Allowed

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority v. Sale Proceeds of Vessel M v Pfs Courage

Bombay HC26 Jul 2022COMAS/36/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court in Commercial Admiralty Suit No.36 of 2021 decreed a claim by the Board of Mumbai Port Authority for recovery of dues of Rs.1,97,104/- with interest from the sale proceeds of the vessel M.V.PFS Courage.

What did the court decide?

The Suit stands decreed for a sum of Rs.1,97,104/- along with interest at 15% p.a. from the date of the Suit till payment against the sale proceeds of the vessel, and costs of the Suit.

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority Vs Sale Proceeds of… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

Digitally signed SWAROOPSHARAD by SWAROOPSHARADPHADKE PHADKE Date: 2022.07.2717:26:20 +0530

¶2

comas 36 of 2021.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.36 OF 2021

¶4

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority,
a body constituted under the provisions of the
Major Port Authorities and having their
Office at Vijay Deep, Shoorji Vallabhdas
Marg, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001

¶5

…PLAINTIFF

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sale Proceeds of Vessel M.V.PFS Courage,
Presently lying in this Hon’ble Court with
the Prothonotary and Senior Master and all
persons interested in the said Vessel

¶8

...DEFENDANT

¶9

Ms. Sneha Pandey i/by Motiwala and Co., for Plaintiff.
None for Defendants.

¶10

CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.

¶11

DATE:26th JULY, 2022

¶12

JUDGMENT :

¶13

1. This Commercial Admiralty Suit is instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,97,104/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.1,34,458/from the date of institution of the Suit till payment and/or realization against the sale proceeds of the Vessel M.V.PFS Courage.

¶14

2. The Plaintiff is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Major

¶15

Port Authorities Act, 2021. Its predecessor in title – the Board of Trustees of the Port
of Mumbai, were the owners of the Docks, Harbour and Port facilities at the Port of

¶16

SSP 1/4

¶17

comas 36 of 2021.doc

¶18

Mumbai. The Plaintiff renders various services to the Vessels coming to the Port of
Mumbai.

¶19

3.M.V.PFS Courage, owned by PFS Shipping India Limited, had availed the
services at the Plaintiff’s port. Eventually, the Vessel – M.V.PFS Courage came to be
sold by the order of this Court on 4th July, 2018 in Admiralty Suit No.20 of 2018. The
sale proceeds of Rs.5,50,00,000/- have been deposited in this Court. The Plaintiff
raised bills for anchorages, port and pilotage services rendered to the said Vessel prior
to its sale, aggregating to Rs.1,34,458/-. The Plaintiff also addressed notice to the
Owner, Master and Agent of the said Vessel to pay the statutory dues in Form No.I on
6th July, 2018. It was followed by another notice dated 17th July, 2018 in Form No.II.
However, the statutory dues of the Plaintiff remained outstanding. Hence, this Suit
along with interest and further interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of the suit till
realization.

¶20

4.Since the owner of the Vessel could not be served despite efforts, the Plaintiff
was permitted to serve the Defendant by way of substituted service in the nature of
paper publication. Eventually, the owner of Defendant Vessel was served by paper
publication. An affidavit of service dated 18th March, 2022 came to be filed. Thus,
the Suit came to be posted for passing Ex-parte Decree against the Defendant.
5.The Plaintiff has examined three witnesses namely Sandesh Kumar (P.W.1),
Assistant Harbour Master, Marine Department; Mr. Hemant Rama More, (P.W.2)

¶21

SSP 2/4

¶22

comas 36 of 2021.doc

¶23

Administrative Officer, and Mr. Rajendra R. Walinjkar (P.W.3), Sr. Administrative
Officer, Port Trust of Mumbai. They have filed Affidavits in lieu of examination-in-
chief. The Plaintiff has also tendered documents in support of the claim. They are
marked as Exhibits P1/2 to P1/6, P2/2 to P2/9 and P3/2. The Plaintiff’s claim that it
had rendered services to the Defendant Vessel is substantiated by the Marine Invoice
Finalized Report (Exhibits P/2/2 to P/2/5, P/3/2), interest bill (Exhibit P/2/6) and
certified true copy of SOR (Exhibits P/2/7 to P/2/9). The claims of the witnesses
that the notices were addressed to the Master and Agent of the Vessel, also find
support in the Notices dated 6th July, 2018 (Exhibit P/1/3) and 17th July, 2018 (Exhibit
P/1/4). The evidence of the Plaintiff’s witnesses has gone unchallenged. The claim
of the Plaintiff appears a maritime claim covered by Section 4(1)(k) and (n) of the
Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. This claim
constitutes a maritime lien under Section 9(1)(d) of the said Act. The Plaintiff is,
thus, entitled to a decree. Hence, the following order :

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i)The Suit stands decreed for a sum of Rs.1,97,104/- along with

¶26

further interest @ 15% p.a. on the sum of Rs.1,34,458/- from the date of the Suit till
payment against the sale proceeds of Vessel – M.V.PFS Courage.

¶27

(ii)Decree be drawn accordingly.

¶28

SSP 3/4

¶29

comas 36 of 2021.doc

¶30

(iii)The Plaintiff is also entitled to recover the costs of this Suit from

¶31

the Defendant.

¶32

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶33

4/4

¶34

SSP

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority v. Sale Proceeds of Vessel M v Pfs Courage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority v. Sale Proceeds of Vessel M v Pfs Courage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deelight Fortune Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs the Sale Proceeds of Vessel M. v. Karnika and 2 Ors.

Vasant Vijay Kilari Vs State of Maharashtra

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority Vs Sale Proceeds of the Vessel M.V. Pfs Brave

Babusha Champshi Shah Vs Sulochana Dhirendra Shah(Mother of Deceased Bankim D Shah) and 4 Ors.

O. S. v. Crest Mercuty One(Imo 9724398) Vs Vision Projects Technologies Private Limited