Admiralty Suits are proceedings in rem and any findings given therein will be conclusive upon the world, and therefore, disputes raised in an Admiralty Suit cannot be referred to arbitration.

ORDER :- The petitioners are a company organised under the laws of the United Kingdom and have its office at 24, Lime Street, London. The respondents are a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a statutory body constituted under S. 3 of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act, 1959, having principal/registered office at Tel Bhavan, Dehra Dun and regional office at Vasudhara, Bandra (East), Bombay 400 051. According to the petitioners they had issued a certificate of insurance in favour of the respondents covering the vessel called M. V. Sindhu VII. On 25th July, 1995 the vessel Sindhu VII (hereinafter referred to as "the vessel") capsized and sank within the precincts of the Port and Harbour of Bombay. The respondents issued a notice of abandonment to their hull and machinery underwriters viz. The National Insurance Company Limited. This notice was not accepted by the National Insurance Company as the claim was treated as constructive total loss. The respondents had also taken out a policy known as protection and indemnity policy with the petitioners. The respondents made a claim under this policy. The petitioners examined the claim of the respondents. The claim was settled according to the petitioners. In view of the settlement, the respondents issued a deed of release on 28th September, 1995. By virtue of this, the respondents irrevocably abandoned and relinquished their right, title and interest in the vessel. It was also agreed to pass all plans, stability data and all the technical details of the vessel to the salvors which may be engaged by the protection and indemnity underwriters. The petitioners appointed Abhay Ocean Projects Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the salvors") to salvage the wreck. On the same date, the wreck removal contract was entered into between the petitioners, the vessel, the respondents and the salvors. This contract was entered into in conjunction with the deed of release, mentioned earlier. The salvors had taken the responsibility in totality for removal of the wreck from the port precincts. They had also undertaken to comply with all the terms of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. These documents were executed for and on behalf of the petitioners by M/s. Allied Marine Consultants International. These documents were forwarded to the respondents on 10th October, 1995. They were also brought to the notice of Bombay Port Trust authorities. The salvors were permitted to continue with the salvage operations as they were approved by the Bombay Port Trust authorities. The salvors appointed M/s. Asiatic Salvors as sub-contractors. They were also approved by the Bombay Port Trust authorities. Thereafter the disputes arose between the salvors and the sub-contractors. Thus, the contract between the salvors and the sub-contractors came to be terminated on 29th March, 1996. The wreck continued to lie in the Port precincts. The petitioners also terminated the contract with the salvors on the same date. Aggrieved against this, the salvors filed an Admiralty Suit No. 61 of 1996. This suit was disposed of in terms of the Minutes of the Order. The suit had been filed by the salvors against the vessel, the petitioners and M/s. Allied Marine Consultants International. Prayers made in the suit were to the effect that this Court be pleased to order and declare that the plaintiffs (salvors) are the owners of the vessel and are entitled to the possession thereof without any let or hindrance by the second defendant (Osprey - petitioners herein) and third defendant (M/s. Allied Marine Consultants International). Prayer clause (i) was to the effect that the defendants be ordered and decreed to do all such acts, deeds and things as may be necessary to effectively secure the plaintiffs rights. As noticed above, second defendants were the petitioners and the third defendants were the Allied Marine Consultants International, agents of the petitioners. Oil and Natural Gas Commission were not impleaded in this su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document