The Board Of Mumbai Port Authority vs M.T.Royal Diamond 7 And 2 Others
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-OS:12546
COMAS-99-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ADMIRALTY AND VICE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL ADMIRALTY SUIT NO. 99 OF 2015
The Board of Mumbai Port Authority )
A Body Corporate constituted under )
Section 3 of the Major Port Authorities )
Act, 2021, having its registered address )
Vijaydeep, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, )
Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 038. )...Plaintiff
Versus
1. M. T. Royal Diamond 7, )
A foreign owned Vessel )
)
2. Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd., )
A Company incorporated under the laws )
of Korea, having its office at 25-11 )
Yeouido-Dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, )
150-949, Korea. )
)
2A. Legal Custodian of Hanjin Shipping Co. )
Mr. Suk Tai, Soo, 659 Gonghang-daero )
Gangseo-gu, Seoul, Korea. )
)
3. Samudra Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. )
A Company incorporated under the )
Companies Act, 1956, having its office at )
st
12, Ajaydeep, 1 floor, 240 Perin Nariman )
Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. )...Defendants
Mr. Dhruva Gandhi a/w. Ms. Heenal Wadhwa i/b. The Law Point for
the Plaintiff.
None for the Defendants.
avk 1/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
th
RESERVED ON : 06 FEBRUARY 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 08 JUNE 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The Plaintiff is a body constituted under the Section 3 of the
Major Port Trust Authorities Act, 2021 and renders various services
including port facilities to the vessels coming to the Port of Mumbai.
2. The Defendant No. 1 is a foreign owned Vessel, the Defendant
No. 2 is the bareboat charterer of the Vessel and Defendant No. 3 is the
Company who acted as the shipping agent for Defendant No. 2. Since
the Defendant No. 2-Company was under liquidation, Defendant No.2A
th
was brought on record vide order dated 18 April 2018 as the legal
custodian of the Defendant No. 2.
3. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that Defendant No. 1 Vessel being a
chemical tanker was carrying several consignments of hazardous
chemical cargo including Toluene for discharge at the port of Mumbai
th
and other ports. That, the Vessel arrived at the port of Mumbai on 16
March 2012 and berthed at Pir Pau Jetty. Thereafter, the Vessel was
picked up by a pilot supplied by the Port authority at 2155 hours on
th
16th March 2012 and was made “all fast” at New Pir Pau Jetty on 17
avk 2/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
March 2012 at 0020 hours to discharge 2615 metric tonnes of Toluene
th th
in Mumbai. Mr.Gandhi has submitted that on 17 March 2012 and 24
March 2012 there were several explosions on board the Vessel which
caused spread of fire and also damage to the tugs manning in the
vicinity.
4. It has been submitted that due to the explosions caused on board
the Vessel, the Plaintiff incurred expenses to safeguard the Vessel and
take protective measures in relation to the same as also services. That,
the Plaintiff also sustained opportunity loss as its resource could not be
optimally utilized to handle other Vessels since such resources had to
be diverted to control the situation caused due to the accident. That,
th
thereafter, the Plaintiff addressed letter dated 19 April 2012 to the
Defendant No. 3 inter alia claiming approximately Rs.10,00,00,000/- of
which 20% was to be paid immediately to the Plaintiff in cash and the
balance 80% in the form of unconditional bank guarantee which claim
was disputed by the Defendants. It has been submitted that the
Defendants No. 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1079 2012
before this Court seeking quashing and setting aside the demand notice
th
dated 19 April 2012. That, during the hearing of the said Writ
Petition, a statement was made on behalf of the Plaintiff that it would
avk 3/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
restrict its claim to Rs.1,86,00,000/-. Upon such a statement of the
Plaintiff and upon the Defendants No. 2 and 3 furnishing an
unconditional bank of the said sum, the Defendant No. 1 Vessel was
permitted to sail from the port. It has been submitted that the said Writ
th
Petition was disposed of vide order dated 28 August 2014 whereby
this Court observed that the Plaintiff can avail its remedy by way of a
Suit. Mr.Gandhi has submitted that pursuant to the said order, the
Plaintiff filed this Suit originally seeking a decree in the sum of
Rs.1,85,24,255/- at the rate of 18% per annum to be paid jointly and
severally by the Defendants from the date of the Suit till the payment
th
or realization. By order dated 4 August 2022 passed in Interim
Application (L) No. 23946 of 2022, this Court allowed the amendment
of the Plaint so as to incorporate the change in name of the Plaintiff
post enactment of Major Ports Authorities Act, 2021 and also to scale
down the value of the suit claim. Accordingly, the amended / revised
suit claim of the Plaintiff came to be Rs. 68,87,024/-.
5. The Writ of Summons was served upon the Defendant No. 2 on
th th
06 November 2018 and on Defendant No. 2A on 07 November 2018.
th th
This Court vide orders dated 14 June 2019 and 27 June 2025
recorded that the writ of summons has been served on the legal
avk 4/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
custodian of Defendant No. 2 i.e. Defendant 2A and that Defendant
No.2A has not filed any written statement, but the Defendant No. 3,
who were the agents of the Defendant No. 2 at the relevant time, filed
written statement for itself and on behalf of Defendants No. 2 and
3and no written statement has been filed on behalf of the Defendant
st
No. 1. However this Court vide order dated 1 August 2025 has
permitted deletion of the Defendant No. 3 as the Defendant No. 3,
being an agent of a disclosed principal, was not a necessary party to the
Suit and also recorded that neither the Defendant No. 1 nor Defendants
No. 2 and 2A are represented despite service nor have filed any written
statement within the prescribed time and accordingly, the Suit to
proceed as undefended Suit against Defendants No. 1, 2 and 2A.
th
6. Issues were framed on 14 August 2019 as under:
i) Whether plaintiff proves that the present suit is maintainable
against defendant no.3 as agent of disclosed principal ?
ii) Whether plaintiff proves that the three blasts that occurred on
th th
17 March 2012 and the two other explosions that occurred on 24
March 2012 on board defendant no.1 vessel, M. T. Royal Diamond 7 in
the docks at Mumbai, was due to negligence on the part of the Master
and/or the ship’s crew and lack of proper care in the maintenance of
defendant no.1 vessel ?
iii) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant no.1 vessel failed to pay
the accrued Port Trust charges and other charges for services rendered
avk 5/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
to the vessel for firefighting operations prior to seeking Port clearance
to said vessel ?
iv) Whether plaintiff proves that plaintiff supplied materials to
defendant no.1 vessel during firefighting operations, those materials
were worth Rs.63,20,000/- and is entitled to recover the same from
defendants ?
v) Whether plaintiff proves that it suffered opportunity / revenue
th
loss of Rs.1,22,04,091/- for the period from 17 March 2012 to 9th
April 2012 on account of the above explosions which took place
th
between 17th March 2012 to 24 March 2012 and as such is entitled to
from defendants an amount of Rs.1,85,24,255/- as set out in the
particulars of claim at Exhibit G to the plaint ?
vi) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover interest on the claim
amount of Rs.1,85,24,255/- @ 18% p.a. from the date of suit till
payment or realization as alleged ?
vii) What order ? What Decree ?
7. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to set out the
background facts as under.
th
8. On 16 March 2012, the Defendant No.1-Vessel, a chemical
tanker, was carrying several consignments of hazardous chemicals
cargo including ethyl acetate and toluene for discharge at the Plaintiff
port. It has been submitted that the total toluene cargo for Mumbai was
approximately 2615 MT, while the transit cargo was 8506 MT.
avk 6/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
th
9. As noted above, on 17 March, 2012, there were several
explosions on Board the Vessel which are set out as under along with
the subsequent events:
(i) At 1129 hours on March 17, 2012, the first blast took place: the
pilot on board of the Defendant No. 1-Vessel heard two big blasts and
saw two fireballs coming out from the star board side of the forecastle
store.
(ii) At 1140 hours on March 17, 2012, a second explosion was heard at
the forecastle.
(iii) At 1145 hours, on March 17, 2012, a third blast was seen from the
starboard side of the store. It has been submitted that due to the third
blast, three crew members got injured and were moved at 1220 hours
by an ambulance.
(iv) At 1215 hours, the Ship's shore foam was deployed to douse the
fire.
(v) At 1315 hours, two additional harbour tugs "Ajay" and "Anant"
arrived from Mumbai and commenced additional boundary cooling.
Black smoke and occasional fire balls were seen emerging from the
Vessel.
(vi) At 1500 hours, the fire brigade arrived.
avk 7/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
(vii) At 1530 hours, the fire was brought under control but black smoke
continued to emerge as soon as the water spraying was stopped. The
fire brigade used high expansion foam after which the forecastle was
accessible.
(viii) At 1915 hours, the Defendant-Vessel was safely cast off and was
shifted to outer anchorage after the fire was extinguished and the
vessel was cooled.
th
10. On 18 March 2012 at 0030 hours, the Defendant No. 1-Vessel
was anchored at outer anchorage.
th
11. On 24 March 2012, a second explosion occurred due to gas
trapped in the bow thruster room, possibly ignited by pumps used to
remove sludge and dirty water during firefighting operations. Some
Toluene may have leaked into the room. Several crew members and
ship workers deployed by Defendant No. 3 were injured, including
fatalities.
th
12. On 10 April 2012, the Department of Explosives, Government of
India issued a certificate, certifying that the bosun store room and bow
thruster room were free of gas.
avk 8/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
th
13. On 11 April 2012, the Plaintiff received a letter from JM. Baxi &
Co., stating they had paid Port Bill No. 1805335 dated 31.03.2012 for
the vessel STOLT ZULU amounting to Rs. 13,09,206/- including
charges for Pilotage (Rs. 69,620), Port Dues (Rs. 2,34,411/-), and
Anchorage (Rs. 491/-) and claiming that these charges were wrongly
billed to them due to disruptions caused by M.T. ROYAL DIAMOND 7
and requested the Plaintiff to charge the entire amount of
Rs.3,04,522/- to Royal Diamond 7 and refund the entire amount to
them and to give them a revised Bill.
th
14. On 13 April 2012, the Plaintiff received a letter from Ocean
th
Sparkle Limited dated 12 April 2012, claiming Rs. 5,60,000/- for
damages to the tug Ocean Crown and Rs. 22,472/- as survey fees which
damages were sustained during the un-berthing of the vessel Royal
Diamond-7 on 17.03.2012 at Pir Pau Jetty.
th
15. On 16 April 2012, the Defendant No. 3 approached the Plaintiff
for port clearance and the Plaintiff informed them that clearance would
be granted only after the finalization of pending Port Trust charges.
avk 9/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
th
16. On 19 April 2012, the Classification Society Surveyors issued a
certificate certifying the Defendant vessel as fit to sail to Kandla Port
from the anchorage to the next port, Kandla. It has been submitted that
the Vessel had failed to pay port trust charges and also the charges for
the services rendered to the Defendant No.1-Vessel.
th
17. As submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff above, on 19 April 2012,
the Plaintiff addressed a letter to Defendant No.3 making a tentative
claim for Rs. 10 Crores. The aforesaid claim was made to P&I
Club/owners demanding that 20% was to be paid immediately to the
Plaintiff in cash and the balance 80% in form of an unconditional Bank
Guarantee. It has been submitted that this letter was issued in the
immediate aftermath of the incident and, therefore, was an
overestimation of the claim.
th
18. On 20 April 2012, the Defendant No.3 denied its liability and
also asked for particulars of the claim. The Defendants also contended
that the fire did not result in any damage to the port property. It has
been submitted that pertinently, however, Defendant No.3 admitted
that a fire and explosion had occurred on board Defendant No.1-Vessel.
avk 10/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
st
19. On 21 April 2012, the Defendant No.3 addressed a letter to the
Plaintiff requesting for a meeting with the Chairman on 23.04.2012
rd
and on 23 April 2012, the Plaintiff forwarded a Marine Invoice
Finalized Report to the Defendant No. 3, detailing the charges for the
vessel stay from 16.03.2012 to 10.05.2012 amounting to
Rs.15,07,970/-. However, the Defendants failed to make the payment.
th
20. On 24 April 2012, the Defendant No.3 alleged and threatened
to hold the Plaintiff responsible for unlawful and illegal detention of
the Vessel. It has been submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that it was
admitted that firefighting sources were provided to the Defendant
No.1-Vessel and that a liability to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs was
admitted.
