Partly allowed

Mathivanan v. Owners and Parties interested

Madras HC4 Dec 2020CS/210/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Competing claims to a vessel's sale proceeds concerned unpaid crew wages, port dues and recruitment-agency reimbursement. The court decreed wage claims and apportioned proceeds towards port dues and expenses. It held the agency's reimbursement claim was not maritime, but awarded it the residue and accrued interest.

What did the court decide?

Sale proceeds apportioned to crew wages, port dues and expenses; residue and accrued interest awarded to the recruitment agency. Port Trust exempted from court fees.

Mathivanan Vs Owners and Parties interested — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON: 23.11.2020

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON: 4.12.2020

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶7

C.S.No.210 of 2019
and
A.Nos. 2275 & 4278/2019
And
A.No. 216 of 2020
Mr. Mathivanan ... Plaintiff
Vs
Owners and Parties interested
In the vessel M.V. SEA JAL ONE
now lying at the Port of Tuticorin and
Rep. by its Master .. Defendant

¶8

PRAYER :- This Civil Suit is filed under Order XLII Rule 11 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Section 5 of the Admiralty Courts Act read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC praying for a Judgment and Decree against the defendant for the following reliefs:

¶9

(a) for a sum of US $ 14,833.00 (US Dollar fourteen thousand eight hundred and thirty three only) equivalent to INR Rs.10,24663.00 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty three only)

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶11

¶12

(Calculated @ 1 US $ = Rs.6908 or such sum of Indian Rupees, whichever to higher from the defendant Vessel M V SEA JAL ONE;

¶13

(b) For arrest and sale of the defendant Vessel M V SEA JAL ONE in as is where is condition, presently in Indian waters at the Port of Tuticorin, India;

¶14

(c) for a direction to adjust the sale proceeds of the defendant Vessel
M V SEA JAL ONE against the suit claim; and
(d) for costs of this suit.
***
For plaintiff : Mr T.Mohan
Mr. P.Muthusamy
For Defendant : set exparte on 18.06.2019
For Intervenors
1 to 11 : Mr.S.Vasudevan
JUDGEMENT

¶15

The suit had been filed under Order XLII Rule II of the Madras High

¶16

Court Original Side Rules read with relevant provisions of the Admiralty

¶17

Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff, Mathivanan,

¶18

who was formerly employed on Board the Vessel M V SEA JAL ONE https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶19

¶20

which was, at the time of institution of the suit, lying at the Port of Tuticorin within the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a Judgment and Decree against the defendant, the Owners and Parties interested in the said vessel M V SEA JAL ONE for a sum of USD $ 14,833 in its equivalent in

¶21

Indian rupee and also for arrest and sale of the said vessel and for a direction to adjust the sale proceeds against the suit claim and for costs of the suit.

¶22

2. The plaintiff, Mathivanan, was engaged as Chief Engineer on Board the Vessel M V SEA JAL ONE by appointment letter dated 20.10.2017 for a period of 6(+1) months from 24.10.2017. The vessel was registered in Hongkong and was flying the flag of Palau. The plaintiff joined duty on 24.10.2017. His salary was USD $ 2,500/- per month.

¶23

3. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was irregular in the payment of salary/wages, not only to the plaintiff but also to the other crew members. The plaintiff signed off duty on 28.04.2017. He was paid only three months' salary out of the six months salary due and payable to him.

¶24

The plaintiff and the other crew members sent several reminders to the

¶25

defendant demanding payment of wages. They also issued notice to M/s. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶26

¶27

Tangar Ship Management Pvt Ltd., Mumbai, who were the Crew Recruitment Agency. Since the wages had not been settled, claiming maritime lien over the Vessel, the suit had been filed seeking the reliefs as stated above.

¶28

4. The plaintiff also filed A.No. 2275 of 2019 seeking to issue a warrant of arrest against the vessel M V SEA JAL ONE which was lying at the port of Tuticorin at the relevant point of time. This application came up for consideration on 20.03.2019. Holding that a prima facie case had been made out, an order of arrest of the vessel was directed. The order of arrest was also effected.

