JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The facts in this case which are not in dispute may shortly be stated as follows :–– Motor tank vessely "Yvonne" (hereinafter referred to as "the Tanker") arrived at the Port of Calcutta on or about the 4th January, 1970 and between the 12th and the 15th January 1970, 5395.714 metric tonnes of Benzene, nitration, grade (hereinafter referred to as "the cargo") was loaded in her for being shipped to Swansea, U.K. On or about the 21st January, 1970 the Tanker while berthed at Budge Budge was arrested under an order of this Court passed in Admiralty Suit No.3 of 1970. On the 27lh January, 1970, on an application of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as "the Commissioners"), in the said Admiralty suit, liberty was given to them to remove the Tanker to Diamond Harbour Explosive Anchorage or to any other suitable place. Pursuant thereto, on or about the 5th February 1970, the Tanker with her cargo was moved from Budge Budge and anchored at Diamond Harbour. On another application of the Commissioners made in the said Admiralty suit, an order was passed on the 3rd March, 1970, directing inter alia that in case the arrest of the Tanker continued thereafter beyond 10 days, the owners, the Master and the agents of the Tanker would unload the cargo and store the same. In default, the Detaining Officer appointed in the suit was directed to deal with the cargo as aforesaid and keep the same stored suitably. The said order dated the 3rd March, 1970 was varied on the 10th March, 1970 and the Director, Marine Department of the Port Commissioners was directed to deal with the cargo as aforesaid in place of the Detaining Officer. On the 23rd April, 1970, on another application of the Commissioners in the said Admiralty Suit, liberty was given to them to proceed against the Tanker for realization of the amounts due from her under the Port Acts. Pursuant thereto the Commissioners took over the Tanker on the 25th May, 1970 and brought her back to the Budge Budge moorings on the same day. By the 29th May 1970, the cargo was off loaded and pumped into storage tanks at Budge Budge. The Tanker was ultimately sold by Receivers appointed in the said Admiralty suit and a sum of Rs. By the 29th May 1970, the cargo was off loaded and pumped into storage tanks at Budge Budge. The Tanker was ultimately sold by Receivers appointed in the said Admiralty suit and a sum of Rs. 2,12,0811/41 p. was paid to the Commissioners in full payment of the entire costs, charges and expenses incurred by them for the operation. The Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta; Banwarilal Mital the Director, Marine Department of the Port Commissioners, Anadi Nath Chakrabartty, the Deputy Director, Marine Department of the Port Commissioners and one Mukund Kale respectively plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 herein, instituted this suit on the 11th September, 1970 against the owners and parties interested in the said cargo claiming, inter alia, reward and/or remuneration for salvage service rendered. The particular reliefs claimed in the plaint are, inter alia, judgment against the cargo for Rs. 10,82,915.59p. arrest and sale of the cargo and payment of the proceeds thereof to the plaintiffs in protanto to satisfaction of their claim; an enquiry into salvage remuneration or reward payable to the plaintiffs, if necessary, and a decree for such sum. 2. The case in the plaint is, inter alia, that the cargo being Benzene of nitration grade was highly volatile, inflammable and was "dangerous petroleum" within the meaning of the Petroleum Act, 1934. On account of the seasonal high temperature, it is alleged that the tanks and holds of the Tanker had become full of gas and there was an imminent hazard of fire and explosion. 3. It is alleged that while at Diamond Harbour the Tanker had broken her anchorage cable. She had drifted and/or was so negligently managed that she had come to the edge of the Diamond Sands and ran the risk of running a ground and breaking herself apart. The cargo suffered further risk of fire and explosion as naked flames were being exposed on board. 4. It is alleged that the Commissioners having a statutory obligation to keep the Port of Calcutta and the navigational channel of the river Hooghly safe for shipping and allied activities, were obliged and decided to remove the cargo from the Tanker and unload the same into storage tanks or other installations on shore and necessary directions were accordingly obtained in the said Admiralty suit. 5. 5. To save the cargo, it is alleged, that the Commissioners were obliged to undertake or caused to be effected various works and repairs to the Tanker and to render various services to her outside the scope of their normal functions. The particulars of the aforesaid are alleged to be as follows :–– a) The Commissioners employed Shalimar Works Ltd. to effect necessary repairs to the Tanker. Such repairs were carried out under the direct supervision of the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4. b) The Tanker was brought to Budge Budge partly towed by the tug and fire-float Seva belonging to the Commissioners under the overall charge of the plaintiff No.2. c) Fire-float cum tug Nadia and fire-float Agnijit belonging to the Commissioners were deployed in the operation as a stand-by for emergencies and as a precautionary measure. d) At Budge Budge, the starboard boiler of the Tanker broke down. Steam was supplied from the Seva to the Tanker's cargo pump for discharge of the cargo. The boiler of Seva was considerably damaged in the process and Seva was decommissioned for five days for repairs. e) The cargo was off-loaded and pumped into storage tanks of Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India Ltd. at Budge Budge from the 25th May, 1970 till the 28th May, 1970. Fire-float Agnijit stood as a safeguard against any out-break of fire during the operation. f) Water boat Jaladhi belonging to the Commissioners was placed at the disposal of Shalimar Works Ltd. to expedite repairs. Motor launch Dasharath was utilized for transport of personnel and implements. g) The plaintiff No.2 made arrangements with Burmah Shelf Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. for storage of the cargo and also arranged with the Collector of Customs for allowing the discharge of the said cargo under Bond. h) By way of administrative supervision, extra personnel were arranged to act as crew and money was advanced for fresh water and fuel for the Tanker. i) A pump was removed from the vessel Tribeni and installed in the engine room of the Tanker. For the aforesaid, it is alleged that expenses amounting to Rs. 2,12,084/41 p. were incurred. 6. For saving the cargo, the plaintiffs it is alleged, undertook inter alia the following risks :–– a) The plaintiffs Nos.2, 3 and 4 personally participated in the said operation and had to run grave personal risks. For the aforesaid, it is alleged that expenses amounting to Rs. 2,12,084/41 p. were incurred. 6. For saving the cargo, the plaintiffs it is alleged, undertook inter alia the following risks :–– a) The plaintiffs Nos.2, 3 and 4 personally participated in the said operation and had to run grave personal risks. b) There was the risk of total loss of or considerable damage to the said fire floats and tugs as also the tools and equipments of Shalimar Works Ltd. 7. It is alleged that by reason of the aforesaid services the cargo was rescued from considerable danger and placed in safety. 8. The total value of the cargo is alleged to be Rs. 25,90,000/-. The salvage reward is assessed at half the value of the property salvaged i.e. Rs. 12,95,000/-. Actual costs of the entire operation viz. Rs. 2,12,084/41 p. having been provided for in the orders of this Court passed in the said Admiralty Suit No.3 of 1970 and made realizable against the Tanker, the plaintiffs in this suit claim balance of Rs. 10,82,915/59 p. 9. Pursuant to an order dated the 13th February, 1975 the plaint in this suit was amended and the Calcutta Port Trust, incorporated under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (Act XXXIII of 1963) as amended by the Major Port Trusts (Amendment) Act, 1974 was substituted in place of the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta. 10. A written statement has been filed on behalf of B.P. Chemicals (U. K.) Ltd. who claim to be the present owners of the cargo as endorses of the relative Bill of lading for value. 11. It is alleged in the written statement that neither the Tanker nor the cargo was in any danger as alleged in the plaint and that the Commissioners sought orders from the Court for unloading the cargo for the purpose of selling, the vessel and not with the object of ensuring the safety of the cargo. The unloading of the cargo facilitated the sale of the Tanker. 12. It is alleged that the cargo was unloaded and stored by Burmah Shell Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. at the latter's Budge Budge installation in consultation with the Master of the Tanker and the Commissioners. 13. The operation, it is contended, was not a salvage operation and in any event, was done pursuant to the orders of the Court. 13. The operation, it is contended, was not a salvage operation and in any event, was done pursuant to the orders of the Court. The claims of the plaintiffs for salvage is denied entirely. 