I. INTRODUCTION

1. Shipping disputes involve multinational parties and assets that are perpetually mobile. This means the ultimate success of the claim is often secondary to a more immediate and pragmatic question: will there be anything left to enforce against when the dust settles? This is why interim remedies assume central importance in shipping disputes. Prompt and effective interim remedies also exert commercial pressure, catalysing early settlement. Two such interim reliefs have emerged as central to maritime dispute resolution: ship arrest and the Mareva injunction.
2. Ship arrest is a distinctive feature of admiralty law, allowing a claimant to proceed in remagainst the vessel itself and secure its claim by detaining the ship within the court’s jurisdiction. It is a proprietary remedy and a statutory right, available on satisfying two conditions: the existence of a maritime claim and the presence of the vessel within the jurisdiction of the arresting court. Once arrested, the owner is compelled to furnish security or risk the judicial sale of the vessel, thereby anchoring enforcement to a tangible, high-value asset. A Mareva injunction, by contrast, operates in personam to restrain a defendant from dissipating or dealing with its assets pending the outcome of proceedings, thereby preserving a pool of assets against which a judgment or award may be enforced. It is a discretionary remedy, granted upon the court being satisfied that there is a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and that it is just and convenient to grant the relief.
3. It is not uncommon for a claimant to obtain a worldwide Mareva injunction while simultaneously moving to arrest a vessel. This dual strategy mitigates the downsides of each relief while combining their advantages: the Mareva injunction safeguards the broader asset base and prevent dissipation, while arrest provides immediate, jurisdiction-specific security tied to a specific ship. However, given their nature, they often converge on the same vessel. Predictably, this convergence of remedies has given rise to a recurring line of defence, that the simultaneous invocation of both remedies, amounts to impermissible “double security” or an abuse of process. The defence was, to some extent, fuelled by Lord Denning’s obiterobservations in a few cases where he analogised a Mareva injunction to an in rem attachment akin to arrest. Subsequent decisions by the UK and other common law courts have clarified this position, reaffirming the conceptual distinction between the two remedies.
4. In India, the question of the coexistence of a Mareva injunction and ship arrest has not yet been ruled upon in any reported decision. Recently, however, the Gujarat High Court addressed a closely analogous issue in MV Hai Jin Jiang v. Zheshang Zhongtuo, which concerned the permissibility of ship arrest (in rem) alongside prior foreign in personaminjunctive relief targeting the same vessel ^[1] .

