JUDGMENT

C Hari Shankar, J. - Three vessels, which stand berthed off the coast of Kolkata, constitute the subject matter of controversy in this petition, preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the 1996 Act"). They are the RV Katha Pandaw, RV Kalaw Pandaw and the RV Kindat Pandaw and would be referred to, in this judgement, as "Katha", "Kalaw" and "Kindat", respectively.

A Fasciculus

2. Admittedly, Katha is owned by Respondent 4 M/s Pandaw Cruises Ltd, Myanmar ("PCL Myanmar", hereinafter), whereas Kalaw and Kindat are owned by Respondent 5 M/s Indus Cruises Pte Ltd, Perth ("Indus Perth", hereinafter), and all the three vessels were leased to Respondent 1 M/s Indus River Cruises Pvt Ltd, New Delhi under Bareboat Charter Agreements executed between Respondent 1 and PCL Myanmar in respect of Katha and between Respondent 1 and Indus Perth in respect of Kalaw and Kindat. The petitioner is a stranger to the said Bareboat Charter Agreements.

3. Respondent 1 entered into a Vessel Operation and Management Agreement ("VOMA", in short), whereunder the petitioner was contracted for operating and managing the aforesaid three vessels. Admittedly, the VOMA was executed exclusively between the petitioner and Respondent 1. None of the other respondents were parties to the VOMA. The petitioner claims that Respondent 1 owes over Rs. 36 crores to it under the VOMA. This, according to the petitioner, has resulted in a dispute, amenable to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in the VOMA. The petitioner seeks, by the present petition, securing of the amount allegedly due from Respondent 1 to the petitioner, to the extent of Rs. 4,13,25,726/- and Rs. 18 crores, while stating that it was willing to agitate its entitlement to the remaining amount of Rs. 15 crores separately in arbitral proceedings, and did not seek securing of the said amount. The petitioner pleads that the three vessels are subject matter of the dispute, and that, as Respondent 1 is presently in impecunious circumstances and the remaining respondents are situated outside the boundaries of India, the only way to secure the dues of Respondent 1 to the petitioner would be by restraining removal of the vessels from Indian waters. Ergo, this petition seeks interlocutory directions to the said effect, pending arbitral proceedings.

4. Respondents 2 to 5 express undisguised chagrin. Respondent 2 claims to be a complete stranger to the entire dispute and that it has been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy. Respondents 4 and 5 claim to be independent corporate entities, who are also strangers to the VOMA and, consequently, to the arbitral proceedings which the petitioner seeks to initiate. They claim that Respondent 1 has defaulted in its obligations under the Bareboat Charter Agreements, vide which the vessels were leased to Respondent 1. These defaults, submit Respondents 4 and 5, have entitled them to repossess the vessels. The petitioner, according to them, has no locus whatsoever to interfere with such right of repossession. This stand is also supported by the other respondents, including Respondent 1. The "subject matter of the dispute", submit the respondents in one voice, are not the vessels, but the dues allegedly owed to the petitioner under the VOMA. By wrongly categorising the vessels as the subject matter of the dispute, the respondent submitted that the petitioner is illegally misusing the Section 9 jurisdiction of this Court to proceed against property of third parties, who are complete strangers to the petitioner and to the VOMA. This, submit the respondents, is totally