Maritime arrest and sister vessels: impleadment of additional vessels was refused because one arrest already secured the claim.

In a maritime claim, arrest of a sister vessel is permitted as an alternative to arrest of the offending vessel, but not in addition to an arrest already obtained for the same claim. A party may be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only if its presence is necessary or proper for complete adjudication; here, the proposed sister vessels and their sale proceeds were not necessary or proper because security had already been secured against one vessel. Where the owning company is in liquidation, leave of the Company Court is also required before pursuing relief against assets under liquidation. The amendment to implead the sister vessels and their sale proceeds was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff could amend the plaint to implead sister vessels and their sale proceeds as defendants after obtaining arrest of one vessel for the same maritime claim, and whether such impleadment was permissible when the owner company was in liquidation.

Analysis: Under the admiralty conventions and the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, arrest of a sister ship is permitted as an alternative to arrest of the offending ship, but not in addition to it. The purpose of arrest is to secure the maritime claim, and multiple arrest of vessels for the same claim is not permitted. A party can be added under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 only if its presence is necessary or proper for complete adjudication of the suit. Since the plaintiff had already secured arrest of one vessel, the proposed sister vessels and their sale proceeds were not necessary or proper parties and no sustainable cause of action existed against them for the relief sought. In addition, where the owning company is in liquidation, leave of the Company Court is required before proceeding in a manner that seeks a decree against assets under liquidation.

Conclusion: The amendment to implead the sister vessels and their sale proceeds was not maintainable and was rightly refused.

Final Conclusion: The chamber summons failed because admiralty law did not permit the plaintiff to enlarge a single-vessel arrest into a multiple-vessel claim for decree or security, and the proposed joinder was not justified in law.

Ratio Decidendi: In a maritime claim, a claimant may proceed against the offending vessel or a sister vessel as an alternative, but not against multiple vessels for the same claim; consequently, proposed sister vessels are neither necessary nor proper parties for impleadment to obtain a decree or arrest relief already secured against one vessel.

---