These proceedings arose from an alleged collision that occurred on 30 January 2018 about 23 nm off the Kanyakumari coast. The applicant/defendant Richardson, referring to s 3 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (the Act), submitted that the Court's jurisdiction is exercisable in respect of maritime claims only over the waters up to the limits of the territorial waters of their respective jurisdictions. Since the collision occurred beyond the territorial waters, Richardson contended that, as regards actions in personam under s 7 of the Act, an action would only lie where Richardson actually and voluntarily resided or carried on business. Richardson carried on business in Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, Richardson argued that the action was not maintainable before the Court.

The respondent/plaintiff Shipping Corp of India Ltd (SCI) submitted that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court. The collision was caused by Richardson. The loss arising must be compensated by the shipowner in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1958 and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Rules 1975. SCI's claim qualifies as a maritime claim under the Act and is maintainable as an action in personam under ss 6 and 7. An action in personam is maintainable as long as the cause of action arises, wholly or partly, within India, or the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain in India. Section 7 of the Act is inspired by the Senior Courts Act (UK) (the UK Act), which departs from the Collision (Civil Jurisdiction) Convention 1952. By comparing and contrasting art 1 of the Convention, which limits jurisdiction to the Court where the defendant has its habitual residence or place of business or the Court of the place where the arrest was effected, with s 22(2) of the UK Act, s 7 of the Act is substantially similar to the UK Act. SCI also referred to MV Elisabeth v Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 (CMI883), which was pronounced prior to the enactment of the Act, to contend that the genesis, evolution, and basis for the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction was discussed elaborately therein.

Held: No cause is made out to reject the plaintiff's right to sue.

The expression 'admiralty jurisdiction' is defined in s 2(1)(a) of the Act as meaning 'the jurisdiction exercisable by a High Court under section 3, in respect of maritime claims specified under this Act'. Section 3 provides that admiralty jurisdiction is exercisable over waters up to the limits of the territorial waters. Thus, admiralty jurisdiction is exercisable over waters up to 12 nm into the sea. This leads to the question as to which High Court would have jurisdiction and whether the Admiralty Act contains any provisions to identify the jurisdictional High Court. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, read in the light of MV Elisabeth, lead to the conclusion that an admiralty action in rem is maintainable in the High Court having jurisdiction over the vessel at the time of commencement of such action irrespective of the place where the cause of action for the maritime claim arose and irrespective of the place of residence or business or place of incorporation of the defendant(s).

Because this is an action in personam, it is necessary to consider the basis for the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction by a High Court in such matters. Section 6 of the Act deals with the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in personam. The language of s 6 indicates that exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in personam is subject to s 7 and extends to any maritime claims referred to in s 4(1)(a)-(w). These include loss or damage caused by the operation of a vessel. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of ss 3, 4 and 6, a claim arising out of or relating to loss or damage caused by the operation of a vessel, such as the claim in this suit, may be maintained as an action in personam provided it satisfies the requirements of s 7 of the Act.

Section 7 reads as follows:

Restrictions on actions in personam in certain cases. -

(1) Where any maritime claim arising in respect of a damage or loss of life or personal injury arising out of any -

(i) collision between vessels,

(ii) the carrying out of or omission to carry out, a manoeuvre in the case of one or more vessels,

(iii) non-compliance, on the part of one or more vessels, with the collision regulations made in pursuance of section 285 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958), the High Court shall not entertain any action under this section against any defendant unless -

(a) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises in India; or

(b) the defendant, at the time of commencement of the action by the High Court, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain in India:

Provided that an action may be entertained in a case, where there are more defendants than one and where one of the defendants who does not actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain in India is made a party to such action either with the leave of the court, or each of the defendants acquiesces in such action.

(2) The High Court shall not entertain any action in personam to enforce a claim to which this section applies until any proceedings previously brought by the plaintiff in any court outside India against the same defendant in respect of the same incident or series of incidents have been discontinued or have otherwise come to an end.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to counter-claims as they apply to actions except counter-claims in proceedings arising out of the same incident or series of incidents.

(4) A reference to the plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of sub-section (3) shall be construed as reference to the plaintiff in the counter-claim and the defendant in the counter-claim respectively.

(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall not apply to any action or counter-claim if the defendant submits or agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the High Court.

(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an action in personam to enforce a claim to which this section applies whenever any of the conditions specified, in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) is satisfied and any law for the time being in force relating to the service of process outside the jurisdiction shall apply.

