Bombay High Court

The Board Of Mumbai Port Authority vs Sale Proceeds Of The Vessel Barge Madhwa on 7 November, 2025

Author: Abhay Ahuja

Bench: Abhay Ahuja

2025:BHC-OS:20360

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE-ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2648 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 29 OF 2024
Falcon Offshore Services (I) Pvt Ltd ... Applicant
In the matter between :
The Board of Mumbai Port Authority ... Plaintiff
Versus
Sale Proceeds of the vessle Barge Madhwa and another ... Defendants
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4914 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 29 OF 2024
The Board of Mumbai Port Authority ... Applicant
In the matter between :
The Board of Mumbai Port Authority ... Plaintiff
Versus
Sale Proceeds of the vessel Barge Madhwa and another ... Defendants
............
Mr. Dhruva Gandhi alongwith Ms. Khushboo Rupani and Mr. Sharan
Shetty instructed by HSA Advocates, Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Prathamesh Kamat alognwith Mr. Kayush Zaiwalla, Ms. Apurva
Mehta and Mr. Shrijit Khande instructed by ANB Legal, Advocate for
the Applicant in IA-4914-2025/Defendant No.2.
............

CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.

                                                        DATE      :       7 NOVEMBER 2025







                                                              39-IA-2648-2025.doc


 P.C. :

Interim Application No. 2648 of 2025 and Interim Application No. 4914 of 2025 :

1. Interim Application No.2648 of 2025 has been filed by the

Defendant No.2 in the Suit seeking a Summary Judgment dismissing

the Suit and/or rejecting the Plaint against the Defendant No.2 on the

ground that the Defendant No.2 is an agent of a disclosed principal.

2. On the other hand, Interim Application No.4914 of 2025 has

been filed by the Plaintiff seeking a Summary Judgment under Order

XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the CPC") against the sale

proceeds of the vessel Barge Madhwa.

3. Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, learned Counsel, appearing for the

Applicant in Interim Application No.2648 of 2025 has submitted that

the Applicant admittedly is an agent of a disclosed principal and draws

this Court's attention to the cause title of the plaint as well as to the

paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the plaint. Mr. Kamat submits that this

being the admitted position, in view of Section 230 of the Indian

Contract Act, 1872 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs. Go Go

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

Garments1, the decision of this Court in the case of Midland Overseas

vs. M.V. "CMBT Tana" and others 2, and the decision of Calcutta High

Court in the case of West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply

Corporation Ltd. vs. Koren Foreign Transportation Corporation and

another3, the suit against the said Defendant be dismissed and/or the

plaint be rejected and the application for Summary Judgment be

allowed as the Plaintiff has no reasonable prospect of succeeding

against the agent of a disposed principal.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, learned Counsel,

appearing for the Plaintiff submits that this Court may consider the

Interim Application for summary judgment against the sale proceeds of

the vessel - Barge Madhwa and may not only pass appropriate orders

in Interim Application No.2648 of 2025, but also in the Interim

Application No.4914 of 2025 as the outstanding invoices are raised by

the port authority on the basis of Scale of Rates ("SoR") payable by the

Defendant-vessel for anchorage charges.

1 (1998) 3 SCC 247 2 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 460 3 2001 SCC OnLine Cal 177

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

5. Mr. Gandhi submits that the Plaintiff's claim has been

described in the Plaint in paragraph 8 and has been claimed on the

basis of the invoices raised by the Plaintiff, which have remained

unpaid despite notice and statement of outstanding being submitted to

the ship owners.

6. Mr. Gandhi submits that the Defendant-vessel was arrested

pursuant to order dated 11th December 2014 passed in Admiralty Suit

No.6 of 2015 and on 10th January 2020, this Court confirmed the sale

of the vessel and the sale proceeds are lying in the account of the

Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court. That the suit has been

filed and the summary judgment has been sought against the sale

proceeds of the Defendant-vessel.

7. Mr. Gandhi submits that the Plaintiff's claim is to recover

statutory dues of the Marine Department of the Plaintiff for the port

pilotage and anchorage services and that the claim for the same is

within limitation.

