JUDGMENT : This is a proceedings initiated as Special Jurisdiction Case invoking sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (the Act) for detaining a foreign ship that has allegedly caused damage to the property of the petitioners. The registry entertained a doubt as to whether a proceedings for detaining a ship for enforcement of a maritime claim could be instituted after the decision of this Court in M.V.Free Neptune v. D.L.F. Southern Towns Private Ltd. ( 2011 (1) KLT 904 ) as a Special Jurisdiction Case. It maintains the stand that after the said case, a proceedings of the instant nature could be instituted only as an admiralty suit. The petitioners do not agree with the said stand of the registry. The matter has thus come up for decision on the said question. 2. On 27.7.2018, this court directed the registry to number the matter provisionally as a Special Jurisdiction Case and accordingly, the matter has been numbered as a Special Jurisdiction Case. 3. When the matter was taken up, Sri. Joy Thattil Ittoop, the learned counsel for the petitioners addressed arguments not only on the question relating to the maintainability of the proceedings as a Special Jurisdiction Case, but also on the merits of the matter. Sri. Suvin R.Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel also addressed arguments. Though the learned Central Government Counsel supported the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners as regards the maintainability of the proceedings as a Special Jurisdiction Case, he raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the proceedings before this court. According to the learned Central Government Counsel, the foreign ship sought to be detained, even according to the petitioners, is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and therefore the jurisdiction of this court under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act cannot be invoked for detaining the ship. The question arises in the context of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Central Government Counsel is whether the jurisdiction of this court under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act can be invoked for detaining a foreign ship which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 4. Before proceeding to decide the questions which arise for consideration, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case. Petitioners 1 to 5 are traditional fishermen. 4. Before proceeding to decide the questions which arise for consideration, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case. Petitioners 1 to 5 are traditional fishermen. The sixth petitioner owns a fishing boat. The case of the petitioners is that the fishing boat owned by the sixth petitioner, and the fishing accessories including fishing nets used by petitioners 1 to 5 for fishing in the said boat were destroyed by the first respondent, a foreign ship off the coast of Kochi on 8.7.2018; that the said occurrence is a shipping casualty; that petitioners have incurred loss to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/-on account of the said shipping casualty and that the first respondent being a foreign ship, the petitioners will not be able to realise damages from the first respondent unless she is detained under subsection (1) of Section 443 of the Act. It is, however, conceded by the petitioners in their pleadings that when the proceedings were initiated, the first respondent was berthed at Paradip Port in the State of Orissa. The direction for detention of the ship, in the circumstances, is sought to the Deputy Conservator of the Paradip Port. 5. In admiralty law, a vessel is a juridical personality, having not only rights but liabilities, sometimes distinct from those of the owner, which may be enforced by a process against the vessel, binding upon all interested in her and conclusive upon the world. Admiralty law administers remedies in rem, i.e., against the property, as well as remedies in personam, i.e., against the party personally. Courts exercising admiralty jurisdiction would arrest a vessel to acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate the maritime claim or to obtain security for the maritime claim or in execution of a decree. Admiralty jurisdiction was being exercised by the chartered High Courts in India in terms of the provisions contained in the Admiralty Court Act, 1840; the Admiralty Court Act, 1861; the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890; the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891 and the provisions of the Letters Patent, 1865. Even after the promulgation of the Constitution, the said courts continued to exercise admiralty jurisdiction in the light of Article 372 of the Constitution which provided for continuance of the existing laws. In the said courts, maritime claims bear the nomenclature admiralty suits. 6. Even after the promulgation of the Constitution, the said courts continued to exercise admiralty jurisdiction in the light of Article 372 of the Constitution which provided for continuance of the existing laws. In the said courts, maritime claims bear the nomenclature admiralty suits. 6. In the absence of any statute conferring admiralty jurisdiction, there was a serious doubt as to whether the High Courts in India other than the chartered High Courts could exercise admiralty jurisdiction. In M.V.Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading ( AIR 1993 SC 1014 ), the Apex Court declared that High Courts in India are superior courts of record exercising inherent and plenary powers; that unless expressly or impliedly barred, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers; that the admiralty jurisdiction is an essential aspect of judicial sovereignty of this country which under the constitution and the law, is exercised by the High Courts; that all persons and things in the waters of a State fall within its jurisdiction, unless specifically curtailed or regulated by rules of International law, and that the power to arrest a foreign vessel, while in waters of a coastal State in respect of a maritime claim, wherever arising, is a demonstrable manifestation of the essential attribute of the territorial sovereignty of this country. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in M.V. Elisabeth (supra), this court has been exercising admiralty jurisdiction over all persons and things in the waters falling within its jurisdiction as being done by the chartered High Courts for arresting vessels. Whenever a proceedings is initiated for arrest of a vessel, the practice followed by this court was to direct the competent authorities to detain the vessel till security is furnished to satisfy the maritime claim and once the security is furnished, the matter would be disposed of permitting the claimant to proceed against the person who furnished the security. In other words, the adjudication of the maritime claim was never undertaken by this Court and the said task was being undertaken by the court where the suit is filed against the person who furnishes the security. 7. In other words, the adjudication of the maritime claim was never undertaken by this Court and the said task was being undertaken by the court where the suit is filed against the person who furnishes the security. 7. In Free Neptune (supra), a Division Bench of this court, having regard to the procedure followed in the chartered High Courts, declared that henceforth any person approaching this court invoking the admiralty jurisdiction shall institute a suit for enforcement of the maritime claim and that such suits will be tried in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also declared by this court in the said case that the Rules framed by the Madras High Court for exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in so far as they are not inconsistent with any other provision of law for the time being in force, and with appropriate modifications, shall apply for the conduct of such suits until this court modifies the said rules or until the legislature intervenes in this regard. Later, this court modified the Rules framed by the Madras High Court for exercise of admiralty jurisdiction so as to suit the requirements of the State and the modified Rules came into force with effect from 04-07-2017. The said Rules also, among others, provide that proceedings under the admiralty jurisdiction shall be initiated by instituting a suit as provided for under the Code of Civil Procedure. It also defines "Suit in Rem" as all admiralty actions in rem including applications filed under Section 443 of the Act. 8. While so, the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 (The Admiralty Act) came into force with effect from 01-04-2018. The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts in India is now governed by the provisions of the Admiralty Act. The Admiralty Act defines a variety of maritime claims. It confers jurisdiction on the High Courts to adjudicate such claims and arrest the vessels involved, wherever required, for providing security for the satisfaction of the claims. It provides that the Rules for regulating the practice and procedure of admiralty jurisdiction including fees, costs and expenses in such proceedings, shall be made by the respective High Courts and that the Rules in force would continue to be in force in so far as they are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Admiralty Act. It provides that the Rules for regulating the practice and procedure of admiralty jurisdiction including fees, costs and expenses in such proceedings, shall be made by the respective High Courts and that the Rules in force would continue to be in force in so far as they are not inconsistent with any of the provisions of the Admiralty Act. In terms of the provisions of the Admiralty Act, the Admiralty Court Act, 1840, the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act, 1891 and the provisions of the Letters Patent, 1865 in so far as they apply to the admiralty jurisdiction of the Bombay, Calcutta and Madras High Courts have been repealed. It is in this background, it is seen that the registry has taken the stand that a proceedings for detaining the ship under Section 443 of the Act shall be instituted in the form of a "Suit in Rem" as provided for in the Rules governing the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction of this court. 9. Section 443 of the Act reads thus: 443. Power to detain foreign ship that has occasioned damage.? (1) Whenever any damage has in any part of the world been caused to property belonging to the Government or to any citizen of India or a company by a ship other than an Indian ship and at any time thereafter that ship is found within Indian jurisdiction, the High Court may, upon the application of any person who alleges that the damage was caused by the misconduct or want of skill of the master or any member of the crew of the ship, issue an order directed to any proper officer or other officer named in the order requiring him to detain the ship until such time as the owner, master or consignee thereof has satisfied any claim in respect of the damage or has given security to the satisfaction of the High Court to pay all costs and damages that may be awarded in any legal proceedings that may be instituted in respect of the damage, and any officer to whom the orders directed shall detain the ship accordingly. (2) Whenever it appears that before an application can be made under this section, the ship in respect of which the application is to be made will have departed from India of the territorial waters of India, any proper officer may detain the ship for such time as to allow the application to be made and the result thereof to be communicated to the officer detaining the ship, and that officer shall not be liable for any costs or damages in respect of the detention unless the same is proved to have been made without reasonable grounds. (3) In any legal proceedings in relation to any such damage aforesaid, the person giving security shall be made a defendant and shall for the