P L D 1980 Karachi 229 (PLP)
MLSSBS AHMED INVESTMENT LTD.,. KARACHI-Plaintiff Versus M.V. "SUNRISE IV" AND ANOTHEP,-Defendants
| Citation | P L D 1980 Karachi 229 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | S. 35-Jurisdiction-Admiralty jurisdiction-Exerciseable in rein as well as in personam-Provision of S. 35-Relates to exercise of jurisdiction by Court either by proceeding in rein or by proceeding in personam-Section not procedural, having nothing to do with manner of institution of suit by parties either in rein or in personam. Jurisdiction. |
| Bench Members | S. A. Nusrat, J |
| Parties | MLSSBS AHMED INVESTMENT LTD.,. KARACHI-Plaintiff Versus M.V. "SUNRISE IV" AND ANOTHEP,-Defendants |
| Primary Law | (a) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), (e) Admiralty Court Act, 1861, (c) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1980 Karachi 229 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), (e) Admiralty Court Act, 1861, (c) Admiralty Court Act, 1861, (d) Admiralty Court Act, 1861 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1980 Karachi 229 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the S. 35-Jurisdiction-Admiralty jurisdiction-Exerciseable in rein as well as in personam-Provision of S. 35-Relates to exercise of jurisdiction by Court either by proceeding in rein or by proceeding in personam-Section not procedural, having nothing to do with manner of institution of suit by parties either in rein or in personam. Jurisdiction. bench comprising: S. A. Nusrat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1980 Karachi 229 (PLP) (MLSSBS AHMED INVESTMENT LTD.,. KARACHI-Plaintiff Versus M.V. "SUNRISE IV" AND ANOTHEP,-Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dates of hearing : 22nd and 23rd December,, 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. IV, r. 2(o)-Insufficiency or inadequacy of marks-.Damages Carrier or ship, held, cannot succeed without showing goods being unidentifiable owing to insufficiency of marks and no goods being lost or if lost such being due to some other excepted peril. Carver's Commentary on Carriage by Sea, Vol. 1, p. 287 rel. (b) Sind Chief Court Rules (O. S.) R. 731-Admiralty jurisdiction-Short delivery-Damages-Condition in Bill of Lading reciting ship being not responsible for correct delivery in case securing or marking being insufficient-Provision contained in Bill of Lading, held, would cover cases of incorrect delivery of cargo on account of lack of identification but not of short landing Plaintiffs, held further, rightly brought their suit for short landing in circumstances-Admiralty Court Act, 1861, S.
6. St. Cloud's case (1863) 8 L T 54 rel. S. 35-Jurisdiction-Admiralty jurisdiction-Exerciseable in rein as well as in personam-Provision of S. 35-Relates to exercise of jurisdiction by Court either by proceeding in rein or by proceeding in personam-Section not procedural, having nothing to do with manner of institution of suit by parties either in rein or in personam. [Jurisdiction]. Captain Yousuf Kazi and another v. Phoenix and others P L D 1978 Kar. 1052 ; Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited, Karachi v. s. s. Phoenix and 4 others P L D 1979 Kar. 789 and The Germanic's case 8 A R M C (N S) 116 and Admiralty Suit No. 1 of 1979 ref. S. 35-Admiralty jurisdiction-Suits in rem and in personamPrime action in suit in rein-Lies against res or property itself-Ship being an inanimate object not capable of defending itself, action of necessity to be defended by master, owner, or any other interested person irrespective of fact whether or not joined as party to suit-Suit filed in rein in, admiralty jurisdiction-Held : Cannot fail merely on account of joinder of owner of vessel as party-Owner of vessel arrested under admiralty jurisdiction coming forward to defend action--Makes himself liable by such voluntary appearance to be proceeded against ,in personam as well-Occasion for doing so, however, arises only when value of res proceeded against falls short of claim of plaintiff and satisfaction of decree sought from other property of owner of res. Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol; 1, paras. 360 365, & 375, pp. 245, 247 & 252 and Banco's case (1971) 1 All E R 524 and The Pieve Superlore 2 A R M C (N S) 319 and Duplex's case 1.2 A R M C (N S) 122 ref. -- S. 35 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. 1, r. 9Misjoinder of parties-Suit in admiralty jurisdiction yet to be proceeded with-Such suit, held, cannot be defeated for misjoinder of parties and plaintiff could always apply for striking off name of other defendant. Sharaf Fareedi and Saleem for Plaintiff. Salim Akhtar and Mazhar Kazi for Defendants.