Allowed

Ritesh Kumar Awasthi v. M. v Pfs Supplier, Imo No. 9221176 and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2020ADMS/18/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Jurisdiction decreed a suit for recovery of unpaid wages. The plaintiff, an Electrical Officer, claimed Rs.4,51,690.14 for 91 days of service. Defendants did not oppose. The court held the claim qualifies as a maritime claim and lien under the Admiralty Act, 2017, awarded the principal amount plus 9% interest, costs, and dispensed with a drawn-up decr

What did the court decide?

Decreed against defendants for Rs.4,51,690/-, 9% interest from 02-06-2016 until realization, and Rs.25,000 costs.

Ritesh Kumar Awasthi Vs M. v. Pfs Supplier, Imo No… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

adms-18-19(902).doc

¶2

1 / 3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

¶4

ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.18 OF 2019

¶5

Ritesh Kumar Awasthi

¶6

..Plaintiff

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M. V. PFS Supplier (IMO No. 9221176) & Ors..Defendants

¶9

Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho with Mr. R. P. Shirole i/b Khare Legal Chambers
for Plaintiffs

¶10

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, Amicus Curiae

¶11

Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Constituted attorney of Plaintiff present

¶12

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J. DATE : 20^th FEBRUARY 2020

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

1This is a suit filed for recovery of unpaid wages. Plaintiff was

¶15

working as an Electrical Officer on board defendant no.1 vessel. The daily
wages of plaintiff was Rs.5000/-. Plaintiff signed on board defendant no.1
vessel on 04-3-2016 and signed off on 2-6-2016, thereby working for 91
days on board defendant no.1 vessel. Admittedly, as per the statement of
accounts given by defendant no.2, the owners of defendant no.1 vessel, the
total wages payable for 91 days for plaintiff was Rs.4,51,690.14 after
deducting Rs.3309.86 towards telephone charges. Nothing has been paid to
plaintiff. The break up can be found on page no.27 of the compilation of
documents filed on behalf of plaintiff.

¶16

2Defendant nos.1 and 2, though served, have neither entered
appearance nor filed any written statement. The suit against defendant no.3

Meera Jadhav

adms-18-19(902).doc

2 / 3

has been withdrawn. Considering the nature of the claim, I see no reason
why the suit cannot be decreed in view of absence of specific denial as
required under Order 8 Rule 3, read with Rule 5 and Rule 10 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908.

¶21

3Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, who is the constituted attorney of plaintiff
has filed affidavit of evidence affirmed on 20-2-2020 along with compilation
of 10 documents. Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, who is present in court, identifies his
signature and confirms having filed the affidavit of evidence. The same is
taken on record and marked Exhibit P-1. Compilation of documents is also
taken on record and marked as Exhibit P-2(colly). Defendants admission of
liability to plaintiff is at page no. 26 in Exhibit P-2(colly)

¶22

4I have also perused the pleadings, affidavit of evidence and
compilation of documents with the assistance of Mr. Kamat and Mr.
Carvalho. Both of whom, were appointed by this court to assist the court in
view of the inability of the counsel engaged by plaintiff to assist the court.
I have to note my appreciation to Mr. Kamat and Mr. Carvalho, who readily
agreed to assist the court and without their contribution, it would have not
been possible to dispose this matter.

¶23

5I have to also note that plaintiff’s claim would qualify firstly, as
a maritime claim under the provisions of Section 4(1)(o) read with (p) of
the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the Admiralty Act). Plaintiff’s claim will also

Meera Jadhav

adms-18-19(902).doc

3 / 3

qualify as a maritime lien under Section 9(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act.

¶28

6Plaintiff will also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date

¶29

of suit until payment / realisation. Plaintiff in my view, should also be paid
cost of Rs.25,000/-.

¶30

7 The suit stands decreed as under:

¶31

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order
and decree in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants
in the sum of Rs.4,51,690/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty One
Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety only) along with
interest at 9% p.a. from the date when the wages of the
plaintiff became due being on 02 June 2016 till the date of
realization.”

¶32

The amount shall be paid to plaintiff is Rs.4,51,690/- as
principal amount.

¶33

Interest @ 9% p.a. on this amount shall also be paid from the
date of the suit until payment / realisation.

¶34

Plaintiff is also entitled to cost of Rs.25,000/- from defendants.

¶35

8 Drawn up decree dispensed with.

¶36

9 All to act on authenticated copy of this order.

¶37

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶38

Meera Jadhav

Ritesh Kumar Awasthi v. M. v Pfs Supplier, Imo No. 9221176 and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Kumar Awasthi v. M. v Pfs Supplier, Imo No. 9221176 and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sahebrao Chindha Ahire

The State of Maharashtra Vs Sadashiv Dattu Mahajan

The State of Maharashtra Vs Vilas Santram Sugate

Anusayabai Govind Lokhande (Intervener) Vs Suresh Sakharam Sawant and Anr.

Ajit Chintaman Deshmukh and Anr. Vs M. v. Pfs Supplier Imo No. 9221176 and 2 Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ratan Tulshiram Londhe