AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sr.
No.",Description,,Total dues in Rs.
1,"License Fee GRTÂ25/20 x Rs.80 + Rs.320/Â = 79718Â25/20
8 + 320 x 2 years",,"x6,38,240/Â
2,Port dues GRT 79718 x Rs.1/Â,,"Â 79,718/Â
3,"Tonnage dues GRTÂ25/20 x Rs.56/Â + Rs.280/Â = 79718Â2
/20x56 + 280 x 8 months",,"517,87,520/Â
4,Mooring Rs.200/Â x 214 days,,"Â Â Â 42,800/Â
5,O.T.,W.day 144xRs.295/Â,"Â Â Â 42,480/Â
,,Holiday 70 x Rs.430/Â,"Â Â Â 30,100/Â
6,Total above (1 to 5),,"26,20,858/Â
7,"Service tax @ 12.36%
(2 to 5)",,"Â 2,45,052/Â
,Grand Total (6 to 7),,"28,65,910/Â
           Â,,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ‐,,,
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,,
Total Expenditure incurred                                                    Rs.2, 10,491.00        Â",,,
 ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,,
 GRAND TOTAL (A) + (B) =                                            Rs.30, 73,736.00",,,
                                                                                     Â,,,
        ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ,,,
14 So far as interest is concerned, I am inclined to grant interest at 12% p.a., since in my view that is a reasonable rate. Therefore, plaintiff will be entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.30,",,,
73,736.00 from 17.4.2014 until date of winding up of the company.",,,
Â,,,
15 Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs.30, 73,736.00 together with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from 17.4.2014 until the date the company was wound up, i.e., 20.7.2014.",,,
16 Plaintiffs' right to claim further interest in addition to the decretal amount from the Official Liquidator is expressly kept open.,,,
17 Issue nos.1 & 4 are answered accordingly.,,,
18 So far as issue no.2 is concerned, the plaintiffs’ claim is a maritime claim within the meaning of Article 1(l) of International Convention for the unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Sea going Ships, 1952 and",,,
Article 1 (n) of International Convention on the Arrest of Ships, 1999.",,,
19 Article 4(1)(d) of the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993 reads as under :Â,,,
“claims for port, canal, and other waterway dues and pilotage dues.â€",,,
 Therefore, even under this Convention, claims for Port, canal and other waterway dues and pilotage dues constitute a maritime lien. Plaintiff's claim is for port dues.",,,
20 This Hon'ble Court in the matter of ElinoilÂHellenic Petroleum Company S.A. Vs. M.V.Anny L (ExÂAlexia S) & An 1r9.99 (Supp.1) Bom. C.R.946 has held that India is a signatory to the International Convention,,,
on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993 and has followed it as having the force of law. The relevant portion of the said Judgment are reproduced as under: Â,,,
“17. Mr. Pratap has contended in this regard that the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. V. Elizabeth's case was delivered on 26Â2Â1992 and judgment of Justice,,,
Dhanuka was delivered on 8Â2Â1995. However, on 6Â51993 India became a signatory to the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993 which was signed at Geneva and in this convention only",,,
some specific maritime liens were recognized and supply of necessaries have not been recognized as maritime liens and hence the judgement of Justice Dhanuka is of no help in the present case. Mr. Pratap has,,,
contended that since the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993 was not brought to the notice of either the Supreme Court or Justice Dhanuka in case of Elizabeth and Sigma Coatings BV",,,
respectively the judgement of Justice Dhanuka in the case of Sigma Coatings BV was treated as being given per incuriam i.e. given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or of a rule having the force of a statute.,,,
Therefore, the judgment of Justice Dhanuka was not applicable to the present case.",,,
I find strong force in this argument of Mr. Pratap. He has produced copy of the International Convention of Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993 which shows that India was the signatory to this convention and it",,,
also shows that the maritime liens have been defined for Article 4 which do not cover supply of necessaries on maritime liens. Article 4 of the said convention is reproduced as under:Â ""Article 4 : MARITIME LIENS;",,,
Each of the following claims against the owner, demise chartered, manager or operator of the vessel, shall be secured by a maritime lien on the vessel:",,,
(a) Claims For wages and other sums due to the master, officers and other members of the vessel's complement in respect of their employment on the vessel, including costs of repatriation and social insurance",,,
contributions payable on their behalf;,,,
