Arrest is the sharpest instrument a maritime claimant has in India. It converts a paper claim into leverage over a physical asset, often within a day. The statute that governs it — the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 — is unchanged. Everything around it is not. The Indian Ports Act, 2025 has been in force since 1 April 2026, the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 has replaced the 1958 Act, and the Indian Ports Rules, 2026 took effect on 21 July 2026. This guide sets out how arrest, arbitration and enforcement work in practice, and which of those changes actually bite.

Three threshold questions

• Is it a qualifying maritime claim? It must fall within clauses (a) to (w) of section 4(1). If it does not, arrest in rem is simply unavailable.
• Is the vessel within the court’s admiralty jurisdiction? Section 3 vests jurisdiction over waters up to and including territorial waters, with a proviso allowing the Central Government to extend it to the exclusive economic zone by notification.
• Is there an arbitration clause? Arrest survives one. But the basis for that is judicial, not statutory.

The statutory framework

The 2017 Act (Act 22 of 2017, in force from 1 April 2018) swept away a patchwork of colonial instruments: the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty legislation of 1890 and 1891, and the admiralty provisions of the Letters Patent, 1865. It draws on the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Conventions, but India has ratified neither. They inform interpretation; they do not bind.

Eight High Courts exercise admiralty jurisdiction under section 2(1)(e) — Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Karnataka, Gujarat, Orissa, Kerala, and the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh — together with any other the Central Government notifies. The court to approach is the one in whose waters the vessel lies.

Six provisions carry most of the weight:

• Section 4 — the exhaustive list of maritime claims. Sub-sections (2) to (4) let the court settle accounts, order sale, determine title to the proceeds, and hold the vessel or its proceeds as security pending the outcome.
• Section 5 — the grounds of arrest in rem, and sister-ship arrest.
• Section 8 — on a court sale, the vessel vests in the purchaser free of all encumbrances, liens, attachments, registered mortgages and charges.
• Section 9 — the exhaustive list of maritime liens and their ranking among themselves. Liens die after one year, two for wages, unless arrest has led to a forced sale.
• Section 10 — the overall order: maritime liens, then registered mortgages and charges, then everything else.
• Section 11 — the owner’s protection: security against wrongful arrest, and auction of an abandoned vessel.

Sections 12 to 15 supply the machinery: the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies; assessors may be appointed; an appeal lies to a Division Bench from any order of a single Judge; and the Supreme Court may transfer proceedings between High Courts.

Qualifying maritime claims

Grounds of arrest

Section 5(1) permits arrest where the court has reason to believe any one of five things:

• the owner liable when the claim arose is still the owner when the arrest is effected;
• the demise charterer liable when the claim arose is the demise charterer or the owner at that time;
• the claim is founded on a mortgage or a charge of the same nature — registration is not a precondition to arrest, it goes to priority under section 10;
• the claim concerns ownership or possession; or
• the claim is secured by a maritime lien under section 9.

The first limb does the most work, and defeats more arrests than any other. Only a maritime lien follows the vessel through a change of ownership, registration or flag (section 9(2)). For an ordinary in rem claim, a genuine intervening sale kills it. Chrisomar Corporation v. MJR Steels Pvt. Ltd. (2018) remains the reference point on establishing in rem liability.

Section 5(2) allows arrest of a sister ship in lieu of the offending vessel, on the same conditions. Only one category is excluded: claims as to possession or ownership under section 4(1)(a). The practical obstacle is evidential — proving common ownership through opaque corporate structures.

The arrest process

• An admiralty suit in rem, supported by an affidavit setting out the claim, its quantum and its connection with the vessel, exhibiting the contract, invoices, delivery receipts and correspondence, with an application for arrest — usually ex parte where the vessel is about to sail.
• Counter-security. Under section 11(1) the court may require the claimant to give an unconditional undertaking or security against loss caused by an arrest that proves wrongful or unjustified, or by excessive security having been demanded.
• The Sheriff or Marshal of the High Court effects the arrest — not the port. In practice the order is served on the master, the local agent, the port and customs, with a direction that the vessel not be permitted to sail.
• On security to the court’s satisfaction: usually a bank guarantee from an Indian bank or a cash deposit. A P&I club letter of undertaking is accepted at the court’s discretion, and often by consent, but should never be assumed. Quantum is set by the court, typically claim plus interest and costs, and section 11(2) lets the security provider apply to reduce, modify or cancel it.
• An owner may challenge jurisdiction or contend the claim falls outside section 4. An appeal lies to a Division Bench under section 14.
• If the owner or demise charterer abandons the vessel after arrest, section 11(3) requires the court to auction it and deal with the proceeds within forty-five days, extendable by thirty for reasons recorded in writing.

Arrest where there is an arbitration clause

A vessel can be arrested in India to secure a claim destined for arbitration elsewhere. The foundation is judicial.

In JS Ocean Liner LLC v. M.V. Golden Progress, the Bombay High Court distinguished an action in rem against the vessel from an application in personam for interim relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium (2012), the same court held in Rushab Ship International LLC v. M.V. African Eagle (2014) that section 9 relief was unavailable in aid of a foreign-seated arbitration. The 2015 amendment reversed that, adding a proviso to section 2(2) which makes section 9 available in international commercial arbitration seated outside India — unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Clauses excluding Part I are common in charterparties providing for London or Singapore arbitration, and they should be checked before anything is filed. In Siem Offshore Rederi AS v. Altus Uber, the Bombay High Court confirmed that the 2017 Act does not displace Golden Progress: an admiralty action in rem is maintainable notwithstanding a pending foreign-seated arbitration, provided the conditions for arrest are met. Section 45 separately governs reference of the substantive dispute to arbitration.

