Early History of the High Courts; Historical Development; Statutory Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction; Colonial Courts of Admiralty; The 1861 Act was discarded by the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 on August 9, 2017 that came in force on April 1, 2018.
The three Indian Courts of Admiralty i.e. Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were courts of specific jurisdiction. The statutory admiralty framework of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 have replaced the old act of 1861 and is now in force from April 1, 2018, the principles of 1952 Brussels Arrest Convention and 1999 Geneva Arrest Convention have been incorporated in the new act of 2017. The jurisdiction of the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala, and Odisha have Admiralty actions.
Section 5 and 6 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 sets out the mode of exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction, which may take the form of action in rem or action in personam. Admiralty jurisdiction is statutory, with specific heads of subject matter. It entertains both claims in rem and claims in personam.
Section 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 sets out action in rem. Section 6 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 sets out action in personam. Section 6 Subject to section 7, the High Court may exercise admiralty jurisdiction by action in personam in respect of any maritime claim referred to in clauses (a) to (w) of sub-section (1) of section 4..
Section 10 (1) and (2) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 sets out the order of priority of maritime claims. The order of maritime claims determining the inter se priority in an admiralty proceeding shall be a claim on the vessel where there is a maritime lien; registered mortgages and charges of same nature on the vessel; all other claims.
Section 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 sets out a list of maritime claims in respect whereof, the High Courts can exercise their Admiralty Jurisdiction. The lists of maritime claims are similar to the maritime claims defined under the International Convention in relation to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952, Brussels and the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, 1999, Geneva.
A maritime lien is a species of charge that attaches to property and follows the property - most commonly a ship - to secure certain types of claims. It is inchoate from the time of the events giving rise to it, attaching to the ship, travelling with the ship into anyone's possession even a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, except a purchaser at an admiralty court sale and perfected by legal process. Only a limited class of maritime liens are recognised under section 9 (1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. Maritime lien means a maritime claim as recognised under section 4 (1) (w) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 against the owner, demise charterer, manager or operator of the vessel referred to in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) of section 9, which shall continue to exist under sub-section (2) of that section.
The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court in regard to possession and co-ownership is exercised for a fourfold purpose; to place claimants in possession of a ship; or of the earnings of a ship to which they may be entitled; while protecting the interests of one or more co-owners as against others, to enable a ship to be employed; to examine accounts between co-owners, and to apportion the earnings after such examination. Section 4 (1) (a) and (b) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject maritime claims.
By a mortgage the mortgagee acquires a right to the ownership of a vessel in a certain event, namely, on default of payment of principal and interest, since it is a transfer of all the mortgagor's interest by way of security for the payment of a loan. Mortgagee by reason of his mortgage shall not be deemed to be the owner of the ship, the mortgagor remains the dominus of the ship with regard to everything connected with its employment until the moment arrives when the mortgagee takes possession. The mortgagor therefore does not cease to be the owner of such mortgaged ship except so far as may be necessary for making it available as a security for the mortgage debt. From this it necessarily follows that a mortgagee cannot bring an action of restraint as if he were a co-owner. Section 4 (1) (c) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject maritime claims.
The claimant must establish that the ship has, done the damage (whether by collision or otherwise) to invoke admiralty jurisdiction over any claim for damage done and some authority must be shown that the damage as caused in the present case entitles the parties to proceed in rem. Damage done by a Ship means the damage done by any negligent act or behaviour of those in charge of the ship and a maritime lien arises. Section 4 (1) (d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject maritime claims.
A seafarer or its family member (in case of seafarers death) can initiate legal action by filing an admiralty suit in the High Court having admiralty jurisdiction and obtain an order of arrest of the offending ship or sister ship owned by the offending ship and claim compensation, when the ship is in Indian territorial waters. Section 4 (1) (e) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject in maritime claims and under section 9 (1) (b) as a maritime lien shall have priority for loss of life or personal injury occurring whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of a vessel.
Section 4 (1) (f) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject maritime claims, loss or damage to or in connection with any goods. Ship is liable to be arrested for the enforcement of maritime claims, or seized in execution or satisfaction of judgments in legal actions arising out of loss or damage to or in connection with any goods. Loss of or damage to goods indicate that the scope of this head of claim is loss of or damage to cargo.
The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of cargo claims, passenger on board and contracts of affreightment is statutory. Section 4 (1) (f) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject maritime claims, agreement relating to the carriage of goods or passengers on board a vessel, whether contained in a charter party or otherwise.
Agreement relating to the use or hire of any ship whether by charter party or otherwise, unpaid dues for any use or hire of a ship, admiralty action will lie. Section 4 (1) (h) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above maritime claims pertaining to agreement relating to the use or hire of the vessel, whether contained in a charter party or otherwise.
Salvor has a maritime lien on the salvaged property. A successful salvage claim requires three proofs: marine peril; voluntary service rendered when not required as an existing duty or from a special contract; and success in whole or in part, or contribution to the success of the operation. Salvage operations or any salvage agreement, including, if applicable, special compensation relating to salvage operations in respect of a ship which by itself or its cargo threatened damage to the environment. Section 4 (1) (i) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with salvage services, including, if applicable, special compensation relating to salvage services in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatens damage to the environment.
A Towage service may be described as the employment of one vessel to expedite the voyage of another, when nothing more is required than accelerating her progress. Section 4 (1) (j) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with towage..
The remuneration of pilots, being in the nature of wages, must be touched on. By maritime law the Admiralty Court would entertain claims by them for payment of sums due, whether in an action in rem or in personam. A pilot may proceed either in rem or in personam for the authorised pilotage dues to which he may be entitled. Section 4 (1) (k) of Section 4 (1) (j) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with towage.
Section 4 (1) (l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject maritime claims, goods, materials, perishable or non-perishable provisions, bunker fuel, equipment (including containers), supplied or services rendered to the vessel for its operation, management, preservation or maintenance including any fee payable or leviable.
A classification certificate has been held to be equipment and so a claim by a classification society for their charges in connection with issuing such a certificate. Claims under this head do not give rise to a maritime lien, but a repairer has a possessory lien at common law. A ship can be arrested under admiralty jurisdiction for any outstanding dues under Section 4 (1) (m) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 which deals with construction, reconstruction, repair, converting or equipping of the vessel.
A ship can be arrested under admiralty jurisdiction for any outstanding dues under Section 4 (1) (n) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 which deals with dues in connection with any port, harbour, canal, dock or light tolls, other tolls, waterway or any charges of similar kind chargeable under any law for the time being in force.
A seaman to whom wages are due has a right of action against the owner, the crew may bring an action in the Admiralty court either in personam against the owner, or in rem against the ship. Section 4 (1) (o) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject claim by a master or member of the crew of a vessel or their heirs and dependents for wages or any sum due out of wages or adjudged to be due which may be recoverable as wages or cost of repatriation or social insurance contribution payable on their behalf or any amount an employer is under an obligation to pay to a person as an employee, whether the obligation arose out of a contract of employment or by operation of a law (including operation of a law of any country) for the time being in force, and includes any claim arising under a manning and crew agreement relating to a vessel, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of sections 150 and 151 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.
A ship can be arrested under admiralty jurisdiction for any outstanding dues under Section 4 (1) (p) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 which deals with disbursements incurred on behalf of the vessel or its owners. Disbursements by the master on account of the ship can be recovered in a suit for wages. The terms disbursements includes all proper expenditure made by the master on the ship and must generally be explained by reference to what disbursements has been incurred for the ship.
The lien on cargo for general average charges can be exercised only by the shipowner in possession of the goods and, where necessary, it is his duty to other cargo owners to protect their interests by retaining possession of any goods in respect of which a contribution in general average is outstanding. However, owing to the difficulty of assessing the amount of such contributions and the time required for general average adjustment, it is not usual for shipowners to avail themselves of the right of lien in these circumstances. The customary procedure is for the goods to be delivered in exchange for the security afforded by a general average bond, a general average deposit, or both. Section 4 (1) (q) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject claim on average or general average.
