- (1.) This Court had, suo motu, raised a preliminary issue with regard to exercise of its 'Admiralty Jurisdiction' in respect of the concerned vessel, which carries an Indian flag and is registered under the Indian laws. Plaintiff was directed to serve notice upon the defendant. After notice was issued, the defendant entered appearance.
(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff has a cause of action against the defendant vessel, M.V. Gati Majestic (hereinafter referred to as 'the vessel') arising out of damages of collision. The act of collision had taken place at Haldia Docks between the vessel and the vessel owned by the plaintiff, i.e., M.V.Porto Maina. The claim is for damages to the vessel, M.V. Porto Maina for a sum of Rs.36,66,000/-. He submitted that an Admiralty Suit is maintainable in this Court against the Indian vessel for a claim on account of damages arising out of a case of collision against the defendant vessel. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has taken this Court through the provisions of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, as well as the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891. He submitted that the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, provides the scope of Admiralty jurisdiction to be exercised by the Admiralty Courts in India. He also submitted that the extent of Admiralty jurisdiction to be exercised by Admiralty Courts has been further extended by the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.V.Elisabeth and Others vs. Harwan Investment and Trading Co. and Another, 1993 Supp2 SCC 433 (hereinafter referred to as 'M.V.Elisabeth'). According to him, the Admiralty jurisdiction under the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, does not prohibit or restrict any claim as against an Indian vessel. In this context, he referred to section 7 of the said Act of 1861, which permits the High Court of Admiralty to have jurisdiction over any claim for damages done by any ship. He further submitted that the Letters Patent, 1865, continuing the jurisdiction of the High Court, provides in clause 32 that the High Court shall have and exercise Maritime jurisdiction.
(3.) According to the learned counsel, the scope of Admiralty jurisdiction given in the Brussel's Convention of 1952 or the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, in England, which jurisdiction has been held to be exercised by the Indian Courts of Admiralty jurisdiction by the Supreme Court in the case of M.V.Elizabeth does not, in any manner restrict or prohibit arrest of an Indian vessel under Admiralty jurisdiction by the Admiralty Courts in India. He also referred to the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Crown Maritime Co. (I) Ltd. Vs Barge Salina II and Ors., 2008 1 BCR 143 to support his contention that the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked in respect of an Indian flag flying vessel. The other judgments he referred to in order to buttress his submissions are as follows: 1. Jayaswal Shipping Company vs. The owners and parties interested in Steamship "S.S. Leelavati", 1954 AIR(Cal) 415 2. Liverpool and London S.P. and I Asson. Ltd. vs. M.V.Sea Success I and Anr., 2004 9 SCC 512. 3. Epoch Enterrepots vs. M.V. WON F U, 2003 1 SCC 305. 4. Chhatrapat Singh Singh Dugar vs. Kharag Singh Lachmiram and Others, 1916 44 IndApp 11. 5. Mt. Sharbati Devi vs. Kali Pershad, 1942 AIR(Lah) 119 6. M/s. Crescent Petroleums Ltd. vs. m.v. "MONCHEGORSK" & another, 2000 AIR(Bom) 161;