Admiralty jurisdiction is confined to territorial waters, and actions in personam require the defendant to reside or conduct business in India; plaint not rejected as filed before Section 12A's effective date.

ORDER :

Prayer in A. No. 2275 of 2023: Judge's Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules Read with Order VII Rule II of Civil Procedure Code to reject the plaint in C.S. (Comm. Div) No. 109 of 2022.

Prayer in A. No. 2276 of 2023 Judge's Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules Read with Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act 1862 Read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to revoke the leave to sue granted against the defendant in A. No. 2098 of 2022 in C.S. (Comm. Div) No. 109 of 2022.

1. After obtaining leave to sue in Application No. 2098 of 2022, by order dated 07.06.2022, the suit was filed as an admiralty action in personam to recover damages from the defendant for the collision allegedly caused by the defendant. The sole defendant was served suit summons on 01.07.2022. By these applications, the defendant seeks rejection of the plaint and revocation of leave to sue, respectively.

Counsel and their contentions

2. Oral arguments on behalf of the applicant were advanced by Mr. Joy Thattil Ittoop and on behalf of the respondent by Mr. K. Krishnaswamy.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/defendant submitted that the alleged collision occurred on 30.01.2018 about 23 nautical miles into the sea off the Kanyakumari coast. By referring to Section 3 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the Admiralty Act), he submitted that the Court's jurisdiction is exercisable in respect of maritime claims only over the waters up to the limits of the territorial waters of their respective jurisdictions. Since the collision occurred beyond the territorial waters, he contended that leave is liable to be revoked. As regards actions in personam under Section 7 of the Admiralty Act, learned counsel contended that such actions would only lie where the defendant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business. By pointing out that the defendant carries on business in Mumbai in the State of Maharashtra, learned counsel contended that the action is not maintainable before this Court.

4. Learned counsel next contended that the plaintiff failed to exhaust pre-institution mediation in terms of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the Commercial Courts Act) and, therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patil Automation Private Limited and others v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1 (Patil Automation).

5. In response to these contentions, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff's boat, NELSON - I, sunk on account of collision with the defendant's ship, MV SCI MUMBAI, which was operated in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel also submitted that the radar images available with the Directorate General of Shipping establish that the collision was caused by the defendant. According to learned counsel, such loss is liable to be compensated by the defendant, as the owner of the ship, in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (the Merchant Shipping Act) and the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Rules, 1975.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff's claim qualifies as a maritime claim under the Admiralty Act and that it is maintainable as an action in personam under Sections 6 and 7 thereof. As regards the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Admiralty Act, learned counsel submitted that an action in personam is maintainable as long as the cause of action arises, wholly or partly, within India or the defendant voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain in India. By referring to the Senior Courts Act, 1981 (the Senior Courts Act), learned counsel submitted that Section 7 is inspired by the UK statute and that it departs from the International Conventio