Bombay High Court
Valimohamed Hashem Khakhra vs M V Labitra Carmel Imo No. 8739114 And 3 ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
2025:BHC-OS:18577
908. IA 1285-25 in EXA 623-24.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1285 OF 2025
IN
EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 623 OF 2024
Valimohamed Hasher Khakhra ...Applicant
V/s.
M. V. Labitra Carmel IMO 8739114 and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Kunal Damle with Mr. Rupesh Lanjekar for the Applicant.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 10th OCTOBER, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This Interim Application seeks a direction to the Prothonotary &
Senior Master to release the amount of Rs. 1,03,07,839.73/- along with
interest as per the judgment and order dated 22 nd February, 2022,
passed in Admiralty Suit No. 64 of 2015 in favour of the Applicant,
which is lying in this Court with respect to the sale proceeds of M. V.
Labitra Kharisma and M. V. Betul SSA, which were owned by the very
same ship owner viz. Jaisu Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd. and sold in
auction in Admiralty Suit No. 12 of 2014 and Admiralty Suit No. 36 of
2014.
908. IA 1285-25 in EXA 623-24.doc
2. Mr. Damle, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits
that earlier, by order dated 22nd February, 2022, Suit in favour of the
Applicant was decreed in terms of prayer Clause (a), except that
interest on principal sum of Rs. 50,42,325/- from date of the Suit till
payment or realisation would be at the rate of 12% per annum and it
was directed that the decree be drawn up after giving credit to a sum of
Rs.9,09,000/- admittedly received by the Plaintiff.
3. Mr. Damle submits that thereafter the decree was drawn up and
as per the decree, the Defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 have been directed to
pay to the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 67,25,549.67 for debt and Rs.
43,81,435.06 for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the sum of
Rs. 50,42,325/- from the date of filing of the Suit i.e. 29 th November,
2014 till 22nd February, 2022 and the sum of Rs. 1,09,855/- for costs of
the Suit including Advocates fees quantified at Rs.15,000/- aggregating
to Rs. 1,03,07,839.73, after giving credit of Rs. 9,09,000/- admittedly
received by the Plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum till payment and/or realisation.
4. Mr. Damle submits that although the decree relates to a claim of
12 Invoices in respect of supply of fresh water to vessel M. V. Labitra
908. IA 1285-25 in EXA 623-24.doc
Carmel, which was the Defendant No. 1 in Admiralty Suit No. 64 of
2015, however, since after auction of the said vessel, the amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- received as sale proceeds was for satisfaction of the claim
of the Mumbai Port Authority as the said claim ranked in priority as
maritime lien and therefore, this Interim Application has been filed to
make the claim against the sale proceeds of the other two vessels viz.
M.V. Labitra Kharisma and M. V. Betul SSA, owned by the very same
ship owner i.e. the Defendant No.3 in this Suit viz. Jaisu Shipping
Company Pvt. Ltd.
5. Referring to the report of the Master & Assistant Prothonotary of
this Court in compliance of the order dated 12 th April, 2024 in the
Execution Application No. 623 of 2024, Mr. Damle submits that the two
reports: one in the case of M.V. Labitra Kharisma and other in the case
of M. V. Betul SSA clearly indicate that there are sufficient amounts
lying with the Prothonotary & Senior Master to satisfy the decree of the
Plaintiff.
6. Referring to another report of the Master & Assistant
Prothonotary, learned Counsel submits that pursuant to the order dated
9th May, 2024, the Master & Assistant Prothonotary has clearly stated in
908. IA 1285-25 in EXA 623-24.doc
the report that no Suits and claims have been found to have been filed
against the vessels M. V. Labitra Kharisma and M. V. Betul and against
the sale proceeds thereof till date viz. 24th July, 2024.
7. This Court had earlier raised a query to Mr. Damle, as to the law
under which the Applicant/Decree Holder is permitted to seek disbursal
from other Suit accounts where the proceeds are lying after sale of
vessels owned by the same ship owner, Mr. Damle has in response
relied upon the following two decisions in support to submit that if the
Plaintiff is unable to satisfy the decretal claim from the concerned
vessel or sale proceeds, the same does not preclude the Plaintiff from
making claims to the sale proceeds of other vessel(s) of the owners of
the vessel in question, in execution of any decree that the Plaintiff may
obtain against the owners, if the Plaintiff is unable to satisfy its decretal
claim from the subject vessel or its sale proceeds:-
i) Monte Ulia (Owners ) Vs. Banco and Ors (Owners)1
ii) Praxis Energy Agents SA Vs. M. T. Pratibha Neera2
8. I have considered the submissions by Mr. Damle and also the
decisions relied upon by him.
1 1970(2) WLR (Court of Appeal) 335
2 MANU/MH/0882/2018
908. IA 1285-25 in EXA 623-24.doc
9. In the case of Monte Ulia (Owners) Vs. Banco and Ors (Owners)
(supra), the Court of Appeal of which Lord Denning M. R. was a
member, His Lordship has observed in placitum B on page 342, that if
the Plaintiffs eventually get judgment against her owners (ship owner)
they will of course at that stage be able to execute the judgment against
any of the property of the Defendants, including the other ships of their
fleet, then belonging to them. The observations of M. R. Lord Denning
in placitum H on page 341 and placitum A and B at page 342 of the
said decision, are usefully quoted as under:-
"I can see the force of this point, but I think that Mr. Willmer
gave the right answer. When a plaintiff brings an action in
rem, the jurisdiction is invoked, not when the writ is issued,
but when it is served on the ship and the warrant of arrest is
executed. The reason is because it is an in rem against the
very thing itself: and does not take effect until the thing is
arrested. This means that the practice is right. The plaintiff is
entitled, as soon as his cause of action arises, to issue his writ
in rem against the offending ship and all other ships which at
that time, that is, at the dare of issue of the writ, belong to the
same owner. That saves his time. Then he can wait until he
finds the one ship which he thinks most suitable to arrest.
