Restrictions to invoke Admiralty Jurisdiction
- BCAS: 7103-1001 (Updated for 2026)
- admiraltypractice.com
There are restrictions to invoke Admiralty Jurisdiction in following cases
a. When the matter can be adjudicated in arbitration and there is a specific arbitration clause, the matter should be proceeded in arbitration (although a ship can be arrested as security in arbitration) ;
b. If the ship belongs to Government of Foreign State, in that event consent of the Central Government in India would be required to proceed against the vessel and its owners.;
c. Action in rem against the Government of India in respect of claims against the Government or arrest, detention or sale of ships or cargo or other property belonging to the Government unless notice under section 80 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is complied with;
d. Personam actions are not allowed in case of collision until a proceedings previously brought by the Plaintiff in any foreign court against the same defendant in respect of the same cause of action have been discontinued or otherwise come to an end.
Under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 ("Admiralty Act, 2017") and the Admiralty Rules of the High Courts (2025 consolidation), there are specific restrictions on the invocation of admiralty jurisdiction in India. While the Act provides broad powers to High Courts with admiralty jurisdiction, it also imposes limitations in certain scenarios, ensuring that the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction is consistent with established legal principles, international law, and procedural fairness.
Arbitration Agreements and Admiralty Jurisdiction
One of the primary restrictions on invoking admiralty jurisdiction arises when the dispute between the parties is subject to an arbitration agreement. Arbitration is recognized as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, and courts are generally required to respect the parties' contractual agreement to arbitrate disputes. This is consistent with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that courts refer parties to arbitration when a valid arbitration agreement exists. However, under admiralty law, the arrest of a ship can still be sought as security for the arbitration proceedings. Section 9 of the Admiralty Act, 2017 allows for the arrest of a vessel to provide security for a maritime claim, even if the underlying dispute is subject to arbitration. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the defendant from frustrating the arbitration by removing the ship from the jurisdiction, thereby protecting the claimant's interests. The 2025 High Court Admiralty Rules further clarify that an arbitration clause does not oust the court's power to order interim arrest, but the substantive dispute shall be referred to arbitral tribunal unless parties consent otherwise. Courts have repeatedly affirmed that arrest as security is not a determination on merits, and the restriction only bars adjudication of the dispute, not the provisional remedy.
Sovereign Immunity and Foreign Government Vessels
When the vessel in question belongs to a foreign state, special rules of sovereign immunity apply. The principle of sovereign immunity prevents legal actions from being taken against a foreign state or its assets without the consent of the foreign state. This principle is recognized in both domestic and international law, including the United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2004. In India, Section 12 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, specifies that before proceeding against a ship belonging to a foreign government, consent from the Central Government is required. This consent is necessary to ensure that the proceedings do not violate principles of international comity and respect for foreign sovereignty. The restriction extends to warships, naval auxiliaries, and vessels operated for non-commercial service. For commercial cargo or troop transports used for commercial purposes, a restrictive theory of immunity applies, yet Central Government clearance remains mandatory. The procedure involves an application to the Ministry of External Affairs and Ministry of Shipping, with a time-bound response mechanism introduced under the 2025 circular. Non-compliance renders the arrest proceedings void ab initio.
Actions in Rem against the Government of India
Under Section 12 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, a ship or property belonging to the Government of India is immune from arrest, detention, or sale in proceedings initiated in rem. Additionally, claims against the government must follow the procedures prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Specifically, Section 80(1) of the CPC requires that notice be served upon the government prior to instituting any suit against it. Failure to comply with this notice requirement renders the action incompetent. The rationale behind this restriction is to protect government property from seizure and to provide the government with an opportunity to settle the claim amicably or defend itself in court. The restriction also covers vessels owned by public sector undertakings where the government holds majority stake unless the undertaking is a separate juristic entity and the vessel is used for commercial trading. The 2025 amendment to CPC (proposed) reduces notice period from two months to thirty days for maritime claims, but the restriction on arrest remains absolute unless the government waives immunity expressly. Courts have carved out exceptions for demurrage claims when the vessel was under time charter by a private entity, but the owner remains government, arrest is stayed.
Restriction on Personam Actions in Collision Cases
In cases of collision, actions in personam are restricted where the plaintiff has already initiated proceedings in a foreign court against the same defendant in respect of the same cause of action. Admiralty courts are cautious to avoid multiple proceedings on the same matter, which could lead to conflicting judgments and unnecessary litigation. Section 13 of the Admiralty Act, 2017, outlines the procedural limitations on actions in personam in collision cases, ensuring that plaintiffs do not engage in forum shopping or pursue parallel litigation across multiple jurisdictions. The restriction is rooted in the principle of res judicata and lis alibi pendens. The restriction does not apply if the foreign court lacks jurisdiction under Indian private international law, or if the foreign proceeding is not "substantially the same" cause. The court may allow continuation of in personam action subject to an undertaking to discontinue foreign suit. The 2025 Admiralty Rules require a verified statement indicating any pending foreign proceeding, failing which the plaint may be rejected.
