a hot pursuit. However, her conduct on the high seas or in foreign ports may subject her to penalties on returning on a subsequent visit. In the words of Chief Justice Marshal of the United States Supreme Court "it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation, if such (alien) individuals or merchants (trading in ships) did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country."
All foreign merchant ships and persons thereon fall under the jurisdiction of a coastal State as they enter its waters. Subject to the right of "innocent passage", the coastal State is free to exercise its jurisdiction over such ships in respect of matters on which the consequences extend beyond the ships. Such ships are subject to the local jurisdiction in criminal, civil and administrative matters. This jurisdiction is, however, assumed only when, in the opinion of the local authorities, the peace or tranquility of the port is disturbed, when strangers to the vessel are involved or when the local authorities are appealed to. Questions which affect only the internal order and economy of the ship are generally left to the authorities of the flag State. Coastal States are entitled to assume jurisdiction in respect of maritime claims against foreign merchant ships lying in their waters. These ships are liable to be arrested and detained for the enforcement of maritime claims. The courts of the country in which a foreign ship has been arrested may determine the cases according to merits, provided they are empowered to do so by the domestic law of that country or in any of the cases recognised by the International Convention relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships, Brussels, 1952 or the Geneva Convention 1999.
In India, carriage of goods by sea is governed by the Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1856, the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and general statutes, such as the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, the Contract Act, 1872, the Evidence Act, 1872, the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Companies Act, 1956 etc as well as the general principles of law such as the law of tort, public and private international law. The Indian Ports Act, 1908 and the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 concerning the administration of the port and the jurisdiction over ships in ports, the Customs Act, 1962 containing various regulatory measures affecting ships, goods and persons in connection with importation or exportation of goods, as well as the provisions governing employment of labour remain essential references. The Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1856 emphasises the negotiable and other characteristics of a bill of lading. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, contains the Hague Rules regulating the respective rights and liabilities of the parties to a contract governed by bills of lading or similar documents of title for carriage of goods by sea "from any port in India to any other port whether in India or outside India". The Merchant Shipping Act embodies rules regarding registration of Indian ships; transfers or mortgages of ships or shares; national character and flag; employment of seamen; safety, nuclear ships; collisions; accidents at sea and liability; limitation of liability; navigation; prevention of pollution; investigation and enquiries; wreck and salvage; coasting trade; sailing vessels; penalties and procedure. Many of these provisions have been adopted from rules formulated by various international conventions.
The Hague Rules are embodied in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. India never became a party to the International Convention laying down those rules (International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, Brussels 1924). The Carriage of Goods of Sea Act, 1925 merely followed the (United Kingdom) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924. The United Kingdom repealed the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924 with a view to incorporating the Visby Rules adopted by the Brussels Protocol of 1968. The Hague-Visby Rules were accordingly adopted by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1971 (United Kingdom). Indian legislation had not progressed for several decades, but the Admiralty Act 2017 now fills many gaps by directly incorporating the spirit of the Geneva Convention 1999 into domestic law. The Hamburg Rules prescribe the minimum liabilities of the carrier far more justly and equitably than the Hague Rules so as to correct the tilt in the latter in favour of the carriers. The Hamburg Rules are acclaimed to be a great improvement on the Hague Rules and far more beneficial from the point of view of the cargo owners. India has taken steps to align its maritime trade laws with modern international standards, though full adoption of the Hamburg or Rotterdam Rules remains under consideration by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways.
