Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Abhay Ahuja, J.
Raj Transport and Trading Company - Applicant
Versus
Barge Madhwa and another - Defendants
Interim Application (L) No. 4027 of 2025, Admiralty Suit No. 17 of 2015
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XII Rule 6 - Interim Application for judgment on admission - Plaintiff, a partnership firm, claimed Rs. 15,04,797/- for necessaries supplied to vessels owned by Defendant No. 2, which included principal and interest - Defendants admitted liability through communications dated 28th August 2014 and 18th November 2014 - Court found that the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree on admission based on clear admissions of liability. (Paras 1, 3, 15, 57, 58)
(B) Maritime Law - Claim for necessaries supplied to vessels constitutes a maritime claim enforceable against the vessel - The Plaintiff's claim recognized as a valid maritime claim under the Admiralty Act and the IBC - The court ruled that the Plaintiff could proceed in rem against the vessel despite the liquidation of Defendant No. 2. (Paras 10, 12, 41)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendant No. 2 for outstanding dues of Rs. 15,04,797/- for necessaries supplied to vessels owned by Defendant No. 2, which included principal and interest. The Defendants acknowledged the outstanding dues in prior communications but failed to make payments.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the Interim Application, granting a judgment on admission for Rs. 15,04,797/- and awarded costs of Rs. 7,32,430/- to the Plaintiff.
Issues: The main issues included whether the Plaintiff could obtain a decree on admission despite the liquidation of Defendant No. 2 and the applicability of maritime claims under the Admiralty Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff's claim was valid and enforceable as a maritime claim, and the admissions made by Defendant No. 2 warranted a decree on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.
Result: Interim Application allowed; judgment and decree for Rs. 15,04,797/- granted.
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 time, has been supplying necessaries / water and self- propelled barges for supplying of water to the vessels owned by Defendant No. 2 and has been raising invoices against the same, some of which were paid and some of which have been outstanding.
6. Mr.Gandhi has further submitted that the Plaintiff has at the moment an outstanding towards necessaries / water delivered and self- Propelled barges provided on charter to supply water / necessaries to the vessels owned by the Defendant No. 1 of an amount of Rs. 15,04,797/-, which includes interest and the principal amount of Rs.12,82,717/-, as per the particulars of claim annexed to the Plaint (Exhibit-FF) admitted by Defendant No. 1 to be outstanding.
7. As and by way of illustration, Mr.Gandhi has drawn this Court’s attention to a receipt dated 9th October, 2013 (Exhibit-B) with respect to 823 metric tons of fresh water supplied to the vessel-Barge Madhwa on 9th October, 2013. Mr.Gandhi has also shown to this Court the Tax Invoice dated 10th October, 2013 (Exhibit-C) issued to Defendant No. 2- owner, in respect of the said delivery of fresh water of 823 metric tons for a total amount of Rs. 1,76,945/-. Mr.Gandhi would further submit that there are other similar receipts and invoices raised upon Defendant No. 2 in respect of other vessels as well in addition to Defendant No. 1 and submits that the details in the statement annexed at page 104 of the Plaint reflects details of the said deliveries, invoices as well as the payments received and the outstanding. Mr.Gandhi would further submit that the particulars of claim at Exhibit-FF reflects the total amount of outstanding by Defendant No. 2 to the Plaintiff.
8. It is submitted that, since despite persistent efforts, the payment of the then outstanding dues of Rs. 12,82,717/- were not coming through, a communication dated 6th August, 2014 titled ‘Demand Notice-1’ (Exhibit-C to the Interim Application) was addressed to the Defendant No. 2 owner of the vessel and by communication dated 28th August 2014 (Exhibit-D to the Interim Application), addressed to the Plaintiff the Defendant No.2, while acknowledging receipt of the Plaintiff’s statement of accounts stated that they were in the process of reconciling the said statement of accounts and would revert. By the said reply communication, the Defendant No.2 also recorded that it had paid INR 26 lacs on 18th August, 2014 and INR 14 lacs on 19th August, 2014 to the Raj Shipping Agencies, a sister concern of the Plaintiff and that payment against certified invoices would be disbursed in a phased manner with an assurance that the Defendant No.2 was committed towards its business partners and their payments requesting the Plaintiff Group to bear for some more time. That thereafter since no further payments nor any re
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.
Important PointDefence put up by defendant or stand adopted in application for rejection of plaint cannot be looked into.
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
