Post-sale vessel anchorage charges are not prior encumbrances; separate tariff liability survives judicial sale and Section 50-B does not cap recovery.

After a judicial sale of a vessel, anchorage charges accruing from the purchaser's post-delivery use of the anchorage were treated as tariff-based liabilities arising from the vessel's condition and continued presence, not as pre-sale encumbrances extinguished by the Admiralty Act. The court also held that anchorage fees were separate from port dues under the Major Port Trusts Act, so Section 50-B did not confine recovery to half rate. The cross objection on pilotage charges failed because no supporting liberty or finding existed. The result was that the rectification order on anchorage charges was set aside and the cross objection rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after a judicial sale of the vessel, the higher anchorage rate applicable beyond 30 days could be charged from the purchaser for the period after delivery of possession. (ii) Whether anchorage charges were included within port dues under Section 50-B of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 so as to limit recovery to half rate. (iii) Whether the cross objection could succeed on the claim relating to pilotage charges.

Issue (i): Whether, after a judicial sale of the vessel, the higher anchorage rate applicable beyond 30 days could be charged from the purchaser for the period after delivery of possession.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 protects the vessel from encumbrances existing at the time of sale, but the higher rate for anchorage after sale was treated as a charge arising from the vessel's condition and continued use of anchorage after delivery, not as a prior encumbrance. The purchaser took the vessel on an as-is-where-is basis and therefore had to bear the tariff applicable to the vessel's existing anchorage status.

Conclusion: The higher anchorage rate was recoverable from the purchaser and the order directing rectification of the bill on that basis was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether anchorage charges were included within port dues under Section 50-B of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 so as to limit recovery to half rate.

Analysis: Port dues and anchorage fees were treated as separate heads under the tariff notification. Port dues were a one-time charge on entry, whereas anchorage fees were separately levied for lying at an anchorage point. The statutory expression port dues in Section 50-B did not displace the separately prescribed anchorage tariff.

Conclusion: Anchorage charges were not subsumed within port dues, and Section 50-B did not limit recovery of anchorage fees.

Issue (iii): Whether the cross objection could succeed on the claim relating to pilotage charges.

Analysis: No liberty had been reserved to agitate pilotage charges in the manner asserted, and the impugned order did not contain any finding supporting that claim. The cross objection therefore lacked merit on this aspect.

Conclusion: The challenge based on pilotage charges failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order directing rectification of anchorage charges was set aside, and the cross objection was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Charges accruing from the vessel's post-sale use of anchorage, determined by the applicable tariff for its existing condition, are not prior encumbrances extinguished by a judicial sale under the Admiralty Act.

---