All persons and things within the waters of a State fall within its jurisdiction unless specifically curtailed or regulated by rules of international law. The power to arrest a foreign vessel, while in the waters of a coastal State, in respect of a maritime claim, wherever arising, is a demonstrable manifestation and an essential attribute of territorial sovereignty. This power is recognised by several international conventions. These conventions contain the unified rules of law drawn from different legal systems. Although many of these conventions have yet to be ratified by India, they embody principles of law recognised by the generality of maritime States, and can therefore be regarded as part of our common law. The judicial power of this country, which is an aspect of national sovereignty, is vested with the people and is articulated in the provisions of the Constitution and the laws and is exercised by courts empowered to exercise it. Access to court which is an important right vested with every citizen implies the existence of the power of the Court to render justice according to law. Where the statute is silent and judicial intervention is required, Courts strive to redress grievances according to what is perceived to be the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 is now in full force and has repealed all the previous admiralty laws, including the Admiralty Court Act 1861, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890, and certain provisions of the Letters Patent of the High Courts. Under Section 4 of the Admiralty Act 2017, a "maritime claim" is defined in alignment with the Geneva Convention 1999, enumerating 19 specific categories that closely mirror the Convention's Article 1. Section 5 empowers the High Court to order arrest of a vessel in respect of a maritime claim, while Section 6 regulates the release of vessel upon provision of sufficient security. Section 10 provides for the arrest of sister ships when the person liable for the claim is the owner of the vessel at the time of arrest. The 2017 Act applies to every vessel irrespective of flag, and its provisions supersede conflicting rules of civil procedure. The High Courts at Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, and Hyderabad now exercise full admiralty jurisdiction under this modern statutory framework. The Act also provides for appeals from a single judge to a division bench and thereafter to the Supreme Court of India. Judicial precedents under the Act have confirmed that security provided for release must be reasonable and not exceed the value of the arrested ship, following Article 4(2) of the Geneva Convention.
The International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, 1999 (Geneva) – Full Text and Commentary
The States Parties to this Convention, Recognizing the desirability of facilitating the harmonious and orderly development of world seaborne trade, Convinced of the necessity for a legal instrument establishing international uniformity in the field of arrest of ships which takes account of recent developments in related fields, Have agreed as follows:
Article 1 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention: 1. "Maritime Claim" means a claim arising out of one or more of the following: (a) loss or damage caused by the operation of the ship; (b) loss of life or personal injury occurring, whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of the ship; (c) salvage operations or any salvage agreement, including, if applicable, special compensation relating to salvage operations in respect of a ship which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment; (d) damage or threat of damage caused by the ship to the environment, coastline or related interests; measures taken to prevent, minimize, or remove such damage; compensation for such damage; costs of reasonable measures of reinstatement of the environment actually undertaken or to be undertaken; loss incurred or likely to be incurred by third parties in connection with such damage; and damage, costs, or loss of a similar nature to those identified in this subparagraph (d); (e) costs or expenses relating to the raising, removal, recovery, destruction or the rendering harmless of a ship which is sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned, including anything that is or has been on board such ship, and costs or expenses relating to the preservation of an abandoned ship and maintenance of its crew; (f) any agreement relating to the use or hire of the ship, whether contained in a charter party or otherwise; (g) any agreement relating to the carriage of goods or passengers on board the ship, whether contained in a charter party or otherwise; (h) loss of or damage to or in connection with goods (including luggage) carried on board the ship; (i) general average; (j) towage; (k) pilotage; (l) goods, materials, provisions, bunkers, equipment (including containers) supplied or services rendered to the ship for its operation, management, preservation or maintenance; (m) construction, reconstruction, repair, converting or equipping of the ship; (n) port, canal, dock, harbour and other waterway dues and charges; (o) wages and other sums due to the master, officers and other members of the ship's complement in respect of their employment on the ship, including costs of repatriation and social insurance contributions payable on their behalf; (p) disbursements incurred on behalf of the ship or its owners; (q) insurance premiums (including mutual insurance calls) in respect of the ship, payable by or on behalf of the shipowner or demise charterer; (r) any commissions, brokerages or agency fees payable in respect of the ship by or on behalf of the shipowner or demise charterer; (s) any dispute as to ownership or possession of the ship; (t) any dispute between co-owners of the ship as to the employment or earnings of the ship; (u) a mortgage or a hypotheque or a charge of the same nature on the ship; (v) any dispute arising out of a contract for the sale of the ship. 2. "Arrest" means any detention or restriction on removal of a ship by order of a Court to secure a maritime claim, but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or other enforceable instrument. 3. "Person" means any individual or partnership or any public or private body, whether corporate or not, including a State or any of its constituent subdivisions. 4. "Claimant" means any person asserting a maritime claim. 5. "Court" means any competent judicial authority of a State.
Article 2 – Powers of arrest
1. A ship may be arrested or released from arrest only under the authority of a Court of the State Party in which the arrest is effected. 2. A ship may only be arrested in respect of a maritime claim but in respect of no other claim. 3. A ship may be arrested for the purpose of obtaining security notwithstanding that, by virtue of a jurisdiction clause or arbitration clause in any relevant contract, or otherwise, the maritime claim in respect of which the arrest is effected is to be adjudicated in a State other than the State where the arrest is effected, or is to be arbitrated, or is to be adjudicated subject to the law of another State. 4. Subject to the provisions of this Convention, the procedure relating to the arrest of a ship or its release shall be governed by the law of the State in which the arrest was effected or applied for.
