1982 PLP 619 (CLC)
ORIENTAL SHIPPING Co. LTD.-Appellant Versus M.V. MONTE CRISTO PANAMIAN FLAG ETC. -Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 619 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Quetta |
| Bench Members | Zakaullah Lodhi Actg. C. J. and Muhammad jafar Naim, J |
| Parties | ORIENTAL SHIPPING Co. LTD.-Appellant Versus M.V. MONTE CRISTO PANAMIAN FLAG ETC. -Respondents |
| Primary Law | Admiralty Court Act, 1861 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 619 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Admiralty Court Act, 1861 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 619 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Quetta bench comprising: Zakaullah Lodhi Actg. C. J. and Muhammad jafar Naim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 619 (CLC) (ORIENTAL SHIPPING Co. LTD.-Appellant Versus M.V. MONTE CRISTO PANAMIAN FLAG ETC. -Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Naseem-ud-Din for Appellant.
- Respondents Nos. 2 and 4: Ex Parte. Mustafa Lakhani for Respondent 3.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 1981.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 35-Security submitted in form of Bank guarantee on order from High Court-Required to protect claim of plaintiff in admiralty suit in case of a decree-Application for release of Bank guarantee rejected -Bank guarantee, however, directed to be released on depositing original title deed of property of same amount with Registrar of High Court. Munawar Ahmad, Advocate-General on Court Notice.
Judgment & Decree
Naseem-ud-Din for Appellant. Respondents Nos. 2 and 4: Ex Parte. Mustafa Lakhani for Respondent
3. Munawar Ahmad, Advocate-General on Court Notice. Date of hearing: 29th September, 1981. ZACAULLAH LODH1, ACTG. C. J.-After we had heard the Appeal at some length, we realised that the questions of law required interpretation in this appeal are common in the suit as well. It would thus be proper to leave it open to the learned Single Judge who would try the suit to interpret the points of law raised before us today, in the suit and pass a final verdict, as otherwise, if a judgment is given by us in this Appeal which is filed against the interim order the findings of the learned Single Judge would certainly be prejudiced. Presently the main question before us is that of discharge or otherwise of the security submitted by respondent No. 3 in the form of Bank Guarantee under the orders of this Court dated 21st December, 1980. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the effect to continuance of the security would be that the respondent shall have he bear the interest on the amount of security for further period and he would receive no recompense for the same if he succeeds in the suit. Release of Bank Guarantee at this stage would not be proper as in that case no security would be left to protect the claim of the plaintiff in the suit and it would be difficult for him to realise the decretal amount in can a decree is passed in his favour. However, to resolve this controversy all the learned counsel as well as the learned Advocate-General agree that if the respondent No. 3 furnishes security of the same amount by depositing the original title deed of the property with the Registrar of this Court, the Bank guarantee may be released. If that is done, the Registrar shall inform the concened Registrar not to dispose of this property or allow the creation of any lien thereon, unless directed by this Court. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. M. H. Order accordingly.