Section 4 (1) (r) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject claim on dispute arising out of a contract for the sale of the vessel. A contract for sale of the vessel would include vessel for further trading or a vessel for demolition or a scrap.
Insurance Premium is within the closed list for ship arrest. Section 4 (1) (s) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject claim on insurance premium (including mutual insurance calls) in respect of the vessel, payable by or on behalf of the vessel owners or demise charterers.
Any unpaid commission, brokerage or agency fees by the vessel owner or demise charterer of the vessel are within the close list of maritime claim and the claimant can arrest a ship for recovery. Section 4 (1) (s) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject claim on commission, brokerage or agency fees payable in respect of the vessel by or on behalf of the vessel owner or demise charterer.
Section 4 (1) (u) of the Admiralty Act (2017) deals with the above subject claim on damage or threat of damage caused by the vessel to the environment, coastline or related interests; measures taken to prevent, minimise, or remove such damage; compensation for such damage; costs of reasonable measures for the restoration of the environment actually undertaken or to be undertaken; loss incurred or likely to be incurred by third parties in connection with such damage; or any other damage, costs, or loss of a similar nature to those identified in this clause. Parts X-B, X-C and XI-A of the Merchant Shipping Act deal with the prevention and containment of pollution of the sea by oil. India follows the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992 (as amended).
Section 4 (1) (v) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 deals with the above subject claim on costs or expenses relating to raising, removal, recovery, destruction or the rendering harmless of a vessel which is sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned, including anything that is or has been on board such vessel, and costs or expenses relating to the preservation of an abandoned vessel and maintenance of its crew.
The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 shall not apply to a warship, naval auxiliary or other vessel owned or operated by the Central or a State Government and used for any non-commercial purpose, and, shall also not apply to a foreign vessel which is used for any non-commercial purpose as may be notified by the Central Government. A vessel owned by Government owned companies are within the purview of the act. 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.
Section 2 (1) (c) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 defines 'arrest' and it means detention or restriction for removal of a vessel by order of a High Court to secure a maritime claim including seizure of a vessel in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or order. On the sale of a vessel under this Act by the High Court in exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, the vessel shall vest in the purchaser free from all encumbrances, liens, attachments, registered mortgages and charges of the same nature on the vessel.
Section 2 (1) (l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 defines 'vessel' and it includes any ship, boat, sailing vessel or other description of vessel used or constructed for use in navigation by water, whether it is propelled or not, and includes a barge, lighter or other floating vessel, a hovercraft, an off-shore industry mobile unit, a vessel that has sunk or is stranded or abandoned and the remains of such a vessel. A vessel shall not be deemed to be a vessel for the purposes of this clause, when it is broken up to such an extent that it cannot be put into use for navigation, as certified by a surveyor.'Sister-Ship' is a ship which is under the same beneficial ownership or in simple terms, owned in majority by the same owner or class of owners. More importantly, apart from arresting an offending ship in order to secure a maritime claim, a claimant may also arrest a sister ship of the offending ship in order to secure his claim.
The claimant filing admiralty suit in the High Court having admiralty jurisdiction have to file an undertaking along with the suit in an affidavit form mainly for protection of owner, demise charterer, manager or operator or crew of vessel arrested under Section 11 (1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.
The main purpose of arrest is to obtain security for satisfaction of judgment in the action in rem and it is necessary to arrest the ship in order to establish jurisdiction. A ship may be arrested to acquire jurisdiction; or to obtain security for satisfaction of the claim when decreed; or in execution of a decree
India is not a signatory to the Brussel and Geneva conventions, the principles incorporated in the conventions became applicable for the enforcement of maritime claims against foreign ships as is held by the Supreme Court of India. Section 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 sets out a list of maritime claims in respect whereof, the High Courts can exercise their Admiralty Jurisdiction. The lists of maritime claims are similar to the maritime claims defined under the International Convention in relation to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952, Brussels and the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, 1999, Geneva.
Any person desiring to prevent the arrest of any property shall file in the registry a praecipe, signed by himself or his Advocate, who may be acting for him, requesting that a caveat be entered against the arrest of the said property and undertaking to enter an appearance in person or a vakalatnama (appearance) in any suit that may be instituted against the said property and to give security in such suit in a sum not exceeding the amount to be stated in the praecipe or to pay such sum into the registry. A caveat against the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the said property shall thereupon be entered in a book to be kept in the registry, called the 'Caveat Warrant Book'. A caveat against arrest is valid for 90 days. Successive caveats may be entered upon expiry.
The Sheriff of Mumbai or the Admiral Marshal or his substitute may execute a warrant of arrest on the ship. Freight cannot be arrested separate from the ship or cargo, and so freight which has already been paid to the ship owners by the consignees cannot be arrested. Where, however, a claim is brought against ship and freight, the court may order that the Sheriff of Mumbai or the Admiral Marshal should sell the cargo under arrest and pay the freight from the proceeds of sale. If the warrant of arrest is dispensed with the port, custom and other authorities act upon not allowing the vessel to sail outward from its jurisdiction.
Sheriff or the Marshal or other officer including administrative assistants such as Bailiffs or other subordinate officers who shall assist in carrying out their duties to execute the process of the Court including serving order of arrest or executing arrest warrants on ships; taking all appropriate steps to retain safe custody of, and to preserve, a ship under arrest, including removing from the ship, cargo that is under arrest; removing cargo from a ship that is under arrest; and moving the ship that is under arrest; arranging for the release of a ship pursuant to an Order of Court or instrument of Release; arranging for the valuation and sale of a ship pursuant to an Order of Court; filing a return of the sale, and an account of the sale and documents in support of the account for taxation; arranging for the payment of the proceeds of the sale of a ship into the Court.
The effect of arrest is that it constitutes the ship or other property as security in the hands of the court for the claim in the action and this security cannot be defeated by the subsequent insolvency of the owner of the arrested property.
If a ship is ordered to be arrested while she is in the course of discharging her cargo, the Sheriff or the Marshal will not stop the discharge operations except when the claim form is in respect of a claim for salvage and the cargo is to be arrested. Normally, when an order of arrest of ship is obtained it is only the ship and its appurtenances are arrested but does not include the cargo unless there is an order from the court for arrest of the cargo also.
If cargo on board the ship is ordered to be arrested, the Sheriff or the Marshal will arrest the cargo. Without intervening in the claim in which the cargo has been arrested the ship owners or the vessel interest can request the Sheriff or the Marshal to take the appropriate steps to enable the ship to be discharged, the Sheriff or Marshal will make an application to the court for appropriate relief.
Any person desiring to prevent the release of any property under arrest shall file in the registry a praecipe, signed by himself or his Advocate, who may be acting for him, requesting that a caveat be entered against the release of the said property. A caveat against the release of the said property shall thereupon be entered in a book to be kept in the registry, called the 'Caveat Release Book'. Any person desiring to prevent the payment out of court of any money in court representing the proceeds of sale of any property shall file in the registry a praecipe, signed by himself or his Advocate who may be acting for him, requesting that a caveat be entered against payment out of Court of the said proceeds of sale. A caveat against the payment out of Court of such sale proceeds shall thereupon be entered in a book to be kept in the registry, called the 'Caveat Payment Book'.
Should the arrest of a ship in a port cause considerable and continued disruption to the operation of the port, the port authorities may remove the ship to a safe berth or in such other place as he think appropriate within its jurisdiction and not allowing the ship to sail away and keeping her under arrest.