th
21. As also submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff above, on 25 April
2012, the Defendants No. 2 and 3 filed Writ Petition No. 1211 of 2012
before this Court seeking to quash the demand notice dated
19.04.2012. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 made an application for
interim reliefs in the said Writ Petition wherein this Court vide order
th
dated 27 April 2012, permitted the Vessel to sail upon the furnishing
th
of an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs. 1.86 crores. On 9 May
avk 11/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
2012, a Bank Guarantee bearing No. 520020413742-HD of Rs. 1.86
Crores was issued.
th
22. On 14 May 2012, the Plaintiff filed an Affidavit in Reply to the
said Petition, detailing their claims against the vessel. It has been
submitted that the Plaintiff explained as to how the overall quantity of
loss was unknown as on 19.04.2012, as the actual loss had not yet been
computed. It has been submitted that however no rejoinder has been
filed to the same.
rd
23. On 23 May 2012, the Plaintiff forwarded a further finalized
Marine Invoice Report to Defendant No. 3, detailing charges for the
vessel’s stay from 16.03.2012 to 10.05.2012, amounting to
Rs.2,29,976/-. However, the Defendant failed to make the payment.
th
24. As also submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff above that on 28
August 2014, the Writ Petition was heard at the admission stage for
final disposal, with liberty reserved for the Plaintiff to file a suit with
the deeming fiction of the vessel being present within the territorial
th
jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, on 27 October 2014, the
present Suit was filed.
avk 12/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
25. It has been submitted that the key findings in the investigation
conducted by the Plaintiff included the following:
(i) The Defendant No.1-Vessel's management changed in April 2012,
and most crew members were unfamiliar with the ship.
(ii) Leakage of Toluene - The chemical leaked from an open valve into
the gas-free pipeline, reaching the bosun store and bow thruster space.
(iii) Regular physical inspections were not conducted, which could
have prevented the mishap.
(iv) No alarm was triggered before the explosion, despite the presence
of smoke detectors.
(v) Vapours mixed with air, forming an explosive mixture that ignited
due to nearby materials like polypropylene ropes.
(vi) The hired tug Ocean Crown suffered fire damage to paint, cables,
and emergency equipment.
(vii) Three crew members were injured on 17.03.2012, and on
24.03.2012, another explosion injured several others, leading to one
fatality and injuries to four shore labourers.
26. As submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff above, the Plaintiff
initially raised a claim of Rs. 10 crores, which was later revised to
avk 13/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
Rs.1,85,24,255/- and was further reconsidered and reduced to
Rs.68,87,024/- by the Plaintiff.
27. By an ad-interim order in Notice of Motion No. 174 of 2015
th
dated 29 October 2014, this Court directed the security be furnished
in the reduced amount of Rs. 65 lakhs and by a further ad-interim
th
order dated 19 October 2015, this Court reduced the security amount
th
to Rs. 50 lakhs. By an order dated 11 February 2016, the said security
was directed to continue until the final disposal of the suit.
nd
28. On 22 December 2017, written statement was filed on behalf of
the Defendants No. 2 and 3 .
th
29. On 27 December 2016, the Plaintiff received a Notice from
Defendant No. 2 i.e. Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd.'s Legal Custodian, Mr.
Suk, Tai-Soo, informing them that Hanjin was undergoing bankruptcy
proceedings in Seoul, Korea. The Notice, provided in both Korean and
English, led the Plaintiff's Advocate to initiate proceedings to include
the Legal Custodian in the case. In January 2018, the Plaintiff took out
chamber summons to bring Legal Custodian of Defendant No. 2 on
avk 14/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
record and by order dated 18.04.2018, Mr. Suk, Tai-Soo was added as
Defendant No. 2A in the Suit.
th
30. On 13 September 2019, Affidavit in lieu of examination in
chief- PW1 and further compilation of documents of the Plaintiff were
nd
filed. On 22 April 2022, the Plaintiff’s supplementary compilation of
th
documents were filed. On 26 July 2022, Affidavits in lieu of
th
examination in chief of PW-2 and PW-3 were filed and on 30 August
2022, this Court appointed Mr. Siddha Pamecha, Advocate, as the
Court Commissioner to record the cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s
witnesses, which was conducted as follows:
(i) PW-1: Captain Sandesh Kumar (Cross examination conducted and
completed on 28.09.2022 and 29.09.2022)
(ii) PW-2: Captain Shailendra Kohli (Cross examination conducted and
completed on 05.11.2022)
(iii) PW-3: Mr. Anandkumar S Kannojia (Cross examination conducted
and completed on 08.12.2022)
31. The Learned Court Commissioner submitted his report to this
Court and as the Defendant No. 3 elected not to lead evidence, the
nd
evidence was closed vide order dated 22 December 2022.
avk 15/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
32. I have heard Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, learned Counsel for the
th th rd th
Plaintiff, on 7 March 2025, 25 April 2025, 23 January 2026 and 6
February 2026.
1
33. As can be seen, that in its revised Particulars of Claim , the
Plaintiff has segregated its claims into 15 different heads which are
detailed below:
Sr.
Description Amount Total
No.
(in Rs.) (in Rs.)
1. Opportunity loss of revenue from 22,43,330/-
17.03.2012 to 09.04.2012
2. Claims received from the other
vessels levying the charges for
delayed stay due to fire on Royal
Diamond 7.
3,04,5223878 3,08,400/-
3. Port dues 3,31,112/- 15,07,970/-
4. Anchorage charges 29,836/-
5. Pier dues 1,50,701/-
6. Pilotage charges 3,66,763/-
7. Tug assistance (Tug- Anant,
Ajay, Ajit, Ocean Crown and
Ocean Prestige)
11.06,515/-
8. Detention of Tug 23,454/-
9. Service Tax 2,48,236
1
Page 40A, Exhibit ‘H’, Plaint.
avk 16/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
Adjustment of amount already (-)
deposited 7,48,647/-
10. Utilisation of foam 18,83,105/- 19,54,188/-
11. Staff of PSFO 71,083/-
12. Posting of DC’s officers at Jetty 14,733/- 3,73,136/-
13. Diesel fuel 14,981/-
3,43,422/-
14. Staff and officer’s charges
(inclusive of supervision, CME’s
department) and running of all
fire-fighting people.
15. Hire charges of Tug “Ocean
Crown” for the period of
deployment and claim towards
damage due to fire to the tug.
