By Swayam Sambhab Mohanty and Surya Prakash Swain
Introduction
India’s maritime space, stretching more than 7,500 kilometres and representing 95% of its sea commerce, is an unrecognised Pandora’s Box which demands a strong legal framework to deal with the very intricacies that come with maritime commerce. Arrest of ships, for that matter, ensures enforcement of maritime claims, forcing shipowners to fulfil contractual and statutory commitments. While United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (hereinafter, UNCLOS) serves as the global basic for maritime jurisdiction, Indian domestic law has progressed significantly ahead with the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017[1](hereinafter, the Admiralty Act, 2017). This Act updates the dormant colonial legislation, striking a balance between upholding claimant rights and protecting the commercial interests of shipowners.
Recent judicial trends and evolving jurisprudence in this context, including but not limited to the seizure of Ocean Jade and Ocean Morganite by the Orissa High Court, reassures the growing trend in judgments favouring environmental accountability, welfare of the crew; keeping confluence with changing global shipping norms.
This blog delves into regimes of law, procedural challenges, and changing judicial precedents framing ship arrest in India and abroad.
Legal Framework Governing Vessel Arrest
Despite the global expanse that the maritime commerce caters to, crucial aspects like vessel arrest is still a very jurisdiction-specific puzzle, set to be deciphered by the forum state. India, in this aspect, has cultivated a robust legal spine, shaped by international conventions and domestic reforms, to effectively regulate vessel arrests.
i. International Conventions and Their Influence
To begin with, while the global ship arrest regime, governed by the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Conventions, regulates claims and procedures, however India, surprisingly, is not a signatory to either. Rather, our vessel arrest laws depend on domestic laws and on the provisions of the UNCLOS. Being a signatory to UNCLOS, India accepts rules of jurisdiction, respecting the rights of coastal states to assert claims against vessels in their territorial seas. This model advocates for arrest of the ship in accordance with sovereign jurisdiction and international maritime law, avoiding arbitrary arrests while protecting valid claims.
ii. India’s Admiralty Law: The 2017 Reform
India’s admiralty jurisdiction was previously regulated by colonial laws like the Admiralty Court Act of 1861, that granted jurisdiction to select High Courts. This piecemeal approach had established procedural inconsistencies, and courts were compelled to apply obsolete British precedents even post-independence.
One of the significant reforms was the Admiralty Act, 2017, which streamlined and updated vessel arrest legislation. It extends admiralty jurisdiction to the coastal state High Courts to arrest ships for maritime claims such as wages of seamen, salvage, collision damage, liability for pollution, and enforcement of mortgages. Most importantly, the Act gives sister-ship arrest, whereby claimants can arrest an alternative ship belonging to the same debtor in order not to allow shipowners to evade their responsibility through astute company structures. It also grants procedural protection to the extent that claimants are required to establish a prima facie case and, as may be the case, post security in an effort to prevent wrongful arrest.
iii. Judicial Interpretation and Recent Developments
Judicial orders have played a critical role in India’s vessel arrest law. The Supreme Court decision of M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment[2] unshackled the powers of Indian Courts off archaic British laws, and crystallized their inherent authority in enforcing shipping-related claims. Later, in Alphard Maritime Ltd. v. Ocean Jade[3], the Hon’ble Orissa High Court directed the arrests of Ocean Jade and Ocean Morganite after their owner failed to finalize a settlement agreement involving their sale. The court found that the plaintiff had a strong initial case and that, without arresting the ships, there was a risk of irreparable harm. The decision emphasized the need to protect maritime claims while ensuring that commercial shipping activities are not unduly disrupted.
Recent Judicial Trends in Vessel Arrest
The jurisprudence of ship arrest has come a long way, motivated and chiselled by business imperatives, environmental awareness, and seafarers’ rights. The courts of the world (Indian courts included) have expanded definitions of maritime claims, clarified principles of ownership, and solved problems of cross-border enforcement. It is a manifestation of this mature balancing that enforces the execution of legitimate claims without excessively interfering in international trade.
i. Judicial Interpretation of “Beneficial Ownership” and Sister-Ship Arrests
The general trend of how companies structure themselves often renders arrest of ships challenging, since claimants must follow the ownership links and juncturess in order to pursue related parties. For that matter, Courts increasingly head to pierce the corporate veil to establish the actual “beneficial owner” of the ship. The UK Court of Appeal’s decision in The Sam Hawk (2016) stretched the grounds upon which related parties are held responsible, so that artificial structures do not conceal owners from actual responsibility.
Indian courts have also adopted this claimant-friendly philosophy. The Admiralty Act, 2017 has also extended India’s reach by providing for sister-ship arrests[4]. It enabled claimants to arrest not just the debtor’s ship but another which is under common ownership, preventing evasive fleet management strategies.
ii. Cross-Border Jurisdictional Challenges and Forum Shopping
The global character of shipping creates jurisdictional conflicts with forum-shopping plaintiffs looking unto sympathetic tribunals. The Enrica Lexie case (2012–2020), in which India detained an Italian ship for the killing of fishermen, revealed the extent of national courts in enforcing judgments against foreign ships.
Brexit has also made enforcement of vessel arrest in Europe more complicated. The UK’s withdrawal from the Brussels Recast Regulation interrupted recognition of admiralty judgments. The same effects extend to Indian courts since the Civil Procedure Code constrains enforcement of foreign maritime judgments, thereby making transnational shipping disputes increasingly complicated.
