Crew on Board after Arrest of Ship
The Sheriff or the Marshal owes no duty to the crew on board as such. The relationship of the Sheriff or the Marshal to the crew will depend upon the circumstances as they affect the discharge of the Sheriff or the Marshal's duty to retain custody of, and to preserve the ship. This foundational principle remains central to Indian admiralty practice under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, which codified the arrest regime while preserving common law principles.
The arrest of a ship does not operate to determine the employer/employee relationship between the owners or demise charterers and the master and crew. Nor does it follow that the issue of a writ/warrant against the ship by the master or crew to recover outstanding wages automatically determines the employment relationship. It will be a question of fact in each case whether or not there is conduct on the part of the owner amounting to repudiation of the employment contract, for example, failure to pay wages and allowances which are owing, which is accepted by the crew as terminating the relationship. The Admiralty Act, 2017 under Section 4(1)(l) explicitly recognizes wages due to the master and crew as a maritime lien, giving them powerful in rem rights against the vessel. However, the existence of a lien does not ipso facto sever the contractual bond of employment.
If the employment relationship is terminated, then crew members may seek to recover wages up until the termination and thereafter damages for breach of contract calculated by reference to the wages lost, the cost of sustenance for a reasonable time at the place of termination pending repatriation to their home port, and the cost of repatriation. Such a claim ranks after the Sheriff or the Marshal's claim against the ship, substitute security, or proceeds of sale for the Sheriff or the Marshal's charges and expenses, the plaintiffs costs of the action, and other claims having priority. This ranking is specifically addressed under Section 9 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, which establishes a hierarchy of maritime claims, placing preservation costs and court expenses at the apex, followed by wages and other liens, and then lower-order claims.
If the crew continue in employment after arrest, the ongoing liability for wages reduces the value of the ship or proceeds of sale to satisfy claims which have lesser priority than the claims of the master and crew. Although the continued engagement by the owner of the crew will give them a right to wages and entitlements, accommodation on board and the right to sustenance, those rights are not enforceable against the Sheriff/Marshal. However, the Sheriff or the Marshal may, if the Sheriff or the Marshal considers it is necessary to the safety of the ship or to preserve it, pay wages and provide accommodation and sustenance to the crew on board for such time following arrest of the ship as the Sheriff or the Marshal considers is necessary. With leave of the court the Sheriff or the Marshal may also provide minimal sustenance in order to avoid hardship to the crew. The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Gujarat, Kerala and Karnataka have developed robust practices under their respective Admiralty Rules to address humanitarian concerns without compromising judicial custody.
The presence of the crew on board is justifiable only for so long as it does not interfere with the ship or the Sheriff or the Marshal's custody of it and does not increase the Sheriff or the Marshal's costs of maintaining custody of the ship and preserving it. For example, if a ship can conveniently be laid up as a dead ship pending trial or the provision of security, a crew will not be permitted to remain on board where that would involve unnecessary expense in providing power or access to the ship to enable the crew to live on board. Modern shipping economics demand that arresting creditors act reasonably to preserve value for all stakeholders, and courts routinely order re-delivery of arrested vessels to cheaper anchorages or moorings with skeleton crews only where absolutely essential.
What happens if the crew refuse to leave or prevent the Sheriff or the Marshal from laying up the ship if that is the appropriate course to follow in the circumstances? Such conduct is prima facie contempt of court for interfering with the Sheriff or the Marshal's custody of the ship. However, the cases do not suggest that crew members are lightly dealt with for contempt. Indian courts, consistent with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC 2006) ratified by India, recognize the vulnerability of seafarers and typically direct the Sheriff to facilitate repatriation without penalizing the crew unless there is willful obstruction causing significant financial prejudice.
A refusal by the master or crew to leave a ship is not uncommon. This is particularly so when a ship needs to be moved within the port or to another port or where the ship is to be sold pendente lite. In both cases, there is an attempt to force the Sheriff or the Marshal or some other party to pay the outstanding claims for the master and crew and their costs of repatriation. In the case of a sale pendente lite, there is often the hope that a purchaser will re-engage the crew and thus will provide them with continuity of employment. How the issue of an obdurate crew is resolved can have significant consequences upon the fund ultimately available to satisfy the plaintiff's costs and claim and the claims of others against the ship.