Article 3 – Exercise of right of arrest
1. Arrest is permissible of any ship in respect of which a maritime claim is asserted if: (a) the person who owned the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is owner of the ship when the arrest is effected; or (b) the demise charterer of the ship at the time when the maritime claim arose is liable for the claim and is demise charterer or owner of the ship when the arrest is effected; or (c) the claim is based upon a mortgage or a hypotheque or a charge of the same nature on the ship; or (d) the claim relates to the ownership or possession of the ship; or (e) the claim is against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the ship and is secured by a maritime lien which is granted or arises under the law of the State where the arrest is applied for. 2. Arrest is also permissible of any other ship or ships which, when the arrest is effected, is or are owned by the person who is liable for the maritime claim and who was, when the claim arose: (a) owner of the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose; or (b) demise charterer, time charterer or voyage charterer of that ship. This provision does not apply to claims in respect of ownership or possession of a ship. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article, the arrest of a ship which is not owned by the person liable for the claim shall be permissible only if, under the law of the State where the arrest is applied for, a judgment in respect of that claim can be enforced against that ship by judicial or forced sale of that ship.
Article 4 – Release from arrest
1. A ship which has been arrested shall be released when sufficient security has been provided in a satisfactory form, save in cases in which a ship has been arrested in respect of any of the maritime claims enumerated in article 1, paragraphs 1 (s) and (t). In such cases, the Court may permit the person in possession of the ship to continue trading the ship, upon such person providing sufficient security, or may otherwise deal with the operation of the ship during the period of the arrest. 2. In the absence of agreement between the parties as to the sufficiency and form of the security, the Court shall determine its nature and the amount thereof, not exceeding the value of the arrested ship. 3. Any request for the ship to be released upon security being provided shall not be construed as an acknowledgement of liability nor as a waiver of any defence or any right to limit liability. 4. If a ship has been arrested in a non-party State and is not released although security in respect of that ship has been provided in a State Party in respect of the same claim, that security shall be ordered to be released on application to the Court in the State Party. 5. If in a non-party State the ship is released upon satisfactory security in respect of that ship being provided, any security provided in a State Party in respect of the same claim shall be ordered to be released to the extent that the total amount of security provided in the two States exceeds: (a) the claim for which the ship has been arrested, or (b) the value of the ship, whichever is the lower. 6. Where, pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article, security has been provided, the person providing such security may at any time apply to the Court to have that security reduced, modified, or cancelled.
Article 5 – Right of rearrest and multiple arrest
1. Where in any State a ship has already been arrested and released or security in respect of that ship has already been provided to secure a maritime claim, that ship shall not thereafter be rearrested or arrested in respect of the same maritime claim unless: (a) the nature or amount of the security in respect of that ship already provided in respect of the same claim is inadequate, on condition that the aggregate amount of security may not exceed the value of the ship; or (b) the person who has already provided the security is not, or is unlikely to be, able to fulfil some or all of that person's obligations; or (c) the ship arrested or the security previously provided was released either: (i) upon the application or with the consent of the claimant acting on reasonable grounds, or (ii) because the claimant could not by taking reasonable steps prevent the release. 2. Any other ship which would otherwise be subject to arrest in respect of the same maritime claim shall not be arrested unless: (a) the nature or amount of the security already provided in respect of the same claim is inadequate; or (b) the provisions of paragraph 1 (b) or (c) of this article are applicable. 3. "Release" for the purpose of this article shall not include any unlawful release or escape from arrest.
Article 6 – Protection of owners and demise charterers of arrested ships
1. The Court may as a condition of the arrest of a ship, or of permitting an arrest already effected to be maintained, impose upon the claimant who seeks to arrest or who has procured the arrest of the ship the obligation to provide security of a kind and for an amount, and upon such terms, as may be determined by that Court for any loss which may be incurred by the defendant as a result of the arrest, and for which the claimant may be found liable, including but not restricted to such loss or damage as may be incurred by that defendant in consequence of: (a) the arrest having been wrongful or unjustified; or (b) excessive security having been demanded and provided. 2. The Courts of the State in which an arrest has been effected shall have jurisdiction to determine the extent of the liability, if any, of the claimant for loss or damage caused by the arrest of a ship, including but not restricted to such loss or damage as may be caused in consequence of: (a) the arrest having been wrongful or unjustified, or (b) excessive security having been demanded and provided. 3. The liability, if any, of the claimant in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article shall be determined by application of the law of the State where the arrest was effected. 4. If a Court in another State or an arbitral tribunal is to determine the merits of the case in accordance with the provisions of article 7, proceedings relating to the liability of the claimant for wrongful arrest may be stayed pending the decision of that Court or tribunal.
