Judgment The petitioner had invoked Sections 9, 47, 48 and 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) in the matter of foreign Award dated 10.12.2008 passed by the Arbitrator in a dispute between the parties. The petition was basically for enforcement of foreign Award against respondent no.1 filed on 22.10.2009. 2. By order dated 22.10.2009, the learned Vacation Judge had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner in terms of prayer (b)(ii). 3. In the petition, the prayers were as under : "(a) for an order and/or declaration that the Foreign Award dated 10th December 2008 (Exhibit A hereto) is enforceable under the provisions of Chapter II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and; directions be issued to enforce and execute the said Award dated 10/12/08 as decree in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent No.1. (b) that pending the enforcement and/or execution of the foreign Award dated 10th December 2008, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass the following: (i) An order of arrest, detention and sale of the dredger "Kamal XXXV" alongwith, her hull, tackle, machinery, paraphernalia and all other appurtenants presently lying and being in port of Mumbai and that her net sale proceeds be deposited in this Hon'ble Court to secure and/or satisfy the said Foreign Award dated 10th December 2008 (ii) order and injunction restraining the Respondent No.1 and 2, its servants agents, assigns from sailing and/or removing the said dredger Kamal XXXV from Mumbai Port and/or the precincts of Mumbai. (iii) order and injunction restraining the Respondent Nos.1 & 2, their servants and/or agents and/or assigns from selling, encumbering, alienating, parting with possession, creating third party rights, title or interest in the said dredger "Kamal XXXV". (iv) order of attachment and sale of the dredger "Kamal XXXV" together with hull, machinery, tackle, paraphernalia and all other appurtenants presently lying and being in Port of Mumbai and/or the precincts of Mumbai and that her net sale proceeds be deposited in this Hon'ble Court is secure and/or satisfy the said Foreign Award dated 10th December 2008. (v) Order appointing the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or any other fit and proper person as Receiver with all powers under Order XL including the power of sale of the dredger Kamal XXXV. (v) Order appointing the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or any other fit and proper person as Receiver with all powers under Order XL including the power of sale of the dredger Kamal XXXV. (vi) order directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to disclose on oath forthwith or within such time as this Hon'ble Court deems fit the charter hire due and payable by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 under and for the duration of the Charter Party entered between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in relation to the said dredger "Kamal XXXV" and to disclose a copy of the said Charter-party. (vii) order directing the Respondent No.2, its servants, agents and assigns to forthwith deposit in this Hon'ble Court, the entire Charter Hire due and payable by Respondent no.2 to respondent No.1 under and for the duration of the Charter Party Agreement between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in relation to the said dredger "Kamal XXXV". (viii) order and injunction restraining and injunction against Respondent No.2, their servants, agents, assigns, from directly / indirectly paying, remitting, crediting, adjusting, appropriating any amount from the charter hire due and payable by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 under the Charter Party between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in relation to the said dredger "Kamal XXXV". (ix) order and injunction restraining the Respondent No.1, its servants, agents, assigns from receiving directly or indirectly receiving the charter hire payable by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.1 under the Charter Party between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in relation to the said dredger "Kamal XXXV". (c) For ad interim reliefs in terms of prayers b(i) to b(ix) above; (d) Cost of the Petition be provided for; (E) For such other and further reliefs in the nature and circumstances of this present case." 4. Thesaid interim order remained in force as extended from time to time on the following dates, i.e. 16.11.2009, 18.1.2009, 23.11.2009, 3.12.2009, 11.12.2009 and lastly on 22.12.2009. 5. Theparties, by the Consent Terms dated 24.12.2009, have arrived at Settlement and the Petition was disposed of in view of the Consent Terms by the Vacation Judge only. 6. By Order dated 14.01.2010, keeping aside 1% as poundage on the amount mentioned in prayers (a) and (b) of the Sheriff's Report dated 8.01.2010 & keeping all points open, the Court has directed to release the remaining amount. 