The judgment established the scope of admiralty jurisdiction, the procedure for invoking such jurisdiction, and the liability of vessel owners and charterers in maritime claims.

J. Chelameswar, C.J.:

1. Sp.J.C.No.2 of 2010 is filed invoking Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 and the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The parties are referred to in the order as they are arrayed in Sp.J.C.2 of 2010. The petition was originally filed with four respondents. Subsequently, two more respondents were added by way of amendment of the petition.

3. The petitioner is a private limited Company, engaged in the business of construction of buildings, etc. In connection with its business, the petitioner claims to have purchased 5002.900 metric tonnes of steel (Reinforcing Steel Bars) from M/s.Arcelor Mittal. It is not clear from the materials on record whether the said vendor is an individual or a corporate entity. It is stated in the petition that the abovementioned commodity was sought to be transported from the Port of Oktyabrsk in Ukraine by a vessel (respondent No.1) called M/V "Free Neptune", owned by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the said quantity of steel was received on board of the abovementioned vessel as evidenced by Exhibit P1, which is a copy of the Bill of Lading. It appears from the said copy that shipper of the material covered by the said Bill of Lading is one "OJSC Arcelormittal Kryviy Rih, 1, Ordzhonikidze Street, Kryviy Rih, 50095, Ukraine" and against the name of consignee, it is noted as "To Order". The Bill of Lading also states that the Port of discharge is Cochin in India. The 3rd respondent herein is shown to be the "Discharge Port Agent".

4. The 5th respondent is said to be the Charterer of the abovementioned vessel, M/V "Free Neptune". The nature of the Charter party is not specified in the petition.

5. The vessel admittedly reached the Cochin Port on February 22, 2010. The cargo was discharged between 22.02.2010 and 27.02.2010. It was noticed that there was a short delivery of the material by 228.531 metric tonnes (55 bundles out of 1163 bundles that were allegedly put on board). It is alleged that the factum of short landing was brought to the notice of the Master of the Ship and also the Port authorities along with the 3rd respondent. The value of the short landed material is estimated by the petitioner at `.63,81,858/-.

6. The 1st respondent sailed off the Cochin Port on February 27, 2010. While it was berthed at Chennai Port, the instant Sp.J.C. came to be filed in this Court with prayers as follows:-

"(i) issue an order or writ or direction for the arrest and detention of the 1st respondent Vessel by name M/V "Free Neptune" which is now berthed at the Chennai Port till sufficient security for the amount of Rs.63,81,585/- (US Dollars 140000/-) is furnished by respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the petitioner in order to satisfy the claim of the petitioner raised as per Ext.P9 letter;

(ii) pass an order or decree or writ directing respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith compensate the loss suffered by the petitioner on account of the shortage in the cargo covered by Ext.P1 Bill of Lading by paying the amount as claimed in Ext.P9 letter by the petitioner;

(iii) issue such other orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".

Along with the main prayers, the petitioner also sought an interim prayer of the arrest and detention of the 1st respondent ship which, at that point of time, was berthed at the Chennai Port. The interim prayer is as follows:-

"For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an interim direction for the arrest and detention of the 1st respondent Vessel by name M/V "Free Neptune" which is now berthed at the Chennai Port till sufficient security for the amount of Rs.63,81,585/- (US Dollars 140000/-) is furnished by respondents 1 to 3 in favour of the petitioner in order to satisfy the claim of the petitioner raised as per Ext.P9 letter".

7. By order dated March 4, 2010, a