Allowed

Andrews Agnel Libin Os v. Nand Ananya Imo No 9082063

Gujarat HC26 Jul 2022AS/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat granted a decree on admission to a seafarer claiming unpaid wages against the sale proceeds of an arrested vessel. The Court held that the failure by the vessel's erstwhile owner to file a written statement despite notice amounted to an admission of liability, entitling the claimant maritime lien and priority payment.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed granting maritime lien over sale proceeds for INR 29,071 principal plus interest at 12% p.a. and costs against Nand Ananya.

Andrews Agnel Libin Os Vs Nand Ananya Imo No 9082063 — Gujarat HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 3 of 2022 With

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2022
 In R/ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 3 of 2022

¶5

=====================================================

¶6

ANDREWS AGNEL LIBIN OS

¶7

Versus

¶8

NAND ANANYA IMO NO 9082063

¶9

=====================================================

¶10

Appearance:

¶11

NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS PAURAMI B. SHETH(841) for the Plaintiff(s) No. 1
=====================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

¶13

Date : 26/07/2022

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.Draft amendment as prayed for in OJCA No.1 of 2022 is granted and the same be carried out forthwith.

¶16

2.Heard learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the Plaintiff / Applicant.

¶17

3.Learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the Plaintiff submitted that the original Plaintiff has filed present Suit for outstanding amount of his unpaid wages contending interalia that the services of the Plaintiff was hired for the Defendant Vessel by entering into written contract through one M/s. Tapti Waterways Private Limited, that upon his appointment, the

¶18

Page 1 of 15

¶19

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶20

Plaintiff was entitled for wages as well regular
supply of Fuel, Food and other bare necessities,
that the Plaintiff has been paid wages only till
October, 2021 and further wages were due from
01.11.2021 onwards, that the Plaintiff has come
to know that one Yes Bank has filed the suit
before this Court and procured arrest of the
Defendant Vessel and later on, in pursuance of
the Application of the Yes Bank, this Court has
passed order for sale of the Defendant Vessel,
that having come to know about the directions
for sale of the Vessel, the Plaintiff has
preferred the present Suit and prayed for
following reliefs in paragraph 20 of the Plaint
which reads thus :-

¶21

a.That the Defendant Vessel Nand Ananya (IMO No.9082063) and her Owner be ordered and decreed to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of INR 22,000.00 towards wages from 01.11.2021 till 20.01.2022, court fees and expenses together with wages from 21.01.2022 till date of sign off and further interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from due date of payment of wages until payment as per particular of claim;

¶22

b.That the Defendant Vessel Nand Ananya (IMO No.9082063) together with her hull,

¶23

Page 2 of 15

¶24

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶25

engines, gears, tackles, bunkers machinery,
apparel, plant, furniture, fixtures,
appurtenances and paraphernalia, at present
lying at Hazira Port or wherever she is
within the territorial waters of India, be
arrested by a Warrant of Arrest of this
Hon'ble Court and the same be condemned in
respect of the Claim herein and be ordered
to be sold along with her hull, engines,
gears, tackles, bunkers machinery, apparel,
plant, furniture, fixtures, appurtenances
and paraphernalia and the net sale proceeds
thereof be ordered to be applied to the
satisfaction of the Plaintiff’s claim
herein and the cost of this Suit;

¶26

c.That pending the hearing and final disposal
of the suit this Hon’ble Court be pleased
to order and direct the arrest of the
Defendant Vessel Nand Ananya (IMO No..
9082063) along with her hull, engines,
gears, tackles, bunkers machinery, apparel,
plant, furnitures, fixtures, appurtenances
and paraphernalia, at present lying at
Hazira Port, or wherever she is within the
territorial waters of India and also
restrain her from beaching and breaking;

¶27

d.That pending the hearing and final disposal

¶28

Page 3 of 15

¶29

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶30

of the suit this Hon’ble Court be pleased
to direct to permit the Plaintiffs to sign
off prior to contract period and further
direct the concerned Authorities at Hazira
Port to arrange for sign off, of the
Plaintiff;

¶31

e.for interim and ad-interim orders in terms of prayers (b), (c) and (d) above;

¶32

f.for costs of this Suit;

¶33

g.for such further and other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.

