Admiralty Practice in Pakistan

ADMIRALTY PRACTICE IN PAKISTAN: <!--[if gte mso 10]> ADMIRALTY PRACTICE IN PAKISTAN: MISNOMER By Adeel Abid Advocate, Karachi ADMIRALTY CONCEPTS Admiralty law remains a very specialized area of the law which is quite different from other areas of study or practice in the legal profession. The concept of law of Admiralty is based on English Law. The basic theme of Admiralty Law is to arrest the ship and give relief to the aggrieved party for getting security from the shipowners. It is not necessary to arrest the ship only in those jurisdictions where loss or incident has occurred due to negligence or fault of the ship but a ship can be arrested in some 'other jurisdictions by enforcing the admiralty jurisdiction in that country. From a legal perspective, many of the basic hazards and issues of the sea remain the same as they were in the past centuries. In this context, it is not surprising that many broad principles of admiralty law developed at that time are still applied to these days. Included among the ancient concepts of admiralty still applied are marine insurance, general average, and salvage. Today, maritime law blends old doctrine with new laws passed by parliament, and new international treaties. Changes in ships, containers, and the handling of cargo have led to some change, and a greater awareness of ecological dangers has triggered others. For a historical background of the admiralty jurisdiction exercised by the courts of India and post partition India and Pakistan a useful reference may be made to the following cases namely M.V. "LUCTOR-I" (1) M.V. "Rice Traders" (2) and M.V. "Elizabeth" (3). The distinguishing feature of Admiralty jurisdiction, which is recognized by International Convention, is that an action can be brought directly against an offending ship by arresting the ship and if the shipowner wants to contest the claim he can do so only by submitting to the jurisdiction of that Admiralty Court where his ship has been arrested. In order to prevent shipowners from escaping liability by selling the offending ship before it has been arrested judges created the concept of a maritime lien, which follows the ship into its new ownership or to arrest another ship in the same ownership. The most unique concepts of all in Admiralty law is the maritime lien. It is a concept of which is sui generis, but for practical purposes it may be considered as a charge upon maritime property, arising by operation of law, and binding the property even in the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value or without notice, but which can only be enforced by an admiralty claim in rem (4). The concept of maritime liens, which attach on the ship from the moment of the incident that give rise to the claim. In other words, the res has been considered to be the 'personified' defendant, hence the name attributed to this theory is known as "personification theory" which is a fiction of admiralty law. ADMIRALTY COURTS OF PAKISTAN Prior to the enforcement of the 1980 Ordinance, the courts in Pakistan exercised jurisdiction under the Courts of Admiralty (Pakistan) Act XVI of 1891 and thereby entertained claims under the English Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861. Before the promulgation of the Ordinance of 1980 the Admiralty Courts in our Country had the same jurisdiction exercised in the year 1891, under the statute or otherwise. In the year 1891, there were two statutes namely Admiralty Courts Act, 1840 and Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. In the year 1925 the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court in England was enlarged but it was not applicable to British India therefore that jurisdiction could not be exercised by the Admiralty Court in Pakistan. The two Acts of 1840 and 1861 were repealed by the Ordinance of 1980. In Pakistan, the High Courts of Sindh and the High Court of Baluchistan have jurisdiction to exercise their powers as the Court of Admiralty under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980 (5). The jurisdiction of our Admiralty Courts extends to all ships or aircrafts, local or foreign and wherever the residence or domicile of the owners may be (6). It also applies to all maritime claims wheresoever arising. STATUS OF ADMIRALTY COURTS Admiralty law is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offences. Under Conventions of International law, the flag flown by a ship generally determines the source of law to be applied in admiralty cases, regardless which court has personal jurisdiction over the parties. This has led some ships to fly flag' of convenience. Admiralty Courts also performs the function of a Prize Court and deals with the Marine enemy property seized during international armed conflict. Under the Black's law Dictionary (7): A court which has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime causes, civil and criminal, controversies arising out of acts done or upon relating to the sea, and questions of prize. It further defines that it is properly the successor of the consular courts, which were emphatically the courts of merchants and sea-going persons, established in the principal maritime cities on the revival of commerce after the fall of the Western Empire, to supply the want of tribunals that might decide causes arising out of maritime commerce. Also, the system of jurisprudence relating to and growing out of jurisdiction of Admiralty Courts. Most of the common law countries i.e. Pakistan, Singapore, India etc. follow the English statutes and case laws. India still follows the old Victorian law i.e. Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. Though Pakistan has its own statutes i.e. Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance XLII of 1980), it still follows English case laws. In Pakistan, the High of Sindh and Baluchistan have specific jurisdiction to entertain the matter relating to Admiralty. The above two High Courts were thus vested with effect from 2-9-1980 with jurisdiction under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance XLII of 1980 (8). Before passing the said Ordinance the eases were decided by the Pakistani Courts under the provisions contained in Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. In the case of M. V. "LUCTOR-I" reported in PLD 1978 Karachi 837, the court held that "Admiralty Jurisdiction of Sindh High Court confined to provisions contained in Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. Enlargement of Admiralty Jurisdiction of British Courts by subsequent enactments - Held, does not affect jurisdiction of High Court of Sindh. Cases in Pakistan to be decided on basis of provisions contained in Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 only." The current Pakistani law is somewhat replica of Old English admiralty law as enunciated in Administration of Justice Act, 1956. The current statutes dealing with the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the 'England and Wales High Court is Supreme Court Act, 1981. The MA 1956 was passed in order to enable the UK to ratify and comply with the provisions of the 1952 Arrest Convention (9). This statute is based on International Arrest Convention, 1952. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURTS ORDINANCE, 1980 Most of the major maritime law jurisdictions internationally have either adopted particular international conventions with the result that their, maritime laws in respect of various subjects are similar, or they have drafted their local legislation to closely reflect such internationally recognised legal principles. Admiralty Courts assume jurisdiction by virtue of presence of the vessel in its territorial jurisdiction irrespective of whether the vessel . is national or not and whether registered or not and wherever the residence or domicile or their owners may be. A vessel usually arrested by the court to retain jurisdiction. State owned vessels usually immune from arrest. Under section 9(2) of the Admiralty Courts Ordinance, 1980 it is clearly stated that: "Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to authorise proceedings in rem in respect of any claim against the Federation or the arrest, detention or sale of any ship or aircraft of the Pakistan Navy or the Pakistan Air Force or of any cargo or other property belonging to the Federation." Justice Saleem Akhtar expressed his view in the case of M.V. "GOOD. HREALD" (10) and stated that the Ordinance is remedial, and is to be construed liberally so as to afford utmost relief without doing any violence to the fair meaning of the language. Further, in the case of M.T. "ABDOUN DISCOVERY" (11), Justice Shabbir Ahmed observed as follows:-- ' "Provisions of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 being remedial in nature requiring liberal interpretation, but exercise of such jurisdiction was not to be so harsh as to cause injustice to the other party or violence to the statute." The subject matter over which the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction in Pakistan is as follows (12): (a) any claim to the possession or ownership of a ship or to the ownership of any share therein or for recovery of documents of title and ownership of a ship, including registration certificate, log book and such certificates as may be necessary for the operation or navigation of the ship; (b) any question arising between the co-owners of a ship as to possession, employment or earnings of that ship; (c) any claim in respect of a mortgage of or charge on a ship or any share therein; (d) any claim for damage done by a ship; (e) any claim for damage received by a ship; (f) any claim for loss of life or personal injury' sustained in consequence of any defect in a ship or in her apparel or equipment, or of the wrongful act, neglect or default of the owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of a ship or of the master or crew thereof or of any other person for which wrongful acts, neglects or defaults, the owners, charterers of persons in possession of control of a ship are responsible, being an .act, neglect or