Practical Application of Arrest Provisions in Indian Courts – 2025–2026 Updates
Recent admiralty jurisprudence in India has reinforced the pro-claimant approach while ensuring safeguards for shipowners. In January 2026, the Gujarat High Court ordered the arrest of a bulk carrier vessel MV Nikator at Kandla Port for short delivery of cargo (407.3 metric tonnes) to a pharmaceutical company. The court directed the Port Officer and Customs Authorities to keep the vessel under arrest until further orders and imposed a total cost of Rs 2.89 crore on the defendants interested in the vessel as security, which included the principal claim amount, customs duty, taxes, and legal costs of Rs 75 lakhs [citation:1]. This decision under Sections 4 and 5 of the Admiralty Act 2017 demonstrates the court's willingness to grant arrest warrants even when the cargo shortage is ascertained after discharge, provided the claimant establishes a strong prima facie maritime claim.
Similarly, in February 2026, the Bombay High Court in Shreeji Shipping Services (India) Ltd v. Diamond (IMO No. 1036941) ordered arrest of the vessel for outstanding charter hire dues amounting to INR 80,57,112.40 arising out of a charterparty agreement [citation:5]. Justice Kamal Khata held that the claim constituted a maritime claim under Section 4(1)(h) of the Admiralty Act 2017 (agreement relating to use or hire of the ship) and that the vessel was owned by the same entity against whom the cause of action arose. The court dispensed with the formal warrant of arrest and allowed the plaintiff to intimate the order to the Master, Port, Customs, and CISF authorities by email or hand delivery.
In another significant ruling, the Madras High Court in Ram-Nath and Company Pvt Ltd v. Owners of MV Maersk Stadelhorn (January 2026) examined the scope of "maritime claim" under Section 4(1)(g) and (h) [citation:9]. The court clarified that claims arising from detention charges or container detention cannot be the subject of an admiralty suit unless they directly relate to the carriage of goods under a contract of carriage or charterparty. The court dismissed the suit for refund of extended detention free period, holding that such claims do not fall within the enumerated categories of maritime claims under the Admiralty Act. This judgment serves as a cautionary reminder that not every commercial dispute involving a ship is actionable in rem; the claim must strictly arise out of one of the statutory categories.
Procedural Steps for Arrest and Release Under Indian Law Aligned with Geneva Convention 1999
The procedure for arresting a vessel in India is governed by the Admiralty Act 2017 read with the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly Order XXXVIII Rule 5 (attachment before judgment) and Order XXI (execution). A typical arrest process involves: (1) filing an admiralty suit (commercial admiralty suit) before the jurisdictional High Court; (2) pleading the existence of a maritime claim as defined under Section 4; (3) demonstrating that the vessel is within the territorial waters of India; (4) establishing that the person liable for the claim was the owner or demise charterer of the vessel at the time the cause of action arose; (5) taking a caveat search to ensure no caveat against arrest has been entered; (6) obtaining an ex-parte order of arrest from the judge; (7) executing the warrant of arrest through the Sheriff of the High Court or the Port Officer; (8) serving the arrest order on the Master of the vessel and the port/customs authorities; and (9) notifying all interested parties, including mortgagees and cargo interests. After arrest, the vessel is detained at the port berth or anchorage, and the owner may apply for release by furnishing security in the form of a bank guarantee, cash deposit, or P&I Club letter of undertaking. The amount of security is determined by the court, usually reflecting the principal claim plus interest and costs, but cannot exceed the value of the arrested ship (Article 4(2) of Geneva Convention).
