JUDGMENT : Bhargav D. Karia, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.M. Buch for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Premal Nanavati for learned advocate Mr. Harsh Gajjar for the respondent through video conference. 2. By this application, the applicants-original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have prayed to dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction of this Court to try and entertain the same. In the alternative, it is prayed for stay the proceedings of the suit till final disposal of this application. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Buch appearing for the applicants submitted that the Admiralty Suit filed by the opponent-original plaintiff is not maintainable before this Court as this Court has no jurisdiction to grant reliefs prayed by the plaintiff in the suit on the following grounds: (i) It is averred that there is no claim against defendant No. 1-vessel which is raised by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is secured by way of a letter of undertaking dated 17.12.2019 issued by defendant No. 4 against the claim in relation to defendant No. 1-vessel and therefore, there is no 'maritime claim' which is raised against defendant No. 1-vessel and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime claims) Act, 2017 [for short 'Act, 2017']. (ii) Learned advocate Mr. Buch invited the attention of the Court to the letter of undertaking dated 17.12.2019 produced by the plaintiff at Exhibit-D page 22 to the plaint to submit that as the plaintiff has relied upon the averments of the undertaking for not obtaining the arrest of defendant No. 1-Vessel, this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. (iii) Reliance was also placed on the order dated 28.07.2021 passed by this Court for not granting the arrest of the defendant No. 1-vessel in view of the aforesaid undertaking, by virtue of which, the dues of the plaintiff is secured. (iv) It was submitted that the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have given an undertaking which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and therefore, this Court cannot proceed further with the suit filed by the plaintiff and it is only the Bombay High Court which can entertain and try the suit if any. (v) Learned advocate Mr. 3 and 4 have given an undertaking which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and therefore, this Court cannot proceed further with the suit filed by the plaintiff and it is only the Bombay High Court which can entertain and try the suit if any. (v) Learned advocate Mr. Buch further submitted that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain the suit as the suit is for recovery of the amount of Rs. 32,52,024/- being the cost of repairs to the Plaintiff, port expenses and other expenses incurred as a result of the incident which took place on 02.09.2019 by which, the defendant No. 1-vessel caused damage to the plaintiff's Tug, Jasmin Star. (vi) It was submitted that in view of the undertaking dated 17.12.2019 which is not in dispute between the parties, the suit filed by the plaintiff is purely in commercial nature and therefore, would not fall within the provisions of Act, 2017. 4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati appearing for the opponent-original plaintiff submitted that the application filed by the applicants-original defendants under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Roshan Singh (Dead) By LRS. and Ors. reported in 2008 (2) SCC 488 wherein the Apex Court has held that the scope and object of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to supplement and not to override or evade other express provisions or other statues. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati also submitted that so far as the merits of the matter is concerned, it is not in dispute that the claim made by the plaintiff falls within clause (d) of section 4 of the Act, 2017 and therefore, it is a maritime claim and only because the plaintiff has relied upon the undertaking given by the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 by way of a security, it would not cease to be a maritime claim. 4.2. With regard to contentions raised on behalf of applicants-defendant Nos. 3 and 4 by way of a security, it would not cease to be a maritime claim. 4.2. With regard to contentions raised on behalf of applicants-defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to the effect that this Court has no jurisdiction because when the suit was filed, defendant No. 1-vessel was not within the territorial waters of this Court and therefore, the suit is not maintainable, it was submitted that this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Geetanjali Woollen Pvt. Ltd. v. M.V.X.-Press Annapurna and ors. reported in 2005 (6) Bombay Cases Reporter 31 wherein after considering English case law, the Bombay High Court has held as under: "23. In light of the aforesaid view of the Apex Court I am required to consider whether the judgments of the English Courts which are cited before me should be accepted or not. I am of the opinion that normally the Court must strive in favour of holding of the jurisdiction in the courts. It is undoubtedly true that if the Court has no jurisdiction then it cannot confer the jurisdiction on itself but if on the appropriate interpretation of the law as laid down by various authorities if the court can hold that this Court has jurisdiction then obviously the law is that the Court must strive to hold a jurisdiction rather than holding that the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the present case, in light of the view expressed as a binding precedent of the Apex Court that this Court must widen the jurisdiction and consider the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts in admiralty field as equivalent to the jurisdiction of the English Court in that field, it is necessary that I must consider the judgments of the English Courts which have been cited before me. On a proper reading of the judgments of the English Courts, I am of the opinion that the Court has always made a distinction between the filing of a suit, issuance of a writ and execution thereof. The issue there arose slightly in a different context that