Published September 5, 2026 · Legal Lighthouse
For a foreign shipowner, trader, bunker supplier, or P&I club holding an unpaid maritime claim, the practical question is rarely whether the claim is good. It is where in the world the claim can be converted into security. India deserves a place on that shortlist. Indian tonnage calls are frequent, the statutory regime is modern, and the coastal High Courts exercise a genuine and regularly invoked arrest jurisdiction. This note sets out what an overseas claimant should know before instructing Indian counsel.
Admiralty jurisdiction in India is governed by the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, in force since 1 April 2018. The Act replaced the colonial-era admiralty statutes and vested admiralty jurisdiction in the High Courts of the coastal states: Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala and Odisha, each exercising jurisdiction over the territorial waters of its state. The practical consequence is that the choice of forum follows the vessel. A ship calling at Mundra or Kandla answers to the Gujarat High Court, at Nhava Sheva to the Bombay High Court, at Cochin to the Kerala High Court, and so on.
Section 4 of the Act enumerates the maritime claims on which jurisdiction may be exercised. The list follows the international arrest conventions and includes, among others, claims arising from ownership and mortgage disputes, damage caused by a vessel, loss of life or personal injury, loss of or damage to goods, agreements for the carriage of goods or for the use or hire of a vessel, salvage, towage, pilotage, supply of goods, materials, bunkers and provisions, construction and repair, port and dock charges, crew wages, disbursements, insurance premiums including P&I calls, commissions and agency fees, and disputes arising from the sale of a vessel.
Crew wages, it should be noted, rank as a maritime lien and enjoy priority. Bunker suppliers, chandlers, and agents, who in some jurisdictions struggle to found arrest, have a clear statutory basis in India.
Under Section 5, the High Court may order the arrest of a vessel within its jurisdiction to obtain security for a maritime claim, where the court has reason to believe that the person liable is the owner or demise charterer of the vessel at the time of arrest and was the owner, demise charterer, or person in possession or control of the vessel when the claim arose. The Act also permits the arrest of any other vessel in place of the offending vessel, where that other vessel is owned by the person liable, which in substance preserves the sister-ship arrest. Arrest for the purpose of obtaining security is available even where the underlying merits are subject to arbitration or to the jurisdiction of a foreign court, which makes India a useful security forum in support of London or Singapore arbitration.
Arrest applications are moved ex parte before the admiralty judge, supported by an affidavit verifying the claim and, where the plaintiff is foreign, a power of attorney in favour of Indian counsel or the local agent. The courts are accustomed to urgency. Where the papers are in order and the vessel’s arrival is confirmed, a warrant of arrest can realistically be obtained within a day, and in genuinely urgent cases the same day, including outside court hours through the vacation or urgent-applications mechanism. Preparation is the true timetable. A claimant who assembles its claim documents, invoices, contract, correspondence and corporate authorisations before the vessel’s arrival controls the clock. One that begins when the vessel berths is negotiating against a sailing time.
Once arrested, the vessel is released against security for the claim, ordinarily by way of bank guarantee, cash deposit, or such security as the court accepts. Club letters of undertaking are frequently tendered and, subject to the court’s approval and the claimant’s position, are in practice a common route to release. Owners anticipating arrest may enter a caveat against arrest, undertaking to provide security, and claimants anticipating a release application may enter a caveat against release. The interplay of caveats, undertakings, and counter-security is tactical ground on which matters are won and lost, and it repays advance planning.
The discipline in the system is Section 11, under which the court may, as a condition of arrest, require the claimant to furnish an unconditional undertaking to pay damages, and may award compensation where the arrest is found to have been wrongful or unjustified and demanded without reasonable cause. Foreign claimants should therefore arrest on properly verified claims, with candid disclosure in the ex parte application. An arrest founded on an exaggerated or unverifiable claim exposes the claimant to a damages counterclaim in the very forum it chose.
Before instructing Indian counsel on an intended arrest, have ready: the contract and claim documents with a computation of the amount claimed; evidence of the debtor’s ownership or demise charter of the target vessel; the vessel’s expected port and ETA; a power of attorney or authorisation in favour of Indian counsel; and instructions on the security acceptable for release. With those in hand, the Indian leg of the matter can move at the speed the situation demands.
This note is for general information only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no lawyer-client relationship arises from it. For advice on a specific matter, including the viability of arrest on particular facts, please contact the firm directly.
For specific questions on a matter, please contact the firm directly — not just commentary.
