On 11 June 2017, the MV Amber rammed into a fishing vessel, causing the death of Rahul Kumar Das and Matilal Choudhari (fishermen) who were engaged in fishing operations within the coastal area of Kerala at Kochi. The legal heirs of the fishermen (appellants) claimed for damages arising out of this incident and applied for the arrest of the MV Amber. Their arrest application was allowed. The respondents applied to determine a reduced quantum of security to be furnished and for permission to deposit this sum as security for the release of the MV Amber. A sum of INR 10,000,000 (one crore) in the form of bank guarantee or demand draft was ordered to be deposited as security. The appellants challenged the adequacy of one crore as security, arguing that it was considerably less than their claim of INR 181,500,000 (eighteen crores and fifteen lakhs).

Held: The Court dismissed the appeal for lack of a prima facie case for the full quantum of the claim. The Court found that, in determining the quantum of security to release the arrested ship, the rules that evolved in international Conventions relating to arrest and release of ship were binding on admiralty courts, and can be read in combination with the Indian statute that enables the admiralty court to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in arresting the MV Amber and fixing the security amount to its satisfaction.

Article 1.1.b of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952 (Arrest Convention 1952), which includes damage caused by loss of life, was not adopted by legislation in India. However, it formed part of the common law of India and was applicable for the enforcement of maritime claims against foreign ships: MV Elisabeth (CMI883). In the absence of a primary Act concerning the subject and if the Arrest Convention 1952 had been applied in such circumstances, there was similarly no reason not to apply the Arrest Convention 1999: Liverpool & London SP&I Association Ltd v MV Sea Success (CMI884).

These international Conventions were also the result of international unification and development of the maritime laws of the world. They could, therefore, be regarded as international common law or transnational law rooted in and evolved out of the general principles of national laws, which, in the absence of specific statutory provisions, could be adopted and adapted by courts to supplement and complement national statutes on the subject to aid the courts in filling lacunae in the Merchant Shipping Act and other enactments concerning shipping in the absence of a general maritime code: SP Gupta v Union of India.