¶29

5. Thereafter, the defendant was also served with the suit summons on 11.04.2019. The defendant had apparently taken a conscious decision

¶30

not to appear before the Court. The defendant was set exparte on 18.06.2019.

¶31

6. The plaintiff then filed A.No. 4278 of 2019 seeking sale of the vessel by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. Mr.K.Manoj Menon,

¶32

Advocate, was appointed as Advocate Commissioner to take steps to sell https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶33

¶34

the said vessel. The plaintiff was directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as initial remuneration for the Advocate Commissioner. The procedure to be adopted for effecting sale was also stated in the said order which was dated 02.08.2019. Thereafter, efforts were taken to effect sales of the vessel. The efforts did not fructify initially. Further directions were given on 15.10.2019. On perusing the report of the Advocate Commissioner and on hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the Court permitted open tender to be invited without indicating the upset price. The conditions for the sale were also elaborately given.

¶35

7. This Court after examining the quotations received, and also after affording an opportunity to negotiate the prices offered, through physical hearing of the case, on 15.10.2020, had confirmed the sale of the vessel in favour of M/s. St. Antony's Traders, Importers and Exporters having office at Old No.4/28, New No. 4/161, C.G.E., Colony, Tuticoin – 628 003. The vessel was sold in 'as is where is' condition along with her hull, tackle, engine, machinery, spares, gear, apparel, paraphernalia, furniture, articles, things on board for a total consideration of Rs.38/lakhs.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶37

¶38

8 . The learned Advocate Commissioner was bestowed with the

¶39

authority to receive the said sum and deposit the same in an interest earning fixed deposit account. The Court directed that the apportionment of the sum towards the rival claims would be then decided.

¶40

9. It must also be mentioned that the plaintiff had two rival

¶41

claimants. They had jointly filed application No. 7706 of 2019 under

¶42

Order XLII Rule 11 of the Original Side Rules seeking to intervene in the suit. This application had been considered and permission was granted for

¶43

the applicants therein to intervene in the suit by order dated 10.12.2019.

¶44

10. The applicants in A.No. 7706 of 2019 could be divided into two

¶45

categories. Applicants/ intervenors 1 to 10 were crew members of the vessel M V SEA JAL ONE and they stood in the same position as that of

¶46

the plaintiff claiming unpaid wages. The applicant No.11/ intervenor 11 M/s. Tangar Ship Management Pvt Ltd., Mumbai, was the Crew

¶47

Recruitment Agency of the vessel to whom the plaintiff and other crew

¶48

members had addressed reminders seeking payment of the outstanding wages. They sought to intervene in the application, as they claimed, that

¶49

they had settled a sum of USD $ 46,008.99 to the crew members since the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶50

¶51

crew members had not been paid any wages by the owners of the vessel

¶52

and they sought this amount to be reimbursed from the sale consideration.

¶53

11. There was also a claim from the Port Trust and in the order dated 15.10.2019, among other conditions, it was stated that the purchaser of the vessel will have to pay the Port charges and other statutory dues from the date of confirmation of sale till the date of actual removal of the vessel. This implied that the Port will have to be settled with their claims till the date of confirmation of sale.

¶54

12. Needless to point out, the expenses involved in the sale of the vessel and the claims of the surveyors would also have to be apportioned out of the sale consideration.

