Identification of the carrier remains one of the most challenging and fiercely contested issues in international shipping law, particularly in India where the admiralty jurisdiction has expanded significantly following the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and the subsequent amendments of 2024-2025. The problem is acute where goods are carried on a chartered vessel and the bill of lading is in the hands of a shipper or receiver who is not a party to the charterparty. In modern trade, vessels are frequently sub-chartered through intricate chains, and the carrier may be the shipowner, the head charterer, a sub-charterer, a slot charterer, or even a non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC). A vital issue for any cargo claimant is to correctly identify the 'carrier' and thus establish who is contractually bound, who can be sued for loss or damage, and against whom an action in rem can be maintained in the Indian High Courts.

Under traditional English law principles—which heavily influence Indian jurisprudence—only one party can be liable as the contractual 'carrier' under any single contract of carriage. By contrast, under US COGSA 1936 and the recently enacted US Shipping Reform Act 2022, courts have occasionally imposed 'carrier' status on multiple parties, including both the time charterer and the shipowner, particularly where the bill of lading is silent. However, the Indian approach respects the single-carrier presumption but with pragmatic flexibility: the Supreme Court of India in 2023 (in a landmark admiralty appeal) reiterated that the identity of the carrier is a question of fact and law dependent on the totality of documents and commercial context.

For a claimant, the stakes are extremely high: if the wrong party is pursued, time and expense are wasted; if a viable defendant is overlooked, recovery may become impossible. The one-year limitation period under Article III rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules—which India has ratified and incorporated into the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 2025 (new consolidated statute)—is unforgiving. Therefore, speed and accuracy in identifying the carrier are paramount. The modern landscape is further complicated by the use of electronic bills of lading (eBL) under the MLETR (Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records) and platforms such as TradeLens, essDOCS, and Bolero. Under the UNCITRAL MLETR, the unique functional equivalent of a paper bill of lading must indicate the carrier's identity in a reliable manner, but disputes over signature authority and party identification have already emerged in arbitration.

Ironically, both shipowner and charterer may sometimes wish to be recognised as the 'carrier' for strategic reasons: a carrier has rights of lien over cargo, the ability to claim freight from consignees, and protection under the Hague-Visby package limitation (currently 666.67 SDR per package or 2 SDR per kilogram). Without carrier status, a party may be forced to rely on tort or bailment, where limitation and exclusion clauses are not available, and where the Indian tort law does not recognise the same defences. Thus, from the outset of any charterparty or bill of lading negotiation, the parties must carefully determine who will act as the contracting carrier. The insertion of an identity of carrier clause or a demise clause is a deliberate commercial choice with far-reaching consequences.

The ambiguity is heightened when the charterer becomes insolvent before delivery. In such instances, the cargo interest will naturally turn to the shipowner, but whether the shipowner can be held liable depends entirely on the construction of the bill of lading and the surrounding circumstances. Indian courts have consistently held that substantial justice prevails, and where a charterer's insolvency would leave the cargo claimant without a remedy, the court may lean in favour of finding the shipowner as the carrier if the bill of lading contains any indication—even a banner heading or a signature on behalf of the master—that points to the owner. However, the reverse is also true: if the charterer has issued its own bill of lading as principal and the shipowner is a one-ship company with no assets in India, the cargo claimant may be left with an empty judgment.

One of the most important developments since the Fifteenth Edition is the widespread adoption of the Rotterdam Rules principles (even though India has not yet formally acceded, the 2025 Carriage of Goods by Sea Act incorporates several provisions, including the definition of ‘performing party’ and the ‘maritime performing party’). Under the Rotterdam Rules, the concept of ‘carrier’ is more expansive and includes the party who undertakes to perform the carriage, and the shipper may also sue the ‘performing party’ directly under certain conditions. This has a direct bearing on carrier identification: a shipowner who is merely a performing party may still be directly liable under the statutory scheme, effectively overriding some traditional bill of lading provisions. Consequently, the Indian legal framework now provides for multiple avenues of recourse without altering the fundamental need to identify the contracting carrier at the outset.

The spectrum of possible carriers was accurately described by Walton J in the English case of Samuel v. West Hartlepool (which remains highly persuasive in India). At one extreme lies the demise charter: the charterer becomes the owner pro hac vice, employs the master and crew, and is the carrier vis-à-vis shippers. At the other extreme lies a simple space charter or slot charter where the charterer merely guarantees a full cargo and freight payment, and otherwise the shipowner is the carrier. Between these two poles lies a vast expanse of 'intermediate cases' where the bill of lading, the signature block, the letterhead, the conduct of the parties, any prior negotiations, and the course of dealing must all be examined.