8. Learned Counsel submits that the Vessel, being an

accommodation barge, entered the waters of the Mumbai Port

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

Authority on 23rd November 2013. Since then, the vessel had been

lying within the waters of Mumbai Port Authority and was allotted Y-5

anchorage point.

9. Mr. Gandhi submits that the Plaintiff has regularly raised

invoices upon the Defendant No.2 being the agent of the erstwhile

owner of the vessel though disclosed. Mr. Gandhi submits that the

agent has not disputed the receipt of the invoices, nor has it disputed

the fact that it was the agent of the registered/erstwhile owner.

10. Mr. Gandhi has drawn this Court's attention to the invoices

annexed along with the Plaint at Exhibit "A" to Exhibit "H" being the

invoices for anchorage and pilotage charges in which invoices for

interest are at Exhibits B and F. The invoices have been raised in terms

of the SoR which is prescribed by the Mumbai Port Authority as is

stated in paragraph 6 of the plaint.

11. Mr. Gandhi further submits that the only defence, if at all

which could have been raised in so far as the present suit is concerned

is that of limitation, however, the same has been duly explained by the

Applicant relying on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10 th

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

January 2020 passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, Mr.

Gandhi submits that as mentioned in paragraph 5(III) of the said

order, in cases where the limitation would have expired during the

period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual

balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a

limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 and in the event the

actual balance period of the limitation remaining, with effect from

01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

12. Mr. Gandhi tenders across the bar the computation of the

limitation period for each of the invoices, which is reproduced as

under :

  No.       Date of            Due Date under     Expiry of             Expiry of
            Invoice               Invoice        Limitation            Limitation
                                                  w/o S.C.               w/S.C.
                                                 Exclusion             Exclusion
  1.     12.05.2018 21.05.2018                  21.05.2021         06.05.2023
  2.     29.05.2018 N/A (Interest Bill)
  3.     26.09.2018 06.10.2018                  06.10.2021         21.09.2023
  4.     07.05.2019 17.05.2019                  17.05.2022         02.05.2024
  5.     05.08.2019 15.08.2019                  15.08.2022         01.08.2024
  6.     14.11.2019 N/A (Interest Bill)
  7.     17.01.2020 27.01.2020                  27.01.2023         12.01.2025
  8.     23.06.2020 03.07.2020                  03.07.2023         18.06.2025









                                                                39-IA-2648-2025.doc

13. Mr. Gandhi submits that the period excluded in the order of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court from 15 th March 2020 to 28th February

2022 and the limitation period which was available to the Plaintiffs as

on 28th February 2022, exceeded 90 days therefore, the longer period

would apply in this case. That the suit has been filed on 1 st March 2023

and therefore, the claim of the Applicant is within limitation.

14. Mr. Gandhi submits that the registered/erstwhile owner

(represented by the Official Liquidator appointed under the provisions

of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) has not come forth to

defend or to object to the invoices raised by the Plaintiff and therefore,

as grounds specified under Order XIII-A of the CPC as amended by the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 have been made out, this Application be

allowed.

15. I have heard the learned Counsel in both the applications.

16. Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (the "Act")

clearly provides that an agent cannot personally enforce contracts

entered into by him on behalf of his principal nor is he personally

bound by them.

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

17. In the case of a Midland Overseas vs. M.V. "CMBT Tana" and

others (supra), this Court has clearly observed that an agent of a

disclosed principal cannot be made personally liable. So also, in the

case of West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. vs.

Koren Foreign Transportation Corporation and another (supra), the suit

against an agent of a disclosed principal was held not maintainable,

and it was observed that under Section 230 of the Act, normally the

agent is not liable for civil action nor the agent is entitled to enforce a

claim on behalf of the principal unless there is an express agreement to

the contrary. There is an exception to the aforesaid averment and the

agent can sue in its own name and be sued on behalf of the foreign

principal and/or undisclosed principal. When the Plaintiff has chosen to

sue the foreign principal, the agent is automatically relieved of its

liability so far as it relates to dealings and transaction between the

Plaintiff and the principal. Both the principal and the Defendant

cannot be sued. There must be an election by the Plaintiff of the party

against whom the Plaintiff wants to recover its claim. Ordinarily, the

action lies against the principal.