¶55

1 3. The points which have to be now decided with respect to apportionment of the sale consideration in the light of the above facts are

¶56

whether the following categories of claimants are entitled to receive any sum from the sale consideration and if so the amount to be so apportioned towards their respective claims:-

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶58

“ (1) The claim of the plaintiff in the suit;

¶59

¶60

(2) The claim of the 1 to 10^th intervenors/applicants in A.No. 7706 of 2019;

¶61

(3) The claim of the Port Trust authorities for their dues till the date of confirmation of sale; and

¶62

expenses incurred after arrest of the Vessel and

¶63

towards effecting sale of the vessel;

¶64

Intervenor/Applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019 was examined as PW-1 and he

¶65

filed Exs. P1 to P58. Ex. P-1 dated 20.10.2017 was the appointment letter

¶66

of the plaintiff; Ex.P-7 dated 01.06.2016 was the agreement of the 11^th intervenor with the defendant. Exs. P8 to P37 were the documents relating

¶67

to the 1^st to 10^th Intervenors. Ex.P-53 dated 21.02.2019 was an e-mail from

¶68

the defendant and Ex.P-58 was the bank details of the intervenors.

¶69

15. Heard arguments advanced by Mr. T.Mohan, learned counsel for

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶71

¶72

Mr. P.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the intervenors 1 to 11 / applicants in A.No. 7706 of 2019, Mr.Y.Sajith learned counsel for the Tuticorin Port Trust, Mr.K.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for M/s. St. Antony's Traders, Importers and Exporters Pvt./ purchaser of the ship. The learned Advocate

¶73

Commissioner Mr. K. Manoj Menon also assisted the Court.

¶74

16. The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 confers Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts and also more specifically, under Clause 32 of the Letters Patent, the Madras High Court had been ordained to exercise Maritime Jurisdiction as a Court of Admiralty and also to exercise such jurisdiction for the trial and adjudication of maritime questions. Clause 32 of the Letters Patent is extracted below:-

¶75

“ 32. Civil . - And we do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Madras shall have and exercise all such civil and maritime jurisdiction as may now be exercised by the said High Court as a Court of Admiralty or of Vice-Admiralty, and also such jurisdiction for the trial and adjudication of prize causes and

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶77

¶78

other maritime questions arising in India, as may now be exercised by the said High Court.”

¶79

17. Clause 33 relates to the Criminal Jurisdiction which can be

¶80

exercised by the Madras High Court as a Court of Admiralty in connection with maritime matters.

¶81

relates to the procedure and practice in cases brought before the High Court in the exercise of its Admiralty Jurisdiction.

¶82

19. Section 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 relates to Maritime claims. Section 4(o) which

¶83

had been relied on by both Mr.T.Mohan and Mr. S.Vasudevan is as

¶84

follows:-

¶85

exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim, against any vessel, arising out of any—

¶86

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶87

¶88

(a) .......... (b) ............. (o) claim by a master or member of the crew of a vessel or their heirs and dependents for wages or any sum due out of wages or adjudged to be due which may be recoverable as wages or cost of repatriation or social insurance contribution payable on their behalf or any amount an employer is under an obligation to pay to a person as an employee, whether the obligation arose out of a contract of employment or by operation of a law (including operation of a law of any country) for the time being in force, and includes any claim arising under a manning and crew agreement relating to a vessel, notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of sections 150 and 151 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (44 of 1958); (p) .......”

¶89

20. Section 9 of the said Act relates to the Inter se Priority on Maritime claim. Section 9(1)(a) and (d) are extracted below:-

¶90

“9. Inter se priority on maritime lien .—(1) Every maritime lien shall have the following order

¶91

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶92

¶93

of inter se priority, namely (a) claims for wages and other sums due to the master, officers and other members of the vessel's complement in respect of their employment on the vessel, including costs of repatriation and social insurance contributions payable on their behalf; (b) ....................; (c) ............................; (d) claims for port, canal, and other waterway dues and pilotage dues and any other statutory dues related to the vessel; (e) ..........”

¶94

21. Section 10 also deals with order of priority of Maritime claims. Section 10 is as follows:-

¶95

The order of maritime claims determining the inter se priority in an admiralty proceeding shall be as follows:— (a) a claim on the vessel where there is a maritime lien; (b) registered mortgages and charges of same nature on the vessel; (c) all other claims. (2) The following principles shall apply in determining the priority of claims inter se— (a) if there are more claims than one in any single category of priority, they shall rank equally; (b) claims for various salvages shall rank in inverse order of time when the claims

¶96

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶97

¶98

thereto accrue.”

