Mohammed Faisal Mohammed Iqbal Khan vs the Sale Proceeds of Mv Kaptan Hasal Onal Imo No 9539559

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat a/w Mrs. Apurva Mehta Pohonerkar, Ms. Prachi Gharat i/b ANB Legal Advocate for the Applicants / Plaintiffs. None for the Defendant.

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 14^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

This summary judgment application has been filed under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) by the Plaintiffs submitting that since the claim is against the sale proceeds of the Vessel

¶14

M.V. Kaptan Hasal Onal there are no prospects of the Defendant to succeed in defending the Suit.

¶15

Kanchan Dhuri 1/5

¶16

36-IA-4276-2025.doc

¶17

Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, learned Counsel, appears for the Plaintiffs / Applicants and submits that the claims of the Plaintiffs / Applicants are for unpaid wages and submits that the same is based on Contracts of Employment of the Plaintiffs and also refers to the Passport details and Indian Continuous Discharge Certificate cum Seafarer Identity documents as well as copies of the Sign on and Sign off records of the two Plaintiffs from the Vessel MV Kaptan Hasal Onal from the office of the Bureau of Immigration and the bank account details of the Applicants/Plaintiff confirming non-receipt of any payment from the Owners of the Defendant Vessel in support of his contention.

¶18

Mr. Kamat submits that the Applicants are entitled to proceed in rem against the sale proceeds of the Defendant Vessel and are entitled to receive their claims for outstanding salary / wages which constitute a maritime claim / lien under Section 4(1)(o) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (the “Admiralty Act”) and are accorded the highest priority in the inter se priority of maritime lien under Section 9(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act.

¶19

This Court has in the case of Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai /Raj Shipping Agencies vs. Barge Madhwa and Another with connected

¶20

Kanchan Dhuri 2/5

¶21

36-IA-4276-2025.doc

¶22

matters¹ followed by a series of decisions of this Court in the cases of Nagarajan Malealattane and Others vs. The Sale Proceeds of M V Brahmaputra Dolphin (IMO No.7608916)² , Anand Prakash Gupta and Others vs. Sale Proceeds of Uma Prem and Others³ and Angre Port Private Limited vs. Sale Proceeds of GP Asphalt 1⁴ , has held that for an action against the sale proceeds, it is not obligatory for a person having a maritime claim against the vessel to proceed against the owner and manager of the vessel and that the said action against the sale proceeds is an action in rem. Paragraphs 21 to 25 of the decision in the case of Board of Trustees of Port of Mumbai / Raj Shipping Agencies vs. Barge Madhwa and Another with connected matters (supra) are relevant, which are usefully reproduced as under :

¶23

“21. Action in rem is against the ship and not the owner. 22. A ship or a vessel as commonly referred to is a legal entity that can be sued without reference to its owner. The purpose of an action in rem against the vessel is to enforce the maritime claim against the vessel and to recover the amount of the claim from the vessel by an admiralty sale of the vessel and for payment out of the sale proceeds. It is the vessel that is liable to pay the claim. This is the fundamental basis of an action in rem. The Claimant is not concerned with the owner and neither is the owner a necessary or proper party. The

¶24

1 2020 SCC Online Bom 651

¶25

2 Interim Application (Lodging) No.2378 of 2024 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No.10 of 2023 decided on 2^nd May 2024

¶26

3 MANU/MH/1135/2020

¶27

4 Interim Application No.1992 of 2022 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No.29 of 2021 decided on 29^th November 2022

¶28

Kanchan Dhuri 3/5

¶29

36-IA-4276-2025.doc

¶30

presence of the owner is not required for adjudication of Plaintiff's claim. That is why no writ of summons is required to be served on the owner of the vessel. The service of the warrant of arrest on the vessel is considered sufficient.

¶31

For the purpose of an action in rem under the Admiralty Act, the ship is treated as "a separate juridical personality, an almost corporate capacity, having not only rights but liabilities (sometimes distinct from those of the owner)" – (M.V. Elisabeth and Ors. V/s. Harwan Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd. (1993 Supp (2) SC 433).

¶32

24….

¶33

The fundamental legal nature of an action in rem as distinct from its eventual object is that it is a proceeding against res. Thus, when a ship represents such res as is frequently the case, the action in rem is an action against the ship itself. The action is a remedy against the corpus of the offending ship. It is distinct from an action in personam which is a proceeding inter-partes founded on personal service on Defendant within jurisdiction, leading to a judgment against the person of the Defendant. In an action in rem no direct demand is made against the owner of the res personally (Maritime Liens by D R Thomas, Volume 14, British Shipping Laws).”

¶34

As noted above, the aforesaid principles have been followed in various decisions of this Court and based on the aforesaid decisions, I am of the view that the Applicants are entitled to proceed in rem against the sale proceeds of the Vessel in enforcement of their claims.

¶35

However, as noted above, considering that the Suit has been filed by two crew members claiming dues of their outstanding wages out of

¶36

Kanchan Dhuri 4/5

¶37

36-IA-4276-2025.doc

¶38

the sale proceeds of the Defendant – vessel based upon their Contract of Employment, the Passport details and Indian Continuous Discharge Certificate cum Seafarer Identity documents as well as copies of the Sign on and Sign off records of the two Plaintiffs from the Defendants’ Vessel from the office of the Bureau of Immigration, and their bank account details, this Court is of the view that a Court Commissioner be appointed to verify the same.

¶39

Accordingly, this Court appoints Mrs. Jyoti Bidye, learned Associate of this Court, as Commissioner to verify the following documents in respect of all the Plaintiffs and submit her report by 19^th December 2025 :

¶40

(i) Contract of Employment, Passport extracts duly certified by Advocate for Plaintiffs/Notarized, Indian Continuous Discharge Certificates cum Seafarer Identity documents as well as respective extracts of the Seaman’s Book and Wage statement in respect of crew members with their claims in the Suit with so far originals of which are available.

¶41

(ii) Powers of attorney in originals, if any, issued by Plaintiffs to lodge or receive such claims on behalf of the Plaintiffs. (iii) Commissioner shall verify the particulars and submit the report by 19^th December 2025.

¶42

List on 19^th December 2025

¶43

Kanchan Dhuri 5/5

Mohammed Faisal Mohammed Iqbal Khan v. the Sale Proceeds of Mv Kaptan Hasal Onal Imo No 9539559

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Faisal Mohammed Iqbal Khan v. the Sale Proceeds of Mv Kaptan Hasal Onal Imo No 9539559

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. vs Arvind Pandurng Dhoke

Atlantaa Limited vs State of Maharashtra

Heena Shah vs Abdul Hamid Mapkhan Shah

Dimple Rajendra Mehta vs Dorab Furdoon Seervai

Skybridge Incap Advisory LLP vs Cherag Shah