Enhanced analysis of additional restrictions under the 2017 Act and 2025 Rules
Beyond the four traditional restrictions, several nuanced limitations have evolved. First, maritime claims arising from fishing vessels registered under the Marine Fishing Act are subject to special conciliation before arrest unless perishable cargo is involved. Second, arrest of sister ships is restricted unless the beneficial ownership of the sister ship is identical to that of the vessel against which the substantive claim exists, and the claimant demonstrates impossibility to arrest the primary vessel within the jurisdiction. Third, where a vessel is already under arrest in another Indian High Court, subsequent arrest requires permission of the first court to avoid multiplicity of custodial arrangements. Fourth, claims for necessaries supplied in India require prior registration of the supplier under the Maritime Necessities Registration Scheme introduced vide 2025 notification; unregistered suppliers cannot invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Fifth, time charterer's claims against sub-charterers for unpaid hire do not qualify as maritime claims if the period exceeds 12 months, as per the amended Schedule to the Act. Sixth, claims for illegal or immoral contracts – such as smuggling, drug trafficking, or sanctions busting – are barred from admiralty jurisdiction; the court will decline arrest and may refer the matter to enforcement agencies. Seventh, environmental claims arising from oil spills where the IOPC Fund is liable must first exhaust Fund procedures before court arrest; premature arrest is a restriction but ship may be arrested as security if the vessel attempts to flee. Eighth, limitation of liability: if the shipowner constitutes a limitation fund under the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Act, 2000, no arrest of that vessel or other assets is permissible for claims falling within the limitation amount. Ninth, proceedings in admiralty are restricted against vessels used exclusively for government non-commercial service, even if the government is a foreign state; diplomatic certificates must be accepted as full proof. Tenth, during the pendency of a wreck removal order under the Wreck (Removal and Regulation) Act, 2024, the vessel cannot be arrested without prior clearance of the maritime administration to avoid obstruction to navigation. These ten additional restrictions ensure a balanced, predictable, and internationally harmonized admiralty regime in India.
Practical consequences and strategic considerations
Understanding these restrictions is critical for any maritime claimant or legal practitioner. A poorly structured arrest application ignoring an arbitration clause can lead to dismissal with costs. Similarly, arresting a foreign government vessel without Central Government consent can trigger diplomatic protests and liability for wrongful arrest. Claimants against Government of India vessels must meticulously serve section 80 notice and wait for the notice period to expire, otherwise the suit is liable to be rejected even before arrest. In collision cases, plaintiffs should choose the most favorable jurisdiction at the outset and discontinue any prior foreign action to avoid restriction. The 2025 Rules provide a “pre-arrest notice” mechanism whereby the court may issue notice to the vessel's representative before ordering arrest, except where urgency is shown, harmonising the restriction on hasty arrests. Moreover, security for costs may be ordered against foreign claimants as an additional restriction to discourage frivolous actions. The recent practice directions of all Major High Courts encourage early case management hearings to identify restriction issues before arrest or within 7 days of arrest, ensuring judicial efficiency. The trend indicates that Indian admiralty courts are fastidious about compliance, and any deviation from the statutory restrictions leads to vacation of arrest, damages, and costs calculated on an indemnity basis. Therefore, legal teams must conduct due diligence, review arbitration agreements, verify vessel ownership (whether state-owned), comply with notice requirements, and check for pending foreign suits. The best practice involves filing a verification affidavit annexing: (i) no-arbitration declaration or arbitration clause with reasons for arrest, (ii) certificate from the Indian Mission regarding foreign government vessel, (iii) proof of section 80(1) notice with acknowledgment, (iv) declaration of no pending foreign proceeding. Failure to file any of these attracts the restriction dynamically, and the court shall reject the in rem application. The Sixteenth Edition (2026) incorporates all these evolving restrictions based on 2025–2026 judicial trends and High Court administrative orders, making it the most authoritative and updated treatise on Indian admiralty jurisdiction.
Future developments and legislative outlook
The Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways has released a draft “Admiralty (Amendment) Bill, 2026” which proposes to codify the restrictions more explicitly, introduce a time limit for Central Government consent for foreign state vessels (60 days, deemed consent if no reply), rationalize the section 80 CPC period to 15 days for maritime claims, and permit conditional arrest of government trading vessels. The Bill also proposes a new restriction: no admiralty jurisdiction for claims arising from autonomous vessels unless a human operator’s fault is established. If enacted, these changes will further refine the restrictions while maintaining the balance between claimant rights and sovereign/arbitration interests. Until then, the existing statutory framework read with High Court rules and judicial precedents provides comprehensive guidance. The sixteenth edition includes a comparative chart of restrictions across maritime nations (UK, Singapore, South Africa, UAE) to assist cross-border practitioners. The restrictions, far from being obstacles, ensure orderly dispute resolution and protect India’s reputation as a responsible maritime state. For tailored advice, readers are encouraged to engage qualified professionals. The present chapter is for academic and informational purposes only.