purpose of such proceeding be deemed to be the owner of the ship that has occasioned the damage. Whenever any damage has, in any part of the world, been caused to property belonging to the Government or to any citizen of India or a company by a ship other than an Indian ship by the misconduct or want of skill of the master or any member of the crew of the ship, Section 443 of the Act confers jurisdiction on the High Court to order detention of the said ship if it is found within Indian jurisdiction, until such time as the owner, master or consignee thereof has satisfied the claim in respect of the damage or has given security to the satisfaction of the High Court to pay all costs and damages that may be awarded in any legal proceedings that may be instituted in respect of the damage. Though there are references in Free Neptune (supra) as regards the power of this court under Section 443 of the Act, the scope of the said provision is not seen discussed. In M.V.Elisabeth (supra), the Apex court has made certain observations as regards the scope of Section 443 of the Act. Those observations, according to me, are not of much relevance now in the light of the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act. In M.V.Elisabeth (supra), the Apex court has made certain observations as regards the scope of Section 443 of the Act. Those observations, according to me, are not of much relevance now in the light of the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act. Suffice it to say that the observation which the apex Court has made which is relevant at present is the observation that Section 443 of the Act is a procedural provision for enforcement of the substantive right of the parties which are rooted in general principles of law, apart from statutes, and for the enforcement of which a party aggrieved has a right to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court. The relevant passage contained in paragraph 80 of the judgment in M.V.Elisabeth (supra) reads thus : “If goods or other property are lost or damaged, whether by physical contact or otherwise, by reason of unauthorised acts or negligent conduct on the part of the ship owner or his agents or servants, wherever the cause of action has arisen, or wherever the ship is registered, or wherever the owner has his residence or domicile or place of business, such a ship, at the request of the person aggrieved, is liable to be detained when found within Indian jurisdiction by recourse to Ss. 443 and 444 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 read with the appropriate rules of practice and procedure of the High Court. These procedural provisions are but tools for enforcement of substantive rights which are rooted in general principles of law, apart from statutes, and for the enforcement of which a party aggrieved has a right to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of a superior court.” The registry does not maintain that the power of this Court under Section 443 cannot be invoked after the Admiralty Act. The objection is only as to the form in which a proceedings under Section 443 of the Act is to be initiated. As noted, the basis of the objection raised by the registry is the decision of this court in Free Neptune (supra) as also the Rules framed thereafter by this Court, especially the Rule which provides that a "Suit in Rem" includes applications under Section 443 of the Act as well. 10. As noted, the basis of the objection raised by the registry is the decision of this court in Free Neptune (supra) as also the Rules framed thereafter by this Court, especially the Rule which provides that a "Suit in Rem" includes applications under Section 443 of the Act as well. 10. A maritime claim as defined under the Admiralty Act may arise on a variety of reasons including the reason made mention of in Section 443 of the Act namely, damage caused by a foreign ship to Government or to a citizen of India or to a company by the misconduct or want of skill of the master or any member of the crew of the ship. In terms of the provisions of the Admiralty Act, the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked by anybody, even by a foreign Government or a foreign citizen or a foreign company for enforcement of the maritime claims or any of them as defined under the Admiralty Act. The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court under the Admiralty Act can be invoked not only against a foreign vessel, but also against an Indian vessel. The Admiralty Act confers power on the High Court to arrest a vessel in rem for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim which is the subject of an admiralty proceedings. In terms of the provisions of the Admiralty Act, the High Court can, not only arrest the vessel against which the claim is raised, but also against sister vessels. A close reading of the provision contained in Section 443 of Act however indicates that it is a provision intended to have a very limited scope and application. First of all, unlike the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act, Section 443 of the Act does not provide for arrest of a vessel, but only provide for its detention. Under maritime laws, arrest and detention have different ramifications. Further, unlike the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 443 can be invoked only by the Government, or a citizen of India or an Indian company, that too for the damage caused to them by a vessel other than an Indian vessel. Under maritime laws, arrest and detention have different ramifications. Further, unlike the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 443 can be invoked only by the Government, or a citizen of India or an Indian company, that too for the damage caused to them by a vessel other than an Indian vessel. Again, unlike the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 443 can be invoked only when damage is caused by a foreign ship on account of the misconduct or lack of skill of the master or crew of such ship which is only one among the variety of maritime claims defined in the Admiralty Act. In other words, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 443 of the Act cannot be invoked for detaining a vessel for providing security in respect of a maritime claim other than a maritime claim made mention of in the provision. It is also seen that under Section 443 of the Act, only the vessel which caused damage could be detained and the said power cannot be exercised over sister vessels. It is also seen that for the purpose of arresting a vessel for providing security for the maritime claim under the Admiralty Act, the maritime claim shall be the subject matter of an admiralty proceedings, whereas for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 443 of the Act, it is not necessary that there shall be an admiralty proceedings pending. 11. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the provision in Section 443 the Act is intended to provide a summary remedy to enable to the Government or a citizen of India or an Indian company to enforce a maritime claim which fall under the said provision or in the alternative to obtain security for the same from the erring vessel. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the case on hand is an illustrative case where the provision is required to be invoked, for the provisions contained in the admiralty Act may not be adequate and sufficient for the redressal of the grievances of the petitioners. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the case on hand is an illustrative case where the provision is required to be invoked, for the provisions contained in the admiralty Act may not be adequate and sufficient for the redressal of the grievances of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners elaborated this submission pointing out that in a case of hit and run made by a ship as one in the instant case, an aggrieved party is not expected to Institute an admiralty suit for enforcement of his/her maritime claim before the vessel concerned leaves the port or the territorial waters of the country. According to the learned counsel, incidents contemplated by Section 443 of the Act would take place at any time and the vessel may leave the waters within minutes and the provision in this Section is intended to provide a summary remedy to persons aggrieved by such incidents. 12. There is force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a reading of Section 443 of the Act indicates that it is a provision intended to provide a summary remedy against a non-Indian ship causing damage to the property on account of reasons mentioned in the provision so as to enable the aggrieved person to obtain satisfaction of the claim or in the alternative to obtain security for satisfaction of the claim. The said fact is evident from the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 443 of the Act as well. Sub section (2) of the Section 443 of the Act confers power on the proper officer defined under the Act to detain a ship falling under sub-section (1) when it appears to him that the ship would depart from India or leave the territorial waters of India, for such time as to allow an application to be made by the aggrieved person under sub-section (1) of Section 443 and until such time the result thereof is communicated to the proper officer. It appears to me that without there being a provision of this nature, the Government or citizens of India or Indian companies who suffer damage contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act at the instance of foreign ships may not be able to realise damages from such ships, for it may not be possible for the aggrieved person to Institute an admiralty suit and obtain an order arresting the vessel before the vessel departs from India or leaves Indian territorial waters. In this context, it is relevant to note that even though the statutes and the relevant provisions of the Letters Patent, 1865 on the strength of which admiralty jurisdiction exercised by the chartered High Courts in India were repealed in terms of the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act, Section 443 of the Act has been retained in the statute. The said fact also fortifies the view that the jurisdiction of the High Court under subsection (1) of Section 443 of the Act is an independent jurisdiction though the same is part of the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court as clarified by the Apex Court in M.V.Elizabeth (supra). Once it is held that notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act, this Court has jurisdiction to detain a foreign ship under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act, the question remaining to be considered is whether an admiralty suit is required to be instituted for invoking the said jurisdiction. It is seen that in M. V. Free Neptune (supra), this court has declared that henceforth, any person approaching this court invoking the admiralty jurisdiction shall institute a suit. Rules framed thereafter for adjudication of admiralty suits also clarify that "Suit In Rem" shall also include applications under Section 443 the Act. I do not think that this court should be guided by the judgment of the Division Bench in M.V.Free Neptune (supra) and the Rules framed by this Court for adjudication of admiralty suits for answering the question, for the decision of the Division Bench in M.V.Free Neptune (supra) is one rendered having regard to the fact that there is no statute in India governing admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The Rules referred to above are also framed in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in M.V. Free Neptune (supra). The Rules referred to above are also framed in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in M.V. Free Neptune (supra). Now that the admiralty jurisdiction of this court is governed by the Admiralty Act, according to me, in the light of the said development, the question has to be resolved having regard to the provisions contained in the Admiralty Act. In terms of the provisions in the admiralty Act, what is contemplated in an admiralty suit is adjudication of maritime claims. In so far as Section 443 of the Act is an independent provision which does not contemplate adjudication of the maritime claims involved, according to me, proceedings initiated invoking the said jurisdiction need not be treated as an admiralty suit. Of course, Section 5 of the Admiralty Act confers power on the High Court to arrest a vessel in rem for the purpose of providing security against a maritime claim. But, the said power can be exercised only when the maritime claim is the subject matter of an admiralty proceedings as an interim measure pending admiralty proceedings. 