Kroll Trustee Services Limited vs Mt Aeon (Imo No. 9576818)

2025, the Applicant’s Interim Application No. 2723 of 2025 was allowed and the Applicant was added as a party Defendant to the Suit and was directed to file its written statement to the Suit.

¶18

Mr.Kapadia, submits that the Plaintiff has served the amended Plaint upon the Advocates for the Applicant through email on 07^th October 2025 and the present Interim Application has been filed on 24^th December 2025. That the statutory period for filing the Written Statement expired on 6^th November 2025. Although not stated there is a delay of 48 days from 07^th October 2025 to 23^rd December 2025.

¶19

Mr.Kapadia submits that one Global Radiance Ship Management Private Limited (“GRSM”) has filed a Commercial Admiralty Suit being Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 2 of 2023 wherein GRSM has also filed an Application for amendment of its Admiralty Suit being Interim Application No. 1566 of 2025. That the case set out by GRSM is that the claim which the Plaintiff has claimed herein has already been claimed by GRSM and that this Plaintiff is now fraudulently setting up a claim for amount that has been claimed by GRSM. Mr. Kapadia submits that therefore it was necessary for the Applicants to meticulously go through all the 1200 invoices annexed by GRSM in its

¶20

AVK 2/4

¶21

32-8242-2025.doc

¶22

Amendment Application to ascertain whether this claim has been paid or not.

¶23

Mr.Kapadia further submits that the Applicant also had to obtain appropriate legal advice from its legal counsel and its English Lawyers with regard to the documents annexed in the Plaint. That these consultations were essential for the accurate representation of the facts and formulation of an appropriate response to the allegations made by the Plaintiff.

¶24

That, the examination of the Plaintiff’s claim and documents provided shows that the Plaintiff has claimed the very amounts that several other parties have claimed and filed suits for recovery.

¶25

Mr.Kapadia submits that therefore the delay in preferring this Application was neither deliberate nor willful and the same is attributable to the complexities involved in a thorough review of the 1200 invoices. That the Applicants could not have prepared its defence in a cogent, complete and meaningful manner without going through and cross-referencing each document and therefore the delay in filing this application and the written statement has not occasioned by any negligence or omission on the Applicant’s part but was rather a result

¶26

AVK 3/4

¶27

32-8242-2025.doc

¶28

of the Applicant’s legitimate efforts to properly assess and challenge the claim computation of the Plaintiff which necessitated further examination of documents in detail.

¶29

Mr.Kapadia submits that therefore this Court condone the delay of 48 days and direct the registry to accept the written statement dated 23^rd December 2025 on behalf of the Applicant.

¶30

Despite service none appears for the Respondent/Plaintiff.

¶31

Having heard the learned Counsel and having considered the submissions, for the reasons submitted above, although I am inclined to condone the delay of 48 days, but not without imposing costs for the delay.

¶32

Accordingly, the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- by the Applicant to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa’s Advocate Academy and Research Center within a period of two weeks.

¶33

Subject to payment of costs as above, Registry is directed to accept the written statement. The Interim Application stands allowed and disposed as above.

¶34

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶35

AVK 4/4

Kroll Trustee Services Limited v. Mt Aeon (Imo No. 9576818)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kroll Trustee Services Limited v. Mt Aeon (Imo No. 9576818)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indusind Bank Ltd. vs Arpan Construction and Anr.

Tata Capital Limited vs Shetty Apurva

Prabha Bhavan Kataria vs Rajendra R. Singh and Anr.

Deepak Namchand Shah vs Marvelous Builders Pvt. Ltd.

Aditya Birla Capital Limited vs v R Mohan Kumar Pillai

Kishor N Shah vs Urban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund