- (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties; Mr. Rahul Narichania for the plaintiffs and Ms. F. S. Sethna for the defendants. The defendant No. 1 vessel was arrested by an arrest warrant issued by this Court on 27th September, 1995. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff prays that time to serve defendant Nos. 2 and 3 be extended. Hence date of service of writ of summons on defendants 2 and 3 is extended to 25th November, 1998.
(2.) INCIDENTALLY in this suit, an interesting issue cropped up, that is to say whether in case a defendant vessel is arrested by an arrest warrant issued under the admiralty jurisdiction, thereafter whether it is necessary in addition to the aforesaid arrest warrant, serving of writ of summons again on the defendant vessel. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff in this behalf brought to my notice Rules 945 and 946 of the Rules and Forms of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Original Side, in its several jurisdictions, 1980. The said Rules 945 and 946 read as under :-- Rule 945. In a suit in rem no service of Writ of Summons or warrant of arrest shall be required, when the Advocate for the defendant agrees to accept service and to give security or to pay money into Court. " Rule 946. (1) In a suit in rem the Writ of Summons or the warrant of arrest shall be served on the property against which the suit is brought. (2) Where the property is ship or cargo on board, service shall be effected by affixing the original Writ of Summons or the warrant of arrest for a short time on any mast of the ship or on the outside of any suitable part of the ships superstructure and leaving a duplicate thereof affixed in its place, when removing the original writ of Summons or the warrant of arrest. (3) (a) Where the property is cargo which has been landed or transhipped, service shall be effected by placing the original Writ of Summons or the warrant of arrest for a short time on the cargo and leaving a duplicate thereof upon the cargo, when removing the original writ of Summons or the warrant of arrest. "
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the plaintiffs also brought to my notice a judgment of this Court reported in A. I. R. 1923 Bombay 51 (Freeman v. SS. Calanda and Capt. Yanovsky) In this case also the issue arose as to the necessity of serving the Writ of Summons in addition to serving of warrant of arrest. This Court in the said judgment has given the historical background of the admiralty jurisdiction and has held as under:-I think, therefore, that it is quite natural to find that our courts should maintain the old Admiralty procedure and should not think it necessary to provide that in all Admiralty cases a writ should be issued in addition to a warrant for arrest. There was no reason for making that change here, because, as I have already pointed out suits even now do not begin here by writ but by plaint. Therefore a warrant for arrest was notice to all the world/and perhaps as good a notice as you can effect for the agents or owners find the ship seized by the Sheriff. Further the warrant for arrest provides for a citation calling upon all parties interested to appear before the Court and prosecute their claims. So apart from the one being called a writ and the other being called a warrant, what is actually effected is in every way as good as any writ. " "under these circumstances, I think, that we are not bound by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in this case. We are governed merely by our own Rules dealing with our own special Admiralty Jurisdiction. In my judgment it is not essential under our Admiralty Rules to issue a writ of summons, in addition to issuing a warrant for arrest, Rr. 3, 4, 14 and 15 do not say so. " "i do not mean to say that a writ can never be issued in an Admiralty suit. My decision is that it is unnecessary if a warrant of arrest is issued. " The above judgment was delivered, in the context of the former Bombay High Court Admiralty Rules.;