5,00,000/-
TOTAL 68,87,024/-
34. The Plaintiff has in support of its claim filed evidence of the
st
following documents which have been marked as Exhibits on 1 March
th th
2022, 26 April 2022 and 30 August 2022:
Sr. No. Particulars Exhibit
1. Original Affidavit-of-evidence of Capt. Sandesh
Kumar, Assistant Harbour Master and
th
Authorized Signatory of the plaintiff, dated 13
P-1
September 2019
2. Certified true copy of the letter bearing Ref.
No.DC/C-SH/ACC/Royal Diamond/2064 dated
th
19 April 2012 addressed by the Deputy
Conservator of the plaintiff to the Proprietor of
Defendant No.3 on the subject of “lodgement of
P-2
avk 17/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
MbPT’s claim for the two incidents of explosion
th th
and fire on 17 March 2012 and 24
March2012”.
3. Office-copy of the letter bearing Ref. No.
th
SMSPL/RD7/MBPT/002/2012 dated 20 April
2012 addressed by the Defendant No.3 to the
Deputy Conservator of the plaintiff on the
aforesaid subject.
P-3
4. Office-copy of the letter bearing Ref. No.
st
SMSPL/RD7/MBPT/003/2012 dated 21 April
2012 addressed by the Defendant No.3 to the
Deputy Conservator of the plaintiff on the
aforesaid subject.
P-4
5. Office-copy of the letter bearing Ref. No.
th
SMSPL/RD7/MBPT/004/2012 dated 24 April
2012 addressed by the Defendant No.3 to the
Deputy Conservator of the plaintiff on the
aforesaid subject.
P-5
6. Certified true copy of the OOCJ Writ Petition
(Lodging) No.1079 of 2012 served upon the
plaintiff by Defendant No.2-Hanjin Shipping Co.
Ltd.
P-6
7. Copy of the order dated 27th April 2012 passed
by the Division Bench of this court in Writ
Petition (Lodging) No.1079 of 2012.
P-7
th
8. Copy of the affidavit-in-reply dated 14 May
2012 filed by the Capt. Shailendra Kohli, Deputy
Conservator of the plaintiff, in Writ Petition
(Lodging) No.1079 of 2012.
P-8
nd
9. Scale of Rates dated 22 November, 2011. P-9
10. Duplicate copy of Marine Invoice bearing No.
th
STX-PS/Mumbai-1/10 dated 27 August 2019.
P-10
11. Duplicate copy of the Marne Invoice bearing No.
th
STAX-PS/Mumbai-1/10 dated 27 August 2019.
P-11
12. Certified true copy of Dockwise Vessel Cargo
th
Revenue for the period 17 December, 2011 to
th
16 March, 2012.
P-12
13. Original Affidavit in lieu of examination in chief P-13
avk 18/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
of Capt. Shailendra Kohli, Deputy Conservator of
th
the Plaintiff, dated 26 July 2022.
14. Certified true copy of the order passed by the
th
Division Bench of this Court dated 28 August
2014.
P-14
15. Original Communication received from M/s. J.
M. Baxi and Co., along with its accompaniments.
P-15
th
16. Original Letter dated 12 April, 2012 addressed
by M/s. Ocean Sparkle Limited to the Plaintiff
along with its accompaniments.
P-16
P-17
17. Certified true copy of the Bill for the Port fire
nd
service firefighting charges dated 2 April,
2011.
18. Certified true copy of Billing Advice Notice. P-18
19. Certified true copy of audited Billing Advice
rd
Notice dated 3 December, 2014.
P-19
th
20. Copy of the Purchase Order dated 15
P-20
November, 2011.
21. Original Affidavit in lieu of examination in chief
of Mr. Anandkumar S. Kannojia, Deputy Chief
th
Accounts Officer of the Plaintiff dated26 July
2022.
P-21
35. In respect of Port dues & Related Charges, the claim is contained
in Sr. Nos. 3 to 9 of the Particulars of Claim as above. Towards Claim
Nos. 3 to 9, the Plaintiff has claimed an aggregate sum of
Rs.15,07,970/- under the following heads:- ( i) Port Dues, ( ii)
Anchorage charges, ( iii) Pier dues, ( iv) Pilotage charges, ( v) Tug
Assistance (Tug-Anant, Ajay, Ajit, Ocean Crown and Ocean Prestige),
( vi) Detention of Tug, and ( vii) Service Tax.
avk 19/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
rd
36. The Plaintiff has placed on record two invoices dated 23 April
rd 2
2012 and 23 May 2012, which have been marked as Exhibit P-10 . To
substantiate these invoices, the Plaintiff has also placed on record its
nd
Scale of Rates (the “SOR”) dated 22 November 2011, which has been
3 4
I
marked as Exhibit P-9 . n Paragraph 18 of the Affidavit in lieu of
Examination in Chief, PW-2, Captain Shailendra Kohli, has
categorically stated that Port Dues were payable in respect of
Defendant No. 1-Vessel under Section 2.16 of the SOR at the rate of
5
25.96%. Further, PW-2 has also stated that Pier Dues were payable
6
under Section 2.22 at the rate of 1.66%. There is a similar deposition
on behalf of PW-2 in respect of Pilotage Charges and Anchorage
Charges as well. PW-2 has also deposed that charges for the attendance
for tugs Anant, Ajay, Ajit, Ocean Crown and Ocean Prestige was
payable at the rate of USD 2222.4. The deposition of PW-2 is supported
7
by Section 2.4 of the SOR. Thus, the manner in which the claims under
Serial Nos. 3 to 9 of the Particulars of Claim arise and are payable have
been duly substantiated and proved by the Plaintiff.
2
Page 302, Compilation of Documents
3
Page 254, Compilation of Documents
4
Page 113 of the Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief of PW-2.
5
Section 2.16 can be found at Page 267 of the Compilation of Documents
6
Page 275
7
Page 261, Compilation of Documents
avk 20/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
37. A deposition with respect to the Port Dues being payable by the
Defendant No.1, Pier dues, Pilotage charges and Anchorage charges
similar to that of PW-2 is also found in Paragraph 26 of the Affidavit in
lieu of Examination in Chief of Captain Sandesh Kumar, i.e. PW-1.
There is no cross-examination which would dislodge the deposition
that the weight of the vessel was 8539 GRT.
38. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that once this testimony is not
shaken / dislodged, the dues payable in respect of Defendant No. 1
Vessel under the SOR are simply a matter of mathematical calculation.
