The Andhra Pradesh High Court has jurisdiction to execute foreign judgments under Section 44A, affirming its original admiralty authority to enforce decrees against vessels located within its territorial waters.

1BANERJEE, J. (for Majmudar, J. and himself) - Leave granted in both the SLPs.

2By consent of learned Senior Advocates of the parties, the appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3Assumption of admiralty jurisdiction by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and passing of an order of arrest in execution of a judgment and decree of the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, Admiralty Court in London in Case No. 1994 Folio No. 1693 dated 9-11-1988, is the key issue for discussion in these appeals by the grant of special leave.

4Adverting to a brief reference to the factual aspect of the matter at this juncture it appears that an execution petition was filed before the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in terms of S.15 of the Admiralty Courts Act and S.44A read with O.21 R.10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for executing the decree issued by the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty Court) in an action by the first respondent against the second respondent herein claiming damages for repudiation of an LOF salvage contract. Needless to record that the second respondent was said to be the owners of the vessel M. V. Al Quamar ex Al Tabish.

5The factual score depicts that pending the execution petition, the decree holder prayed for an interlocutory order to issue a warrant of arrest against the vessel together with hull, tackle, engines, machinery equipments, stores etc. The learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 15-9-1999 granted an interim order as prayed for on a prima facie view of the matter that the execution petition can be filed in the High Court which is otherwise having original admiralty jurisdiction. The records depict that the appellant herein filed a petition to vacate the interim order principally on the ground that the ownership of the ship having been transferred bona fide and for valuable consideration to Quamar Shipping Ltd., the ship as attached in terms of the order of 15-9-1999 cannot possibly be kept under attachment in execution of the decree against the original owner being Respondent 2 herein. The appellant contended that in any event, the latter being not a party to the judgment, question of execution on the basis thereof would otherwise be a total miscarriage of justice.

6Incidentally, the learned Single Judge in his judgment has been pleased to record that the matter in issue involves eminently an arguable case as regards the maintainability of the execution petition and the proper course should therefore be, as the learned Judge pointed out to hear the execution petition itself at a date early and to continue interim order during the interregnum.

7The records depict that the appellant herein subsequent to the order as above moved the appellate forum and the appellate court while dismissing the appeal observed as below :
"In our view, the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge that the execution petitioner (first respondent herein) has an arguable case as regards the maintainability of the EP and that the contentious issues ought to be dealt with more appropriately at the hearing of the EP instead of entering into a discussion at the interlocutory stage, cannot be faulted. The EP itself has been posted for hearing and the hearing would have been concluded by now, but for this intervening appeal. Equally, the other reason given by the learned Judge that vacation of the interim order would have the potential effect of making the execution petition infructuous and, therefore, the interim order ought not be vacated before the disposal of the EP also appeals to us. Considerations of prima facie case and balance of convenience were rightly taken into account by the learned Single Judge. We see no valid ground to suspend the interim order.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that continuance of interim order should be made conditional upon furnishing of security or at least insisting on an undertaking