R.M. LODHA, J.:---The learned Single Judge while dismissing Notice of Motion No. 2455/2000 with regard to prayer (a) taken out by the Vessel m.v. "Sea Success I" and her owners S.S. Shipping Corporation Inc. in Admiralty Suit No. 32/2000 has referred to the Division Bench the following question for its decision:

"Whether a claim for unpaid insurance premia in respect of a ship amounts to "necessary supplies" within the meaning of section 5 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 so as to constitute maritime claim?

2. The aforesaid question is also involved in Appeal No. 739/2000 arising out of Notice of Motion No. 1376/1998 in Admiralty Suit No. 30/1998 and, therefore, both the aforesaid appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Besides the aforesaid question common to both appeals, there are distinct and separate issues involved which we shall deal with at an appropriate stage.

3. At the outset, we may observe that we afforded extensive hearing to the learned Counsel appearing in the matter not because it was so required but the research done and the labour put by the learned Counsel justified such indulgence.

4. As the aforesaid question has been referred in Admiralty Suit No. 32/2000, we shall refer to the facts obtaining in that suit before we proceed to discuss the aforesaid question. The plaintiff in Admiralty Suit No. 32/2000 is a Protection Indemnity Association incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom which carries on business through its Managers, Liverpool London P I Management Ltd. at Liverpool, U.K. The plaintiff is mutual association of ship owners and offers insurance cover in respect of the vessels entered with it for diverse third party risks associated with the operation and trading of vessels. The defendant No. 1 vessel m.v. "Sea Success I" is allegedly a sistership of vessels "Sea Ranger and "Sea Glory" which were entered for Protection Indemnity (P I) risks to the plaintiff Association. The said two vessels were entered into the plaintiff-Association for the policy year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 by defendant No. 2 viz. Singapore Soviet Shipping Co. Pte. According to the plaintiff Association, the defendant No. 1 vessel is owned and/or controlled by the defendant No. 2 through its wholly owned 100% subsidiary of S.S. Shipping Corporation Inc., Monrovia. The plaintiff's claim is in respect of insurance premium due and payable by the defendant No. 2 in respect of various P I risks for which the defendant No. 2's vessels "Sea Glory" and "Sea Ranger" were insured by the plaintiff Association which according to them falls in the category of necessaries within the scope and ambit of section 5 of Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 (for short Act of 1861). The plaintiff has also averred that the defendant No. 1 vessel 'Sea Success I' is sistership of the two vessel "Sea Glory" and "Sea Ranger" in view of the beneficial ownership, management and control of all three vessels having vested in defendant No. 2. The averments made in the plaint are that pursuant to the request received by the plaintiff from defendant No. 2 as operators of the vessels "Sea Glory" and "Sea Ranger" for P I as well as Freight, Demurrage and Defence (FDD) insurance cover for the said vessels, the plaintiff-Association accepted the said two vessels and covered them for P I risks for the period 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 and plaintiff also accepted defendant No. 2 as member of plaintiff-Association. Pursuant to the insurance cover provided by the plaintiff to the two vessels-Sea Glory and "Sea Ranger", certificates of entry of the said vessels into the plaintiff Association in accordance with its rules were issued. The cover commenced from 20th February of each policy year which is as per the practice of all P I Associations worldwide. Upon the entry of the two vessels "Sea Glory" and "Sea Ranger" into the plaintiff Association defendant No. 2 became liable to pay all calls or premium levied by t