JDUGMENT - S. Radhakrishnan, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the learned Counsel for the respondents. This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the plaintiffs to implead the respondents as party defendants to this suit. By this Chamber Summons the plaintiffs are seeking a direction that the respondents be ordered and directed to furnish in favour of the Prothonotary and Sr. Master, High Court, Bombay, a security in the sum of 142, 294.90 U.S. $, towards the satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim.

2.This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, an Insurance Company which had insured the defendant-vessel viz. m.v. 'WONFU'. It appears that the defendant-vessel was covered by an insurance with the plaintiffs-company to avail of the cover of protection, indemnity, freight, demurrage etc. In this behalf the plaintiffs have raised debit notes against the defendants in the sum of 142, 294.90 U.S. $. The plaintiffs have also sent a demand notice to the defendants. Finally, when the plaintiffs came to know that the said vessel was lying at port Alang, they had approached this Court and obtained a warrant of arrest on 3rd April, 1998.

3.Perused the Bailiff's Report dated 4th May, 1998, wherein the Bailiff who had proceeded to the said defendant-vessel which was lying at Plot No. 140, Alang Ship Breaking Yard, Alang (Bhavnagar). The Bailiff has categorically stated in the said report that he found most of the vessel was demolished. He has also stated that he had contacted the respondent who was the purchaser of the said vessel and had informed him about the warrant of arrest against the said vessel m.v. 'WONFU'. The Bailiff has stated that he had fixed warrant of arrest on the remaining portion of the said vessel as the substantial part of the vessel was already demolished. The Bailiff has further stated that he had served the duplicate copy of the warrant of arrest upon the respondent who had purchased the said vessel and obtained an acknowledgement.

4.Ultimately, the present respondent had moved this Court by way of Notice of Motion No. 1203 of 1998 for vacating the warrant of arrest dated 3rd April, 1998 on the ground that on the date when the order of arrest was passed, the 1st defendant-vessel was almost demolished and there was nothing remained which could have been considered as an existence as a vessel. The said Notice of Motion No. 1203/98 taken out by the present respondent was disposed of by this Court on 5th May, 1998 in view of the report of the Deputy Sheriff to the effect that the Bailiff had found most of the vessel demolished and also in view of the photographs of the said vessel which clearly indicated that only some skeleton, relics of the said vessel remained. In fact, this Court, by its order dated 5th May, 1998 has categorically held that the 1st defendant-vessel as such did not exist. Certain parts/relics thereof were seen in the photographs and it was impractical to get the vessel arrested as an existing entity.

5.The learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that on the day when the arest order was passed, there was no existing vessel which was capable of being arrested. The learned Counsel for the respondents also brought to my notice the meaning of the word 'Ship' under the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 as under:

'Ship' shall include any discription of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars.

Similarly, the learned Counsel for the respondents also brought to my notice the meaning of the expression 'Vessel' under section 3 (55) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, which is as under;

'Vessel' includes any ship, boat, sailing vessel, or other description of vessel used in navigation.

6.The learned Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty Court) in (Steedman v. Scofield and another)1, 1992 Vol. 2 page 163. In this case the issue was, whether a jet ski would be a vessel capable of being used in navigation. In the said judgment there is a referenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document