Comparative Analysis: Brussels 1952 vs Geneva 1999 vs Indian Admiralty Act 2017
The Brussels Convention 1952 covered 17 maritime claims and permitted arrest only of the "offending" ship or sister ships owned by the same person at the time the claim arose. The Geneva Convention 1999 expanded the claims to 22 categories, added environmental claims and wreck removal costs, refined sister ship arrest provisions (Article 3(2)), introduced detailed rules on rearrest and multiple arrest (Article 5), and included comprehensive protections for shipowners against wrongful arrest (Article 6). The Indian Admiralty Act 2017 largely adopts the 1999 framework but with some modifications: (a) Section 4 lists 19 maritime claims, omitting some subcategories of the Geneva list; (b) Section 5 permits arrest of any vessel if the person liable is the owner or demise charterer at the time of arrest; (c) Section 10 specifically deals with sister ship arrest and follows the Geneva model; (d) The Act does not explicitly incorporate Article 6 protections but Indian courts impose counter-security as a condition for arrest under their inherent powers; (e) The Act applies to all vessels, including those in territorial waters, and overrides any inconsistent procedural laws. The absence of full ratification by India is rendered irrelevant by the statutory embodiment of the Convention's core principles. This alignment ensures that arrest orders issued by Indian High Courts are recognized and respected by foreign courts and P&I Clubs globally.
Maritime Liens and Their Interaction with Arrest Conventions
A maritime lien is a privileged claim against a ship that travels with the vessel regardless of changes in ownership. The Geneva Convention 1999 Article 1(1)(e) recognises maritime liens securing claims for salvage, collision, crew wages, and master's disbursements. Under Indian law, maritime liens are not exhaustively codified but are recognised through judicial decisions. Typical maritime liens include claims for salvage, general average, collision damages, crew wages, master's wages and disbursements, and damage done by a ship. These claims can be enforced by arresting the ship even if the claim arose under a previous owner, as the lien attaches to the res. The Admiralty Act 2017 Section 5(1) does not explicitly codify liens but presumes their existence by allowing arrest for any maritime claim where the person liable was the owner at the time of claim accrual. For claims secured by a maritime lien, it is not necessary that the defendant owner is the same as the owner when the claim arose. This distinction between "lien claims" and "statutory claims" remains important in practice.
Role of BRUS Chambers in Leading Admiralty Practice in India
The firm BRUS Chambers, Advocates & Solicitors, founded in 1998, has established itself as the premier shipping and admiralty law practice in India. Dr. Shrikant Pareshnath Hathi and Ms. Binita Hathi, the partners and authors of this treatise, are recognised by Legal 500 Hall of Fame and as Leading Individuals for shipping work since 2004. The firm has been consistently ranked as the best shipping law firm in India by international publications including Shippinglawyers.Net, Lloyds List, and IBLJ. The firm’s expertise spans ship arrest, release, maritime claim enforcement, carriage of goods disputes, charterparty litigation, collision and salvage, environmental claims, and arbitration. The firm's advocacy has shaped the development of admiralty jurisprudence in India through numerous reported judgments before the Supreme Court, Bombay High Court, Gujarat High Court, Madras High Court, and Calcutta High Court. The firm operates from its principal office in Mumbai at Fort, behind BSE, and advises international shipowners, P&I Clubs, cargo interests, charterers, and financial institutions. The continued leadership of Dr. Shrikant Hathi and Ms. Binita Hathi ensures that BRUS Chambers remains the go-to law firm for complex cross-border maritime disputes and ship arrest actions.
Emerging Trends and Future Developments
India's maritime trade continues to expand, with major ports handling over 1.3 billion tonnes of cargo annually. The Admiralty Act 2017 has brought clarity and predictability, but calls persist for India to ratify the Geneva Convention 1999 to further harmonise with international practice. The Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways is examining the feasibility of accession to the 1999 Convention, which would require amendments to Section 4 to align fully with Article 1 of the Convention. Additionally, the introduction of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 and the Commercial Division of High Courts has expedited the resolution of admiralty suits, with most arrests being processed within 24 to 48 hours. The use of electronic filing (e-filing) and video conferencing for urgent arrest applications has become standard post-pandemic, reducing delays. The 2026 edition of this treatise incorporates all amendments to the Merchant Shipping Act and the Major Port Trusts Act, as well as new rules framed by the High Courts for Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty jurisdiction.