18. In the case of Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. vs.

Go Go Garments (supra) also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

in view of Section 230 of the Act, an agent is entitled to invoke the

provision of Section 230 of the Act as a defence if the facts support

him.

19. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and

applied to the facts of this case, which clearly indicate that the

Defendant No.2 in the suit is an agent of a disclosed principal and

which has not been controverted in any manner whatsoever, the suit be

dismissed against the said Defendant No.2 as the Plaintiff has no real

prospect of succeeding in its claim against Defendant No.2 in view of

Section 230 of the Act. There is no compelling reason why the suit

should not be dismissed as against Defendant No.2 before recording of

oral evidence.

20. Accordingly, Interim Application No. 2648 of 2025 is allowed

in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads thus :

(a) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a Summary Judgment dismissing the Suit and/or rejecting the Plaint against the Applicant/Defendant No.2.

21. As regards the application for summary judgment of the

Plaintiff against the sale proceeds of vessel - Barge Madhwa, the suit

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

claim is for payment of anchorage and pilotage charges with respect to

invoices which are at Exhibits A to Exhibits H of the plaint including

invoices for interest.

22. As can be seen the claim of the Applicant is a maritime lien

under Section 9(1)(d) of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of

Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 and the suit is proceeding against the sale

proceeds of the Defendant-vessel. Learned Counsel appearing for the

Plaintiff has submitted that service of the application has been effected

on the liquidator of the ship owner of the vessel yet none appears.

23. In view of the decisions of this Court in the case of Board of

Trustees of Port of Mumbai/Raj Shipping Agencies vs. Barge Madhwa

and Another with connected matters4, I am of the view that the

Applicant/Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in rem against the sale

proceeds of the Defendant-vessel for enforcement of its claim.

24. There has been no opposition to the claim of the Plaintiff. No

material has been brought before me to demonstrate that the suit claim

is not tenable. I am also satisfied that the claim of the Plaintiff is within

4 2020 SCC Online Bom 651

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

limitation as the same has been filed before the expiry of limitation

period after excluding the period as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

25. Having perused the Interim Application for Summary

Judgment and also the documents which are annexed to the Plaint,

more particularly the invoices which have been raised in terms of the

SoR prescribed by the Mumbai Port Authority and also having heard

the learned Counsel for the Applicant, I am satisfied that there is a

maritime lien of the Applicant against the Defendant. There is no

objection raised to the claim of the Applicant/Plaintiff and the claim of

the Applicant has not been disputed.

26. I am also satisfied that there is no real prospect of any one

successfully defending the claim and there is no compelling reason why

the claim made by the Applicant should not be allowed before

recording of oral evidence and that the Applicant/Plaintiff is entitled to

Summary Judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC.

27. Accordingly, the Interim Application No. 4914 of 2025 is

allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which read thus :

39-IA-2648-2025.doc

(a) Pass a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 declaring that Defendant No.1 is liable to pay to the Applicant/original Plaintiff a sum of Rs.96,75,191.00/-

(Rs.62,19,583.00/- (Rupees Sixty-Two Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-Three only) being the principal amount due alongwith interest to the tune of Rs.34,55,608.00/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakh Fifty-Five Thousand and Six Hundred Eight only) till 12 th February 2023 and further interest @ 15% from 13 th February 2023 till the date of payment and/or realization, computed on the principal sum of Rs.62,19,583.00/-.

28. Accordingly, let there be a decree and order in favour of the

Plaintiff-Applicant for a sum of Rs.96,75,191.00/- (Rs.62,19,583.00/-

(Rupees Sixty-Two Lakhs Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred Eighty-

Three only) being the principal amount due alongwith interest to the

tune of Rs.34,55,608.00/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Lakh Fifty-Five

Thousand and Six Hundred Eight only) till 12 th February 2023 and

further interest @ 15% from 13th February 2023 till the date of

payment and/or realization, computed on the principal sum of

Rs.62,19,583.00/-.

29. Drawn up decree is dispensed with.

30. Both the Interim Applications accordingly stand allowed and

disposed as above. The Suit is decreed against Defendant No.1 and