The Board of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority vs Sale Proceeds of Tag Navya (Imo 8819081) and Anr.

Ms. Krushi Barfiwala alongwith Ms. Rima Desai, Mr. Shlok Bodas and Mr. Divyanshu Gupta instructed by Parinam Law Associates, Advocate for the Plaintiff.

¶17

Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya (through VC) alongwith Ms. Divya Dave and Mr. Avdhoot Prabhu, Advocate for the Applicant in IAL-10984-2025/Defendant No.2.

¶18

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 25 APRIL 2025

¶19

P.C. :

¶20

Ms. Barfiwala learned Counsel, appears for the Applicant/ Plaintiff and submits that this Interim Application seeks a Summary

¶21

Judgment in the matter.

¶22

Kanchan Dhuri 1/7

¶23

16-COMAS-1-2024.doc

¶24

On 7^th March 2025, Mr. Bhattacharya appeared for the Defendant No.2 and had sought time to file reply to this Interim Application.

¶25

Today, when this Application is called out, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that he has no objection if the Interim Application is allowed in as much as this Court has on 22^nd November 2022 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No.85 of 2021 in the matter of MV Tag Navya (IMO No.8819081) already determined priority of claims and that the Defendant No.2 is ranked at third priority, whereas the Applicant/ Plaintiff is ranked at 2^nd priority. This Court’s attention is drawn to paragraph 16 of the said order which indicates that the predecessor viz. assignor of the debt viz. IDBI Bank Ltd. is at serial No.8 and ranked at third priority whereas the Interim Applicant/Plaintiff is at serial No.7 and ranked at second priority.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the Applicant/Plaintiff submits that the Application seeks Summary Judgment against the sale proceeds of the Defendant-Vessel for a sum of Rs.3,77,55,397/- inclusive of penal interest at the rate of 16.75% till 30^th April 2021 together with further interest at the same rate from 01.05.2021 till the date of payment and realization thereof. It is submitted that the port authority has a maritime lien against the sale proceeds of the vessel viz. MV Navya (the

¶27

Kanchan Dhuri 2/7

¶28

16-COMAS-1-2024.doc

¶29

“Vessel”). That the Applicant/Plaintiff has a claim arising out port charges/facilities including pilotage charges, penal berth, hire charges, tug assistance charges etc. and therefore, a Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No. 17795 of 2022 (which is now Commercial Admiralty Suit No.1 of 2024) was filed, asserting its claim over the Vessel for maritime claim for recovery of statutory charges due and payable to it against the Vessel. It is submitted that the Vessel was anchored at its port during period 7^th February 2019 to 19^th October 2020 and was arrested by order dated 2^nd April 2019 in Admiralty Suit (L) No.36 of 2019. That during the order for arrest, the Vessel was anchored in the Plaintiff’s port waters. That in compliance of the arrest order, the vessel was arrested by the Plaintiff and remained at anchorage of the Plaintiff-Port. 5. Thereafter, the Vessel was sold pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 30^th September 2020 for a sum of USD 2.412 million to one M/s. Talent Mile Limited and the sale proceeds had been deposited by the purchaser with the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court.

¶30

It is submitted that corporate insolvency resolution proceeding (“CIRP”) was initiated against the owner of the vessel viz. Tag Offshore Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). It has been submitted that owner of the Vessel has been

¶31

Kanchan Dhuri 3/7

¶32

16-COMAS-1-2024.doc

¶33

ordered to be liquidated.

¶34

It is submitted that pursuant to the sale of the Vessel, the Vessel was tugged away from the Plaintiff Port on 19^th October 2020.

¶35

Ms. Barfiwala, learned Counsel, appearing for the Applicant/Plaintiff has drawn this Court’s attention to Exhibit-F which is the particulars of claim of port dues, pilotage, berth hire charges from 7^th February 2019 to 31^st May 2019 and then from 31^st May 2019 to 26^th September 2019 and thereafter, from 27^th September 2019 to 4^th October 2020, Mbpt Dues, pilot cancellation, penal berth hire charges, tug assistance for Tag Navya charges as well as penal interest charges all totalling to Rs.3,77,55,397/- as on 23^rd April 2019. It is observed from the said particulars of claim that there is a transaction deposit lying with the Applicant-Plaintiff of Rs.42,11,842/- as on 23^rd April 2019.

¶36

Upon a query with respect to the said deposit to the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/Plaintiff, this Court is informed that any excess beyond the decretal amount will be returned/refunded to the liquidator of the ship owner.