13. If an application under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act is not to be numbered as an admiralty suit, then the question is as to the nomenclature to be assigned to such proceedings. As noted, the limited jurisdiction exercised by this Court in a proceedings under Section 443 of the Act is only to direct the proper officer to detain the vessel until the claim is settled or if the claim is disputed, until the security is furnished for satisfaction of the claim after its adjudication. The nomenclature of the cases have been revised latest on 11.04.2003 in terms of the resolution of the Chief Justices' Conference, 1997. The nomenclature assigned to the nature of the proceedings mentioned against serial No. 20 in the office order issued by this Court in this connection on 11.04.2003 is 'Special Jurisdiction Case'. The nature of the proceedings which would fall under the said nomenclature as defined in the office order reads thus : “Special jurisdiction cases assigned to High Courts eg. The nomenclature assigned to the nature of the proceedings mentioned against serial No. 20 in the office order issued by this Court in this connection on 11.04.2003 is 'Special Jurisdiction Case'. The nature of the proceedings which would fall under the said nomenclature as defined in the office order reads thus : “Special jurisdiction cases assigned to High Courts eg. Trust Act, Lunacy Act, Trade & Merchandise Act, Trade Mark's Act, Copyrights Act, Patents Act and other enactments.” The provision contained in sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act being a special jurisdiction conferred on the High Court, according to me, the proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act would fall under the nomenclature 'Special Jurisdiction Case' as defined in the office order dated 11.04.2003. It is all the more so since such proceedings would not fall under any other nomenclature defined in terms of the order dated 11.04.2003. 14. The next question is as to whether this court can detain a ship which is not within its territorial jurisdiction, in exercise of the jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on the definition of “High Court” contained in the Act, contended that a motion for detention of a vessel under subsection (1) of Section 443 of the Act can be made either before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the port of registry of the vessel is situated or the High Court within whose jurisdiction the vessel is for the time being or the High Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. According to the learned counsel, a part of the cause of action for the motion for detention of the ship arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel elaborated the said submission by pointing out that the incident of collision in which the petitioners suffered damage to their property occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Alternatively, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that Fort Kochi Coastal Police Station, Kochi which is specifically empowered by the Union of India to enquire into incidents of the instant nature, has registered a case in connection with the incident and is investigating the matter. Alternatively, it was pointed out by the learned counsel that Fort Kochi Coastal Police Station, Kochi which is specifically empowered by the Union of India to enquire into incidents of the instant nature, has registered a case in connection with the incident and is investigating the matter. According to the learned counsel, a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court also for the reason that the said Police Station is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 15. I am not impressed by the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as regards the territorial jurisdiction of this court to entertain an application under subsection (1) Section 443 of the Act to detain a vessel which is berthed within the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court. Sub-Section (1) of Section 443 of the Act only provides that the High Court may detain a foreign ship which caused damage to the Government or to a citizen of India or to an Indian company by reason of the specific acts mentioned therein, when it is found within Indian jurisdiction. It does not provide which High Court in India should exercise the jurisdiction. The Act is a statute introduced to foster the development and ensure the efficient maintenance of an Indian mercantile marine in a manner best suited to serve the national interests and for that purpose to establish a National Shipping Board to provide for the registration, certification, safety and security of Indian ships and generally to amend and consolidate the law relating to merchant shipping. The Act confers variety of powers on the High Court to achieve its objects. Sections 45, 51, 69, 160, 352, 368 and 402 are some of the provisions conferring jurisdiction on the High Court to issue orders, other than under Section 443 of the Act. Section 3(15) of the Act defines “High Court” thus: (15) “High Court”, in relation to a vessel, means the High Court within the limits of whose appellate jurisdiction? (a) the port of registry of the vessel is situate; or (b) the vessel is for the time being; or (c) the cause of action wholly or in part arises; The aforesaid section contains an alternative definition for “High Court”. (a) the port of registry of the vessel is situate; or (b) the vessel is for the time being; or (c) the cause of action wholly or in part arises; The aforesaid section contains an alternative definition for “High Court”. The fact that the section contains an alternative definition for “High Court” alone is sufficient to infer that the legislative intention is to assign different definitions for “High Court” for exercise of different powers conferred on the High Court under the statute. For instance, in the context of the power under Section 443 of the Act, the first limb of the definition, viz, the High Court, within whose jurisdiction the port of registry of the vessel is situate, may not be the appropriate definition, for the registry of such ships are not situated within Indian jurisdiction at all. It is settled that where alternative constructions are equally open, that alternative is to be chosen which will be consistent with the smooth working of the system which the statute purports to regulate (See Shannon Realties, Limited and Ville De St. Michel, ([1924] A.C. 185). As indicated, the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court in terms of the provision contained in sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act is a jurisdiction to detain a foreign ship which caused damage to the Government or to a citizen of India or to an Indian company, irrespective of the place where the damage has been caused. Sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act indicates that the said power is to be invoked by the High Courts when the concerned foreign ship is found within Indian jurisdiction. Indian jurisdiction may fall under different High Courts. In this context, it is relevant to note that as clarified by the Apex Court in M.V. Elizabeth (supra), the provisions contained in Section 443 of the Act being procedural in nature, while dealing with a matter under the said provision, this court is exercising its inherent admiralty jurisdiction. The inherent admiralty jurisdiction of this court will not extend beyond the territorial waters of the State of Kerala and the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Further, it is settled that in an action in rem, the ship should be within the jurisdiction of the court at the time when proceedings are initiated. The inherent admiralty jurisdiction of this court will not extend beyond the territorial waters of the State of Kerala and the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Further, it is settled that in an action in rem, the ship should be within the jurisdiction of the court at the time when proceedings are initiated. As such, according to me, the definition of “High Court” to be applied in the context of the jurisdiction under Section 443 of the Act is the second limb of the definition contained in Section 3(15) of the Act, viz, the High Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the vessel is for the time being. There is yet another reason also for me to come to the said conclusion. The same is the provision contained in Section 2 of the Act. Section 2 of the Act dealing with the application of the Act reads thus: 2. Application of Act. ?(1) Unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this Act which apply to? (a) any vessel which is registered in India; or (b) any vessel which is required by this Act to be so registered; or (c) any other vessel which is owned wholly by persons to each of whom any of the descriptions specified in clause (a) or in clause (b) or in clause (c), as the case may be, of section 21 applies, shall so apply wherever the vessel may be. (2) Unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this Act which apply to vessels other than those referred to in sub-section (1) shall so apply only while any such vessel is within India, including the territorial waters thereof. It is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act that unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of the Act, which apply to vessels other than those referred to in sub section (1) shall so apply only while any such vessel is within India, including the territorial waters thereof. A foreign ship is not a vessel referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. In other words, unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of the Act including sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act which apply to a foreign ship only while it is within India, including the territorial waters of India. A foreign ship is not a vessel referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. In other words, unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of the Act including sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act which apply to a foreign ship only while it is within India, including the territorial waters of India. Expressed in a different way, the provision under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act could be invoked against a foreign vessel only when the vessel is within the territorial waters of India. When a foreign vessel is berthed in a port which is within the jurisdiction of another High Court, it cannot be said that the vessel is within the territorial waters of this High Court. In other words, the jurisdiction of this court under sub-section (1) of Section 443 of the Act cannot be invoked by this Court when the vessel is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court under the said provision as well. If the argument advanced by the petitioners is accepted, High Courts in India will have concurrent jurisdiction to exercise the power under sub section (1) Section 443 of the Act. The scheme of Section 443 does not indicate that exercise of concurrent jurisdiction by different High Courts under Section 443 is contemplated under the statute. In the result, the interim order dated 27-07-2018 directing the registry to number this matter as a Special Jurisdiction Case is made absolute and the Special Jurisdiction Case is dismissed.