1. This chamber summons and the notice of motion in this Admiralty Suit can be disposed of by a common order, inasmuch as they were heard together so also similar contentions were 2 canvassed by parties.

2. The plaintiff has instituted this suit in the Admiralty & Vice Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court for the following reliefs:- "(a) For an order of Arrest of the 1st Defendant vessel for a sum of Rs.42,60,000/- as per the particulars of claim shown in Exh.N hereto; (b) That the defendants be ordered to permit the plaintiff’s a survey of the first defendant vessel; (c) For an order and decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the first and second defendants for Rs.42,60,000/- as per the particulars of claim shown in Exh.N hereto;"

3. It is the case of plaintiff that it is a company engaged in business of owning barges and ships. The first defendant vessel is a foreign flag ship presently lying at Port Alang, Gujarat. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the vessel owners are unknown and she is presently on her final voyage for ship breaking operations. Second defendants are the representatives of the owners of the vessel. They are responsible and instrumental in vessel sailing into Alang for the proposed breaking of the same. Third defendants are Gujarat Maritime Board, a Statutory authority in the State of Gujarat, established, inter alia, to supervise and control ship breaking activities in that State.

4. It is contended that the vessel is currently under the jurisdiction of the third defendant. The suit has been filed seeking damages against the first and second defendants on account of collision of first defendant vessel with that of the vessel by name m.v.KINSHIP MODESTY. This vessel viz., KINSHIP MODESTY was chartered by the plaintiffs.

5. The vessel of plaintiffs was in Gujarat for charterers operations. She had completed discharge of her cargo at Port Bhavnagar and was waiting at the anchorage outside Bhavnagar port for her next cargo assignment. Her engines were off and her anchor was dropped as required for the vessel that would be waiting for her position to receive cargo.

6. At about 05.15 hrs. on 6th July 2007, the first defendant vessel came in physical contact with the plaintiff’s vessel. The first defendant vessel was on her journey to Alang and was on duty to look out for the vessels that are in anchor. Whilst the first defendant vessel was making her approach, the plaintiff’s Master apprehended that first defendant vessel was moving too close to the plaintiff’s vessel. He and the Chief Officer called on the first defendant vessel on VHF Channel No.16 and 17 and tried to get his attention by flashing lights. This was intended to warn the Master and crew of the first defendant vessel of their manoeuvre to avoid plaintiff’s vessel. Notwithstanding the same, the first defendant crew paid no heed to the warning signals and made unfortunate contact with plaintiff’s vessel arising out of their negligent and reckless navigation.

7. As a result of this contact, plaintiff’s vessel suffered damage and investigations revealed the extent of the same. The same is disclosed in a statement, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure "E" to the plaint. Plaintiffs’ vessel was, therefore, required to be repaired and the cost estimated for the same was Rs.25 lakhs. Plaintiff’s vessel will lose its six days before she enters her dry dock and, 6 thereafter, it is likely that the vessel will undertake repairs for 14 days in dry-dock after which only she will be able to undertake any commercial employment. Consequently, she will not be entitled to charter hire assignments for this period. The vessel was fixed for charter at Rs.88,000/- per day and it is expected to lose a sum of Rs.17,60,000/- towards loss of income and that is how the claim for damages has been made.

8. In paras 11 and 12 of the plaint, this is what is stated:- "11. In view of the foregoing, the plaintiff respectfully submits that this Hon’bl