1998 PLP 279 (CLC)

(3) What were the quantities of bulk oil consignments and the value thereof at the time of shipment? (4) Was any part of the suit consignments short landed and if so to what extent? (5) Have the defendants any liability for the watage in bulk? (6) What is the extent and value of the loss if any suffered by the plaintiffs? (7) Was there any breach of the third charter party and if so on whose part?, (8) Have the plaintiffs suffered any loss or damages on account of the alleged breach of charter party and if so what is the extent and value thereof? (9) Are the plaintiffs entitled to recover any damages on account of the breach of charter‑party and if so, in what sum? (10) To what relief if any are the plaintiffs entitled? (11) what should the decree be?

4. In support of their cases both the parties adduced evidence which was recorded on commission.

5. I have had the benefit of hearing the valuable arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties on Issue No. l dealing with the maintainability of the suit under the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.

6. It is admitted that the plaintiffs are neither the owners nor the consignees of the goods or assignees of the Bill of Landing as provided in section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 which reads as under:‑‑ "The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of landing of any goods carried into any port in England or Wales in any ship, for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligence or misconduct of or for any breach of duty of breach of contract on the part of the owner, master or crew of the ship, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that at the time of the institution of the cause any owner or part owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales: Provided always, that if in any such cause the plaintiff do not recover twenty pounds, he shall not be entitled to any costs, charges, or expenses incurred by him therein, unless the judge shall certify that the cause was a fit one to be tried in the said Court. "

7. Admittedly the plaintiffs are the charterers of the vessel by virtue of charter‑party contracts between the parties. From a plain reading of the language employed in the aforesaid provision of law it is evident that notwithstanding the enlargement of scope and jurisdiction of Admiralty Courts in England by virtue of amendments brought about in Admiralty Court Act, 1861 and 1891 that jurisdiction could not be exercised by the Admiralty Courts in Pakistan. It may also be pertinent to note that the Acts of 1840 and 1861 were repealed by Admiralty jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 with the consequence that the jurisdiction of the Courts in Indo‑Pak Sub‑continent remained unaffected by the amendments introduced in England.

8. Finding him on weak wicket learned counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to argue that section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 was repealed by Administration of Justice Act, 1920 but the argument is devoid of any force as the Colonial Courts in the British area continued to retain the jurisdiction vested in Admiralty Courts conferred under section 6 of the aforesaid Act. Mr. I.H. Zaidi learned counsel for the plaintiffs in spite of more than reasonable induglence was unable to cite any provision of law or any precedent to the contrary. It is, therefore, only logical, fair and lawful for this Court to assume that the jurisdiction vested in this Court under the Act, 1861 cannot be extended to a claim by a charter party. On this sole account the suit in my view was wrongly entertained which could not be maintained at law. Reference to PLD 1970 SC 67 is, however, completely misplaced. 8‑A. As to the jurisdiction of this Court under the Act, 1861, it may suffice to observe that in 1840 the British Parliament passed the Admiralty Court Act, 1840 acid later the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 in order to extend the jurisdiction and improve the practice of the High Court of Admiralty of England. Further changes in the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Courts were brought about by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 and the latest enactment governing such jurisdiction is the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, which lists the areas of jurisdiction of the High Court under eighteen paragraphs. The said Act elaborately defined the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court so as amongst other things, to give effect by domestic legislation to two International Conventions in addition to specifying in detail the questions or claims within Admiralty jurisdiction, and the Act expressly preserves any other jurisdiction vested in the High Court of Admiralty immediately prior to commencement of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1873. However, the High Court of Sindh is not concerned with the latter enactments, as the jurisdiction of this High Court continues to be governed by the provisions of Admiralty Court Act, 1861 as was made applicable to the Courts of law in British possession by Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. While section 3 of the aforesaid Act stipulated that the Legislature of British Possession could by any Colonial Law, declare any Court of unlimited civil jurisdiction, in that possession to be a Colonial Court of Admiralty and provide for the exercise by such Court of its jurisdiction under the said Act and limit territorial and otherwise, the extent of such jurisdiction. However, the proviso to section 3 reads as under:‑‑ "Provided that any such Colonial law shall not confer any jurisdiction which is not by this Act conferred upon Colonial Court of Admiralty. "

9. Aforesaid historical background of the Admiralty jurisdiction was considered by S.A. Nusrat, J. (as he then was) in Diamond Engineering, Mechanical, Electrical and Marine Engineering Contractors v. m.v. Luctor‑I (PLD 1978 Karachi 837) and reiterated by Saleem Akhtar, J. (as he then was) in Alexander G. Tsavliris and Sons v. m.v. Rice Traders (1985 CLC 1355). To my mind, this should furnish a complete answer to the contention raised by Mr. I.H. Zaidi that the suit by a charter party for short landing and damages could be lawfully entertained in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court.

10. I am further, fortified by judgment rendered by late Tufail Ali A. Rehman, C.J. (as he then was) of this Court in the case reported as Hayat Shipping Agencies Ltd. v. Delta Pioneer (PLD 1972 Karachi 442). Learned Chief Justice after examining the scope of section 6 of Admiralty Court Act, 1861 concluded that a suit not by owner or consignee or assignee but by charterers is not covered by section 6 of the Act, 1861. Dealing with the contention of the plaintiff's counsel that in the year 1925 the jurisdiction of the English Courts of Admiralty was enlarged by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 so as to cover suits of this nature, he held that in view of the verdict by their Lordships of the Privy Council in The Yuri Maru v. The Crown (1927 A.C. 906) Act of 1925 does not serve to increase the jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts and also be held expressly that the jurisdiction already covered did not exclude the jurisdiction in rem to try an action for breach of charter party.

11. Admittedly, this Court is bound by a decision of the Privy Council unless a contrary principle of law is enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. As a necessary corollary, I am clearly of the view that the suit in its present form is neither maintainable before this Court nor is this Court possessed of the jurisdiction to entertain a claim at the instance of charterers. In the result the suit fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A /A-15/K Suit dismissed.