Possessory liens are usually asserted by shipyards who have not been paid for repairs to vessels. This is a self-help remedy long recognised by the courts. Shipyards exercising possessory lien are entitled to detain the vessel without having to arrest the vessel. On occasions, parties exercising possessory lien may need to arrest the vessel in order to obtain the assistance of the court to sell the vessel, as a right to exercise possessory lien does not carry the right to sell the vessel.
In cases where the arrested ship is released on security being furnished for the plaintiff's claim, the suit, unless compromised, will proceed to trial and judgment in the normal course. Following its arrest, the ship is usually released from arrest after security has been provided by the ship owner or any interested parties for the claim. The security may be in the form of a bail bond, a payment of money into court, a bank guarantee or a letter of undertaking (LOU) from the ship owner's protection and indemnity club (P.& I. Club).
The cases involving wrongful arrest are rare and there isnt a single decided case in India and to succeed in a claim for wrongful arrest, the owners must demonstrate that there is either mala fides (bad faith) or crassa negligentia (gross negligence) which implies malice.
The Admiralty Rules of the High Courts provide that the rules and practice of the court in the matter of suits and proceedings on the original side of the court shall, if not inconsistent with the said Rules, apply to suits and proceedings on the Admiralty side of the court.
This Chapter explains the complete procedure for ship arrest from inception such as execution of power of attorney, taking search in the registry, notice to consul general, filing of plaint, undertaking, judges order or interim application, warrant of arrest, making an urgent application for order of arrest, urgent application for obtaining order of arrest is moved before the Admiralty Judge.
Court can acquire jurisdiction if the writ or if the warrant of arrest is executed on the ship when it arrives within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. An order of arrest of a ship can be obtained from the High Court having admiralty jurisdiction and that the ship should be in that state jurisdiction of the High Court at the time of filing of the suit.
"Attachment" before judgment of a ship, as of any other property, is available in all the Indian courts of ordinary civil jurisdiction having jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the claim for most kinds of claims, which would include claim for charter hire or stevedoring services or supplies.
The (Indian) Limitation Act 1963 applies to all claims within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts. The Act provides a three-year limitation period for actions for damage, wages, necessaries, salvage, and towage. In case of claims for loss or damage to cargo brought under bills of lading incorporating the Hague Rules, the one year period under rule 6 of Article III, providing for an extinguishments of the cause of action, itself may apply.
Security for costs and damages is not a condition for the arrest, but while applying for the arrest an undertaking is required to be given in writing to pay such sum by way of damages as the court may award compensation in the event of a party affected sustains prejudice by the arrest.
The Sheriff or the Marshal owes no duty to the crew on board as such. The relationship of the Sheriff or the Marshal to the crew will depend upon the circumstances as they affect the discharge of the Sheriff or the Marshal’s duty to retain custody of, and to preserve the ship.
The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of cargo claims and contracts of affreightment is statutory. Section 4 (1) (d), (f), (g), (i) and (q) of the Admiralty Act (2017) deals with the above subject maritime claims. The High Court has Admiralty jurisdiction over any claim arising out of loss or damage caused by the operation of a vessel; loss or damage to or in connection with any goods; agreement relating to the carriage of goods or passengers on board a vessel, whether contained in a charter party or otherwise; salvage services, including, if applicable, special compensation relating to salvage services in respect of a vessel which by itself or its cargo threatens damage to the environment; particular average or general average.
Unpaid dues of Bunker Suppliers are supplies secured by a maritime claim under section 4 (1)(l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. Bunker fuel is technically any type of fuel oil used aboard ships. It gets its name from the containers on ships and in ports that it is stored in, called bunkers. Unpaid dues of Bunker Suppliers are secured by a maritime claim and/or a right to arrest the vessel in rem to which the bunkers were supplied or her sister ship.
The maritime claim in respect of which the power of arrest is recognised in law includes section 4 (1) (d) of the Admiralty Act (2017) deals with loss or damage caused by the operation of a vessel. There is a provision under section 443 and 445 of the Merchant Shipping Act to detain ship that has occasioned damage also Part X deals with collisions, accidents at sea and liability.
Any party aggrieved by the order passed by the single judge of the trial court have an option to file an appeal before the division bench in the same High Court and any order passed by the appeal court of the High Court the aggrieved party may file an Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India.
A vessel shall not be deemed to be a vessel, when it is broken up to such an extent that it cannot be put into use for navigation, as certified by a surveyor, is no longer considered as a ship and therefore Admiralty action cannot be initiated. The ship is no longer within the definition of a ship, the nature and category of the res is entirely altered, the court is without jurisdiction as there is no res, the ship has literally ceased to exist from the definition of a ship. A action in rem cannot be maintained in such situation.
Section 2 (k) of the Admiralty Act (2017) defines “territorial waters” that shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (80 of 1976).
It has long been the practice in the shipping business to arrange for several ships which are financed by a common source and managed or operated as a fleet, to be registered in the names of separate companies whose only asset is the particular ship registered in its name.
Poundage is payable at 1 per cent of the amount received by the plaintiff in full or part satisfaction of a judgment or, in the event of the claim being satisfied, compromised or settled outside court, upon the amount of such satisfaction, compromise or settlement.
If a ship has been arrested and released there is no reason why it should not be rearrested for a valid claim. The High Court may also order arrest of any other vessel for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim, in lieu of the vessel against which a maritime claim has been made under this Act, subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) Provided that no vessel shall be arrested under this sub-section in respect of a maritime claim under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 4..
If Admiralty action is initiated by filing a suit and an order of arrest is obtained and the ship sails out before the order of arrest is effected, the ship may be arrested if she returns back under the general rule of perpetuatio jurisdictionis.
At the time when the Admiralty suit is filed in the court the ship must already be within Indian territorial waters or jurisdiction of that state. The High Court may order arrest of any vessel which is within its jurisdiction for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim which is the subject of an admiralty proceeding.
The decision whether further trading of the ship should be permitted or not is left to the discretion of the court. Some admiralty judges are of the view that trading of an arrested ship tantamount to diluting the order of arrest and the purpose of arrest is defeated. A ship is arrested by the Sheriff or the Marshal acting as an officer of the court. The ship comes into the custody, but not the possession, of the Sheriff or the Marshal.
Arrest means detention or restriction for removal of a vessel by order of a High Court to secure a maritime claim including seizure of a vessel in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or order. A ship can be arrested for recognition and enforcement of judgments or order.
If proceedings involving the same parties and same cause action are already initiated elsewhere when proceedings are commenced before it unless the jurisdiction of the other court is not established, the Admiralty court will dismiss the suit.
Forum non-conveniens is a common law doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties. As a matter of civil procedure, courts must decide whether and in what circumstances they will accept jurisdiction over parties and subject matter when a lawsuit begins.
The property of a foreign government not in use or intended for use for commercial purpose cannot be arrested in an action in rem. The government may consent to the use of such process. 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.
Section 2 (1) (l) of the Admiralty Act (2017) defines vessel which includes any ship, boat, sailing vessel or other description of vessel used or constructed for use in navigation by water, whether it is propelled or not, and includes a barge, lighter or other floating vessel, a hovercraft, an off-shore industry mobile unit, a vessel that has sunk or is stranded or abandoned and the remains of such a vessel. Explanation.A vessel shall not be deemed to be a vessel for the purposes of this clause, when it is broken up to such an extent that it cannot be put into use for navigation, as certified by a surveyor. The ship is no longer within the definition of a ship, the nature and category of the res is entirely altered, the court is without jurisdiction as there is no res, the ship has literally ceased to exist from the definition of a ship. A action in rem cannot be maintained in such situation.
The three Indian Courts of Admiralty i.e. Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were courts of specific jurisdiction. In the course of time the jurisdiction of the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa have entertained Admiralty actions. Under the Admiralty Act (2017), the jurisdiction of the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Gujarat, Hyderabad Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala, and Odisha have Admiralty actions.
