SHRIKRISHNA B.N., J.:---This appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge made on 2nd December, 1999 in the Notice of Motion [reported in 2000(2) Bom.C.R. 556] holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the admiralty suit filed by the appellants-original plaintiffs, directing the return of the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to proper Court and for discharge of the Bank Guarantee furnished by the respondents-original defendants pursuant to the order of the Court made on 12th March, 1997.

FACTS

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred or as arrayed in the suit.

3. The plaintiffs brought the suit in admiralty jurisdiction of this Court for arrest and condemning the first defendant vessel m.v. Umang along with her equipments, accessories, etc. in the sum of Rupees Forty Five lakhs, together with interest at the rate of eighteen per cent, from the date of claim till payment or satisfaction of the decree and a decree to sell the said vessel and for applying the proceedings towards satisfaction of the claim of the plaintiffs.

4. The first defendant vessel is registered in St. Vincent Grenadines and the second defendant, which at all material times was the owner of the first defendant vessel, is a Liberian Shipping Company. The third defendant is the local agent of the first defendant vessel. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the parents of one Arvind Kamla Kant Dube who died on 16th August, 1996 on board the first defendant vessel when she was "lying in Port of Kandla". The deceased Arvind Kamla Kant Dube joined the service of the second defendant as an Engineer on board effective 22nd September, 1995. He was the sole bread earner for the aged parents by regular remittance of monies for upkeep of the household. When he was not on board the ship, he used to reside with the plaintiffs in the family home at Allahabad. On 15th August, 1996, when the first defendant vessel was "lying in the Port of Kandla", the deceased along with other officers and crew was working on the job of maintenance of electric cranes on the vessel. During the course of repair work on crane No. 8, the deceased received severe and fatal electric shock from the equipment that was being repaired, though the equipment was not expected to be supplied with electric current during the period of repairs. After the death of the deceased, information was received by the plaintiffs who proceeded to Kandla and took possession of the dead body of their son. Subsequent letters addressed by them to the vessel P I agent M/s. James Mackintosh Co. Ltd. requesting for relevant documents in connection with the death of their son and also asking for settlement of the compensation payable on the death of the son, after a number of reminders, elicited the reply that the only compensation the defendants were ready to pay to the plaintiffs was a sum of Rs. 83,250/- which was said to have been deposited with the Executive Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act, Rajkot. The plaintiffs allege that the death of the deceased occurred on account of wrongful act and/or failure or negligence on the part of the defendant, their managers, servants and agents in not ensuring that the equipment under repair was not supplied with electric current during the period of the repairs. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to maintain the said vessel in proper and sea-worthy condition, failed to exercise due care and caution for the maintenance of the crane and equipment, and allowed it to be kept, handled, repaired and operated without ensuring disconnection of electric supply thereto, resulting in the death of their son. It is alleged in the plaint by the plaintiffs that, because of failure to take necessary care and caution for the safety of the crew of the vessel, death of their son had occurred. Consequently, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants are liable to pay to them compensation as a