A lessor faced with an aircraft lease default may seek the same practical result that a maritime claimant seeks from an arrest: to keep the asset in place, prevent its removal and preserve the claimant's position while the dispute is resolved. The physical result can look similar, but the legal route differs.
Under India’s Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, arrest is a statutory maritime remedy. Section 2(1)(c) defines “arrest” as detention or restriction on removal of a vessel by order of a High Court to secure a maritime claim. Section 2(1)(l) defines “vessel” by reference to navigation by water, and section 5 provides for arrest of a vessel in rem. The statutory architecture confines admiralty arrest under the Act to vessels within its definition and does not provide an admiralty arrest jurisdiction over aircraft. That does not mean that an aircraft cannot be immobilised or placed under judicial control. India now has a dedicated aircraft finance regime. The Protection of Interests in Aircraft Objects Act, 2025, which came into force on 1 May 2025, gives domestic effect to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Aircraft Protocol, subject to the Act and India’s declarations. The 2026 Rules provide the procedural machinery. The distinction becomes clearer when the aircraft lease itself is examined. Article 11 of the Cape Town Convention permits the parties to define events of default in writing. If they do not, default is assessed by reference to whether the debtor’s conduct substantially deprives the creditor of what it was entitled to expect under the agreement. A payment default must therefore be considered against the lease provisions governing notice, cure and termination. Cape Town Convention
For a lessor, Article 10 is the central enforcement provision. Following a default under a leasing agreement, and subject to the Convention and applicable declarations, the lessor may terminate the agreement and take possession or control of the aircraft object, or seek an order authorising or directing those acts. In an operating lease, the lessor ordinarily asserts an existing proprietary or international interest in the aircraft object. It seeks to recover or control an asset in which it has an established interest, rather than arresting a third party’s vessel as security for a maritime claim. Indian case law shows that substantial judicial control over an aircraft can also arise outside the admiralty jurisdiction. In ECC Leasing Company Ltd v Paramount Airways Pvt Ltd, the owner of two Embraer 170 LR aircraft sought relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for seizure of the aircraft, equipment and documentation. The Madras High Court considered the applications in the context of the parties’ lease arrangements and asserted defaults. The case is significant because it illustrates that court assisted seizure and control of an aircraft can be sought through a different procedural route. Of the Article 13 remedies, immobilisation most closely resembles the physical effect of ship arrest, although its legal source and procedural function are different.
The 2026 Rules also make the enforcement process more structured than a simple self help repossession model might suggest. Rule 9 requires a creditor, before exercising a Convention or Protocol remedy, to notify the registry authority of the default through Form III. The authority must acknowledge receipt the same working day and may issue directions on how the remedy is to be exercised. Rule 12 addresses non judicial remedies and directions of the registry authority concerning possession or control. The regime is not reducible to maritime arrest or unrestricted self help. Whether court intervention is required depends on the particular Convention remedy, India’s declarations and the procedural framework under the Act and Rules. India's Article 54(2) declaration is material here: where a Convention remedy does not require court application, it may be exercised without court action or leave of court. Possession may also not be the final step. Article XIII of the Aircraft Protocol provides the Irrevocable Deregistration and Export Request Authorisation mechanism, commonly known as IDERA. India has declared Article XIII applicable. Rules 13 and 14 of the 2026 Rules address deregistration and export and impose requirements before export. The enforcement sequence may involve termination, possession or control, immobilisation where necessary, deregistration and export. None of those steps converts the remedy into an admiralty arrest.
The pre-existing Indian case law demonstrates why these mechanisms matter. In Awas 39423 Ireland Ltd v Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the Delhi High Court dealt with lessors seeking deregistration following aircraft lease defaults and termination. In the 2024 Accipiter Investments Aircraft 2 Ltd v Union of India litigation, the Delhi High Court considered the lessors’ claims in the context of Go Air’s insolvency and addressed issues concerning the aircraft pending the proceedings. These cases provide the background to the present statutory regime. Insolvency adds another layer. India has adopted Article XI, Alternative A of the Aircraft Protocol for insolvency proceedings, with a two calendar month waiting period. The regime protects aircraft objects during the initial insolvency period while preserving Convention remedies thereafter, subject to the statutory framework. Aircraft recovery cannot be analysed solely as a contractual repossession dispute when insolvency proceedings intervene.
Recovering the aircraft is also distinct from recovering money. Repossession, possession, immobilisation, deregistration or export addresses the aircraft object. Accrued lease hire, termination payments, damages and other monetary claims remain separate claims to be pursued through the governing dispute resolution and enforcement mechanisms. India’s declaration concerning Article 40 also recognises certain court ordered attachment interests, but that does not create a maritime style arrest remedy for unpaid aircraft lease rentals. The practical answer is therefore more precise than either “yes” or “no”. An aircraft cannot be arrested like a ship under India’s Admiralty Act merely because lease hire is unpaid. But an aircraft can, subject to the governing instruments and procedural requirements, be placed under judicial or regulatory control, including possession, custody, immobilisation, deregistration and export.
The important distinction is juridical rather than physical. A ship arrest is an admiralty remedy directed at a vessel in rem to secure a maritime claim. Aircraft enforcement under the Cape Town regime is built around international interests, contractual default, possession and control, interim relief, registration and mobility. The two regimes can produce a similar practical outcome while resting on entirely different legal foundations. For aircraft lessors and their advisers, identifying that distinction is critical to choosing the correct remedy and avoiding an attempt to import a maritime remedy into an aircraft framework.