¶99

22 . A perusal of the above provisions makes it clear that the plaintiff

¶100

and the 1 to 10^th intervenors/applicants in A.No. 7706 of 2019 stand on the

¶101

same footing as they are crew members and they claim unpaid wages.

¶102

23. It would also be appropriate that the expenses incurred towards the sale of the vessel are also reimbursed to the plaintiff, who had so incurred the same.

¶103

24. A dispute had arisen with respect to settling the claim of the Port Trust and the claim of the 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019.

¶104

25. It is the stand of Mr.S.Vasudevan that the Port Trust can claim their dues from the agents of the owner of the vessel and that this Court cannot partake their dues from and out of the sale consideration.

¶105

26 . The learned counsel also pointed out the claim of the 11^th

¶106

intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019 and stated that as the Crew https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶107

¶108

Recruitment Agency, they had paid part wages to the crew members on behalf of the owners of the vessel and therefore, are entitled to be reimbursed with the said amount.

¶109

27. The claim of the Port is a Maritime Claim under Section 4(1)(n)

¶110

of the Act. The provision is extracted below:-

¶111

harbour, canal, dock or light tolls, other tolls, waterway or any charges of similar kind chargeable under any law for the time being in force.”

¶112

28. The claim of the Port lies fourth in the order of priority under

¶113

Section 9 of the Act. Section 9(1)(d) had been extracted supra in paragraph 20.

¶114

29. The claim of the 11^th intervenor / applicant in A.No. 7106 of 2019 is not a claim for payment of wages but a claim for reimbursement of

¶115

amounts paid on behalf of the owners. The 11^th intervenor/applicant in

¶116

A.No. 7706 of 2019 is a Crew Recruitment Agency appointed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶117

¶118

owners of the vessel. The owners of the vessel are the defendant in the suit.

¶119

It is purely a money claim as against the owners/defendant. It cannot be categorised as a Maritime claim. Section 4(1)(o) relates to claim by a “ Master or member of the crew of a vessel ” for any sum due towards wages and also “ includes any claim under a manning and crew agreement relating to a vessel ”. This claim arising under a “ manning and crew agreement ” should be payable to a Master or a member of the crew of the vessel. It does not take into its fold or ambit the reimbursement of wages

¶120

paid by a Crew Recruitment Agency. A Crew Recruitment Agency is appointed under an agreement with the owner of the vessel. If the Crew

¶121

Recruitment Agency had made any payment for and on behalf of the owner, then they can raise a claim as against the owner of the vessel in accordance with the agreement appointing them as an agent of the owner.

¶122

They cannot claim this amount as a Maritime claim against the vessel.

¶123

They are neither a Master of the vessel nor a member of a crew. They recruit crew and in this case, they have recruited the plaintiff and the 1^st to 10^th intervenors/applicants in A.No. 7706 of 2019. It is for that purpose that the plaintiff and the said crew members issued notices calling upon the 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019 seeking payment of

¶124

outstanding wages. The agent steps into the shoes of the Principal and is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶125

¶126

equally liable for the outstanding wages. The remedy of the agent lies in

¶127

taking appropriate action against the Principal.

¶128

30. Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is as follows:-

¶129

“ 226. Enforcement and consequences of agent’s contracts.—Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person. —Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person. ”

¶130

31. A Maritime claim has been specifically defined under Section 4

¶131

of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017. The dispute of a Crew Recruitment Agency with its Principal/owners of the vessel has not been categorised as a Maritime claim. The 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019 can seek their remedy only from the Principal/owners of the vessel. On the other hand, the crew

¶132

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶133

¶134

members can claim their outstanding wages from the 11^th

¶135

intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019. It is on the basis of the such claim that part of the outstanding wages had been paid by the 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019.

