JUDGMENT :

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.M. Buch for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Premal Nanavati for learned advocate Mr. Harsh Gajjar for the respondent through video conference.

2. By this application, the applicants-original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have prayed to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction of this Court to try and entertain the same. In the alternative, it is prayed for stay the proceedings of the suit till final disposal of this application.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Buch appearing for the applicants submitted that the Admiralty Suit filed by the opponent-original plaintiff is not maintainable before this Court as this Court has no jurisdiction to grant reliefs prayed by the plaintiff in the suit on the following grounds:

(i) It is averred that there is no claim against defendant No. 1-vessel which is raised by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is secured by way of a letter of undertaking dated 17.12.2019 issued by defendant No. 4 against the claim in relation to defendant No. 1-vessel and therefore, there is no 'maritime claim' which is raised against defendant No. 1-vessel and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime claims) Act, 2017 [for short 'Act, 2017'].

(ii) Learned advocate Mr. Buch invited the attention of the Court to the letter of undertaking dated 17.12.2019 produced by the plaintiff at Exhibit-D page 22 to the plaint to submit that as the plaintiff has relied upon the averments of the undertaking for not obtaining the arrest of defendant No. 1-Vessel, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(iii) Reliance was also placed on the order dated 28.07.2021 passed by this Court for not granting the arrest of the defendant No. 1-vessel in view of the aforesaid undertaking, by virtue of which, the dues of the plaintiff is secured.

(iv) It was submitted that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have given an undertaking which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and therefore, this Court cannot proceed further with the suit filed by the plaintiff and it is only the Bombay High Court which can entertain and try the suit if any.

(v) Learned advocate Mr. Buch further submitted that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain the suit as the suit is for recovery of the amount of Rs. 32,52,024/- being the cost of repairs to the Plaintiff, port expenses and other expenses incurred as a result of the incident which took place on 02.09.2019 by which, the defendant No. 1-vessel caused damage to the plaintiff's Tug, Jasmin Star.

(vi) It was submitted that in view of the undertaking dated 17.12.2019 which is not in dispute between the parties, the suit filed by the plaintiff is purely in commercial nature and therefore, would not fall within the provisions of Act, 2017.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati appearing for the opponent-original plaintiff submitted that the application filed by the applicants-original defendants under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Roshan Singh (Dead) By LRS. and Ors. reported in 2008 (2) SCC 488 wherein the Apex Court has held that the scope and object of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to supplement and not to override or evade other express provisions or other statues.

4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati also submitted that so far as the merits of the matter is concerned, it is not in dispute that the claim made by the plaintiff falls within clause (d) of section 4 of the Act, 2017 and therefore, it is a maritime claim and only because the plaintiff has relied upon the undertaking given by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 by way of a security, it would not cease to be a maritime claim.

4.2. With regard to contentions raised on behalf of applicants-defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to