INTRODUCTION

The office of the chief naval officer locale practiced by the high courts in India, before Elizabeth,
was represented by the English Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 applied by (English) Colonial Courts
of Admiralty Act, 1890 and embraced by Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1 89 1 (Act
XVI of 1891). In India, carriage of merchandise via ocean is administered by the Indian Bills of
Replenishing Act, 1856; the Indian Carriage of Goods via Sea Act, 1925; the Trader Shipping Act,
1958; and general rules, for example, the Marine Protection Act, 1963; the Contract Act, 1872; the
Evidence Act, 1872; the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908; the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; the Organizations Act, 1956 and so on
just as the general standards of law such as the law of tort, open and private worldwide law and so
on.

There are arrangements in different rules which permit ship capture. In any case, every one of
these laws are procedural in nature. The most noticeable among these is area 443 of the Merchant
Shipping Act, 1958. This arrangement offers capacity to the high court to capture a ship for harms
brought about by it. A. high court, as characterized in segment 3(15) of the Act, is one inside the
points of confinement of whose redrafting purview -

(a) the port of library of the vessel is arrange; or

(b) the vessel is for the time being available; or
(c) the reason for activity, entirely or to some degree emerges.

The crucial importance and the distinctive element of an office of the chief naval officer activity
in rem is that this ward can be accepted by the waterfront experts in regard of any sea guarantee
by the capture of a ship independent of nationality of the ship or that of its proprietors or the spot
where the reason for activity entirely or to some degree emerged.1

EXPLANATION

The advancement and improvement of office of the chief naval officer locale in India can be
followed to the choice of the Supreme Court in M. V.Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment and

1
M.V.Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment Co. (1993) Supp 2 SCC. At 443.
Trading.2 The ship, MV Elizabeth had a place with Greek proprietors and was enlisted abroad.
While conveying merchandise of the petitioners, it disregarded requests of the inquirers not to take
the load out of India and convey them abroad. The petitioners got the ship captured at the
Vishakhapatnam Port in Andhra Pradesh by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on its arrival
venture. The locale of the AP High court ourt to capture the ship was not an issue in the moment
case as the court, as per Thommen J being a successor to the Madras High Court was engaged to
do as such.

The essential issues to be chosen by the courts were: (a) regardless of whether the admiral's office
purview could be practiced on a ship conveying payload 'out of the nation' and (b) regardless of
whether Indian courts could work out office of the chief naval officer locale over a remote ship in
its waterfront waters. The Office of the chief naval officer Courts Act, 1861, which was and, after
its all said and done material to India, confined admiral's office purview to activities against boats
conveying payload into a nation. Various prior choices by different high courts declared that office
of the chief naval officer was a locale unmistakable from whatever other purview which the high
court had and that the high courts had no forces past those given by the Admiralty Court Act,
1861.3

Right off the bat, the court translating segments 2 and 3 of the 1890 rule arrived at the resolution
that the rule has just pronounced the skillful Indian courts of innate unique boundless common
locale as provincial courts of office of the chief naval officer and absorbed them to the situation of
the English High Court in the activity of office of the chief naval officer locale. There was no
joining of any English resolution into Indian law or statutory conferment of forces4. The admiral's
office purview of the English High Court has extended throughout the years through different
enactments. This was additionally helped by the cancelation of the 1840 and 1861 Acts. In this
manner, the court said that "it would have been sensible and levelheaded to trait to the Indian High
Courts a comparing development and extension of chief of naval operations' office locale during
the pre-autonomy era.5

2
Id.
3
Kamalakar Madhav Bhagat v. Scindia Steam navigation Co., AIR 1961 Bom 186.
4
Supra Note 1.
5
Id. at 452.
This implied every one of the forces identifying with chief of naval operations' office delighted in
by the High Court of England before 1947 would consequently be presented on the office of the
chief naval officer courts of India. The extension of chief of naval operations' office forces of the
English High Court was done through the Administration of Justice Act, 1920; Supreme Court of
Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 and the Administration of Justice Act, 1928. These
establishments had expelled the differentiation between internal bound and outward-bound freight,
which was the disagreeable issue for this situation. In the wake of reaching this resolution,
Thommen J outlined the post- 1947 improvement of admiral's office purview in England and at
the universal level to support his prior contentions. It is this talk about that made a lawful
entanglement, which needs to date not been unwound completely. Initially, he says that the high
courts of India are unrivaled courts of record with innate and whole powers, which are unavoidably
allowed. Except if explicitly or impliedly banned, and subject to the investigative or on the other
hand optional ward of the Supreme Court, the high courts have boundless ward, including the
locale to decide their possess powers. On account of Raja Soap Factory v. S. P. Shantaraj6 the

Incomparable Court had wouldn't give on a high court a purview which was not explicitly vested
in it by a resolution. In Elizabeth, the court dodged this contention by saying that Andhra High
Court, being a successor to the Madras High Court was "vested with all the re-appraising and
unique purview, including the office of the chief naval officer ward, to arrange the capture and
detainment of the ship.”7