default in the navigation or management of the ship, in the loading, carriage or discharge of goods on, in or from the ship or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of persons on, in or from the ship; (g) any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship; (h) any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or .hire of a ship; (i) any action or claim in the nature of salvage of life from a ship or cargo or any property on board a ship or the ship itself or its apparel, whether services rendered on the high sea or within territorial waters of internal waters or in a port, including any claim arising by virtue of the application by or under section 12 of the Civil Aviation Ordinance, 1960, WWI of 1960), of the law relating to salvage to aircraft and their apparel and cargo; (j) any claim in the .nature of towage in respect of a ship or an aircraft, whether services were rendered on the high sea or within territorial waters or internal waters or in a port; (k) any claim in the nature of pilotage in respect of a ship or an aircraft; (l) any claim in respect of necessaries supplied to a ship; (m) any claim in respect of the construction, repair or equipment of a ship or dock charges or dues; (n) any claim by a master or members of the crew of a ship for wages and any claim by or in respect of a master or member of the crew of a ship for any money or property which, under any of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts or the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 (XXI. of 1923), is recoverable as wages or in the Court and in the manner in which wages may be recovered: (o) any claim by a master, shipper, charterer or agent in respect of disbursement made on account of a ship; (p) any claim arising out of an act which is or is claimed to be a general average act; (q) any claim arising out of bottomry or respondentia; (r) any claim for the forfeiture or condemnation of a ship or of goods which are being or have been carried, or have been attempted to be carried, in a ship as a Naval Prize or in violation of customary law of the sea or otherwise, or for the restoration of a ship or any such goods after seizure, or for Doritos of Admiralty, together with any other jurisdiction for the grant of such reliefs as are provided under the Merchant Shipping Acts or the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 (XXI of 1923), any other jurisdiction which has vested in the High Courts as a Court of Admiralty immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance or is conferred by or under any law and any other jurisdiction connected with ships or aircraft in respect of things done at sea which has by tradition or custom of the sea been exercised by a Court of Admiralty apart from this section. From the perusal of the subsection (2) of section 3 enumerates the causes, questions or claims in respect of which the High. Courts referred to in subsection (1) shall exercise Admiralty Jurisdiction. The Admiralty Court can exercise such jurisdiction which was vested in the High Court before promulgation of the Ordinance, 1980. In section 3(2) (a) to (r) of the Ordinance, the causes, questions or claims which fall within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court have been specified. These clauses specifically define subject-matters in respect of Admiralty Jurisdiction can be exercised. It may also be pointed out that proviso to subsection (2) further describes the jurisdiction of the above High Courts by providing that together with any other jurisdiction for the grant of such reliefs as are provided under the Merchant Shipping Acts or the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 (XXI of 1923), any other jurisdiction which was vested in the High Court .as a Court of Admiralty immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance or is conferred by or under any other law and any other jurisdiction connected with ships or aircrafts in respect of things done at sea which has by tradition' or custom of the sea been exercised by a Court of Admiralty apart from the above section. An admiralty suit is a suit of special type. Generally, it is against the res i.e. the vessel. It cannot be equated with an ordinary suit. If a vessel is allowed to leave the limits of the Court's jurisdiction without a security, the suit loses its utility. Once the vessel goes out of the jurisdiction of Court without furnishing any security, no effective decree can be passed. The admiralty court have a jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings of counter claim for damages on account of wrongful and malicious arrest of the vessel or other claims can be filed in the same suit even if technically the counter claim may not be strictly within the scope of admiralty jurisdiction. In the case of S. S. "NEDON" (13), Justice Ajmal Mian (as then he was) decided that "In admiralty suit if a suit falls within the compass of admiralty jurisdiction the relief of arrest of the vessel sued for is granted normally unless the claim in suit does not