JUDGMENT : Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,60,956.60 with further interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment. Such decree was prayed for against both the defendants, jointly and severally. 2.Suit summons was served on the 1 st defendant on 19.08.2020. Since the 1 st defendant did not enter appearance and file the written statement, by order dated 09.07.2021, the 1 st defendant's right to file the written statement was forfeited. Subsequently, on 13.09.2021, the 1 st defendant was set ex parte. 3.The 2 nd defendant entered appearance upon service of suit summons and filed a written statement. Subsequently, the plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant entered into a memo of compromise dated 06.12.2024 signed by Mr.Y.Zahiruddin Ahmed (plaintiff) and by Mr.Vinod, authorised signatory of the 2 nd defendant. In the memo of compromise, the 2 nd defendant states that it acted as an agent of the 1 st defendant. The work order issued by the 2 nd defendant on behalf of the 1 st defendant (Ex.P1) describes the 2 nd defendant as an agent of the 1 st defendant. In the memo of compromise, the plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant have agreed that the suit stands withdrawn against the 2 nd defendant in terms of the memo of compromise. In view of the 2 nd defendant being the agent of the disclosed principal, there is no legal impediment to the suit being prosecuted only against the 1 st defendant. 4.At the hearing on 27.09.2021, the following issues were framed: “(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit invoking admiralty jurisdiction of this Court? (ii) Whether the second defendant is a necessary party to the suit? (iii) Whether the plaintiff is barred by principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence to claim? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has provided any service under the work order dated 29.04.2019? If so, whether the second defendant is partly or wholly liable for the plaintiff's claim? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim inclusive of interest? (vi) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has provided any service under the work order dated 29.04.2019? If so, whether the second defendant is partly or wholly liable for the plaintiff's claim? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim inclusive of interest? (vi) Whether the defendants 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the suit claim? (vii) What other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?” 5.In view of the withdrawal of the suit against the 2 nd defendant, it becomes unnecessary to decide the issues framed in respect of the 2 nd defendant. 6.In order to establish the suit claim, the plaintiff, which is a proprietary concern, examined the proprietor, Y.Zahiruddin Ahamed, as P.W.1. In course of the examination in chief of P.W.1, 11 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P11. 7.Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to Ex.P1, which is the work order issued by the 2 nd defendant as agent of the 1 st defendant. The work order indicates that the work entrusted to the plaintiff was in respect of the repair and conditioning of M/E Starboard Alternator and M/E Port Alternator, and the provision of consumables for the completion of the job. Learned counsel also invited my attention to Ex.P3, which is the work done certificate. This certificate sets out the nature of work completed as also the incomplete work. It bears the signature of the Master and the Chief Engineer of the vessel, which is owned by the 1 st defendant. A series of e-mails evidencing completion of balance work between 26.06.2019 and 01.07.2019 were exhibited as Ex.P5 series. The relevant invoice issued by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.8,37,800/- has been exhibited as Ex.P4. These documents clearly indicate that the suit claim is a maritime claim falling within the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017 . 8.The lawyer's notice from the plaintiff to the defendants has been exhibited as Ex.P7. Such notice has been issued both to the 1 st and 2 nd defendants. The reply from the 1 st defendant's lawyer has been exhibited as Ex.P8. On perusal, it appears that the defence raised by the 1 st defendant is that it did not enter into a contract with the plaintiff. Such notice has been issued both to the 1 st and 2 nd defendants. The reply from the 1 st defendant's lawyer has been exhibited as Ex.P8. On perusal, it appears that the defence raised by the 1 st defendant is that it did not enter into a contract with the plaintiff. 9.The evidence on record clearly discloses that the 2 nd defendant issued a work order to the plaintiff in the capacity of agent of the 1 st defendant. The documents on record evidence that such work was carried out by the plaintiff. Ex.P3 also discloses that the Master and the Chief Engineer certified the completion of work to the extent specified therein. The suit claim matches the invoice value as regards the principal amount. Consequently, as regards the principal suit claim, especially in the absence of contra evidence, the claim stands proved. As regards interest, in view of the transaction being commercial in nature, the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 12% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.8,37,800/-. As the successful party, the plaintiff is also entitled to costs. The 1 st defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) as costs, which includes Court fees, lawyer's fees and other expenses. All the issues are, thus, decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the 1 st defendant. 10.In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: (i) The 1st defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.8,37,800/- along with interest thereon at 12% per annum from 04.05.2019 till the date of realisation. (ii) The 1 st defendant is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as costs to the plaintiff. (iii)The suit stands dismissed as withdrawn against the 2 nd defendant. A.No.6575 of 2024 stands allowed.