14. The following issues were raised and settled at the trial :–– 1. Did the plaintiffs effect, undertake or cause to be effected various works and repairs mentioned in paragaph 12 of the plaint? Were such works outside the scope of the normal functions and duties of the plaintiffs? 2. Did the plaintiffs undertake the risk as alleged in paragraph 12 of the plaint? 3. Are the plaintiffs entitled to any reward as claimed in the plaint by way of or on account of salvage? 4. Was the unloading operation relating to the cargo carried out by Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. as alleged in paragraph 11 (e) and 12(a) of the written statement? 5. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them entitled? 15. The first witness at the trial was Anadi Nath Chakraborty, the plaintiff No.3. Since May, 1968 he had been the Deputy Director, Marine Department of the Port Commissioners. He stated that pursuant to a decision taken at a meeting of the Port Authorities held on the 8th May, 1970, he along with M.G. Kale, the plaintiff No.4 along with a representative of Shalimar Work Ltd. and a police party boarded the Tanker anchored at Diamond Harbour on the 9th May, 1970. The minutes of the meeting dated the 8th May, 1970 were tendered as Ext. A. On 9th May, 1970 he advanced money to the Master of the Tanker for provisions, appointed some crew and arranged for fuel and fresh water. 16. The Tanker was repaired under his general administrative control and under the supervision of Kale. The water boats Jaladhi and Baridhi and Motor launches Dasarath and Hilsa were deployed. A feed pump was detached from the survey vessel Triveni. transported to Diamond Harbour and fitted to the Tanker. The essential repairs having been executed at Diamond Harbour, the Tanker was brought to Budge Budge. He stated that the route from Diamond Harbour to Budge Budge had dangerous patches and required careful piloting. 17. The Tanker left Diamond Harbour and reached Budge Budge on the 15th May, 1970. He was on board the Tanker during the trip. 18. The essential repairs having been executed at Diamond Harbour, the Tanker was brought to Budge Budge. He stated that the route from Diamond Harbour to Budge Budge had dangerous patches and required careful piloting. 17. The Tanker left Diamond Harbour and reached Budge Budge on the 15th May, 1970. He was on board the Tanker during the trip. 18. The discharge of the cargo was commenced on the 26th May, 1970. During this operation the starboard boiler of the Tanker broke down and her cargo pump ceased to function. Steam was supplied to the cargo pump from the dispatch vessel Seva through an adapter. The boiler of the Seva was damaged in the process. He was on board the Tanker during the discharge of the cargo. 19. It was not a part of his normal duties to take over control of vessels in distress or to discharge their cargo. In course of the entire operation he had to be aboard the Tanker for a considerable period of time. 20. He stated that Benzene of Nitration grade is very volatile and its flash point is minus 11.11 degree centrigrade. If there be a concentration of over 8% of Benzene vapour in the atmosphere a naked flame would result in ignition. 21. At the relevant time, the draft of the Tanker was 20"3" forward and 20'6" cft. A plan of the Diamond Harbour region which indicated the depth of water at various points and at various tides, was tendered and marked as Ext. C. A tide table chart for Hooghly for the relevant period was tendered as Ext. D. The depth of the water on the 9th May, 1970 in the vicinity of the Tanker was around 23 to 24 ft. which gave the Tanker a minimum clearance. According to him the hazard of fire and risk of explosion in the Tanker continued till the entire cargo was discharged. 22. In cross examination he admitted that the Commissioners took charge of the Tanker in exercise of their lien for their statutory charges and on the authority of the order dated the 23rd April, 1970 passed in the said Admiralty suit. 23. 22. In cross examination he admitted that the Commissioners took charge of the Tanker in exercise of their lien for their statutory charges and on the authority of the order dated the 23rd April, 1970 passed in the said Admiralty suit. 23. He admitted further that on the 24th April, 1970 the Tanker constituted a danger to navigation in the river Hooghly and the Commissioners as the Conservator of the Calcutta Port were under a duty to keep the navigable channel free and had to remove the Tanker. The costs and charges of such removal were recoverable by the Commissioner under the Indian Ports Act, 1908. The Director, Marine Department had asked for volunteers in connection with the operation relating to the Tanker. He had volunteered for the operation before 8th May, 1970. 24. Employees of Shalimer Works Ltd. carried out the necessary repairs on board the Tanker and some of them also attended on board when she was moved to Budge Budge. 25. The volunteers viz. himself and the Engineering Superintendent Kale had not been insured. Minutes of the meeting of the officers of the Port Commissioners held on 3rd May, 1970 was tendered as Ext. 1 and his affidavit affirmed on 3rd March, 1970 in the said Admiralty Suit was tendered as Ext. 2. 26. The next witness for the plaintiffs was Jagadish Phadnis the Deputy Controller of Explosives in the Eastern Circle, Government of India 2nd expert on Explosives. In January 1970, he was employed as a Safety Officer under the Commissioners. He had visited the Tanker in January, February and March, 1970 and had submitted several reports on the Tanker respectively dated 16th January (Ext. E), 31st January, (Ext. F.), 9th February (Ext. G), 16th February (Ext. H) and 4th March, 1970 (Ext. I). 27. He stated that in February 1970, the Tanker was lying at Diamond Harbour, without electricity or steam. There was no fire extinguishing equipment on board. Ordinary lights were being burnt and the crew indulged in smoking. Kerosene lamps and candles were being used as anchor lights. He cited passages at pages 41 and 42 of the Text Book "Hand Book of Dangerous Materials" by N. Trving Saz (1951 Edition) to show the low flash point of Benzene and its dangerous nature. 28. The next witness for the plaintiffs was Mukund Govind Kale, the plaintiff No.4. He is a qualified engineer. He cited passages at pages 41 and 42 of the Text Book "Hand Book of Dangerous Materials" by N. Trving Saz (1951 Edition) to show the low flash point of Benzene and its dangerous nature. 28. The next witness for the plaintiffs was Mukund Govind Kale, the plaintiff No.4. He is a qualified engineer. In 1970, he was the Assistant Engineering Superintendent of the Calcutta Port Commissioners. He was actively engaged in the Tanker from 9th till 30th May, 1970. Prior thereto, he had found on inspection that none of the machinery in the Tanker were in working condition and there was neither power nor light. Substantial repairs were necessary before the Tanker could be moved. An operation plan with a covering letter dated 23rd May, 1970 from the plaintiff No.2 was tendered through him as Ext. J. Minutes of a meeting convened by the plaintiff No. 2 on 27th April, 1970 were tendered as Ext. K. 29. On 8th May, 1970 he had volunteered to take part in the operation of mobilizing the Tanker. Thereafter, repairs to the Tanker were undertaken with the help of Shalimar Works Ltd. who were engaged by the Commissioners. The entire repairs were carried out under his supervision. The bill of Shalimar Works Ltd. was tendered as Ext. 3. According to him large quantities of fume and gas had formed in the tanks of the vessel and there was always a danger of explosion and fire. 30. From 9th till 30th May, 1970, he had attended the Tanker everyday from about 8 a.m. till 12 p.m. The engine room of the Tanker was not more than 4 ft. above the bottom of the vessel. The cargo tanks were behind the engine room bulkhead. A welding set was put up on the water boat Baridhi for carrying out repairs to the Tanker. Some gas welding was done on board the Tanker in the machinery space. The Tanker was mobilized on 25th May, 1970 and brought to Budge Budge. He was in the engine room of the Tanker throughout and supervised the operation. During the discharge of the cargo he was stationed at the pump room of the Tanker. He took part thereafter in the degassing of her holds. 31. In cross examination, he stated that an Engineer along with fitters and greasers were deputed by the Shalimar Works Ltd. for the repairs to the Tanker. During the discharge of the cargo he was stationed at the pump room of the Tanker. He took part thereafter in the degassing of her holds. 31. In cross examination, he stated that an Engineer along with fitters and greasers were deputed by the Shalimar Works Ltd. for the repairs to the Tanker. About 20 or 30 persons took part in the work. For the Commissioners only he himself attended. Shalimar Works Ltd. did not charge anything extra for carrying out repairs under hazardous conditions. 32. The next witness was Banwarilal Mital, the plaintiff No.2. At the material time he was the Director, Marine Department of the Calcutta Port Authorities. He is a Master Mariner holding a certificate of Competency for foreign going vessels. 