1. The above Applications are filed by Defendant Nos.3 and 5 in the Suit.

2. I.A. Nos.2 & 5 of 2024 are filed by the Defendant Nos.3 & 5 respectively, praying to reject the Plaint in its entirety against them for failure to disclose cause of action, lack of jurisdiction and the Plaint being barred under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Admiralty Act’).

3. I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2024 are filed by the Defendant Nos.3 & 5 respectively, praying to strike out the pleadings in relation to them as set out in the Plaint and the Affidavit as the said pleadings are unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious and have the effect of prejudicing and delaying the Suit and are a gross abuse of process of Court. Prayer is also sought to strike them out from the party array on the ground that the Applicants therein are improperly joined. Even though Defendant No.4 is not an Applicant in I.A. No.3 of 2024, similar prayer is sought with respect to Defendant No.4 also in I.A. No.3 of 2024.

4. The Respondent Nos.1 to 6/Plaintiffs in all these Applications have filed Counter Affidavits opposing the prayers in these Applications.

5. The Suit is filed by six Indian fishermen claiming compensation from the Defendants jointly and severally on the allegation that they sustained loss and damage on account of the collision of the Defendant No.2 Vessel with their fishing boat on 19.10.2023 at 10.20 PM within Indian Territorial waters. The Defendant No.1 is the Owner, Defendant No.3 is the Master, Defendant No.4 is the Second Officer, and Defendant No.5 is the Able Seaman of the Defendant No.2 Vessel. The Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are made parties in the Suit showing their designations with reference to Defendant No.2 and not in their personal capacity in their name.

6. The Defendant Nos.1 & 2 had filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 to reject the Plaint against them on the very same ground and to refund the security deposit of Rs.1 Crore deposited by them. This Court had considered I.A. No.1 of 2024 and allowed the same as per Order dated 03.04.2025 which is reported in Owners and Parties interested in the Vessel, M.V. Korea Chemi (IMO 9274276) v. Siluvaipichai Francies [2025 KLT OnLine 2113], rejecting the Suit as against the Defendant Nos.1 & 2, holding that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Suit as against Defendant Nos.1 & 2.

7. I heard the learned Counsel for the Applicants, Adv.Sri.Amitava Majumdar instructed by Adv.Sri.Pranoy K. Kottaram and Adv.Sri.Yash Thomas Mannully, who appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6/Plaintiffs.

8. The learned Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the Order in I.A. No.1 of 2024 has become final and the findings therein are binding on the Plaintiffs. In view of the said Order, the present Applications are liable to be allowed as this Court has specifically found that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Suit against the Defendant Nos.1 & 2. The claim is essentially against Defendant Nos.1 & 2. The Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are the employees of the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 who had been working in Defendant No.2 Vessel at the time of the alleged accident. Without Defendant Nos.1 & 2 on the party array, the claim against Defendant Nos.3 to 5 is not maintainable. There is no individual allegation against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the Plaint. The learned Counsel for the Applicants relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal and Another [(1977) 4 SCC 467], in which it is held that if on a meaningful - not formal - reading of the Plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, for short); that care should be taken to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled; and that if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X CPC. The Counsel for the Applicants prayed to allow the Applications rejecting the Plaint as against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5.

9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 contended that this Court had rejected the claim only as against Defendant Nos.1 & 2 as per Order in I.A. No.1 of 2024. The Suit is perfectly maintainable against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5. Even though the Suit was filed as a Suit in rem under Section 5 of the Admiralty Act, in view of the averments in the Suit against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5, the Suit can be proceeded against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 under Section 6 of the Admiralty Act as a Suit in personam. In view of Section 7(1)(iii)(b) of the Admiralty Act, the Suit can be initiated against the defendant if the defendant, at the time of the institution of the Suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain in India. Admittedly, the Defendant No.2 Vessel was anchored at the Nhava Sheva Port limits under the Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Mumbai. In such case, the Defendant Nos.3 to 5, who are persons employed in the said Vessel, are available within India. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Al Quamar v. Tsavliris Salvage (International) Limited and Others [(2000) 8 SCC 278] to distinguish between action in rem and action in personam. Learned Counsel cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Others [AIR 2006 SC 1828] to substantiate the point that while considering an Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to read the entire plaint as a whole to find out whether it discloses a cause of action and if it does, then the plaint cannot be rejected by the court exercising the powers under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; that whether the plaint discloses a cause of action is a question of fact which has to be gathered on the basis of the averments made in the plaint in its entirety taking those averments to be correct; and that a cause of action is a bundle of facts which are required to be proved for obtaining relief and for the said purpose, the material facts are required to be stated but not the evidence. The learned Counsel further contended that there is no proper representation for the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 in this Suit, as the Power of Attorney in favour of the person who represented them has not been produced, and they did not seek permission to represent through Power of Attorney. It is seen that the Defendant Nos.3 & 5 have filed I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2025 to permit them to represent through Power of Attorney producing the respective Powers of Attorney dated 08.11.2023. Since this contention is only a technical contention in nature, which is seen cured by the filing of I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2025, I am not considering this contention and the decisions cited in support of the same.

