1999 PLP 989 (YLR)

This matter first came up before me on 9‑2‑1999 when the learned counsel contended that the vessel "Avramesti" the sister ship of MV "Rubin", the defendant was arrested in Sri Lanka after an action in rem was filed against the vessel. In those proceedings the plaintiff in this suit had two claims, one in Admiralty Action 74 of 1998 and the other in Admiralty Action 94 of 1998 and the claims were for amounts of US $ 50,384.85 plus 9,684.81 Pounds and US $ 84,748.01 respectively. The learned counsel stated that the vessel was subsequently sold and the sale consideration was deposited in this Court from which he has managed to recover in Action No‑.74 of 1998 US $ 23,738.87 and in Action No.94 of 1998 US $ 52,543.77. The learned counsel stated that he has now filed proceedings to recover the balance amount as he could not recover it in Sri Lanka which is, according to him, described in paragraph 9 of the Plaint. The learned counsel relied on an authority "City of Macca" reported in 1879 C. 275 to the effect that such an action can be maintained in the Admiralty Courts. I had pointed out to the learned counsel at the time that there is also another alternative available to him i.e. to file an execution application and have the vessel attached. This matter came up again before me on 10‑12‑1999 when I had pointed out that there are certain legal issues involved inasmuch as (1) Whether an Admiralty Court in Pakistan can proceed to arrest a vessel for satisfaction of decree of a foreign Admiralty Court? (2) Whether an Admiralty Court in Pakistan can proceed to arrest a vessel in partial satisfaction of a foreign decree? (3) Whether Pakistani Admiralty Court can enforce a decree of foreign Admiralty Court when on the face of it, the decree of the foreign Court has already been satisfied. The last issue arises from the fact that in this particular case the owners had not appeared at all throughout the proceedings in Sri Lanka and the decree was passed in the absence of the owners. It is a well‑known principal of admiralty law that if the owner does not appear to defend the claim then the liability of the owner does not exceed the value of the vessel but if he does then he is liable for the full decretal amount. Since in this case the vessel was sold and the decree was satisfied, though partially, from the sale proceeds it would appear that the decree has been fully satisfied in view of the aforesaid principle of admiralty law that I have alluded to. Thus, it would seem that the owner of the vessel has no further liability in respect of the Admiralty Action in Sri Lanka. As far as the point regarding the ability of a Admiralty Court in Pakistan to seek to enforce the judgment and decree of a foreign Admiralty Court is concerned, the learned counsel at the time had relied on two authorities of English jurisdiction (1) City of Macca reported in 1879 C. 275 and (2) The Despina G.K. reported in 1 QB Division 1983. The learned counsel today wishes to withdraw this application for the arrest of the defendant vessel in view of the fact that the vessel has already sailed. Nevertheless the point that was involved in this application requires to be considered because it is the first time that such a point has been raised in the admiralty jurisdiction of this. Court. Keeping in view the facts that have been narrated above and the fact that plaintiff is no longer interested in the arrest of the vessel, the issue that remains is whether an Admiralty Court in Pakistan can follow the rules of comity of nations and take notice of decrees and orders passed by an Admiralty Court in some other country. From times immemorial the Admiralty Courts of the sea faring nations have come to the assistance of each other in view of the fact that certain offending vessels owned by unscrupulous ship owners always seek refuge in some other port to avoid payment of balance decretal amounts and if one Admiralty Court was to deny the request of the petitioner to issue warrant for arrest of a vessel because the decree against the vessel was passed by another nation's Admiralty Court then the entire edifice of admiralty law, which is truly international in character, would collapse. I am, therefore, of the view that in a situation where an Admiralty Court has passed a decree or order against a vessel, if subsequently the same ship or a sister ship of hers happens to be in the jurisdiction of Pakistani Admiralty Court then following the rules of comity of nations, our Admiralty Court can take cognizance of it and treat such decree or order itself as a cause of action and proceed to enforce it provided nothing in admiralty law otherwise prevents its enforcement. With these remarks this application as well as the Suit is disposed of. Order accordingly. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑327/K