JUDGMENT The respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of the alleged dues of Rs.87,57,319.00 calculated at the exchange rate of US$1 = Indian Rupees 50/- from the defendant/owner and parties interested in the Vessel viz. "M.V. Taydo Star, now lying at the Port Kakinada. 2. In Application No.167 of 2012, the plaintiff sought for the relief of arrest and detention of the foreign vessel M.V. Taydo Star flying the Flag of Vietnam. This Court upon considering the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the documents filed, on being prima facie satisfied that the order arresting the vessel is essential to secure the payment of suit claim, by its order dated 24.2.2012, and directed the arrest of the vessel. 3. While so, the petitioner/Fairmacs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd/third party filed I Application No.280 of 2012 seeking permission to intervene the order of arrest which was granted by this Court. 4. Rule 11 Order XLII of the Original side Rules for Regulating the Procedure and Practice in Cases Brought before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Exercise of its Admiralty Jurisdiction lays down that: "In a suit in rem, any person not named in the writ may intervene and appear on filing an affidavit showing that he is interested in the property under arrest or in the fund in the Registry." 5. By virtue of the said rule, this Court acceding to the submission made by the third party/intervener that it loaded cargo viz. cement bags worth Rs.87,57,319.00 into the vessel allowed the petition and granted permission to intervene. 6. The present application is filed by the Fairmacs Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., contending inter alia, that it is the owner of 5950 Mts. which has been loaded on board, the defendant vessel has been paid valuable consideration for the transport of the cargo and it has no part to play in the disputes and differences between the plaintiff and the owner/erstwhile charters of the defendant vessel and that it costs about Rs.50 lakhs to discharge the cargo and to load into another cargo, sought an order permitting the defendant vessel to sail from Kakinada Port to Port Blair by undertaking that as soon as the vessel arrives at Port Blair, the authorities of the Port Blair may take existence of the vessel and the vessel will continue to remain under arrest of this Court. 7. The plaintiff filed counter-affidavit contending inter alia that if the vessel is permitted to sail from Kakinada Port, the vessel would leave Indian Territorial waters and go outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the defendant being a foreign vessel and the owners and other persons interested in the vessel do not have any other property within the jurisdiction of this Court against which the plaintiff may move to satisfy the decree which is likely to be passed in its favour and the plaintiff would be left without any recourse against the defendant vessel and would not enforce any decree that may be passed in its favour. The apprehension expressed was that to reach the Port Blair, the vessel has to leave Indian Territorial waters and would not even reach Port Blair and if the vessel deviates from the route and goes out of the Indian Territorial waters, the suit claim itself will be defeated. 8. Heard Sri Giri representing Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Purnam representing Sri Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 9. Mr. Purnam, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff would contend that as per the documents submitted by the petitioner the cargo was loaded in the vessel after its arrest was ordered by the Court at the own risk of the petitioner, the petitioner can as well discharge the cargo in vessel at Kakinada Port itself and load the same in another vessel by incurring the requisite expenditure. He also further contended that after the vessel reaches Port Blair, this Court will lose territorial jurisdiction over the vessel and therefore, it is undesirable to permit the vessel to sail to Port Blair and discharge the cargo there. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on a judgment of Madras High Court in M/s Sea waves Shipping Services, Tehran, Iran, Represented by Power of Attorney E. Rajamani v. M/s Adriatic Tankers Shipping Co. S.A. Greece, Owners and others, 1996 (l) LW 182, wherein the Madras High Court held as follows: "With reference to the subjects and causes, the scope of the jurisdiction has been as wide as that of the High Court of England. S.A. Greece, Owners and others, 1996 (l) LW 182, wherein the Madras High Court held as follows: "With reference to the subjects and causes, the scope of the jurisdiction has been as wide as that of the High Court of England. But with reference to territorial limits it can by no stretch of imagination be said that all the three High Courts had and have concurrent jurisdiction over the entirety of Indian Territorial waters. If that contention is accepted it will lead to un-certainty and conflict of decisions." 10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the cause of action for the suit initially arose at Kakinada Port within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court will continue to have the jurisdiction even if the vessel is allowed to sail to Port Blair and stays there after discharging the cargo. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in M/s Can Peejay Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. M.V. Nikolay Maksinov and others, AIR 1993 Bom. 286 . In the said case, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that: "The consignment entrusted to one vessel for shipment and delivery at Indian Port was brought to that port by another vessel, the said fact could not divest the Admiralty. Court from proceeding against vessel on which initially consignment was loaded." 11. The learned Counsel further relied on a decision in Alexandros Dryron S.A., v. Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel MV. "Prapti", AIR 1998 Cal. 142 . In the said case, the vessel was arrested at Visakhaptnam Port and on the prayer by the applicants therein, the High Court of Calcutta on imposing appropriate conditions allowed the vessel to sail out of Visakhapatnam to Bedi Bander Port, in the State of Gujarat and unload the cargo belonging to the applicants and ordered that thereafter the vessel would continue to remain in Bedi Bander under arrest until further orders of the Court. 12. 12. The provisions of Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 as it was made applicable to India by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 read with Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891 read as follows: "The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of loading 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 plaintiffs do not recover twenty pounds he shall not be entitled to any costs, charges or expenses incurred by him therein, unless the Judge shall certify that the cause was a fit one to be tried in the said Court." 13. In M.V. Elisabeth and others v Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Hanoekar House. Swatontapeth. Vasco-De-Gama. Goa, JT 1992 (2) SC 65, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Once a foreign ship is arrested in Indian Waters by an order of the High Court, in exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction vested in it by statute, or inherent in it as a Court of record, in respect of any maritime claim against its owner, wherever the cause of action may have arisen, and whether or not the ship is subsequently released by the owner furnishing security, proceedings must continue against the owner as in any other suit. The arrest of the vessel while in Indian waters by an order of the concerned High Court, as defined sunder the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Section 3(15) attracts the jurisdiction of the competent Court to proceed with the trial, as in the case of any other suit, as an action against the owner, and any decree obtained by the plaintiff is executable against any property of the owner, available within jurisdiction, including the security furnished by him for release of the vessel." 14. Turning to the facts of the present case, the defendant vessel was arrested by this Court while it was lying at Port Kakinada to secure the suit claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has undoubtedly cause of action to institute the suit and the suit instituted by the plaintiff is certainly within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. When once this Court had assumed jurisdiction initially by entertaining the suit and thereafter by arresting the defendant vessel at Port Kakinada in view of the legal position discussed above, it will certainly continue to have jurisdiction over the defendant vessel even when it reaches Port Blair for the purpose of discharging the cargo. 15. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that it would cost Rs.50 lakhs for discharging the cargo and loading the same into some other vessel. At the same time, this Court has to keep in mind the requirement of protecting the interest of the plaintiff by ensuring enforceability of the decree which is likely to be passed in the suit instituted by the plaintiff. So far the defendant had not entered appearance in the suit. To balance the interests of the applicant as well as the plaintiff, this Court is of the view that the prayer of the applicant can be granted by imposing the following conditions: (1) The defendant vessel is permitted to sail from Port Kakinada to Port Blair for the purpose of discharging the applicant's cargo and shall continue to remain under the arrest of this Court until further orders. (2) The applicant shall furnish bank guarantee of a schedule bank for an amount of Rs.90 lakhs for a period of one month from the date of furnishing bank guarantee to the satisfaction of this Court. To avoid filing any fake or forged bank guarantee, it is directed that the official concerned of the schedule bank shall be present and give undertaking as to the genuineness of the bank guarantee before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. (3) The applicant shall deposit all the original documents relating to the vessel in the custody of this Court. The authorities of Port at Kakinada as well as Port Blair are directed to collect the original documents from the defendant vessel and produce them before the Court. (3) The applicant shall deposit all the original documents relating to the vessel in the custody of this Court. The authorities of Port at Kakinada as well as Port Blair are directed to collect the original documents from the defendant vessel and produce them before the Court. (4) In the event of the applicant committing any breach of conditions imposed by this Court while granting permission to the defendant vessel to sail to Port Blair the plaintiff may approach this Court for appropriate remedies in respect of the bank guarantee furnished. (5) A copy of the order shall be communicated to the authorities of the Port Kakinada and Port Blair. 16. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.