Maritime Dispute Strategy in India: Seat, Security and Enforcement in 2026

India’s 2025 maritime statutes are now in force, but the architecture of a maritime dispute has not moved: security is obtained in rem before an admiralty High Court, the merits go to arbitration, and recovery turns on enforcement. This note addresses how the three stages should be sequenced.

The framework in 2026

The Merchant Shipping Act, 2025 came into force on 15 March 2026, repealing the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and reconstituting the Director-General of Shipping as the Director-General of Maritime Administration. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 2025 and the Bills of Lading Act, 2025 have been in force since 10 September 2025. None of them displaces the two instruments that decide most disputes: the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Security first

Arrest under section 5 of the 2017 Act turns on personal liability, not on the mere existence of a maritime claim. The court must have reason to believe that the person who owned the vessel when the claim arose is liable and remains owner at arrest, or that the demise charterer at that time is liable and is demise charterer or owner at arrest; or that the claim rests on a mortgage or charge of a similar nature, a dispute as to ownership or possession, or a maritime lien. Sister-ship arrest is available only where the owner is liable.

Claims contracted by a time or voyage charterer, bunkers, necessaries, agency disbursements, do not found an arrest unless the owner can be fixed with liability, and the supply terms rarely achieve that. Maritime liens under section 9 (crew wages, personal injury, salvage, port and pilotage dues, tortious damage) are the exception: they survive a change of ownership, registry or flag, but are extinguished within the period fixed by section 9(2), one year for most liens, unless the vessel is arrested first.

The 2017 Act is silent on the interplay between an in rem arrest and an arbitration agreement. Section 11 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 and section 7 of Singapore’s International Arbitration Act permit a court staying admiralty proceedings to retain the arrested property as security for the award; the Indian statute has no equivalent. The Bombay High Court has filled the gap by applying Article 7 of the 1999 Arrest Convention, to which India is not a party, as accepted international procedure. Arrest and arbitration are cumulative, not alternative, and the security stands to answer the award. The vehicle is the in rem suit, not section 9. Counter-security and wrongful-arrest exposure should be priced before filing.

Seat and interim relief

Since 2015, the proviso to section 2(2) extends sections 9, 27, 37(1)(b) and 37(3) to international commercial arbitrations seated abroad, save where the parties have agreed otherwise. Silence therefore preserves section 9 relief; only an agreement to the contrary removes it. An express reservation nonetheless earns its place, because it forecloses the argument that a choice of foreign curial law or institutional rules amounts to implied exclusion. Interim orders of a foreign-seated tribunal, including emergency-arbitrator decisions, are not enforceable as such in India; section 9 or arrest is the route to local security.

Time bars and security

Security is worthless if the claim is time-barred. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 2025 applies the Hague-Visby Rules only to carriage from Indian ports; inward cargo is governed by whatever regime the bill of lading incorporates. Suit lies within one year of delivery or of the date on which the goods should have been delivered, and a clause cutting that down is void under Article III rule 8; for Indian-law contracts outside the Rules, a clause extinguishing rights on expiry of a stipulated period fails under section 28(b) of the Contract Act.

Enforcing the award

Part II applies only to awards made in a territory notified as reciprocating under section 44(b); a Convention award from a non-notified State is not a “foreign award” at all. The section 48 grounds are narrow, and since 2015 public policy excludes review on the merits. The enforcement petition must be filed within three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. In practice, the security obtained at the outset is the enforcement.

Drafting checklist

• Nominate the seat and institution precisely, and reserve Indian court relief expressly, including arrest.
• Confirm the seat is a notified reciprocating territory before agreeing it.
• In supply and agency contracts, secure owner liability or a guarantee if arrest is to be the remedy.
• Align contractual notice periods with the Rules and with section 28; never shorten the one-year bar.

The statutes have been modernised; the discipline has not. Security, seat and enforcement must be planned together, at the drafting stage.

The law is stated as of 26 September 2026. This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon in any specific matter, for which professional advice on the facts and the applicable law should be obtained. Views expressed are the author’s own.