Arresting vessels across borders is a legal maze, filled of jurisdictional stand-offs and tactical legal blows, countries’ let their laws collide. This complexity is innate in the fact that multiple legal venues, those of the vessel’s flag state, the coastal state, or even the claimant’s home country, all can claim authority over the very same ship. For example, if a collision happens in high seas, the flag state might claim its rights, while a nearby coastal state could step in under its environmental or safety regulations and at the same time, a plaintiff’s home country could file a claim based on the losses they suffered.
Indian Courts have taken a notably assertive approach in these cases. They claim jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action happens within Indian territory. The case of Enrica Lexie is a clear example: even though the incident involved conflicting international claims, Indian authorities intervened, arguing that the effects of the shooting incident gave them the right to act.
Forum shopping is increasingly becoming a course of first resort for both plaintiffs and defendants in vessel arrest cases. It’s all about the selection of those jurisdictions that provide a legal advantage. India, for example, has a favourite with the Admiralty Act, 2017 providing robust in rem powers to Indian courts to proceed against ships themselves. By contrast, claimants favour such states as the UK or Singapore because they allow flexible security terms and expeditious procedures. Shipowners prefer flag states such as Liberia or Panama, where the rules on liability are more liberal. Dual arrests in several states with the aim of involving shipowners in a dilemma over several issues have been performed. Despite this, Indian courts sometimes dig in by raising the forum non conveniens doctrine and refusing cases more suitably elsewhere: a limitation on litigation opportunism.
Courts everywhere have attempted to impose some degree of order in this chaotic quilt of ship arrest laws. The 1999 Arrest Convention; formed as a template for harmonizing jurisdictional rules, is criticised of squirrelling, particularly as states such as India have not ratified it, uniform regulation becomes tough[5]. Regional initiatives, however, such as the EU’s Brussels Recast Regulation, have also come a long way in harmonizing cross-border shipborne disputes. In the UK and Singapore, for instance, courts tend to issue anti-suit injunctions to prevent concurrent legal proceedings, a trend yet to catch up in India. Indian courts are, however, steadily following.
Challenges and Controversies in India
It is certain that although the new Admiralty Act, 2017, was necessary, India’s vessel arrest process still struggles with fundamental procedural and enforcement deficiencies. Court pendency is a prime bottleneck; unnecessary vessel detention, leads to a choking fiscal expense on shipowners. Lack of specialised admiralty benches also delays the hearing of cases, leaving ships and claimants in frustrating limbo.
The insistent enforcement hurdles of sovereign immunity have been subjected to tight criticism, particularly on state ships. Government and naval vessels would be otherwise immune, exceptions being allowed where such are used on commercial terms. The 2013 M.V. Seaman Guard Ohio case exposed this grey area where it highlighted a pertinent issue of whether a foreign state-chartered security vessel should be defined as sovereign or commercial hence garnering itself with immunity protection.
There has been a continuous struggle between private maritime claimants and port authorities. The Major Port Authorities Act, 2021[6] grants statutory lien to port authorities in ships and cargo in respect of unpaid port charges at the expense of other claims, subjecting them to priority. That preferential right often leads to ships not being released until port charges are paid, keeping innocent claimants waiting much longer than required.
Not protecting the seas from pollution is also affected. While there is good legislation, it is not evenly applied: weaknesses in the law, inadequate monitoring and low fines allow for uncontrolled illegal dumping and discharge of wastes, which undermines efforts at keeping our seas clean.
The 2011 M.V. Rak oil spill laid bare India’s failure to compel shipowners to compensate for environmental loss. In defiance of the Bombay High Court warrant of arrest, the court in a way permitted the environmental destruction to run amok unchecked until meaningful action was finally taken.
For achieving a real balance between commercial security and claimant rights, not only is India’s maritime legislation in need of legislative reforms but even a better, stronger judiciary that can resolve disputes with efficiency and speed.
Conclusion
On our current admiralty regime sits a thick judicial jargon and incessantly changing court doctrines. Though the Admiralty Act, 2017 brought in introspective changes, phenomena such as untrammelled procedural delays and spotty implementation of environmental law continue to clog the system, keeping maritime claims pending.
Be if we set them aside, Indian courts are gradually orienting themselves along international best practice by weighing seafarers’ interests and environmental protection. They’re cutting through corporate gloss to ensure shipowners can’t take shelter behind them.
But the ride is rough. Paralyzing inefficiencies and jurisdictional conflicts hold up cases for years, leaving shipowners and claimants stuck in financial limbo. A quick vessel arrest, designed to settle matters speedily, too often loses its bite in the tidal wave of litigation. To administer justice justly, India requires another cycle of reforms, those that would balance the scales between safeguarding claimants and keeping the shipping business afloat.
[1] The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, No. 22 of 2017, Acts of Parliament, 2017 (India)
[2] M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Inv. & Trading Pvt. Ltd., (1993) 1 S.C.R. 1014 (India)
[3] Alphard Maritime Ltd. vs. Ocean Jade and Ors., 2025 MANU OR 0388
[4] The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, No. 22 of 2017, § 5, Acts of Parliament, 2017 (India)
[5] International Convention on Arrest of Ships, Mar. 12, 1999.
[6] The Major Port Authorities Act, 2021, No. 1 Of 2021, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
Centre for Maritime Law 