33. A number of correspondence and documents being exhibit K to exhibit T were tendered through him. 34. He had prepared the operation plan and after the meeting of the Officers of the Port commissioners convened by him on the 8th May 1970, Shalimar Works Ltd. were engaged by him to take up repairs of the Tanker. He was in charge of the operation and on the 25th May, 1970 he was on board the dispatch vessel Seva for six hours. 35. After the Master had handed over the control of the Tanker he decided to bring the Tanker to Budge Budge and salvage the cargo. This was a personal decision taken by him without reference to anybody else. 36. In cross examination, he admitted that the dues of the Commissioners had not been cleared when the Tanker was shifted from Diamond Harbour to Budge Budge. He admitted further that the decision to discharge the cargo was not recorded in the minutes of the meetings held on the 2nd May, and the 8th May, 1970 and further that after the Court gave liberty to the Commissioners to store the cargo, a decision was taken to discharge the same. Salvage had not been claimed against the Tanker as the vessel was not in danger. He stated that the whole object of the operation was to save the cargo and nothing else. This decision to save the cargo had not been taken when the application was made to this Court. 37. Salvage had not been claimed against the Tanker as the vessel was not in danger. He stated that the whole object of the operation was to save the cargo and nothing else. This decision to save the cargo had not been taken when the application was made to this Court. 37. In further examination he stated that for towing the Tanker to Budge Budge, the tug Seva had to be alongside the Tanker and the vessel Nadia had to follow though it was the recommendation of the Safety Officer that it would be dangerous to bring any steam or Diesel tug within 300 ft. of the Tanker. 38. The next witness was Captain Anadi Kumar Das, the Commander of the dispatch vessel Seva at the material time. The vessel Seva stood by the Tanker in April and May, 1970. He proved the relevant entries from original log book of Seva, respectively dated the 23rd and 24th April, the 8th to the 11th May, and the 18th and the 19th May, the 25th to the 30th May and the 10th and the 11th June 1970 (Ext.U). 39. The next witness Dharmbir Suri, a qualified hydrographic surveyor and an Associate Member of the Institution of Surveyors, India, was called to prove the copy plan (Ext.C). He stated that the figures mentioned in the plan were obtained on actual survey under his command in January, 1970 and indicated the depths of the water measured in feet. 40. The next witness Satish Chandra Majumder was the Chief Engineer of dispatch vessel Seva in 1970. He proved the entries dated the 25th to the 31st May and the 1st and the 2nd June, 1970 from the engine log book of Seva (Ext. V). 41. The next witness Ramesh Jogmohan Merchant was the Commander of the dispatch vessel Nadia in 1970. As directed by his superiors in 1970, he with his vessel had stood by the Tanker which was anchored at Diamond Harbour. He proved a number of entries from the log book of 'Nadia' in April and May 1970 (Ext W. series) 42. The last witness for the plaintiffs was Jethanand Jamaitrai Lakhani. In 1970 he was the Chief Engineer of the River Survey vessel Tribeni belonging to the Port Commissioners. He proved a number of entries from the log book of 'Nadia' in April and May 1970 (Ext W. series) 42. The last witness for the plaintiffs was Jethanand Jamaitrai Lakhani. In 1970 he was the Chief Engineer of the River Survey vessel Tribeni belonging to the Port Commissioners. He proved an entry dated the 16th May, 1970 in the log book of Tribeni, a letter No.CE/83 dated the 15th May, 1970 and a work permit No. 369 (Exts X. and 2). 43. No witness was called by the defendant. 44. The main controversy in this case has been whether the services rendered by the plaintiffs to the Tanker were in the nature of salvage. In that context it is necessary to consider what is salvage and what constitutes salvage service in law. In The Glenduroy (1871) LR 3 PC 589, cited on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Privy Council quotes with approval observations of Lord Stowell in "The Cliffton' , (1834) 3 Hagg, 117 on salvage as follows :–– "The ingredients of a salvage service are first enterprise in the salvors in going out in tempestuous weather to assist a vessel in distress, risking their own lives to save their fellow creatures and to rescue the property of their fellow subjects; secondly, the degree of danger and distress from which the property is rescued-whether it were in imminent peril or almost certainly lost, nothing out of it rescued and preserved; thirdly, the degree of labour and skill which the salvor incurred and displayed, and the time occupied. Lastly, the value. Where all those circumstances concur, a large and liberal reward ought to be given" 45. Kennedy's Civil Salvage, 4th Edition, describes salvage service at page 5 as follows :–– "A salvage service may be described sufficiently for practical purposes as a service which saves or helps to save a recognized subject of salvage when in danger, if the rendering of such service is voluntary in the sense of being solely attributable neither to pre-existing contractual or official duty owed to the owner of the salved property nor to the interest of self-preservation." 46. The following Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 are of relevance :–– Section 3(40): "Salvage" includes all expenses properly incurred by the salvor in the performance of salvage services. The following Sections of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 are of relevance :–– Section 3(40): "Salvage" includes all expenses properly incurred by the salvor in the performance of salvage services. Section 402(1): "Where services are rendered … … … … … … (b) In assisting a vessel or saving the cargo or equipment of a vessel which is wrecked, stranded or in distress at any place on or near the coasts of India there shall be payable to the salvor by the owner of the vessel, cargo, equipment or wreck, a reasonable sum for salvage having regard to all the circumstances of the case." Section 404 : "(1) The Central Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of this Part. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing person, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :–– (b) the principles to be followed in awarding salvage and the apportioning of salvage." 47. Rules under the said Section 404 of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act on salvage have not been framed and it was not disputed by the parties that the English law as to salvage would apply in the instant case. It was not disputed that the Tanker and her cargo of Benzene Nitrate if in distress could be lawful subjects of salvage. It was also not disputed that the Tanker with her cargo was on or near the coasts of India at the relevant time within the meaning of Section 402(1)(b) of the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. 48. Learned Counsel for the defendant, however, contended that there was no pleading in the plaint that the Tanker, the vessel in question was in distress. It was submitted that in the absence of such material pleading it was not open to the plaintiffs to claim salvage. 49. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is pleaded that on or about the 23rd April, 1970, the Tanker broke her anchorage cable and drifted and/or was so negligently managed that she came to the edge of the Diamond Sands and ran the risk of running aground and breaking herself into two. It has been further pleaded in paragraph 11 of the plaint that the boilers, the engine and other tackles of the Tanker needed essential repairs to mobilize the vessel. The claim in the plaint is specifically for salvage reward. It has been further pleaded in paragraph 11 of the plaint that the boilers, the engine and other tackles of the Tanker needed essential repairs to mobilize the vessel. The claim in the plaint is specifically for salvage reward. In my view, such pleadings are sufficient for the plaintiff to make a case that the Tanker was in danger and/or in distress. The parties have gone to trial on the issue of salvage. The plaintiffs have adduced evidence as to the state of the Tanker at the material time and it cannot be said that the defendant has been taken by surprise by the pleadings. I proceed to consider the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to show the state of the Tanker at the material time. The reports submitted by Phadnis, the Safety Officer of the Commissioners between January to March, 1970 respectively dated the 31st January, the 9th February, the 16th February and the 4th March, 1970 have been tendered as Exts. F, G, H and I. It appears from these reports that at the material time there was no fuel nor steam nor electricity nor any power in the Tanker. Her boilers were shut off and the batteries of her wireless were discharged leaving her without communication. The letter dated the 24th April, 1970 written by the Harbour Master (River) to the Director Marine Department (Ext.S) shows that on the 23rd April, 1970, the Tanker had lost her port anchor and one shackle of chain, and had dragged right on to the edge of the Diamond Sands and was in danger of running aground. The operational plan prepared by the Director, Marine Department on the 7th May, 1970 (Ext.J) corroborates that the Tanker was totally immobilized at the Diamond Harbour near the sands. 