¶136

32 . In Ex.P-7, the agreement between the 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019 and the owners of the vessel, it had been provided in clause (b) relating to the Responsibilities of the Ship Owner/Employer, that the agent shall be reimbursed for all agreed expenses of whatsoever kind.

¶137

33 . In cases of disputes, it had been provided that the disputes shall

¶138

be referred to arbitration in India and settled in accordance with the laws of India.

¶139

34. The law provides that certain categories of claims are Maritime

¶140

claims and had provided interse priority among such claims. The claim of the 11^th intervenor /applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019 cannot be treated as a

¶141

Maritime claim and therefore, even though it is deeply appreciated that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶142

¶143

they had, in discharge of their obligation as Crew Recruitment Agency, had come forward to tender evidence, the Court can only express its deep appreciation for their noble act, but can go no further.

¶144

35. I therefore hold that the 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706

¶145

of 2019 cannot claim any share from the sale proceeds as a right, but however, can be paid any amount out of the sale proceeds only after settling the other claimants listed above and if any further amount is due and receivable by them from the owners, they will have to take independent and separate legal proceedings as agreed by them in their agreement with the owners of the vessel.

¶146

36. With respect to the claim of the Port Trust, it has been provided under Section 4 that it is a Maritime claim and the priority is also fixed

¶147

under Section 9. The claim of the Port Trust can therefore be paid from and out of the sale proceeds of the vessel. A further objection had been raised

¶148

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶149

¶150

by Mr.S.Vasudevan with respect to the payment of the claim laid by the

¶151

Port Trust by placing reliance on the Rules which have been notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazettee on 30.09.2020 with respect to the Rules for Regulating the Procedure and Practice in Cases dealt in Exercise of

¶152

Admiralty Jurisdiction. Under Rule 12, it had been provided that a person intervening in terms of Rule 11 shall pay advalorem Court fees for such intervention. It was pointed out by Mr.S.Vasudevan that A.No. 7706 of 2019 had been filed on 14.10.2019 even before the new Rules had been notified and therefore, the applicants in the said application need not pay

¶153

any Court fees but the Port Trust should pay necessary Court fees.

¶154

However, the Rule 12(b) also provide for grant of exemption. I hold that the Port Trust being an authority under the control of the Government may

¶155

be exempted from payment of Court Fees as their claim is a claim for statutory dues for providing docking facility to the vessel, towards berth

¶156

hire charges. I further hold that this exemption is granted only because the Tuticorin Port Trust is controlled by the Government. Had it been a Port under the management of a Private organisation, this exemption would certainly not have been granted.

¶157

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶158

¶159

37. It is also to be mentioned that on the date when arguments were

¶160

advanced, namely, 23.11.2020, it had been mutually agreed that the exchange rate on that date, namely, Rs.74.14 per USD could be adopted for

¶161

converting the claims raised in U.S. Dollars to equivalent India Rupees.

¶162

38 . Accordingly, the claim of the respective parties are adjudicated

¶163

and the suit is decreed as follows:-

¶164

(i) Claim of the plaintiff (restricted to claim for unpaid wages)
USD $ 7333 x Rs.74.14 = Rs. 5,43,668.62
(ii) Claim of the 1 st to 10 th Intervenors/applicants
in A.No. 7706/2019:
(a) Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar Rs.250 x 74.14 = Rs. 18,535.00
(b) Mr.Gautam Behera Rs.292 x 74.14= Rs. 21,648.88
(c) Mr.Mohammad Ajmal Rs.6,850x 74.14= Rs.5,07,859.00
(d) Mr.Lalan Kumar Yadav Rs.350 x 74.14= Rs. 25,949.00
(e) Mr.Yogesh Kumar Rs.1,437x 74.14= Rs.1,06,539.18
(f) Mr.Jitendra Kumar Rs.1,300 x 74.14= Rs. 96,382.00
(g) Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Rs. 374x 74.14= Rs. 27,728.36
(h) Mr.Abhishek Mulchand
Tiwari Rs.700 x 74.14= Rs. 51,898.00
(i) Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Rs.2,820x 74.14= Rs.2,09,074.80
(j) Mr. Mukesh Sharma No claim = -
----------------------
Rs. 10,65,614.22
-----------------------
(iii) Claim of Port Trust = Rs.7,07,713.58
(iv) Claim of plaintiff towards expenses
from the date of arrest till date of sale:
(a) Transport Expenses incurred
towards serving of notice to VoC
Port in Chennai and Tuticorin =Rs. 30,000.00
(b) Paper publication =Rs. 40,950.00
(c) To & Fro Transportation Air Travel =Rs. 10,000.00
(d) Boarding & Lodging =Rs. 5,000.00
(v) Local transportation at Chennai &
Tuticorin =Rs. 5,000.00
------------------
Rs. 90,950.00
-------------------
(v) Professional fees of the Surveyors =Rs. 65,034.00
--------------------
Grand Total =Rs. 24,72,980.42
------------------

¶165

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶166

¶167

Total sale consideration available is Rs.38,00,000/-.

¶168

39 . The amount available after deducting the above claims is

¶169

Rs.13,27,019.58.

¶170

40. This amount is granted to the 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019. If any interest had accrued on the fixed deposit of Rs.38,00,000/-, then the same may also be paid to the 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019. The 11^th intervenor/applicant in A.No. 7706 of 2019 is at liberty to proceed further, if so advised and if

¶171

deemed appropriate, against the owners of the vessel for any further claim in accordance with the terms of the agreement between them.

¶172

41 . The learned Advocate Commissioner may disburse the above

¶173

amounts from and out of the sale consideration directly to the bank accounts which have been provided in Ex.P-58 to the intervenors and also

¶174

the plaintiff/counsel for plaintiff and the Port Trust. The Advocate Commissioner on verification, may pay the amount due to the Surveyor

¶175

either directly to the Surveyor or to the plaintiff/counsel for plaintiff.

¶176

42. In the result, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶177

¶178

(i) the plaintiff is held eligible for a claim of USD 7333 and equivalent to Rs.5,43,668.62 at Rs.74.14 USD;

¶179

(ii) The sale proceedings from the vessel MV SEAJAL ONE is apportioned; and

¶180

43 . The claim of the plaintiff and the intervenors are adjudicated and

¶181

the suit is decreed as stated above. Consequently, connected Applications

¶182

are closed. No order as to costs.

¶183

44 . A word, nay, a sentence of appreciation for the service rendered

¶184

by the learned Advocate Commissioner, Mr.K.Manoj Menon would be in

¶185

order. He had filed nine reports bringing to the notice of the Court, the

¶186

steps taken in effecting sale of the Vessel. He was very truely an Officer of the Court. He declined to receive any remuneration. This order was

¶187

actually held up for a day while I pondered over this stance, but finally I decided to respect his adherence to his Code of Ethics. The Court can only

¶188

say ' gracias '.

¶189

Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No vsg

¶190

Speaking/Non Speaking Order

¶191

List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the Plaintiff:-

¶192

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶193

¶194

P.W.1 – Mr.Bharat Bansode (11^th intervenor)

¶195

List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the Plaintiff:-

¶196

Ex.P1 = the copy of the appointment letter/contract of employment of the plaintiff with the 11^th intervenor dated 20.10.2027;

¶197

Ex.P2 = the copy of the Passport of Mr.Dhanapal Mathivanan (Plaintiff);

¶198

Ex.P3 = the copy of the CDC of Mr.Dhanapal Mathivanan;

¶199

Ex.P4 = the copy of the e-mail from plaintiff to owners of the defendant Vessel MV SEA JAL ONE dated 11.09.2018;

¶200

Ex.P5 = the copy of the Mail from plaintiff to owners of the defendant vessel MV SEA JAL ONE dated 18.09.2018;

¶201

Ex.P6 = the copy of the legal notice from plaintiff to owners of the defendant vessel dated 04.10.2018;

¶202

Ex.P7 = the certified copy of the Manning Agreement of 11^th intervenor with the owners of the defendant vessel MV SEA JAL ONE dated 01.06.2016;

¶203

Ex.P8 = the original contract of employment of Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar the first intervenor dated 23.06.2017;

¶204

Ex.P9 = the copy of the Passport of Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar, the first intervenor;

¶205

10.Ex.P10 = the copy of the CDC of Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar, the first intervenor;

¶206

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶207

¶208

11.Ex.P11= the original contract of employment of Mr.Gautam Behera, the second intervenor dated 06.07.2017;

¶209

12.Ex.P12 = the copy of the Passport of Mr.Gautam Behera, the second intervenor;

¶210

13.Ex.P13 = the copy of CDC of Mr. Gautam Behera, the second intervenor;

¶211

14.Ex.P14 = the original contract of Employment of Mr.Mohammad Ajmal, the third intervenor dated 01.04.2014;

¶212

15.Ex.P15= the copy of the Passport Mr.Mohammad Ajmal, the third intervenor;

¶213

16.Ex.P16 = the copy of the CDC Mr.Mohammad Ajmal, the third intervenor;

¶214

17.Ex.P17 = the copy of the original contract of employment of Mr.Lalan Kumar Yadav, the fourth intervenor dated 04.08.2017;

¶215

18.Ex.P18 = the copy of the passport of Mr.Lalan Kumar Yadav, the fourth intervenor;

¶216

19.Ex.P19 = the copy of the CDC of Mr.Lalan Kumar Yadav, the fourth intervenor;

¶217

20.Ex.P20 = the original contract of employment of Mr.Yogesh Kumar, the fifth intervenor dated 30.10.2017;

¶218

21.Ex.P21 = the copy of the Passport of Mr.Yogesh Kumar, the fifth intervenor;

¶219

22.Ex.P22 = the copy of the CDC of Mr.Yogesh Kumar, the fifth intervenor;

¶220

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶221

¶222

23.Ex.P23= the original contract of employment of Mr.Jitendra Kumar, the sixth intervenor dated 02.02.2018;

¶223

24.Ex.P24 = the copy of the Passport of Mr.Jitendra Kumar, the sixth intervenor;

¶224

25.Ex.P25 = the copy of the CDC of Mr.Jitendra Kumar, the sixth intervenor (copy);

¶225

26.Ex.P26 = the original contract of Employment of Mr.Pushpendra Kumar, the 7^th Intervenor;

¶226

27.Ex.P27 = the Passport of Mr.Pushpendra Kumar, the 7^th Intervenor;

¶227

28.Ex.P28 = the copy of CDC of Mr.Pushpendra Kumar, the 7^th Intervenor;

¶228

29.Ex.P29 = the original contract of employment of Mr.Abhishek Mulchand Tiwari, the 8^th Intervenor;

¶229

30.Ex.P30 = the copy of Passport of Mr.Abhishek Mulchand Tiwari, the 8^th Intervenor;

¶230

31.Ex.P31 = the copy of CDC of Mr.Abhishek Mulchad Tiwari, the 8^th Intervenor;

¶231

32.Ex.P32 = the original contract of employment of Mr.Kamaljit Singh, the 9^th intervenor;

¶232

33.Ex.P33 = the copy of the Passport of Mr.Kamaljit Singh, the 9^th Intervenor;

¶233

34.Ex.P34 = the copy of the CDC of Mr.Kamaljit Singh, the 9^th Intervenor;

¶234

35.Ex.P35 = the Original Contract of the Employment of

¶235

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶236

¶237

Mr.Mukesh Sharma, the 10^th Intervenor, dated 27.3.2018;

¶238

36.Ex.P36 = the copy of the Passport of Mr.Mukesh Sharma, the 10^th Intervenor;

¶239

37.Ex.P37 = the copy of the CDC of Mukesh Sharma, the 10^th Intervenor;