Maritime law, or admiralty law, governs legal matters related to nautical issues and private maritime disputes. The International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, first signed in Brussels in 1952 and subsequently updated in Geneva in 1999, aims to provide uniform international rules on the arrest of ships. This ensures that maritime claims are enforced efficiently and fairly across different jurisdictions. In India, the Admiralty Act 2017 has successfully consolidated the pre-existing fragmented admiralty laws, repealed archaic statutes from the British era, and established a comprehensive framework for maritime claims and ship arrest. The act empowers the High Courts to exercise jurisdiction over maritime claims, arrest vessels, order sale of arrested ships, and distribute proceeds among claimants. It also provides a clear statutory basis for arrest of sister ships and protection of lien holders. The synergy between the Geneva Convention 1999 and the Admiralty Act 2017, supplemented by the common law principles evolved through judicial precedents, makes India one of the most attractive jurisdictions for enforcing maritime claims through ship arrest. Claimants from around the world regularly choose Indian ports to arrest vessels because of the efficient procedure, reasonable costs, and high success rate in obtaining security.
Historical Context and Development of Maritime Law
Maritime law has evolved over centuries, influenced by customs, practices, and treaties among seafaring nations. Historically, the enforcement of maritime claims faced challenges due to the international nature of shipping and the mobility of ships. The concept of action in rem allowed a claimant to proceed directly against a ship (the res) rather than the ship's owner, overcoming difficulties in personal service. The Brussels Convention 1952 established fundamental principles for the arrest of ships, addressing issues such as jurisdiction, the scope of maritime claims, and the procedure for arrest. The Geneva Convention 1999 updated the 1952 Convention, expanding the types of claims for which a ship could be arrested and clarifying the procedures for arrest, including detailed rules on security, release, rearrest, and protection of shipowners. India, though not a signatory, has mirrored these principles through judicial innovation and later through the Admiralty Act 2017, thereby securing the benefits of international uniformity without formal ratification.
Scope of Maritime Claims and Arrest Procedures
Maritime claims for which a ship can be arrested include: damage caused by a ship, whether in collision or otherwise; claims related to the carriage of goods by sea; loss or damage to goods; breach of contract for the hire of vessels; tortious acts such as negligence or conversion; salvage, towage, pilotage; supply of necessaries; crew wages and master's disbursements; mortgage enforcement; ownership and co-ownership disputes; environmental damage; wreck removal; and insurance premiums. To arrest a ship, the claimant must file a suit in a competent High Court with admiralty jurisdiction. The court may issue an arrest warrant, and the ship can be detained until the claim is resolved or adequate security is provided by the ship's owner. Under the Admiralty Act 2017, the claimant may also seek arrest before judgment upon showing that the vessel is likely to be removed from the jurisdiction. The court has discretion to order counter-security from the claimant to protect the shipowner against wrongful arrest, consistent with Article 6 of the Geneva Convention 1999.
International Jurisdiction and Comity
Foreign ships within a coastal state's waters owe temporary and local allegiance to that state. This includes compliance with local laws and regulations, even though they primarily fall under the jurisdiction of their flag state. Under international law, foreign ships enjoy the right of innocent passage through territorial waters, provided they do not disturb the peace or security of the coastal state. However, coastal states have the right to exercise jurisdiction over foreign ships for maritime claims, especially when the ship is within their ports or territorial waters. The Geneva Convention 1999 affirms that arrest may be ordered even if the merits of the dispute are to be decided in another State or through arbitration (Article 2(3)). Indian courts respect this principle and frequently order arrest to obtain security for foreign arbitration proceedings, provided the substantive maritime claim is established.
Final Overview of Legal Certainty for Ship Arrest in India
The International Convention on the Arrest of Ships 1999 provides a cohesive international framework for enforcing maritime claims across jurisdictions, ensuring consistency and fairness. In India, the Admiralty Act of 2017 and robust judicial pronouncements have reinforced the principles of modern maritime law, enabling effective enforcement of claims against foreign ships. Detailed procedures for arrest, release, security, rearrest and protection against wrongful arrest are now statutorily entrenched. With the continued expertise of leading admiralty law practitioners such as Dr. Shrikant Hathi and Ms. Binita Hathi of BRUS Chambers, the Indian admiralty system operates efficiently and transparently. The Sixteenth Edition (2026) of this treatise incorporates all recent legislative updates and judicial trends, ensuring that legal professionals, shipowners, cargo interests, and maritime stakeholders have the most current and authoritative guidance on ship arrest in India and the relevant international conventions.