50. Anadi Nath Chakrbortty, the plaintiff No.3 has stated from the box that on or about the 25th May, 1970, the Tanker having a draft of about 20 ft. was lying with a minimum of clearance in waters of the depth of 23/24 ft. Kale, the plaintiff No.4, stated that he found on inspection that in May, 1970, none of the machinery of the Tanker was in working condition and she was without any power or light. 51. was lying with a minimum of clearance in waters of the depth of 23/24 ft. Kale, the plaintiff No.4, stated that he found on inspection that in May, 1970, none of the machinery of the Tanker was in working condition and she was without any power or light. 51. On behalf of the plaintiffs emphasis was laid on the fact that the Tanker was carrying volatile, combustible and dangerous cargo having a low flash point, viz., Nitrate of Benzene which was prone to generate inflammable gas. It was contended on the other hand on behalf of the defendant that because the cargo itself was inherently dangerous it cannot be said that the vessel was necessarily in distress as she was carrying such dangerous cargo. 52. It has also been contended on behalf of the defendant that long before the cargo was discharged at Budge Budge, the Tanker had been mobilized at Diamond Harbour and was no longer in distress. The services rendered thereafter either to the Tanker or to the cargo could not be salvage but would be in the nature of towage. 53. To show what constitutes danger or distress to a vessel and how long such distress and/or danger would be deemed to continue for the purpose of salvage, learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs cited a number of decisions which are considered hereafter in their chronological order. (a) (3) The Phantom (1866) L. R. 1 A&E 58 was cited for the following observation of Dr. Lushington (p. 60) : "I am of opinion that it is not necessary there should be absolute danger in order to constitute a salvage service; it is sufficient if there is a state of difficulty, and reasonable apprehension...... I think the removing of a vessel from an apprehended danger, and real danger, does partake of the character of salvage service." (b) (4) The Strathnaver (1875) 1 App. Cas. 58 was cited for the following observation in the judgment at page 65 of the report : "...... the law is laid down in the case of The Charlotte by Dr. Lushington. He say, 'It is not necessary, I conceive that the distress should be actual or immediate, or that the danger should be imminent and absolute : (c) (5) The Troilus (1951) A.C. 820. the law is laid down in the case of The Charlotte by Dr. Lushington. He say, 'It is not necessary, I conceive that the distress should be actual or immediate, or that the danger should be imminent and absolute : (c) (5) The Troilus (1951) A.C. 820. The facts in this case were that S.S. Troilus lost her propeller in the Indian Ocean and sent out calls for assistance. The vessel Stentor came forward in answer to such call and towed Troilus to a safe anchorage in the Port of Aden. A proposal that a new propeller should be dispatched from the U.K. and fitted at Aden was considered to be impractical. After negotiations M.V. Glenogle was engaged and she towed Troilus through the Suez Canal to Falmouth in the U.K. The owners of the cargo preferred an appeal against a salvage award made, in favour of Glenogle against them on the ground that the voyage from Aden and/or a Suez was merely an ocean towage and not salvage. It was held by the Appeal Court that the Troilus was admittedly in a state of danger when she was picked up by the first salvor. Troilus came to anchor in Aden as a temporary measure and not on a permanent and secure anchorage. As such, the state of danger within the meaning of salvage law continued when the second salvor took over. On further appeal, the House of Lords affirmed the judgment of the Appeal Court and held that although the ship and the cargo were in physical safety at Aden it would be the duty of the Master of a damaged ship to bring the ship and cargo to the destination as cheaply and as efficiently as possible keeping in mind the deterioration of the cargo and the possibility of expenses and delay. The services rendered by Glenogle were held to be in the nature of salvage. (d) (6) The Tower Bridge (1936) p. 30. This case was cited for the proposition that even advice or information given in order to save a vessel tram a local danger might amount to a salvage service. Here the vessel in distress was in perfect working order but she had entered into an ice field and sent an S.O.S. message. By the time the salvor vessel reached the scene, the salved vessel had reached clear waters. Here the vessel in distress was in perfect working order but she had entered into an ice field and sent an S.O.S. message. By the time the salvor vessel reached the scene, the salved vessel had reached clear waters. The salvor stood by and instructed the salved vessel on her courses, which took her clear off the ice. It was held that definite salvage service had been rendered. (e) (7) The Glaucus (1948) 81 Ll. L. Rep. 262. In this case S.S. Glaucus in the course of a voyage from the Far East to the U.K. became disabled in the Indian Ocean due to a damaged boiler. She was towed to Aden by S.S. Rhesus Repairs could not be effected at Aden and S.S. Antenor towed Glaucus to Suez for eight days. On a claim for salvage reward made by the respective owners of both S.S. Rhesus and S.S. Antenor, it was contended that the services rendered by S.S. Antenor were not salvage service as at the time when suck services were rendered Glaucus had already reached a safe port. On these facts it was held by Willmer, J. that at all material times Glaucus was a damaged ship incapable of any maneuver whatsoever under her own power. She continued to be in a state of danger even when she was taken to Aden. Salvage was awarded for services rendered by S.S. Antenor. (f) Kennedy's' Civil Salvage, 4th Edition, page 20, was cited for the following observation "There is no doubt that in one common class of salvage claim, viz., that which is made for towing a ship which has received damage, the Court of Admiralty has always taken in respect of the possibility of danger a very liberal view in favour of the claim". 54. On the uncontroverted documentary and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs as discussed above and on the authorities cited, I hold that the Tanker was in distress and difficulty in May, 1970 and there was reasonable apprehension of some danger to her and her cargo. I hold further, that such state of distress continued though in a lesser degree even after she was partially mobilized at Diamond Harbour, brought back to Budge Budge moorings where her cargo was discharged. I hold further, that such state of distress continued though in a lesser degree even after she was partially mobilized at Diamond Harbour, brought back to Budge Budge moorings where her cargo was discharged. I also hold that the Tanker because she was carrying a dangerous cargo was being exposed to some additional danger because of her loss of mobility and maneuverability. 55. On behalf of the defendant, it was contended next that even assuming the Tanker was in distress or in apprehended danger, the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, a statutory body, had only performed their statutory duties and obligations in removing the Tanker from Diamond Harbour to Budge Budge in order to free the navigable channel of the river. Further and in any event, the Commissioners in removing the Tanker and discharging her cargo as aforesaid were acting under the Orders of Court, which duly provided for the entire costs, charges and expenses incurred in the process. It was contended next that the Commissioners were interested in the Tanker as creditors on account of unpaid statutory port charges and the immediate and primary object of the Commissioners, if not the only object, in rescuing the Tanker and discharging her cargo was to proceed against the vessel to realize such dues. With that object in view, the Commissioners obtained the order dated the 23rd April, 1970 to proceed against the Tanker. The Commissioners, it is contended, were motivated by interest of self-preservation. When they obtained possession of the Tanker under the said order dated the 23rd April, 1970, they became the bailees of the cargo therein and as such bailees, it was their duty to make over the cargo to its owner in the same condition as it was received by them. On behalf of the plaintiffs it was contended on the other hand that they had no statutory duty or obligation to the cargo carried in the Tanker or any pecuniary interest therein. The services rendered by them to the cargo were entirely voluntary and they are lawfully entitled to claim salvage reward against the cargo. In support of the respective contentions, as aforesaid a number of decisions were cited at the Bar. The decisions cited on behalf of the plaintiffs are considered first. (a) (8) "The Sarpen" (19]6) p. 306. In this case the Tug Simla had been requisitioned by the British Admiralty. In support of the respective contentions, as aforesaid a number of decisions were cited at the Bar. The decisions cited on behalf of the plaintiffs are considered first. (a) (8) "The Sarpen" (19]6) p. 