I agree with him. There is also no cross-examination or dispute over the
dates on which Defendant No. 1-Vessel was present within the premises
of the Mumbai Port Trust, or the fact that assistance was provided by
tugs to Defendant No. 1-Vessel.
39. In these circumstances, insofar as Serial Nos. 3 to 9 of the
Particulars of Claim are concerned, the Plaintiff have proved and
established their claim.
40. As regards the Claim towards firefighting expenses and materials
used to douse the fire, in its Particulars of Claim, the Plaintiff has
avk 21/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
advanced a claim under Serial Nos. 10 and 11 towards " Utilisation of
Foam " and " Staff of PSFO ". The overall claim put forth under this head
is Rs. 19,54,188/-. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 have already admitted
that a monetary liability was owed to Plaintiff towards firefighting
expenses. In the Writ Petition filed before this Court being Writ Petition
No. 1211 of 2012, and in particular in its synopsis, Defendants No. 2
and 3 have stated that “… the Port Trust can have no claim whatsoever
against the vessel MT Royal Diamond 7, save and accept for reasonable
firefighting expenses incurred by the Port which the Petitioner No. 2
8
estimates as not exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs …”.
th
41. It is also observed that this Court had vide its Order dated 14
June 2019, recorded that no Written Statement was filed by
Defendants No. 2 and 2A, despite the service of a Writ of Summons. No
cross-examination has been conducted by Defendant No. 2 or
Defendant No. 2A, either. Therefore, Defendant No. 2, who was
Petitioner No. 1 in the Writ Petition has not put forth a case which
would provide an alternate or contrary explanation to the case pleaded
in the Writ Petition. Moreover, Defendant No. 3 (who was Petitioner
8
Exhibit P-6 at Page 155, Compilation of Documents
avk 22/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
No. 2 in the Writ Petition) conservatively estimated the firefighting
expenses to be Rs. 10 lakhs.
42. The fact that foam was provided by firemen to douse the fire was
also admitted in the Writ Petition itself. In paragraph 1 of the Writ
Petition, Defendants No. 2 and 3, inter-alia have stated that “ …the
crew immediately commenced fire-fighting operations assisted by shore
hydrants and tugs. Some of the crew members were injured during
these operations. In addition to shipboard foam, additional foam was
provided by shore firemen and the bosun store-room was filled with
water and foam. The vessel left berth at 1905 hours and was shifted to
anchorage where the vessel's fire was completely extinguished at 2100
th 9
hours on 17 March 2012… ”
43. It is therefore clear that, in the present instance, Defendants No.2
and 3 have themselves admitted that fire-fighting expenses were
payable to the Plaintiff, and that the firefighting services / operations
included the provision of foam to douse the fire.
9
Page 160, Compilation of Documents
avk 23/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
44. It is noted that in support of its claim, the Plaintiff has also
nd
produced a letter dated 2 April 2011 (the letter being wrongly dated
nd nd
02 April 2011 instead of 02 April 2012) addressed by the Port Safety
& Fire Officer to the Administrative Officer of the Marine Department
of the Port Trust, which categorically states that a sum of
Rs.18,83,105.30 was recoverable towards the provision of the foam
10
compound. To corroborate the price charged towards the provision of
foam, the Plaintiff has also produced a Purchase Order raised on KB
th
Fire Chemicals (India) Private Limited on 5 November 2011, i.e. some
time before the incident of explosion occurred, and that the said
purchase order categorically mentions that 27,000 units of foam were
purchased vide this Purchase Order. The rate per unit was fixed at
Rs.131.41 and it is apparent from the item specification that the
material purchased was in fact foam which would be fit for use both in
fresh and seawater. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that the total value of
the foam purchased was Rs. 35,47,935/-.
45. In the statement issued by the Port Safety and Fire Officer, it is
stated that 14,370 units of the foam compound were used. The rate at
10
Exhibit P-17, Page 245, Compilation of Documents
avk 24/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
which the Defendant vessel was said to be liable to pay the Plaintiff for
the use of foam was also prescribed at Rs.131.41.
46. The existence and contents of the letter at Exhibit P-17 have
11
been duly proved by Plaintiff's Witness No. 2. In paragraph 23 of his
Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief, PW-2 has categorically stated
that a copy of the letter was also marked to him, and that he had
thereafter verified the contents of the said letter and had found them to
be correct. PW-2 was the Deputy Conservator of the Plaintiff. Moreover,
PW-2 has also identified the signature on this letter as being that of
Shri P. P. Bhonde, the ex-Port Safety and Fire Officer of the Plaintiff. In
these circumstances, the claim under S. Nos. 10 and 11 of the
Particulars of Claim has also stands proved.
47. As regards the Claims towards the use of diesel fuel, and the
charges incurred towards staff officers and other firefighting personnel
contained in Serial Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of the Plaintiff's Particulars of
Claim, an aggregate claim in the sum of Rs.3,73,136/- has been made
under this head. The claim is inter alia towards the use of diesel fuel,
and the charges incurred towards staff, officers and other firefighting
11
Page 115 of the Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief of PW-2
avk 25/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
personnel. The claim under this head is related to the previous head of
claim, in as much as it arises out of the services provided by the
Mumbai Port Trust to douse the fire which had erupted on the vessel,
MT Royal Diamond 7. In support of this claim, the Plaintiff has placed
on record a Billing Advice Notice prepared by the Mechanical &
12
Engineering Department of the Port Trust marked as Exhibit P-18.
This document, inter alia , gives the particulars of the diesel fuel
consumed, the charges incurred towards the staff posted at the jetty
and the charges incurred towards the running of the pump. As regards
Exhibit P-18, PW-2 has stated that the letter was marked to him, and
that it bears his initials at the bottom. He has further deposed that the
contents thereof are correct.
48. Additionally, the Plaintiff has also placed reliance upon an
Audited Billing Advice Notice issued by the Mechanical & Engineering
rd
Department of the Port Trust on 3 December 2014 marked as Exhibit
13
P-19 and that states that a sum of Rs.3,79,546/- represented the final
charges payable to the department, inter alia , towards consumption of
diesel fuel, posting of staff members, pump running charges and
12
Page 246, Compilation of Documents
13
Page 247, Compilation of Documents
avk 26/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
engineering / supervision charges. As regards both these documents,
the Plaintiff has led the evidence of Shailendra Kohli, PW-2, who joined
the services of the Plaintiff as a Pilot, and was thereafter the Deputy
st th
Conservator of the Plaintiff from 1 January 2011 to 30 December
2017. As regards Exhibit P-19, PW-2 has once again deposed on oath
that the letter verified all the entries and stated that the contents
thereof are correct. Moreover, PW-2 has also identified the signature on
the letter as being that of Shri M. V. Panzade, Ex. Executive Engineer,
the Executive Engineer of the Mechanical & Electrical Engineering
Department of the Plaintiff. PW-2 has identified the said signature
based on records available with the Plaintiff. These claims are therefore
proved.
