The main legal point established in the judgment is that the invocation of admirality jurisdiction is contingent upon the domicile of the ship, and in this case, the plaintiff's claim could not be entertained due to the ship being an Indian ship with domicile in India.

Chandrasekhara Menon, J.

1. When this suit was presented by the plaintiff invoking the admirality jurisdiction of this Court, the office doubted the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit. Doubt was also raised regarding the court fee payable. The plaintiff had paid a court fee at a fixed rate of Rs. 200 under S.50 of the Kerala Court Fees Act. In view of this, the matter was placed before the Court for determination.

2. When the case came before me on 21st August 1979, as it was brought to my notice very fairly by the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner that the Syndicate Bank and the Vaisya Bank Ltd., Madras have been appointed in a civil action in the Madras High Court as receivers of the vessel concerned, I directed issue of notice to the receivers for hearing them on the question of the entertainability of the claim by this court. On the basis of the notice thus issued, Sri Narayanan Poti, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the receivers.

3. It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff by his learned counsel Mr. J. C. Goho, Barrister-at-law that the receivers have no locus standi to intervene at this stage. The court was only considering the question of the entertainability of the plaintiff's claim, by this court , as put forward in the nature of a suit invoking the admirality jurisdiction of this court. However without deciding the question of the locus standi of the receivers to come in at this stage nothing prevents this court from getting the assistance of an eminent lawyer like Sri Narayanan Poti in deciding the questions before it. Mr. Poti had also very rightly submitted that he would be arguing the matter only on the basis of the facts stated in the plaint and no disputed questions of fact would be relied upon to sustain his contentions. I might at the very outset state that both the learned counsel Mr. Goho and Mr. Poti between themselves placed the relevant law on the matter and the decisions bearing on the same before me.

4. The plaintiff is a Finance Company constituted under the laws of Kuwait and having its office there. It is represented in the suit by a duly authorised agent. The defendants are the owners and parties interested in the Vessel M. V. "Lakshmi Sagar" at present lying berthed at the Port of Cochin. It is alleged that in the usual course of its business, the plaintiff placed orders for shipment of quantities of Fabricated Steel Components and Structures with one Indo Japanese Steel Ltd., carrying on business at No. 11, Government Place (East), Calcutta. Pursuant to and in terms of the order placed as aforesaid by the plaintiff the Indo Japanese Steel Ltd. shipped a quantity of Fabricated Steel Structure and Components. By a contract contained in a Bill of Lading dated 11th September 1978, the defendants acknowledged the shipment on board the Vessel M. V. "Lakshmi Sagar" in apparent good order and condition 88 packages weighing 89.181 metric tonnes of Fabricated Steel Structure and Components for carriage to and delivery at Dammam, Saudi Arabia, in like good order and condition for an agreed freight of U.S. Dollars 4,096.25. The agreed freight as per the said Bill of Lading and in respect of the shipment was alleged to have been duly paid upon completion of loading of the said cargo and the payment was duly endorsed on the Bill of Lading. The plaintiff is still the owner of the cargo aforementioned. The Vessel with the cargo represented by the Bill of Lading mentioned earlier along with other cargoes sailed from Calcutta on or about 15th September 1978 intending to go to her port and / or ports of destination amongst Kifoo/Dammam, Saudi Arabia. But, subsequent to the sailing from the Port of Calcutta, the said Vessel for reasons not known to the plaintiff went to the Port of Colombo. Instead of proceeding further towards her port and / or ports of destination, the Vessel arrived at the Port of Cochin with the plaintiff's cargo on board. The plaintiff alleges that the Vessel fail