JUDGMENT : 1. The Applicants 1 and 2/Plaintiffs 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased viz. Sam David Raja, have come out with the above Application seeking to grant an order of Arrest of the Defendant Vessel viz. Tug Mutha Gem and Barge Mutha Pearl in as is where is condition, which is presently operating at Udankudi Project, Kallamozhi Coastal Village, Tuticorin, within the territorial waters of this Court. 2. On 11.03.2019, this Court, while ordering the arrest of the Vessel, had given liberty to the Respondent/Defendant to deposit 69,000 U.S. Dollars as per the Work Injury Compensation Act, (which is currently in force in the Republic of Singapore) in Indian Rupees and thereafter, seek sail of the Vessel. 3. Today, Mr.Vineet Subramani, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalath on behalf of the Respondent/Defendant made a mention before me that the an amount of Rs.35,45,220/- has already been deposited in the name of the Registrar General and therefore, the interim order already granted on 11.03.2019 needs suitable modification so as to enable the Respondent/Defendant to get the Vessel released. Therefore, Registry was directed to list this matter at 02:15pm with a direction to the learned counsel for the Respondent/Defendant to inform the other side. Accordingly, the matter is taken up now and both the counsel are present. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the Respondent/Defendant has produced the original Deposit Receipt No.0942930 dated 13.03.2019 in proof of payment of Rs.35,45,220/- (which is equivalent to 69,000 Singapore Dollar), stating that the currency referred to by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff for deposit of 69,000 is not US Dollar, but only Singapore Dollar. This Court finds justification with regard to the applicability of Singapore Dollar instead of US Dollar, for conversion into Indian Rupees and the said plea is accepted. 5. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent/Defendant, this Court cannot adjudicate the dispute between the parties, as the agreement between the parties was subject to the jurisdiction of the Court at Singapore. He has submitted that only on humanitarian ground, an offer was made for payment of Rs.8,95,845/- to the Plaintiffs as a full and final settlement and the Respondent/Defendant has already paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the family of the deceased. The said factum of payment was not brought to the notice of this Court on the date of last hearing. He has submitted that only on humanitarian ground, an offer was made for payment of Rs.8,95,845/- to the Plaintiffs as a full and final settlement and the Respondent/Defendant has already paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the family of the deceased. The said factum of payment was not brought to the notice of this Court on the date of last hearing. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Defendant has further submitted that since they have raised a specific plea that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the offer made by the Respondent/Defendant under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been rejected by the Plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased, this Court cannot insist upon them to pay the entire deposit amount of 69,000 Singapore Dollar to the Plaintiffs. 7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs has vehemently contended that there is a clear admission to the effect that the death had occurred in the course of and out of employment and that the documents produced would speak for itself that this Court is empowered to pass an interim order of deposit with a permission to the Plaintiffs to withdraw the amount offered by the Respondent/Defendant under the Indian Act. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 9. It is no doubt true that a detailed adjudication is required regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to decide the issue on hand, in terms of Clause No.17 of the Agreement. But, at the same, time, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that it has been vividly mentioned in the communication dated 23.02.2019 of the Respondent/Defendant that the employee/son of the Plaintiffs, who was aged about 21 years at the time of his death, died while on board "Tug Mutha Gem and Barge Mutha Pearl". It was reported across the Bar that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has already been paid to the parents of the deceased. It is opt to say that nothing will substitute the loss of a person in terms of money, as the Plaintiffs have lost their loveable son. It was reported across the Bar that a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- has already been paid to the parents of the deceased. It is opt to say that nothing will substitute the loss of a person in terms of money, as the Plaintiffs have lost their loveable son. Therefore, this Court, finding a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiffs, feels it appropriate to allow the Plaintiffs to withdraw another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the amount deposited by the Respondent/Defendant in the account of the Registrar General of this Court, without prejudice to the contention of both the parties in the Application/Suit. Even assuming that the Plaintiffs/dependants have to approach the Singapore Court for suitable compensation under the Work Injury Compensation Act, which is currently in force in the Republic of Singapore, still the deceased employee needs to be honoured by the Respondent/Defendant in terms of the said Act and also in terms of the Agreement between the Parties, in the absence of the defence that the accident occured purely on the fault of the employee. Whether it be Indian Court or Singapore Court, the minimum compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 cannot be deprived either by the Indian Court or by the Singapore Court, as there is an admission of employment as well as death on board while in the course of and out of employment. 10. When this Court has permitted the Plaintiffs to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the amount deposited by the Respondent/Defendant, learned counsel for the Respondent/Defendant has undertaken that the said amount would be paid by the Respondent/Defendant separately, which is independent of the deposit and in case the Plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the said amount would be adjusted from the deposit and the balance amount may be refunded to the Respondent/Defendant. 11. In view of the above submission, the Respondent/Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) to each of the Plaintiffs (totalling Rs.5,00,000/-) within three working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Registry is directed to issue the warrant of release forthwith so as to permit it to sail in the Port. 12. With the above observation and direction, the interim order granted by this Court on 11.03.2019 is modified. Registry is directed to issue the warrant of release forthwith so as to permit it to sail in the Port. 12. With the above observation and direction, the interim order granted by this Court on 11.03.2019 is modified. The Original Deposit Receipt No.0942930 dated 13.03.2019 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank in favour of the Registrar General, Madras High Court is hereby forwarded to the Registrar General, High Court for safe custody and to be renewed periodically till the finalization of the dispute in the suit.