This was a case of unpaid crew wages. The plaintiff, Mathivanan, worked as Chief Engineer on the MV Sea Jal One. On the plaintiff's application, the vessel was arrested and sold in Tuticorin, India. Other crew members and the crew recruitment agency intervened in the suit on account of unpaid wages and outstanding dues respectively. There was also a claim from the port authorities for port dues. The Court had to decide on the validity of these claims and their priority, along with apportioning expenses involved in the sale of the vessel.

Section 4 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act 2017 specifies what is a 'maritime claim'. Section 9 of the Act provides for the inter se priority of maritime liens, in terms of which wages are ranked highest, whereas port and other statutory dues are ranked lower. Section 10 of the Act provides for the order of priority of maritime claims, in terms of which maritime liens are ranked highest, and claims of the same category are ranked equally.

Held: The claims of the plaintiff, crew, and port are granted. The claim of the crew recruitment agency can be paid out of the remaining sale proceeds.

The plaintiff's and crew's claims are maritime claims under s 4(1)(o) of the Act. Their claims stand on the same footing, as they are all crew members and are claiming unpaid wages, which is both a maritime claim and a maritime lien recognised in the Act as having the highest priority.

The port's claim is a maritime claim under s 4(1)(n) of the Act.

The claim of the crew recruitment agency is not a claim for payment of wages, but rather a claim for reimbursement of amounts paid on behalf of the defendant owners. It is purely a money claim against the defendant owners. It cannot be categorised as a maritime claim. Section 4(1)(o) relates to claims by a 'master or member of the crew of a vessel' for any sum due towards wages, and also 'includes any claim under a manning and crew agreement relating to a vessel'. This claim arising under a 'manning and crew agreement' should be payable to a master or a member of the crew of the vessel. It does not take into its fold or ambit the reimbursement of wages paid by a crew recruitment agency.

A crew recruitment agency is appointed under an agreement with the owner of the vessel. If the crew recruitment agency had made any payment for and on behalf of the owner, it can raise a claim against the owner of the vessel in accordance with the agreement appointing it as the agent of the owner. It cannot claim this amount as a maritime claim against the vessel. It is neither the master of the vessel nor a member of a crew. It is an agent of the defendant owners. The agent steps into the shoes of the principal and is equally liable for the outstanding wages. The remedy of the agent lies in taking appropriate action against the principal under general contract law.

The crew recruitment agency cannot claim any share from the sale proceeds as of right. However, it can be paid any amount out of the remaining sale proceeds after settling the other claims. If any further amount is due and receivable by the agency from the owners, it will have to take independent and separate legal proceedings.