Holding

The statutory lien of a harbour authority under Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is a paramount lien that overrides all other claims, including those of secured creditors in winding‑up, allowing the port to arrest and sell the vessel without court intervention.

Summary

The Port of Mumbai, acting as Board of Trustees, arrested the vessel M.V. Varuna belonging to Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd for non‑payment of anchorage and other port charges under Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and issued a notice of auction. The company was wound up in a company petition and the Official Liquidator sought the High Court’s leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act before selling the vessel, while the port authority claimed a superior lien. The High Court ordered a global advertisement of the sale and directed that the proceeds be deposited with the Official Liquidator, treating the port’s claim like that of a secured creditor. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the statutory lien of a harbour authority is a paramount lien that prevails over all other creditors, including secured creditors in winding‑up, and that the port may arrest and sell the vessel without court intervention or the leave of the Companies Act. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside, the port was authorised to sell the vessel under its own rules and to recover its dues from the sale proceeds, with any surplus to be paid to the liquidator. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The nature and priority of the statutory lien of a harbour authority under Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 vis‑à‑vis secured creditors and winding‑up proceedings.
Whether the port authority must obtain leave of the court under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 before selling a vessel arrested under its statutory lien.
Whether the High Court’s order directing a global advertisement and deposit of sale proceeds with the Official Liquidator is valid.
Whether the port authority’s lien can be extinguished or transferred without its consent.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 446, s. 529
Major Port Trusts Act, 1963s. 64

Subjects

maritime lienstatutory lienport authorityvessel arrestwinding upsecured creditorsCompanies ActSection 64priority of claimssale of vesselliquidation

Judgment

A BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PORT OF MUMBAI
v.
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

APRIL 16, 1998

B [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Major Port Trusts Act, 1963: Section 64.

Recovery of rates and charges by distraint-Or arrest of vessel and
C sale-Held: Board of Trustees' lien over the vessel is paramount which is
even above the claims of the secured creditors in winding up-It cannot be
exlinguished or the vessel sold by any authority under directions of court
unless consented to by the Board-Companies Acl, 1955, Ss. 446 and 529.

A vessel belonging to a Company arrived at the port and was laid up
D at anchorage. It became liable to pay anchorage and other charges leviable
under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and the Dock Scale
of Rates framed thereunder by the appellant-Board. Due to non-payment of
y
-
Port Trust charges the appellant arrested the said vessel under Section 64
of the Act and issued a public notice for auction-sale of the said vessel.
E
a
The Company field writ petition in the High Court challenging the
proposed auction-sale of the vessel, which was summarily dismissed. In
appeal, the Company undertook to pay all the charges to the appellant and,
therefore, the auction was stayed. The Company, however, did not pay the
charges. Thereafter, further attempts made by the appellant to sell.the vessel
F were again held up on account of the litigation initiated at the instance of
the Company. While the ship remained under arrest by the Company, a
).
.
Company Petition was filed by the respondent-petitioning creditor in the
High Court against the said Company. In the said Company Petition, Official
Liquidator was appointed and an order of winding up was passed. In the
I
meanwhile, the Official Liquidator directed the appellant to maintain status
G
quo in respect of the said vessel and further directed that if the vessel was
proposed to be sold, leave of the High Court under Section 446 of the
1'-
Companies Act, 1956 should be taken.

Thereafter, the appellant made an application in the said Company
H Petition praying that it be permitted to recover its charges from the sale
774
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MUMBAI v. INDIAN OIL 775
proceeds of the said vessel and claimed that the appellant had a right superior A
to that of others, in respect of the said vessel. The appellant's prayer that
it alone be allowed to sell the vessel and retain the sale proceeds towards its
dues was rejected by the High Court. The High Court directed that the vessel
be sold after issuing a global advertisement. The High Court further directed
that since the Company had no money which could be utilised to meet the B
cost of advertisement or sale, the appellant must meet the costs of such
advertisement and sale and all incidental charges thereto which amounts, the
appellant would be entitled to recover as a first charge on the sale proceeds.
Hence this appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
c
HELD : 1. The harbour authorities allow ships-national or foreign-
to anchor and avail of the services provided by them. For payment they look
to the vessel. The owner may be foreign or even unknown to the harbour
authority. The latter's right to recover its dues is not affected by any pending
proceedings against the owner in any court-whether in winding up or D
otherwise. The harbour authority can arrest the vessel while it is anchored
in the harbour and recover its dues in respect of that vessel by sale of the
vessel if the dues are not paid. This lien of a harbour authority over the
vessel is a paramount lien and realisation of its dues by the harbour authority
by the sale of the vessel is above the priorities of secured creditors. The E
statutory lien of a harbour authority has paramountary even over the claims
of secured creditors in a winding up. The lien cannot be extinguished or the
vessel sold by any other authority under the directions of the court or
otherwise, unless the harbour authority consents to such a sale. (779-F-G)