The route is therefore: arrest for security, arbitrate on the merits, with the vessel or its proceeds held under section 4(4) in the meantime.

When arrest is, and is not, the right move

• Use it where the owner is a single-ship company, where the vessel is unlikely to return to Indian waters, or where P&I cover is withdrawn, inadequate or disputed. A detained vessel generates commercial pressure that correspondence never will.
• Think again where the owner has substantial onshore assets in India, where quantum is speculative — wrongful arrest exposure under section 11 is not theoretical — or where the link between claim and vessel is thin enough to invite a challenge.
• One recurring trap: a claim against a time charterer cannot be secured by arresting the owner’s vessel. Section 5(1) requires liability on the part of the owner or demise charterer.

Enforcing awards against a vessel

A domestic award is enforced as a decree under section 36 of the 1996 Act. Since 2015, a section 34 challenge no longer operates as an automatic stay; a stay requires a separate order, usually on terms.

A foreign award is governed by Part II — but only if made in a territory the Central Government has notified as reciprocating under section 44(b). Membership of the New York Convention alone is not enough, and this is a frequent and expensive oversight. Enforcement lies before the High Court under the Explanation to section 47, and recognition may be refused only on the narrow grounds in section 48, which mirror Article V.

The vessel can be reached at the execution stage: “arrest” is defined in section 2(1)(c) to include seizure in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or order. Where the debtor’s only reachable asset is a vessel calling at an Indian port, combining enforcement with arrest in the same High Court is the efficient course. Absent alternative security, the court may order sale under section 4(2), with title vesting under section 8 free of encumbrances.

One qualification on clean title. The Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships came into force on 17 February 2026, and India is not a party. A purchaser at an Indian court sale takes clean title as a matter of Indian law; recognition abroad rests on comity rather than on the Convention’s streamlined machinery.

The Indian Ports Rules, 2026: what they change, and what they do not

The Indian Ports Rules, 2026, made under sections 76 and 78 of the Ports Act, came into force on 21 July 2026. They apply in full to all major ports and, as to specified rules, to other ports. Three points matter to anyone contemplating or resisting an arrest.

First, what they do not do. The Rules contain nothing on the priority of maritime claims, no independent power of detention for dues, and nothing on judicial sale. Priority remains fixed by sections 9 and 10 of the Admiralty Act, which subordinate legislation made under the Ports Act could not displace in any event. Port, canal, waterway and pilotage dues already carry lien status under section 9(1)(d), behind wages, loss of life or personal injury, and salvage. Any suggestion that the new Rules have promoted port charges above a claimant’s lien is simply wrong. What does erode recovery is charges accruing during detention, treated as costs of custody and taken out of the sale fund before distribution. Claimants should budget for them; owners should engage the port early and negotiate.

Second, the Rules create a contemporaneous evidentiary trail that both sides of a damage claim will want. Rule 20 requires the master to make a verbal report within fifteen minutes of detecting a pollution incident, the port to file a Coastal Pollution Incident Report in Form II within two hours, and a detailed supplementary report within twenty-four. Rule 27 requires the designated incident reporting officer — the deputy conservator or equivalent — to take particulars from the owner, agent or master and from any terminal or service provider involved, report electronically to the Directorate General of Maritime Administration Communication Centre within twenty-four hours, and maintain an electronic incident register. For claims under section 4(1)(d) or 4(1)(u), these are usually the earliest and best records in existence. Ask for them immediately. Rule 24 separately fixes anyone responsible for loss, destruction or damage to port property with the full cost of restoration, including temporary works, emergency measures and professional and survey fees — itself a maritime claim.

Third, and easily overlooked, the Rules address the crew. Rule 28 requires ports to provide shore-based welfare services without discrimination: medical assistance, emergency health services, mental health counselling, communications and internet access, foreign exchange, transport where terminals are remote or high-security, and information on welfare organisations and legal support. Rule 29 requires ports to facilitate consular access and fair treatment mechanisms. This bites precisely when a vessel is detained, and above all when it is abandoned into the forty-five day window under section 11(3), with the crew still aboard and unpaid, holding the first-ranking lien on the res. Raise welfare with the port at the outset, not when it becomes a crisis.

Rulemaking under the Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 is also well advanced. The National Shipping Board Rules, 2026 were notified on 20 May 2026 and the Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims) Rules, 2026 on 7 July 2026, with further drafts out for consultation. Several sets remain in draft, so confirm the status of any rule before relying on it.

Pre-filing checklist

• IMO number, flag, port of registry, registered owner, and any demise or bareboat charterer.
• The position both when the claim arose and at the date of arrest — unless the claim is secured by a maritime lien.
• Which High Court exercises admiralty jurisdiction over the port of call.
• A quantified statement of claim with contract, invoices, delivery or survey documents and correspondence exhibited.
• Arbitration, exclusive jurisdiction and time-bar clauses reviewed — including any exclusion of Part I — and any parallel proceedings identified.
• Port records. For collision, damage to port property or pollution, the incident and pollution records under the Indian Ports Rules, 2026, requested early.
• Foreign documents notarised or apostilled; for a subrogated P&I claim, the letter of subrogation, payment confirmation and assignment of rights.
• Section 11 risk assessed and the form of undertaking or counter-security settled with counsel in advance.

Closing

Arrest rewards preparation and punishes improvisation. The statutory scheme is stable and the courts know it well; what decides outcomes is the speed of instruction, the quality of the evidence filed with the plaint, and the tactical calls made in the first hours after the vessel berths. The 2025 Acts and the Rules now emerging under them change the environment around an arrest rather than the law of arrest itself — but they change enough that advice framed on the 1908 and 1958 Acts needs revisiting.

This article is general information on the law as it stood at the date of writing and is not legal advice. Positions should be verified against the current text of the statutes, rules and notifications referred to.