It was additionally decided that the high court has unlimited forces to decide the degree of its
forces. Thommen J had woven his postulation from the divided rules of the British governing body
presenting ward on the courts in England. In this activity he needed to investigate the jurisdictional
lineage of British office of the chief naval officer court, bolstered by the administrative history of
different resolutions that presented office of the chief naval officer ward to the Indian high courts.
The inborn unique common purview had by the three-sanctioned high courts was conceded by the
Letters Patent Acts. These wards have likewise been spared by article 225 of the Constitution.8 All

6
. AIR 1965 SC 1449.
7
4. Per Thommen J supra note 2.
8
M V Al Quamar Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd, AIR 2000 SC 2826.
high courts don't have comparable forces. Does the Elizabeth choice infer, that every single high
court have chief of naval operations' office ward? Or on the other hand is it confined to the
sanctioned high courts and their successors? Is it limited distinctly to the beach front high courts
or can every high court have the ward? A torrent of inquiries for the lawful personality was made.

Further, he calls attention to how the UK chief of naval operations' office law has advanced right
up to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1981. This Act lays down explicitly what are the
'oceanic claims' that fall inside the locale of an office of the chief naval officer court.16 In India,
no resolution sets down sea guarantees unequivocally. In this way, the courts translate segment
443 of the Merchant Shipping Act (MSA) to the amplest conceivable degree. Section 443 sets out
the procedural rules for a high court which fulfills both of the three criteria set down in area 3(15)
of the equivalent, to confine a remote ship, which has done 'harm' to property having a place to the
Indian government or a resident. Here it was said that the term 'harm', without a particular
arrangement of any Indian.

DISCURSIVE ARGUMENT

In spite of the fact that plainly admiral's office was a locale that knew no limits, Thommen J knew
that it needed to get some statutory acknowledgment. In the wake of tolerating the dispute that
every high court could capture sends in specific conditions, it was important to recognize what
were the cases where office of the chief naval officer courts could have restrictive ward the extent
that arbitration is concerned. These cases are alluded to as 'sea claims'. Segment 20(2) of the
Supreme Court Act, 1981(UK), drilled down specific asserts as 'sea claims'. Indian law didn't
determine anything to this degree and the court bemoaned this. The Ship Arrest Convention, 1952
additionally managed sea claims. Indian law, notwithstanding, is lacking in this. The court
expressed that these sea cases set down in the English law and the global show, by temperance of
the way that they are a piece of standard worldwide law, will consequently be accepted into our
national admiral's office law, in the nonattendance of explicit enactment with the impact. Oceanic
liens are sure favored cases that get need over different claims. They append with the res the minute
the case becomes alive and goes with the res any place it goes. Seaside states can capture these
boats in spite of progress in possession and isn't hampered by any jurisdictional limitations. Be
that as it may, the Supreme Court has completely seen that the court would not engage guarantees
just in the event that one of the gatherings had some nexus with India.

The summit court in the ongoing choice of Epoch Enterrepots v. M. V. Won Fu9 took a stab at
arranging sea liens under the accompanying expansive heads:

 harm done by deliver

 rescue
 sailor's and ace's wages
 ace's payment
 bottomry.

In any case, the issue engaged with this case was whether the break of a contract regarding the
ship would welcome an activity in rem . The court, while declining to consider it as sea guarantee
able to do drawing in a sea lien, opined that in the event of common sea claims, rather than those
drawing in sea liens, the main cure accessible is an activity in personam. It is presented that this
position is as opposed to the points of reference set down in remote courts just as in universal
shows. The 1999 Ship Arrest Convention is one of the least refered to sea shows in Indian office
of the chief naval officer choices. But this convention clearly says that maritime claims can be
enforced by way of an in rem action and does not seek to make any exceptions.23 It may be noted
that in the very recent decision of Konovalov, the court has even gone to the extent of saying that
the non-payment of wage, which gives the seamen a maritime lien over the res, also is a violation
of article 21 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION

It is presently acknowledged the world over that chief of naval operations' office law isn't confined
inside limits of statutory law. It includes a wide extent of laws furthermore, henceforth should

9
(2003) 1 SCC 20.
essentially give space for legal translations. This is maybe the essential explanation that office of
the chief naval officer courts have customarily felt more liberated than custom-based law courts
in practicing their powers. Most present day office of the chief naval officer resolutions give this
prudence to the courts and the Indian bill is no special case. And yet issues like need of claims,
much the same as circulation of tortious risk in Halcyon Lines case, isn't to be left to legal
prudence. This will prompt vulnerability among the universal network when looking for a
gathering. In rem activities and sea liens are inherent parts of office of the chief naval officer law,
which have impressive effect on universal exchange. While practicing office of the chief naval
officer ward, the courts are looked with two frequently clashing interests. From one viewpoint is
the enthusiasm of the petitioner and then again is the generally utilitarian enthusiasm of
guaranteeing the smooth stream of global trade. The courts typically attempt to give a reasonable
choice not brutally influencing both of the rights. Remembering this harmonization reason, it's a
given that the courts should have extensive prudence to pick between activities. There would be
numerous a situation where an in rem activity is entirely unjustifiable. In such a case the court
ought to be in a situation to dismiss the application