Ashok Arya v. M V. Kapitan Mitsos, AIR (1998) Born. 329 and F
Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. v. Trustees, Port of Vizagapatnam, (1987) 61 Company
Cases 513 Born., approved.

MK. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras, [1955] 2 SCR 383 and
Industrial Credit and Investment Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Srinivas Agencies,
(19961 4 sec 165, relied on. G

The Emilie Milton [1905] 2 KB 817, Mersey Docks and Harbour
Boardv. Hay, Re the Queeen of the South, (1968) 1 All ER 1163 and British
Shipping Laws Series Vol 14 on "Maritime Liens" by Dr. D.R. Thomas para
414, referred to.
H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A 2.1. In exercise of its right under Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts
Act, 1963 the appellant is entitled to sell the vessel without the intervention
of the court. In exercise of that paramount right which overrides the claims
of all other creditors including secured creditors the appellant has a right
to arrest the vessel and sell it. Without the consent of the appellant, this
B right cannot be transferred to the sale proceeds of the vessel. The appellant
cannot be divested of this statutory right without its consent or be subjected
to other priorities under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant has also
objected to any global advertisement being issued in respect of the said
vessel since the vessel is lying at anchorage since 1987 and is in a very
dilapidated condition. It is unlikely to attract international bidding. The sale
C proceeds are not likely to cover even the full statutory charges of the
appellant. The appellant has also objected to its being equated to other
secured creditors in winding up. (782-D-E)
2.2. Looking to the overriding priority statutorily given to the appellant,
the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant
D shall be entitled to sell the vessel by auction in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by its rules and regulations and entitled to realise its statutory
dues as per law from the sale proceeds of the said vessel and the balance,
if any, of the sale proceeds shall be deposited by the appellant with the
Official Liquidator in winding up. The appellant shall also tile an account
of its dues and the realisation of the same from the sale proceeds of the
E vessel in the winding up proceedings before the Official Liquidator.
(782-F-H; 783-A)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2085 of
1998.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.96 of the Patna High Court
in C.P. No. 5of1990.

Ashok H. Desai, Attorney General, U.J. Kakhija, Dinesh Mathur and
Mrs. A.K. Verma for M/s. JBD & Co .. for the Appellant.

G R.P. Bhatt, M.N. Shroff and Ms. Suvira Lal for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MRS. SUJAT AV. MANO HAR, J. Leave granted.

This appeal is filed by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai in
H respect of an order passed by the Patna High Court in Company Petition No.5
BOARDOFTRUSTEES, MUMBAI v. INDIAN OIL [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 777
of 1990 for winding up M/S Thakur Shipping Co.Ltd. A
A vessel belonging to Mis Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd. M.V. Varuna
Kachhapi arrived at the Port of Mumbai in May 1985 and was laid up at
anchorage. It became liable to pay anchorage and other charges leviable
under the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 as amended by the
Major Port Trust (Amendment) Act of 1974, and the Dock Scale of Rates B
framed thereunder by the appellant. In view of the Port Trust charges which
remained unpaid, the appellant-port Trust arrested the said vessel in exercise
of its rights under Section 64 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. It issued a
public notice on 14th of August, 1987 for the auction sale of the said vessel.

MIS. Thakur shipping Co.Ltd. challenged the proposed auction sale by C
filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was summarily dismissed.
In appeal, however, as Mis. Thakur Shipping Co.Ltd. undertook to pay all the
charges due and payable to the appellant, the auction was stayed. The
charges, however, were not paid by Mis. Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd. Thereafter,
further attempts were made by the appellant to sell the vessel which were D
again held up on account of the litigation initiated at the instance of Mis.
Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd. While the said ship remained under arrest by the
appellant, in 1990 a Company Petition No.5 of 1990 was filed by the I st
respondent, petitioning creditor, in the Patna High Court against Mis. Thakur
Shipping Co.Ltd. In the company petition, Official Liquidator was appointed.
An order of winding up was passed in respect of Mis. Thakur Shipping E
Co.Ltd. in the said company petition on 5th of August, 1995.

