Cosco Shipping Lines India Pvt Ltd vs Mariana Express Logistics

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 14.10.2026
Orders pronounced on : 05.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
A No. 4124 of 2025
AND
CS NO. 158 OF 2021
Cosco Shipping Lines India Private Limited,
60 Old No 144/145, Malavika Centre, 4th Floor,
Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam
Chennai 600034.
..Applicant(s)
Vs
1. Mariana Express Logistics
Having its Office at No.4, Second Floor, 1st
Main Road, Seethammal Extn, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018., Rep.by Mr.P.G.Sachin
Nanjappa, hear of Operations.
2. China Cosco Shipping Corporation Limited,
5299 Binjiang Dadao, Pudong New District
Shaghai -200127,China.
..Respondent(s)
To pass a summary judgment against the Plaintiff and dismiss the
suit as against the 2nd Defendant.
For Applicant(s): Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar
for Mrs.Ashwini Vaidialingam
__________
Page1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Ravichandran for R1
ORDER
nd
The 2 defendant in the suit has taken out this application, praying for a
summary judgment, invoking Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. I have heard Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar, for Mrs.Ashwini Vaidialingam,
nd
learned counsel for the applicant/ 2 defendant and Mr.T.Ravichandran, learned
st
counsel for the 1 respondent/ plaintiff.
nd st
3. The 2 respondent is none else than the 1 defendant in the suit and is
arrayed as a formal party to the present application, seeking a summary
judgment, primordially on the ground that there is no real prospect of the
nd
plaintiff succeeding in the suit against the 2 defendant.
4.Background facts necessary for adjudicating this application are
summarised herein:
The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,34,78,813/-,
together with interest, against both defendants 1 and 2, jointly and severally,
besides also claiming compensation to a tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- on the ground
of harassment. The plaintiff provides logistics by engaging in imports of cargo
belonging to customers, using third party service providers. The plaintiff has
__________
Page2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
st
imported cargo through the 1 defendant, China Cosco Shipping Corporation
Ltd., Shanghai, a Chinese State-owned shipping and logistics service company.
nd st
The plaintiff claims that the 2 defendant is the agent of the 1 defendant. The
cause of action for the suit is on the ground that the plaintiff has suffered
detention charges in respect of 145 containers imported by the plaintiff on the
vessels “VERMONT TRADER” and “WANHAI 515”. The detention charges
were incurred on the ground that the containers were not returned by the
importer within the agreed period. The plaintiff alleges that there has been a
nd
delay in clearing and returning the containers and that the 2 defendant had
raised invoices on behalf of its principal towards such detention charges, which
the plaintiff has been forced to pay. The plaintiff has instituted the suit on the
basis that the delay was not attributable to the plaintiff and hence the detention
charges paid by the plaintiff has to be refunded in full.
5.Arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Bimal
Rajasekhar are summarised as hereunder:
nd
5. The plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding against the 2 defendant.
nd
The 2 defendant was admittedly an agent of the disclosed principal, New
Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd and therefore, the claim for refund can only be
made against the disclosed principal and not against the agent of the said
principal. The seaway bills/ bills of lading establish that the plaintiff’s goods
were only carried by the disclosed principal, New Golden Sea Shipping Pte.
__________
Page3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
Ltd. Taking me through the plaintiff’s admission and denial affidavit, dated
12.07.2025, it is contended that the plaintiff has admitted not only the existence
of the bills of lading, but also the contents of the same, including the terms and
conditions, mentioned in the said bills. Therefore, the detention charges were
payable only to the carrier, New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd. Merely because
nd
the 2 defendant collected the detention charges as an agent of the said carrier,
nd
it cannot give rise to a cause of action for the plaintiff to proceed against the 2
defendant, who was acting only as an agent of the said carrier. Referring to
Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is contended that law is fairly
well settled that an agent of a disclosed principal cannot be personally bound for
the acts and omissions of the said disclosed principal.
6. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the
disclosed principal has not even been impleaded as a defendant in the suit in the
first place, despite the fact that the plaintiff admits to the bills of lading, clearly
nd
disclosing the name of the principal of the 2 defendant to be New Golden Sea
Shipping Private Limited. Ltd. That apart, taking me through the plaint,
Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar, would further contend that the plaintiff claims arbitrarily,
nd st
that the 2 defendant’s principal is the 1 defendant, which is not borne out of
any material, pleading or any documents to support such a claim. He would also
incidentally contend that the terms and conditions of the bill of lading, which
carried the plaintiff’s goods, specifically conferred jurisdiction on the Singapore
__________
Page4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
High Court and therefore, it is his additional submission that if at all any claim
is made for refund of detention charges, then such action should have to be
brought before the Singapore High Court and not before this Court, especially
when the parties have conferred jurisdiction on the Singapore High Court, by
nd
consent. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant/ 2
defendant has relied on the following decisions:
i. M/s. Godaddy.com LLC and another vs. M/s. Puravankara Projects
Limited, in Application No. 4983 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 669 of
2015, dated 07.06.2022.
ii. Interglobe Aviation Limited vs. N.Satchidanand, reported in (2011) 7
SCC 463
iii. BRS Ventures Investments Ltd. vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd.
and Another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1767
iv. Hapag-Lloyd (India) Private Ltd. vs. Rushabh Sealind and Logistic
Private Ltd, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 13221
v. M/s. Thakur Shipping Company, Bombay and another, vs. The Food
Corporation of India, through the District Manager Tuticorin,
reported in 1981 SCC OnLine Mad 148
st
7. Per contra, Mr. T.Ravichandran, counsel for the 1 respondent/ plaintiff,
would rebut the submissions of Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar, on the following grounds:
__________
Page5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
i. The applicant had already filed an application for revocation of leave in
Application No. 3118 of 2021.
nd
ii. The seaway bills admittedly do not disclose that the 2 defendant acted
as an agent of New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd.
st nd
iii. The website of the 1 defendant reveals the fact that the 2 defendant is
st
an agent of the 1 defendant and further New Golden Sea Shipping Pte.
st
Ltd being a 100% subsidiary of the 1 defendant, there was no necessity
to implead the said carrier, New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd, as a
defendant in the suit.
nd st
iv. The 2 defendant was clearly acting as an agent of the 1 defendant alone
st
and when the 1 defendant admits to have collected the amount/ detention
charges from the plaintiff, when it comes to the issue of refund of the said
nd
amount, the 2 defendant admittedly has to face trial and cannot wriggle
out by contending that he is an agent of another disclosed principal.
nd
v. The 2 defendant already made an attempt to have the leave granted
under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, revoked. However, by order dated
20.06.2023, the said application was dismissed, holding that the invoices
raised contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause, conferring Mumbai
nd
Courts with jurisdiction over the dispute between the plaintiff and the 2
defendant, cannot be presumed to the effect that the plaintiff had agreed
to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The said order has become final and
nd
therefore, it is too late in the day for the 2 defendant to contend putting
__________
Page6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
forth the new case as if it is only the Singapore High Court is the agreed
forum for claiming refund of detention charges and not this Court.
nd
vi. The 2 defendant has not even pleaded that the detention charges were
collected on behalf of the principal and therefore, the learned counsel
nd
would conclude his submissions stating that the 2 defendant cannot
escape from liability in such a summary fashion, by seeking for a
st
summary judgment especially when the 1 defendant has chosen to
remain ex parte.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side. I have also gone through the records filed by way of
typed set of papers. I have also perused the various authorities that have been
relied on by Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the applicant.
nd
9. At the outset, though it is an admitted fact that the applicant/ 2
defendant attempted to revoke the leave granted by this Court to institute the
nd
suit against the 2 defendant, before this Court and failed in such attempt, it is
nd
not a ground or an embargo for the 2 defendant to invoke Order XIII-A of
CPC and seek for a summary judgment. The basis of the present application is
on the ground that the plaintiff, even if the parties go to trial, does not have any
nd
real chance of succeeding against the 2 defendant. Therefore, the tests that
__________
Page7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
have to be applied in this application are entirely different from what has to be
looked into an application for revocation of leave. At the same time, as the
application for revocation of leave has already been dismissed, today, having
nd
allowed the said order to become final, equally it is not open to the applicant/2
defendant to raise a plea of jurisdiction or rather lack of territorial jurisdiction,
relying on the terms and conditions of the bills of lading, conferring jurisdiction,
by consent, on the Singapore High Court. In the light of the above discussion, I
am unable to accept the arguments advanced of Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar, learned
counsel for the applicant, that the lack of territorial jurisdiction can also be
taken into consideration while considering the present application for passing a
summary judgment under Order XIII-A of CPC.
