1. These Applications are filed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 6 under Order VII Rule 11(a) and Rule 11(d) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to hear the maintainability of the Admiralty Suit as a preliminary issue and to reject the Plaint in the Suit on the ground that the Plaint does not disclose a proper cause of action constituting a valid maritime claim and that the Suit is barred by law in the absence of Rules governing the proceeding for limitation of liability in this Court.

2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit claiming that the Plaintiff No.1 is the Owner, the Plaintiff No.2 is the Bareboat Charterer and the Plaintiff No.3 is the Time Charterer and Operator of the Vessel MSC ELSA 3 for the constitution of a limitation fund under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, for the purpose of limiting their liability arising out of all the claims on account of the sinking of the Vessel MSC ELSA 3 on 25.05.2025 at 14.6 NM away from the Kerala Coast during its voyage from Vizhinjam Port to Cochin Port and on account of the incidents connected therein. Several cargo owners and fishermen have filed Admiralty Suits claiming compensation against the Plaintiff No.3. The State of Kerala has filed Adml.S. No.12/2025, claiming compensation from the Plaintiff No.3 for the damage caused to the environment, coastline, or related interest of the State, the cost of the measures taken to prevent, minimise, or remove the damage to the environment, coastline, or related interest in the State and the cost of the measures for restoration of the environment, the economic loss caused to the fishermen of the State of Kerala, etc., due to the sinking of the Vessel MSC ELSA 3.

3. As per the Plaint, the Plaintiffs have filed the present Admiralty Suit under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, read with Rule 3 of the Kerala High Court Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Rules, 2019, and Part X-A of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, read with the Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims) Rules, 2015.

4. I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant in I.A. No.6/2025, Sri. V.J. Mathew, instructed by Adv. Sri. Merline Mathew, the learned Counsel for the Applicant in I.A. Nos.66 and 67 of 2025, Sri. Joy Thattil Ittoop, and the learned Counsel, Sri. V.B. Hari Narayan, who appeared for some of the defendants in the suit, and the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in these Applications/Plaintiffs, Sri. Prasanth S. Prathap, instructed by Adv. Sri. Naira Jeejeebhoy and Adv. Sri. Pranoy K. Kottaram.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. V.J. Mathew contended that the Plaint does not disclose a maritime claim in order to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction for this Court under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Admiralty Act’). A proceeding for the constitution of a limitation fund filed under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, is not entertainable before this Court, as the same is not a ‘maritime claim’ within the definition under Section 2(1)(f) of the Admiralty Act. As per Section 2(1)(f), a maritime claim means a claim referred to in Section 4 of the Admiralty Act. The claim for the constitution of the limitation fund does not come within any of the Clauses mentioned in Section 4 of the Admiralty Act, and hence the above suit does not come under the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the definition of ‘commercial dispute’ in Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which includes disputes arising out of the issues relating to admiralty and maritime law as per Sub Clause (iii) therein, and hence the proceeding for the constitution of a limitation fund is to be filed before the Commercial Court constituted under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned Senior Counsel cited the Interim Order dated 23.09.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MV Global Emerald v. Meck Petroleum DMCC and Another [Special Leave Petition (C) No.20990/2024] and contended that the issue regarding the interplay between the Admiralty Act and the Commercial Courts Act with respect to Admiralty Suits is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Senior Counsel cited the Interim Order dated 15.01.2025 in the same case in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note that the High Courts of Orissa and Kerala have not constituted Commercial Divisions with regard to Admiralty. The learned Counsel produced the Affidavits filed by this Court and the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Orissa in the said Special Leave Petition. This Court, in its Affidavit, has stated that since this Court does not have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, a commercial division as envisaged under Section 4 has not been constituted as it is not a compulsory legal mandate, and that it can be considered whether this Court should also constitute a commercial division and the Admiralty matters could be referred to be considered by the said Bench. The Affidavit filed by the High Court of Karnataka states that it has constituted a Sub Committee to prepare draft rules pertaining to the practice and procedure of Admiralty jurisdiction, including fees, costs, and expenses, and the Report of the Sub Committee is awaited. In the Affidavit filed by the Orissa High Court, it is stated that the Orissa High Court does not exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction and that a person seeking relief in respect of a dispute arising out of issues relating to admiralty and maritime law can approach the Commercial Court. Since the matter is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not proper for this Court to proceed with the present Admiralty Suit. The Limitation Suit is maintainable before the Bombay High Court since the Bombay High Court is having original jurisdiction to entertain suits. But this Court is not having original jurisdiction to entertain the suits. The Bombay and Andhra Pradesh High Courts have formulated Rules for adjudicating the Application for constitution of limitation fund under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, and in the absence of any such Rules for this Court, such Application is not maintainable before this Court. Learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the cause of action clause in the suit in which the plaintiffs have stated the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in World Tanker Carrier Corporation Limited v. SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. [(1998) 5 SCC 310] to show the cause of action. The cause of action for a suit cannot be made out by citing a decision. At any rate, since this Court has not framed the Rules for adjudicating the proceeding for the constitution of a limitation fund under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, the present suit is barred, and the Plaint is liable to be rejected.

