ARTICLE | BLOGS, MAHARASHTRA
February 07, 2026
The recent MT ANAFI episode has become an arresting illustration of how Indian admiralty jurisdiction can be deployed not merely to secure a money claim, but to restore physical control of a vessel when possession has been wrongfully withheld. Contemporary practice reporting describes the matter as an owner-driven “self-arrest” scenario: the vessel was allegedly being held under illegal/unauthorised control of a former master even after the relevant charter/authority had ended, and the owners’ practical fear was obvious—if the ship sailed, the dispute would instantly become a chase across jurisdictions. In that setting, the owners invoked the possession head of maritime claims—Section 4(1)(a) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (which expressly recognises “dispute regarding the possession of a vessel” as a maritime claim.
What makes MT ANAFI doctrinally and procedurally striking is the way the arrest mechanism was used as a possession-recovery lever. By asking for a warrant of arrest against the vessel itself (an action in rem), the plaintiffs effectively sought to place the ship under the Court’s protective custody—so that port and enforcement authorities could act under judicial command rather than leaving the owners to negotiate (or physically confront) an entrenched master. Practice reporting of the Gujarat proceedings records that the matter was taken up with exceptional urgency on Saturday, 24 January 2026, including a hearing conducted at the residence of Justice J. L. Odedra, precisely because the vessel’s imminent departure risk demanded immediate judicial intervention.
Equally revealing is the reported breadth of the arrest warrant: it was framed to be executable “at any time of the day or night,” including “Sundays or holidays,” and accompanied by protective directions aimed at stabilising the situation onboard—particularly preservation of ship records and preventing tampering, which matters not only for operational continuity but also for downstream disputes (bunkers, logbooks, movements, incidents, liabilities). In other words, the “arrest” here functioned less like a creditor’s pressure tactic and more like a court-supervised repossession remedy for a maritime asset that can otherwise vanish with the tide. This “possession-first” use of admiralty arrest also sits comfortably within the statutory architecture. Section 4(1)(a) is explicit about possession disputes, and Section 5 empowers the High Court to order arrest of a vessel within jurisdiction to secure a maritime claim (including claims touching possession/ownership). The legal idea is simple but powerful: when the res (the vessel) is within territorial reach, admiralty law gives the Court a practical tool to prevent the dispute becoming academic by flight.
The significance of this posture becomes clearer when contrasted with the “typical” arrest narrative. Ordinarily, arrest is discussed as security for creditors—cargo claims, charterparty debts, bunkers, collisions. MT ANAFI reframes the conversation: arrest can be the fastest route to restore lawful command where the ship is effectively being “hijacked from within,” and the commercial stakes (loss of hire, scheduling, contractual performance, insurance, P&I implications) are spiralling by the hour.
Within days, a closely aligned fact pattern played out before the Bombay High Court in Neon Limited
v. LPG Nisyros (IMO 9412062), where the Court treated the dispute as one “regarding the
possession”
of the
vessel and recorded the urgency that the ship was likely to leave the jurisdiction. The order notes that
circulation was sought on that basis and the matter was listed on the production board; it then
expressly ties the claim to Section 4(1)(a) and proceeds to arrest under the Admiralty Act framework
after finding a prima facie case.
What is particularly useful for a “possession-as-remedy” article is how the Bombay order articulates the
legal chain:
Indian admiralty jurisprudence has long recognised that ships are uniquely mobile defendants: if the Court cannot act quickly, rights become paper rights. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment (often cited for the breadth and rationale of admiralty jurisdiction) underscores the centrality of in rem proceedings and arrest as the functional foundation of admiralty control over a transient maritime res. In that sense, the dramatic weekend posture in MT ANAFI is not an aberration; it is an extreme but logical application of a system designed for assets that can leave overnight.
Comparative note: “possession” arrests are conceptually orthodox in other admiralty systems Even outside India, admiralty procedure has long contemplated arrest for possessory/petitory relief. In U.S. federal practice, Supplemental Admiralty Rule D specifically addresses possessory and petitory actions, and contemplates process by warrant of arrest in actions to obtain possession or try title—again reflecting that arrest can be a remedial mechanism for control, not only a creditor-security device.
Taken together, MT ANAFI (as contemporaneously reported from the Gujarat High Court proceedings)
and LPG NISYROS (as reflected in the Bombay High Court’s published order) demonstrate a modern
and
commercially
realistic view of admiralty arrest: when a vessel is at risk of sailing under unauthorised command, the
Court can treat “arrest” as a remedial, possession-restoring intervention—a way to put the ship into the
law’s custody so that lawful control can be re-established swiftly and safely.
-Adv. Rahul Rajpurohit
Author- Introduction to Marine Law- an India Prespective
We welcome inquiries from clients, partners, and collaborators. Reach out to us to discuss how we can assist you.
At SSR Law Partners, we believe in clear communication and prompt engagement. Whether you are seeking legal advice or exploring a potential collaboration, our team is available to assist you.
Email:
office@ssrl.co.in
New Delhi
Mumbai
Bangalore