The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 applies to vessels registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and allows for the arrest of a vessel in a proceeding in rem, providing a valuable right for the plaintiff to obtain security.

JUDGMENT

I. P. Mukerji, J - This appeal is by the owner of the vessel M. V. MAHESHWARI, the second defendant in the suit.

2. It is against a judgment and order dated 21st December, 2020 passed by a learned single judge of this court affirming the order of arrest of the vessel made earlier by her on 9th December, 2020. The appellant was given the option of providing security of Rs.1,88,00,000/- with the Registrar, High Court, Original Side through a bank guarantee issued by a Scheduled Commercial Bank to obtain release of the vessel.

3. At the admission stage of this appeal, on 23rd December, 2020 a division bench of this court reduced the security to Rs.1.5 crores to be furnished by way of a banker's cheque or a demand draft. This deposit has been duly made by the appellant and the vessel released to them for their use. The appellant is plying the vessel, we are told.

4. Now, at this point of time the appeal is being pursued by them with a particular purpose in mind. They seek to withdraw the security from the Registrar and continue to ply the vessel without any security. The respondent/plaintiff insists that the security should be maintained till the disposal of the suit.

5. Now, the facts have to be told in detail.

6. On 27th May, 2013 the vessel 'M.V. MAHESHWARI' was built at Old Goa by Dempo Shipbuilding & Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Old Goa. It is a cargo barge of 72 metres length, 14 metres breadth, 4.25 metres depth, gross tonnage of 1368 and registered tonnage of 579. It was stated to be built in 2012 and could travel at a speed of 9.5 knots. It was registered under Section 19F of the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. It was also registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958.

7. The respondent plaintiff is also the owner of the TUG Ferrari. On 24th November, 2014 under a Charter Party agreement, it chartered this TUG for hire to the appellant for transportation of men and materials between Kolkata and sandheads, Kolkata and Kanika Sands, Paradeep and Kanika Sands and so on. According to the respondent plaintiff, this Charter Party was extended till 4th May, 2018. Allegedly the appellant pre-maturely terminated the agreement and on or about 9th September, 2017 redelivered the tug to the respondent plaintiff. The claim of the respondent plaintiff for Rs.2,13,41,345/- substantially arises out of alleged loss of earnings in vessel hire for premature termination of this agreement.

8. Mr. Ratnanko Banerji, learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the suit was not maintainable at all in the admiralty jurisdiction of this court because the vessel in question was an inland plying vessel, that is to say, a vessel that does not go out into the sea. It is registered under the Inland Vessels Act, 1917. Although it is also registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, on 1st August, 2019 the appellant surrendered the vessel's river sea certificate to the government. So, it became an inland vessel. The admiralty jurisdiction is not attracted he submitted. The respondent plaintiff was left to the remedy of filing an ordinary suit. No order of arrest of the vessel could have been made. Hence, no question of furnishing any security by the appellant owner.

9. He submitted that the claim was in the form of damages.

10. In our prima facie view, the claim as framed appears to be a maritime claim and the learned single judge has held so.

11. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff submitted that under Section 2(1)(a) thereof, the said Act of 1917 did not apply to vessels which were registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The vessel in question was registered under Section 34 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. Hence, the vessel 'M.V.MAHESHWARI' was not covered under the definition of vessels which were excluded from the operation of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 as provided in the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 1 read with Section 2(1)(l) thereof.

12. He remarke