The plaintiff's entitlement to recover specific amounts was based on the evidence presented and the legal principles of pleading and evidence.

JUDGMENT

1. One Advocate B.S. Nayak has sent an email on 3rd February 2021 seeking an adjournment. Mr. Nayak had entered appearance for defendant nos.2 and 3. In the said email, Mr. Nayak also stated that he has not been receiving instructions. Adjournment refused.

2. This suit originally came to be lodged on 15th April 2015 against defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and plaintiff was claiming a sum of Rs.1,32,296/-. This amount of Rs. 1,32,296/- was in two parts, i.e., Rs.9008/- as explained in paragraph 5 of the plaint and Rs. 1,23,288/- as explained in paragraph 6 of the plaint.

3. On an application made by defendant no.4 on the ground that they had purchased defendant no.1 vessel before the suit was filed or an order of arrest was passed by this Court, defendant no.4 came to be added pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 26th October 2015. On 26th October 2015, plaintiff was also allowed to amend the plaint to add prayer clause - (c) (i) also corresponding to paragraph 10 of the plaint. Under prayer clause - (c) (i), plaintiff is claiming Rs.773/- per month from 1st April 2015 till defendant no.1 vessel is removed from the Port and harbour of Mumbai together with interest thereon at 16.25% p.a.

4. Plaintiff is the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai. Defendant no.1 was a vessel flying Indian flag and was registered at the Port of Navlakhi, India and on the date the suit was lodged was within the Port and harbour of Mumbai. Defendant no.2 was the owner of defendant no.1 vessel and some of the documents indicate that defendant no.3 was the owner of the vessel. It is not clear from the plaint who really was the owner of the vessel. Mr. Fernandes, however, clarifies that defendant no.2 actually was the owner of the vessel and the sale deed relied upon by defendant no.4 is between defendant no.2 as owner and defendant no.4 as buyer.

5. As averred in the plaint, some time in February 2008, plaintiff had invited a composite tender for execution of Capital Dredging for a proposed Offshore Container Terminal and Filling of the Existing Prince's and Victoria Docks by Sand Dredging, i.e., OCT Project. The work was awarded to defendant no.2 on 1st April 2009. For executing the work under the project, defendant no.3, which was also a group company of defendant no.2, brought 31 vessels including defendant no.1 vessel, dredgers, tugs, launches, hopper barges etc. However, the work could not be completed and plaintiff terminated the contract. Strangely, the averment in paragraph 4 (a) of the plaint is that the contract for OCT project was awarded to defendant no.2 but in paragraph 4 (b) it is averred that defendant no.3 was unable to complete the work within the stipulated time and therefore, the aforesaid contract with defendant no.3 was terminated with effect from 27th June 2013. Even the evidence has been led on this basis. I have to note that in paragraph 15 of the written statement filed on behalf of defendant nos.1 to 3, those defendants have expressly denied the contents of paragraph 4 (b)as under :

"15....... However the defendants deny the contentions of the paragraph 4 (b) and demands strict proof of the said contentions.....".

According to plaintiff, plaintiff was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.9088/- towards port dues/pilot age dues/anchorage dues in respect of defendant no.1 vessel (paragraph 5 of the plaint), (b) Rs.1,23,288/-towards interest on berth hire dues in respect of defendant no.1 vessel (paragraph 6 of the plaint) and (c) Rs.773/- per month towards water conveyance and port dues (inclusive of service tax) of defendant no.1 vessel from 1st April 2015 till defendant no.1 vessel is removed from the port and harbour of Mumbai (paragraph 10 of the plaint). Plaintiff's case is it has a maritime lien on defendant no.1 vessel. Plaintiff being a Port, in my view, has a maritime lien.

6. Written statement was filed on behalf of defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 and defendant no.4 chose not to file any written statement. At the same time, d