fall within the ambit of admiralty jurisdiction or the court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs claim is bogus on the face of it and it is not bona fide." After repealing of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861, the High Courts of Pakistan have no jurisdiction to proceed the case either in rem or in personam, which was earlier available under Section 35 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. Under Section 35 of the 1861 Act it was possible for the court to proceed against the vessel in rem or in the alternative against the owner and other interested parties, if they entered appearance to defend the action and gave security for obtaining release of the vessel. Under the 1980 Ordinance presently enforced in Pakistan, it is not possible to combine the proceeding in rem against the vessel or proceeding in personam against the owner or other interested parties. The 1980 Ordinance, however specifically provides for action, in personam under section 5 of the Ordinance which subsection (6) clearly sets out the claims to which the said section applies. i.e. "The claims to which this section applies' are claims for damage, loss of life or personal injury caused by ships or arising out of collision between ships or out of the carrying out of or omission to carry out a manoeuvre in the case of one or more of two or more ships or out of non-compliance, on the part of one or more of two or more ships, with the regulations made under section 214 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 (XXI of 1923)." According to subsection (6) of section 5 the claim to which this section applies are claims for damages, loss of life or personal injury caused by ships, or arising out of collision between ships or out of carrying out of or omission to carry out a manoeuvre in. the case of one or more ships, with the regulations made under section 214. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923. It therefore follows that action in personam can be entertained by the admiralty court only in matters of collision at sea or similar other claims mentioned above. In a case filed in rem against the vessel only an attempt were made subsequently joint owners of the vessels as defendants which was registered and then the court declined to implead the owners as beyond the scope of Section 5 mentioned above. In the case of M.T. "PORTOFINO" (14), Justice Shabbir Ahmed observed that:-‑ "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980 - Admiralty suit - Plaintiff had invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court against the defendant vessel by an action in rem - Contention was that documentary evidence showed that the proposed defendant was owner of the vessel who had filed written statement therefore his presence before the Court was necessary for proper adjudication - Validity - Action in personam could have been brought in respect of damage, loss of life or personal injury as a result of collision - Contention that since the written statement on behalf of the vessel has been filed by the proposed defendant, it had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and thus should be asked to be present in the court was repelled and application of the plaintiff was dismissed." From the above disctission it is quite clear that the two actions viz. action in rem or action in personam cannot be joined together except as provided in section 5. Section 4 of the Admiralty Ordinance provides mode of exercise of admiralty jurisdiction by the Court and an action in personam subject to section 5 which permits the exercise of jurisdiction in personam with regard to collision of similar cases provided: (15) (a) the defendant has his ordinary residence or a : place of business within Pakistan; or (b) the cause of action arose within the internal or territorial waters of Pakistan; or (c) an action arising out of the same incident or series of incidents is proceeding in the Court or has been heard and determined in the Court. Subsection (5) of section 5 further contemplates that subject to the provisions of subsection (2), the High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an action in personam to enforce a claim to which this section applies whenever any of the conditions specified in clauses (a) to (c) of subsection (1) are satisfied. It was further observed in the case of S. S. "NEDON" (16) that "an admiralty suit against a vessel alone, is a suit in rem against the vessel, in which the owner of the vessel is not personally liable in execution of decree passed against the vessel. An action in rem is against a vessel is distinct from the personal liability of the owner for all intents and purposes". It means that in rem proceedings if owners name are mentioned as defendants so this misconception may be removed as they do not become party only because of their liability in personam. Action in rem means that the arrest of a particular ship is secured by the claimant. He does not sue the owner directly and by name, but the owner or any one interested