6. By Order dated 14.01.2010, keeping aside 1% as poundage on the amount mentioned in prayers (a) and (b) of the Sheriff's Report dated 8.01.2010 & keeping all points open, the Court has directed to release the remaining amount. The Court has also directed the Deputy Sheriff of Bombay to file additional Report considering an affidavit dated 13.01.2010 filed by the petitioner opposing such demand of poundage. 7. The Sheriff of Bombay has filed additional Report dated 20.01.2010. The petitioners have filed affidavit in reply to the additional Report on 16.02.2010 and resisted even the claim of 1% poundage. The matter thereafter placed for hearing in view of urgency shown and as the important issue was raised. 8. Heard the parties on 16.02.2010 by consent. 9. There was no objection raised by anyone with regard to the grant of injunction, in such proceedings, pending the enforcement of the Award and ultimately the parties have arrived at settlement and filed the Consent Terms. 10. The basic controversy revolve around the entitlement/charges of Sheriff under these Rules & Sheriff's fees i.e. 1% poundage on the amount received by the petitioners in view of the Settlement/Consent Terms between the parties and, therefore, it is necessary to consider the scheme and purpose of these Rules. Admittedly, no property/ship was attached or arrested or seized by any specific Court's order. The petition was filed for enforcement of foreign Award and admittedly, the Court had granted injunction order on 22.10.2009 whereby restrained respondents 1 and 2 and its agents from sailing and/or removing the dredger "Kamal XXXV" from Mumbai Port and/or precincts of Mumbai. Based upon the Order of Injunction, it appears that at the instance of the petitioner, the Sheriff of Bombay had written letters/took steps and based upon the said communications, the ship was retained/detained. 11. It is necessary to consider the maritime practice in India and specially before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Chapter LIV, Part III of the High Court (Original Side) Rules (O.S.Rules) deal with the Admiralty Jurisdiction called "Rules for Regulating the procedure and practice in cases brought before the High Court under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. It is necessary to consider the maritime practice in India and specially before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Chapter LIV, Part III of the High Court (Original Side) Rules (O.S.Rules) deal with the Admiralty Jurisdiction called "Rules for Regulating the procedure and practice in cases brought before the High Court under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. Rules 927(6) and (7) defines "Sheriff" and "Suit" as under : "(6) "Sheriff" means the Sheriff of Bombay or the Deputy Sheriff or other officer who may be appointed to execute the process of the Court; (7) "Suit" means any suit, action or other proceeding instituted in the Court in its Admiralty Jurisdiction." 12. The other O.S. Rules provide for procedure for institution of Suits/action covering filing of caveats against the arrest of property and; also for an application to arrest property in a Suit in rem and; a procedure of judgment and/or enforcement of payment. It also provides for role of "Sheriffs" to serve the process including of writ or warrant and; how it could be affected apart from sale of arrested property and all related aspects including release of the arrested property. As per Rule 944, the Sheriff should serve the process of the Court and return the process to the Registry within four days from the service thereof. The Sheriff may apply for direction also. There are various obligations provided for the Sheriff including power to apply, for any direction, to the Court. 13. Chapter XXVIII of the O.S. Rules deal with the office of Sheriff of Bombay. In the Maritime Practice and/or of Admiralty matters (Rules 445 to 486), also include levy of sums mentioned for warrant of arrest or attachment and the liability for Sheriff's poundage. 14. The High Court of Bombay has exclusive jurisdiction on its admiralty side to entertain a Suit or such other proceedings including any cause in the Court of Admiralty, in respect of any maritime claim, lien and/or claim for necessary supplies to ships. In short, the Admiralty Courts Act and the Rules provide the provisions for dealing with the Admiralty Court's jurisdiction and all necessary aspects. 15. The O.S. Rules provide for Table of Fees including Table of Fees payable to the Sheriff of Bombay. The relevant Rules 474 and Rule 476 read as under: "R. 474. Liability for Sheriff's poundage. In short, the Admiralty Courts Act and the Rules provide the provisions for dealing with the Admiralty Court's jurisdiction and all necessary aspects. 