Three aspects should be noticed in s 7 of the Act. First, the heading is 'restrictions on actions in personam in certain cases'. Although a heading does not control the meaning of a statutory provision, it is indicative that the provision is intended to impose restrictions with regard to certain types of action in personam. Section 7(1) makes it clear that these restrictions are limited to maritime claims in respect of damage or loss of life or personal injury arising out of: collision between vessels; the carrying out of or failure to carry out a manoeuvre in relation to one or more vessels; or non-compliance with the collision regulations made under s 285 of the Merchant Shipping Act by one or more vessels. When read with s 6, the conclusion that follows is that the restrictions in s 7 do not apply to other types of maritime claim in personam. Secondly, as regards an action in personam that falls within the scope of s 7, a restriction is imposed that 'the High Court shall not entertain any action under this section against any defendant unless the cause of action arises, wholly or partly, in India or the defendant, at the time of commencement of the action, voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain in India'. Thirdly, s 7(2) imposes a further restriction that the High Court should not entertain an action in personam, if it falls within the scope of s 7, unless any other proceedings previously brought by the plaintiff in any Court outside India against the same defendant in respect of the same incident or series of incidents have been discontinued or have otherwise come to an end.

The implications of s 7 on the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in personam fall for consideration next. The object of s 7 is not to expand the basis for exercising admiralty jurisdiction in personam in cases falling under s 7, but rather to impose restrictions in relation thereto. When viewed from that perspective, it becomes clear that s 7(1)(a) and (b) are not intended to confer jurisdiction on any High Court, as defined in s 2(1)(e), if the cause of action arose, wholly or partly, in India or if the defendant resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain in India at the time of commencement of the action. Instead, they are intended to act as additional prerequisites or conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction if relating to a maritime claim in personam falling within the scope of s 7. These restrictions may be better appreciated in contradistinction to the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in rem subject to the relevant vessel being within jurisdiction irrespective of the place of residence, business, or incorporation of the defendant and irrespective of the cause of action.

Because s 7 deals with in personam maritime claims relating to vessel collisions or movement, it is clearly conceivable that these may be vessels registered outside India and owned by a foreign person/entity. While in rem admiralty jurisdiction may be exercised even in such situations if the vessel enters the territory over which the High Court concerned exercises jurisdiction, the additional requirements in s 7(1)(a) and (b) were introduced to preclude the exercise of in personam admiralty jurisdiction merely based on location of vessel. The question as to which High Court has jurisdiction in respect of in personam maritime claims, especially those falling under s 7, remains open and warrants examination.

Section 2(2) of the Act deals with words and expressions not defined therein by making the definitions in the Merchant Shipping Act applicable thereto. Section 2(1)(e) of the Act defines the expression 'High Court' in relation to an admiralty proceeding by naming specific High Courts, but does not define or prescribe criteria for identifying the jurisdictional High Court. Section 3(15) of the Merchant Shipping Act defines the jurisdictional High Court as 'the High Court within the limits of whose appellate jurisdiction - (a) the port of registry of the vessel is situate; or (b) the vessel is for the time being; or (c) the cause of action wholly or in part arises'. Since this definition is with reference to a vessel, its applicability to an action in personam is contentious.

Therefore, the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in personam has to be decided primarily with reference to the Letters Patent, where applicable, such as in this case, and also by examining whether the additional prerequisites of s 7 of the Act are satisfied. The Amended Letters Patent 1865 confer civil admiralty jurisdiction on this Court under cl 32 as follows:

And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras shall have and exercise all such civil and maritime jurisdiction as may now be exercised by the said High Court as a Court of Admiralty or of Vice-Admiralty, and also such jurisdiction for the trial and adjudication of prize causes and other maritime questions arising in India, as may now be exercised by the said High Court.

As is evident from the discussion in MV Elisabeth, admiralty jurisdiction was being exercised by High Courts in India prior to the enactment of the Act, including with reference to both the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act 1891 and the Letters Patent. Such jurisdiction was exercised by a particular High Court if the vessel or cause of action fell within its appellate jurisdiction.

When these facts and circumstances are considered cumulatively, the Court concludes that a part of the cause of action arose in Tamil Nadu. The additional requirements of s 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, ie that the cause of action should arise, wholly or partly, within India or the defendant should voluntarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain in India are satisfied, because the defendant and owner of the vessel alleged to be the cause of collision is an entity with its registered office in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.