1986 PLP 2995 (MLD)
AMIN SARDAR BHOLA‑‑Plaintiff Versus THE M.V. WASEEM‑‑Defendant
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2995 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Actg. C J |
| Parties | AMIN SARDAR BHOLA‑‑Plaintiff Versus THE M.V. WASEEM‑‑Defendant |
| Primary Law | Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2995 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2995 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Actg. C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2995 (MLD) (AMIN SARDAR BHOLA‑‑Plaintiff Versus THE M.V. WASEEM‑‑Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 5th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S.7‑‑Admiralty suit‑‑Non‑appearance of defendants‑‑Effect‑ Defendants were debarred by Court from defending suit due to their failure to appear in Court either to contest suit or to furnish any security in respect of claim of plaintiff in spite of various opportunities granted to them‑‑Plaintiff proved his claim by filing his affidavit in proof thereof‑‑Plaintiffs suit was decreed as prayed for in circumstances. Muhammad Naeem for Plaintiff. Hassan Inamullah (absent) for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
Nautical Almanac Rs. 430 (vi) Light dues Rs. 62 (vii) Medical book Rs. 450 (viii) Watchmen charges . Rs. 5,000 (ix) Income‑tax paid on the export goods . Rs. 5,152 (x) Incidental expenses for obtaining clearance from Mercantile Marine Deptt . Rs. 3,500 (xi) Cost of Customs/K.P.T. documentation in connection with the import and Export Rs. 5,000 Total Rs.99,901 The plaintiff has further claimed that he is also entitled to the charges and commission; (a) agency commission Rs.15,000 (b) brokerage at 1% Rs.1,380 and (c) agency export commission @ Rs.3% Rs.4,
140. The total amount is Rs.20,
520. The owner with a view to avoid payment of the plaintiff's dues mentioned above, suddenly appointed another agent whose name appeared as the agent of the said vessel in the Shipping Intelligence. The plaintiff had approached the owner through the master of the vessel and pressed for his dues and rendered him full account of the above charges and disbursement but the owner and the Master failed to pay the same or any part thereof. Various opportunities have been granted to the defendants. They did not file any written statement. The ship was arrested on 5‑5‑1986. The defendant ‑has not furnished any security. Therefore, he was debarred on 24‑8‑1986 by this Court from defending the suit. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of proof in respect of the claim made in the plaint. The suit has not been contested. The suit is decreed as prayed and the Nazir of this Court is directed to take the possession of the vessel and to sell the same. H.B.T. Suit decreed.