V.P. TIPNIS, J.:---This appeal by the original defendants impugns the order dated 27th February, 1997, passed by the learned Judge in Notice of Motion No. 285 of 1997 in Admiralty Suit No. 113 of 1996. The notice of motion was moved by the defendants inter alia for a relief that the order of arrest of the first defendant vessel be vacated and the plaintiffs be directed to pay costs by way of damages at the rate of U.S. $ 5,000/- per day.

2.The plaintiffs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. filed an Admiralty Suit No. 113 of 1996 against (1) m.v. Mariner IV a foreign vessel, and (2) Al-Fatah Shipping Co. incorporated under the laws of U.A.E. for recovery of U.S. $ 77,21,133.583 together with interest by way of damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiffs due to the damage caused to the plaintiffs property by the vessel m.v. Mariner II. The plaintiffs alleged that they have two under water submarine optical fibre telecommunication cables laid by them (i) stretching from Singapore to Marseille (France) and branching at Bombay (known as SEA-ME-WE-2) and (ii) stretching from Bombay to Fijurah (U.A.E.) (known as India-U.A.E.). The said cables are sheathed in extremely strong tensels armouring with high breaking strength and buried 1.3 meters below the sea bed. The said cables are used for high volume voice (sic) and data transfer/communication. In view of their importance, the precise location of the said cables is shown on the Admiralty Charts of the Approaches to Bombay Port, which are mandatorily required to be kept on board all ships coming to Bombay Port. The area proximate to the route of the cables is therefore a non anchoring zone and so shown on the said chart. All ships are therefore, required to stay sufficiently clear of the said cables and not drop anchor in their vicinity and/or in the said non-anchoring zone.

3.On 18th and 19th June, 1996, the cables were broken causing disturbance in the communication. The plaintiffs contacted the Coast Guard Authority to investigate into the matter. The services of surveyor M/s. Ericson Richards were also taken and the investigation revealed and clearly indicated that the vessel m.v. Mariner II was in the close proximity at the place of occurrence where damage to the cables was caused. It was found that the anchor of the offending vessel i.e., m.v. Mariner II was got detached and it was entangled in the cables which were damaged. The report of the surveyor pointed out involvement of the vessel m.v. Mariner II in the damage caused to the cables.

4.On the basis of the material on record the learned Judge held that the plaintiffs have succeeded in making out a prima facie case justifying order of arrest. On this reasoning the learned Judge dismissed the notice of motion for vacating the order of arrest.

5.It is an admitted position that the vessel arrested was not a m.v. Mariner II but m.v. Mariner IV, the defendant No. 1 to the suit and although there is absolutely nothing in the order to indicate why m.v. Mariner IV which was not the offending ship was arrested, it is obvious that the learned Judge confirmed the arrest of the m.v. Mariner IV being a sister ship of m.v. Mariner II meaning thereby both the ships were owned by the same owner.

6.The question in this appeal which is raised is whether this Court has jurisdiction to order arrest of the sister ship in an Admiralty suit.

7.Shri Rebello the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that admittedly the ship arrested is not the offending vessel. Shri Rebello submitted that though such a provision is found in the international Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to the arrest of sea-going ships, Brussels, 10th May, 1952, it is not applicable to India as India is not a signatory to the convention nor any Act is passed by the Parliament empowering the courts to arrest the sister ship in the like manner. Shri Rebello submitted that the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of m.v. Elizabeth reported in A.I.R. 1