- (1.) THIS action in rem has been commenced in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court for realisation of claims arising out of repairs done and accessories supplied for such repairs to the vessel m. t. "stolt Argobay".
(2.) THE demurrer taken in paragraph 10 of the written statement is that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action triable within the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, on september 11, 1974, the following preliminary issue of law was settled with the consent of the parties in terms of a consent order dated September 2, 1974: issue (i) Has this Court no jurisdiction to try this suit in its Admiralty Jurisdiction, as alleged in paragraph 10 of the written statement ? this vessel was not under prior arrest when she was repaired by the plaintiffs and, therefore, Section 4 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, does not apply to this action. The question now is whether the pleading is insufficient to bring this action within Section 5 of this Act which reads as follows : "the High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim for necessaries supplied to any Ship elsewhere than in the Port to which the ship belongs unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that at the time of the Institution of the Cause any owners or Part Owner of the Ship is domiciled in England or Wales: provided always, that if in any such cause the plaintiff do not recover twenty Pounds he shall not be entitled to any Costs, Charges, or Expenses incurred by him therein, unless the judge shall certify that the Cause was a fit one to be tried in the said Court". It has been contended by Mr. Biswarup Gupta, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, that the repairs are necessaries within the meaning of this term used in this section and, therefore, this action is triable in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Ajit roy Mukherjee, the learned Counsel for the defendants, has, however, argued that the plaint does not show that the repairs are necessaries and, therefore, this action must fail. Hence, the statements made in the plaint are set out below for appreciating the contentions of Mr. Roy Mukherjee : (ii) "since January 12, 1974, m. t. 'stolt Argobay' (hereinafter referred to as the said Vessel) arrived at Budge budge Moorings and now staying at the port of Calcutta within the said jurisdiction carrying oil from abroad and after getting the same empty stayed in the Budge Budge Moorings for effecting certain urgent repair works and for supply of divers materials to the said vessel. (iii) Between the period 13th January and 19th January 1974 during the time when the said vessel was in the budge Moorings within the said jurisdiction, the plaintiffs on diverse dates did diverse works and supplied diverse materials to the said vessel in effecting repairs thereto pursuant to and/or upon the request of the said vessel and/or its Master and Chief engineer. (iv) The said repairs were duly completed to the satisfaction of the defendants and in fact certificate of completion in writing duly signed by the Chief Engineer of the said vessel dated January 19, 1974 were given to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs crave leave to refer to the original of the said certificate of completion. The bills relating to the said work certificate as also other bills were all duly accepted and signed by the Chief Engineer of the vessel. Copy of the said certificate of completion is annexed hereto and marked "a". (v) In respect of the works done and the materials supplied the plaintiffs duly submitted 3 several bills aggregating to Rs. 1,60,215-00 to the defendants and/or the Chief Engineer and the master of the said vessel and each and all of the said bills were duly accepted by the defendants. Particulars of the works done and materials supplied will also appear from the said bills. Copies of the said 3 bills are annexed hereto respectively marked 'b', 'c' and 'd'. (vi) In spite of demands the defendants failed and neglected to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,60,215-00 or any portion thereof. The particulars of the said sum will also appear from the said bills. (vii) That after the completion of the aforesaid repairing jobs of repairing works and supply, of spares and other accessories to the said vessel the same is at present lying at Netaji subhas Dock in the said Port of Calcutta within the said jurisdiction. The said vessel is of D. W. T. 20000 tons. The said vessel is a foreign vessel (out port ship) flying the flag of "liberian" and is not registered in India, which is registered in the Port of Monoroyia. (viii) The suit being an Admiralty suit, the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta has got exclusive jurisdiction to try and determine this suit. "
(3.) I will now briefly state the particulars of repairs and accessories as shown in annexures 'b', 'c' and 'd' to the plaint. The impeller shaft of the pump was unserviceable and after manufacturing a new shaft out of stainless steel, it was refitted to the pump; the Main-fridge was leaking and it was repaired; Crankshaft of the compressor was unserviceable and after remetalling it, it was refitted to the compressor; the Neoprene Collar of the Compressor was unserviceable and it was replaced by a new one; the birtterworth Pumps were thoroughly repairer; the Compressor of the Pump engine was defective and the defects were rectified; eight piston rings were manufactured and supplied; many valves, springs, bolts, valve-set disces, v-belts for the Main Compressor, and an ante-magnatic stainless steel shaft were supplied; 80 tubes of the Condenser were badly leaking and were replaced; each and every bearing of the Diesel generator Engine was replaced; and the Boiler tubes were expanded.;