15. The O.S. Rules provide for Table of Fees including Table of Fees payable to the Sheriff of Bombay. The relevant Rules 474 and Rule 476 read as under: "R. 474. Liability for Sheriff's poundage. - (1) In cases where a person is arrested or property is attached, the party or the Advocate on record for the party at whose instance the arrest was made or the attachment levied shall be liable to the Sheriff for his fees or poundage, as the case may be. (2) Any amount received by the judgment-creditor from the judgment-debtor in full or part satisfaction of a decree or order in respect of which a warrant of arrest or a warrant of attachment has been executed shall be presumed to have been realised under the warrant, if the warrant is merely suspended and not dead. (3) Where the execution-creditor or his Advocate on record receives direct any instalment or other sum ordered to be paid by the Judgment-debtor in full or part satisfaction of the decree or order, he shall file a precipe in the Sheriff's office informing him of the payment made. (4) The Advocate on record shall be responsible for filing this precipe, if the payment has been made through his office or he has been informed of it by the execution-creditor." "R. 476. Satisfaction not to be entered without Sheriff's certificate.-Where warrants in execution have been lodged with the Sheriff, no satisfaction in full or in part of any decree or order in any suit or matter shall be entered thereon without the production of a certificate of the Sheriff that no poundage, is due to him." Items 3 and 5 of the Table of Fees payable to the Sheriff read as under: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3For serving every injunction, order or Rule and everyRs.30.00 process not otherwise provided for. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Poundage on every debt levied by execution including an1% attachment before judgment or in the event of the claim being satisfied, compromised or settled upon the amount of such satisfaction, compromise or settlement. The issue arose in view of the Sheriff's Report in question. 16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Poundage on every debt levied by execution including an1% attachment before judgment or in the event of the claim being satisfied, compromised or settled upon the amount of such satisfaction, compromise or settlement. The issue arose in view of the Sheriff's Report in question. 16. The Indian Courts, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.V. Elisabeth and others vs. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt.Ltd., 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433, as explained, can take a different view from those of the English Courts, based upon the Indian Acts and the Rules made thereunder and the Circulars issued from time to time by the concerned Authority (followed in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. vs. M.V. Sea Success I and another, (2004) 9 SCC 512 ). 17. We have to consider in the present matter the meaning of the words "arrest", "warrant of attachment", "attachment before judgment", "seizure" and "injunction". Basically these concepts are clear and well defined for the general purposes, as well as, for the Admiralty matters also. 18. In M.V. Elisabeth (supra), the Apex Court has elaborated the Law of Admiralty and/or Maritime Law and its practice in various ways. "45 Admiralty Law confers upon the claimant a right in rem to proceed against the ship or cargo as distinguished from a right in personam to proceed against the owner. The arrest of the ship is regarded as a mere procedure to obtained security to satisfy judgment. A successful plaintiff in an action in rem has a right to recover damages against the property of the defendant. "The liability of the shipowner is not limited to the value of the res primarily proceeded against .... An action ... though originally commenced in rem, becomes a personal action against a defendant upon appearance, and he becomes liable for the full amount of a judgment unless protected by the statutory provisions for the limitation of liability". (Roscoe's Admiralty Practice, 5th ed. p. 29)." "46. The foundation of an action in rem, which is a peculiarity of the Anglo-American law, arises from a maritime lien or claim imposing a personal liability upon the owner of the vessel. A defendant in an admiralty action in personam is liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's established claim. (Roscoe's Admiralty Practice, 5th ed. p. 29)." "46. The foundation of an action in rem, which is a peculiarity of the Anglo-American law, arises from a maritime lien or claim imposing a personal liability upon the owner of the vessel. A defendant in an admiralty action in personam is liable for the full amount of the plaintiff's established claim. Likewise, a defendant acknowledging service in an action in rem is liable to be saddled with full liability even when the amount of the judgment exceeds the value of the res or of the bail provided." "47. Merchant ships of different nationalities travel from port to port carrying goods or passengers. They incur liabilities in the course of their voyage and they subject themselves to the jurisdiction of foreign States when they enter the water