The plaintiff arrested the MV Gati Majestic, flying the Indian flag and registered under Indian laws, for damage resulting from a collision between the MV Gati Majestic and its vessel, the MV Porto Maina, at Haldia Docks, West Bengal. The court suo moto raised a preliminary issue on the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction over the MV Gati Majestic. The court directed the plaintiff to serve notice upon the defendant.

The plaintiff contended that the court can exercise admiralty jurisdiction over any vessel irrespective of her nationality. The Admiralty Court Act 1861, s 7 provides for the High Court of Admiralty to have and exercise jurisdiction over any claim for damage done by any vessel. It also relied on the Indian Supreme Court decision of MV Elisabeth vs Harwan Investment and Trading Co (MANU/SC/0685/1993; AIR 1993 SC 1014; 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433) (CMI883) (MV Elisabeth) for the proposition that the scope of admiralty jurisdiction contemplated under the Arrest Convention 1952 (see arts 1 and 2) read with the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK), did not prohibit the arrest of an Indian vessel by Indian admiralty courts.

The defendant put forth a different interpretation of MV Elisabeth - that under s 5 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 (UK) admiralty jurisdiction was not available if, when commencing proceedings, the owner was domiciled in England or Wales (or in India, in the present context). The defendant argued that s 1(4) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK), which empowers an English Admiralty Court to arrest any vessel irrespective of its nationality, did not have the force of law in India as it was enacted after its independence (ie 1947) and hence could not be taken into account by the Indian courts under the Indian Constitution.

The defendant, relying on The Deichland [1990] 1 QB 361 (CMI2233), further submitted that the very purpose of an action in rem was to compel appearance by the defendant shipowner or its furnishing of bail. This action is not necessary in the case of a vessel owned by an Indian shipowner since the Indian defendant can easily be served.

The defendant further argued that O 38 r 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which applied pursuant to r 51 of the Admiralty Rules of the Calcutta High Court that provided for admiralty proceedings to be governed by regular civil rules and practice in the absence of specific provisions under the admiralty rules, prevented proceeding against the property of an Indian defendant without first establishing a prima facie case in personam against the defendant.

Held: After considering parties’ submissions and their interpretation of MV Elisabeth, the Court found that its admiralty jurisdiction can only be invoked in the presence of a foreign vessel in Indian waters. It was not open to the plaintiff to invoke its admiralty jurisdiction in respect of an Indian-flagged vessel registered under Indian laws. The Court directed the plaint to be deregistered together with all interlocutory applications, with the plaintiff at liberty to approach a Court of competent civil jurisdiction for instituting the suit afresh.