Bombay High Court
The Board Of Mumbai Port Authority vs Sale Proceeds Of The Vessel Osv ... on 29 November, 2022
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
19-IA-31689-22+.DOC
Sayali Upasani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY & VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 31689 OF 2022
IN
COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO. 83 OF 2021
The Board of Mumbai Port Authority ...Applicant
In the matter between
The Board of Mumbai Port Authority ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Sale Proceeds of Vessel OSV Beas Dolphin ...Defendant
Ms. Sneha Pandey i/b Motiwala & Co., for Plaintiff.
Mr. Rohan Mathur with Kiran Salvi i/b Anoma Law Group LLP,
for Defendant.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED : 29th NOVEMBER, 2022
PC:-
1. The plaintiff-applicant has preferred this application
under Order XIII A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as
amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for a Summary
Judgment.
2. The plaintiff-applicant is a statutory body constituted
under the provisions of Major Port Authorities Act, 2021. The
plaintiff-applicant is the owner of the Docks and Harbor and
Port facilities at the Port of Mumbai. The plaintiff-applicant
renders various services to the Vessels coming to the Port of
Mumbai. OSV Beas Dolphin, the defendant Vessel, had availed
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 23:07:23 :::
19-IA-31689-22+.DOC
the Port facilities at the plaintiff's Port. M/s. Dolphin Offshore
Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt. Ltd., was the registered owner of
the said Vessel. The plaintiff had raised bills on M/s GAC
Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., the agent of the said Vessel for the
Port facilities to the tune of Rs.1,60,04,257/-.
3. In the meanwhile, the defendant Vessel was arrested
and ultimately sold for the sum of Rs. 9.50 Crores to M/s
Shivansh Offshore and Marine Services Pvt Ltd., pursuant an
order passed by this Court in Commercial Admiralty Suit (L)
No.63 of 2019. The statutory dues of the plaintiff have
remained outstanding despite the notices issued in form No. I
and II on 7th October, 2020 and 22nd October, 2020,
respectively. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to institute
this suit against the sale proceeds of OSV Beas Dolphin.
4. The M/s. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius) Pvt.
Ltd., the erstwhile owner of the Vessel OSV Beas Dolphin, has
contested the suit by filing written statement. The substance
of resistance put fourth by the defendant is that there are
various discrepancies in the statutory dues claimed by the
plaintiff. It is denied that the erstwhile owner of the defendant
has been served with the bills raised and the notices issued
by the plaintiff.
2/6
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 23:07:23 :::
19-IA-31689-22+.DOC
5. The plaintiff has taken out this application asserting
inter alia, that there is no real prospect of defendants
successfully defending the suit. The fact that the OSV Beas
Dolphin had availed the Port facilities at the plaintiff's port is
incontestable. The defences now sought to be raised are
sham and frivolous. It is, therefore, not necessary to lead
evidence in support of the plaintiff's claim.
6. In support of the application, the plaintiff has banked
upon the interim bill (Exhibit -1), Marine Financial Report
dated 3rd February, 2021 (Exhibit- 2), Index of Statement of
Rate with effect from 1st August, 2018 (Exhibit-3) and the
notification dated 3rd September, 2019, revising the scale of
rates. Copies of the relevant extract of the Bill Dispatch
Register (Exhibit-4) collectively), are also annexed to the
application.
7. Today, when the application was taken up for hearing,
the Mr. Mathur, the learned Counsel for the defendant
submitted that the defendant does not wish to contest the
application for Summary Judgment, save and except the claim
for interest at the rate of 15% per annum. It was urged that
interest on over-due charges for the services rendered by the
plaintiff is claimed at an excessive rate.
3/6
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 23:07:23 :::
19-IA-31689-22+.DOC
8. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff, on the other hand,
invited attention of the Court to the copies of the bills raised
by the plaintiff, which provide for charge of interest at the
rate of 15% per annum, if the bill remains unpaid by the due
date. Reliance was also placed on the notification dated 3 rd
February, 2019 which, inter alia, provides for levy of interest
at the rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment.
9. I have perused the averments in the instant application
and the documents annexed thereto. Though erstwhile owner
of the Vessel has filed written statement, the fact remains
that the Vessel OSV Beas Dolphin had availed the services at
the plaintiff's Port from 2nd April, 2019 till 5th November, 2020.
The erstwhile owner of the defendant Vessel, however, sought
to contest the claim by pointing out the purported
discrepancies in the rates at which the charges were sought
to be recovered. It would be contextually relevant to note that
the bills raised by the plaintiff are in accordance with the
scale of rates notified by The Tariff Authority for Major Port, in
exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 48, 49 and
50 of Major Port Trust Act, 1963.
10. To add to this, the learned Counsel for the defendant
fairly submitted that the defendant has no substantive
4/6
::: Uploaded on - 03/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 03/12/2022 23:07:23 :::
19-IA-31689-22+.DOC
defence to the claim for statutory dues, save and except the
charge of interest at the rate of 15 % per annum.
11. Claim for port dues constitutes a Maritime Claim under
Section 4 (1) (l) of the Admiralty Act and also amounts to a
Maritime Lein.
12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there does not seem
to be a realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim
of the plaintiff, which is essentially in rem.
13. As regards the claim of interest, it would be suffice to
note that under the general terms and conditions of The Tariff
Authority for Major Port as well as in the bills raised by the
plaintiff, there is a clear stipulation that interest would be
levied at the rate of 15% per annum for the delayed payment.
14. I do not find any justification to scale down the rate of
interest from the date the amount fell due to the date of the
institution of the suit. As regards future interest from the date
of the institution of the suit till payment, it would be
expedient to award the same at the rate of 8 % per annum.
15. Hence, the following order.
:ORDER:
i) The application stands allowed.
ii) There shall be a Summary Judgment in
favour of the plaintiff-applicant and against the
19-IA-31689-22+.DOC
sale proceeds of OSV Beas Dolphin in the Sum of
Rs.1,85,39,163/-, along with further interest at
the rate of 8 % per annum on the principal
amount of Rs.1,60,04,257/-, from the date of the
institution of the suit till payment.
iii) The plaintiff-applicant is also entitled to
costs of the suit quantified at Rs.3 Lakhs.
v) The suit stands decreed in the aforesaid
terms.
vi) Drawn up decree dispensed with.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
