R. M. LODHA, J. :- The Single Judge of this Court in his detailed order of reference had doubted the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines vs. m. v. Mehrab, 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 584 and so also another Division Bench judgment in the case of Blue Diamond Freight Pvt. Ltd. VS. m. v. Indurva Vally, Appeal Lodging No. 503 of 2003 with regard to the question of maintainability of the suit for security of the award in the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court when there is an arbitration agreement between the parties though the arbitration proceedings have not commenced or when the arbitration is actually commenced. The Single Judge also doubted whether the Court entertaining an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would have jurisdiction to treat the vessel as a 'person' for the purpose of order of arrest and whether an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996') can be filed when a suit for arrest of the vessel is not maintainable. In the opinion of the Single Judge, these issues frequently arise and need to be considered by the larger Bench and, consequently, he directed the office to place the papers before the Chief Justice for the constitution of the Larger Bench. Accordingly, the Chief Justice constituted this Bench for consideration of the matter referred to by the Single Judge vide his order dated 20th July, 2006.

2. After hearing the counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the referral order dated 20th July, 2006, we indicated in our order dated 29th September, 2006 that the following questions arise for our consideration in the reference made by the Single Judge:

i) Whether an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable for the arrest of a vessel for obtaining the security of an Award that may be made in the arbitration proceeding?

ii) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative, whether a suit only for arresting a ship by way of obtaining the security in the pending arbitration can be maintained or proceeded with?

3. Another facet to the aforesaid question No. (ii) that requires consideration is: in the admiralty jurisdiction where there is an arbitration agreement between the parties though arbitration proceedings have not yet commenced or when the arbitration is actually commenced, whether the suit for security simpliciter for the award that may be made in the pending arbitration proceedings can be maintained and order of arrest made?

4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid questions in the right perspective, we may immediately notice the relevant facts. "

5. J. S. Ocean Liner LLC- the plaintiffs- are the foreign company incorporated under the foreign laws and carrying on the business at Bur, Dubai (UA.E.). The plaintiffs are charterers of vessel for carriage of cargo. M.V. Golden Progress - the first defendant - is a foreign flag vessel and was lying in port and harbour Bombay on the date of the filing of the suit. Abhoul Marine LLC (FZCO) - the second defendant- are also the foreign company incorporated under the foreign laws and carrying on business at Dubai (U.A.E.). The second defendant are the owner of the first defendant vessel. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for the purposes of recovering an amount aggregating US$ 46,913.52 (together with interest thereon and costs) due and payable to them by the second defendants or in the alternative, for securing the said amount pending the commencement and outcome of the arbitration proceedings to be initiated in London against the second defendants.

6. The plaintiffs averred that a "BALTIME 1939" time charter party dated 15th February, 2005 was entered into between the plaintiffs and the second defendants at Dubai under the terms of which the second defendants agreed to charter the first defendant vessel to the plaintiffs for ca