Allowed

INTEGR8 Fuels Inc. v. Sale Proceeds of Mv Karnika and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Jun 2022IA/2142/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an interim application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The court held that the defendant's acknowledgement of liability via a Bunker Delivery Note and e-mail indicated no real defence, justifying the grant of summary judgment for the claimed amount.

What did the court decide?

Claim of USD 532,965.07, principal and interest, is allowed.

INTEGR8 Fuels Inc. Vs Sale Proceeds of Mv… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ADMIRALTY AND VICE-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION [ COMMERCIAL DIVISION ]

¶2

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2142 OF 2021

¶3

¶4

COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT NO.26 OF 2021

¶5

Integr8 Fuels Inc. .. Applicant-Plaintiff

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Sale Proceeds of M.V. Karnika (IMO No.8521220) & Anr. .. Defendants

¶8

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, with Mr. Jitin Jose and Mr. Yash Aiyya, i/by Mr. Harsh Pratap, for the Applicant-Plaintiff.

¶9

None for the Defendants.

¶10

CORAM : A. K. MENON, J. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2022.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

None appears for defendant no.2. The defendant no.1-vessel has already been sold. The sale proceeds are said to be lying with the Prothonotary and Senior Master.

¶13

The application now filed by the plaintiff seeks summary judgment, under Order XIII-A, read with Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on the basis of a claim that a sum of USD 532,965.07 is said to be due as of 11 th December 2020, together with interest @ 2% p.a. on USD 532,965.07, compounded monthly from 12th December 2020 till the date of decree and till payment or realization.

¶14

Defendant no.2 is absent on call, though served. Affidavit-of-service dated 24 th 1/3

¶15

905-IA-2142-2021.doc Dixit

¶16

March 2022 is on record. That indicates that the IA and the Suit papers have been served upon the defendant no.2 by e-mail. Mr. Kamat states that e-mail has not bounced back. Statement is accepted. Mr. Kamat submits that supply of bunker is not in dispute. In fact, the defendant no.2 has, vide a communication dated 26 th December 2019 in the form of Bunker Delivery Note and Receipt bearing BDR No. 2464, acknowledged receipt of the supplies through Master/Chief Engineer of defendant no.1. Vide an e-mail dated 9th April 2020, sent at 04:50 hours to the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant’s President and CEO has acknowledged liability and sought further time since they have not received their funding. The liability is therefore seen to be undisputed.

¶17

The defendant no.1-vessel has already been sold. The defendant no.2 is a company incorporated in Mauritius. The sale proceeds of the 1 st defendant-vessel are presently lying in court. The record indicates that the defendants were obliged to make payment of the suit invoice no.IF77006 dated 6th January 2020, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-C to the plaint, for a sum of USD 402,322.90 and interest claimed on the aforesaid principal sum @ 2% p.a., compounded monthly. In view of the payment terms incorporated in the aforesaid invoice, apparently there is no dispute to the rate of interest and liability to pay since the correspondence prior to filing of the suit does not indicate any such defence since the 2 nd defendant has also not filed any written statement.

¶18

In these circumstances, considering the acknowledgment of liability, I am of the view that there is no real defence to the claim of the plaintiff and, in my view, this

¶19

2/3

¶20

905-IA-2142-2021.doc Dixit

¶21

is a fit case for granting summary judgment by allowing the present IA. Accordingly,

¶22

I pass the following order :-

¶23

(i) Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶24

(ii) Claim of the plaintiff to the extent of USD 532,965.07, as per Particulars of Claim, a copy of which is annexed at Exhibit-N to the plaint, is allowed.

¶25

(iii) Interim Application is disposed in the above terms.

¶26

(A.K. MENON, J.)

¶27

3/3

¶28

905-IA-2142-2021.doc Dixit

INTEGR8 Fuels Inc. v. Sale Proceeds of Mv Karnika and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

INTEGR8 Fuels Inc. v. Sale Proceeds of Mv Karnika 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

Jay Construction Vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

I. N. Halkara H.U.F. through Its Karta Indarmal N. Halkara Vs Pradip Bastimal Chopra

Manu Kumar Shah Vs D. Rajbahadur Singh and Anr.

Mehul Jadavji Shah Vs Paras Gopal Enterprises and 2 Ors.

Mehul Jadavaji Shah Vs Vimal Art (India) and 2 Ors.

Mehul Jadavji Shah Vs Ambe Gopal Developers and 2 Ors.