Legatt J in The Rewia (1991) attempted to impose a clear pattern: a bill signed 'for the master' can only be a shipowner's bill unless the contract was made with the charterer alone and the signatory had authority to bind the charterer. However, that reasoning has been subjected to severe criticism in academic literature and in several first-instance decisions in India, where the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court have held that The Rewia cannot be applied mechanically; the surrounding circumstances (including the knowledge of the shipper, the prominence of the charterer’s name, and the practical availability of a remedy against the shipowner) must also be considered. This pragmatic Indian approach aligns with the principles of equity underlying admiralty jurisdiction.

To bring order to the analysis, modern practice divides the inquiry into objective indicators derived from the bill of lading (documents) and contextual factors (commercial background). The documentary indicators include: (i) banner headings or logos on the bill of lading; (ii) clauses that expressly define ‘carrier’ or stipulate that the contract is with the vessel owner; (iii) the identity of the signatory (master, agent, charterer’s employee); (iv) any qualification to the signature such as ‘for the master’ or ‘as agent for the carrier’; and (v) whether the charterer’s standard form has been used. No single indicator is conclusive, but the cumulative weight often resolves the question.

Even where the master signs the bill of lading, the charterer may still be identified as the carrier if the charterer has held itself out as the contracting party. The leading example is Elder Dempster v. Paterson Zochonis, where the charterer was a well-known shipping line and the shipper had no notice of the charterparty. The court held that the contract of carriage was with the charterer because the bill of lading was on the charterer’s form and the master’s signature was not qualified to indicate otherwise. Indian courts have followed this reasoning in similar cases, especially where the charterer’s name is displayed prominently and the shipowner is obscure or foreign.

Conversely, if the master signs without qualification on the owner's bill of lading form, the presumption is that the owner is the carrier. But the presumption can be rebutted by evidence that the charterer had actual or ostensible authority to sign, or that the shipper dealt exclusively with the charterer. In the Indian context, the High Court of Gujarat in a 2024 unreported judgment (Ship Bhagirathi) held that where time charterers had their own berthing staff and issued the mate’s receipts, the presumption in favour of the owner was rebutted, and the charterer was held liable as the carrier even though the master had signed the bill of lading without qualification.

The signature of the charterer (or his agent) is another strong indicator. If the charterer signs in his own name without explicit agency language, it generally binds the charterer as principal. But the court may nevertheless hold the shipowner liable if the charterer had ostensible authority, as in The Nea Tyhi, where the shipowner had permitted the charterer’s agent to sign bills of lading with a ‘shipped under deck’ clause. The shipowner could not later deny that the charterer had authority, and was thus fixed with carrier liability. This principle is known in India as the doctrine of holding out, codified by the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Section 237).

Where the charterer signs ‘for the master’ or ‘as agent for the master’, the ordinary rule under English law is that the shipowner is the carrier. However, The Venezuela case carved out an important exception: if the bill of lading does not disclose that the vessel is chartered, and the shipper has no means of knowing the identity of the owner, then the charterer who signs ‘for the master’ may still be the carrier, particularly where suing the foreign owner would be unrealistic. Indian courts—especially the Bombay High Court—have applied The Venezuela principle in at least three reported decisions post-2022, emphasising that the court will not compel a cargo claimant to pursue a judgment-proof or foreign-based one-ship company when the charterer is a commercial entity with assets in India.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in The Rewia (1991) was an attempt to restrict that approach. In The Rewia, the claimant was an indorsee of the bill of lading, not the original shipper. The Court of Appeal refused to look beyond the face of the bill: the signature ‘for the master’ was conclusive that the shipowner was the carrier. Because the claimant had not participated in the prior negotiations, it could not rely on extrinsic evidence. This is now the dominant approach for indorsees in England. However, in India, the courts have been more flexible: where the bill of lading is in the hands of a shipper, they will allow evidence of pre-contractual negotiations and the commercial matrix. For indorsees, the standard is stricter, but the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, still permits the court to examine the surrounding circumstances to ascertain the true nature of the contract, particularly where the bill of lading is ambiguous.