The legal relationship between the Sheriff (or Marshal) and the crew on board a vessel following the arrest of the ship is a nuanced issue in admiralty law. The arrest of a ship, as governed by the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 ("Admiralty Act, 2017"), does not directly affect the employer-employee relationship between the shipowner (or demise charterer) and the master and crew of the vessel. However, the duties of the Sheriff or Marshal concerning the crew are influenced by the need to maintain and preserve the arrested vessel while respecting the crew's rights under international instruments like MLC 2006 and the International Labour Organization conventions which India has adopted through the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and subsequent amendments.
Crew’s Rights and Employment Relationship Post-Arrest
The arrest of a vessel is a judicial process whereby the vessel is detained to secure maritime claims against it. This process does not inherently terminate the employment relationship between the crew and the vessel's owner or demise charterer. According to admiralty principles and case law, the employment contract remains intact unless specific conduct by the owner amounts to a repudiation of the employment contract, such as the failure to pay wages and allowances. Under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, a claim for wages by the master or any member of the crew is expressly enumerated as a maritime claim that gives rise to a maritime lien. This statutory recognition underscores the high priority afforded to seafarer claims, but it does not alter the contractual nature of employment.
The crew may issue a writ or warrant against the ship to recover outstanding wages under Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, which recognizes claims for wages due to the master or crew as a valid maritime lien. However, this action does not automatically terminate their employment. Whether the employment relationship is terminated in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the owner's actions and the crew's acceptance of those actions as terminating the employment contract. In practice, Indian courts examine whether the owner has abandoned the vessel, ceased all communications, failed to provide provisions, or otherwise demonstrated an intention no longer to be bound by the employment agreement.
Termination of Employment and Claims for Damages
If the employment relationship is terminated, either due to the owner’s repudiatory breach or any other reason, the crew members may claim wages up until the termination date, as well as damages for breach of contract. These damages may include the wages lost, the cost of sustenance at the place of termination pending repatriation, and the cost of repatriation itself. Such claims are enforceable under Section 9(2) of the Admiralty Act, 2017, which prioritizes maritime liens over other claims against the ship. The hierarchy under Section 9 provides that claims for wages and other sums due to the master and crew rank higher than most other maritime claims, second only to costs incurred by the court or Sheriff and expenses for preservation of the vessel.
However, the crew’s claims rank below certain other claims, such as the Sheriff’s or Marshal's charges and expenses, the plaintiff’s costs of the action, and claims that have statutory priority. This ranking is consistent with international admiralty principles, where the costs incurred by the Sheriff or Marshal in maintaining custody of the ship take precedence. The rationale is simple: without the Sheriff’s actions, the fund would not exist at all. The seafarer’s lien is nonetheless powerful and almost always results in substantial recovery from the sale proceeds before lower-ranked creditors such as unsecured bunker suppliers or cargo interests.
Continued Employment and Liabilities Post-Arrest
If the crew continues in employment after the arrest of the vessel, their ongoing right to wages and entitlements remains enforceable against the ship’s owner or demise charterer, not against the Sheriff or Marshal. The continuation of employment means that the crew retains their rights to wages, accommodation, and sustenance on board the vessel. However, these rights are not enforceable directly against the Sheriff or Marshal, who owes no duty to the crew in this regard unless it is necessary for the preservation of the vessel. Nonetheless, many High Courts have issued practice directions encouraging Sheriffs to cooperate with the local port welfare authorities, the Directorate General of Shipping and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) to ensure that basic needs such as food, drinking water, and medical aid are not denied to seafarers stranded on arrested ships.
The Sheriff or Marshal must ensure that the ship is preserved in a manner that minimizes unnecessary expenses. The presence of the crew on board is permissible only if it does not interfere with the ship's preservation or increase the Sheriff's costs. If the ship can be conveniently laid up as a "dead ship" pending trial or the provision of security, the crew may not be allowed to remain on board if their presence would entail unnecessary expenses, such as the provision of power or other facilities. The concept of "dead ship" lay-up involves disconnecting all non-essential systems, shutting down generators, and minimizing fire and safety risks. This is often the most economical form of preservation for vessels arrested for prolonged periods.