49. As regards the next two claims arising out of damage/delays
caused to other vessels made by the Plaintiff in its Particulars of Claim
are contained in Serial Nos. 2 and 15, which are related claims viz. in
Serial No. 2, the Plaintiff has made a claim on account of claims
received from other vessels levying charges for a delayed stay due to
the fire on Royal Diamond 7 and in Serial No. 15, a claim has been
made towards the hire charges of Ocean Ground and the damage
caused to the tug due to the fire. As far as the claim under Serial No. 2
avk 27/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
is concerned, the Plaintiff has made a claim in the sum of
Rs.3,08,400/-. As far as the claim under Serial No. 15 is concerned, the
Plaintiff has made a claim in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.
50. As far as the claim towards the damage caused to the vessel
Ocean Crown is concerned, the Plaintiff has produced the letter dated
th 14
12 April 2012 along with its attachments marked as Exhibit P-16
addressed by Ocean Sparkle Limited to the Deputy Conservator of the
Plaintiff, making a claim towards the damage suffered by the tug Ocean
Crown. The Plaintiff has led oral evidence through both PW-1 and PW-
2 and in the Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief of PW-1, Captain
Sandesh Kumar, PW-1 has deposed that the Plaintiff received a letter
th
dated 12 April 2012 from Ocean Sparkle Limited regarding the
damage caused to the tug Ocean Crown during the unberthing of the
th
vessel Royal Diamond 7 on 17 March 2012. By this letter, damages to
the tune of Rs.5,60,000/- and survey fees were also claimed. Moreover,
PW-1 has also deposed as to how on the date on which the incident
occurred, the tug Ocean Crown was near the forward section of the
ship and fireballs from the ship landed on the tug. The tug was moved
away and the fire was extinguished immediately. That PW-1 has further
stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Affidavit in lieu of Examination in
14
Page 217, Compilation of documents
avk 28/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
th
Chief, that along with this letter, a copy of an invoice dated 7 April
2012 for the amounts mentioned in the letter was also attached.
51. PW-2, Captain Shailendra Kohli, has also led similar evidence in
paragraph 27 of his Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief deposing
th
that the Plaintiff received a letter dated 12 April 2012 from Ocean
Sparkle Limited claiming an amount of Rs. 5,60,000/- as damages and
Rs. 22,272/- as survey fees for the damages caused to the Tug Ocean
Crown due to the incident occurred to Defendant No. 1 Vessel and
along with the said letter, the Ocean Sparkle also submitted a copy of
th th
the invoice dated 7 April 2012 and Damage Survey Letter dated 4
April 2012.
52. The Plaintiff has led oral evidence as to how damage was caused
to the vessel Ocean Crown, and also as to how a claim came to be made
by its owner on account of this damage.
53. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that in these circumstances, the
Plaintiff has established that damage was suffered by the tug Ocean
Crown due to the fire which occurred on board the vessel MT Royal
Diamond 7, and that a claim was made on account of this fire by the
owner of the Tug Ocean Crown upon the Plaintiff. I agree with
Mr.Gandhi. Also, there is no material to show that the third party
avk 29/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
claims have been honoured. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff is
entitled to both these claims from the Defendants in the present suit.
54. Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that as far as the claim
towards other vessels whose exit from the Port Trust premises was
delayed on account of the fire on board Royal Diamond 7 is concerned,
the Plaintiff has led the evidence of both PW-1 and PW-2. In his
Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief, PW-2 has stated as to how the
th 15
Plaintiff received a letter on 11 April 2012 marked as Exhibit P-15.
from J. M. Bakshi & Co., informing the Plaintiff that for the vessel 'Stolt
Zulu ' they have received a Port Bill No. 1805335. In this letter, it was
contended that a sum to the tune of Rs.3,04,522/- had been paid in
excess since the movement of the vessel ' Stolt Zulu ' had been disturbed
due to the fire on board MT Royal Diamond 7. Moreover, PW-2 has
also deposed as to how the letter was addressed to the Operation
Service Centre of the Plaintiff, and a copy was marked to him, being
16
the Deputy Conservator. This claim is therefore also to be granted.
55. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that with respect to the last claim
towards opportunity loss, which is mentioned in Sr. No. 1 of the
15
Page 212, Plaintiff’s Compilation of documents
16
Paragraph 16 of PW-2’s Affidavit in lieu of Examination in Chief
avk 30/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
Plaintiff's Particulars of Claim, the Plaintiff has pleaded that it has
suffered an opportunity loss for the period from 17th March 2012 to
9th April 2012 on account of the incidents which took place on 17th
17
March 2012 and 24th March 2012.
56. Under this head of claim, the Plaintiff has led the evidence of
PW-3, Anand Kumar Kanojia, the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer of the
Plaintiff, and he has deposed that for a period of 24 days from 17th
March 2012 to 9th April 2012, the plaintiff suffered an opportunity loss
to the tune of Rs.22,43,330/-. He has further deposed that this loss was
calculated on the basis of the revenue earned by the Plaintiff for the 3
months immediately preceding the date of berthing of Defendant No.1
vessel. The average revenue receipt for a day at Pir Pau jetty for the 3
months preceding 17th March 2012 was Rs.12,01,083/-. He has further
deposed that based on this average income, the cumulative amount
which could have been earned for a period of 24 days would have been
Rs.2,88,25,992/-. However, the actual revenue generated for the said
period of 24 days was only Rs.2,65,82,662/-. By deducting the actual
revenue from the projected revenue, the Plaintiff has arrived at an
18
amount of Rs.22,43,330/- as opportunity loss. In support of its claim,
17
Paragraph 14, Page 7, Plaint
18
Paragraph 4, Page 3, Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-chief
avk 31/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
the Plaintiff has also produced a computerised copy of a statement of
the dock-wise marine cargo revenue for the period commencing from
19
17th December 2011 to 9th April 2012 marked as Exhibit P-12. The
evidence of PW-3 has not been dislodged in the course of cross-
examination.