In the meanwhile, the Official Liquidator directed the appellant to maintain
status quo in respect of the said vessel and further directed that if the vessel
was proposed to be sold, leave of the High Court under Section 446 of the F
Companies Act should be taken .
. On I Ith of April, 1996, the appellant made an application in the Patna
High Court in the said company petition setting out that up to 30.6.1995, Port
Trust charges amounting to Rs. 1,20,71,307 had become due and payable and
the amount continued to grow at the rate of Rs. 9,003 per day. The appellant, G
therefore, prayed, inter alia, that it be permitted to recover its charges from
the sale proceeds of the said vessel and claimed that the appellant had a right
--f- superior to that of others, in respect of the said vessel. This was the purport
of the application <hough it was not clearly so worded. By an order dated 16th
of August, 1996, a learned single Judge of the Patna High Court held that an
order had already been passed to permit the sale of the said vessel. It would H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A be just and proper that the vessel is sold jointly by the appellant and the
Official Liquidator. He directed that the sale proceeds be deposited with the
Official Liquidator. Thereafter, the appellant made an application for modification
of the order of 16th of August, 1996, praying that the appellant alone be
allowed to sell the vessel and retain the sale proceeds towards its dues. They
B would remit the balance amount, if any, to the Official Liquidator. The High
Court has passed the impugned order of 26th of November, 1996 disallowing
such modification. The High Court has directed that the vessel be sold after
issuing a global advertisement. The High Court has further directed that since
..
Mis. Thakur Shipping Co.Ltd. do not have any money which could be utilised
to meet the cost of advertisement or sale, the appellant shall meet the costs
C of such advertisement and sale and alt incidental charges thereto which
amounts, the appellant would be entitled to recover as a first charge on the
sale proceeds. This order is being challenged in the present appeal.

Under Section 529 of the Companies Act, in the winding up of an
insolvent company, the same rules shall prevail and be observed with regard,
D inter alia, to the debts provable and the respective rights of secured and
unsecured creditors as are in force for the time being under the law of
insolvency with respect to the estates of persons adjudged insolvent. The
proviso to Section 529(1) sets out that the security of every secured creditor
shalt be deemed to be subject to a pari passu charge in favour of the workmen
E to the extent of the workman's portion therein, in the manner set out in that
section and section 529A. The position, however, of the appellant-Port Trust
is somewhat different from the position of a secured creditor in winding up.
The vessel which is one of the properties of the company in winding up, has
been arrested by the appellant in the exercise of its statutory right to arrest
the vessel for recovery of its rates and charges under the Major Port Trusts
F Act, 1963 and the rules framed thereunder. Section 64 of the Major Port Trusts
Act, 1963 provides as follows:

"Section 64: Recovery of rates and charges by distraint of vessel.

(I) If the master of any vessel in respect of which any rates or
penalties are payable under this Act, or under any regulations
G
or orders made in pursuance thereof, refuses or neglects to pay
the same or any part thereof on demand, the Board may distrain
or arrest such vessel and the tackle, apparel and furniture
belonging thereto, or any part thereof, and detain the same until
the amount so due to the Board, together with such further
H amount as may accrue for any period during which the vessel
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MUMBAI v. INDIAN OIL [S\JJATA V. MANOHAR, J.[ 779

· is under distraint or arrest is paid. A
(2) In case any part of the said rates or penalties. or of the cost of
the distress or arrest or of the keeping of the same, remains
unpaid for the space of five days next after any such distress
or arrest has been so made, the Board may cause the vessel or
other thing so distrained or arrested to be sold. and, with the B
proceeds of such sale, shall satisfy such rates or penalties and
costs. including the costs of sale remaining unpaid, rendering
the surplus (if any) to the master of such vessel on demand."