6. The learned Counsel Sri. Joy Thattil Ittoop advanced arguments supporting the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel. The learned Counsel further contended that the proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act can be initiated only by way of an application, and it could not be initiated through a suit. The learned Counsel pointed out that before the introduction of the Admiralty Act, the proceeding for the arrest of the Vessel was filed in this Court as a Writ Petition under Section 443 of the Merchant Shipping Act. The present suit cannot be legally converted into an Application. The learned Counsel cited the decision of this Court in Anthoniyarpicha v. M.V. Mayuree Naree [2018 (3) KLT 966], in which it is held that the proceedings under Section 443(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act would fall under the nomenclature ‘Special Jurisdiction Case’ defined in the Office Order of this Court dated 11.04.2003. The learned Counsel further contended that the suit is not maintainable for want of mandatory Notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, since one of the Defendants in the suit is the State of Kerala. The learned Counsel cited the decision of the Orissa High Court in Bhagaban Khatua and Others v. State of Orissa and Others [MANU/OR/0666/2017], in which it is held that when no Notice is issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the institution of the suit, due to the non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit is not maintainable.

7. Learned Counsel Sri. V.B. Hari Narayan also advanced arguments in support of the aforesaid contentions and invited my attention to Rule 3 of the Kerala High Court Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Admiralty Rules’), which deals with the institution of the suit. The suit mentioned therein is only a suit in rem for enforcement of any of the maritime claims stipulated under Section 4 of the Admiralty Act and a suit in personam filed under Section 6 of the Admiralty Act, which are defined under Rules 2(f) & 2(g) of the Admiralty Rules. There is no Rule for an action under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act for the constitution of a limitation fund.