Then he will serve her and execute a warrant of arrest against
her. That having been done, he cannot go against the other
ships and should strike them out of the writ.
In my opinion, therefore, the judge was right in setting aside
the service of the writ and warrant of arrest on all the vessels
save the Banco. I would add, however, that, if the plaintiffs
eventually get judgment against her owners (The Beagle
Shipping Ltd.) they will of course at that stage be able to
execute the judgment against any of the property of the
defendants, including the other ships of their fleet, then
belonging to them." (emphasis supplied)
908. IA 1285-25 in EXA 623-24.doc
10. Also in the case of Praxis Energy Agents SA Vs. M. T. Pratibha
Neera (supra), this Court in paragraph 24 has extended the very same
principle that the Plaintiff is not precluded from laying claim to the sale
proceeds of other vessels or other assets of the owners of the ship in
execution of any decree that the Plaintiff may obtain against the
owners, if the Plaintiff is unable to satisfy its decretal claim from the
subject vessel. Paragraph 24 of the said decision is usefully quoted as
under:-
"24. This of course does not preclude plaintiff from laying
claim to the sale proceeds of the other vessel or other assets of
the owners of M. T. PRATIBHA NEERA in execution of any
decree that plaintiff may obtain against the owners if plaintiff
is unable to satisfy its decretal claim from the vessel M.T.
PRATIBHA NEERA and/or its sale proceeds. Of course now that
the owner of defendant is in liquidation, plaintiff may lodge its
claim for the shortfall with Official Liquidator of the company.
In respect of the unsatisfied portion of the decretal amount,
plaintiff along with other unsecured creditors would rank pari-
passu. In law, once the company is in liquidation, only such
claimants would have charge over the vessel who has executed
warrant of arrest prior to the date of admitting of winding up
petition. Therefore, the submission that plaintiff would not be
able to stake its claim against sale proceeds of other defendant
is fallacious. Plaintiff cannot obtain decree against sister ship
of the offending vessel at all. Question of other creditors being
prejudiced or not do not arise in as much as that has no
bearing on the additional defendant being impleaded. Once
the company goes into liquidation, al the properties of the
company including various vessels become the "properties
available to all" other than such claimant who has executed
warrant of arrest against any vessel prior to commencement of
liquidation proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
908. IA 1285-25 in EXA 623-24.doc
11. From the above, it emerges that if a Plaintiff is not able to satisfy
the decretal claim from the vessel to which it has made supplies or
rendered services and the Plaintiff has a decree also against the owner
of the said vessel, then the Plaintiff can satisfy the claim from proceeds
of other vessels / ships in the fleet of such owner.
12. It is observed from the proceedings that M. V. Labitra Carmel,
M.V. Labitra Kharisma and M. V. Betul SSA were all owned by the
Defendant No.3 viz. Jaisu Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd. That the sale of
vessel M.V. Labitra Carmel to which fresh water was supplied by the
Plaintiff resulted in proceeds of only Rs. 25,00,000/- to which the Port
Authority had a higher ranking claim and therefore, the Applicant has
made a claim in respect of the outstanding decretal amount from the
proceeds of M. V. Labitra Kharisma and M. V. Betul SSA. The reports of
the Master & Assistant Prothonotary of this Court with respect to the
balance lying to the accounts of M. V. Labitra Kharisma and M. V. Betul
SSA owned by the very same ship owner viz. Jaisu Shipping Company
Pvt. Ltd. indicate that there is a total of Rs. 3,51,84,100/- lying with the
Prothonotary & Senior Master. Also report dated 24 th July, 2024
indicates that the no Suits or claims have been found to be filed against
the said two vessels or sale proceeds thereof. As submitted by Mr.
908. IA 1285-25 in EXA 623-24.doc
Damle, except Rs. 9,09,000/- that was received by the Plaintiff, no
other amount has been received by the Plaintiff under the decree in
question.
13. Accordingly, subject of course to any claim that may have been
lodged / paid for after 24 th July, 2024 from the proceeds of M. V.
Labitra Kharisma and M. V. Betul SSA, this Court, in view of the law
discussed above, hereby allows the Interim Application in terms of
prayer Clause (a), which reads thus:-
"a. That the registry/Prothonotary & Senior Master be
directed to release an amount of Rs. 1,03,07,839.73/- along
with interest as per Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2022
passed in Admiralty Suit No. 64 of 2015 in favour fo the
present Applicant, which is lying in this Hon'ble court with
respect to the sale proceeds of m.v. Labitra Kharisma and m.v.
Betul SSA, which were auction sold in Admiralty Suit no. 12 of
2014 and Admiralty suit no. 36 of 2014, respectively."
14. The Interim Application accordingly stands allowed and disposed
as above.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
Digitally
signed by
NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
2025.10.11
13:26:22
+0530