The Port authorities have a paramount right to arrest a vessel and
detain the same until the amounts due to it in respect of extending the port C
facilities and services to the vessel are paid. Under sub-section (2), in case
any part of the said rates, charges, penalties or the cost of the distress or
arrest or of the keeping of the same remain unpaid for a space of five days
next after any such distress or arrest has been made, the Board may cause
the vessel so distrained or arrested to be sold. The proceeds of such sale D
shall satisfy such rates or penalties and costs including the costs of sale
remaining unpaid. The surplus, if any, is to be rendered to the master of such
vessel on demand.

The statutory right under Section 64 embodies this overriding right of
the harbour authority over the vessel for the recovery of its dues. This right E
stands above the rights of secured and unsecured creditors of a company in
winding up-in the present case, the shipping company which owns the vessel.
The harbour authorities allow ships -national or foreign to anchor and avail
of the services provided by them. For payment they look to the vessel. The I
owner may be foreign or even unknown to the harbour authority. The latter's
right to recover its dues is not affected by any pending proceedings against F
the owner in any court - whether in winding up or otherwise. The harbour
authority can arrest the vessel while it is anchored in the harbour and recover
its dues in respect of that 'vessel by sale of the vessel if the dues are not paid.
This lien of the harbour authority over the vessel is paramount. The lien
cannot be extinguished or the vessel sold by any other authority under the G
directions of the court or otherwise, unless the harbour authority consents
to such sale. Thus, in the case of Ashok A1:va v. lvl. r: Kapitan Mitsos, AIR
(1988) Bom 329, the Bombay High Court relied upon the decision in The Emilie
Millon (infra) and held that the lien given by statute to a dock or harbour
authority cannot be extinguished by court unless it be done with the authority's
express or implied consent. H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A In British Shipping Laws series Vol.1-L on '·Maritime Liens" b):
Dr.D.R.Thomas. Paragraph 41-f states:

"414: By a public or private Act ol Parliament an undertaking such as
a port, dock or harbour authority may expressly be given a power to
detain and sell a ship and possibly also her cargo. Such a power is
B customarily created so as to provide a security for unpaid dues and
charges, or for damage done by a vessel or necessary services rendered
to a vessel and her cargo. It is now well established that such a
statuto1:v right of detention and sale stands in priority U all other
claims against the vessel fin; in creating the power, this is presumed
to have been the intention of the legislature. Such is the
c distinctiveness and superiority of these statutory rights that they
cannot properly be considered as falling within the province of
priorities. Questions of priority only fall to be considered after the
statutory claim has been satisfied.

D The superiority of the statutory right means that a dock or similar
body may, if it chooses, exercise its statutory rights notwithstanding
that the vessel is under the arrest of the Admiralty Marshal, although
it has no power to interfere directly with the Marshal's custody: or
'°'·
alternatively, it may apply to the Court to seek the release of the
vessel from arrest. In the words of Collins M.R. ' ..... nobody can
E against the will of the hoard, undo or annul the statutory provision'
Despite the clear recognition of the primacy of the statutory rights the
Court may nonetheless in the interest of other claims which may be
involved, make the dock or other authority accountable to the Court
in the exercise of its statutory powers or, when possible, direct the
F available securities to be marshalled.··

[underlining ours]

The Bombay High Court in the case of Forwarding Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.
v. Trustees, Port of Vizagapatnam and Am:, ( 1987) 61 company cases 513 has
G held that the power of arrest and sale of a vessel belonging to a company
in winding up, by the port authorities emanates from Section 64 of the Major
Port Trusts Act, 1963, and there is no question of the Port authorities resorting
to a legal proceeding for that purpose. Hence the question of their obtaining
leave under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1957 does not arise when
H exercising the statutory rights under Section 64.
--t
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MUMBAI v, INDIAN OIL [SUJATA V. MANOHAR. J.] 781

In A!.K. Ranganathan and Am: v. Government of !vfadras and 01~'-, A
[!955] 2 SCR 374 at 383, 387, this Court considered the position ofa secured
creditor in a winding up proceeding as also of a person entitled to attach and
sell any property without the intervention of the court. It said that a secured
creditor stands outside the winding up and can realise his security without
the leave of the court: though if he liles a suit or takes legal proceedings he
will require the leave of the winding up court. Attachment or distraint without
B
... "(
the intervention of the court are not under the purview of winding up
proceedings (see also [1996] 4 sec 165).

