Section 3. Admiralty jurisdiction
Subject to the provisions of sections 4 and 5, the jurisdiction in respect of all maritime claims under this Act shall vest in the respective High Courts and be exercisable over the waters up to and including the territorial waters of their respective jurisdictions in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act:
Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, extend the jurisdiction of the High Court up to the limit as defined in section 2 of the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (80 of 1976).
Judgements applying section 3
Madras High Court Commercial Division; C.S(COMM.DIV.) No.249 of 2024 with A.No.6480 of 2024 and A.Nos.903 & 2534 of 2025; Getc Fze versus Owners and parties interested in Vessel Avadh (IMO No.9564358);
WithdrawnOpenBombay High Court Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction; Judges Order No. 55 of 2026 in Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No. 14996 of 2026; Ability Line S.A. v. M.V. Shebelle IMO 9385594; vessel arrest; suit in rem; admiralty jurisdiction; maritime claim; Section 4(1)(g); Section 4(1)(h); Section 5(1)(a); Section 3;
DisposedOpenBunker supplier sued the vessel MV Zhong Chang 258 in rem for unpaid bunkers supplied at Hong Kong, invoking Section 4(1)(l) of the Admiralty Act, 2017. The Court found a prima facie case and ordered arrest of the vessel at Mumbai anchorage, dispensing with the warrant of arrest.
DisposedOpenBombay High Court admiralty arrest order; Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No. 4717 of 2026; Judge's Order No. 16 of 2026; Shreeji Shipping Services (India) Limited v. Diamond (IMO No. 1036941) & Anr.; Kamal Khata, J.; decided 9 February 2026;
DisposedOpenArte Bunkering Dmcc Vs Owners and Parties interested in the Vessel Mv Sea Moon (Imo 9647344)
Outcome: WithdrawnMadras High Court, Commercial Division (C.S(COMM DIV) No. 31 of 2026, N. Anand Venkatesh J., 06-02-2026): Admiralty suit by Arte Bunkering DMCC (Dubai) against the vessel MV Sea Moon (IMO 9647344, Union of Comoros flag) then lying at Chennai Port, claiming USD 343,402 (stated equivalent Rs.
WithdrawnOpenNila Logisitics LLP Vs Owners And Parties Interested In Motor Tug (m T) Intan T3501 Imo (9424338)
Outcome: DisposedMadras High Court Commercial Division, C.S. (Comm. Div.) No.134 of 2024, decided 29-01-2026 by N. Anand Venkatesh, J. Admiralty suit under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (Section 5(2), Section 3) read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and Order VII Rule 1 CPC,…
DisposedOpen
Show 4 more
Madras High Court Commercial Division admiralty ruling on maintainability of ship arrest and plaint rejection: definition of 'vessel' under Section 2(1)(l) Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 includes broken, sunk, stranded or abandoned vessels and remains;
DismissedOpenMs Elbsun Gmbh and Co.Kg., Vs Owners And Parties Interested In The Vessel Mv New Legend (imo No 9562037)
Outcome: Disposed2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DisposedOpenAdmiralty - Arrest petition - Withdrawal. Zurbagan Shipping LLC (UAE) filed Civil Petition No. 282 of 2024 under Section 5 read with Section 3 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims Act praying for arrest of the vessel C.S. Flourish (IMO No.
DismissedOpenAdmiralty Act 2017 S.5(1)(a)/(b) vessel arrest; demise charter vs time charter; Clause 26 owner responsible for navigation, insurance, crew; in personam claim against time charterer does not justify arrest of registered owner's vessel; security Rs.15,13,25,036/- withdrawal upheld;
DismissedOpen