JUDGMENT The Peoples’ Republic of Bangladesh instituted this suit on or about the 15th September 1979 with leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent claiming a decree for specific performance of a Charter party Agreement dated the 7th June, 1979 in respect of the defendant's vessel M.V. "Sheriar" as also mandatory and permanent injunctions as alternative or ancillary reliefs. 2. On an application made in the said suit on the 8th September 1979 an order has been passed in terms of the agreed minutes, inter alia, as follows :- "UPON the defendant or defendant through the Agent Samrat Shipping Co. (P) Ltd., Calcutta furnishing a Bank Guarantee for Rs. 1,80,000,00 to the satisfaction of the Registrar, Original Side, the interim order dated 15.9.1979 stand vacated. Such Bank Guarantee to be furnished on or before 26.9.1979. It is recorded the Advocates on record for the plaintiff has already approved the form of Bond for such Bank Guarantee. The parties waived the notice of reference before the Registrar, Original Side. Leave is given to the Registrar, Port Authorities, Customs and all parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes. The defendant undertakes to Court to keep the said Bank Guarantee renewed till further orders of the Court. The parties agree to make a joint petition under S. 21 of Arbitration Act, 1940 referring the disputes under the Charter Party dated 7.6.1979 including the subject-matter of suit in accordance with the Arbitration Clause contained therein. This order is without prejudice to the rights, contention of the parties. This order is also without prejudice to the defendant's right to apply under S. 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the defendant's appearance will not be regarded as a step in the proceedings." 3. The defendant has furnished security in terms of the aforesaid order and the said interim order passed on the 15th September 1979 stand vacated. 4. On the 12th August 1980 the Advocate on record for the defendant took out the Notice of the present application praying, inter alia, for the following order :- a) That the plaint in this suit be rejected and/or taken off the file; b) Alternatively, the said suit be dismissed with costs as against the defendant; c) Liberty be given to the defendant to obtain release of the Bank Guarantee for Rs. 1,80,000 furnished in terms of the order dated 18th September, 1979 passed in this suit; d) Injunction restraining the plaintiff and its servants, agents and assigns from taking any or any further steps in this suit; e) Costs and further orders. 5. This application was moved on the 12th August 1980 when an ad interim order was passed restraining the plaintiff from taking any or any further steps in this suit. 6. In this application it is inter alia contended by the defendant that no part of the plaintiff's cause of action arose or has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit. 7. It is further contended that under clause 32 of the Letters Patent read with the provisions of the Colonial Court of Admiralty Act, 1861 and in particular S. 6 thereof this Court has exclusive Admiralty jurisdiction in all maritime actions in rem and in personam within the territories of West Bengal and concurrent jurisdiction in respect of same cannot be exercised by this Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction by invoking clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 8. It is contended that the plaintiff's cause of action in this suit alleging breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner of the said vessel for carriage of goods by sea fall within S. 6 of the said 1861 Act and as such can be entertained only in its Admiralty jurisdiction and not in its Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction and that the plaintiff is not entitled to have this suit tried in the latter jurisdiction. 9. Karsasp Naval Dastur the authorised agent of the Government of Bangladesh has affirmed an affidavit on the 11th November 1980 which has been filed in opposition to this application. 10. The contentions in the application have been disputed in this affidavit. 11. An affidavit has been affirmed by Harish Tarachand Vaswami on the 1st December 1980 and filed in reply to the said affidavit of Karsasp Naval Dastoor. 12. At the hearing of this application the only point which was agitated was whether this Court could entertain or try this suit in its Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction. 11. An affidavit has been affirmed by Harish Tarachand Vaswami on the 1st December 1980 and filed in reply to the said affidavit of Karsasp Naval Dastoor. 12. At the hearing of this application the only point which was agitated was whether this Court could entertain or try this suit in its Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendant relied on Ss 6 and 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 which read as follows :- "Section-6 - The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim by the owner, or consignee, or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods carried into any port in England or Wales in any ship, for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligence or misconduct of or for any breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master, or crew of the ship, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that at the time of the institution of the cause any owner or part owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales; Provided always, that if in any such cause the plaintiff do not recover 211(?). he shall not be entitled to any costs charges, or expenses incurred by him therein unless the Judge shall certify that the cause was fit one to be tried in the said Court. Section-7. The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim for damage done by any ship." 13. He contended that the cause of action in this suit was based on allegations of breach of duty or a breach of contract on the part of the owner, master or crew of the said vessel and therefore this suit was under the exclusive Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court and could not be tried within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. 14. He also contended that this suit was entertain-able in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court as traced from earlier Charters and Letters Patent and the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 which was enacted to extend the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court did not take away the Court's earlier jurisdiction. 15. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the defendant cited the following decisions; a) Kamalakar Mahadev Bhagat v Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1961 Bombay 186. 15. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the defendant cited the following decisions; a) Kamalakar Mahadev Bhagat v Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1961 Bombay 186. Here the plaintiff's country craft was damaged by a collision with the defendant's cargo boat in the high seas. The plaintiff filed a suit for damages in the City Civil Court at Bombay. It was held by the High Court at Bombay that the High Court in its Admiralty side had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. The High Court was a Colonial Court of Admiralty under Act XVI of 1881 and exercised the same Admiralty jurisdiction as was exercised by the High Court of Admiralty in England which had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain suits for torts committed in the high seas. b) Jugometal Trg Republike v. Rungta & sons reported in 70 CWN 375. This decision was cited for the following observations of one of the learned Judges of a Division Bench of this Court, which granted stay of a subsequent suit filed in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court where the earlier suit had been filed in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the same Court on substantially the same cause of action: "Nevertheless, on first principles it appears to be clear that the High Court in the exercise of its Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Jurisdiction does constitute a Court the jurisdiction of which is not concurrent with the jurisdiction of another Court come into being by the same High Court in the exercise of its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction." c) Mrs. Sahida Ismail v. Petko R. Salvejkov & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 Bombay 18. In this case the plaintiff filed a suit claiming damage for loss in respect of a cargo of onions consigned from Bombay in a ship of the defendant No. 1 alleging that the defendant No. 1 wrongfully and without production of the bill of lading had delivered the cargo to the consignee. The plaintiff's suit was by way of a maritime claim It was held by the High Court at Bombay that the claim of the plaintiff was one within the meaning of S. 6 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 and the High Court could entertain the suit in its Admiralty Jurisdiction d) Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta v. Alliance Jute Mills Ltd reported in 79 CWN 188. In this case a single Bench of this Court held that the High Court of Calcutta in its original side did not exercise concurrent jurisdiction under clauses 12 and 32 of the Letters Patent and all maritime actions in tort whether in rem or personam must be commenced in the High Court in its exclusive Admiralty jurisdiction. The High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction could not try such an action. 16. Learned counsel for the defendant fairly drew my attention to an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 20 of 1975 where the judgment of the single Bench in the case of Alliance Jute Mills Ltd. (supra) was set aside, and it was held that the High Court had concurrent jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit both in its Admiralty jurisdiction and also in its Ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction. 17. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended, on the other hand, that the jurisdiction conferred by S. 6 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 was limited and the present suit could not be entertained in that jurisdiction. He submitted that only suits where the claim was by the owner of any goods or consignee or assignee of the bill of lading of any goods which has been carried into any port and damages were alleged to have been caused to such goods by the negligence or misconduct or breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master or crew of a ship, would fall within the said section and be tried in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. Similarly, under S. 7 of the said Act where a ship caused any damage to any property the suit in respect thereof could be entertained in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. 18. The plaintiff in this case, he submitted, had filed the present suit for damages for an alleged breach of the term, of a charter party. The cause of action did not relate to any damage to goods which had been carried by any ship of the defendant nor was it alleged that the ship herself had caused any damage to any property of the defendant. Therefore this suit could not be entertained by the High Court in its Admiralty jurisdiction. 19. The cause of action did not relate to any damage to goods which had been carried by any ship of the defendant nor was it alleged that the ship herself had caused any damage to any property of the defendant. Therefore this suit could not be entertained by the High Court in its Admiralty jurisdiction. 19. Learned counsel submitted further that as laid down by the unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The Board of Trustees of the Port of Calcutta (supra), in any event, this Court had concurrent jurisdiction to try this suit either in its Admiralty jurisdiction or under its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. 20. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the plaintiff cited Roscoe's Admiralty Practice 5th Edition, Chapter 5, where the history of the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England has been discussed and it is stated as follows :- "The Act of 1861 gave jurisdiction to the Court over claims by the owner, consignee or assignee of the bill of lading of any goods carried by a ship into any port in England or Wales for damage caused by negligence or for any breach of contract or breach of duty, unless at the institution of the cause the owner or part owner of the ship was domiciled in England or Wales. The jurisdiction which the Court now exercises has thus been extended to include claims which, notwithstanding the liberal interpretation which the Act of 1861 received, could not have been entertained under the statute Under the Act of 1861 the right to bring an Admiralty action was limited to owners of cargo; but now there appears to be no reason why a ship-owner, provided that he is not domiciled in England, should not bring an Admiralty action against cargo owners, although the latter are domiciled in England; to this extent the Judicature Act, 1925, has put the foreign owner in a superior position to the English owner." 21. Learned counsel also cited a recent Text Book "Maritime Lien" by D.R. Thomas containing similar discussion on the earlier and present jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty in England. 22. In the facts and on consideration of the submissions before me made it appears that the plaintiff's cause of action in this suit cannot be said to be one which is covered by Ss. 22. In the facts and on consideration of the submissions before me made it appears that the plaintiff's cause of action in this suit cannot be said to be one which is covered by Ss. 6 and/or 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. Section 6 of the said Act in my view is confined to suits where damage is done to goods shipped and cannot be extended to cover where damages are claimed only on a breach of contract without any damages to goods. Such damage also cannot be said to be damage done by any ship and therefore the suit would not fall under the category of those contemplated in S. 7 of the said Act. 23. In any event, by reason of the said unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (supra) which is binding on me, I have to proceed on the basis that the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to try such a suit either in it its Admiralty jurisdiction or in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. For the reasons above there will be no order on the application. All interim orders passed in this application will stand vacated. It is made clear that I have not decided whether any part of the plaintiff's cause of action in this suit arose within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court and the parties will be at liberty to agitate this point on evidence at the trial. No order made on the application.