10. I have considered the rival contentions.

11. The Suit is seen filed under Rule 3 of the Kerala High Court Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Rules, 2019, Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and the inherent Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.V. Elisabeth’s case in AIR 1993 SC 1014. The Suit is filed for compensation for the loss and damage sustained by the Plaintiffs, alleging collision of the Defendant No.2 Vessel with the fishing boat of the Plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 is a foreign Vessel. On considering the Plaint in its entirety, the Suit is filed as a Suit in rem, contending that the Plaintiffs are entitled to file the Suit when the Defendant No.2 has touched the territorial waters of India. Admittedly, as on the date of filing of the Suit, the Defendant No.2 Vessel had berthed in Bombay Port. In the Order in I.A. No.1/2024, this Court rejected the Plaint against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, holding that this Court does not have admiralty jurisdiction over them as the Defendant No.2 Vessel is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is held that Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, can be invoked against a foreign Vessel only when the Vessel is within the territorial waters of the concerned High Court, and when a Vessel is berthed in another High Court's jurisdiction, it cannot be said to be within the territorial waters of the invoking Court. The said Order has become final and binding on the Plaintiffs. That apart, in the said Order, the learned Judge has cautioned that while the said Petition has been filed by the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 alone, the result thereof could impact the Suit as well as the other Petitions filed by other Defendants.

12. The present Applications are filed by the Defendant Nos.3 & 5. If the I.A. Nos.2 & 5 of 2024 praying to reject the Plaint against the Defendant Nos.3 & 5 are allowed, there is no need to consider I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2024 praying to strike out some of the pleadings against them and to strike them out from the party array. The present Applications are filed by the Defendant Nos.3 & 5. In I.A. No.3 of 2024, the prayers to strike out Defendant No.4 and to strike out some of the pleadings against him are included. But the Defendant No.3 cannot make such prayers for Defendant No.4. Hence, I hold that there is no prayer from the Defendant No.4 to reject the Plaint against him, to strike out pleadings against him, and to strike him out from the party array. I am considering the prayers of the Defendant Nos.3 & 5 alone in these Applications.

13. Now the question in these Applications is whether the Suit can be proceeded against the Defendant Nos.3 & 5 in view of the Order in I.A. No.1/2024 and in the absence of the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 in the Suit. The Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are impleaded in the Suit showing their designations with reference to Defendant No.2. They are not impleaded in their name and in their individual capacity. Those Defendants are made parties in the Suit for the sole reason that they were employees of the Defendant No.1, who were in charge of the Defendant No.2 Vessel at the time of its alleged collision. On a plain understanding, a Suit cannot be continued against the employees of the Vessel without any claim against the Vessel or its owner. The contention of the Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 is that a Suit in personam can be instituted under Section 6 of the Admiralty Act. In order to file a Suit under the Admiralty Act, the Plaint should disclose a maritime claim included in Section 4 of the Admiralty Act. Section 4(1) provides for action only against the Vessel in respect of a question arising out of any of the matters specified in Clauses (a) to (w) therein. It is an action in rem as the action is against the Vessel. The purpose of such an action in rem is to procure the arrest of the Vessel to obtain security for the claim. Such action in rem will continue as an action in personam when the security is furnished and the Vessel is released. Suit in personam can be filed under Section 6 of the Admiralty Act against the owner of the Vessel in respect of the maritime claims arising out of the matters listed in Clauses (a) to (w) of Section 4(1). Such a Suit requires the owner of the Suit in the party array to maintain the Suit. Only if the Vessel or its owner is a party, a Suit can be filed under the Admiralty Act in respect of a maritime claim. Such Suits cannot be maintained only against the employees in a Vessel. If at all the Plaintiffs have any grievance against the individual actions of the Defendant Nos.3 to 5, the remedy of the Plaintiffs is not under the Admiralty Act. They have to institute a Suit against them in their personal capacity in their name in the ordinary Civil Court. In this case, going by the averments in the Plaint, the Plaintiffs cannot have any independent claim against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 apart from the claim against the Defendant Nos.1 & 2. Hence, I hold that when the Plaint is rejected against the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 as per the Order in I.A. No.1/2024, the Plaint is liable to be rejected against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5.

14. Accordingly, I.A. Nos.2 & 5 of 2024 are allowed, rejecting the Plaint as against the Defendant Nos.3 & 5.

15. In view of the rejection of the Plaint against the Defendant Nos.3 & 5, I.A. Nos.3 & 4 of 2024 filed by them to strike out pleadings and to strike out parties have become infructuous and the same are accordingly dismissed.