10. As regards the liability of an agent of a disclosed principal, the statute
itself, in no uncertain terms, clearly exempts an agent of a disclosed principal
from being saddled with any liability. Section 230 of the Contract Act, is very
st
clear on this aspect. However, it is the case of the 1 respondent/ plaintiff that
nd st
the applicant/ 2 defendant, is only an agent of the 1 defendant, who is in any
event arrayed as party to the suit and in such circumstances, is not entitled to a
nd
summary judgment on this score that the disclosed principal of the 2 defendant
is not proceeded against.
nd nd
11. It is however the case of the applicant/ 2 defendant that the 2
__________
Page8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
st
defendant is not the agent of the 1 defendant, but an agent of the New Golden
Sea Shipping Private limited. In support of such a claim, I am able to see from
the documents, especially the non-negotiable seaway bill dated 05.04.2020, that
the said bill has been raised only by the New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd., in
the name of the plaintiff company alone. There is no explanation or answer to
st
this significant document, which in fact is admitted and not denied by the 1
respondent / plaintiff in the affidavit of admission and denial. The plaintiff on
the contrary, relies on the invoice dated 29.05.2020 which has been issued by
COSCO SHIPPING LINES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, in and whereby the
nd
applicant/ 2 defendant has raised a tax invoice with the name of the consignee
being the plaintiff, claiming to be an agent. It is therefore, the contention of the
st
1 respondent/ plaintiff that even these documents are self-serving and do not
nd
categorically disclose whether the applicant/ 2 defendant was acting as an
agent of the carrier New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd. Though the plaintiff has
raised such contentions, from a reading of the plaint or even from the counter
filed to the present application for a summary judgment, I am unable to see how
the plaintiff claims and establishes that New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd. is
st
100% subsidiary of the 1 defendant. In any event, in law, there is no bar for
incorporation of subsidiary companies, which would have separate legal
existence in the eye of law.
12. As rightly contended by Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar, counsel for the
__________
Page9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
nd
applicant/ 2 defendant, it is not even disclosed in the plaint that the carrier of
st
the imported goods was New Golden Sea Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and not the 1
defendant. As regards the reliance on the website
st
“world.lines.coscoshipping.com”, admittedly, it is not the website of the 1
defendant, but a company by name COSCO Shipping Lines Co Ltd. It is also
nd
possible that the 2 defendant acts as an agent for multiple companies and may
have acted as an agent for the said COSCO Shipping Lines as well, apart from
acting as an agent of New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd. In such view of the
st
matter, I do not see the case of the 1 respondent/ plaintiff being carried any
nd st
further, on the ground that the 2 defendant was acting as an agent of the 1
defendant.
13. More significantly, what clinches the issue is the fact, in the suit, the
defendant has filed 9 bills which contain specific terms and conditions. The said
bills are specifically admitted by the plaintiff, in the affidavit of admission and
denial dated 12.07.2025. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
applicant, Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar, the very same bills also find mention in the
container arrival report as well. These are documents that have been filed by the
plaintiffs themselves. These documents, beyond reasonable doubt, establish the
fact that the import of goods was only through New Golden Sea Shipping
nd
Private Limited. It is too late in the day to contend that the 2 defendant is an
st
agent only for the 1 defendant and not of the carrier, New Golden Sea Shipping
__________
Page10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
nd
Private Limited. Mere fact that the 2 defendant collected the detention charges
nd
on behalf of the carrier cannot saddle any liability on the applicant/ 2
defendant, especially when the disclosed principal, which is borne out of the
plaintiff’s documents themselves, is New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd. Section
230 of the Contract Act, applies in all force to the facts of the present case and
without even arraying the disclosed principal, the plaintiff is not entitled to
nd
proceed against the 2 defendant, who admittedly was acting only as an agent of
the carrier. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the plaintiff, on the strength
of its own pleadings and admissions and denials, by affidavit dated 12.07.2025,
nd nd
has no real prospect of succeeding against the 2 defendant. The 2 defendant
need not be driven or forced to undergo the agony of trial, in such
nd
circumstances. Thus, the applicant /2 defendant has made out a case for
summary judgment as prayed for.
