Bombay High Court
Ahm Marine Llc vs Sale Proceeds Of The Vessel O.S.V ... on 21 February, 2023
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
23-IAL-33126-22+.DOC
Sayali Upasani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 33126 OF 2022
IN
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 40 OF 2021
AHM MARINE LLC ...Applicant/
Org. Plaintiff
AHM MARINE LLC ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Sale Proceeds of the Vessel, O.S.V. Dolphin ...Defendants
Beas (IMO NO-9413482) and Ors
Mr. Arnab Ghosh, for Plaintiff.
Mr. Shubham Agrahari with Mr. Rohan mathur i/b Anoma
Law, for Defendants.
CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED:- 21st FEBRUARY, 2023
ORDER:-
1) This application is for a summary judgment under Order
XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code"), as
amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ("the Act 2015")
read with Order XII Rule 6 of the Code.
2) The plaintiff is a limited liability company registered under
the laws of United Arab Emirates (UAE). The plaintiff is, inter
1/7
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 04:18:28 :::
23-IAL-33126-22+.DOC
alia, engaged in the business of rendering catering, housekeeping
services and supplying of provisions on board Vessels. OSV
Dolphin Beas, the defendant No. 1- Vessel was flying a Mauritian
Flag. Dolphin Offshore Enterprises (Mauritius), the defendant
No. 2 was the registered owner of the defendant No. 1 - Vessel.
3) Pursuant to the orders placed by defendant No. 2, the
plaintiff had supplied provisions on board defendant No. 1-
Vessel. The plaintiff had, inter alia, rendered catering, laundry
and housekeeping services. The plaintiff had raised invoices. The
supply of the services was duly acknowledged by the master of
the defendant No. 1-Vessel.
4) Despite a clear acknowledgment of the liability to the tune
of US$ 317,169.54, the defendant No. 2 committed default in
payment of the said amount. In the correspondence exchanged
between the parties, repeated assurances were given on behalf of
the defendant No. 2 that the outstanding amount of US$
317,169.54 would be paid sooner than later. However, the
defendant No. 2 did not honour the commitments. Hence, the
plaintiff was constrained to address a legal notice dated 18 th
January, 2020, calling upon the defendants to pay outstanding
amount along with interest accrued thereon. As the defendant
2/7
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 04:18:28 :::
23-IAL-33126-22+.DOC
No. 2 did not comply with the demand therein, the plaintiff
moved for the arrest of the defendant No. 1 - Vessel and for a
decree in the sum of US$ 374,266.75 along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a from the date of the institution of the Suit.
5) The plaintiff has taken out this application asserting, inter
alia, that after the service of the writ of summons, the
defendants have failed to enter appearance and furnish security.
Nor the defendants have filed the written statement. In the
meanwhile, the defendant No. 1- Vessel came to be sold pursuant
to the order passed by the Court in Sheriff's Report No. 38 of
2020 in Commercial Notice of Motion (L) No.2261 of 2019 in
Commercial Admiralty Suit (L) No.63 of 2019. The sale proceeds
of the defendant No. 1 stand deposited with this Court.
6) The plaintiff asserts its claim represents an admitted
liability. There are clear and explicit acknowledgments of the
liability. Those admissions of liability furnish a legitimate
foundation for a decree on admission. In any event, in view of
those admissions and indisputable supply of the goods and
services by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 - Vessel, there is
no prospect of the defendants successfully defending the claim.
Hence, this application for summary judgment against the sale
3/7
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 04:18:28 :::
23-IAL-33126-22+.DOC
proceeds of defendant No. 1 (post amendment) and defendant No.
2, jointly and severally.
7) The application has been served on the defendant No. 2.
8) I have heard Mr. Arnab Ghosh, the learned Counsel for the
plaintiff and Mr. Shubham Agrahari, the learned Counsel for the
defendants.
9) Mr. Agrahari, submitted that in view of the change in the
management of the defendant No. 2, he is not in a position to
make any submission. The learned Counsel fairly submitted that
the defendant No. 2 has not disputed the said supply and
delivery of the goods and services by the plaintiff to defendant
No. 1. However, there is no stipulation in the contract to charge
interest on delayed payment.
10) The claim of the plaintiff that it had supplied the provisions
pursuant to a contract executed between the parties finds
support in the "Contract for the provisions of catering, laundry
and housekeeping services on board O.S.V. Dolphin Beas in the
UAE and Saudi Arabia" (Exhibit A). The supply of provisions and
services is evidenced by the invoices (Exhibit B) collectively. It
appears that the supply of the provisions to the crew had been
acknowledged by the master of the defendant No. 1 - Vessel, as is
4/7
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 04:18:28 :::
23-IAL-33126-22+.DOC
evidenced by the statement of meals and accommodation
appended to each of the invoices.
11) I faint substance in the submission of Mr. Ghosh that the
liability was acknowledged on multiple occasions. In the
communication dated 31st January, 2018, in response to the
demand for payment for the amount US$ 317,169.54, the plaintiff
was assured, on behalf of the defendant No. 2, that they will
remit the funds to the plaintiff within a weeks time. In an earlier
communication dated 12th October, 2017, the Director of the
defendant No. 2 assured to clear the outstanding amount by end
of October and November 2017. On 30 th April, 2018, the
defendant No. 2 executed a confirmation of accounts
acknowledging indebtedness to the plaintiff to the tune of US$
317,169.54 as of 31st March, 2018, the very amount which is
shown due and payable at the foot of the statement of account
(Exhibit C).
12) In the face of aforesaid clear and explicit admissions of the
liability, especially in the light of the fact that, at no point of
time, the supply of provisions, goods and services had ever been
disputed on behalf of the defendant No. 2, there is no reasonable
prospect of the defendants successfully defending the claim. The
5/7
::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2023 04:18:28 :::
23-IAL-33126-22+.DOC
aforesaid admissions are of such nature that they can, by
themselves, sustain a decree on admission. I do not find there is
any compelling reason not to dispose of the suit before recording
of oral evidence.
13) On the aspect of interest, evidently, there is no stipulation
for payment of interest on the outstanding amount. It would,
therefore, be appropriate to award interest at the rate of 5% p.a.
on the principal amount amount of US$ 317,169.54 from the date
of the Suit till payment and/or realisation.
14) Hence, the following order.
:ORDER:
(i) The application stands allowed.
(ii) There shall be a summary judgment and decree
in favour of the plaintiff and against the sale proceeds
of the Vessel O.S.V. Dolphin Beas and defendant No.
2, jointly and severally, in the sum of US$ 317,169.54
along with interest at the rate of 5% p.a from the date
of the institution of the Suit till payment and/or
realisation.
(iii) The plaintiff is also entitled to costs quantified
at Rs.5 Lakhs.
23-IAL-33126-22+.DOC
(iv) Refund of Court fees as per the Rules.
(v) The Suit stands decreed in aforesaid terms.
(vi) Drawn up decree dispensed with.
(vii) The plaintiff is at liberty to move for
determination of priorities.
(viii) In view of the disposal of the Suit the pending
application(s) stand(s) disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
