Carrier's 'Counterfactual' Defence Rejected; Summary Judgment Granted for Mis-delivery Without Bill of Lading: Madras High Court - 2025-07-16

Madras HC Grants Summary Judgment in Mis-delivery Case, Holds Carrier Liable for Delivering Cargo Without Original Bill of Lading

Chennai: In a significant ruling on maritime and commercial law, the Madras High Court has granted a summary judgment in favour of Swiss bank Banque Cantonale De Geneve (BCGE), holding the owners of the vessel M.V. Polaris Galaxy liable for mis-delivering cargo worth over USD 6.7 million. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, presiding over the Commercial Division, dismissed the ship owner's defences as "untenable" and "fallacious," affirming the sanctity of the bill of lading as a document of title and security in international trade finance.

The court decreed the suit, directing the vessel's owner, Galaxy Marine Services Limited, to pay BCGE USD 6,705,357.38 with 6% annual interest from the date of the suit, along with costs amounting to ₹59.11 lakhs.

---

Background of the Dispute

The case revolves around a trade finance transaction where BCGE financed its customer, Gulf Petrochem FZC (GP), for the purchase of marine fuel from the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL). The cargo was intended for an onward sale to Aramco Trading Fujairah FZE.

As security for the financing of approximately USD 6 million, BCGE insisted that the original bills of lading for the cargo, loaded onto the M.V. Polaris Galaxy, be made "to the order of Banque Cantonale De Geneve." This effectively gave the bank title to the cargo until its loan was repaid.

However, between June 9 and 10, 2020, the vessel's owner, acting on instructions from the charterer (Profitable Wealth Inc.), delivered the entire cargo to a third party, Chevron Singapore Private Limited, without the presentation of the original bills of lading. This delivery was made against a letter of indemnity from the charterer. When GP defaulted on its payment, BCGE, deprived of its security, initiated an admiralty action in rem against the vessel, leading to its arrest and the subsequent filing for a summary judgment.

---

Key Arguments Presented

Plaintiff's (BCGE) Submissions: - Senior Counsel Mr. Zarir Bharucha argued that the case was straightforward: the carrier breached the contract of carriage by delivering the cargo without the original bill of lading, which was explicitly made to the bank's order. - This mis-delivery directly caused the bank's loss, as it was deprived of its security. - The defences raised by the ship owner were illusory and did not have a "real prospect of success," making the case ripe for summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Defendant's (Galaxy Marine) Contentions: - Senior Counsel Mr. Prashant S. Pratap argued that a full trial was necessary to examine the underlying transaction between BCGE and GP. - He contended that the bill of lading was not the true security, as the financing arrangement (which allowed the buyer 60 days credit) implied that delivery would occur without the bill of lading. - The defendant raised a "counterfactual" defence, speculating that BCGE would have consented to the delivery even without the bill of lading had it been to the intended buyer, Aramco. They argued that the proximate cause of loss was BCGE's financing arrangement, not the mis-delivery. - They also claimed they were contractually obligated under their charter-party agreement to deliver the cargo against a letter of indemnity.

---

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles Applied

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy systematically dismantled each of the ship owner's defences, reinforcing established principles of commercial and maritime law.

On the Sanctity of the Bill of Lading: The court affirmed that the bill of lading, made to BCGE's order, was a document of title. The carrier's primary obligation was to deliver the cargo only to the lawful holder upon its presentation. The court noted:

"Since cargo was delivered to Chevron without production of the original bill of lading, according to BCGE, it was deprived of its security."

On the Carrier's Defences: -

Letter of Indemnity: The court held this defence "patently untenable," stating that the carrier's private contractual obligations under its charter-party cannot be used to defeat the rights of a third-party consignee (the bank) under the bill of lading. -

Spent Bill of Lading: The argument that the bill was "spent" was deemed "ex facie fallacious," as a bill only becomes spent upon proper delivery to the rightful party, not by mis-delivery to an unauthorized entity. -

The "Counterfactual" Inquiry: The court found no merit in the defendant's plea for a trial to conduct a counterfactual inquiry. The judge reasoned that since the cargo was delivered to Chevron (an entirely different entity) and not Aramco (the intended buyer), any speculation about whether BCGE would have consented to delivery to Aramco was "meaningless." Crucially, the court found no evidence that BCGE was ever informed of or asked to consent to the delivery to Chevron.

"In the absence of even prima facie evidence in such regard, in my view, there is no justification for such counterfactual inquiry. Put differently, there is no real prospect of Galaxy Marine succeeding in such counterfactual inquiry and the only reasonable inference is that BCGE would have answered resoundingly in the negative..."

The court concluded that the mis-delivery was the direct and proximate cause of the bank's loss.

---

The Final Verdict and its Implications

Finding that the defendant had "no real prospect" of successfully defending the claim and no compelling reason for a trial, the court allowed the application for summary judgment.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to carriers of their fundamental duty to honour the terms of a bill of lading. It underscores that accepting a letter of indemnity to deliver cargo without the original bill is a commercial risk taken by the carrier, who remains fully liable to the rightful cargo owner or consignee for any resulting loss. The ruling also clarifies the high threshold a defendant must meet to resist a summary judgment application in the Commercial Courts, requiring them to present a defence that is more than just fanciful or theoretical.