1. The brief facts of the case necessary to consider the rival contentions of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 & 2 are required to be set down.

2. The plaintiff has instituted a suit for the recovery of an amount of U.S. Dollars 154,000 together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the institution of the suit until payment/realization. The amount which is claimed in the suit represents the CIF value of 40 Drums said to contain 1000 BOU Lincomycin HCL BP (Oral Grade) weighing about 1184 kg. (the consignment) alleged to have been short-landed. The case of the plaintiff is that in February 2001, the plaintiff imported from Shanghai to Mumbai the consignment under an invoice dated 16th February, 2001 of the shippers M/s.Sino Pharmaceuticals (HK) Ltd. (the Shipper). The consignment was entrusted by the shipper to the Third Defendant at Shanghai. The Third Defendant issued a Bill of Lading dated 22nd February, 2001 acknowledging receipt of the consignment on board a vessel by the name of m.v.BUNGA KEART Voyage 013. The Bill of Lading reflected the port of loading as Shanghai and the port of discharge as Mumbai. The delivery agent named in the Bill of Lading issued by the Third Defendant was Liberty Marine Syndicate Private Ltd. whose business address is shown at a location in Sakinaka, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The case of the plaintiff is that the Third Defendant instead of shipping the container containing the consignment on board the vessel m.v BUNGA KEART, decided to ship the consignment on board the First Defendant vessel. The consignment was stated to have been carried on board the First Defendant vessel from shanghai to Singapore where the First Defendant terminated her voyage. The consignment was thereafter transshipped on board another vessel m.v.KOTA RAJA, stated to have been “owned and/or chartered and/or operated” by the Fourth Defendant. M.V. KOTA RAJA arrived at Mumbai on 14th March, 2001. The consignment of the plaintiff is stated as having appeared at Item No.27 of the Import General Manifest filed by the vessel with distinct identification marks. However, the clearing agents of the plaintiff were informed that upon de-stuffing, the consignment of the plaintiff was out turned as short-landed, as a result of which the consignment was not delivered to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the Mumbai Port Trust has issued a Landing Remark Certificate dated 1st June, 2001 certifying that the consignment did not appear in the Landing Remark sheet. The Port Trust is also stated to have issued a short-landing certificate dated 14th June, 2001 certifying that the entire consignment of 40 Drums had been out turned as short-landed. According to the plaintiffs, the agents of the Third Defendant had informed them that the consignment, to facilitate carriage, had been stuffed into a container bearing No.CRXU 2968674 and after sealing had been handed over by the Third Defendant to the Fourth Defendant for carriage from Shanghai to Mumbai and that the consignment must have been missing after it was handed over to the Fourth Defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that they called on defendant No.3 to settle the claim. They were informed that they were investigating the matter. They have already lodged claim on agents of defendant No.4. Suffice it to say, in the meantime, defendant no.1 vessel sailed into the port of Mumbai. The plaintiff has brought this action in rem against the First Defendant vessel, the vessel in which the said container was stated to have been shipped. The second Defendant as owners of the First Defendant have also been impleaded as parties to the suit. Apart from these two Defendants, the Third Defendant has been impleaded as a party together with Pacific International Lines (Pte) Ltd. to whom the Third Defendant is alleged to have entrusted the consignment for carriage from Shanghai to Mumbai.

3. The jurisdiction of this Court in rem was invoked upon the arrest of the First Defend