O. KONAVALOV versus COMMANDER, COAST GUARD REGION AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 23-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
O.KONAVALOV 
V. 
COMMANDER, COAST GUARD REGION AND ORS. 
MARCH 23, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21-Merchant Shipping Act, 1958; 
Sections 138, 139, 140, 141and144-Customs Act, 1962-Sections 110, 111, 
A 
B 
112, 115 and 126-Arrest of Foreign vessel for entering in Indian territorial C 
waters without authorisation-Confiscation of the vessel and goods by 
Revenue-Claim of wages by crew members for their wages till deportation 
rejected on ground on confiscation of the vessel and goods-Application by 
crew members before High Court for directions to pay wages out of sale 
proceeds of goods and/or the vessel-High Court rejected the application--
Correctness of-Held, right to wages of seamen is ·protected under Article D 
21-Entitlement of wages by seamen under the Merchant Shipping Act cannot 
be limited by the provisions of the Customs Act-Maritime lien of wages of 
seamen cannot be extinguished on confiscation of the vessel and the goods in 
it-Hence, the crew member~ are entitled to wages till deportation from sale 
proceeds of goods/vessel. 
E 
Respondent-Coast Guard arrested a foreign vessel when it entered 
in Indian territorial waters without authorisation. The Revenue seized the 
vessel and the goods under section llO of the Customs Act, 1962. 
Appellant-Chief Officer and other crew members were arrested. The 
Revenue issued a show cause notice to the appellant to explain why the F 
goods cannot be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed on the 
persons under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant 
replied to the show cause notice contending that the crew members were 
not involved in improper importation of goods and prayed that they be 
paid their wages and the goods dealt with according to law. 
G 
The appellant filed an application before the High Court against the 
respondents seeking directions to pay wages as a first charge to the crew 
members of the vessel from the sale proceeds of the goods and/or the vessel. 
A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the application of the appellant. 
In the meantime, the Revenue passed an order under section 115(2) of the H 
227 
228 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A Customs Act confiscating the vessel. The respondents filed appeals before 
Division Bench of the High Court which were allowed. 
In appeal before this Court, the appellant contended that the action 
of the State has to be based on reasonableness and it cannot deprive the 
basic human rights of the appellant and crew members available under 
B Article 21 of the Constitution of India; that the right of seamen to wages 
is unfettered under sections 138, 139, 140, 141 and 144 of the Merchant 
Shipping Act, 1958 and that it cannot be limited by section 115 of the 
Customs Act, 1962; that the application made for payment of wages was 
prior to confiscation; that the vessel was confiscated by the Revenue not 
C for bringing contraband goods but for not complying with provisions of 
Section 30 of the Customs Act; and that they suffered mental and physical 
agony for not being paid wages from the date of seizure of the vessel to 
the date of deportation. 
Respondents contended that the Maritime lien is extinguished by 
D wnfiscation ofvessel; that on confiscation, the vessel becom~s the property 
of the Government which could not be claimed by the crew for their wages; 
that the vessel carried contraband drugs and there were no claimants of 
the goods of the vessel; that the owners of the vessel were untraceable and 
disowned the ship; and that the entire voyage of the vessel is shrouded 
E with mystery hence the wages cannot be paid to the crew members who 
carried out illegal activities. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. A seamen's maritime lien for wages arises from the fact 
F of service rendered to the ship and is independent of agreement and of 
personal liability on the part of the ship owner. In terms of the provisions 
of Section 144 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, the right of the sc!amen 
to wages is unfettered and no limitatio11s on the entitlement to and exercise 
of such entitlement have been enacted in the Act. Such a right conferred 
by the statute cannot be infringed, affected or neglected except by express 
G provisions to the contrary. The provisions of Section 115 of the Customs 
Act, 1962 cannot be treated to the contrary. (246-F-G; 239-D-EJ 
1.2. The right to wages of seamen as wages of any

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.