57. In the course of cross-examination conducted by the advocate for
the Defendant No. 3, PW-3 was asked if the Plaintiff had provided an
average of the revenues it would have earned at the berth Pir Pau for
the entire year of 2012, to which PW-3 has deposed that the Plaintiff
20
had not done so. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that however, the fact
that the average income earned for the entire year of 2012 having not
been provided is immaterial, in as much as the present suit is only
concerned with the loss of opportunities for the period between 17th
March 2012 to 9th April 2012. PW-3 was further asked if he was posted
in the Billing and Audit Department as an Accounts Officer to which
21
PW-3 has answered in the negative. I agree with Mr. Gandhi.
Mr.Gandhi has submitted that basis this answer, Defendant No.3 has, in
the course of cross-examination, sought to suggest that the evidence led
19
Page 231, Compilation of documents
20
Q/A 12
21
Q/A 16
avk 32/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
by PW-3 on the loss suffered by the Plaintiff is based on the records of
22
the Plaintiff and not on the basis of his personal knowledge , which
line of questioning Mr. Gandhi has submitted is irrelevant, as the
quantum of the opportunity loss/loss of revenue suffered by the
Plaintiff for the period of 24 days between 17th March 2012 to 9th
April 2012 is a matter of mathematical calculation. It has been
explained that it is a figure which is arrived at after deducting the
actual revenue earned from the projected revenue for the period in
question. That the actual revenue earned is obviously a matter of
record and can be discerned from the documentation maintained by the
Plaintiff, and the projected revenue is also a matter of record and can
be ascertained based on the average income earned by the Plaintiff in
the period preceding the dates of the incident. I am satisfied by this
approach.
58. Mr. Gandhi’s submission that therefore the suggestion of
Defendant No. 3 that PW-3 was not a part of the billing department at
the relevant point in time is of no consequence, as what matters is
whether PW-3 was generally competent to peruse and understand the
relevant records of the Plaintiff and to lead evidence thereon has merit.
22
Q/A 18
avk 33/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
Mr. Gandhi further submitted that being the Deputy Chief Accounts
Officer of the Plaintiff, it follows as a matter of logical sequitur that
PW-3 was indeed competent in this regard and overall, therefore, the
evidence led by the Plaintiff on this front has also not been dislodged in
the course of cross-examination. I agree with him.
59. Mr. Gandhi has relied on the following decisions in support of his
submissions for this claim:
23
i) State of West Bengal and Others Vs. S. K. Maji
ii) Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited Vs. Hindustan Petroleum
24
Corporation Limited & Another.
25
iii) Unibros Vs. All India Radio
60. Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that the opportunity loss
suffered by the Plaintiff has also been established on a preponderance
of probabilities, and in these circumstances, Mr. Gandhi has submitted
that the Plaintiff has established its case on a preponderance of
probabilities.
23
2025 SCC OnLine Cal 3945
24
(2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 375
25
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1366
avk 34/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
26
61. In the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. L. K. Ahuja the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that to support a claim for missed
opportunities it becomes imperative for the claimant to substantiate the
presence of a viable opportunity through compelling evidence which
should convincingly demonstrate the loss arising therefrom. This
judgment has been relied upon by the Calcutta High Court in the case
of State of West Bengal and Others vs. S. K. Maji (supra) .
62. In the case of Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited vs.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another (supra) , the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the loss arising from depletion of
income may also be proven from the books of accounts which
demonstrates a drop in the turnover.
63. In the case of Unibros vs. All India Radio (supra) , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has cited Hudson’s Formula for assessing loss of profit
and opportunities. In paragraph 19 it has been observed that for claims
related to loss of profit, profitability or opportunities, to succeed, there
has to be credible evidence to substantiate the said claim.
26
(2004) 5 SCC 109
avk 35/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
64. In the facts of this case, the projected revenue was for the period
th th
17 March 2012 to 9 April 2012 on the basis of the revenue earned by
the Plaintiff for the three months preceding the date of berthing of the
Defendant no.1 Vessel. The average revenue for the 3 months
th
preceding 17 March 2012 was Rs.12,01,083/- and it is on the basis of
this average income the cumulative amount that would have been
earned for a period of 24 days has been worked out to
Rs.2,88,25,992/-. However, the actual revenue generated for the said
period of 24 days was Rs.2,65,82,662/- and by deducting the actual
revenue from the projected revenue, the Plaintiff has arrived at an
amount of Rs.22,43,330/- as opportunity loss. Even the computerized
copy of a statement of the dock-wise marine cargo revenue supports
this.
65. Applying the principles elucidated above, and also on the
preponderance of probabilities, the Plaintiff has established its case for
the claim under this head.
66. As regards the claim for Strict liability, Mr. Gandhi has submitted
that in its Written Statement, the Defendant No.3 has inter alia
th
contended that the incidents which occurred on 17 March 2012 and
avk 36/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
th
24 March 2012 were accidents and did not involve any negligence on
part of the Master of crew or owners or charterers of the vessel. Mr.
Gandhi has submitted at the outset, that in the light of the case pleaded
by Defendants No. 2 and 3 in the Writ Petition filed before this Hon’ble
Court, the plea taken in the Written Statement that there is no
negligence is immaterial. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that The
Defendants No. 2 and 3 have in the Writ Petition themselves admitted
that they owe a monetary liability to the Plaintiff and therefore, they
are estopped from contending that they should not be held liable
because the incidents which occurred were only in the nature of
accidents and there was no negligence which can be established.
67. Mr. Gandhi has submitted and I am in agreement with him that
in the present instance, the doctrine of strict liability applies and the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. C. Mehta and
27
Another vs. Union of India and Others applies. When an enterprise
which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry
which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of persons
working in the industry or those residing in the surrounding areas, the
enterprise owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community
27
(1987) 1 Supreme Court Cases 395
avk 37/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of the hazardous
or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which is undertaken.
68. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that since the persons who are harmed
on account of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity would not
be in a position to isolate the process of operation from the hazardous
preparation of substance or any other related element that caused the
harm, the enterprise must be held strictly liable for causing the harm
and the law presumes that the enterprise would absorb the cost of any
accident that occurred on account of the hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that this principle of strict liability would not
28
be subject to any exceptions.
