Madras High Court
Y.Zahiruddin Ahmed vs M/S.Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd on 17 February, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
and A.No.6575 of 2024
Y.Zahiruddin Ahmed
Proprietor M/s.Reliance Maritime,
Munoth Centre, Suite No.19,
1st Floor, No.343, Triplicane High Road, Chennai-600 005.
... Plaintiff
vs.
1.M/s.Dredging Corporation of India Ltd.,
Owners of Vessel DCI DREDGER-XIV,
Head Office at Dredge House,Town Kotha Road,
Beside Central Excise, Port Area,
Vishakapatnam, A.P.-530 005.
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.
2.M/s.Nautilis Shipping India Private Limited,
2nd floor, Sai Building, New No.79/1, Old No.62/1,
Lloyds Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14.
Rep. by its Managing Director. ... Defendants
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure Read With Order XLII Rules 1, 2 and 3 of Original Side Rules,
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
prays for the Judgment and Decree against the defendants, jointly and
severally, as follows:
(a) For a sum of INR 9,60,956.60 (Rupees Nine Lakh Sixty Thousand
Nine Hundred and Fifty Six and Paise Sixty Only) with further interest at
18% per annum from the date hereof till the date of payment in full;
b) For costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Ms.M.Deeptha Devi
for Mr.S.Vasudevan
For D1 : Set Ex parte on 13.09.2021
For D2 : Mr.K.Sakthivel
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,60,956.60 with
further interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of
payment. Such decree was prayed for against both the defendants, jointly
and severally.
2.Suit summons was served on the 1st defendant on 19.08.2020. Since
the 1st defendant did not enter appearance and file the written statement, by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
order dated 09.07.2021, the 1st defendant's right to file the written statement
was forfeited. Subsequently, on 13.09.2021, the 1st defendant was set
ex parte.
3.The 2nd defendant entered appearance upon service of suit summons
and filed a written statement. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the 2nd
defendant entered into a memo of compromise dated 06.12.2024 signed by
Mr.Y.Zahiruddin Ahmed (plaintiff) and by Mr.Vinod, authorised signatory
of the 2nd defendant. In the memo of compromise, the 2nd defendant states
that it acted as an agent of the 1st defendant. The work order issued by the
2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant (Ex.P1) describes the 2nd
defendant as an agent of the 1st defendant. In the memo of compromise, the
plaintiff and the 2nd defendant have agreed that the suit stands withdrawn
against the 2nd defendant in terms of the memo of compromise. In view of
the 2nd defendant being the agent of the disclosed principal, there is no legal
impediment to the suit being prosecuted only against the 1st defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
4.At the hearing on 27.09.2021, the following issues were framed:
“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit
invoking admiralty jurisdiction of this Court?
(ii) Whether the second defendant is a necessary
party to the suit?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is barred by principle of
waiver, estoppel and acquiescence to claim?
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has provided any service
under the work order dated 29.04.2019? If so, whether
the second defendant is partly or wholly liable for the
plaintiff's claim?
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim
inclusive of interest?
(vi) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and
severally liable to pay the suit claim?
(vii) What other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?”
5.In view of the withdrawal of the suit against the 2nd defendant, it
becomes unnecessary to decide the issues framed in respect of the 2nd
defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
6.In order to establish the suit claim, the plaintiff, which is a
proprietary concern, examined the proprietor, Y.Zahiruddin Ahamed, as
P.W.1. In course of the examination in chief of P.W.1, 11 documents were
exhibited as Exs.P1 to P11.
7.Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to Ex.P1,
which is the work order issued by the 2nd defendant as agent of the 1st
defendant. The work order indicates that the work entrusted to the plaintiff
was in respect of the repair and conditioning of M/E Starboard Alternator
and M/E Port Alternator, and the provision of consumables for the
completion of the job. Learned counsel also invited my attention to Ex.P3,
which is the work done certificate. This certificate sets out the nature of
work completed as also the incomplete work. It bears the signature of the
Master and the Chief Engineer of the vessel, which is owned by the 1 st
defendant. A series of e-mails evidencing completion of balance work
between 26.06.2019 and 01.07.2019 were exhibited as Ex.P5 series. The
relevant invoice issued by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.8,37,800/- has been
exhibited as Ex.P4. These documents clearly indicate that the suit claim is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
maritime claim falling within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court under
the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.
8.The lawyer's notice from the plaintiff to the defendants has been
exhibited as Ex.P7. Such notice has been issued both to the 1st and 2nd
defendants. The reply from the 1st defendant's lawyer has been exhibited as
Ex.P8. On perusal, it appears that the defence raised by the 1st defendant is
that it did not enter into a contract with the plaintiff.
9.The evidence on record clearly discloses that the 2nd defendant
issued a work order to the plaintiff in the capacity of agent of the 1st
defendant. The documents on record evidence that such work was carried
out by the plaintiff. Ex.P3 also discloses that the Master and the Chief
Engineer certified the completion of work to the extent specified therein.
The suit claim matches the invoice value as regards the principal amount.
Consequently, as regards the principal suit claim, especially in the absence
of contra evidence, the claim stands proved. As regards interest, in view of
the transaction being commercial in nature, the plaintiff is entitled to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
interest at 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.8,37,800/-. As the
successful party, the plaintiff is also entitled to costs. The 1st defendant is
liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) as costs,
which includes Court fees, lawyer's fees and other expenses. All the issues
are, thus, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the 1st defendant.
10.In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:
(i) The 1st defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff the sum of
Rs.8,37,800/- along with interest thereon at 12% per annum from
04.05.2019 till the date of realisation.
(ii) The 1st defendant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as
costs to the plaintiff.
(iii)The suit stands dismissed as withdrawn against the 2nd defendant.
A.No.6575 of 2024 stands allowed.
17.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
Plaintiff's witness:
P.W.1 – Y.Zahiruddin Ahmed
Documents exhibited by the plaintiff:
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P1 Printout of the work order by the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff
dated 29.04.2019. (Affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act filed and recorded)
Ex.P2 (series 2 nos.) Printout of the email communication regarding
the work in progress and quotations from the plaintiff to the
defendants from 03.05.2019 to 06.05.2019. (Affidavit under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act filed and recorded)
Ex.P3 Office copy of the work done certificate by the plaintiff to the
defendant dated 06.05.2019.
Ex.P4 Office copy of the invoice issued by the plaintiff to the
defendant dated 04.05.2019.
Ex.P5 (series 8 nos.) Printout of the email communication regarding
the work in progress and quotations from the plaintiff to the
defendants from 26.06.2019 to 01.07.2019. (Affidavit under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act filed and recorded)
Ex.P6 Printout of the break-up cost for the work carried out on board
DCI DREDGER-XIV from the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant
dated 15.07.2019. (Affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act filed and recorded)
Ex.P7 Office copy of the legal notice issued by the plaintiff's counsel
to the defendant dated 16.10.2019.
Ex.P8 Copy of the reply notice issued by 1st defendant's counsel to
the plaintiff's counsel dated 11.11.2019.
Ex.P9 Copy of the reply notice issued by 2nd defendant's counsel to
the plaintiff's counsel dated 18.11.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P10 Printout of the screenshot of Whatsapp message for settlement
offer by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant for 05.12.2019 and
08.12.2019. (Affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act filed and recorded)
Ex.P11 Printout of the details of vessel DCI DREDGER – XIV.
(Affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act filed
and recorded)
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
kj
C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.118 of 2020
17.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
