[1] IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.955 OF 2001 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.676 OF 2001 IN ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.7 OF 2001 Bunkering Brokers Limited, a foreign company incorporated and existing under foreign laws and carrying on business at 131, East Street, Valletta, VLT 06, Malta. .... Appellants - Versus - m.v. LAXMI (ex-m. v. Polly II, a foreign motor vessel registered in the port of Belize and flying a Cambodian flag and presently in port and harbour Alang and within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. .... Respondents Sarvasri Vishal Shett i/b Reuben Fernandes for the Appellants. Sarvasri V.R. Dhond a/w Ashish Kamath i/b M/s. A. Mehta Laljee & Co. for the Respondents. [2] CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & SRI R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: MARCH 31, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sri R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sri R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sri R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.): 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 19-9-2001 passed in Notice of Motion No.676 of 2001. By the impugned order, the suit which was filed by the appellants in admiralty jurisdiction has been dismissed and the interim orders passed in the said suit have been vacated, solely on the ground that the defendant ship ceased to be the ship/vessel within the meaning of the said expression for the purpose of invoking admiralty jurisdiction against the said ship, as the said vessel was imported in India for the purpose of breaking. 2. Though the impugned order is sought to be challenged on various grounds including the ground that the order in the nature of dismissal of the suit at the initial stage can be passed only in exercise of powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in the course of such exercise the documents or materials produced by the defendant cannot be taken into consideration, the appeal can be disposed of without [3] going into those issues and by referring to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Appeal (Lod) No.635 of 2001 in Notice of Motion No.1302 of 2001 in Admiralty Suit No.14 of 2001, delivered on 10-7-2001 in the matter of Communications & Commerce International Communications & Commerce International Communications & Commerce International (Pvt) Ltd. v. m.v. "SAABA" & another. (Pvt) Ltd. v. m.v. "SAABA" & another. (Pvt) Ltd. v. m.v. "SAABA" & another. 3. The Division Bench in SAABA’s SAABA’s SAABA’s case, while agreeing with the view taken by the learned single Judge, had clearly held that once the vessel is imported in India for the purpose of breaking, it ceases to be a navigable vessel and hence such a ship is not amenable to admiralty jurisdiction. In SAABA’s case, the learned single Judge has held that: "Perusal of provisions of clause 2 of Admiralty Act 1861 shows that a ship includes any description of vessel used in navigation. Thus, the Admiralty Act does not define the word "Ship". In the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court, this Court can entertain an action in rem against a ship. The General Clauses Act also defines the term "Ship" but it also gives inclusive definition. Therefore so far as the meaning of the term "Ship" is concerned, we will have [4] to go back to the meaning attached to the term in common parlance. Dictionary meaning of the term "Ship" is a vessel employed in navigation. Thus navigability of the vessel is a dominant factor in deciding whether it is a ship or not. The navigability of a vessel will depend not only on its mechanical navigability but also on its legal navigability." In appeal against the said judgment, the Division Bench had in no uncertain terms agreed with the said view expressed by the learned single Judge. We are also in respectful agreement with the said view taken in SAABA’s case. 4. In the case in hand, plain reading of the plaint filed by the appellants itself discloses that it was to the knowledge of the appellants/plaintiffs that the vessel in question had entered Alang in the State of Gujarat solely for the purpose of demolition. The further submission in para 12 of the plaint discloses that the plaintiffs were aware that the demolition had not commenced at the time of filing of the suit. However, once it was to the knowledge of the complainants that the ship had entered the Indian port [5] for the purpose of demolition, it is to be concluded that it was to their knowledge that the said vessel ceased to be one meant for navigation and obviously it ceased to be a ship or vessel which could be amenable to admiralty jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, we do not find any irregularity or illegality by the learned single Judge in dismissing the suit and/or by vacating the interim orders granted in favour of the appellants while entertaining the plaint. 5. For the reasons stated above, therefore, we find no case being made out for interference in the impugned order and hence the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order stands vacated. (R.S.Mohite, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/M8aj955.1 sjs/M8aj955.1 sjs/M8aj955.1