14. Coming the to the decisions relied on by Mr.Bimal Rajasekhar, learned
nd
counsel appearing for the applicant/ 2 defendant, in M/s.Godaddy.com LLC’s
case (referred herein supra), this Court reiterated the principles pertaining to
grant of summary judgment and held that the object of “real” is used to indicate
that such prospect is not illusory, theoretical or statistical or imaginary or
fanciful and further held that even when the application satisfies the
requirement of Rule 3(a) of Order XIII-A of CPC, it would become necessary
for the court to consider whether there is any other compelling reason to direct
__________
Page11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
the parties to record oral evidence, as requirements in clauses (a) and (b) in Rule
3 has to be considered as being cumulative, in view of the use of conjunction
“and” between clauses (a) and (b). I have already found that the applicant has
satisfied the requirement of clause (a) of Rule 3 of Order XIII-A of CPC.
nd
Further, I also do not find any compelling reason to direct the applicant/ 2
defendant to undergo trial in the given facts and circumstances.
15. In Interglobe Aviation Limited’s case (referred herein supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that a bill of lading and terms and conditions contained
therein would be binding on the parties and therefore, the term relating to
exclusive jurisdiction cannot be ignored merely on the ground that passengers
would not have read it. I have already found that the applicant is not entitled to
canvass a plea of territorial jurisdiction and the yardstick for deciding an
application for summary judgment is completely different from an application
for revoking leave on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Hence, I do
nd
not see how this decision would come to the aid of the applicant/ 2 defendant.
16. In BRS Ventures Investments Ltd’s case (referred herein supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, relying on an earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bacha F. Guzdar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, reported
in (1955) 1 SCR 876 , held that a company is a juristic person and distinct from
its shareholders. I do not have any quarrel with regard to the settled legal
__________
Page12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
position. In Hapag-Lloyd (India) Private Limited’s case (referred herein supra),
the Bombay High Court, discussing Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872, reiterated the settled legal position that unless there is a contract to the
contrary, the local agent of a foreign carrier cannot be personally made liable
for any breach of contract to the carriage. This decision, applying the ratio and
settled legal principle relating to Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
st
is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. It is not the case of the 1
nd
respondent/ plaintiff that the 2 defendant would fall within the exceptions and
that there is a contract to the contrary. Therefore, as an agent of a disclosed
nd
principal, namely New Golden Sea Shipping Pte. Ltd, the applicant/ 2
defendant cannot be proceeded against.
17. In M/s. Thakur Shipping Company, Bombay and another’s case (referred
herein supra), the Division Bench of this Court discussed the nature of legal
liability in matters of delivery of cargo under bills of lading issued by the
Master of the ship and held that the principal alone and not the agent will be
independently liable to be proceeded against. The ratio laid down by the
Division Bench also applies to the facts of the present case. In light of the
st
foregoing discussion, as already found, at the risk of repetition, the 1
respondent/ plaintiff does not have any real prospect of succeeding against the
nd
applicant/ 2 defendant, even in the event of the parties being relegated to a
full-fledged trial. Further, the suit is admittedly not filed invoking the special
__________
Page13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
procedure for summary judgment as laid down in Order XXXVII of the Code as
well. Hence, the applicant is entitled to succeed as it has satisfied the twin
conditions namely, establishing the factum of plaintiff having no real prospect
of succeeding in the claim and secondly, there is no other compelling reason as
to why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of evidence in the
matter.
18.In light of the above, this Application is allowed and a summary
nd
judgment is passed, dismissing the suit as against the 2 defendant. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
05-11-2026
1/2
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ATA
__________
Page14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )

2026:MHC:4466
A No. 4124 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI J.
ATA
A No. 4124 of 2025
AND
CS NO. 158 OF 2021
05-11-2026
1/2
__________
Page15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:09:59 pm )