¶34

4.Learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth submitted that though by order dated 20.01.2022, this Court directed to arrest the Defendant Vessel in the present Suit, further directed that the order of arrest was not required to be effected as in the meantime, the Defendant Vessel was already sold and the sale proceeds of a sum of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- were directed to be retained in the Registry as per order dated 06.01.2022 in pursuance of the Application filed by Yes Bank, the Plaintiff of Admiralty Suit No. 16 of 2021.

¶35

5.Learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth submitted

¶36

Page 4 of 15

¶37

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶38

that the order dated 20.01.2022 was served to
the Owner of the Defendant Vessel through email
dated 21.01.2022 around 7.23 pm but the
Defendant Vessel has till date not appeared
through its erstwhile Owner or filed written
statement. Even after the Defendant Vessel was
sold and sale proceeds were deposited with the
Registry, the erstwhile Owners have not entered
appearance in any of the Suit filed against the
Defendant Vessel.

¶39

6.Learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth further submitted that even after the Defendant Vessel was sold, the Plaintiff continued to serve on board the Defendant Vessel until new owner initiated the process to take over the possession of the Defendant Vessel on 15.02.2022 and they have been signed off on 14.02.2022.

¶40

7.The Plaintiff has then filed above Application under which, the Applicant/Original Plaintiff seeks a summary judgment/decree against the Defendant Vessel under Order XIII-A read with Order VIII Rule X of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 12 of of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.

¶41

Page 5 of 15

¶42

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶43

8.It is submitted by the Plaintiff/Applicant in the above Application that immediately after taking possession of the Defendant Vessel, the new Owner requested the Plaintiff/Applicant to continue on Board the Vessel and accordingly paid him wages for the period from 15.02.2022 to 19.02.2022, that the Applicant is therefore entitled to wages for the principal amount of INR 22,000.00 plus accrued interest till date of this Application of INR 660.00 and cost of litigation of INR 6,411.00 aggregating to principal amount of INR 29,071.00 with further interest at the rate of 12% per annum on INR 22,000.00 from date of order till its realization or at the reasonable rate of the interest the Hon’ble Court may deem it fit, that even after the Defendant Vessel was sold and sale proceeds were deposited with the Registry, the Defendant Vessel has till date not appeared through its erstwhile Owner, or filed written statement and the dues of the Plaintiff has been admitted inasmuch as they have not been denied, that the Plaintiff has maritime lien consequently entitled to be paid first in priority and has prayed for the following reliefs in Civil Application No.1 of 2022 :-

¶44

a) pass an order and decree on admission in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant

¶45

Page 6 of 15

¶46

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶47

vessel Nand Ananya (IMO No. 9082063) and her
owners, for the principal amount of INR
22,000.00 plus accrued interest till date of
this Application of INR 660.00 and cost of
litigation of INR 6,411.00 aggregating to
principal amount of INR 29,071.00 with further
interest at the rate of 12% per annum on INR
22,000.00 from date of order till its
realization.

¶48

9.This Court issued Notice on the said Application upon Simcement Private Limited, Mumbai , the erstwhile Owner of the Defendant Vessel vide order dated 06.07.2022 and directed the Plaintiff/Applicant to serve to Simcement Private Limited, Mumbai through email. Learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth submitted that in pursuance of the said order, the notice is served upon Simcement Private Limited, Mumbai vide Email dated 18.07.2022 and tendered copy of the said Email.