306. In this case the Tug Simla had been requisitioned by the British Admiralty. While stationed in the Kirkwell Bay, the tug. with the consent of the Commander of the Northern Patrol, rendered service to, S. S. Sarpen, a Norwegian vessel, aground in the Orkneys. In a salvage action brought by the owners, the master and the crew of Simla against Sarpen, its cargo and freight, it was contended that Simla being a ship belonging to the British Government within the meaning of Section 557 of the Merchant Shipping Act, I 944 could not claim salvage. It was contended further, that the services rendered by Simla under the orders of the Naval Authorities were not voluntary. It was held that the mere requisition of the tug without terms and conditions being agreed upon did not amount to her demise. It was held further that Simla was not a ship belonging to the Government within the meaning of the said Act, and was entitled to prosecute a claim for salvage. On the question of voluntariness it was observed in the judgment as follows :–– (p.315). "The test of voluntariness is only applicable as between the salvor and salved, and if the services be voluntary in relation to the salved, i.e. not rendered by reason of any obligation towards him, it is quite immaterial that the salvor has been ordered by some one who has control of his movements to render them" (b) (9) The Carrie (1917) P. 224. The facts in this case are carrie, a Swedish vessel carrying a cargo of munitions for the French Government, was stopped in the English Channel on the 1st October, 1917 by a German Submarine, Prepatory to the sinking of the ship the crew of Carrie were ordered to take to boats. At that time armed trawlers of the British Navy appeared in the vicinity and the submarine submerged. The crew having refused to return to the ship, the trawlers stood by the vessel and eventually towed her to Falmouth. The Commander, officers and crew of the trawlers brought an action claiming salvage remuneration against Carrie. No claim was made against the cargo as it belonged to an ally. The crew having refused to return to the ship, the trawlers stood by the vessel and eventually towed her to Falmouth. The Commander, officers and crew of the trawlers brought an action claiming salvage remuneration against Carrie. No claim was made against the cargo as it belonged to an ally. It was, inter alia, contended by the defendants that the plaintiffs were not entitled to salvage as the vessel was carrying cargo for the French Government which the plaintiffs were under a duty to save. The saving of the ship was a mere incident of the saving of the cargo from war peril. It was held by the Court that as the crew had refused to return, the ship was saved not only from enemy attack but also from ordinary maritime peril as without the assistance rendered she would have been left derelict in an open sea. Extending the principles laid down in Sarpen (supra) Hill J. observed as follows : "If the services be voluntary in relation to part of the salved property, i.e., not rendered by reason of any obligation to the owner of it, it is quite immaterial that the salvor is under a duty to someone else to render service to another part of the salved property. Assuming, therefore, that the plaintiffs were under a duty to the cargo, I think that does not prevent them being salvors of the ship. They have, in fact, saved the ship for the Swedish owners. Whatever was their duty to their own country or to France, they were under no duty to the Swedish owners to save the Swedish ship. They are, therefore, entitled to claim as salvors in respect of the ship." (c) (10) The Kangaroo (1918) P. 327. During the 1914-18 war. M.V. Kangaroo, while proceeding in a convoy with other vessels, developed engine troubles and dropped behind. Politician. another vessel of the convoy offered to tow the Kangaroo. The Commander of the escorting worship accepted the offer and ordered the Politician to take the Kangaroo in tow. The Master of the Kangaroo accepted the service under protest. The Kangaroo was towed for six and a half days covering about 900 miles. Politician. another vessel of the convoy offered to tow the Kangaroo. The Commander of the escorting worship accepted the offer and ordered the Politician to take the Kangaroo in tow. The Master of the Kangaroo accepted the service under protest. The Kangaroo was towed for six and a half days covering about 900 miles. On a claim for salvage on behalf of the Politician it was held that the Kangaroo though not immobilized was in danger of enemy attack and, therefore, it was immaterial whether the services were accepted under protest or the Commander of the escort had in fact ordered towing. The services rendered were held to be salvage. (d) (11) The Lomonosoff (1921) p. 97. This case was cited for the proposition that the existence of an interest of self-preservation did not necessarily take the service rendered by the salvors beyond the scope of voluntariness if the salvors had other motivation. The plaintiffs in this case were two British and two Belgian Officers and twenty three Bengian Soldiers who were in Murmansk in February, 1920 on their way to join services under then Government of Northern Russia when the town and the port of Murmansk were seized by the Bolsheviks in a rising. The plaintiffs were in personal danger of being apprehended and executed. Though they had a choice of escaping to Norway by land they chose an escape route by sea and boarded S.S. Lomonos off lying at the Murmsank Harbour under the flag of Northern Russia. The plaintiffs case off the vessel, helped to raise sufficient steam and returning heavy fire from the shore and other ships in the harbour escaped from the port. The vessel was navigated to Tromso with the assistance of the plaintiffs and handed over to the representatives of the owners. Against the plaintiffs' claim for salvage remuneration it was contended that they did not act as volunteers but only saved their own lives. Hill J. held as follows :–– "It is true that in saving the Lomonosoff they were effecting also their own escape.....but they had other means of escape. They could have done what the others did get away by sleigh to the Norwegian frontier. They chose not to do that......they determined to try and, take a ship with them and selected the Lomonosoff as giving them the best chance...... They could have done what the others did get away by sleigh to the Norwegian frontier. They chose not to do that......they determined to try and, take a ship with them and selected the Lomonosoff as giving them the best chance...... "It not infrequently happens that a salvor in saving property is also saving himself..... and where in a case like the present the salvor has two means of saving himself and elects one which also saves maritime property I have no doubt that qua that property he is a volunteer." 56. The decisions cited on behalf of the defendants on this point are as follows :–– (a) (12) The Cites (1925) 22 Ll. L. Rep. 275. In this case this steamer Citos had been adrift near Pentland firth without power and abandoned by her crew. Acting under Section 531 of the English Merchant Shipping Act, which empowered them to remove vessels obstructing or endangering navigation, the Commissioner of the Northern Lighthouse directed their steamer Pole-Star to secure the derelict and remove it from the shipping tract. The Pole-Star found the derelict, took her in tow and brought her to a safe anchorage. The Master and crew of the Pole-Star subsequently claimed salvage for services rendered. It was held that most of what they had done was within their duty as servants of the Light House Authority acting under the said statute and disentitled them from claiming salvage. But for that part of the services which went outside their statutory duty they were entitled to salvage. (b) (13) The Mars and Other Barges (1948) 81 LIL Rep. 452. The facts in this case were that on the night of the 15/16th May, 1946, eleven dumb barges laden with cargo belonging to the British Government brok away from their moorings near Tilbury Jetty and proceeded to drift up the river Thames. Patrol Launch Bay Mark belonging to the Port of London Authority was ordered to set out, locate the drifters and take suitable stapes. The Bay Mark located the barges, two of her crew were put on board the barges and after some difficult and dangerous maneuvering at serious personal risk the barges were mustered and brought under tow and with the help of another tug were finally brought back to safety. The Bay Mark located the barges, two of her crew were put on board the barges and after some difficult and dangerous maneuvering at serious personal risk the barges were mustered and brought under tow and with the help of another tug were finally brought back to safety. The claim for salvage by the crew of Bay Mark was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that it was the duty of the Port of London Authority to do what had been done by Bay Mark, Under Section 43 of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1923, the Port Authority had power to remove anything causing obstruction or impediment in Port. Wilmer J. held that though the section grants only a permissive power, the authority having such power and also collecting charges from the shipping using the Port was under a duty in law to see that the channel was safe and it was also the duty of the authority to exercise the power conferred by the statute. The learned judge made it clear that mere existence of a statutory duly automatically and of itself did not exclude the possibility of a claim for salvage and held that in very exceptional cases where the; services rendered by the servants of a public authority went outside their statutory or common law duty they could claim salvage : on the facts, he held that the crew of Bay Mark had in fact rendered services substantially outside their ordinary duties as the servants of the Port of London Authority and they were entitled to a salvage reward. On the quantum of such reward he held that personal services could not be remunerated in the same scale as services which involved risk to property. An award of Pound 75 was made for the entire crew though the property saved was valued at over Pound 16,000. 57. The Indian Posts Act, 1906, inter alia, authorizes the Port authorities in India including those of the Port of Calcutta, to keep the navigation in the Ports free. Section 10 of the Act inter alia provides : "The conservator may remove or cause to be removed, any timber, raft or other things, floating or being in any part of any such port, which in his opinion obstructs or impedes the free navigation thereof. ………………. Section 10 of the Act inter alia provides : "The conservator may remove or cause to be removed, any timber, raft or other things, floating or being in any part of any such port, which in his opinion obstructs or impedes the free navigation thereof. ………………. If any vessel is wrecked, stranded or sunk in any such port so as to impede, or be likely to impede, the navigation thereof, the conservator may cause the vessel to be raised, removed or destroyed." 58. In the instant case it is specifically pleaded in the plaint that : (a) in discharge of their statutory obligation to keep the Port of Calcutta and the navigational channel of the river Hooghly safe for shipping and allied activities, the Commissioners were obliged and decided to remove the cargo from the Tanker and unload the same; and (b) the cargo was in imminent danger of being lost and had become a source of serious danger to other vessels, river crafts and their crew using the river in the vicinity and also to the source and purity of drinking water of the inhabitants of Calcutta. 59. In the affidavit affirmed by the plaintiff No.3 on the 3rd March, 1970, in the said Admiralty Suit (Ext.2) it is, inter alia, alleged as follows :–– "The presence of the said Tanker without any motive power of her own is a constant source of danger and unnecessary hazard to the Port......" "There is every possibility of fire being caught to the said cargo and the risk to shipping and navigation, port and the said Tanker by an accident is accentuated. "For the safety of the Port, shipping and navigation in general the master of the said Tanker should be forthwith directed to mobilize the said Tanker...... Further to avoid any danger to the part the Master of the said Tanker and the shippers should be forthwith directed to unload the cargo from the said Tanker and keep the same in the proper storage tanks ....." 60. On the basis of the above this Court was persuaded to make the order in the said Admiralty Suit on the 3rd March, 1970 and vary the same on the 10th March, 1970, inter alia directing the Commissioners to unload the cargo and store the same (Ext.10). 61. On the basis of the above this Court was persuaded to make the order in the said Admiralty Suit on the 3rd March, 1970 and vary the same on the 10th March, 1970, inter alia directing the Commissioners to unload the cargo and store the same (Ext.10). 61. Section 42 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 and Section 121 of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890, both empower the port authorities to detain, distrain and arrest vessels for realization of tolls, duty and charges payable under the respective Act and if necessary, to cause the vessel to be sold and the dues realized from the proceeds thereof. 62. In the affidavit affirmed by the plaintiff No.3 on the 16th April, 1970 ( Ext. 4) in the said Admiralty Suit it was alleged, inter alia, as follows :–– After the arrival of the said vessel at the Port of Calcutta various sums became and is still due and payable by the said vessel to the Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta on account of port-dues, fees and/or other charges and on account of tolls, dues, rates, penalties and charges under the Indian Ports Act, 1908 and of the Calcutta Port Act, 1890 respectively......... Since the said vessel has been arrested by the Marshall under an order made by this Hon'ble Court and is still under arrest satisfaction of the dues of the Commissioners by means and/or process laid down by the said statutes, cannot be had except by leave of this Hon'ble Court.......... 63. On the basis of the aforesaid an order was passed in the said Admiralty suit by this Court on the 23rd April, 1970 giving liberty to the Commissioners to proceed against the Tanker for realization of their dues (Ext. 6). 64. The plaintiff No.3 admitted in cross-examination that on the 24th April, 1970 the Tanker constituted a danger to navigation in the river and the Commissioners as conservators of the Calcutta Port were under a duty to keep the navigable channel free and had to remove the Tanker. He also admitted that the Commissioners in exercise of their statutory lien took over possession of the Tanker on the authority of the said order dated the 23rd April, 1970. 65. Under the relevant Port Acts referred to earlier the Commissioners undoubtedly have power to remove anything causing obstruction to the navigation in the Port. Following Mars. He also admitted that the Commissioners in exercise of their statutory lien took over possession of the Tanker on the authority of the said order dated the 23rd April, 1970. 65. Under the relevant Port Acts referred to earlier the Commissioners undoubtedly have power to remove anything causing obstruction to the navigation in the Port. Following Mars. and other Barges (supra) I hold that this power coupled with the right of the Commissioners to collect tolls, dues and other charges conferred by the same Act, is transformed into a statutory duty und it is incumbent on the Commissioners to exercise such powers to keep the navigation in the Port clear. 66. The Commissioners admittedly proceeded on this basis. This case is made in the plaint. This case was reiterated in the affidavits of the plaintiff No.3 and was again admitted by him in cross-examination. 67. Admittedly the Commissioners had a statutory lien on the Tanker in respect of their dues and charges and they intended to enforce such lien in order to realize their dues. With this object in view the Commissioners obtained the said order on the 23rd April, 1970 whereby liberty was given to them to proceed against the Tanker. 68. In the Sarpen (supra) the salvor vessel was under no duty to any person or property except that having been requisitioned without any terms and conditions, she required a formal permission from the Governmental Authority before she could set out to render salvage service. In The Carrie (supra) it was successfully contended by the salvors that they had no duty what so ever to the salved vessel, it being admitted that there was a duty to the cargo. In The Kangaroo (supra), the salvor vessel again had no duty to the other vessels in the convoy though the services offered by the salvors were reinforced by an order of the Commander of the escorting warship. 69. The facts in each of these cases are distinguishable from the facts before me. The plaintiffs in this case undoubtedly did not owe any duty either to the Tanker or to her cargo as such but they had a supervening duty to the Calcutta Port whose safety was being affected by the presence of the disabled vessel carrying dangerous cargo. The facts in each of these cases are distinguishable from the facts before me. The plaintiffs in this case undoubtedly did not owe any duty either to the Tanker or to her cargo as such but they had a supervening duty to the Calcutta Port whose safety was being affected by the presence of the disabled vessel carrying dangerous cargo. Further, in none of the cases cited on behalf of the plaintiffs did the salvors have any preexisting pecuniary interest in the salved property nor was such property under the custody of a Court as in the case here. 70. In my view, the principle laid down in the Mars. and the other Barges (supra) does apply in the facts in the instant case. 71. Needless to say the Tanker could not be sold without discharging the cargo. There was no other alternative course upon to the Commissioners to realize their dues. This fact distinguishes the present case from that of The Lomonosoff (supra), where the salvors having alternative means of saving their lives elected the course which resulted in saying of maritime property. 72. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs, and in my opinion rightly, that the law of salvage is based on principles of equity. In the Teh Hu 1969 (3) WLR 1135 Lord Denning observed as follows :–– "The maritime law as to salvage is a peculiarly equitable jurisdiction. It seeks to do what is fair and just both to the salvor and to the owners of the ship and cargo which is saved". 