Admiralty & Maritime · Guide

Ship arrest in India: procedure under the Admiralty Act, 2017

Candour Legal · Last verified 23 October 2026 · Read with the official text of the Act

• Only a High Court can order arrest (section 2(1)(c)).
• The vessel must be within the court’s waters, up to and including territorial waters, which end twelve nautical miles from the baseline (section 3; 1976 Act, section 3(2)).
• The claim must be one of the 23 heads in section 4(1), and one of five links between the claim and the vessel’s owner or charterer must be shown (section 5(1)).
• The court may require the claimant to give an undertaking to pay damages, or security, if the arrest proves wrongful or the security excessive (section 11(1)).
• The Act sets no timeline. Each High Court’s own admiralty rules govern procedure until central rules are made (section 16(3)).

What arrest is

Section 2(1)(c) defines arrest as detention or restriction on the removal of a vessel by order of a High Court to secure a maritime claim. It includes seizure of a vessel in execution or satisfaction of a judgment or order. An arrested vessel, or the proceeds if it is sold, is held as security for the claim until the admiralty proceeding ends (section 4(4)).

The Act applies to every vessel irrespective of the owner’s residence or domicile (section 1(2)). It does not apply to inland vessels, unlaunched vessels the Centre has not notified, warships and naval auxiliaries, government vessels used for non-commercial purposes, or foreign vessels used for non-commercial purposes that the Centre notifies.

Which court

Section 2(1)(e) names the High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Madras, Karnataka, Gujarat, Orissa and Kerala, and the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The Central Government may notify others. Each court’s jurisdiction is exercisable over the waters up to and including the territorial waters within its jurisdiction (section 3). The first question is therefore where the ship is.

The Gujarat High Court has ordered arrests at Kandla (Deendayal Port) in the matters reported below. We do not list every port against its court on this page; call us to confirm the filing court for a particular port.

What you must show

Two things. First, a maritime claim: one of the heads in section 4(1), set out in our guide to maritime claims, liens and priorities. Second, a link between the claim and the vessel. Under section 5(1), the court may order arrest where it has reason to believe that:

On the Gujarat High Court’s order of 24 December 2025 in Segal Ships v. M.V. Tulsi Sagar (O.J. Appeal No. 8 of 2025), SCC Online reports that a Division Bench held an owner’s undertaking not to sail is not a substitute for arrest, and that the claim in that case, under charter-cum-sale agreements, fell within section 4(1)(h).³ The same commentary notes the Supreme Court’s position that a plaintiff with an arguable case, even a difficult one, should be allowed to proceed and obtain security. We have not yet read the order itself.

Sister vessels

Section 5(2) lets the court order arrest of any other vessel to provide security for a maritime claim, in place of the vessel the claim is made against. It is subject to section 5(1), and it cannot be used for an ownership or possession claim under section 4(1)(a).

In the MSC Elsa 3 matter the State of Kerala sued for ₹9,531.11 crore and the Kerala High Court conditionally arrested the sister vessel MSC Akiteta II.⁴ On 25 September 2025 it held that the State could maintain the suit and reduced the security for release to ₹1,227.62 crore.⁵

How it runs in practice

The Act does not prescribe these steps. They reflect what reported orders show, and each court’s rules govern.

1. Gather the facts. We ask for the vessel’s name and IMO number, where she is and when she sails, the documents showing the claim, and authority to sue.
2. Fix the court. Confirm the waters (section 3). Check the court’s rules on caveats against arrest: in Kerala, Rule 19 of the 2019 Admiralty Rules lets the court order arrest whether or not a caveat was lodged.⁶
3. File. An admiralty suit against the vessel, with an application for arrest.
4. Order and warrant. In MV Nikator the Gujarat High Court directed its Registrar to issue a warrant, directed the Port Officer and Customs Authorities at Kandla to arrest the vessel and keep her under arrest, allowed the warrant to be executed at any time including nights, Sundays and public holidays, and sent the order to port and customs by email.⁷ In Farmart Service v. M.V. SW South Wind I (order of 10 October 2024) it gave similar directions to the Port Officer and Customs at Deendayal Port, to be effected by email.⁸
5. Security in place of arrest. The order in MV Nikator provided that arrest would not be carried out if the defendants deposited ₹2.89 crore with the court.

What the court may ask of you

As a condition of arrest, or of keeping it in place, the court may require the claimant to give an unconditional undertaking to pay damages, or security of a kind and amount it fixes, for any loss the defendant suffers if the arrest was wrongful or excessive security was demanded (section 11(1)). The person who provided security may apply to have it reduced, modified or cancelled for sufficient reasons (section 11(2)).

After arrest

• Release. The court fixes the security. A deposit in court is one form, as in MV Nikator. Chambers reports that Indian courts do not accept P&I club letters of undertaking as of right but may accept them where the plaintiff agrees.⁹
• Abandonment. If the owner or demise charterer abandons the vessel after arrest, the court must have it auctioned within 45 days of arrest or abandonment, extendable by 30 days for recorded reasons (section 11(3)).
• Sale. A vessel sold by the court vests in the buyer free of encumbrances (section 8). Proceeds are ranked under sections 9 and 10.
• Appeal. From a single judge to a Division Bench (section 14). The Supreme Court may transfer proceedings between High Courts (section 15).

Bunkers and necessaries

Supply of bunker fuel or necessaries is a maritime claim under section 4(1)(l) but not a maritime lien under section 9(1). Arrest under section 5(1)(a) or (b) turns on the liability of the owner or demise charterer at the time the claim arose. On that wording, a supplier who dealt only with a time or voyage charterer may be unable to arrest the vessel. Check the chain of contracts before filing.

Reported matters

Shown to illustrate practice. This page does not suggest Candour Legal acted in them.

This guide does not cover arrest to secure arbitration, release security in detail, or port-by-port court allocation.

Questions

Sources

1. The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, Ministry of Law and Justice (statute text; every section reference on this page).
2. Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, section 3(2) (copy hosted by the United Nations).
3. SCC Online: undertaking versus vessel arrest (reported; the order has not been reviewed by us).
4. LiveLaw: Kerala High Court conditional arrest of MSC Akiteta II.
5. LiveLaw: Kerala High Court on the State’s admiralty suit, 25 September 2025.
6. Onmanorama: arrest of MSC Palermo under Rule 19.
7. Marine Insight: Gujarat High Court orders arrest of MV Nikator (reported).
8. LiveLaw: Gujarat High Court, Farmart Service v. M.V. SW South Wind I.
9. Chambers and Partners, Shipping 2025, India (letters of undertaking).
10. ScanX summary of the defendant company’s stock exchange disclosure (interim order of 6 January 2026; reported).

Related: Admiralty & Maritime Law · The Admiralty Act, 2017, section by section · Maritime claims, liens and priorities
General information, not legal advice. Nothing here is an advertisement or a solicitation; please read the site disclaimer.