(b) Claims in respect of loss of life or personal injury occurring, whether on land or on water, in direct connection with the operation of the vessel;",,,
(c) Claims for reward for the salvage of the vessel;,,,
(d) Claims for port, canal and other waterway dues and pilotage dues;",,,
(e) Claims based on port arising out of physical loss or damage caused by the operation of the vessel other than loss of or damage to cargo, containers and passengers' effects carried on the vessel.",,,
No maritime lien shall attach to a vessel to secure claims as set out in subÂparagraphs (b) and (e) of paragraph 1 which arise out of or result from:,,,
(a) damage in connection with the carriage of oil or other hazardous or noxious substances by sea for which compensation is payable to the claimants pursuant to international conventions or national law providing for,,,
strict liability and compulsory insurance or other means of securing the claims; or,,,
(b) the radioactive properties or a combination of radioactive properties with toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of nuclear fuel or of radioactive products or waste.",,,
Counsel for plaintiffs could not contradict Mr. Pratap that India was the signatory to this convention and this convention was binding on India and further that Article 4 which defines maritime lien has not taken into,,,
consideration or has excluded supply of necessaries as maritime. From the judgment of Justice Dhanuka it is clear that even though this convention was signed on 65Â1993, the same was not brought to the notice of",,,
Justice Dhanuka when he has given his judgment in the case of Sigma Coatings BV on 8Â2Â1995. Since this convention is an International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993 and since India was the,,,
signatory to the same, it is the convention having force of law and since the same was not brought to the notice of Justice Dhanuka when he decided the case of Sigma Coatings BV the judgment of Justice Dhanuka has",,,
to be held as a judgment per incuriam and consequently same cannot be applied. Consequently, it has to be held that neither the judgment of Supreme Court nor the judgment of Justice Dhanuka in Sigma Coatings BV",,,
are of any help to the plaintiffs.,,,
Since there is no legal support to, the contentions of the plaintiffs that supply of necessaries constitutes maritime liens and since the plaintiffs have failed to prove that apart from Article 4 of the International",,,
Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993, something more can be considered by the Court as constituting maritime liens, the issue is required to be answered in the negative and against the plaintiffs, i,",,,
therefore, pass the following order on Issue No. 6.†   (emphasis supplied)",,,
 Thus, the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993 can be said to be a part and parcel of India law or to have the force of law in India.",,,
21 The recently enacted The Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 (Admiralty Act 2017) also provides under Section 4 (1) (n) that dues in connection with any port, harbor, canal, dock or",,,
light tolls, other tolls, waterway or any charges of similar kind chargeable under any law for the time being in force will be a maritime claim. Section 4(1) (n) read with section 9(1) (d) of the Admiralty Act 2017",,,
provides that the plaintiffs’ claim will be in the nature of Maritime lien. Section 4(1)(n) and section 9(1)(d) read as under :Â,,,
“Section 4. Maritime claim (1) The High Court may exercise jurisdiction to hear and determine any question on a maritime claim, against any vessel, arising out of anyÂ",,,
(a).......,,,
(b)........,,,
(c)........,,,
(d)........,,,
(e)........,,,
(f)........,,,
(g).......,,,
(h).......,,,
(i)........,,,
(j)........,,,
(k).......,,,
(l)........,,,
(m)......,,,
(n) : dues in connection with any port, harbour, canal, dock or light tolls, other tolls, waterway or any charges of similar kind chargeable under any law for the time being in forceâ€",,,
Section 9. Inter se priority on maritime lienÂ,,,
(1) Every maritime lien shall have the following order of inter se priority, namely:",,,
(a).....,,,
(b).....,,,
(c).....,,,
(d) claims for port, canal, and other waterway dues and pilotage dues and any other statutory dues related to the vessel.â€",,,
Therefore, even under this Act, the claims of Plaintiff will constitute a maritime lien.Â",,,
22 In the circumstances, plaintiffs claim would certainly constitute a maritime lien. Issue no.2 is accordingly answered.",,,
23 So far as issue no.3 is concerned, since there are many other claimants against sale proceeds, the same can be decided at the appropriate stage and the rights of the plaintiff is expressly kept open.",,,
24 Suit disposed accordingly.,,,
25 All to act on authenticated copy of this order.,,,