of those States. They are liable to be arrested for the enforcement of maritime claims, or seized in execution or satisfaction of judgments in legal actions arising out of collisions, salvage, loss of life or personal injury, loss of or damage to goods and the like. ....." "48. A ship may be arrested (i) to acquire jurisdiction; or (ii) to obtain security for satisfaction of the claim when decreed; or (iii) in execution of a decree. In the first two cases, the court has the discretion to insist upon security being furnished by the plaintiff to compensate the defendant in the event of it being found that the arrest was wrongful and was sought and obtained maliciously or in bad faith. The claimant is liable in damages for wrongful arrest. ....." "50. The attachment being only a method of safeguarding the interest of the plaintiff by providing him with a security, it is not likely to be ordered if the defendant or his lawyer agrees to "accept service and to put in bail or to pay money into court in lieu of bail". (See Halsbury's Law of England, 4th edn. Vol. 1, p. 375 etc.)." "54. A personal action may be brought against the defendant if he is either present in the country or submits to jurisdiction. If the foreign owner of an arrested ship appears before the court and deposits security as bail for the release of his ship against which proceedings in rem have been instituted, he submits himself to jurisdiction." "55. A personal action may be brought against the defendant if he is either present in the country or submits to jurisdiction. If the foreign owner of an arrested ship appears before the court and deposits security as bail for the release of his ship against which proceedings in rem have been instituted, he submits himself to jurisdiction." "55. An action in rem is directed against the ship itself to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff out of the res. The ship is for this purpose treated as a person. Such an action may constitute an inducement to the owner to submit to the jurisdiction of the court, thereby making himself liable to be proceeded against by the plaintiff in personam." 19. It is settled and well recognised that an international merchant ship though generally governed by the laws of the flag State subjects itself to the jurisdiction of a Foreign State as it enters its water. Therefore, foreign merchant ships and persons thereon fall under the jurisdiction of a Coastal State as they enter its water. 20. Admittedly; in the present case, the Court had passed the order of injunction, pending the enforcement of foreign Award, as reproduced above; there was no order of attachment of property and/or seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment; the foreign Award, at the relevant time, i.e. On the date of the injunction did not attain finality and/or become executable decree; and no execution application, based upon any Foreign decree was filed. But the fact that in view of this injunction order, though it was against respondents/defendants 1 and 2 and it was not against the ship which is a property, the effect was that the ship was detained/injuncted by the judicial process to secure the claims as raised. Therefore, it is clear that there was order of detention of a ship by judicial process to secure the claim. The injunction order was prior to the determination of enforceability of the Foreign Award in India. 21. Considering the scope and purpose of Section 9 of the Act, pending arbitration proceedings including of present nature of pending enforcement of Foreign Award, the petitioners had prayed for various reliefs of arrest, attachment, injunction to secure the amount. This all meant for security of the amount. 21. Considering the scope and purpose of Section 9 of the Act, pending arbitration proceedings including of present nature of pending enforcement of Foreign Award, the petitioners had prayed for various reliefs of arrest, attachment, injunction to secure the amount. This all meant for security of the amount. This Order of security under Section 9 of the Act is always and basically against the persons/parties to the arbitration agreement. In the present case, the petitioners as well as the respondents were parties to the arbitration proceedings. The application was for enforcement of the Foreign Award in India and pending the said enforcement, the Court, after considering the merits of the contention and in view of the fact that the Award was already passed in favour of the petitioner, granted interim injunction to secure the amount and to avoid to render the Award infructuous. The parties, however, pending the proceedings itself, arrived at settlement and filed the Consent Terms. Therefore, ultimately, the parties have compromised and settled the claim after the order of injunction though passed against the respondents 1 and 2, but for the maritime claims. It also means the order of injunction though passed against the parties in personam, it had resulted into the detention of the ship. Even