¶240

38.Ex.P38 = the Original Authority letter of Mr.A.Ramesh Kumar, the 1^st Intervenor dated 06.03.2019;

¶241

39.Ex.P39 = the Original Authority letter of Mr.Gautam Behera, the second Intervenor, dated 05.03.2019;

¶242

40.Ex.P40 = the Original Authority letter of Mr.Mohammed Ajmal, the third intervenor, dated 05.03.2019;

¶243

41.Ex.P41 = the Original Authority letter of Mr.Lalan Kumar Yadav, the fourth Intervenor;

¶244

42.Ex.P42 = the Original Authority letter of Yogesh Kumar, the 5^th Intervenor, dated 05.03.2019;

¶245

43.Ex.P43 = the Original Authority letter of Mr.Jitendra Kumar, the 6^th Intervenor, dated 26.03.2019;

¶246

44.Ex.P44 = the original authority letter of Mr.Pushpendra Kumar, the 7^th Intervenor dated 5.3.2019;

¶247

45.Ex.P45 = the Original Authority letter of Mr.Abhishek Mulchand Tiwari, the 8^th Intervenor, dated 5.3.2019;

¶248

46.Ex.P46 = the Original Authority letter of Mr.Kamaljeet Singh, the 9^th Intervenor, dated 8.03.2019;

¶249

47.Ex.P47 = the Original Authority letter of Mr.Mukesh Sharma, the 10^th Intervenor, dated 6.3.2019;

¶250

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶251

¶252

48.Ex.P48 = the copy of the email of the termination notice sent by the 11^th Intervenor, to the owners of the defendant vessel due to outstanding payment, dated 21.8.2018;

¶253

49.Ex.P49 = the photocopy of the email for the demand to make payment to all the crew after receiving legal notice from plaintiff by email sent by the 11^th intervenor to the owners of the defendant vessel, dated 9.11.2018;

¶254

50.Ex.P50 = the copy of the email from the 11^th intervenor to the owners of the defendant vessel demanding payment, dated 20.11.2018;

¶255

51.Ex.P51 = the copy of the email from the 11^th intervenor to the owners of the defendant vessel requesting to initiate legal proceedings, dated 16.2.2019;

¶256

52.Ex.P52 = the coy of the internal email within the officials of the 11^th Intervenor to proceed legal and sign Power of Attorney, dated 16.2.2019;

¶257

53.EX.P53 = the copy of the email from the owners of the defendant vessel to the 11^th Intervenor requesting to hold the legal proceedings for few days, dated 21.2.2019;

¶258

54.Ex.P54 = the copy of the email from the 11^th Intervenor to the owners of the defendant vessel demanding for wages due, dated 28.2.2019;

¶259

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶260

55.Ex.P55 = the copy of the email of the intimation from the 11^th Intervenor to the owners of the defendant vessel about initiating legal proceedings in Court, dated 18.3.2019;

¶261

¶262

56.Ex.P56= the certified statement of account;

¶263

57.Ex.P57 = the original board resolution, dated 5.11.2020;

¶264

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
58.Ex.P58 series (10 nos.) = the CM08-Bank details Form
of all the Intervenors.
3. List of Witnesses Examined on the side of the defendant:-
Nil
4. List of Exhibits Marked on the side of the defendant:-
Nil
4.12.2020
vsg
Pre-Delivery Judgement in
C.S.No.210 of 2019

¶265

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Mathivanan v. Owners and Parties interested

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathivanan v. Owners and Parties interested

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

Vendhar Tv Trac Media Pvt. Ltd. By its Directors Mr.Ravi Pachamuthu Vs M/s.Sun Tv Network Ltd. and another

Global Consumser Products Private Limited Vs Golden Chocolates Private Limited

S.Vimala Vs v.Shankar Krishnaa & 4 Others

Mr.Mathivanan S/O.Dhanapal Vs Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.v.Sea Jal One

Mr.N.Sivakumar Vs M/S.Siva Agencies

Naidu Hall Family Store Vs Moham Retail Private Limited