IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Abhay Ahuja, J.
Rana Mukherjee - Applicant
In The Matter Between
Rana Mukherjee - Plaintiff
Versus
Sale Proceeds of M. V. Malaviya 9- Defendant
Interim Application (L) No. 5800 of 2025 In Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 29 of 2022
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIII-A - Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 - Summary judgment sought for unpaid wages of Rs.66,19,434.38 along with interest - Plaintiff served as Master on vessel M.V. Malaviya 9 and claimed outstanding wages for the period of employment from May 2016 to April 2017 - Defendant did not dispute the claim, and the Official Liquidator acknowledged the maritime lien - Court found no real prospect of defense against the claim and granted summary judgment. (Paras 1, 30, 31)
(B) Maritime lien - The court recognized that the Plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages constitutes a maritime lien under Section 9(1)(a) of the Admiralty Act, which ranks first in priority under Section 10(1)(a) of the same Act. (Paras 16, 25)
(C) Jurisdiction - The court affirmed that the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction over maritime claims against the vessel and its sale proceeds, which prevails over the Companies Act. (Paras 20, 27)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a Master mariner, claimed unpaid wages from the Defendant, the owner of the vessel M.V. Malaviya 9, for the period of employment from May 2016 to April 2017. The Defendant did not dispute the claim, and the Plaintiff's claim was supported by documentation including a Continuous Discharge Certificate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Plaintiff was entitled to a summary judgment for the claimed amount of Rs.66,19,434.38 with interest at 12% per annum, as the Defendant had no credible defense against the claim.
Issues: The main issues were whether the Plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages constituted a maritime lien and whether the court had jurisdiction to grant the summary judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages was a maritime lien under the Admiralty Act, and the Defendant's lack of a credible defense warranted the granting of summary judgment.
Result: The application for summary judgment is allowed.
ORDER :
1. This application has been filed by the Applicant/Plaintiff seeking a summary judgment/decree against the Defendant under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) directing the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.66,19,434.38 (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Four and Thirty Eight Paise Only) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.62,69,434.38 from the date of filing of the Suit till payment and / or realization plus costs of Rs.3,50,000/- towards legal expenses incurred by the Applicant /Plaintiff, as per the particulars of claim at Exhibit F to the plaint.
2. The Applicant/Plaintiff is a crew member, who served as a master of the vessel known as M.V.Malaviya 9 which was under the ownership of one GOL Offshore Limited at the time when the Applicant / Original Plaintiff was employed on the said vessel in the rank of Master. Mr.Kamat submits that the owners of the Defendant vessel in the document submitted to the Office of the Official Liquidator have admitted that the Applicant served as a Master on the vessel M. V. Malaviya 9. The Applicant /Plaintiff is a Master mariner holding Indian CDC (Continuous Discharge Certicate-cum-Seafarer’s Identity Document) No. CL 45568. The owners of the vessel, M. V. Malaviya 9, GOL Offshore Limited had entered into a Contract of Employment dated 11th May 2016 with the Applicant / Original Plaintiff. Under the said Contract of Employment, the Applicant / Original Plaintiff was employed as a Master on board the vessel M. V. Malaviya 9 for a period of three months. The Plaintiff was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,30,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) per month as wages for serving on board the vessel M.V. Malaviya 9 as a Master. It is submitted that the Applicant / Original Plaintiff had received two lumpsum payments from GOL Offshore Limited in the sum of Rs.25,05,361.49 and Rs.5,48,174.33 aggregating to a sum of Rs.30,53,535.82 on 11th November 2016 and 23rd November 2016 respectively. Thereafter, the Applicant /Original Plaintiff has not received his entire wages / salary for the months that he was employed on vessel M.V. Malaviya 9. The claim is for payment of wages while serving on the vessel for the period 14th May 2016 to 14th April 2017.
3. Mr.Kamat has taken this Court through the pay-slip of the Applicant/Plaintiff as well as the agreement between the ship owner and the Plaintiff dated 11th May 2016 which indicates that the Plaintiff was the master entitled to the following per month :
| PARTICULARS (per month) | AMOUNT IN INR |
| Basic Salary | 33,605.00 |
| Ex-Gratia | 3,28,126.00 |
| Brazil Allowance | 1,80,000.00 |
| D.P.Allowance | 75,000.00 |
| Leave Pay – Contract | 97,412.00 |
| Overtime Allowance | 35,857.00 |
| Special Allowance | 80,000.00 |
| Total | 8,30,000.00 |
4. Mr.Kamat has also taken this Court through the Exhibit C at page 33 which is a copy of the Continuous Discharge Certificate (“CDC”) which indicates the period of engagement of the Plaintiff between 14th May 2016 t0 14th April 2017 at the Port of Rio de Janeiro and also that during this period the Plaintiff was the Master of the vessel M.V.Malaviya 9. The said page has been stamped by the Chief Engineer of M.V.Malaviya.
5. Mr.Kamat submits that in the pay-slip at Exhibit A, there is also a Brazil allowance which was precipitated as M.V.Malaviya 9 had been stranded in Brazilian seaport near Rio de Janeiro city since September 2015. That the Consulate General of India, Sao Paulo vide an email dated 22nd October 2016 addressed inter alia to GOL Offshore Limited stated that they had received a complaint from a Brazilian Company Brasbunker Participacoes SA, regarding the crew stranded onboard the said vessel anchored offshore at the Brazilian seaport near Rio de Janeiro city. The said email inter alia stated that the crew members on board the said vessel M.V. Malaviya 9 had been staying onboard the said vessel in miserable and pathetic conditions without basic ameniti
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.
Claims for unpaid wages by the vessel's crew create maritime liens enforceable against the vessel under the Merchant Shipping Act.
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.
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.
Court affirmed the maritime claim of seafarers for unpaid wages, enabling vessel arrest as a protective measure under the Admiralty Act, 2017.
A claim for refund of detention charges does not fall within admiralty jurisdiction if it is not connected to a maritime claim involving a vessel.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.