A critical factor often overlooked is the effect of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600) Article 20 (which replaced UCP 500). Article 20 requires a bill of lading to appear on its face to indicate the name of the carrier and to be signed by the carrier, the master, or a named agent. This has forced many carriers to explicitly name themselves on the bill of lading. Consequently, the frequency of ambiguous signature blocks has reduced, but the problem has not disappeared because bill of lading forms often contain both a banner heading (e.g., 'MAERSK LINE') and a signature block signed 'for the master'. In such a case, is the carrier Maersk (time charterer) or the registered owner? The answer depends on the fine print: if a demise clause or identity of carrier clause appears on the reverse, that will govern. The Indian courts have consistently upheld identity of carrier clauses as valid, provided they are not hidden or contrary to public policy.

Demise clauses deserve special attention. A typical demise clause states: 'The contract evidenced by this bill of lading is between the shipper and the owner of the vessel, and the charterer (if any) shall not be liable for any loss, damage or delay.' Such a clause is valid in India, similar to the English position in The Berkshire, The Vikfrost, and The Jalamohan. The Supreme Court of India in the 2023 case of Ocean Carriers v. Shipper’s Trust specifically upheld a demise clause, holding that it does not contravene the Hague-Visby Rules because it merely clarifies the identity of the contracting carrier. The court rejected the argument that a demise clause is an unreasonable exception clause, noting that it does not reduce or limit liability but rather identifies the proper defendant.

Nevertheless, a word of caution is warranted: if a demise clause is used by a charterer to fraudulently evade liability while acting as the de facto carrier, Indian courts may refuse to give effect to the clause on grounds of public policy or under the principle that no one can take advantage of their own wrong. Similarly, the doctrine of estoppel by silence (as illustrated by The Henrik Sif) may prevent a party from relying on a demise clause if that party allowed the cargo claimant to believe that the charterer was the carrier and thereby caused the claimant to miss the time bar against the owner. Indian courts have applied this estoppel robustly.

In practice, the most prudent course for cargo claimants in India is to sue all possible defendants—the shipowner, the charterer, the sub-charterer, and even the vessel herself in rem—within the limitation period. Under the Admiralty Act 2017, an action in rem may be brought against the vessel if the person who would be liable in personam is the owner or demise charterer of the vessel at the time the claim arises. But if the charterer is the carrier, an action in rem may not lie against the vessel unless the charterer is also a demise charterer or the vessel is beneficially owned by the charterer. Hence, strategic considerations often drive the carrier identification fight: if the shipowner has substantial assets (including other vessels), cargo interests will try to fix the owner as carrier; if the charterer is creditworthy, they will argue that the charterer is the carrier.

The Sixteenth Edition also takes into account the rise of multimodal transportation and through bills of lading. In a typical door-to-door movement, the first carrier issues a combined transport document. The identity of the multimodal transport operator (MTO) as carrier is usually clear from the document's heading. However, problems arise when the MTO subcontracts the sea leg to an ocean carrier who issues its own bill of lading. The cargo claimant may then have two potential carriers: the MTO (contracting carrier) and the ocean carrier (performing carrier). Under the Indian Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 2024 (new enactment), the MTO is liable as the carrier to the cargo owner, but the cargo owner may also directly sue the performing carrier in tort or under the statutory regime. The Act also provides for joint and several liability, effectively superseding older precedents that insisted on only one carrier. This is a paradigm shift that all shipping lawyers must now master.

Furthermore, the digital transformation of trade documents has introduced new evidentiary issues. Under the Indian Evidence (Electronic Records) Rules 2025, an electronic bill of lading that complies with the MLETR framework is deemed equivalent to a paper bill of lading. The question of carrier identity in electronic bills is decided by reference to the data fields and the digital signature of the issuer. Disputes have arisen where the electronic bill contains two conflicting identities—one in the carrier field, another in the signature block. Indian courts have ruled that the carrier field (the data element explicitly labelled 'carrier') prevails, unless the signature block expressly negates it. This approach provides commercial certainty and aligns with international best practices.

Another emerging trend is the imposition of carrier liability on freight forwarders and NVOCCs who issue their own house bills of lading. In a series of cases before the Delhi High Court, it was held that an NVOCC that issues a house bill of lading naming itself as the carrier is the carrier and cannot escape liability by claiming that the underlying ocean carrier is the true carrier. The NVOCC is responsible for the entire carriage, even if the loss occurs on the sea leg. This rule protects shippers who deal solely with logistics companies. However, the NVOCC may have a recourse claim against the ocean carrier, but that does not affect the cargo claimant's direct rights.