II. THE EMERGING INDIAN POSITION AS SET OUT BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT

5. Zheshang Zhongtuo (Beijing) International Supply Chain Management Co. Ltd. (“Zheshang”) (a Chinese shipping company) was the consignee of certain goods that were loaded onboard the vessel MV Hai Jin Jiangfrom a South American port in March 2023 and were to be delivered to China. The vessel was owned by Taurus Shipping Pte. Ltd. (“Taurus”) (a Singaporean shipowner) and was demise chartered to Haijinjiang (Hong Kong) Company Ltd. (“Haijinjiang”) (a Hong-Kong based ship-management company). Owing to non-delivery of the cargo, Zheshang commenced proceedings in personam against Taurus before the Panama Maritime Court (the vessel’s flag state) in December 2023, seeking to preserve the vessel as security by restraining its sale, transfer, or encumbrance. The Panama Maritime Court granted this interim relief.
6. In July 2025, when the MV Hai Jin Jiangentered Navlakhi Port within the territorial waters of Gujarat, Zheshang obtained an order arresting the ship. An application to vacate the arrest was filed by Wealth Shipping Company Limited (“Wealth Shipping”) (another Hong-Kong based ship-management company).
7. Wealth Shipping contended that the demise charter with Haijinjiang had been terminated, and that it had become the new demise charterer of the vesselwith effect from June 2025. It argued that Section 5(1) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017, requires that the demise charterer liable for the claim be the demise charterer of the ship both when the maritime claim arose and at the time of arrest. Since Haijinjiang was no longer the demise charterer at the time of arrest, the arrest was unsustainable. Wealth Shipping also alleged that in fact Zheshang knew of this change, when it applied for arrest, owing to the fact that it attempted to object to the change in demise charterer in Panama as being in breach of that court’s in personam interim relief, but knowingly suppressed those material facts while applying for arrest.
8. The Gujarat High Court dismissed Wealth Shipping’s arguments and refused to vacate the arrest, holding that Zheshang had established a reasonably arguable case that Haijinjiang continued to be the demise charterer even at the time of arrest.It based this view on the fact that the new charterparty with Wealth Shipping had been entered into in June 2025, at a time when the interim relief granted by the Panama Maritime Court, prohibiting the creation of any encumbrance over the vessel, was in force. The Court further noted that Haijinjiang appeared to continue as the beneficial owner of the vessel through Wealth Shipping, which was its nominee. The timing of the change in charterer (immediately prior to the vessel entering Indian waters) was also viewed as indicative of a calculated attempt to defeat Zheshang’s claim.
9. Crucially, the Gujarat High Court rejected the argument concerning suppression of the parallel proceedings in Panama in clear terms. It emphasised that the arrest proceedings were in remagainst the vessel, whereas the Panama proceedings were in personam. These remedies were cumulative, not alternative. Since the pendency of in personam proceedings in Panama did not preclude the institution of an in rem action in India, disclosing the Panama proceedings was therefore immaterial. The Court also relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court to hold that no advantage had been obtained by Zheshang through non-disclosure, as no recovery had been effected in Panama. Further, relying on Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”), the Court underscored that the pendency of proceedings before a foreign court does not bar an Indian court from entertaining a suit based on the same cause of action. It concluded that a plaintiff is entitled to pursue multiple remedies across jurisdictions to protect its rights and secure its claim.
10. This decision was appealed by Wealth Shipping before the Division Bench. However, the parties arrived at a settlement during the pendency of the appeal. ^[2]

III. ANALYSIS

11. The decision of the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in MV Hai Jin Jiangstands as a compelling case study in maritime litigation strategy: had Zheshang not obtained in personam interim relief before the Panama Maritime Court, the new charter in favour of Wealth Shipping could have defeated the statutory basis for arrest in India. In other words, Zheshang would have nothing left had it not applied for both reliefs together. The case thus operates as a practical playbook: the cumulative deployment of both remedies was not excessive, but necessary.
12. While the decision in MV Hai Jin Jiangdid not directly address the coexistence of Mareva injunctions and ship arrest in India, its holding that in personam and in rem interim remedies are cumulative rather than alternative effectively settles the underlying doctrinal premise on which other common law courts have permitted such coexistence. On that footing, should the issue arise in a future case, there is a compelling basis in Indian law to recognise that Mareva relief and admiralty arrest may operate concurrently in respect of the same claim, provided the requirements for each are independently satisfied. An express recognition of this position would align Indian admiralty practice with the settled approach in other common law jurisdictions, as outlined below:
    