Therefore, the lien of a harbour authority over the vessel is a paramount
lien and realization of its dues by the harbour authority by the sale of the
vessel is above the priorities of secured creditors. In other words, the statutory
c
lien of a harbour authority has paramountary even over the claims of secured
creditors in a winding up. In exercise of its right under Section 64 the
appellant is, therefore, entitled to sell the vessel without the intervention of
the court. In exercise of that paramount right which overrides the claims of

- T
all other creditors including secured creditors, the appellant has a right to D
arrest the vessel and sell it. Without the consent of the appellant, this right
can not be transferred to the sale proceeds of the vessel.

In the case of The Emilie Million, (1905) 2 KB.817 the court of appeal
in England considered a similar provision under Section 253 of the Mersey
Dock Acts Consolidation Act, of 1858. It held that the right of the Harbour
E
Board to cause such vessel to be detained until all such rates have been paid,
gives the Board a paramount right to detain a vessel until the dock tonnage
and rates due in respect of her are paid, notwithstanding that the master and
crew of the vessel have a maritime lien upon her for wages due before she
.._ entered the dock. But the right will remain so long as the vessel is arrested F
.., and sold by it.

In the !vfersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Hay, Re the Countess,
(1923) Appeal cases 345, the House of Lords extended the right of the
Harbour Board to recover its dues in priority over all other claims to a
limitation fund. It held that the exercise by the Harbour Board of the statutory G
power to detain the ship conferred on them a possessory lien. This lien was
_,.,_ not affected by the provisions of Section 504 of the Merchant Shipping Act
relating to limitation of liability of an owner of a vessel, either e:·qiressly or
by implication. However, it said that the court, in distributing the statutory
amount of a ship-owner's liability (limitation fund) ought to have regard to H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 2 S.C.R.

A the priorities as well as to the amounts of the claims. The House of Lords
directed that the whole of the fund should be paid out to the Harbour Board.

In a later decision in re the Queen of the South, (1968) l AER 1163 the
court held that where it would be benef:cial for all concerned that the admiralty
marshal should sell the ship and pay the claim of the dock authority out of
B the proceeds of the sale, the court may so authorise the marshal to sell the
ship free from the statutory possessOf)' lien of the Harbour Board and authorise
the marshal to pay the Harbour Board's dues provided the Harbour Board
gives a written undertaking to the court not to exercise its rights of detention
and sale. Therefore, without the consent of the Harbour Board their right of
C detention and sale cannot be transferred from the ship itself to the fund in
the court constituted from the proceed of the sale of a ship.

In the present case the appellant is objecting to the directions given by
the court in winding up directing the Official Liquidator to sell the vessel
along with the appellant and to bring the sale proceeds into court. The
D appellant has a supervening priority in respect of its claims against the vessel.
It has a right to sell that vessel and realise the sale proceeds. The appellant
cannot be divested of this statutory right without its consen( or be subjected
to other priorities under the Companies Act. The appellant lias also objected
to any global advertisement being issued in respect of the said vessel since
the vessel is lying at anchorage since 1987 and is in a very dilapidated
E condition. It is unlikely to attract international bidding. The sale proceeds are
not likely to cover even the full statutory charges of the appellant. The
appellant has also objected to its being equated to other secured creditors
in winding up.

F Looking to the overriding priority statutorily given to the appellant, the
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant shall
be entitled to sell the vessel by auction in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by its rules and regulations. Since the appellant has no objection
to the Official Liquidator and/or a representative of the first-respondent
(petitioning creditor) remaining present at the sale, it will be open to the
G Official Liquidator to depute its representative to remain present at the sale
and the same right is given to the first-respondent _as well.

The appellant shall be entitled to realise its statutory dues as per law ..__
from 'the sale proceeds of the said vessel and the balance, if any, of the sale
proceeds shall be deposited by the appellant with the Official Liquidator in
H ~vinding up. The appellant shall also file an account- of its dues and the
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, MUMBAI''· INDIAN OIL [SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 783

realisation of the same from the sale proceeds of the vessel in the winding A
up proceedings before the Official Liquidator. The appellant has no objection
to doing so. In respect of any shortfall in the realisation of dues, the appellant
may file its claim for the balance in winding up proceedings in accordance
with law.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, There will, however, be no order as B
to costs.

V.S.S. Appeal Allowed,