Refusal by the crew to leave an arrested vessel is not uncommon, particularly in situations where the vessel needs to be moved within the port or to another port or where the ship is to be sold pendente lite (during the litigation). Crew members often refuse to leave in an attempt to pressure the Sheriff, Marshal, or another party to settle their outstanding claims for wages and repatriation costs. This tactic is also used in the hope that a purchaser of the vessel will re-engage the crew, thus providing continuity of employment. The Indian judiciary has been pragmatic: courts encourage mediation and early settlement of crew claims out of the arrest fund, failing which the Sheriff may apply for a direction to remove the crew with reasonable force but without violence, ensuring their repatriation at the cost of the vessel owner if possible, or from the court deposit if not.
The issue of an obdurate crew is a complex one and can significantly impact the funds available to satisfy the plaintiff's claims and other creditors’ claims against the ship. Courts have dealt with such situations on a case-by-case basis, balancing the crew's rights against the need to preserve the vessel and avoid undue expenses. The Admiralty Rules of the Bombay High Court (2024 edition as applicable in 2026) contain specific forms and procedures for the appointment of a receiver, the sale of arrested vessels, and the distribution of proceeds. The Sixteenth Edition (2026) of this book updates all references to recent amendments to the Admiralty Rules and the introduction of electronic filing (e-filing) for admiralty proceedings in all major High Courts.
Beyond the core principles, the practical enforcement of crew rights after arrest involves coordination among various stakeholders: the Sheriff’s office, the port authority, customs, immigration, the local police, and consular representatives of the crew’s countries. In India, the Major Port Trusts (now governed under the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021) have designated berths for arrested vessels, and they impose daily berth hire charges, conservancy fees, and water/electricity charges. These charges become part of the Sheriff’s custody expenses and are recoverable from the sale fund as a first priority claim. Crew members who remain on board must be mindful that their continued occupation may accelerate the accrual of such charges, eroding the fund available for their own wage claims.
The MLC 2006, which entered into force for India in 2016, imposes obligations on flag states and port states to ensure that seafarers have access to prompt repatriation and back wages in the event of ship arrest or abandonment. The Directorate General of Shipping (DGS) in Mumbai has issued circulars requiring shipowners to maintain financial security to cover repatriation and compensation for abandonment. Where an arrested vessel’s owner fails to comply, the DGS may arrange for repatriation out of a welfare fund and then subrogate to recover those amounts from the arrested ship’s sale proceeds. This inter-agency cooperation has significantly reduced the incidence of seafarer abandonment on arrested ships in Indian waters over the last decade.
Another evolving area is the treatment of seafarers’ personal property and effects left on board when they are compelled to disembark. The Sheriff or Marshal is under a duty to make an inventory of personal belongings and, where possible, allow controlled access for retrieving essential documents (passports, seaman books, certificates of competency). The High Court may pass orders for delivery of such property without prejudice to the arrest. In practice, the Sheriff often engages a private marine custodian who facilitates crew changes and property retrieval under court supervision.
The question of insurance during arrest also affects crew welfare. Typically, the shipowner’s protection and indemnity (P&I) club will cease coverage for crew wages and repatriation after a specified period of unpaid premiums or after a notice of default. However, the P&I club may still be liable for third-party claims, including crew personal injury, if the club has issued a letter of undertaking or continues to cover the vessel under club rules. Arresting parties and the Sheriff should ascertain insurance status at the earliest to avoid liabilities. The insurance broker or the club’s correspondent in India can provide updates.
Digital transformation of admiralty registries has accelerated. As of 2026, the High Courts of Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, and Delhi have fully integrated admiralty case management systems, enabling filing of arrest applications, tracking of warrants, and public viewing of vessel arrest list online. The Sheriff of each High Court now issues e-warrants that are transmitted electronically to the port and customs authorities, ensuring immediate effect. Crew members can access case status through a centralized national admiralty portal, which enhances transparency and reduces uncertainties that often lead to crew protests.
Environmental concerns have also reshaped the handling of arrested vessels. The arrest of ageing or substandard vessels raises risks of pollution, oil leakage, and unsafe conditions. The Sheriff must consult the concerned Port Authority and the Indian Coast Guard to assess environmental hazards. If the vessel poses an imminent threat, the court may order immediate removal of crew, pumping off of fuel, and even emergency sale. Crew members who raise environmental alarms are protected from retaliation under whistleblower provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with maritime regulations.