otherwise, whenever there is order of arrest of a ship, ultimately the owner and/or the concerned person appears to make the requisite payment and/or apply for release of the vessel by defending the claim and/or by settling the alleged maritime claim or lien etc. Ultimately, in such order of arrest and/or attachment before judgment and/or seizure of the ship/property, the owner and/or the concerned person, takes step to make the payment and/or to settle the claim. The order of arrest, seizure or attachment before judgment is always on the properties and not against the person. The order of attachment or arrest or seizure of property including the ship, is always following action to secure the amount of debt or maritime claims or lien from the owner/person. The order of arrest, seizure or attachment before judgment is always on the properties and not against the person. The order of attachment or arrest or seizure of property including the ship, is always following action to secure the amount of debt or maritime claims or lien from the owner/person. Therefore to the submissions, referring to the judgment of our High Court and even otherwise, that as the parties have settled the matter by filing the Consent Terms only after the order of injunction passed by the Court and there was no order of attachment or arrest of ship passed in the matter at any point of time, and, therefore, the Sheriff is not liable/entitle to collect the poundage of 1% on the agreed/compromised amount need to be considered from the point of view of facts and circumstances, as well as, relevant judgments of the Supreme Court and Indian Acts, Rules and Regulations and including Items 3 and 5 of the Table of Fees payable to the Sheriff of Bombay. 22. It is relevant to note that Section 9 of the Act contemplates to consider all the elements as available for any order/ injunction to protect and/or to secure the subject and/or properties of the Arbitration, revolving around the Arbitration clauses between the parties. All these elements are well-known and explained through the provisions of Section 37 and 41 of the Specific Reliefs Act read with Order 38, Order 39 and Order 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC). The Supreme Court has declared that all these provisions and its principles and related aspects need to be considered before passing any order under Section 9 of the Act. I have observed accordingly in Aditya Birla Retail Limited Vs. M/s. Ashapura Developers, 2009 (5) B.C.R. 680 referring to the Judgment of Adhunik Steels Ltd. Vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd. in (2007) 7 S.C.C. 125 ). 23. I have observed accordingly in Aditya Birla Retail Limited Vs. M/s. Ashapura Developers, 2009 (5) B.C.R. 680 referring to the Judgment of Adhunik Steels Ltd. Vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd. in (2007) 7 S.C.C. 125 ). 23. The Apex Court in Adhunik (supra) has observed:- "It is true that Section 9 of the Act speaks of the Court by way of an interim measure passing an order for protection, for the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods, which are the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement and such interim measure of protection as may appear to the court to be just and convenient." "Moreover, when a party is given a right to approach an ordinary court of the country without providing a special procedure or a special set of rules in that behalf, the ordinary rules followed by that court would govern the exercise of power conferred by the Act. On that basis also, it is not possible to keep out the concept of balance of convenience, prima facie case, irreparable injury and the concept of just and convenient while passing interim measures under Section 9 of the Act." 24. A Division Bench of this Court in National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia Vs. Sentrans Industries Limited, Mumbai, 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 696 has observed while considering Section 9 of the Act r/w Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC") as under:- "We also hold without hesitation that the Court is competent to pass an appropriate protection order of interim measure as provided under section 9(ii)(b) outside the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Each case under Section 9(ii)(b) of the Act of 1996 has to be considered in its own facts and circumstances and on the principles of equity, fair play and good conscience. The power of the Court under Section 9(ii)(b) cannot be restricted to the power conferred on the Court under Civil Procedure Code though analogous principles may be kept in mind." 25. The power of the Court under Section 9(ii)(b) cannot be restricted to the power conferred on the Court under Civil Procedure Code though analogous principles may be kept in mind." 25. So far as the admiralty matters arising out of the maritime laws, it is well established that as soon as ship/ vessel comes or reaches within