73. In the present case the Tanker having been arrested by this Court in the said Admiralty suit could not have been proceeded against by the Commissioners without the leave of the Court. The Commissioner represented before this Court that it was their statutory duty to remove the Tanker and her cargo which were causing danger to the port and also that it was necessary for the Commissioners to proceed against the Tanker to realize their statutory dues. These were the only representations made and there was no whisper that it was also the intention of the Commissioners to save the cargo. On the basis of such representations this Court permitted the Commissioners to take charge of and proceed against a property in custodia legis. These were the only representations made and there was no whisper that it was also the intention of the Commissioners to save the cargo. On the basis of such representations this Court permitted the Commissioners to take charge of and proceed against a property in custodia legis. It would be contrary to the principles of equity and justice to allow the Commissioners to assert now that it was also their secret intention to salvage the cargo which was in danger. Significantly in none of the contemporaneous records and documents exhibited in this case the decision of the plaintiffs to salvage the cargo has been recorded. The evidence of the plaintiff No. 2 is that the decision to salvage the cargo was his personal decision. The evidence of the plaintiff No. 3 is that the plaintiff No.2 had asked for volunteers. This was corroborated by the plaintiff No.2. 74. For the reasons as above I hold that the services rendered by the plaintiff No. 1 to the Tanker were not voluntary inasmuch as Commissioners were under a statutory duty and were motivated by self-interest. Accordingly, the services rendered by the plaintiff No. 1 cannot be held to be by way of salvage. 75. The claims of the plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have to be considered next. It is contended that the personal services rendered by the said plaintiffs went far beyond their normal duties as officers of the port authority and independently of the plaintiff No. 1 they were entitled to claim remuneration for salvage in any event. 76. In support of such claim the following decisions were cited on behalf of the plaintiffs. 77. (15) The Thetis 166 ER 312. The facts of this case were that the Thetis a ship belonging to the British Government sailed from Rio carrying valuable specie worth over 8,10,000 dollars and she was wrecked by drifting into a cove surrounded by high rocks. Rear Admiral Sir Thomas Baker, the Commander-in-Chief of the South American station of the Royal Navy at Rio and Captain Thomas Dickinson of the H. M. Sloop "Lightning" commenced salvage operations which went on for about 18 months and property of the value of over 7,50,000 dollars was recovered. Rear Admiral Sir Thomas Baker, the Commander-in-Chief of the South American station of the Royal Navy at Rio and Captain Thomas Dickinson of the H. M. Sloop "Lightning" commenced salvage operations which went on for about 18 months and property of the value of over 7,50,000 dollars was recovered. On a claim for salvage reward the Court found that the persons engaged for salvage including Captain Dickinson had shown great ingenuity in construction of special equipments for the operation which was carried on under extremely difficult circumstances, in tropical climate and at serious hazard to the health of the persons working. The Court held that the services of the Admiral went much beyond the performance of mere official duties and that he was entitled to a share of the salvage as having contributed material assistance as a principle salvor. The Court held further that Captain Dickinson having been entrusted with the immediate command of the enterprise had acted as a primary salvor. 78. (6) The Nile (1875) L.R. 4A & E. 449. The facts in this case were that the ship Nile became disabled and was in distress outside the port of Porto Grande in the Island of St. Vincent. The Captain of H.M.S. Simoon at anchor at that port sent information to the Muster of S.S. Finisterre under charter to the Government and gave the latter necessary permission to render salvage service. Finisterre with a Lieutenant and a party from Simoon on board, towed the Nile to a place of safety. Salvage was awarded not only to the owners, master and crew of Finisterre but following The Thetis (supra) salvage was also awarded to the Captain of Simoon, on the ground that the salvage service had originated with him and also to the Lieutenant and the party from Simoon on board Finisterre on the ground that they had personally assisted in the service. 79. (17) Cargo ex Ulysses (1888) 13 P.D. 205. In this case, the salved vessel with a valuable cargo on board foundered on a reef off an uninhabited island in Red Sea near the main land. The crew in order to save the vessel began to jettison part of the cargo by throwing them in shallow water. Persons from the main land began to plunder such jettisoned cargo. A ship belonging to the British Navy was in the vicinity. The crew in order to save the vessel began to jettison part of the cargo by throwing them in shallow water. Persons from the main land began to plunder such jettisoned cargo. A ship belonging to the British Navy was in the vicinity. Her Commander came to rescue and anchored near the vessel in distress. Crew of the naval ship were deputed as sentinels on the main land and others were employed in discharging the cargo. The, sentinels were exposed to severe heat in the sun. The crew discharging the cargo worked in the hold of the ship in foul water upto their waist. The cargo was discharged, hauled across the reef to the main land and stored and guarded by the sentinels. Salvage reward was claimed by the Captain and the crew of the naval ship but not by the British Admiralty. It was held that the services rendered by the Captain and the crew were beyond the scope of their public duty and as such amounted to salvage. In apportioning the reward the Court allowed a higher rate to the members of the crew who had performed the more onerous task of handling the cargo. 80. In answer, "The Gregoroso" (1971) A.E.R. p. 961, was cited on behalf of the defendant. The facts in this case were that M. V. Kungso a Finnish ship outward bound from Boston, Linconshire grounded in the north bank of the river in an athwart position obstructing entry to and exit from the Port. Kungso called for assistance from Boston and a tug with the Dock and Harbour Master on board came and freed Kungso by the next morning. For the services rendered, the Dock Authorities, the Harbour Master and also the master and crew of the tug claimed reward for salvage which has resisted on the ground that as the vessel was causing obstruction to the Port it was the plaintiffs' duly to remove the obstruction. The services rendered therefor it was contended did not have the quality of voluntariness essential to salvage. Brandon, J. following Citos (supra) and the Mars and other Barges (supra) gave his judgment as follows :–– "...... It was, in my view, the duty of the Boston Corporation, as the port authority to exercise as a matter of urgency, the power of removal conferred on it by the various statutes...... Brandon, J. following Citos (supra) and the Mars and other Barges (supra) gave his judgment as follows :–– "...... It was, in my view, the duty of the Boston Corporation, as the port authority to exercise as a matter of urgency, the power of removal conferred on it by the various statutes...... This duty was owned by the Corporation to all users of the port including the owner of the Kungso himself. The work done by the employees was, as I find, within the ordinary work which they were respectively employed to do..... I am of opinion that the operation of the freeing the Kungso was not voluntary as that term is understood in salvage law, and that neither the Boston Corporation nor its employees are entitled to recover salvage for carrying it out." 81. According to the plaint, the plaintiff No.2 was in overall charge of the entire operation and in the process took a Humber of technical and administrative decisions including that of deploying the Water Boat Jaladhi to expedite the repair works making arrangements with Messrs Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. for storage of the cargo and also in making arrangements with the Customs Authorities for discharge of the cargo under Bond. Apart from that it is alleged that the plaintiff No. 2 was personally involved and participated in the said operation and ran great personal risk. 82. The plaintiff No.2 has stated from the box that he had prepared the operational plan and was in charge of the operation. On the 25th May, 1970, when the Tanker was being towed to Budge Budge he was on board the dispatch vessel Seva for six hours. 83. It is similarly alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff No.3 was responsible for administrative supervision of the operation and arranged inter alia for extra personnel, payment of money by way of advance to the Master of the Tanker and making arrangements for supply of fresh Water and fuel. He also participated in the operation at personal risk. 84. The evidence of the plaintiff No.3 is that he took charge or the Tanker along with a Police party on the 9th May, 1970. He was on board the Tanker on the 25th May, 1970 while she was towed to Budge Budge. During the unloading operation he was also present on board. 