FITHALY FERNANDO Vs. PRINCIPAL OFFICER AND SHIPPING MASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Chief Engineer of a ship by name "MV Kinship Prosperity" owned by the 4th respondent. The ship bears the Indian flag. He has certain disputes regarding arrears of wages allegedly due to him from the 4th respondent. He has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India invoking the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court for arrest and detention of the said ship for securing the petitioner's claim, if ultimately, the same is allowed by the competent authority. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) The 4th respondent fiercely opposes the Writ Petition controverting the contentions of the petitioner including the claim of the petitioner for wages itself. But, as far as this Court is concerned, this Court is only expected to decide the question as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to direct arrest and detention of the ship for securing the claim of the petitioner. The4th respondent would contend that the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to Indian vessels in the matter of arrest and detention. That is why that jurisdiction has been specifically conferred by statute as contained in Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which also is confined to a foreign ship and not an Indian ship. I am not detailing the other contentionsofthe4threspondentinthisjudgment insofar as according to me, that does not arise for consideration in the context of the jurisdiction of this Court in this Writ Petition.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would try to controvert the contentions of the 4th respondent regarding jurisdiction with the help of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.V. Elisabeth and Ors. v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco-de-Gama, Goa, 1993 AIR(SC) 1014. According to him, the Supreme Court has, in that decision, held that the various international conventions regarding admiralty jurisdiction have been adopted by India. He would contend that the Brussells Conventions, which have been quoted in that decision, refer to only "a ship" and not a foreign ship alone in the matter of admiralty jurisdiction for arrest and detention of a ship. He would therefore submit that this Court has certainly jurisdiction to invoke its admiralty jurisdiction for the purpose of arrest and detention of an Indian vessel as well as for securing a seaman's wages, which also has been accepted as maritime claim by the Brussell's conventions, which have been adopted by India.