The court affirmed that an intervenor in maritime suits can raise defenses relevant to their standing without restrictions, emphasizing the necessity of intervention to protect their interests against competing claims.

ORDER :

1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant viz. Carnival PLC seeks intervention in Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 11 of 2021 and permission to be joined as party Defendant therein.

2. Earlier reply has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the Suit, opposing the Intervention Application. On the 28^th November, 2025, Mr. Pratap, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant had submitted that no rejoinder is necessary in the matter as the Interim Applicant has a decree in its favour and are interested in the outcome of the Suit and that this Court may allow the Interim Application for intervention of the Applicant. This Court had adjourned the matter to be listed on 5^th December, 2025 and however also permitted rejoinder, if any, to be filed and served by the next date. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 5^th December, 2025, when this Court was informed that no rejoinder would be filed. On the said date, Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, had opposed the intervention and tendered across the bar two decisions of this Court in the cases of Axis Trustee Services Ltd. in the matter between Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Sale Proceeds of M.T. Prem Mala [Order dated 24^th January 2023 in Interim Application No. 969 of 2022 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 35 of 2020] and The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai in the matter between Irwin Edmund Sequeira & Ors. Vs. M.V. Karnika (IMO-8521220) [Order dated 22^nd March 2022 in Interim Application No. 895 of 2021 in Commercial Admiralty Suit No. 11 of 2021] in support of his contentions.

3. Today when the matter is called out, Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits on instructions that while he has no objection to the intervention being allowed, however, the intervenor be allowed to intervene in the Suit for the limited purpose of demonstrating that the Plaintiff is not entitled to a decree in excess of the genuine and sustainable claim and only raise those defences which are appropriate to his character as the competing maritime lien holder/claimant. Drawing this Court’s attention to paragraph 26 of the decision in Interim Application No. 895 of 202 (supra), Mr. Kamat submits that this Court has after considering Rule 1086 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 (“ Rule 1086 ”), clearly observed that if the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has an interest in the vessel or the sale proceeds, he can be allowed to intervene in the Suit for the limited purpose of demonstrating that the Plaintiff is not entitled to a decree in excess of the genuine and sustainable claim and that a Claimant who is allowed to intervene cannot definitely step into the shoes of the original Defendant, vessel and or its owner, much less take all the defences which are open to such Defendant. Mr. Kamat submits that the intervenor would be entitled to raise only those defences which are appropriate to his character as the competent maritime lien holder/Claimant. Mr. Kamat has in support also drawn this Court’s attention to paragraph 27 (iii) of the order in the said decision to submit that although the Applicant was permitted to file written statement but was permitted to raise defences restricted to the extent indicated in paragraph 26 of the said decision. Mr. Kamat has also as noted above relied upon the decision in Interim Application No. 969 of 2022 (supra), and submits that while permitting intervention, the Court has relied upon the very same paragraph 26 and directed the Applicant therein to file written statement r