Once an award is found to be enforceable it may be enforced like a decree of that court. Arrest means detention or restriction for removal of a vessel by order of a High Court to secure a maritime claim including seizure of a vessel in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or order. A ship can be arrested for recognition and enforcement of judgments or order.
Beneficial owner means, one recognized in equity as the owner of something because use and title belong to that person, even though legal title may belong to someone else; esp., one for whom property is held in trust.- also termed equitable owner. Beneficial owner refers to the natural person(s) who ultimately owns or controls a customer and/or the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted. It also incorporates those persons who exercise ultimate effective control over a legal person or arrangement. The defining characteristic of the beneficial owner of an asset is that he holds a degree of control over the asset that allows him to benefit from it. Whether he is the legal owner (that is, holds legal title to it) is irrelevant. The essence of beneficial ownership is precisely not ownership in the ordinary sense of the word but rather control. Control and legal title often will lie in the same hands.
On order for valuation and sale of the property or ship is passed by the court, the terms and conditions for sale of the ship is thereafter finalised by the Sheriff or the Marshal in consultation with the parties. The ship is sold as per terms and conditions. On ship being sold to the highest bidder, the Sheriff or the Marshal shall receive the full sale price from the buyer as per schedule and terms setout by the Sheriff or the Marshal. This sale proceeds is invested by the Sheriff or the Marshal in a nominated bank account and is later transferred to the designated bank account of the High Court in the said Admiralty suit whereby the ship is sold.
Crew employed on the ship are mainly based on their appointment letter or the contract and their rights depends on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Seafarer's has a right to invoke admiralty action and arrest a ship for unpaid wages, moreso, the crew claims have priority over other claims.
Admiralty jurisdiction can be invoked for any of the claims as setout in section 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 by filing a suit in the High Court in India having admiralty jurisdiction and obtaining an order of arrest of a ship. Admiralty suit can be filed when the ship is in Indian territorial waters being 12 nautical miles from the shore.
A charter party is a highly standardized written document that provides the contractual arrangements for one party (the charterer) to hire the carrying capacity of a vessel, either in whole or in part, owned by another party. Generally, charter parties are subject to the rules and requirements of contract law. Charter party forms are used worldwide, and many of them have been drafted to take into consideration the specific needs of particular trades. Other charter parties are more general in form and are not adapted to a specific trade.
This chapter summarizes the key provisions and procedures governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitration awards in India. A foreign judgment can be enforced in India only if it meets the requirements outlined in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). This section sets out seven exceptions where a foreign judgment will not be recognized or enforced.
This section digs into the complexities of cargo claims in India, exploring the legal framework, key principles, procedures, and considerations for both shippers and carriers. The COGSA outlines the core principles for cargo claims against carriers, as detailed in the act's Schedule.
A marine casualty refers to an incident at sea that causes damage to a vessel, its cargo, or the environment, or that results in injury or death to persons on board. In India, the legal framework governing marine casualties is primarily established by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (MSA) alongside various international conventions that India has ratified.
Shipping contracts are the lifeblood of international trade, especially for a nation like India with its vast coastline and thriving maritime industry. A thorough understanding of the legal framework and common practices governing shipping contracts in India is critical for businesses and legal professionals involved in maritime commerce.
India's transportation system, particularly its road and rail networks, is struggling to keep pace with the nation's rapid growth. A burgeoning population and significant increase in freight movement have placed immense stress on these traditional methods of transportation.
In admiralty law, the term prima facie case refers to the establishment of a set of facts that, if left unchallenged or unexplained, would be sufficient to entitle the claimant to a legal remedy, including the arrest of a vessel or relief sought. The doctrine of prima facie case is fundamental in admiralty actions, particularly for securing maritime claims, enforcing liens, or arresting ships.
A Letter of Undertaking from a P&I Club remains inadmissible as security for the release of a vessel under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, reinforcing the necessity for tangible and enforceable security in maritime law.
Section 4(1)(a) is a pivotal clause in the Admiralty Act, granting the High Courts jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding ownership or possession of a vessel. This section must be read in conjunction with other provisions of the Act, particularly those governing actions in rem and in personam (Sections 5 and 6). The scope of Section 4(1)(a) is expansive, encompassing all manner of ownership and possession disputes, ranging from contested sales, inheritance claims, and transfers to disputes arising from mortgage foreclosures and lien claims.
Section 4(1)(b) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, serves as a pivotal legal provision for adjudicating disputes among co-owners regarding the employment or earnings of a vessel, promoting fairness and equity while safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.
Section 4(1)(c) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, delineates the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate matters pertaining to the mortgage or charge of a vessel. This provision is pivotal, as it establishes the parameters within which maritime mortgages are recognized and enforced under Indian law, mirroring similar legal frameworks in various jurisdictions worldwide
Section 4(1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") confers jurisdiction upon the High Court to adjudicate disputes concerning loss or damage arising from the operation of a vessel. This provision serves as a pivotal element within the legislative framework governing maritime claims in India.The operational parameters delineated under this section are critical for stakeholders in the shipping industry, including shipowners, charterers, and cargo interests, as they clarify the scope of the High Court's authority in matters of maritime disputes.
Section 4(1)(e) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") empowers the High Court to adjudicate on claims relating to loss of life or personal injury occurring either on land or on water, provided such occurrences are in direct connection with the operation of a vessel. This provision reflects the expansive scope of admiralty jurisdiction, aiming to encompass various maritime and related claims
Section 4(1)(f) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") delineates the jurisdiction of the High Court concerning disputes pertaining to the loss or damage to goods carried by a vessel. This provision serves as a critical aspect of the broader framework governing admiralty law in India, reflecting the legislative intent to streamline the adjudication of maritime claims.
The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Admiralty Act, 2017") represents a significant reform in the framework governing admiralty law in India. Among its various provisions, Section 4(1)(g) specifically delineates the jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate disputes arising from agreements pertaining to the carriage of goods or passengers aboard a vessel. This provision encompasses contracts contained within charter parties, as well as other forms of agreements. An examination of this section reveals its implications, scope, and the interplay with established case law, both domestically and internationally.
Section 4(1)(h) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Admiralty Act) delineates the jurisdiction of the High Court in India to hear disputes arising from agreements concerning the use or hire of vessels. This provision significantly enhances the legal framework governing maritime contracts in India and underscores the judiciary's role in resolving maritime disputes.The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 4(1)(h) is extensive, encompassing not only charter parties but also a variety of agreements pertaining to the hire or use of vessels. This broad interpretation ensures that all relevant maritime contractual disputes can be adjudicated, thereby promoting certainty and stability in maritime commerce.
The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (Admiralty Act, 2017) serves as the governing framework for maritime disputes in India, conferring jurisdiction upon the High Courts to hear a wide range of admiralty claims. Section 4(1)(i) of the Admiralty Act, 2017 specifically deals with salvage services, establishing the High Court's jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate claims arising out of such services, including claims for special compensation under certain circumstances.
Section 4(1)(j) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 grants the High Courts the jurisdiction to hear and determine claims concerning towage. Towage refers to the service provided by a vessel (the tug) to assist another vessel (the tow) in moving from one location to another. This service could involve towing a ship that is incapacitated, assisting in docking or undocking, or facilitating the movement of vessels within congested waters. The provision reflects the need to address disputes that may arise from such arrangements, which are an essential part of maritime operations.
Section 4(1)(k) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 confers jurisdiction upon the High Courts in India to adjudicate disputes relating to pilotage services. This provision establishes a specific legal framework for addressing conflicts arising from the duties and obligations of pilots in guiding vessels safely through navigational waters. Pilotage, being an essential component of maritime navigation, ensures that vessels are steered safely, particularly in congested or hazardous areas such as ports, rivers, and channels where local expertise is crucial.
Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 confers upon the High Courts in India the jurisdiction to entertain and decide claims concerning goods, materials, or services rendered to a vessel. These claims are crucial in the maritime industry as they ensure that entities providing essential services to vessels are legally protected in terms of compensation and redress.
Section 4(1)(m) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 confers jurisdiction upon the High Court to adjudicate disputes relating to the construction, reconstruction, repair, converting, or equipping of vessels. This provision plays a pivotal role in granting the Admiralty Courts jurisdiction over claims arising out of contracts involving maritime engineering activities, such as the building and modification of ships. The significance of this section lies in its broad scope, enabling claims not only for construction but also for activities that involve extensive modification and upgrading of existing vessels.
Section 4(1)(n) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 bestows upon the High Court the authority to adjudicate claims concerning dues associated with any port, harbour, canal, dock, light tolls, or other similar charges, as well as those chargeable under any prevailing law. This provision specifically incorporates a broad spectrum of charges related to maritime infrastructure and services, thereby expanding the court's admiralty jurisdiction beyond traditional maritime claims. The scope of this section enables the High Court to address a variety of disputes pertaining to port and harbour dues, which are critical for the upkeep, maintenance, and regulation of maritime facilities.
Section 4(1)(o) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 extends the High Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes concerning claims by masters or members of the crew of a vessel, or their heirs and dependents, for wages or sums due that are recoverable as wages. This includes claims for the cost of repatriation or social insurance contributions payable on behalf of the crew, as well as any amounts an employer is obligated to pay to an employee under the law, whether arising from a contract of employment or by operation of law. The provision also covers claims arising under manning and crew agreements, providing broad protection for maritime employees, and ensuring that wages and related entitlements are enforced.
Section 4(1)(p) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, is a crucial provision that extends the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to disbursements made on behalf of a vessel or its owners. This section confers upon the High Court the authority to adjudicate claims arising from payments or expenses incurred for the operation, maintenance, or provisioning of a vessel, whether in the ordinary course of business or under special circumstances. The term "disbursements" in this context refers to expenses that are necessary for the functioning and management of the vessel, and typically involve third-party payments made by agents, brokers, or others on behalf of the vessel's owner, charterer, or operator
Section 4(1)(q) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 provides the High Court with the jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes concerning particular average or general average. The statutory provision is crucial in the context of maritime law as it empowers the High Court to adjudicate claims arising from losses or damages suffered by vessels or cargo, distinguishing between particular average and general average in maritime ventures. This legal empowerment is of significant relevance to shipping entities, insurers, cargo owners, and other stakeholders involved in maritime operations, as the principle of average adjusts the apportionment of losses between these parties under specific circumstances.
Section 4(1)(r) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 empowers the High Courts in India to exercise jurisdiction over claims concerning disputes arising from contracts for the sale of a vessel. This provision is pivotal in delineating the scope of admiralty jurisdiction, specifically granting courts the authority to hear and determine matters that would traditionally be viewed as falling under the domain of commercial or civil disputes. The inclusion of sale contract disputes within the admiralty jurisdiction underscores the legislature's intention to expand the scope of maritime claims, thereby offering a specialized legal forum for resolving such disputes efficiently within the framework of admiralty law.
Section 4(1)(s) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, empowers the High Court to exercise jurisdiction over claims related to insurance premiums, including mutual insurance calls. This specific inclusion reflects the legislature's recognition of the pivotal role insurance plays in maritime commerce, safeguarding vessels, cargoes, and related maritime operations. The ability to arrest a vessel for unpaid insurance premiums underscores the importance of maintaining the financial commitments necessary for these operations to function smoothly. This legal mechanism offers insurers, particularly Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Clubs, a vital tool for enforcing the payment of premiums that are critical for covering various maritime liabilities.
Section 4(1)(t) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 grants the High Court of Admiralty jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to commission, brokerage, or agency fees payable in respect of a vessel. This provision is essential within the framework of maritime law, as it addresses a class of claims that arise from the commercial activities necessary for the operation and management of vessels. These fees, which are typically agreed upon during the chartering, sale, or management of ships, often form the basis for claims brought by intermediaries or service providers against shipowners or demise charterers. The inclusion of such claims within the scope of admiralty jurisdiction ensures that these disputes can be resolved efficiently, recognizing their maritime nature and the need for specialized judicial expertise in such matters.
Section 4(1)(u) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, opens a significant window for addressing environmental concerns directly linked to maritime activities. This provision grants jurisdiction to the High Court over disputes concerning damage or threats of damage caused by vessels to the environment, coastline, or related interests. The scope of this section is broad, reflecting the increasing global attention to the environmental impact of shipping and maritime operations. The provision encapsulates not only direct damage but also anticipates potential or threatened damage, offering a proactive legal avenue to mitigate harm before it fully materializes
Section 4(1)(v) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, confers jurisdiction upon the High Courts in India to entertain and determine claims relating to costs or expenses incurred in connection with raising, removal, recovery, destruction, or rendering harmless a vessel that has become sunk, wrecked, stranded, or abandoned. This provision, broad in scope, also covers any items or objects that may have been on board such a vessel at the time of the event, ensuring that all aspects of the incident whether the vessel or its cargo fall within the Admiralty Court's jurisdiction. The provision further extends to cover costs or expenses concerning the preservation of an abandoned vessel and the maintenance of its crew, an area critical to protecting maritime commerce, safety, and environmental concerns.
The maritime sector is governed by a unique set of laws and principles that regulate the rights and responsibilities of maritime entities. One of the significant statutes that codifies such laws in India is the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). This Act brings forth an extensive framework for maritime claims, with particular emphasis on maritime liens, which play a crucial role in the enforcement of maritime rights.
An Act to provide for the regulation of the multimodal transportation of goods, from any place in India to a place outside India, on the basis of a multimodal transport contract and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
An Act to foster the development and ensure the efficient maintenance of an Indian mercantile marine in a manner best suited to serve the national interests and for that purpose to establish a National Shipping Board and a Shipping Development Fund, to provide for the registration of Indian ships and generally to amend and consolidate the law relating to merchant shipping.
Having recognised the desirability of determining by agreement certain uniform rules of law relating to the arrest of seagoing ships, have decided to conclude Brussels Convention on Arrest of Ship. The applicable law for ship arrest is the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.
The States Parties to this Convention, Recognizing the desirability of facilitating the harmonious and orderly development of world seaborne trade, Convinced of the necessity for a legal instrument establishing international uniformity in the field of arrest of ships which takes account of recent developments in related fields, The applicable law for ship arrest is the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.
Shrikant Hathi is listed in the elite "Leading lawyers" list as "Leading Individual", by Legal 500 since 2005 now listed under "Hall of Fame" and the law firm Brus Chambers has been recommended as a "Top Tier Law Firm" for shipping work in India by Legal500 since 2010. Shrikant Hathi is smart, quick, and delivers outstanding results.
Shrikant Hathi is strong in shipping litigation and arbitration with clarity of mind and professional expertise.
Brus Chambers, a specialised law firm has been practicing shipping law since 1992 and continues as a dominant force in shipping and is "the best" shipping law firm in India while Dr. Shrikant Pareshnath Hathi continues to be "the best" shipping lawyer in India. The law firm is one of the leading and probably pre-eminent, Indian firm for shipping work and maintains one of Indias top shipping practice.
Shrikant Hathi is the "best of the best" for shipping work in India
Chambers and Partner highly recommends Dr. Shrikant Hathi of Brus Chambers for shipping work in India
Shrikant Hathi gives effective assistance to shipping industry.
Shrikant Hathi is listed in the "World's Leading lawyers" list since 2002 for shipping and maritime work in India.
Brus Chambers awarded the Best Shipping Law Firm in India, headed by Shrikant Hathi, the best in shipping.