in the proceedings may appear or defend. The writ is issued to the owner and parties interested in the ship proceeded against but at the time of issuance of writ the owner or any other person has a substantive interest in the ship. As demonstrated in the M.V. "NEDON" in the title of the suit a writ in rem against the vessel is addressed to "Owners of Ship" it obviously does not mean that owner of the vessel becomes a party to the proceedings in rem as if he were liable in an action in personam. Action in personam is a proceedings issued against or with reference to a specific person. An admiralty action in personam would be issued against the owner of a ship. Once a claimant decides to proceed against the vessel in rem, he cannot combine his claim in personam in the same suit, which is contrary to the spirit of in rem proceedings against the vessel. The admiralty law enforce in Pakistan provides separately for proceedings in personam in only collision and similar other matters under the conditions prescribed by it. The above exception is designed to force the claimant either to proceed in rem against the vessel or to proceed in personam against the parties (other than the vessel) arrayed in the suit as defendants. When a claimant decides to proceed against the vessel for security for the claim, it is much out of his way to rope in other parties against which no relief for security is sought. Arrest of vessel is compulsory in a suit in rem and in the absence of impleading vessel against which claim under section 4(4) of the Ordinance, 1980 is not maintainable under the Admiralty jurisdiction then it may be renumbered as an ordinary money suit. In the "Indian Grace" (17) case, the House of Lord's has brought some changes, which may have adversely affected some features of the action in rem. The House of Lords followed the procedural theory, which revealed that in substance the owners were parties to the action in rem. The judgment was criticized by number of jurist. The Nigel Meeson gave his remarks in his book whereby he stated that: (18) "It is important to note that in all of the recent cases in which courts have been troubled by the question to what is a claim in rem different in substance from a claim in personam culminating in "The Indian Grace" (No.2) (19) the court was not considering a claim truly in rem." The procedural theory is a neutral fact. That is unrealistic. Our Supreme Court has also applied the same principle in the case of "Eastern Navigator" (20) whereby the Division Bench rejected the leave to appeal of the petitioner and ' observed as follows:-‑ "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980 - Admiralty suit - Action in rem - Making the real owners as party in such suit - Effect - Justification - Action in rem against ship without making the same as defendant - Real defendants can be described as owners of or persons interested in ship and writ of arrest may be effected by serving the same on the ship - Where no appearance is entered by the owner, the action remains as an action in rem oerating only against ship and if judgment is passed in favour of the plaintiff, the same can be enforced by sale of ship but not against owner personally or any of his property - If the owner or any person interested in the res, enters appearance in consequence of service and puts his defence, then the person so appearing becomes party to the action and thereby is personally liable for whatever may be decreed against such owner - Owners are the real, party in a suit in rem, therefore, no objection can be taken for citing the owners as defendants-Such objection is not sustainable in law." The above judgment passed by our Supreme Court wrongly interpreted the definition of the action in rem. The fundamental legal nature of an action in rem, is distinct from its ulterior object, is that it is a proceeding against a res. The action in rem, being a proceeding against a res and whereunder the res may be appropriated to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs claim, is patently distinct from the action in personam. In the above judgment the court held that "Owners are the' real party in a suit in rem". Such type of interpretation which is totally changed the object of action in rem was no longer a good law. SCOPE OF SECTION 35 OF ADMIRALTY COURTS ACT, 1861 Action in rem means a proceeding against the ship and action in personam means a proceeding against the owner of the vessel and these two different types of proceedings cannot be combined in the same proceeding because the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980 does not give the court to choice the proceeding in rem against the ship and in personam against the owners as was possible under Section 35 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. It is necessary to refer to section 35 of the Act which is as under: S.35. Jurisdiction of Court.--The jurisdiction conferred by this Act on the High Court of Admiralty may be exercised either by proceedings in rem or by proceedings in personam. In the case of s.s. "PHEONIX" (21), Justice Naimuddin defined the scope of S.35 and stated that: "S.35 Admiralty Courts Act. 1861 - Suit in rem and in personam.