    1. The leading authority on the cumulative use of ship arrest and Mareva injunction is the UKdecision in The Rena K. ^[3] The case arose from claims of damage to cargo. The claimant moved to arrest the vessel, and also pursued in personam proceedings against the owners, seeking a Mareva injunction restraining them from removing assets, including the vessel. Following the provision of security, the vessel was released from arrest, and the defendants argued that a Mareva injunction ought not to be granted over the same asset thereafter. The court decisively rejected this argument, holding that the right to arrest the vessel and secure a Mareva injunction are cumulative, not alternative. It observed that ship arrest is in rem while Mareva injunction is in personam and the inability to maintain security through arrest was, in fact, a compelling reason to permit recourse to Mareva relief. The decision thus established that both remedies, e., ship arrest and Mareva injunctions may be granted in respect of the same claim and even the same asset, provided the requirements for each remedy are independently satisfied. Despite The Rena K, confusion emerged from Lord Denning’s obiter dicta in some decisions, where he suggested that the Mareva injunction operates as a form of attachment in rem, ^[4] “just as the arrest of a ship does” ^[5]. Although these observations were not binding, defendants began to argue that Mareva injunctions were quasi-proprietary in nature and therefore could not coexist with other in rem remedies. However, the UK courts reaffirmed that Mareva takes effect in personam alone and is not an attachment that gives the claimant proprietary rights in the assets seized or advantage over other creditors. ^[6]
    2. In Canada, courts have adopted a similar approach and upheld the coexistence of a Mareva injunction and ship arrest over the same vessel. In one case it was held that a statutory attachment regime operating in remand Mareva relief were juridically distinct and non‑competing remedies, since Mareva injunction is purely in personam and does not confer proprietary rights over assets. ^[7]
    3. In Australia, the Law Reform Commission, while considering Australia’s civil admiralty jurisdiction,  explained that even though arrest in remand Mareva injunctions substantially overlap in their security function, courts in Australia and other common law jurisdictions have shown a clear willingness to permit the concurrent use of both remedies for the same claim, even against the same defendant, since they operate on different juridical bases and serve complementary purposes, ensuring effective asset preservation ^[8]. The Commission’s reasoning was applied in one case ^[9] where two vessels were arrested and sold, but the value recovered was not sufficient to cover the creditors’ claims. The court acknowledged that a serious limitation of arrest is that the amount recovered is limited to only the value of the vessel. The court observed that in such cases, creditors should also apply for Mareva relief since that would allow them to recover from the debtor’s broader asset base. Thus, the court not only acknowledged but also endorsed the cumulative deployment of both these remedies.
    4. In Singapore, the Court of Appeal, while examining the nature of obligations imposed by a Mareva injunction, observed that Lord Denning’s suggestion that a Mareva injunction is a method of attaching the assets in question and operates in remis no longer correct. It affirmed that Mareva operates in personam, in accordance with general equitable principles, and therefore confers on the successful plaintiff no proprietary interest in the subject assets. ^[10]
13. Shortly after the decision in MV Hai Jin Jiang, the issue of the co-existence of a worldwide Mareva injunction and a ship arrest arose directly inAlphard Maritime Ltd. v Ocean Opal & Ors. ^[11] Alphard had arrested four vessels before the Gujarat High Court. In parallel, it had approached the Singapore High Court seeking a worldwide Mareva injunction against the vessel owners and certain third parties to whom the vessels were being transferred in breach of contract for sale. The defendants contended before the Gujarat High Court that Mareva injunctions and ship arrest were substantively identical and that their simultaneous or sequential invocation amounts to impermissible double security. The single judge ruled against Alphard on a different issue while expressly leaving open the question of the coexistence of Mareva injunctions and ship arrest. Alphard appealed the decision, but the matter was settled during the pendency of the appeal. Thus, the opportunity to definitively settle the position in India on the co-existence of a Mareva injunction and ship arrest failed to arise. ^[12]
14. On the other hand, though the development is progressive, the reasoning provided in MV Hai Jin Jiangseems to cast some limitations on the co-existence of in rem and in personam The Court’s reliance on Section 10 of the CPC was limited to holding that foreign proceedings do not bar domestic actions. However, the question, whether a plaintiff can simultaneously pursue these two remedies before Indian courts was neither raised nor addressed.
15. Moreover, while the Court characterised arrest and in personamproceedings as cumulative rather than alternative remedies, it did not have an opportunity to delineate any principled limits to their parallel invocation, such as the risk of over-securitisation. Its observation that a plaintiff may derive no advantage from non-disclosure in in personam proceedings “so long as there is no recovery made” tentatively points to a threshold based on actual recovery, but this remains underdeveloped and unexplained.

Authors: Nitansha Nema, Sanchit Suri, Prateek Bagaria