8. All the Counsel for the Applicants and supporting Defendants prayed for rejection of the Plaint.

9. Per contra, Sri. Pasanth S. Prathap, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3/Plaintiffs contended that the contentions of the Applicants that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action pertaining to a maritime claim provided under the Admiralty Act and that the suit is barred, as the Rules for the proceeding under Section 352- C of the Merchant Shipping Act are not framed by this Court, are thoroughly misconceived. The test for considering the question whether the Plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is that if the averments made in the Plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. For the said purpose, averments made in the Plaint in its entirety must be held to be correct. The Plaint averments in Paragraph Nos.1, 19, 20, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, and 33 establish the cause of action for the plaintiffs to initiate an action to limit the liability. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. v. M.V. Sea Success I and Another [(2004) 9 SCC 512] and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai    Kalyanji Bhanusali [Gajra], Dead through Legal Representatives, and Others [(2020) 7 SCC 366] in support of his contention. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the contention that the suit is barred since the Admiralty Act does not provide for limitation of liability does not fall within the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC is unsustainable, as no statement is pointed out as required under the provision which mandates that the suit shall appear from the statement in the Plaint to be barred by any law. The learned Counsel pointed out Section 4 of the Admiralty Act which provides that the High Court may exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim. Any question includes the action for the constitution of a limitation fund because it is a question on a maritime claim. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in World Tanker Carrier Corporation Limited (supra), in which it is held that a limitation action falls under the High Court’s admiralty jurisdiction; and that the Court having jurisdiction to entertain an admiralty action against the Vessel of the owner has jurisdiction to set up a limitation fund for the owner. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the action for constitution of limitation of liability is a defence to the claims made against the owner of the Vessel, and hence the same is liable to be adjudicated by the same Court where the claims are brought up for adjudication. The absence of Rules for filing a suit for limitation of liability is not a ground to defeat the substantive rights which the plaintiffs have under Section 352-C         of the  Merchant Shipping Act. As per the Order dated 06.08.2025, this Court overruled the objection raised by the Registry and directed the Registry to number the Suit, and thus the present Suit is numbered as Admiralty Suit No.14/2025. The said Order of this Court dated 06.08.2025 has become final as nobody has challenged the said Order. Learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the definition of ‘Suit’ in Rule 1063(1)(h) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, which provides that ‘Suit’ means any suit, action or other proceeding instituted in the Court in its admiralty jurisdiction. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the same definition is incorporated in Rule 2(e) of the Kerala High Court Admiralty Rules, 2019. Since the suit includes an action or other proceeding, a proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act can perfectly be numbered as a suit. The decision of this Court in Anthoniyarpicha (supra) relates to a case before the introduction of the Admiralty Rules and hence is not applicable. Learned Senior Counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shaik Saidulu @ Saida v. Chukka Yesu Ratnam and Others [(2002) 3 SCC 130], in which it is held that the word ‘application’ could be understood in a generic sense as a prayer made to an authority for some relief to set aside an order of another authority and that the plaint, which makes a request to the Court, is an application. The claim for the constitution of the limitation fund under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act is a defensive action. It can be claimed by way of a Counter-Claim to a maritime claim. When a Counter-Claim is maintainable, a separate suit for the constitution of the limitation fund is perfectly maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Elisabeth and Others v. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd. [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 433], in which it is held that High Courts in India are superior courts of record; that they have original and appellate jurisdiction; that they have inherent and plenary powers and that unless expressly or impliedly barred and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. Learned Senior Counsel contended that since the objection with reference to Section 80(1) CPC is not raised by the State of Kerala, the Applicants cannot raise such contention. Learned Senior Counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bishandayal and Sons v. State of Orissa and Others [(2001) 1 SCC 555], in which it is held that a Notice under Section 80 CPC can be waived. Learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments, praying to dismiss the aforesaid Applications.

10. I have considered the rival contentions.

11. In All Kerala Fishing Boat Operators Association, Munambam v. Elsa 3 Maritime Inc. [2025 KHC OnLine 1182] arising from this suit, while considering the Applications for impleadment, this Court had found that Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act is a complete code for the constitution of the limitation fund, consolidation of the claims and distribution of the limitation fund rateably among the claimants. Section 352-C enables a shipowner to apply to the High Court for the setting up of a limitation fund for limiting liability in respect of an occurrence, if legal proceedings are instituted in respect of the claim arising out of the said occurrence. The conditions for instituting a proceeding for the constitution of a limitation fund are that there should be an occurrence incurring liability to a shipowner and legal proceedings should have been instituted in respect of the claims arising out of the said occurrence. Admittedly, and also as borne out from the records, the occurrence of the sinking of the Vessel MSC ELSA 3 has incurred liability to the Plaintiffs and most of the Defendants have filed claims against the Plaintiff No.3 in this Court. Section 352-C provides a substantive right to the Plaintiff to institute a proceeding for the constitution of a limitation fund in respect of an occurrence. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in World Tanker Carrier Corporation Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is a defensive action against the claims in Admiralty filed by various claimants against the owner of the vessel and the vessel; that a limitation action need not be filed in the same forum as a liability action; that it must be a forum having jurisdiction to limit the extend of such claims and whose decree in the form of a limitation fund will bind all the claimants; that a limitation action falls under High Court's admiralty Jurisdiction; that a plea of limitation can be taken as a defence by the owner in an action in Admiralty filed against him by the claimant against him and the ship; that the Court having jurisdiction to entertain an admiralty action against the vessel of the owner has jurisdiction to set up a limitation fund for the owner; that if the owner initiates the defensive action in limitation, the Court which has jurisdiction to entertain a liability claim will have a jurisdiction to entertain the limitation action; that if a liability claim is already filed, that Court will have jurisdiction over the limitation action also; that claims may be several and they may be actually filed or may be apprehended and any Court where such a claim is filed or is likely to be filed will have jurisdiction to entertain a limitation action. In view of the aforesaid categorical findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the proceeding for the constitution of the limitation fund has to be initiated in the Court where the claims against the shipowner are filed. Since the claims against the shipowner with respect to the occurrence of the sinking of the Vessel MSC ELSA 3 are filed in this Court, the plaintiffs are perfectly justified in bringing the proceeding for the constitution of a limitation fund in this Court itself. Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act contemplates the consolidation of all the claims. Consolidation of the claims is possible only if the proceeding under Section 352-C are instituted in the same Court where the claims are pending.

12. Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act specifically provides that the proceeding mentioned therein is to be instituted before the High Court. In World Tanker Carrier Corporation Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically held that a limitation action falls under the High Court's admiralty Jurisdiction. In such a case, it could not come under the definition of ‘commercial dispute’ under Section 2(1)(c)(iii) Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to be filed before the Commercial Court.

13. The contention of the Counsel for the Applicants is that there is no rule framed for the purpose of adjudicating the proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act. Section 352-C confers a substantive right to the Plaintiff to institute a proceeding for the constitution of a limitation fund. The said substantive right could not be defeated on the ground that there is no rule framed for the claim under Section 352-C.

14. Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act says that the person mentioned therein has to apply to the Court for the setting up of a limitation fund. It does not refer to the nature of the proceeding. Then the question arises as to what should be the nature of the proceeding to be initiated by the shipowner for the constitution of a limitation fund under Section 352-C. When the Admiralty Suit filed by the plaintiffs was not numbered and was placed before this Court, this Court passed an Order dated 06.08.2025 directing the Registry to number the suit. Of course, the objection of the Registry was not with respect to the nomenclature of the proceeding. The objections of the Registry were with respect to the description of Defendant No.8 and whether the Vessel is to be made a party in the suit. This Court entered a finding that insofar as this Court is concerned, inasmuch as the rules do not provide the exact procedure to be followed, but at the same time the right to institute a suit for the limitation of liability is being conferred under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings prescribed under Order I Rule 8 CPC could be adopted. This Court has taken note of the absence of the rules and, thereafter, directed the numbering of the suit. The said Order is not challenged by anybody, and the contention with respect to the absence of the rule and numbering of the suit could not be re-agitated.

15. The Admiralty Rules, 2019, is made by this Court as per Notification No.DI-I/2570/2007 dated 23.01.2021. The said Notification shows that it is made exercising the powers conferred by Section 16(2A) of the Admiralty Act and Article 225 of the Constitution of India. I could not find Sub-Section 2A in Section 16 of the Admiralty Act. I could not trace out any amendment also inserting Sub-Section 2A in Section 16 of the Admiralty Act. As such, there is no provision in the Admiralty Act enabling the High Court to make Rules for the admiralty jurisdiction. Even assuming that there is any provision in the Admiralty Act enabling the High Court to frame Rules, this Court has exercised its powers under Article 225 also to make rules of Court, and hence the application of Admiralty Rules is not confined to the proceedings under the Admiralty Act alone. The Admiralty Rules are applicable to all the proceedings in the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. The wordings in the Notification itself make it abundantly clear that the Rules are made for regulating the practice and procedure of admiralty jurisdiction. Even otherwise, this Court can apply the Admiralty Rules to the proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, in the absence of specific rules for the same.

16. In the Admiralty Rules, ‘suit’, ‘suit in rem’ and ‘suit in personam’ are defined in Sub Rules (e), (f) and (g) of Rule 2, respectively. ‘Suit in rem’ and ‘suit in personam’ as defined in Sub Rules (f) and (g) of Rule 2 refer to suits stipulated under Sections 4 and 6, respectively, of the Admiralty Act. ‘Suit’ defined under Rule 2(e) does not refer to any of the provisions of the Admiralty Act. Rule 2(e) defines ‘suit’ as any suit, any action, or any other proceedings instituted in the Court in its admiralty jurisdiction. In view of the said definition of ‘suit’, whatever be the nature of the proceeding in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court, it is a suit in this Court. Rule 3 provides that a suit shall be instituted by a plaint drawn up, subscribed, and verified according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In such a case, whatever be the nature of the action or other proceeding instituted in this Court in the Admiralty Jurisdiction, the same is covered under the definition of ‘suit’ under Rule 2(e) of the Admiralty Rules, and the same shall be instituted by drawing a plaint as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act is an action or proceeding included in the definition of ‘suit’ in Rule 2(e) of the Admiralty Rules. The decision in Anthoniyarpicha (supra) was rendered by this Court before the introduction of the Admiralty Rules, 2019, and hence the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Hence, I hold that the present proceeding instituted under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, by way of a suit is maintainable.