the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court and if any suit or proceedings initiated or filed for appropriate order of "arrest", "injunction", "attachment before Judgment" or "Seizer" against the owner/ master of the Vessel and/or against the Vessel/Ship or such other properties; in view of the claim/debt, so averred in the Suit/ Petition, the Court may pass appropriate ex-parte order detaining and/or restraining the owner and/or the ship/ the vessel from sailing/ leaving the port without furnishing security and/or securing the amount of claims between the parties. The affected party may apply for appropriate order to release and/or for modification and/or may secure the amount and/or compromise/settle the matter by filing the consent terms in the Court. The Court may thereafter, pass appropriate order of release or discharge, based upon the consent terms and/or agreed terms. 26. In the present case, the Petitioner had filed composite application for enforcement of award against the Respondents and also for an interim protection/injunction under Section 9 of the Act to secure the amount of foreign award. After obtaining injunction order from the Court, the services of the Sheriffs was utilized to communicate the order of injunction and subsequent order communicating the order of injunction to the Port and Customs Authorities through its bailiffs, such order and action following actions falls within the ambit of Rules and the Sheriff's Fees. The Respondents have also acted upon the same though there was no specific order of arrest. 27. A full Bench of this Court in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 410 : 2007 (2) Arb.LR 104 (Bombay)(FB) -J.C. Ocean Liner LLC, Bur Dubai (U.A.E.) Vs. m.v. Golden Progress, has already held that the order of arrest is impermissible through S/9 of the Arbitration Act pending the Arbitration. Here, admittedly the foreign award was already passed. Therefore, indirectly by the order of injunction, the Petitioner able to detain the ship as the order was against the owner of the ship. m.v. Golden Progress, has already held that the order of arrest is impermissible through S/9 of the Arbitration Act pending the Arbitration. Here, admittedly the foreign award was already passed. Therefore, indirectly by the order of injunction, the Petitioner able to detain the ship as the order was against the owner of the ship. However, the effect of this injunction order and/or such order in my view, is specially in view of the provision of Section 9 of the Act and as the Petitioners have already invoked that provisions to secure the amount of the foreign award, pending the proceeding of enforcement of the same, is nothing less than any order of attachment before Judgment of the Vessel which resulted into detention of the ship in India. There may not be an order of "arrest" as contemplated, but still such type of order of injunction freezes the vessel / the properties movements, as the owner of the vessel was restrained to deal with and/or transfer or create third party or interest in the same. Factually because of this order the vessel/ properties remained within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court also because of further communication of the Sheriff. Even otherwise, in admiralty matters, the ship can also be treated as a person but for the purpose of this proceedings the injunction order so sought was only against Respondent Nos.1 and 2- the owners, that resulted into freezing of the movement of the ship/ property in question. In my view, such type of injunction order of freezing the movement of the property/ Vessel and basically in admiralty matters which definitely was with intention to secure the Arbitration claims, is quite akin to the action of arrest or attachment before Judgment and therefore, the Sheriff whose services were utilized is entitled to claim the poundage of 1% as claimed in the present case. A freezing of assets, known as "Mareva Injunction" is well-known concept in English Law (Mareva Companies Naviera SA V. International Bulk Carries SA (1980) 1 All ER 213), as well as, recognized in India. (Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr., (2008) 4 S.C.C. 190 ). The order of injunction in the present facts and circumstances, in my view, is nothing less than that. (Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr., (2008) 4 S.C.C. 190 ). The order of injunction in the present facts and circumstances, in my view, is nothing less than that. The submission, therefore, that there was no order of arrest and/or seizer of Vessel and/or specific order of attachment before judgment and therefore, though the parties have settled the matter by consent terms the sheriff is not entitled for 1% bondage is unacceptable. 28. We have to consider in totality the relevant Admiralty Act but subject to Indian Maritime Laws and Section 9, 47, 49 and 49 of the Arbitration Act read with the provisions of Specific Relief Act and the CPC. Had the petitioner not obtained the injunction order, the ship/vessel could have been out of jurisdiction of Port. It is not the simple case of service of injunction order. 