The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras is confined to the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Madras and does not extend to the entirety of Indian territorial waters.

SRINIVASAN, J.

1. This appeal is against an order dismissing an application filed by the appellant for granting an interim order of arrest and sale of the tanker m.t. Nova Progress lying at the Port of Kandla, Gujarat State, including the equipments and fittings and fixutres and bunkers, and keep her under arrest within the said territorial waters of India until further orders. The appellant has filed the suit C.S. No. 1534 of 1995 on the Original Side of the High Court for recovery of a sum of US $ 41,837.07 equivalent to Indian Rs. 13,80,623.31 approximately with interest at 18% per annum from defendants 1 and 2, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein and for arrest and sale of the Tanker m.t. Nova Progress at the Port of Kandla, Gujarat State together with all equipments, etc. There is also a prayer for issue of notice to the Port Conservator at the Port of Kandla not to allow the vessel to sail from the Port until further orders. It is seen from the cause title itself that the plaintiff is a body corporate having the Head Office in Tehran, Iran. It is said to be represented by a Power of Attorney Agent by name E. Rajamani, who claims to reside in Madras. The first defendant, described as owners of the ship, are having their office in Greece, while the second defendant, described as the Managers, is a Company registered under the laws of Netherlands, having its office there. The third defendant is the Master of the ship Nova Progress.

2. The following allegations are made in the plaint. The plaintiff company was appointed as agents of the first and second defendants as early as on 25-3-1994 and in the course of acting as such agent, it has been discharging the duties of bringing in the ship, observing the formalities of the Port and Customs and Charters, whenever necessary and arranging for the discharge/leading, calibrating, payment of all statutory dues, crew welfare, supply of fresh water, laundry, medical and other needs, arranging for bunkers, repairs and such other services as the situation warranted to protect the interest and welfare of the officers, crew, oil and vessel and the owners/Managers. In the process of acting as such Agents for the various vessels/tankers owned and/or managed by defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiff has accumulated an outstanding of U.S. $ 41,837.07 equivalent to Indian Rupees 13,80,623,31 approximately. The plaintiff had performed its job to the fullest satisfaction of the defendants and the payment had become overdue. The same has been admitted by the defendants without dispute. In spite of repeated demands, there is no positive response from either the first defendant or the second defendant. The second defendant has acknowledged the outstanding and dues and has been repeatedly guaranteeing payment of the same. The defendants have not taken concrete steps to clear the dues. The plaintiff has learnt that the defendants are facing financial stress and strain and they would go in for winding up proceedings. It is also learnt that in another proceeding, another ship belonging to the first defendant has been arrested by this Court under its Admiralty jurisdiction. The only tangible asset of defendants 1 and 2 is the ship lying at the Port of Kandla, Gujarat State. The cause of action arose on 27th August, 1995 when the ship berthed at the Port of Kandla. It is within the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed for the reliefs set out already.

3. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed nine documents. A perusal of the documents shows that no part of the cause of action has arisen in this country. The services said to have been rendered by the plaintiff to the ships of defendants 1 and 2 are mostly at Iran and, no part of them has been rendered in this country. In fact the plaintiff requested the 2nd defendant in its letter dated 2-9-1995 to settle the dues by a teleremittance to Barclays Bank, London.

4. The plaintiff filed Application No. 5288 of 1994 f