The fishing boat Mercy Annai and a Korean-flagged vessel, MV Korea Chemi, collided off the Kannur Coast, beyond the territorial waters of India. The collision occurred due to the gross negligence and recklessness of the MV Korea Chemi and its master in navigating, operating and managing the vessel and due to non-compliance with the provisions of international maritime Conventions and the Merchant Shipping Act 1958 (the MSA), relating to the safety of life at sea. As a result of the collision, the fishing boat and the fisher on board sustained losses and damage.

The fisher sued the MV Korea Chemi, its owner, master, and crew, seeking, among other things, the vessel's arrest. At the time of filing the suit, the vessel was anchored at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Mumbai, India. The plaintiff was entitled to exercise a right in rem against the vessel lying within Indian coastal waters, and the court had jurisdiction territorially to entertain the suit.  

In order to avoid the arrest of the vessel, its owner furnished a security deposit without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court. The vessel and its owner filed an application seeking the rejection of the claim and the return of the security. They argued, among other things, that the claim was barred under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (the Admiralty Act) because the collision occurred 48 nautical miles off the coast of the state of Kerela and the vessel, at the time of filing the suit, was not within the jurisdictional limits of the Court.

The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that international Conventions form part of Indian law and that the Court had jurisdiction by virtue of the powers under the Arrest Convention 1952. They also argued that the suit had been filed invoking s 443 of the MSA, which empowers the Court to detain a foreign vessel found within the 'Indian jurisdiction', meaning anywhere within the territorial limit of India.

Held: Application allowed.

Rejection of a plaint of great consequence should be done with great circumspection and care. Lack of jurisdiction could be a ground for rejecting a plaint. For the following reasons, exercising jurisdiction over the suit as against the vessel and its owner was barred as per the mandates of s 3 of the Admiralty Act and thus the security was returned.

This suit had been filed invoking the admiralty jurisdiction. According to s 3 of the Admiralty Act, the admiralty jurisdiction in respect of maritime claims vested with this court was exercisable by the Court over waters, including territorial waters, that extend up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline. As per s 3 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and other Maritime Zones Act 1976, the limit of territorial waters was the line every point of which was at a distance of 12 nautical miles from the nearest point of the appropriate baseline.

The peculiar nature of admiralty jurisdiction had led it to be imprecisely termed as a universal jurisdiction, meaning that an admiralty court will have jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter wherever in the world the cause of action for the maritime claim had arisen, provided the vessel is later found within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. Thus, the mere fact that the incident occurred beyond the jurisdictional limits of the Court will not by itself render the Court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, provided the vessel is subsequently found within the jurisdictional limits of the Court at the time when the admiralty jurisdiction is invoked. This is a norm of law that is justified both by legal prudence and practical convenience. For an effective enforcement of admiralty jurisdiction, it is imperative that the res or the thing over which such jurisdiction is being exercised by issuing an order of arrest must be situated within the territorial limits of the court issuing the same or within the control of authorities over whom such court has command or jurisdiction for the enforcement of such order. Furthermore, maritime activity is susceptible and vulnerable to disruptions with enormous monetary consequences. Clarity regarding jurisdiction provides vessels and their owners with avenues to seek protections like admiralty caveats from the courts having admiralty jurisdiction over the vessel, enabling them to prevent disruptions of the schedule of the vessel by frivolous or vexatious suits. It is only after being satisfied that the vessel was within its territorial jurisdiction that the Court could initiate proceedings by issuing a warrant of arrest against the vessel. Therefore, arrest of a vessel under s 3 of the Admiralty Act cannot be exercised with respect to a vessel that was lying beyond the jurisdictional limits of this court.

The Admiralty Act is a specific statute that grants admiralty jurisdiction to certain high courts, excluding all others. Section 3 of the Admiralty Act abolished overlapping jurisdiction and multiple arrests by different high courts over the same vessel, even when the vessel was beyond the jurisdictional limits of the court arresting it, which was a significant problem. The dictum laid down in MV Elisabeth v Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt Ltd 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433 (CMI883) that all Indian High Courts have inherent admiralty jurisdiction to arrest and detail ships and that this court could assume the power under the Arrest Convention 1952 for assuming jurisdiction could not be invoked subsequent to the coming into force of the Admiralty Act.

Section 443 of the MSA is a procedural provision for the enforcement of the substantive rights of the parties, which are rooted in general principles of law apart from statutes and for the enforcement of which a party aggrieved has a right to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court. Section 443 is a provision intended to provide a summary remedy against a non-Indian ship causing damage to property on account of the reasons mentioned in the provision to enable the aggrieved person to obtain satisfaction of the claim or, in the alternative, to obtain security for satisfaction of the claim. Section 443(1) could be invoked against a foreign vessel only when the vessel is within the territorial waters of India. When a foreign vessel is berthed in a port which is within the jurisdiction of another high court, it cannot be said that the vessel is within the territorial waters of this High Court.