Shrikant Hathi- Leading Shipping & Maritime Lawyer in India also Leading Energy & Natural Resources Lawyer in India
Leading Maritime & Admiralty Lawyer in India.
Quick understanding in shipping law, street smart and delivers results.
Dr. Shrikant Hathi epitomizes expertise in shipping law, boasting street-smart acumen that consistently yields results. Widely recognized as the foremost authority in shipping and shipping arbitration in India, his unparalleled understanding of the intricacies of the industry is truly remarkable. Shrikant Hathi stands unrivaled in his field, setting the standard for excellence that others strive to emulate.
Shrikant Hathi is a Leading Individual for shipping work in India and Brus Chambers projects and delivers industry expertize consistently.
Shrikant Hathi gives first class legal advice on arbitration and shipping, he is brillant and has in-depth expertise.
Shrikant Hathi is a very good strategist with clarity as to the road map in international commercial arbitration and shipping, he is highly qualified and result-oriented in practice.
Genuine industry specialist are rare, but they can save time and money for clients. Specialist are focused on one thing and they master it.
Shipping practice is my forte and am also specialising in projects and dispute resolution work.
I am aware that there are very few qualified solicitor's or solicitor firm in our country practicing admiralty, shipping and maritime more particularly admiralty ship arrest or release, i understand this sector is complex and very technical owing to the possibility of wrongful arrest for any mistake whilst strategising arrest, therefore one simply cannot ignore to engage the best or a specialist in this sector. A ship can be arrested anywhere in India by obtaining an order of arrest of a vessel from High Court having admiralty jurisdiction where the ship is found. In ship arrest or release matters the firm advise on all types of disputes representing owners, charterers, suppliers, repairers, cargo owners and their insurers, including P & I clubs, banks, financial institution, mortgagors and conducts litigation representing clients on all types of disputes and claims, including bunker dues, repairs, casualties, collision, limitation of liability, cargo, charterparty, mortgage, jurisdiction, conflict of laws, bill of lading, carriage of goods, contract conditions, fire, liens, general average, containers, recoveries, subrogation, casualties, freight forwarders liabilities, multimodal and unimodal, insurance and reinsurance, commercial disputes, recovery of unpaid dues, towage, salvage, pilotage, grounding, commodity disputes, damage done or received by any ship, freight, hire, demurrage, laytime, masters and crew claims, necessaries, supplies, ownership, possession, building, equipping.
My dry shipping practice itself divides between litigation and transactional work, the law involved is primarily contractual. Dry shipping litigation tends to relate more to contractual related disputes including cargo claims, charter party, bill of lading also leading to ship arrest. Shipping transactional work of contractual nature are non-litigation dry shipping. We covers all aspects of wet shipping law including claims that usually attend maritime disasters, casualties, accidents such as collisions, loss or destruction of freight at sea, piracy, explosion or capture by hostile groups, transgressing into territorial waters, oil spills, salvage, general average, statutory liability of ship owners for pollution. Our law firm provides advice on all areas of ship finance from structured finance and all related loan, leasing and security documents; charterparties; contracts with suppliers and sub-contractors; ship and offshore unit construction and conversion; to ship sale and purchase. The firm's shipping practice includes Protection & Indemnity (P&I) Settlements. Brus Chambers offers a comprehensive service covering the full range of commercial contracts and trading arrangements aimed for the shipping industry and being a shipping specialist advises on all aspects of international trade including sale of goods and letters of credit, documentary credits (UCP 600), trading terms and conditions (INCOTERMS). The firm has a specialised team within shipping advising crew members for recovery of unpaid crew claims or wages, unpaid master's wages, maritime personal injury and commercial litigation.
Project work includes infrastructure, oil, gas, natural resources, energy, mining, shipping and port transactional work from planning to documentation to liasioning with authorities.
Commercial litigation and international arbitration within the areas of shipping, projects and contracts is also that i focus on, including enforcement of foreign awards and foreign judgements in India.
Our team are experienced and result oriented. They are either qualified solicitors, advocates or para-legals of the law firm Brus Chambers working alongside in each given file. They work on the given file when required but we do not charge you for their work done.
Ship arrest or release
Dry and wet shipping
Personal Injury and crew wages
Ship finance
Ship buy or sell
International trade
P&I Settlement
Dry and wet shipping would include matters of a contentious and non-contentious drafting of agreements, shipping and other documents including negotiations.
Within contentious the areas covered but not limited to are International Commercial and Contractual Disputes; Letter of Credit; FOB, CIF contracts; Lay time; Demurrage; Safe port; Seaworthiness; Notice of readiness; Breach of warranty; Deemed earned clause on freight in a voyage charter; Off-hire events in a time charter; Delivery without production of the bill of lading; Through bill of lading; Cargo claims; Marine insurance claims; Shipbuilding contract; Ship repair; Arrests or Release of Ships; Bunker Disputes; Recovery of Unpaid Dues; Cargo Claims, Repairs; Claims, Liens, Towage, Salvage, Pilotage; Commodity Disputes; Damage Done or Received by any Ship; Freight, Hire, Demurrage, Lay time; Masters and Crew Claims; Necessaries & Supplies; Ownership, Possession, Building, Equipping; Shipping Litigation & Arbitration; Bill of Lading, Charter parties; Construction of Ships & Rigs; P&I Clubs, Settlement; Marine Insurance; Wet Shipping covers all aspects of shipping law includes claims that usually attend maritime disasters, casualties, accidents such as collisions, loss or destruction of freight at sea, piracy, explosion or capture by hostile groups, transgressing into territorial waters, oil spills, salvage, general average, statutory liability of ship owners for pollution also covering all claims that usually attend maritime disasters, casualties, accidents such as collisions, loss or destruction of freight at sea, piracy, explosion or capture by hostile groups, transgressing into territorial waters, oil spills, salvage, general average, statutory liability of ship owners for pollution.
Within non-contentious the areas covered are Sale and Purchase of ship; New Building contract with shipbuilders; Ship Mortgage; Ship Finance; Ship Agency; Port and Jetty Terminals; Port Projects and Developments; Ship and Asset Financing, Mortgage ; Ship or Rig Building agreements; Ship Registration and Flagging; Agreements & Contracts; Port Facilities & Regulations.
Shipping practice includes Protection & Indemnity (P&I) Settlements. Brus Chambers offers a comprehensive service covering the full range of commercial contracts and trading arrangements aimed for the shipping industry and being a shipping specialist advises on all aspects of international trade including sale of goods and letters of credit, documentary credits (UCP 600), trading terms and conditions (INCOTERMS). The firm has a specialised team within shipping advising crew members for recovery of unpaid crew claims or wages, unpaid master's wages, maritime personal injury and commercial litigation.
Infrastructure & Construction
Oil, Gas & Natural Resources
Energy & Mining
Shipping & Port
Project Finance
Other Minor & Mega Projects
Specialising in the entire gamut of projects.
Commercial & Contractual
Ship Arrest or Release
Shipping & Maritime
International Arbitration
Enforcement of Foreign Awards
Infrastructure & Construction
Oil, Gas & Natural Resources
Recoveries & Claims
Our Litigation and Arbitration is Pan-India
Below are few selected chapters from my book, judgments, articles, newsletters and other useful information.
Colonial Courts Of Admiralty Act, 1890 - Sec 2 - Admiralty Court Act, 1861 - Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 - Constitution of India - Art 225, 226 - jurisdiction of High Court to order arrest and detention of foreign ship - admiralty jurisdiction - ambit - held, admiralty jurisdiction of High Court is not limited by Act of 1861 and Act of 1890 - Andhra Pradesh High Court has jurisdiction to order arrest and detention of foreign ship - appeal disposed of.
