Sections 3 (2) (4) and 4 (4) of the High Court of Admiralty jurisdiction over the arrest of the sister ship / ship in the Memorandum of Action scope act of the spine is sent before the plaintiff / consignor ship Plaintiffs A (Defendant) and B, while the other shipment was sent by C (Defendant) and De Fleury of the Ship Companies (Defendants) in order to obtain the necessary bank guarantee for the release of goods to Plaintiff. Suffered financial loss and as a result two lawsuits were filed against the defendants. In the High Court which ruled in his favor, the Appellate Bench of the High Court amended the High Court's order by reducing the amount of the order that in the first case, the vessel B was not implemented as a defendant nor It was in this suit that the vessel was BA's sister ship, and likewise the plaintiff in the second suit did not enforce vessel D as defendant nor was there any pursuit in this case. He said the ship was the sister ship of the vessel. The defendants believed that Sister Ship B and D were wrongly and illegally arrested in the suit because it was stated that the ships were not parties and had to establish a relationship with other ships in the absence of requests. Plaintiff's claim cannot be burdened on sister ship. The plaintiff's legal status was based on a carriage agreement operated by the shipping companies and it was agreed that the goods would be issued against bank guarantees. Nor has it been confirmed on the basis of the DAP as originally agreed that the bank company guarantees