69. This principle was followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
29
case of MP Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Others and once
again enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of
30
India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others whereby the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the doctrine of strict liability focuses on the
28
Paragraph 31
29
(2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 162
30
(2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 527
avk 38/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
nature of the defendant's activity rather than the doctrine of
negligence, which focuses on the way in which the activity was carried
31
out.
70. I therefore agree with Mr. Gandhi that in the present case, there
is no dispute as to the fact that Defendant No. 1 was carrying
hazardous chemicals, viz. ethyl acetate and toluene, and therefore
applying the principles of strict liability as laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the Defendants are liable to pay damages for the injury
caused to the Plaintiff, even though they may not have been at fault.
71. Mr. Gandhi is therefore right that in these circumstances, Issue
No.2 which has been framed in the present suit does not require to be
answered in as much as the Defendants are presumed to be liable.
72. The issues framed are accordingly answered as under:
Sr.
No.
Issue Yes / No
1. Issue No. 1: Whether plaintiff proves that the
present suit is maintainable against defendant
no.3 as agent of disclosed principal ?
No.
st
Vide order dated 1
August 2025, the
Plaintiff had in view
of the order dated
th
14 August 2019
and Section 230 of
31
Paragraph 22
avk 39/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
the Indian Contract
Act, 1872, as the
Defendant No. 3
was an agent of the
disclosed principal
sought deletion of
Defendant No. 3
and the Defendant
No. 3 has been
deleted.
2. Issue No 2: Whether plaintiff proves that
th
the three blasts that occurred on 17 March
2012 and the two other explosions that
th
occurred on 24 March 2012 on board
Defendant No. 1 Vessel, M. T. Royal
Diamond 7 in the docks at Mumbai, was
due to negligence on the part of the Master
and / or the ship’s crew and lack of proper
care in the maintenance of defendant no.1
vessel?
Not required to be
proved as the
Defendants are
presumed to be
liable in view of
the doctrine of
strict liability when
there is a
presumption of
negligence.
3. Issue No. 3: Whether plaintiff proves that
Defendant No. 1 vessel failed to pay the
accrued Port Trust charges and other
charges for services rendered to the vessel
for firefighting operations prior to seeking
Port clearance to said vessel ?
Yes.
As per the
Judgment.
4. Issue No. 4: Whether plaintiff proves that
plaintiff supplied materials to Defendant
No. 1 vessel during firefighting operations,
those materials were worth Rs.63,20,000/-
and is entitled to recover the same from
Defendants ?
As per the
Judgment.
5. Issue No. 5: Whether plaintiff proves that it
suffered opportunity / revenue loss of
As per the
Judgment.
avk 40/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
th
Rs.1,22,04,091/- for the period from 17
March 2012 to 9th April 2012 on account of
the above explosions which took place
th
between 17th March 2012 to 24 March
2012 and as such is entitled to from
defendants an amount of Rs.1,85,24,255/-
as set out in the particulars of claim at
Exhibit G to the plaint ?
6. Issue No. 6: Whether plaintiff is entitled to
recover interest on the claim amount of
Rs.1,85,24,255/- @ 18% p.a. from the date
of suit till payment or realization as
alleged?
At the rate of 15%
as per the
Judgment.
7. Issue No. 7: What order ? What
Decree ?
As per the
Judgment.
73. Mr. Gandhi has submitted that as far as port dues and other
related charges are concerned (as encapsulated at Serial Nos.3 to 9 of
the revised Particulars of Claim), the invoice raised by the Plaintiff at
Exhibit P-10 has a provision for interest at the rate of 15% per annum
32
in case the bill was not paid by its due date. Mr. Gandhi has
submitted that in any case, in the present suit, the Plaintiff has confined
its claim to interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of
filing of the present suit till payment and/or realization as under
Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court has the
32
Exhibit P-10, Page 303, Compilation of documents
avk 41/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
jurisdiction / discretion to order interest at such rate as this Court may
deem reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the
date of the suit to the date of the decree, and with further interest from
the date of the decree till the date of payment.
74. Mr. Gandhi has further submitted that the incidents in the
th th
present case occurred as far back as 17 March 2012 and 24 March
2012 and the Plaintiff is yet to be compensated for its dues and for the
losses suffered by it as a consequence of the said incident. That thirteen
years have passed since then, and in these circumstances, this is a fit
case for interest to be awarded at the rate of 18% per annum by this
Court on the decretal amount.
75. I am of the view that since this Court under Section 34 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the “CPC”) has the jurisdiction /
discretion to order interest at such rate as this Court may deem
reasonable to be paid on the principal sum adjudged from the date of
the suit to the date of the decree, and with further interest from the
date of the decree till the date of payment and since the invoices raised
by the Plaintiff at Exhibit P-10 have a provision for interest at the rate
of 15% per annum, interest at the rate of 15% per annum be granted
avk 42/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
from the date of filing of the present suit till payment and/or
realization.
76. Considering that the Commercial Suit has been decreed pursuant
to this order, in view of Section 35 of the CPC as amended by the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as applicable to the Commercial
disputes, this Court also awards costs in the matter.
77. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to decree the suit.
Since there is a security of a bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 50 lacs, I
am also inclined to direct the Prothonotary and Senior Master to invoke
the same and to pay over the amount realized to the Plaintiff in part
satisfaction of the decree.
78. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The Defendants No. 1 and 2A on behalf of Defendant No.2 be
jointly and severally directed to pay the Plaintiff the sum of Rs.
68,87,024/- as per Exhibit “H” together with interest at the rate of 15%
per annum from the date of the Suit till payment or realisation and
costs.
avk 43/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::
COMAS-99-2015.doc
(ii) The Prothonotary & Senior Master is directed to invoke the Bank
th
Guarantee bearing No. 529020413742-HD dated 9 May 2012 issued
by the Standard Chartered Bank, B.K.C. Branch, Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051 in the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and pay over the amount
realized therefrom to the Plaintiff in part satisfaction of the decree.
79. The Suit is decreed in the above terms. Considering that the Suit
was filed in the year 2015 and we are in the year 2026, drawn up
decree is dispensed with.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
ARTI
VILAS
KHATATE
Digitally signed
by ARTI VILAS
KHATATE
Date:
2026.06.08
19:03:53 +0530
avk 44/44
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 19:33:13 :::