Supreme Court is not bound by the American decisions -- American decisions have merely a persuasive value -- this Court would not hesitate in borrowing the principles if the same is in consonance with the scheme of Indian law keeping in view the changing global scenario. Global changes and outlook in trade and commerce could be a relevant factor. With the change of time; from narrow and pedantic approach, the Court may resort to broad and liberal interpretation -- Circulars -- issued by the Port Trusts may not determinative -- but would be a relevant factor -- Words and Phrases -- necessaries -- whether arrears of insurance premium would come within the term necessaries -- whether a prudent shipowner would provide for an insurance. A compulsory insurance regime has come into being and keeping in view the changed situation the definition of the expression necessaries should also undergo a change -- having regard to the changing scenario and keeping in tune with the changes in both domestic and international law as also the statutes adopted by several countries, a stand, however, bold, may have to be taken that unpaid insurance premium of P &I Club would come within the purview of the expression "Necessaries supplied to any ship" -- Insurance premium -- unpaid insurance premium being a maritime claim would be enforceable in India -- Letters Patent Appeal -- Clause 15 -- the right of appeal which is provided under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot be said to be restricted -- Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not a special statute. Only in a case where there exists an express prohibition in the matter of maintainability of an intra court appeal, the same may not be held to be maintainable. But in the event there does not exist any such prohibition and if the order will otherwise be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an appeal shall be maintainable -- Letters Patent Appeal -- maintainability of -- Preliminary judgment -- the order refusing to reject the plaint falls in the category of a preliminary judgment.
Although the focal points of Ship Arrest in India and Admiralty Laws of India are admiralty laws and procedures, this tenth edition book contains the entire gamut of admiralty edicts including ship arrest and substantive admiralty law prevalent in India, several new chapters are also introduced including procedures, summary and notes.
Ship Arrest in India was accessible for private use only is now available for free to all also sharing the content database of Maritime Practice in India. The online edition includes a research engine wherefrom you can search for reported or unreported Indian Admiralty court orders or judgments, articles. This book is about a subject that has been lurking in the scourges of darkness of Indian maritime history for many decades. It provides an in-depth insight into Indian Admiralty law and procedures, thus placing maritime and admiralty practice at the threshold of the legal fraternity.
This book is a compact, integrated guide to admiralty law and procedure in India. The primary purpose of this book is to better enlighten shipping and industry related professionals to take prompt and decisive decisions. We seek to clarify what the law requires, allow and prohibit, not to comment on how well it does so or whether what it should. We hope that this publication will contribute towards the realistic assessment and debate of the surrounding issues.
The book does not indulge exhaustively in any topic neither does it predicts any outcome of any particular case nor can it be considered as a substitute for competent legal counsel. Although we believe that the entire text is accurate at the time of publication, if it does not already fall short of this standard, it surely will with the passage of time.
This book is the first of its kind on admiralty laws published in India. Utility of the book with respect to a second central aim, to advance general understanding about the regulation of admiralty laws in India, is less apt to erode.
Ship Arrest in India, India is now considered to be the best forum for ship arrest. Admiralty jurisdiction can be invoked for any of the claims as setout in the Brussels or Geneva arrest conventions by filing a suit in the High Court in India having admiralty jurisdiction and obtaining an order of arrest of a ship. Admiralty suit can be filed when the ship is in Indian territorial waters being 12 nautical miles from the shore.
The main purpose of arrest is to obtain security for satisfaction of judgment in the action in rem and it is necessary to arrest the ship in order to establish jurisdiction.
Merchant ships of different nationalities travel from port to port carrying goods or passengers. They incur liabilities in the course of their voyage and they subject themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign States when they enter the waters of those States. They are liable to be arrested for the enforcement of maritime claims, or seized in execution or satisfaction of judgments in legal actions arising out of collisions; salvage, loss of life or personal injury, loss of or damage to goods and the like. They are liable to be detained or confiscated by the authorities of foreign States for violating their customs, regulations, safely measures, rules of the road, health regulations, and for other causes. The coastal State may exercise its criminal jurisdiction on board the vessel for the purpose of arrest or investigation in connection with certain serious crimes. In the course of an international voyage, a vessel thus subjects itself to the public and private laws of various countries. A ship traveling from port to port stays very briefly in any one port. A plaintiff seeking to enforce his maritime claim against a foreign ship has no effective remedy once it has sailed away and if the foreign owner has neither property nor residence within jurisdiction. The plaintiff may therefore detain the ship by obtaining an order of attachment whenever it is feared that the ship is likely to slip out of jurisdiction, thus leaving the plaintiff without any security.
A seafarer or a crew member can invoke admiralty jurisdiction and arrest a ship for unpaid wages. An order of arrest of the ship can be obtained from the court having admiralty jurisdiction preferably from the Bombay High Court as this court has pan-India ship arrest jurisdiction, and arrest the ship anywhere in Indian territorial waters, the seafarer may or may not be an Indian citizen to initiate action for arrest of a ship in India and also the ship may be registered anywhere in the world or maybe flying any flag. Crew claim for unpaid wages should be initiated within the three year period from the due date and if the seaman has died while he was a serving seaman, the period from the date of his death to the date on which his next of kin were first informed of his death shall be excluded. The documents that needs to be produced in court are appointment letter and or the agreement or the employment contract; copy of the passport showing that sign on and the sign off dates; continuous discharge certificate (cdc) showing the capacity of the crew also the sign in and sign off dates; account of wages and or wage slips; correspondences exchanged demanding unpaid wages directly and or through the master of the ship; power of attorney/ letter of authority, this need to be notarised and apostilled at the location where the power of attorney is executed. Each crew claims are separate cause of action and should there be more than one crew wages that remains unpaid they cannot be clubbed and each crews will have to file separate suit under admiralty jurisdiction.
Admiralty Law -- Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court -- Damage caused to international Cable Telecommunication cable by a foreign ship -- Suit filed claiming Rs. 28 crores and warrant issued against the vessel - Held, the High Court had jurisdiction under Bombay High Court Original Side Rule, Part III read with Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 -Directions issued to release the ship on deposit of Rs. 10 crores and undertaking of Rs. 25 crores by accredited authority. Under Rule 949 of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rule, provided that the party applying under the Rule in a suit in rem for arrest of the property, undertaking shall be given in writing or through the advocate to such amount by way of damages. Admiralty action is an action in rem the Division Bench wrongly refused to interfere on the ground that the Captain of the vessel filed undertaking that the vessel belonged to Black Sea Shipping Co. owned by Ukrainian Government. The High Court was competent to release the vessel on certain conditions namely, deposit of Rs. 10 crores and on giving undertaking by Ukrarian Government and for giving surety for Rs. 25 crores. Part III, Rules 941 and 952 -- Merchant Shipping Act, Section 1 and Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Section 140 -- Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court -- Where damages were caused to international telecommunication cable by a foreign ship owned by Ukranian Government -- The warrants issued by the High Court -- Held, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter -- Dierections issued to the release the ship on deposit of Rs. 10 crores and on giving undertaking for Rs. 25 crore. Rules on admirality jurisdiction in part III were framed by the Bombay High Court to regulate the procedure and practice on the original side of the Bombay High Court. According to the report of survey, the cable was damaged to anchoring and there were strong grounds and evidence to believe that the ship in question was within the vicinity where the damage took place. Section 140 C P C provides that in any admiralty or vice admiralty caused, the court whether it be exercising original or appellate jurisdiction may summon two competent assessors in the manner stated therein. Rule 941 of Bombay High Court original side rules provides that party a applying under this rule in a suit in rem for arrest of the property, undertaking in writing shall be given. Rule 954 provides that subject to Rule 952, property arrested under a warrant may be released on requests and conditions. Therefore, the vessel directed to be released subject to the deposit of R s. 10 crore and the Ukrainian Government gives an undertaking through its authority may be its Ambassador and further undertaking for balance amount of Rs. 18 crore and other expenses roughly put at R s. 25 crore. Section 9(1) -- Bombay High Court Original Side Rules, Part-III, Rules 941 and 952 -- Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court -- Where International Tele-Communication Cable was damaged by a foreign ship which was later on arrested under the warrants and subsequently the plaintiff filed a sut for 28 crores for damages, the C ourt released the ship on deposit of Rs. 10 crores alongwith undertaking of 25 crores by accredited authority. The crucial question involved was whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case. Applying R ule 941, the High Court had power to arrest the property and to give it on undertaking in writing or on payment of such amount as damages as the court may direct. R ule 954 provides that subject to the provisions of Rule 952, property arrested may be ordered to be released. The division Bench of the High Court found that the claim was not vexatious but was tribal. There was strong evidence to show that at the relevant time the respondent vessel was within the vicinity of damaged cable. The Division Bench declined to interfere on the ground that the captain of the vessel filed an undertaking that the vessel belonged to Black Sea Shipping Company which was wholly owned by Ukrainian government. Neither the approach of the Division Bench nor the finding of the trial judge, on the admiralty jurisdiction that no prima facie case was made out, was right. There was a strong case in the circumstances of the case. Since the claim even if successful would remain unexecutable if the ship leaves the shores of India Territorial Waters, the vessel allowed to be released on certain conditions, firstly the respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.10 crores and secondly the Ukrainian government shall give undertaking to its accredited authority in writing and thirdly the undertaking should be for balance amount of Rs. 18 crores and towards costs and other expenses, roughly put up at Rs. 25 crores.