¶49

10. Learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth submitted that the averments made in the plaint and Application with respect to unpaid wages have gone unchallenged inasmuch as the registered Owner of the Defendant Vessel despite service of the Arrest Warrant and Notice of Application have not rebutted the same and thereby admitted

¶50

Page 7 of 15

¶51

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶52

the dues of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has
maritime claim and maritime lien under Section 4
(1) (0) and 4 (1) ( w ) read with section 9 of
the Admiral (Jurisdiction and Settlement of
Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (For short “ the
Admiralty Act”) and consequently entitled to be
paid first in priority out of sale Proceeds
lying with the Registry of this Court and hence
the plaintiff is therefore required to be
granted a decree on admission for wages for the
principal amount of INR 22,000.00 plus accrued
interest till date of this Application of INR
660.00 and cost of litigation of INR 6,411.00
aggregating to principal amount of INR 29,071.00
with further interest at the rate of 12% per
annum on INR 22,000.00 from date of order till
its realization or at the reasonable rate of the
interest the Hon’ble Court may deem it fit from
date of order till its realization as per
Schedule.

¶53

11.MS. Sheth, the learned advocate has also invited attention of this Court to the following documents annexed with the Plaint and above Application:

¶54

a. The Employment Contracts (Page Nos. 15 to 19 of the Plaint),

¶55

b.Letter dated 03.01.2022 addressed to M/s.
Tapti Waterways Private Limited Copy of

¶56

Page 8 of 15

¶57

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶58

chart showing outstanding Amount of wages
(Page Nos.20 to 21 of the Plaint)

¶59

c.reply dated 04.01.2022 of M/s. Tapti
Waterways Private Limited (Page No.22 of
the Plaint)

¶60

d.Article of Agreement for Employment of Seafarers (Page Nos.5 to 6 of the Application)

¶61

12. In support of her submissions, Ms. Sheth, the learned advocate relied on the following judgments:

¶62

I Order passed by this Court in Credit Suisse
AG v.MV Sam Hawk (dated 04.02.2021).

¶63

II Order passed by this Court in Yes Bank V. Nand Aparna AS No. 16/21 dated 12.07.2022

¶64

III Order passed in the case of Raj Shipping
Agencies vs. Barge Madhwa and Anr., 2020 SCC
OnLine Bom 651.

¶65

13. This Court considered the submissions advanced by Ms. Paurami Sheth, the learned advocate for the plaintiff, gone through the Plaint and affidavit-in-support, the Civil Application and the documents annexed with the Plaint and the Application. It is evident from Employment Contract, Letters of the Plaintiff addressed to M/s. Tapti Waterways Private Limited and reply of M/s. Tapti Waterways Private Limited annexed with the Plaint that the plaintiff was employed

¶66

Page 9 of 15

¶67

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶68

to serve on the Defendant Vessel through M/s.
Tapti Waterways Private Limited and was not paid
wages from 01.11.2021. It is further evident
from Article of Agreement for Employment of
Seafarers that the plaintiff served upon the
Defendant Vessel for erstwhile Owner till
14.02.2022 and hence is entitled for the wages
till that date. Thus having considered the
submissions thereto and more particularly in
view of the fact that the Plaintiff/Applicant
herein have the claim against the sale proceeds
of the vessel lying with this Court, I am of the
view that the prayers sought in the present
Civil Application for passing decree deserves to
be allowed.

¶69

14.Further, it is evident from Employment Contract, Letters of the Plaintiff addressed to M/s. Tapti Waterways Private Limited and reply of M/s. Tapti Waterways Private Limited annexed with the Plaint that the plaintiff was employed to serve on the Defendant Vessel through M/s. Tapti Waterways Private Limited, he was not paid wages from 01.11.2021. It is also evident from Article of Agreement for Employment of Seafarers that the plaintiffs served upon the defendant Vessel for erstwhile Owner till 14.02.2022 and hence entitled for the wages till that date. Thus it is proved that the Plaintiff served on the Defendant Vessel and has not been paid wages

¶70

Page 10 of 15

¶71

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶72

and his claim stand proved.

¶73

15. Records indicate that Notices been duly served upon the Owner of the Defendant Vessel. This Court has directed that the Warrant of the order of arrest not required to be effected on the Defendant Vessel in view of her sale but the Order was duly served upon the Owner of the Defendant vessel. The Owner of the Defendant Vessel has not appeared before this Court nor filed Written Statement within stipulated time as required under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In view of above the liability of owner can be said to be uncontroverted.