is whether a party is entitled to obtain writs against more than one ship of the owner or only that ship which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the country can be sued and writ obtained against such ship only. The issue there arose slightly in a different context that is whether a party is entitled to obtain writs against more than one ship of the owner or only that ship which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the country can be sued and writ obtained against such ship only. However the courts held that it is not provided under the law that only one ship alone should be sued which is within territorial water of England. It has been held that practice prevailed of obtaining various writ and execute against a ship which enters territorial water of England is valid and reasonable keeping in mind that to save limitation a suit may have to be instituted without any ship in the territorial water of England. Thus, a suit can be instituted within the period of limitation but at the same time no warrant of arrest can be executed unless the vessel comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the country. The Court can acquire jurisdiction if the writ or if the warrant of arrest is executed on the ship when it arrives within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The aforesaid view finds support from the aforesaid judgments of the English Court which are cited before me and I have quoted the same. In my opinion, the English view cited by the English judgments can be accepted particularly when there is no contrary judgment dealing with the issue directly of the Indian Courts, At least none such judgment has been brought to my notice except the aforesaid interim orders which are already been set out hereinabove." 4.3. Reliance was also placed on the later decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Great Pacific Navigation (Holdings) Corporation Limited v. M.V. Tongli Yantai wherein, relying upon the decision in case of Geetanjali Woollen Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Bombay High Court has held as under: "13. The Division Bench, I am informed, dismissed the appeal on merits, but did not decide this question of law. I was also informed that the Supreme Court has stayed the judgment of the Division Bench. 14. Thus, even assuming that the vessel was not within the jurisdiction of the Court when the application for arrest was made, this Court would have jurisdiction as the warrant of arrest was obviously executed when the vessel arrived within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 14. Thus, even assuming that the vessel was not within the jurisdiction of the Court when the application for arrest was made, this Court would have jurisdiction as the warrant of arrest was obviously executed when the vessel arrived within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The preliminary issue is, therefore, answered in the negative, against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. This Court had and has jurisdiction to entertain the suit." 4.4. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati for the opponent-original plaintiff thereafter invited attention of the Court to the Admiralty Bill 2005 pointing out sub-section (2) of section 6 of the said bill which reads as under: "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall not be invoked by an action in rem unless the ship against which the proceedings have been commenced is within the territorial or inland waters of India at the time of commencement of the proceedings and as such is within the jurisdiction of that High Court. Provided that no such ship shall be arrested unless there is failure to provide security." 4.5. Referring to the aforesaid proposed sub-section (2) of section 6 it was pointed out that the said sub-section (2) of section 6 the Bill, 2005 is missing in corresponding section 5 of the Act, 2017 which provides for Power of High Court to arrest any of the vessel in rem. It was submitted that if the Court does not pass an order of arrest, the High Court would not lose the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims made in the Admiralty Suit under the provisions of the Act, 2017. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the various claims made by the plaintiff and reliance placed by both the sides on the Exhibit-D-letter of undertaking dated 17.12.2019, prima facie it is clear that the plaintiff has maritime claim as per clause (d) of section 4(1) of the Act, 2017. The fact of execution of letter of undertaking is not in dispute between the parties. The clause in letter of undertaking provides as under: "This undertaking shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Law of India, High Court of Bombay shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action brought by you to enforce the provisions hereof". The fact of execution of letter of undertaking is not in dispute between the parties. The clause in letter of undertaking provides as under: "This undertaking shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Law of India, High Court of Bombay shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action brought by you to enforce the provisions hereof". The above stipulation cannot be pressed into service with regard to claim made by the plaintiff in the suit which is the subject matter of trial and only with regard to contents of the undertaking, if any dispute arise, the Bombay High Court would have jurisdiction to decide the same. 6. It is also not in dispute that when this Court passed the order dated 20.07.2021, defendant-vessel was within the territorial waters and jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in view of the letter of undertaking dated 17.12.2019 and in view of the contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff in the plaint at para 14 as well as oral submissions made before the Court, the arrest order was not passed. That does not mean that this Court has lost the jurisdiction to try the admiralty suit which is for the maritime claim on view of the above referred decisions of Bombay High Court with which I respectfully agree. 7. Considering the above facts and submissions this application is therefore rejected with no order as to costs.