--Plaintiffs bringing suit not only against ship in rem but also against its owner in personam - Such course, held, not permissible and plaintiffs could proceed either in rem or in personam but not in both." Further in the case of M.V. "SUNRISE IV" (22), Justice S.A. Nusrat explained the provision of S.35 of Admiralty Act, 1861 and held that: "The marginal note against the section is "Jurisdiction of Court". A plain reading of the sections shows that the provision contained therein relates to the exercise of Jurisdiction by the Court either by proceedings in rem or by proceedings in personam. The section is not procedural and has nothing to do with the manner of institution of the suit by a party, either in rem or in personam. The admiralty jurisdiction is exerciseable in rem as well as in personam. The question, therefore, is as how the said jurisdiction is to be exercised." The above judgment (m.v. Sunrise) was given by the Court on 23rd December 1979. Thereafter, in 1980 the Admiralty Ordinance was passed and under the said Ordinance there is no corresponding provision of section 35. Now, the Admiralty Courts have no jurisdiction to proceed the matter relating to action in rem and action in personam jointly or proceed to their own choice. But it does not mean that claimant cannot file both the proceedings separately. The claimant has a right to file the suit in the Admiralty Court against the vessel in rem and a separate suit may also be filed in personam against the owners and charterers of the vessel in the original side of the High Court. In case if the claimant filed a suit against the vessel in rem and he already invoked the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court then the claimant cannot join action in personam in the same proceedings against the owner. Further, if the claimant wants to implead the defendant in proceeding for action in personam then the claimant may withdraw their suit against the ship and may proceed against the owner and the security if any furnished on behalf of the vessel must be discharged. It may therefore be pointed out in the case of "EASTERN NAVIGATOR" of the Supreme Court (reported in PLD 2001 SC 57) is not in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980 which specifically provides under S.5 for action in personam restricted only to "collision and similar matters". The same principle is also applied by the High Court of Sindh in the two judgments of "ASIAN POLLUX" (23) without considering the true concept of action in rem and personam. POWERS OF ADMIRALTY COURT Under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, the Admiralty Courts in Pakistan are competent to determine and adjudicate upon all the matters relating carriage of goods in a ship or to use or hire of a ship, matters relating to maritime lien, collision claims, mortgage claims, ownership claims, claims in respect of pilotage or towage, salvage and wrecks, marine insurance, marine pollution, and personal injuries etc. The High Court of Admiralty heard and determined the Admiralty cases under the Admiralty law applicable in Pakistan and in absence of any law, Court to follow rules of justice, equity and good conscience (24). The wording of section 112 of C.P.C. does not mean that the Admiralty Court has no power and jurisdiction under the C.P.C. to decide the matter if the procedure is not provided under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 or the Chief Court Rules of the said province. In any issue or point if the said Ordinance is silent than the Admiralty Court is bound to follow and apply the principles of C.P.C. In the case of Jehanzeb Aziz Dar v. Messrs Maersk Line and Others (25), the learned Single Judge of Sindh High Court observed as follows:‑- "Admiralty suit - No procedure for conducting such trial was provided in Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) - Effect - Trial Court, in absence of such procedure, would be justified in applying the principles of C.P.C. or following the provisions of C.P.C. to conduct the proceedings as long the same were reasonable and not contrary to principles of equity and natural justice." The Admiralty Court has empowered to order the arrest and detention of a vessel and proceed the matter in rem or in personam. The admiralty courts of Pakistan have jurisdiction in respect of local or foreign vessel. It has unlimited jurisdiction and it cannot be said that a suit is against the foreign vessel owned by a foreign company not having an place or business in Pakistan is not liable to proceed against on the Admiralty side of the High Court. Power to enforce claims against foreign ships is an essential attribute of admiralty jurisdiction and it is assumed over such ships while they are within the jurisdiction of the High Court by arresting and detaining them (26). In the case of m.v. "SEA ELITE" (27), Justice Saleem Akhtar stated that:-‑ "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980-Jurisdiction of Court - Plaintiff neither carrying on business in Pakistan nor cause of action arising within territorial limits of Courts - Plaintiff suing for claim in rem against foreign vessel for disbursement made outside Pakistan - Defendant objecting to jurisdiction of Court to try same - Held, Admiralty Court, in exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction which be invoked by an action in rem, could exercise jurisdiction over all ships whether Pakistani or not, and whether registered or not and wherever the domicile of their owners might be." Admiralty Court is empowering to decide all questions as to title the ownership of any ship or vessel or the procedure thereof remaining in the territory arising in any cause of possession, salvage, damage, wages or bottomry. Under Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance of 1980 the jurisdiction of Admiralty Courts extended to decide all claims and demands whatsoever in the nature of salvage for services rendered to or damage received by any ship or seagoing vessel or in the nature of towage or necessaries supplies to any foreign ship or sea-going vessel and the payment thereof whether such ship or vessel may have been within the territorial limits of a country or upon the high seas at the time when the services were rendered or damage received or necessaries furnished in respect of such claims. Under the Rule 950 of Bombay High Court in exercising the Admiralty Jurisdiction the Judge of the said High Court has a vast power if he considered that the suit is well founded he may pass a decree for the plaintiff without further delay as the basis purpose of the Admiralty Court to decide the matter within minimum time. The wording of the said Rules are as follows (28): 950. Judgment for the plaintiff if claim well founded.--When the suit comes up for hearing before the court, if the judge is satisfied that the plaintiffs claim is well founded, he may pass a decree for the plaintiff and may order the property proceeded against to be sold with or without previous notice and the sale proceeds paid to the registry to the credit of the suit or make such other order in the premises as he may think fit. Further, Rule 56 of the Madras High Court Rules provided that (29): "The judge shall be at liberty to receive, call for and act upon, such documentary or otherwise, whether legally admissible or not, as he may think fit." From the perusal of above Rules of the Madras and Bombay High Courts it is clear that the Judges of the said High Courts may broadly exercise their powers and shall be at liberty how to handle the matter. There is no any corresponding provision in the Sindh Chief Court Rules which provided any such powers to the Judges of Sindh High Court to exercise their powers in such manner, so there is required to amend or alter our Rules like Indian Courts in order to get the real purpose of Admiralty Law. It is pertinent to mention here that no matter of admiralty can be decided on the point of technicalities and these always be avoided in the interest of justice but on the other hand it is also a fact that those technicalities which change the material object and scope of Admiralty law cannot be avoided as the Admiralty law itself is a technical law. References: (1) PLD 1978 Karachi 837 (2) 1985 CLC 1355 (3) AIR 1993 SC 1014 (4) See second edition of Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice by Nigel Meeson in Chapter 1 at page 16, Para. 40. (5) See S.3 of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980. (6) See S.5(a) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980 (7) Black's Law Dictionary, fourth edition, page 68. (8) PLD 1981, Central Statutes 41. (9) Modern Admiralty Law by Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, page 50 (10) 1983 CLC 886, rr. page 887 (11) 2004 CLD 286 (12) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980, S.3 (2) (13) PLD 1981 Karachi 419 (14) 2003 CLD 1655 (15) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980, S.5 (1) (a) to (c) (16) PLD 1981 Karachi 419 rr. p. 434 (17) The Indian Grace (No.1) [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep.387, or [1993] AC 410 (18) See second edition of Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice by Nigel Meeson in chapter 3 at page 76, Para. 004. (19) [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1 (H.L.) (20) PLD 2001 SC 57 (21) PLD 1978 Karachi 1052 (1), rr. p. 1092 (22) PLD 1980 Karachi 229 rr. p.234 (23) 2007 CLD 1465 and 2008 CLD 492 (DB) (24) PLD 1982 Karachi 782 (25) PLD 2000 Karachi 258 rr. p. 264 (26) AIR 1993 SC 1014 rr. p. 1041, para 89 (27) 1985 CLC 1569 (28) Rule 950 of Bombay High Court Rules, Part III, Admiralty Jurisdiction, Rules for regulating the procedure and practice in cases brought before the High Court under the Colonial Court of Admiralty Act, 1890. (29) Rule 56 of Madras High Court Rules, Order XLII, Rules for regulating the procedure and practice in cases brought before the High Court of Judicature at Madras