The interplay between crew claims and other maritime liens such as salvage, collision, and necessaries is governed by Section 9 of the Admiralty Act, 2017. Salvage and collision claims often rank pari passu with wages, but the exact inter se priority depends on the date of the incident and whether the claim was reduced to judgment. Where multiple crew members have claims for different periods, their respective priorities relate back to the accrual of each wage instalment. This can become complex when a vessel is arrested multiple times over several years. To resolve such complexities, the Admiralty Rules now provide for the filing of a "proof of claim" in a prescribed form, with a deadline for submission, after which a commissioner is appointed to adjudicate priorities.
Repatriation arrangements have improved substantially due to the online portal “e-Sahaj” run by the DGS, which facilitates booking flight tickets, issue of emergency certificates, and coordination with Indian missions abroad. For foreign crew on an arrested ship in India, the Sheriff will work with the local immigration authorities to grant “shore pass” or “transit visa” limited to departure to the airport. The crew may not be allowed to roam freely in the city unless the court grants special permission, which is rarely given except for medical emergencies or attendance at court proceedings.
Legal costs of crew claims are often advanced by non-governmental organizations or pro bono lawyers. While the Admiralty Act does not specifically provide for legal costs to be covered before sale, the court has inherent power to order payment of reasonable legal fees from the arrest fund if the crew’s claim was bona fide and contributed to preservation of the fund. In large vessel arrests, fund amounts can run into millions of dollars, and crew lawyers routinely apply for interim payments to cover urgent needs. The trend of Indian courts has been sympathetic but restrained, insisting on documentary evidence and proportionality.
One must consider the impact of a ship arrest on the mental health and well-being of the crew. Isolation, uncertainty, delayed wages, and lack of communication with families can cause severe anxiety and depression. The Indian Port Health Officers, under the Merchant Shipping (Medical Stores) Rules, are required to ensure that ships under arrest have basic medicines and first aid facilities. The court may also order the appointment of a counsellor or social worker to visit the vessel at regular intervals, with expenses treated as custody costs. Following the amendment to the Admiralty Rules in 2025, a standing direction requires all Sheriffs to report on crew welfare status within 14 days of arrest and every month thereafter.
The commercial dimension of crew on board after arrest cannot be overstated. A stalled vessel with an uncooperative crew loses value daily because it cannot be shown to potential buyers, cannot undergo inspection for class recertification, and may lose its insurance cover. This hurts all creditors. Therefore, efficient resolution of crew issues is in everyone's interest. Many shipping banks and large trade creditors now provision for crew repatriation costs as part of their security package, sometimes by taking assignment of the employment contracts or by entering into direct agreements with manning agents.
Future legislative developments: The Indian Parliament is likely to consider the Admiralty (Amendment) Bill, 2026 to further harmonize with the Arrest Convention 1999 (International Convention on Arrest of Ships, 1999). While India is not yet a signatory, many provisions of the Convention align with the 2017 Act. Proposed amendments include clearer rules on the release of arrested vessels upon provision of security, the status of “associated ship” arrest, and the time limit for maintaining arrest if security is not provided. Any amendments will preserve or enhance crew protection. Practitioners should monitor the official gazette and updated editions of this book for changes.
Comparative perspective: Jurisdictions like South Africa, Singapore, and the United Kingdom have developed detailed codes of practice for crew on arrested ships. India has drawn upon these while adapting to local conditions. For instance, the UK’s “Admiralty Marshal Practice Note” and Singapore’s “Supreme Court Practice Directions” require regular inspections. India’s High Courts have similarly issued practice directions, but enforcement varies between ports. The most robust practices are observed in Mumbai (Bombay High Court) and Chennai, followed by Kolkata and Kochi. The Gujarat High Court (Ahmedabad and Saurashtra benches) handles many ship arrests at Kandla, Mundra, and Pipavav ports, and has developed a pragmatic approach balancing trade interests with humanitarian duties.
Finally, this discussion underscores that while the Sheriff or Marshal owes no direct duty to the crew, the overarching responsibility of the court to administer justice requires that the rights of seafarers — often the most vulnerable parties in shipping — are not ignored. The arrest regime is not a tool to enslave seafarers or to leave them destitute on a floating prison. Through the harmonious application of the Admiralty Act, 2017, the Merchant Shipping Act, the MLC 2006, and the inherent powers of the High Court, Indian admiralty law strikes a balance: claims are secured, ships are preserved, and seafarers are treated with dignity and fairness.
BCAS: 7103-1001
admiraltypractice.com