¶74

16. The Plaintiff has initiated action in rem against the Defendant Vessel. 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 herself. 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-parties founded on personal service on Defendant within jurisdiction, leading to a judgment against the person of the Defendant. In

¶75

Page 11 of 15

¶76

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶77

an action in rem no direct demand is made
against the Owner of the res personally. The
distinction between an action in rem and an
action in personam is therefore a matter of
substance and not of mere form.

¶78

17. The original Plaintiff/Applicant has also filed the above Application under the provisions of Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908 read with Section 12 of of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and sought decree/summary Judgment against the sale proceeds of the Defendant Vessel.

¶79

18. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Ms. Paurami Sheth for the Plaintiff, upon perusal of the documents annexed by the Plaintiff in support of its claim and in view of the fact that despite service, the Registered/Erstwhile Owner has not entered appearance till date nor filed written Statement rebutting the averments made in the Suit remain unchallenged and thereby the dues of the Plaintiff have been admitted. I am of the opinion that from the pleadings and materials on record, no purpose would be achieved by leading oral evidence and directing the Plaintiff to undergo a full-fledged trial and the same would be grossly unfair and there is no compelling

¶80

Page 12 of 15

¶81

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶82

reason for the same especially when the
erstwhile Registered Owner of the Defendant
Vessel has admitted its liability by not
rebutting the same and not filing the Written
Statement. It is thus evident that Plaintiff has
made out a case for grant of decree on non
rebuttal in his favour. It is therefore held
that the Plaintiff has served as the Crew on
Board and their unpaid wages have maritime lien
on the Defendant vessel as per Section 9 of The
Admiralty Act, 2017.

¶83

19.Taking into consideration the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 and Order VIII Rule 10 read with Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908 undisputably the case of the present Plaintiff and facts and circumstances of the present case, the Plaintiff has sought prayers against the Defendant Vessel by seeking a decree against the sale proceeds of the Defendant Vessel and, this Court finds force in the submissions made by Ms. Sheth, the learned advocate appearing for the Plaintiff/Applicant.

¶84

20. Even otherwise this Court is of the opinion that it may on its motion pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff on the basis of the admission of the Plaintiff’s Claim in its entirety by not rebutting the same or not filing

¶85

Page 13 of 15

¶86

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶87

Written Statement by the erstwhile Registered
owners of the Defendant Vessel even though the
Plaintiff has not made application specifically
under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 while exercising the powers of
the Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.

¶88

21.In view of the same, a case has also been made out for passing a judgment/decree in favour of the Plaintiff on basis of the above submissions. In such circumstances the present suit is decreed as below:

¶89

a.That there be an order and decree that the claim of the Plaintiff in the Suit is secured in favour of the Plaintiff by a valid and subsisting maritime lien over the sale proceeds of the Defendant Vessel NAND Ananya ((IMO No. 9082087), lying with the Registry of this Court.

¶90

b.That there be an order and a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against sale proceeds of Nand Ananya ((IMO No. 9082087) for the principal amount as claimed for at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Application i.e 13.04.2022, till realization.

¶91

c.No other priority except the aforesaid are

¶92

Page 14 of 15

¶93

C/AS/3/2022 ORDER DATED: 26/07/2022

¶94

adjudicated by this Court under Section 9
read with Section 10 of the Admiralty Act,
2017.

¶95

22. The suit stands decreed to the aforesaid extent only. The present suit and Civil Application No.1 of 2022 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶96

There shall be no order as to further costs.

¶97

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)

¶98

Pallavi

¶99

Page 15 of 15

Andrews Agnel Libin Os v. Nand Ananya Imo No 9082063

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andrews Agnel Libin Os v. Nand Ananya Imo No 9082063

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohanbhai Dahyabhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Rajkot Engineering Sales Vs P.M. Diesels Ltd.

Rajkot Engineering Sales Corp Vs P.M.Diesls Ltd.

Bhanabhai Premabhai Tailor Master Vs Nand Aparna (Imo No 9082087)

Siddhart Bak, Fitter Vs Nand Hazira Imo No 8845456

Gaurang Dwivedi S/O Jayashankar Vs Geratur Bhagyalaxmi Co-Operative Soc Limited Part 8