Allowed

Zakir Hussain v. M. v Pfs Supplier Imo No. 9221176 and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2022IA/1332/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the interim application for summary judgment in a suit in rem crew wages. Ruling that the liability was unimpeachable based on verified documents, the court granted judgment against the vessel sale proceeds of Rs. 8,27,741/-.

What did the court decide?

Summary judgment for Rs. 8,27,741/ - plus 12% p.a. interest against sale proceeds of the Defendant Vessel; costs awarded.

Zakir Hussain Vs M. v. Pfs Supplier Imo No. 9221176 and… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

SWAROOP Digitally signedby SWAROOP SHARAD SHARAD PHADKE PHADKE Date: 2022.09.0716:38:13 +0530

¶2

ia 1332 of 2022.doc

¶3

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

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1332 OF 2022
IN
ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.1 OF 2020

¶5

Zakir Hussain…Applicant/Plaintiff
Versus

¶6

M.V.PFS Supplier and Anr.

¶7

...Defendants

¶8

Mr. Abhishek Khare with Mr. R.P.Shirole i/by Khare Legal Chamber, for Plaintiffs.

¶9

CORAM:
N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE :20th AUGUST, 2022

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.The Plaintiff has preferred this Application under Order XIIIA and/or
Order XII Rule 6 of the of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the Code of 1908), for a summary judgment without
recording oral evidence in favour of the Plaintiff against the sale proceeds of M.V.PFS
Supplier – Defendant Vessel for a sum of Rs.10,70,924/- along with further interest
and hardship claim as well as the legal expenses.

¶12

2. The material averments in the plaint can be summerized as under :

¶13

2.1The Defendant Vessel was flying an Indian flag. PFS Shipping India
Limited – Defendant No.2 was the registered owner of PFS Supplier. The Plaintiff
was employed as Chief Engineer to serve on board the Defendant No.1 Vessel,

¶14

SSP 1/6

¶15

ia 1332 of 2022.doc

¶16

pursuant to an Employment Agreement dated 10th March, 2017 and Article of
Agreement for employment of Sea Farers dated 10th March, 2017. In the said capacity,
the Plaintiff served on board the Defendant No.1 Vessel from 11th March, 2017 to 22nd

¶17

June, 2017. The Plaintiff avers that under Section 129(1) of the Merchant Shipping
Act, 1958 the wages of Sea Farers were required to be paid by Defendant No.2 within
four days of discharge. The Plaintiff ‘signed off’ from the Defendant No.1 Vessel from
22nd June, 2017. The Defendant No.2 committed default in payment of wages.
Hence, the Suit. The Plaintiffs, inter alia, sought the arrest of the Defendant No.1
Vessel.

¶18

3.At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff seeks leave to delete
the Defendant No.2, the registered owner of the Defendant No.1 Vessel from the array
of the Defendants and to prosecute the Suit in rem against the Defendant No.1 Vessel
alone.

¶19

4. Leave granted.

¶20

5.Necessary amendment be carried out within a week of uploading of this
order. Re-verification is dispensed with.

¶21

6.In the meanwhile, Defendant No.1 Vessel was arrested by an order dated
22nd September, 2017 passed by this Court in ADMS(L) No.513 of 2017. Eventually,

¶22

the Defendant No.1 Vessel was ordered to be sold and the sale was confirmed by an
order dated 12th February, 2018. The sale consideration of Rs.4,30,00,000/- after

¶23

SSP

¶24

ia 1332 of 2022.doc

¶25

deducting the Sheriff’s expenses came to be deposited in this Court.

¶26

7.The Plaintiff has taken out this Application with the assertion that the
liability to pay the crew wages is an admitted liability and there is no real prospect of
Defendant No.1 succeeding in defending the claim. In the Application, the Plaintiff
has furnished particulars of the claim.

¶27

8.Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Court Commissioner has
verified the original Agreements in respect of the crew member. Post verification, this
Application was taken up for hearing.

¶28

9.The Commissioner’s Report records, inter alia, as under :

¶29

`Sr.No.`	`Name of Crew Member`	`Pltf No`	`Claim`	`Particulars of D`	`ocuments`
			`(In Rs.)`	`Seafarer Employment` `Contract with date`	`Seafarers` `Article of` `Agreement` `with date`
`1`	`Zakir Hussain`	`1`	`8,27,741/-`	`Original contract dated` `10/03/2017`	`Original Article` `dated` `10/03/2017`
	`Total`		`8,27,741/-`

¶30

Notarized True copies of relevant extract of the Continuous Discharge Certificate (CDC) of Plaintiff
(this document containing signed on and singed off on Defendant No.1 Vessel and identification of the
Plaintiff).

¶31

10.The Plaintiffs claim of having rendered services on board the Defendant
No.1 Vessel finds support in the Employment Agreement (Exhibit A) and Sea Farers
Articles of Agreement (Exhibit B), duly verified by the Court Commissioner. The

¶32

SSP

¶33

ia 1332 of 2022.doc

¶34

Article of Agreement (Exhibit B) contains an endorsement under the signature of
Master of the Defendant No.1 Vessel that the Plaintiff had ‘signed on’ the ship on 11th
March, 2017 and ‘signed off’ from the ship on 22nd June, 2017. The claim of the
Plaintiff is further substantiated by the entries in the Continuous Discharge Certificate
(Exhibit F) – pages 40 to 42, and the Passport (Exhibit E).

¶35

10.In the light of the aforesaid material of unimpeachable character, the
learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the claim of the Plaintiff is
incontrovertible and the Defendant No.1 has no real prospect of successfully
defending the claim of the Plaintiff.

¶36

11.I am persuaded to agree with the aforesaid submissions. The fact that the
Plaintiff had rendered services on board the Defendant No.1 Vessel, is established
beyond the pale of controversy by the aforesaid documents namely the Employment
Agreement, Sea-farers Articles of Agreement, Continuous Discharge Certificate and
Passport.

¶37

11.I have perused the particulars of claim (Exhibit G). It indicates that as
against the total wages for 104 days aggregating to Rs.12,47,741/-, the Plaintiff had
received a sum of Rs.4,20,000/-. Thus, the outstanding wages comes to
Rs.8,27,741/-. In view of the provisions contained in Section 2(1)(g) read with
Section 9(1)(a) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims)
Act, 2017, the claim of the crew for wages constitutes a maritime lien. It also ranks

¶38

SSP 4/6

¶39

ia 1332 of 2022.doc

¶40

first in the order of inter se priority of claimants having maritime lien. It is trite law
that crew can proceed in rem against the Vessel and/or sale proceeds of the Vessel,
where it is sold consequent to arrest, to enforce their maritime claims for wages.

¶41

12.In the light of the aforesaid position in law and overwhelming material to
substantiate the claim of the Plaintiff that he did render the services as crew member,
on board the Defendant No.1 Vessel, there is no realistic prospect of the Defendant
No.1 successfully defending the claim of the Plaintiff. In the backdrop of the nature of
the claim, there does not seem to be any compelling reason not to dispose of the Suit
before recording oral evidence.

¶42

14.For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any impediment in passing the
summary judgment in favour of Plaintiff and against the sale proceeds of Defendant
No.1 Vessel.

¶43

15.Hence, the following order :

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i)The Interim Application stands allowed.

¶46

(ii)There shall be a summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff for

¶47

the sum indicated in the 4th column of the Commissioner’s report extracted above
aggregating to Rs.8,27,741/- and against the sale proceeds of the Defendant No.1
Vessel, along with further interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of “sign off” till payment
and/or realization.

¶48

SSP 5/6

¶49

ia 1332 of 2022.doc

¶50

(iii)The Plaintiff is entitled to costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-.

¶51

(iv)Subject to and upon determination of priorities, the decreetal

¶52

amount be disbursed to the Plaintiff.

¶53

(v)The Plaintiff is entitled to refund of Court Fees, if any, as per

¶54

rules.

¶55

(vi)The Suit also stands disposed.

¶56

(vii)Decree be drawn in the aforesaid terms.

¶57

( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

¶58

SSP

Zakir Hussain v. M. v Pfs Supplier Imo No. 9221176 and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakir Hussain v. M. v Pfs Supplier Imo No. 9221176 and Anr.

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

Aetos Agro Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs M T Prisco Bravo (IMO9011519)

Nizar Noorali Rangara and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nizar Noorali Rangara and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sushil Kaushik and 13 Ors. Vs M. v. Pfs Courage Imo No. 9428566 and 2 Ors.

M/S Liang Lih Machine Co. Ltd. Vs M/S Auram Machines(I) Pvt. Ltd.

Ajit Kumar Vs M.V. Pfs Supplier Imo NO.9221176 and 2 Ors.