The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a maritime lien over the cargo or unpaid freight to arrest the cargo, and the lack of jurisdiction to arrest the cargo de hors the vessel.

1. By a judgment dated 1st September, 2017 in this suit, this Court was pleased to hold that Admiralty Court does not have jurisdiction to arrest defendant no.2 cargo.

2. By the said judgment, this Court was pleased to recall the order, passed on 10th February, 2017, of arrest of defendant no.2, viz., Cargo of 20,000 MT of salt and directed release of defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 its owners. While holding that a cargo cannot be arrested de hors the vessel, this Court was also pleased to frame an issue, which has modified by an order dated 5th January, 2018, and it reads as under:

“As this court has held that it did not have jurisdiction to arrest defendant no.2-cargo and the jurisdiction assumed by this court was on the basis of this arrest, whether the suit ought to be dismissed without reference to any other issue in the suit?

3. Mr. Kamat, counsel for defendant nos.1 and 2 submitted, as this Court in its judgment of 1st September, 2017 has come to a conclusion that this Court did not have jurisdiction to arrest defendant no.2 cargo, there was nothing left in the suit and the suit has to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction as against defendant no.2. Mr. Kamat further submitted that thereafter only defendant no.1 will remain, who admittedly does not carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court as the cause title itself shows the address of defendant no.1 to be “At Gandhidham, Kutch, Gujarat” and the suit has to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Kamat relied upon a judgment of this Court in m.v. Geowave Commander (2014 SCC Online Bom 1895) and submitted that this Court in its judgment dated 1st September, 2017 while holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to arrest the cargo has relied upon m.v. Geowave Commander (Supra). Mr. Kamat also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Siva Bulk Limited vs. m.v. Aodabao and Anr. (Commercial Suit No.334 of 2016 pronounced on 18th July, 2017) to submit that once an exparte order of arrest is recalled on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction, then such action in rem terminates and the suit is liable to be dismissed. Mr. Kamat submitted that this is because arrest is a means of assuming jurisdiction and if the order assuming jurisdiction is vacated or recalled, then it means that the Court is of the view that there is no jurisdiction to arrest the cargo.

5. Mr. Kamat relied upon another judgment of this Court in M/s. Greenwich Meridian Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Sapphire Kitchenware Pvt. Ltd. (Admiralty Suit No.31 of 2008 pronounced on 17th April, 2014) to submit that as plaintiff’s claim is not a maritime claim or as there is no maritime lien available, this suit in any event, cannot fall within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Kamat also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Global Integrated Bulkers Pte. Ltd. vs. Cargo of 14,072.337 Mts of Limestone (Judges’ Order No.253 of 2017 in Commercial Admiralty Suit (lodging) No.665 of 2017 pronounced on 19th January, 2018)to submit that the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked against cargo without a vessel being involved.

6. Mr. Shanker, counsel for plaintiff submitted that the order and the judgment dated 1st September, 2017 passed by His Lordship Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Gupte has been carried in appeal and that appeal is still pending. Mr. Shanker further submitted that very important question of law arises and until that appeal is heard and disposed, this Court should not dismiss this suit. It should be noted that there is no stay granted against hearing of this suit. In the order admitting the appeal, it is expressly stated “No adinterim relief”.

7. Mr. Shanker submitted that the only adinterim relief, he had pressed at the time of admission of the appeal, was not to release the security over the cargo but did not press for any stay of this suit. In my view, that does not help Mr. Shanker because when the issue, as noted above, was framed, plaintiff knew that the next step in t