85. 84. The evidence of the plaintiff No.3 is that he took charge or the Tanker along with a Police party on the 9th May, 1970. He was on board the Tanker on the 25th May, 1970 while she was towed to Budge Budge. During the unloading operation he was also present on board. 85. I have already held that it was a statutory duty of the Commissioners to remove the Tanker and the cargo. Such duty could only be performed through the agency of the employees of the Commissioners. Therefore, all the acts of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 in their administrative and/or official capacities must be held to be within the scope of their normal duties and for such acts and services they are not entitled to any salvage reward. 86. The only personal participation by the plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 appears to be that the plaintiff No. 2 was present on board the vessel Seva on the 25th May, 1970 when she followed the Tanker. Similarly, the plaintiff No.3 was present on board the Tanker on the 9th May, and the 25th May, 1970 and during the unloading operation. There is no evidence as to what actual service they rendered or whether they were present as mere spectators. In any event there is no evidence that the services rendered by them, if any, were beyond the scope of their normal duties. The personal risk, if any, undertaken by them do not appear to be of any great magnitude us by the 25th May, 1970 the Tanker had been mobilized and her fire fighting equipment had been made operative. 87. It is in evidence that the Tanker had been repaired by an independent contractor Shalimar Works Ltd. who had deputed an Engineer along with fitters and greasers for the purpose. Some of them were in attendance when the Tanker was towed to Budge Budge. Shalimar Works Ltd. did not charge any special rate for undertaking repair work in hazardous conditions. It is in evidence that welding machinery was used in the machinery space of the Tanker in the course of repairs without any fire being caused. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that neither the plaintiff No. 2 nor the plaintiff No. 3 is entitled to claim any salvage for the personal services if any rendered by them. 88. It is in evidence that welding machinery was used in the machinery space of the Tanker in the course of repairs without any fire being caused. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that neither the plaintiff No. 2 nor the plaintiff No. 3 is entitled to claim any salvage for the personal services if any rendered by them. 88. The claim of the plaintiff No. 4 however stands on a slightly different footing. The plaintiff No. 4 is an Engineer and as such a technical man. The case in the plaint is that repairs to the Tanker were carried out under the direct supervision of the plaintiff No. 4. The plaintiff No. 4 has deposed that he boarded the Tanker on the 9th May, 1970 and supervised the repairs. He was present in the engine room of the Tanker below the water level from the 9th May, till the 30th May, 1970, from 8 a.m. in the morning till 9 p.m. at night and attended the Tanker. Throughout the trip from Diamond Harbour to Budge Budge he was present in the engine room and during the discharge of the cargo he was stationed at the pump room of the Tanker. This evidence of the plaintiff No. 4 is uncontradicted. 89. The plaintiff No. 4 s an engineer was in a position to render special service and his unchallenged evidence is that he exerted himself beyond the scope of his normal duties and exposed himself to some risk though not as great a risk as has been depicted by the plaintiffs. Taking an extremely liberal view in favour of the salvors and on the uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff No. 4 I hold (though I confess with some hesitation) that the plaintiff No. 4 rendered some service outside the scope of his ordinary and normal duties as an employee of the plaintiff No. 1 and is entitled to some salvage reward both from the Tanker and her cargo. 90. What remains to be considered is the assessment of the salvage reward payable to the plaintiff No. 4. The ingredients and incidents of a salvage service which determines the award has been set out in Kennedy’s Civil Salvage, 4th Edition at pp. 173 to 190. 90. What remains to be considered is the assessment of the salvage reward payable to the plaintiff No. 4. The ingredients and incidents of a salvage service which determines the award has been set out in Kennedy’s Civil Salvage, 4th Edition at pp. 173 to 190. Some of the relevant ingredients appear to be as follows : (a) degree of danger to the salved property (b) the value of the property salved (c) the degree of danger to the salvor (d) the skill and conduct of the salvor (e) the time occupied and work done in the performance of the salvage service. 91. It appears that in English law there is difference in judicial opinions as to the relative importance of these ingredients. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that it is the value of the salved property which should mainly govern the reward and in support of this contention the decision in the case of The Werra (1886) 12 PD 52 was cited. The Court held in that case that the first thing to be considered is the value of the property salved. But the Privy Council has laid down in The Amerique (1874) LR 6 PC 468 as follows : "The rule seems to be that though the value of the property solved is to be considered in the estimate of the remuneration, it must not be allowed to raise the quantum to an amount altogether out of proportion to the services actually rendered". 92. I have already held that the degree of danger to the Tanker and her cargo was not as great as depicted by the plaintiffs. It does not appear that the plaintiff No. 4 exposed himself to any particular or extra hazard, the repair work having been directly carried out by the Shalimar Works Ltd. There is no evidence of any particular skill or ingenuinty displayed by the plaintiff No. 4. Beyond being present at the scene of operations for long stretches for a continuous period in the Tanker nothing in particular seems to have been done by this plaintiff. The term of the contract between the Commissioners and the Shalimar Works Ltd. were neither disclosed nor proved. Beyond being present at the scene of operations for long stretches for a continuous period in the Tanker nothing in particular seems to have been done by this plaintiff. The term of the contract between the Commissioners and the Shalimar Works Ltd. were neither disclosed nor proved. These terms would have shown whether the plaintiff No. 4 was at all entitled to supervise the repairs which were being carried out by n independent contractor and also taking into account that the plaintiff No. 4, has rendered personal service of a minimal nature. 93. Taking all these factors into account I assess the claim of the plaintiff No. 4 at Rs. 12,000/- No claim having been preferred against the Tanker, I hold the cargo liable to pay one third of this amount i.e. Rs. 4,000/-. 94. On the basis of the findings as above I answer the issues as follows :–– Issue No.1 : Did the plaintiffs effect, under or cause to be effected various works and repairs mentioned in paragraph 12 of the plaint? Were such works outside the scope of the normal functions, and duties of the plaintiffs? The first part of the issue is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiffs. The second part is answered in the negative except that it is held that a part of the work done by the plaintiff No.4 was outside the scope of his normal duties. 95. Issue No.2 : Did the plaintiffs undertake the risk as alleged in paragraph 12 of the plaint ? This issue is answered partly in favour of the plaintiffs and partly in favour of the defendant. It is held that the plaintiff No. 1 risked its property and the plaintiff No.4 suffered flame personal risk. It is held on the other hand that the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not suffer any personal risk. 95. Issue No.3 : Are the plaintiffs entitled to any reward as claimed in the plaint by way of or on account of salvage ? This issue is answered only in favour of the plaintiff No.4 as stated earlier. It is held that the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not entitled to any reward. 97. 95. Issue No.3 : Are the plaintiffs entitled to any reward as claimed in the plaint by way of or on account of salvage ? This issue is answered only in favour of the plaintiff No.4 as stated earlier. It is held that the plaintiffs Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not entitled to any reward. 97. Issue No.4 : Was the unloading operation relating to the cargo carried out by Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Ltd. as alleged in paragraph 11(e) and 12(a) of the written statement ? This issue is answered in the negative and in favour of the plaintiffs. 98. By reason of the above answers to the issues only the plaintiff No.4 succeeds in this suit. There will be decree in favour of the plaintiff No. 4 for Rs. 4,000/- as against the cargo. The plaintiffs having failed to establish the major part of their claim will be entitled to only one fourth of the taxed costs of this suit.