17. It is true that the plaintiffs have invoked provisions of the Admiralty Act for filing the suit. As stated earlier, Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act is a complete code by itself, and there was no need for the plaintiffs to invoke the provisions of the Admiralty Act for maintaining the suit. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is that ‘any question on a maritime claim’ mentioned in Section 4 of the Admiralty Act would include the question of the constitution of the limitation fund. I am unable to accept the said contention. The existence of a maritime claim is a condition precedent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of the Admiralty Act. ‘Any question on a maritime claim’ mentioned in Section 4 of the Admiralty Act means a question on a maritime claim arising in the proceeding under the Admiralty Act itself and not a question on a maritime claim arising in the proceeding in any other enactment. In order to maintain a proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, there is no need to disclose any maritime claim. It is a defensive action to the maritime claims against the shipowner. In view of the provision under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in World Tanker Carrier Corporation Limited (supra), a proceeding under Section 352- C of the Merchant Shipping Act could be maintained under the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court without the aid of the provisions in the Admiralty Act. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicants is that in order to maintain a suit in the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court, the suit should disclose that the admiralty claim is unsustainable.

18. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I Association Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that whether a Plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact; that whether it does or does not must be found from reading the plaint itself; that for the said purpose the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct; and that the test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken in their entirety, a decree would be passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in ascertaining whether the plaint shows a cause of action, the Court is not required to make an elaborate enquiry into doubtful or complicated questions of law or fact; that so long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out; and that the purported failure of the pleadings to disclose a cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars. In Dahiben (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 is that if in a suit, no cause of action is disclosed, or the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 11(d), the Court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit, and in such case, it would be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted and that the power conferred on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. It is further held that in exercise of the power under this provision, the Court would determine if the assertions made in the plaint are contrary to statutory law, or judicial dicta, for deciding whether a case for rejecting the plaint at the threshold is made out; that the test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. The plaintiffs have made specific averments in the Plaint with respect to the occurrence of the sinking of the Vessel MSC ELSA 3 and the institution of the proceedings by the Defendants with respect to the claims arising out of the occurrence. Such averments disclose the cause of action for instituting the proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act for the constitution of the limitation fund, as the ingredients therein are satisfied. The Plaint has to be read as a whole to understand the cause of action therein.

19. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicants is that the suit is not maintainable for want of Notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The State of Kerala has not raised any such contention. The State of Kerala has filed I.A. No.7/2025 to delete it from the party array on the ground that the admiralty claim made by the State in Admiralty Suit No.12/2025 is not liable to be limited, and hence the State is not a necessary party. Even though the proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act is numbered as a suit, it is not having the essential characteristics of a suit. As per Section 12 of the Admiralty Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the proceedings under the Admiralty Act. The proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act is not proceeding under the Admiralty Act, and hence the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. There is no claim against the State Government in the present suit. The State of Kerala happened to be one of the Defendants in the suit since the State of Kerala also filed an Admiralty Suit against the Plaintiff No.3 making a claim with respect to the occurrence of sinking of the Vessel MSC ELSA 3. The proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act is a defensive action. In State of Kerala v. M.J. Sunil Kumar [2024 KLT OnLine 2817], while considering the question whether notice under Section 80 CPC is required for suits filed under Section 14 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, this Court held that combined reading of Section 13 and Section 14 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act would indicate that on publication of the Gazette Notification under Section 13, the Survey Officer has become functus officio; that if the aggrieved person opts to file a suit, no purpose would be served by serving a Notice under Section 80(1) CPC either to the Survey Officer or to the State Government as they do not have any right or authority to set aside or modify the determination notified in the Gazette Notification; and that no useful purpose would be served by serving a Notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to the filing of a suit under Section 14 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act. In this case also, no purpose would be served by issuing a Notice to the State of Kerala prior to the institution of the proceeding. No action could be taken by the State of Kerala in the matter of the constitution of the limitation fund or to avoid the suit. Hence, I find that the suit is not bad for want of Notice under Section 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the present proceeding instituted by the Plaintiffs under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, as a suit is maintainable under the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court and that the Plaint discloses a cause of action for instituting a proceeding under Section 352-C of the Merchant Shipping Act and the Plaint is not barred by any law. The aforesaid Applications are accordingly dismissed.