Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Abhay Ahuja
Raj Transport and Trading Company – Appellant
Versus
Barge Madhwa – Respondent
No direct reference in the provided judgment addresses the preservation of property.
This Bombay High Court judgment (2025 Supreme(Bom) 784) focuses on granting a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for a maritime claim of Rs. 15,04,797/- (principal Rs. 12,82,717/- plus 18% interest) for necessaries supplied to the vessel Barge Madhwa (Defendant No. 1), owned by Defendant No. 2 (in liquidation). It reconciles admiralty jurisdiction (in rem action against the vessel/sale proceeds) with IBC liquidation (in personam against the owner), affirming the claimant's right to enforce against sale proceeds held by the court prothonotary under Admiralty Act priorities (not IBC Section 53 waterfall). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Application to "property needs to be preserved": - No explicit preservation order: The judgment does not issue or discuss interim preservation orders (e.g., under Order XXXIX CPC or admiralty rules) for the vessel, sale proceeds, or other property. The vessel was already arrested, sold in admiralty auction pre-judgment, and proceeds deposited with the court—implicitly preserved by prior arrest and deposit. (!) (!) - Implicit preservation via court custody: Sale proceeds are held by the Prothonotary and Senior Master, available for appropriation per decree (after future priority determination), ensuring preservation pending payout. No dissipation risk noted post-liquidation. (!) (!) (!) - Ongoing suit status: Suit remains pending solely for priority/payout adjudication; court retains control over proceeds, preserving them for maritime claimants. (!) - IBC context: Liquidator defends but cannot interfere with in rem proceeds; claim admitted in liquidation process does not override admiralty preservation/security. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
If "property" refers to the vessel's sale proceeds or related assets in a similar maritime/IBC scenario, they are already preserved in court custody. For active preservation (e.g., injunction against disposal), file a separate interim application under relevant admiralty/CPC provisions, citing this decree's affirmation of the claim. No references mandate or discuss further preservation steps.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY AHUJA, J.
1. This Interim Application has been filed by the Applicant/Plaintiff under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Today when the matter is called out, Mr. Gandhi, learned Counsel appears for the Applicant and submits that affidavit in reply dated 25th March, 2025 has been filed by the Defendant No.2 to the said Interim Application.
3. Mr.Dhruva Gandhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff/Applicant submits that the Suit has been filed for a judgment and decree for a sum of Rs. 15,04,797/-: the principal claim amount of Rs. 12,82,717/- and further interest at the rate of 18% per annum amounting to Rs. 2,22,080/- from the due date of each invoice till realization of the monies, and for costs.
4. Mr.Gandhi submits that the Plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged inter-alia in the business of supply of necessaries (viz. water and self- propelled barges for supplying of water) to sea-going vessels at various ports in India and the Defendant No. 1 is an Indian barge lying at Mumbai Port, within the jurisdiction of this Court owned by Defendant No. 2 as the registered owner.
5. It has been further submitted that the Plaintiff, from time to t
The court affirmed that a maritime claim for necessaries supplied to vessels is enforceable against the vessel, allowing a decree on admission despite the liquidation of the owner.
Plaintiffs may recover claims from sale proceeds of other vessels owned by the same defendant if primary claims remain unsatisfied.
A maritime claim can be pursued in rem against a vessel owned by a time charterer, provided the owner is liable for the claim, regardless of applicable insolvency laws.
Penal Berth Hire charges are not a penalty that would be required to be proved by the Plaintiff before it can seek to recover these charges.
The court confirmed that maritime claims under the Admiralty Act, 2017 allow arresting a vessel for dues irrespective of ownership, emphasizing the ship's distinct legal personality.
The court affirmed that unpaid wages for maritime employment constitute a maritime lien, granting summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff under the Admiralty Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