29. It is clear that in the judgment of this Court in Malpani Brothers (Firm) vs. Ramjidas Shyamlal Saboo & anr., 1987 Mh.L.J. 223, there was no occasion to deal with the security or such order under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act and also the consent terms filed after the order of injunction read with the written communications issued by the Sheriff and the utilization of the services of the Sheriff by the Petitioner therefore, the Judgment is of no assistance to the Petitioner. 30. In view of above, I am also inclined to accept the following reasoning given by the Sheriff of Mumbai in the Additional Report dated 20.01.2010 : "It is because of this act of Sheriff of Mumbai, that the dredger was detained and the petitioner was able to settle the matter and realized the amount in their Arbitration Petition which was for execution and enforcement of the Foreign Award dated 10.12.2008. As soon as the Order is communicated to the Port authorities, the said dredger is detained in view of the order of injunction. It is not necessary that only in Admiralty Suit, the Sheriff is entitled for poundage. As soon as the Order is communicated to the Port authorities, the said dredger is detained in view of the order of injunction. It is not necessary that only in Admiralty Suit, the Sheriff is entitled for poundage. In all types of Suit in which the machinery of the office of Sheriff of Mumbai is invoked for the purpose of executing and enforcing the decree/Award/Order and accordingly the amount is realized either by sale or settlement between the parties or otherwise the office of the Sheriff of Mumbai is entitled to the poundage at the rate prescribed by the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules. The table of fees payable to the Sheriff of Mumbai, High Court, Original Side will apply on every debt levied by execution including an attachment before judgment or in the event of the claim being satisfied, compromised or settled upon the amount of such satisfaction, compromise or settlement." 31. All these concepts of "arrest", "warrant of attachment", "injunction", "proclamation", "execution" or "an attachment before judgment" are recognised and supported by Table of Fees payable to the Sheriff also. For serving every injunction order or Rule entitles the Sheriff of Mumbai the fee of Rs.30/- as per item No.3 and as per item No.5 entitles the Sheriff poundage or every debt, levied by execution including attachment before judgment or in the event of the claim being satisfied, compromised or settled upon the amount of such satisfaction, compromised or settlement, one percent of the said amount. Therefore, from the plain reading of these provisions, the Sheriff is entitled for 1% of the poundage on the claimed, compromised or settled amount. 32. There is no other provision and/or Rules shown which deal with the aspect of 1% of poundage on every debt/claim except Item No.5. First part of Item No.5 provides for 1% poundage on every debt levied by execution including an attachment before judgment. However, second part provides "or in the event of the claim being satisfied, compromised or settled upon the amount of such satisfaction, compromise or settlement". In my view, this is an independent of the first part of Item No.5. First part of Item No.5 provides for 1% poundage on every debt levied by execution including an attachment before judgment. However, second part provides "or in the event of the claim being satisfied, compromised or settled upon the amount of such satisfaction, compromise or settlement". In my view, this is an independent of the first part of Item No.5. Therefore, even if there is no execution pending for any debt and/or including an attachment before judgment and/or even if there is no order of arrest of ship or seizure, still in the event the parties satisfied or compromised or settled their maritime claims after the initiation of the proceedings like this, even pending finalization of enforceability of the Foreign Award, have settled/compromised the matter, thereafter, 1% poundage on such total amount so claimed and as averred in the two Reports dated 08.01.2010 and 20.01.2010, is permissible. The Sheriff has no power or authority to claim less or more than 1% on the settled amount of the consent terms order. 33. In the present case, in my view, considering the combined effect of above facts and provisions, the claim of 1% Poundage by the sheriff is well within the frame work of law and the record cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or authority. 34. In the result, the Sheriff's Report dated 8th January, 2010 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 35. The learned counsel for the original petitioner seeks stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. Considering the issue so raised and decided, I am inclined to grant the stay for eight weeks.