JUDGMENT :

Vineet Kothari, J.

1. A short, but interesting question of law arises in the present Appeals filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 03.01.2018, namely "Whether in Admiralty suits filed in the original jurisdiction of this Court, the leave of the High Court/Tribunal under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 (now Section 279 of new Companies Act, 2013) to file or proceed with such a suit is required to be obtained by the plaintiffs or not, after the Winding Up Order is passed by the Court and an Official Liquidator or Provisional Liquidator is appointed by that Court/Tribunal?".

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present Appeals arose in the following context. A ship or vessel, MT Pratibha Cauvery, when anchored at the shore near Chennai was caught in the eye of cyclonic storm named 'Neelam' around 27.12.2012. The said vessel drifted towards the shore and in the said natural calamity, some of the crew members jumped into the sea and six of them lost their lives and one of the crew members was rescued by the Indian Coast Guard on 01.11.2012, who filed a civil suit, i.e. C.S. No. 89 of 2013 invoking the original Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court and seeking a Decree and judgment against the Ship, viz. owners and parties interested in the Vessel MT Pratibha Cauvery for a sum of Rs. 3.59 Lakhs together with compensation for pain and suffering.

3. A writ petition W.P. No. 31942 of 2012 was also filed by the same plaintiff in C.S. No. 89 of 2013 seeking an enquiry into the incident in respect of the vessel MT Pratibha Cauvery and to take appropriate action against the owner of the said vessel, namely M/s. Pratibha Shipping Company Limited, Mumbai. In that writ petition, an interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 28.11.2012, recording an Undertaking of the owner company to deposit interim compensation of Rs. 30.00 Lakhs by 05.12.2012 and thereafter, on 21.12.2012, after hearing the parties interested in the said matter, the Court directed the Company, M/s. Pratibha Shipping Company Limited, Mumbai, to deposit the admitted sum of Rs. 87,45,300/- as an interim compensation for the legal heirs of the deceased crew members. A further direction was issued to deposit either a further sum of Rs. 5.00 Crores or provide a bank guarantee for the said sum of Rs. 5.00 Crores for a period of three years or to furnish immovable property as security for satisfaction of such claims.

4. In the aforesaid C.S. No. 89 of 2013, the learned Single Judge of this Court, on 18.4.2013, directed the sale of the said vessel MT Pratibha Cauvery, which was salvaged by one M/s. Smit India Marine Services Private Limited of Bombay and finally, the said Vessel was sold for a total consideration of Rs. 15,64,80,000/- and the said sum is lying in deposit with this Court. In the course of time, several claim petitions have been filed by various claimants in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court.

5. In the meanwhile, winding up proceedings were initiated against the owner company M/s. Pratibha Shipping Company Ltd. in Mumbai High Court in Company Petition No. 128 of 2013 and a Provisional Liquidator came to be appointed by the Bombay High Court on 28.07.2014.

6. With the appointment of the Official Liquidator in the said winding up proceedings before the Bombay High Court, the Official Liquidator raised an objection in this regard in the pending Civil Suit No. 89 of 2013 that the said suit and other similar claim petitions in Admiralty Jurisdiction cannot be proceeded with, without obtaining the prior leave of the Bombay High Court in terms of Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, whereas the claimants pursuing their claims under the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court have opposed the said stand of the Official Liquidator on the ground that the proceedings under the Admiralty jurisdiction are proceedings-in-rem against the vessel in question and to satisfy their maritime lien, they not on