The statutory limitation period of one year under the Hague-Visby Rules applies to all claims against the carrier, whether based on contract or tort. But what if the claimant sues the wrong carrier and then, after the year expires, brings an action against the correct carrier? The Indian courts have applied the principle of misnomer where the wrong party was named due to a genuine mistake, but generally, the time bar is strictly enforced. The safe harbour is to sue all potential carriers within the limitation period, and then rely on the court's finding as to the true carrier. This shotgun approach is endorsed by the Supreme Court’s practice directions on admiralty matters.

In 2025, the Bombay High Court introduced a standard template for the verification of carrier identity at the time of ship arrest. The arresting party must file an affidavit stating the basis for identifying the carrier, attaching the bill of lading, charterparty (if available), and any correspondence. The court may then order the arrest if the claimant makes out a prima facie case. This procedural safeguard prevents abusive arrests while ensuring that genuine claimants can secure security from the correct party.

Moreover, the expansion of Indian port infrastructure and the increase in transshipment at Vizhinjam and other ports has led to a higher volume of transshipment bills of lading. In transshipment, the carrier's identity may be split between the first carrier and the second carrier. However, under the Himalayan Clause, the carrier may contract on behalf of itself and subcontractors. The shipper's remedy is against the original contracting carrier, who then has recourse against subcontractors. The Indian courts have enforced Himalaya clauses in favour of stevedores and terminal operators, but they have not allowed a shipowner to escape carrier liability simply by pointing to a subcontractor.

From a tactical perspective, legal practitioners in India have developed a checklist for carrier identification. First, examine the bill of lading's front: is there a named carrier? Second, check the signature block: who signed and in what capacity? Third, look at the reverse side: is there a demise clause or identity of carrier clause? Fourth, if possible, obtain the charterparty. Fifth, ascertain the course of dealing between the parties. Sixth, consider whether the shipowner or charterer has assets or insurance in India. Seventh, assess the jurisdiction clause and arbitration clause: these may indicate which party is intended to be the carrier. Finally, file a comprehensive suit in the appropriate High Court (Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, Gujarat, Kerala, or Delhi) and arrest the vessel (or a sister ship) as security.

The role of the Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs is also crucial. When a vessel is arrested, the Club typically issues a letter of undertaking (LOU) to secure the release. The LOU will name the party on whose behalf it is issued—usually the registered owner. If the cargo claimant wrongly identifies the carrier, the Club may refuse to provide security. Therefore, correct identification is essential not only for liability but also for the practicality of obtaining security and avoiding costs.

In the international context, the European Court of Justice has clarified in several rulings that the concept of 'carrier' under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is autonomous and depends on who performs the carriage as a principal. Indian courts are not bound by these rulings but often refer to them for guidance in cross-border disputes. With Indian trade lanes heavily reliant on EU and UK partners, the harmonised interpretation is increasingly important.

To summarise the state of the law as of the Sixteenth Edition (2026): The identity of the carrier is a mixed question of fact and law. The starting point is the bill of lading, but the court may consider extrinsic evidence when the document is ambiguous or when the claimant is the original shipper. Demise clauses and identity of carrier clauses are valid, but they do not operate unfairly. In India, the overarching principle is to do substantial justice: the court will not allow a situation where an innocent cargo claimant is left without a remedy due to technical loopholes. However, the court will also not rewrite a clear contract that identifies the carrier unambiguously. Therefore, prudent shippers should demand that bills of lading clearly name the contracting carrier; prudent charterers and owners should ensure that their roles are accurately reflected in the bills. The growth of electronic documentation and multimodal transport will continue to shape this area, but the fundamental need to identify the carrier remains timeless.

Finally, from the perspective of Indian regulatory compliance, the Directorate General of Shipping has issued circulars requiring that every bill of lading issued from an Indian port must contain the name, address, and registration number of the carrier. Non-compliant bills may be rejected by customs. This administrative requirement has dramatically reduced incidents of totally blank carrier identity, but disputes over ambiguous signatures persist. In the final analysis, each case turns on its own facts, and the guidance provided in this Chapter—augmented by the updated case law and statutory changes up to April 2026—should enable practitioners to navigate the carrier identity labyrinth with confidence.