2003 PLP 1655 (CLD)
PROCEEDING IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL M.T. PORTOFINO and another‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus M.T. PORTOFINO‑‑Defendant
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1655 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Shabbir Ahmed, J |
| Parties | PROCEEDING IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL M.T. PORTOFINO and another‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus M.T. PORTOFINO‑‑Defendant |
| Primary Law | Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1655 (CLD)?
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 2003 PLP 1655 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Shabbir Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1655 (CLD) (PROCEEDING IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL M.T. PORTOFINO and another‑‑‑Plaintiffs Versus M.T. PORTOFINO‑‑Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.4 & 5‑‑‑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 had 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. Naeem Ahmed for Plaintiffs. Muhammad Naeem for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
1. By consent granted.
2. The plaintiff through C.M.A. 2652 of 2001 seeks to implead of Messrs Order Shipping Ind. as defendant No.2 in the suit for proper adjudication.
3. The facts, which are not disputed, are that the plaintiff invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court against the defendant Vessel by an action in rem. The documents annexed supports the contention of Mr. Naeem Ahmed, learned counsel for the plaintiff that the proposed defendant is owner of the Vessel and has filed written statement. Therefore, he contends that his presence before the Court is necessary for proper adjudication. Mr. Muhammad Naeem learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently opposed the application by filing counter‑affidavit. His contention is that the plaintiff has already invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by bringing the action in rem against the Vessel. He cannot join action in personam in the same proceedings against the owner. He also contended that if the plaintiff wants to implead the proposed defendant in proceeding for action in personam then the plaintiff may withdraw the suit against the ship and may proceed against the owner and, the security furnished on behalf of the defendant be discharged. His further contention was that two actions viz. action in rem can and 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 this 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:‑‑ (a) The defendant has his ordinary residence or a place of business within Pakistan. (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) 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. According to subsection (6) the claim 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, with the regulations made under section
214. None of the conditions enumerated in subsection (1) are available, which has also been conceded by the plaintiff's counsel. The action in personam could have been brought in respect of damage, loss of life or personal injury against as a result of collision. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Naeem Ahmad that since written statement on behalf of defendant No.1 has been filed by proposed defendant and it has submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court. On this plea they cannot be joined as a party. The application is therefore, dismissed. M.B.A./P‑72/K Application dismissed.