Although the focal points of Ship Arrest in India and Admiralty Laws of India are admiralty laws and procedures, this tenth edition book contains the entire gamut of admiralty edicts including ship arrest and substantive admiralty law prevalent in India, several new chapters are also introduced including procedures, summary and notes.
Ship Arrest in India was accessible for private use only is now available for free to all also sharing the content database of Maritime Practice in India. The online edition includes a research engine wherefrom you can search for reported or unreported Indian Admiralty court orders or judgments, articles. This book is about a subject that has been lurking in the scourges of darkness of Indian maritime history for many decades. It provides an in-depth insight into Indian Admiralty law and procedures, thus placing maritime and admiralty practice at the threshold of the legal fraternity.
This book is a compact, integrated guide to admiralty law and procedure in India. The primary purpose of this book is to better enlighten shipping and industry related professionals to take prompt and decisive decisions. We seek to clarify what the law requires, allow and prohibit, not to comment on how well it does so or whether what it should. We hope that this publication will contribute towards the realistic assessment and debate of the surrounding issues.
The book does not indulge exhaustively in any topic neither does it predicts any outcome of any particular case nor can it be considered as a substitute for competent legal counsel. Although we believe that the entire text is accurate at the time of publication, if it does not already fall short of this standard, it surely will with the passage of time.
This book is the first of its kind on admiralty laws published in India. Utility of the book with respect to a second central aim, to advance general understanding about the regulation of admiralty laws in India, is less apt to erode.
Although a substantial amount of research has examined the constructs of warmth and competence, far less has examined how these constructs develop and what benefits may accrue when warmth and competence are cultivated. Yet there are positive consequences, both emotional and behavioral, that are likely to occur when brands hold perceptions of both. In this paper, we shed light on when and how warmth and competence are jointly promoted in brands, and why these reputations matter.
Many books teach the mechanics of using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to compete in business. But no book addresses how to harness the incredible power of social media to make a difference. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Although a substantial amount of research has examined the constructs of warmth and competence, far less has examined how these constructs develop and what benefits may accrue when warmth and competence are cultivated. Yet there are positive consequences, both emotional and behavioral, that are likely to occur when brands hold perceptions of both. In this paper, we shed light on when and how warmth and competence are jointly promoted in brands, and why these reputations matter.
Although a substantial amount of research has examined the constructs of warmth and competence, far less has examined how these constructs develop and what benefits may accrue when warmth and competence are cultivated. Yet there are positive consequences, both emotional and behavioral, that are likely to occur when brands hold perceptions of both. In this paper, we shed light on when and how warmth and competence are jointly promoted in brands, and why these reputations matter.
Many books teach the mechanics of using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to compete in business. But no book addresses how to harness the incredible power of social media to make a difference. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Although a substantial amount of research has examined the constructs of warmth and competence, far less has examined how these constructs develop and what benefits may accrue when warmth and competence are cultivated. Yet there are positive consequences, both emotional and behavioral, that are likely to occur when brands hold perceptions of both. In this paper, we shed light on when and how warmth and competence are jointly promoted in brands, and why these reputations matter.
Many books teach the mechanics of using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to compete in business. But no book addresses how to harness the incredible power of social media to make a difference. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Although a substantial amount of research has examined the constructs of warmth and competence, far less has examined how these constructs develop and what benefits may accrue when warmth and competence are cultivated. Yet there are positive consequences, both emotional and behavioral, that are likely to occur when brands hold perceptions of both. In this paper, we shed light on when and how warmth and competence are jointly promoted in brands, and why these reputations matter.
If you are seeking to arrest a ship or release a ship from arrest anywhere in India or seeking advice on admiralty or shipping laws or transactional work including dry shipping work please do not hesitate to contact Shrikant Hathi on +91-9769946865 or write a email on shrikant@bruschambers.com or contact Binita Hathi on +91-9769946864 or write a email on binita@bruschambers.com, both are partners with Brus Chambers, a specialised shipping law firm in India.
Brus Chambers professional fees are mainly computed on hourly basis, blended hourly rates, some are customised on case to case basis or on fixed fee, retainer etc depending on client requirement or on the matter. All disbursements and tax where applicable are computed on actual unless the same is a package offer. Third party costs or disbursements wherever applicable would include travel and transport; photocopying; phones and faxes; experts and counsels; court and other departmental expenses; airfare, hotels and meals, videoconferencing; correspondent fees and expenses; court or institutional fees, stamping and registration; government, quasi-government or other fees; other actual expenses.
For Ship arrest or release work in India, firms billing rate is calculated at fixed lumpsum fee, all inclusive but will differ depending on jurisdiction from where the ship needs to be arrested or released in India. The firms detailed billing rates for ship arrest work is explained at. Click here for more details
To depict the real me within professional and outside professional life, I have captured few photos randomly, the individual moments, essence of humanity, even if it's not uplifting. To freeze these moments in time capturing the details of life around us can render very beautiful results indeed as photography has been seen to have a necessary link with reality a sign carrying a trace of the real.
We would be happy to talk to you if you need our assistance in shipping related work in India and we are generally available from 9 AM to 6.30 PM-IST (Monday through Friday) but in case of urgency you may reach us on our mobile any time, day or night. We access our email most of the time when we are in office and even on our handheld when we are not in office or travelling.
You can find us in our Mumbai main office located at Brus Chambers, Advocates & Solictors, 8, Rajabahadur Mansion, 3rd Floor, Ambalal Doshi Marg, Behind BSE, Above Spices & Flavour Restaurant, Fort, Mumbai 400001, India.
We are in our office every day from 9:00 AM until 6:30 PM- IST (Monday through Friday), but you may consider a call to fix an appointment.
Brus Chambers have three offices in Mumbai. Our Mumbai main office attends to shipping, projects, international arbitration and litigation work while our Corporate and advisory office in Mumbai attends to corporate related work while our New Delhi office works mainly on commercial and civil work for NCR region, The firm also has office at Port and Capital City in all States of India and also at New York, New Jersey, Missouri, London and Bradford.
Dr. Shrikant Pareshnath Hathi
Managing & Practicing Partner
Ms. Binita Hathi
Practicing Partner
BRUS CHAMBERS
Advocates & Solicitors
8, Rajabahadur Mansion, 3rd Floor,
Ambalal Doshi Marg (Behind BSE), Fort,
Mumbai 400001, India
