The maritime industry in India operates within a complex legal framework. The major statutes that are the basis of resolving maritime disputes are the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, which enables courts to exercise jurisdiction over maritime claims and Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which facilitates private dispute resolution of commercial disputes. Both legislations harmonize and facilitate dispute resolution. If we look at these legislations from a macro perspective, the Admiralty Act lays down a mechanism of ‘arresting’ the vessel and securing claims and Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides an alternate to the litigation method by settling the dispute through private negotiations. This blog will delve into the interplay of these important legislations which enhance and strengthen the maritime sector of India.
The Admiralty Act of 2017 is a consolidated and modernized form of India’s maritime law, which allows for certain designated High Courts to have jurisdiction over matters pertaining to maritime claims. These claims have a include a wide range from ship ownership, damages cause to or by the vessel, maritime services, cargo claims to the unpaid crew wages. The most notable
feature of the Admiralty Act is the ‘arrest of vessels’ which empowers a designated High Court to arrest a vessel within Indian waters for the purpose of securing a claimant’s interest before the claim is resolved.
On the other hand, the Arbitration Act is a legislation which has been designed to align with the UNCITRAL Model Law and to support arbitration negotiations as an alternate dispute resolution method. The parties to a maritime agreement shall exercise caution while dealing with dispute resolution. The most invoked industry practice in this regard is adding of an arbitration clause in the maritime contracts. Arbitration is the most preferred method used for purpose of dispute resolution in the maritime disputes due to its confidentiality, flexibility and speed – interestingly the same qualities are vital for the global maritime trade.
In the daily operations of the maritime industry, we can observe an overlap of the Admiralty Act and Arbitration Act. It is the interplay of these two legislations that helps in regulation of maritime industry of India. When we study the implications of interplay of these legislations, various legal questions such as can the courts exercise admiralty jurisdiction in those matters that are intended for arbitration, how does vessel arrest is taken up by the arbitration clause or should court or arbitration tribunal shall take precedence in handling a claim, arise. Through the rulings and judgements in notable cases, the Indian courts have tackled these questions, respecting both
these acts. To know how the Indian judiciary has resolved these questions one must take a look at the following notable cases:
1. Golden Endurance Case (2001): In this case, the Bombay High Court answered the question of admiralty jurisdiction in those matters where arbitration was intended to resolve the claim disputes. The court upheld the right to arrest a vessel even if the underlying contract contained an arbitration clause. The court stated that admiralty jurisdiction, especially the right to arrest to arrest a vessel, stands independently of arbitration, which allows a claimant to secure their position while arbitration proceeds.
2. Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai v. Indian Oil Corporation (2011): Here, the Supreme Court ruled that admiralty claims, especially for vessel arrest as security, could proceed despite an arbitration agreement. The court underscored that the Admiralty Act’s provisions for securing claims should not be obstructed by arbitration, affirming that vessel arrest is a legitimate remedy
to ensure claim satisfaction.
3. Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation (2018): This case reinforced that admiralty rights, such as vessel arrest, can coexist with arbitration agreements. While courts encourage arbitration where agreed upon by parties, they can also exercise their authority under the
Admiralty Act to provide security, a measure critical in the high-stakes world of maritime disputes.
These judgements highlighted the balanced approach which has been adopted by the Indian judiciary. The soul of this approach, as adopted, is a balance that respects both crucial legislations. Thus, a harmonized system has been put in place. The courts have held that vessel arrest for securing a claim will not negate, instead, will supplement the arbitration clause by ensuring that claimants have the scope of securing their assets which are awaiting the final resolution. This protects their interests and ensures that global trade is not brought to a halt due to such disputes. To make things flexible, the courts have also allowed for separate proceedings for arrest of vessel (under Admiralty Act) and arbitration (under Arbitration Act). Through this the courts respect the parties’ agreement to arbitrate and provide them with an immediate judicial security. It is only under extraordinary circumstances that courts issue an anti-arbitration injunction. The Indian approach is balanced and aligns with global practices, such as those followed in jurisdictions like Singapore and the UK. This international alignment is a factor which has contributed to India’s rise as a reliable jurisdiction for maritime claims, where both admiralty
rights and arbitration clauses are upheld. The Admiralty Act 2017 and the Arbitration Act 1996, together provide a balanced, progressive
and a supportive framework for resolution of maritime disputes, which allows for arrest of vessels as well as supports arbitration for an efficient dispute resolution. The Indian judiciary’s approach to harmonize and synchronize these laws have positioned India as a trustworthy jurisdiction for maritime dispute resolution. This has enhanced the global confidence into the Indian laws. This harmony protects the claimants’ rights and upholds arbitration clauses, promoting a fair and internationally acceptable methodology that solidifies India’s position in the global maritime community.

REFERENCES
CASES:
1. Bharat Aluminum Co. v Kaiser Aluminum Technical Services, Inc 2012 9 SCC 552.
2. MV Golden Endurance (2001) BOM LR (Bombay High Court)
3. Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai v Indian Oil Corporation (2011) 10 SCC 361.
4. Kandla Export Corporation & Anr M/s. OCI Corporation & Anr (2018) 14 SCC 715.

This article is authored by Kaustubh Tripathi, who was the top 40 scorer in the ADR quiz competition organized by Lets Learn Law.