¶37

The correspondence annexed to the Plaint indicates that despite requests and reminders from the Plaintiff/Port Authority to remove the Vessel from the Port no steps had been taken until 19^th

¶38

Kanchan Dhuri 4/7

¶39

16-COMAS-1-2024.doc

¶40

October 2020 when the Vessel was tugged away. It is observed from the particulars of claim that the Port Authority has claimed only till 4^th October 2020 although the penal interest charges for non-payment are obviously beyond that period.

¶41

It is also noted from order dated 22^nd November 2022 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No.85 of 2021 determining the priority of claims that the dues of the Port Authority fall under Section 10(1)(a) r/ w. Section 9(1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the “Admiralty Act”) and the maritime claim having a maritime lien against the sale proceeds of the Vessel viz. Tag Navya.

¶42

The learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No.2 has also conveyed no objection to the allowing of this Application as the priority ranking of the Defendant No.2 is below that of the Plaintiff/Applicant who is ranked at priority No.2.

¶43

Accordingly, having heard the learned Counsel, and also having perused the documents annexed to the Plaint and also considering the above, I am satisfied that the conditions of the Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) as applicable to commercial disputes are met and there is no real prospect of any one successfully defending the claim nor is there any other compelling

¶44

Kanchan Dhuri 5/7

¶45

16-COMAS-1-2024.doc

¶46

reason why the claim of the Plaintiff/Applicant should not be allowed before recording of oral evidence.

¶47

Accordingly, the Applicant/Plaintiff is entitled to a Summary Judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC.

¶48

However, since there is a transaction deposit of Rs.42,11,842/- with respect to Tag Navya lying with the Plaintiff, the Application be allowed, subject to adjustment / less the said amount. 16. Subject to the above adjustment, the Interim Application is allowed and disposed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus :

¶49

(a) a summary judgment under Order XIIIA and/ or decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 be passed in favour of the Applicant/Plaintiff against the sale proceeds of the Vessel in the sum of Rs.3,77,55,397/(Rupees Three crore seventy seven lakh fifty five thousand three hundred and ninety seven only) inclusive of penal interest at the rate of 16.75% till 30.04.2021 alongwith further penal interest charged from 01.05.2021 @ 16.75% p.a. till realization thereof.

¶50

Further, subject to the above adjustment, let there be a decree and order in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) to the Plaint, which read thus :

¶51

Kanchan Dhuri 6/7

¶52

16-COMAS-1-2024.doc

¶53

(a) That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order and decree in favour of the Plaintiff against the sale proceeds of Vessel in the sum of Rs.3,77,55,397/- inclusive of penal interest at the rate of 16.75% till 30.04.2021 as per the Particulars of Claim annexed hereto, together with interest @ 16.75% p.a. from 01.05.2021 till the date of payment and realization thereof as per the Particulars of Claim at Exhibit F to the Plaint and/or such future sums as may be determined. (b) For an order and declaration that a sum of Rs.3,77,55,397/- inclusive of penal interest at the rate of 16.75% till 30.04.2021 as per the Particulars of Claim annexed hereto, together with interest @16.75% p.a. from 01.05.2021 till the date of payment and realization thereof is due and payable to the Plaintiff from the sale proceeds of the Vessel.

¶54

In the light of the order passed in this application, the Suit itself has been summarily disposed of. The Applicant is however at liberty to take out an application in the disposed of Suit for the purpose of pay out as priorities have already been decided by order dated 22^nd November 2022 in Interim Application (L) No. 25181 of 2022 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No.85 of 2021 and connected matters.

¶55

Drawn up decree is not dispensed with.

¶56

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶57

Kanchan Dhuri 7/7

The Board of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority v. Sale Proceeds of Tag Navya (Imo 8819081) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Board of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Authority v. Sale Proceeds of Tag Navya (Imo 8819081) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhavini Bhavesh Sejpal vs Vansh Bhavesh Sejpal (Minor)

J.V. Gokal Charity Trust and Anr. vs Nayan Arun Jagjivan

Children of the World India Turst through Betty Mathai Senior Coordination vs Timothy William Yeager and Sydney Renay Yeager and Ansh Jacob Yeager(Minor)

E-Gateway India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Others vs Rajeev Nayan Chuwalewala and Another

Oag Offshore Pipeline Services Sdn Bhd vs Dlb Kenenna Imo 8354562

The Board of Mumbai Port Authority vs Dlb Nand Gaurav