The suit against the employees of a vessel cannot proceed without claims against their employer or the vessel as required by Admiralty law.

1. The above Applications are filed by Defendant Nos.3 and 5 in the Suit.

2. I.A. Nos.2 & 5 of 2024 are filed by the Defendant Nos.3 & 5 respectively, praying to reject the Plaint in its entirety against them for failure to disclose cause of action, lack of jurisdiction and the Plaint being barred under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Admiralty Act').

3. I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2024 are filed by the Defendant Nos.3 & 5 respectively, praying to strike out the pleadings in relation to them as set out in the Plaint and the Affidavit as the said pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious and have the effect of prejudicing and delaying the Suit and are a gross abuse of process of Court. Prayer is also sought to strike them out from the party array on the ground that the Applicants therein are improperly joined. Even though Defendant No.4 is not an Applicant in I.A. No.3 of 2024, similar prayer is sought with respect to Defendant No.4 also in I.A. No.3 of 2024.

4. The Respondent Nos.1 to 6 / Plaintiffs in all these Applications have filed Counter Affidavits opposing the prayers in these Applications.

5. The Suit is filed by six Indian fishermen claiming compensation from the Defendants jointly and severally on the allegation that they sustained loss and damage on account of the collision of the Defendant No.2 Vessel with their fishing boat on 19.10.2023 at 10.20 PM within Indian Territorial waters. The Defendant No.1 is the Owner, Defendant No.3 is the Master, Defendant No.4 is the Second Officer, and Defendant No.5 is the Able Seaman of the Defendant No.2 Vessel. The Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are made parties in the Suit showing their designations with reference to Defendant No.2 and not in their personal capacity in their name.

6. The Defendant Nos.1 & 2 had filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 to reject the Plaint against them on the very same ground and to refund the security deposit of Rs.1 Crore deposited by them. This Court had considered I.A. No.1 of 2024 and allowed the same as per Order dated 03.04.2025 which is reported in Owners and Parties interested in the Vessel, M. V. Korea Chemi (IMO 9274276) v. Siluvaipichai Francies, 2025 KLT OnLine 2113, rejecting the Suit as against the Defendant Nos.1 & 2, holding that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Suit as against Defendant Nos.1 & 2.

7. I heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants, Adv. Sri. Amitava Majumdar instructed by Adv. Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram and Adv. Sri. Yash Thomas Mannully, who appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 / Plaintiffs.

8. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Order in I.A. No.1 of 2024 has become final and the findings therein are binding on the Plaintiffs. In view of the said Order, the present Applications are liable to be allowed as this Court has specifically found that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Suit against the Defendant Nos.1 & 2. The claim is essentially against Defendant Nos.1 & 2. The Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the employees of the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 who had been working in Defendant No.2 Vessel at the time of the alleged accident. Without Defendant Nos.1 & 2 on the party array, the claim against Defendant Nos.3 to 5 is not maintainable. There is no individual allegation against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the Plaint. The learned Counsel for the Applicants relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal and Another, 1977 (4) SCC 467, in which it is held that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the Plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the s