Admiralty jurisdiction

2024 PLD 174 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 7Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R. 71 & S. 36Admiralty jurisdictionRecovery of lossConsent order

Appellant/plaintiff was Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. who sought recovery of loss caused by respondents/defendants

Validity

Order assailed had been passed by consent of parties, whereas, appellant/plaintiff failed to make out a case that there had been deliberate default or non-compliance of contractual obligations by respondent/auction purchaser

Appellant/plaintiff also failed to demonstrate as to how and to what extent, such partial default on the part of respondent/auction purchaser caused any loss and damage to appellant/plaintiff

High Court directed Official Assignee to release proportionate earnest money in respect of remaining 1/3rd quantity of sugar, which could not be lifted in favour of appellant/plaintiff (Trading Corporation of Pakistan), whereas, remaining amount could be adjusted/returned to respondent/ auction purchaser after proper verification and identification

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

2020 PLD 568 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.3Admiralty jurisdictionTypes"Action in rem" and "action in personam"Scope

Action in rem is one in which plaintiff seeks to make good a claim to or against certain property e.g. a ship or cargo in respect of which or in respect of damages done by which he alleges that he has an actionable demand

In collision actions and in other cases where plaintiff maritime lien, he can, if the res be within the jurisdiction, by process served upon its corpus, procure its arrest and detention by the Court until either the owners bail it out by giving security for the amount claimed by him or until the Court gives judgment upon the claim, when if he be successful, effect may be given to such judgment by sale of property in order to satisfy it

Effect of such judgment or sale is that the order of Court operates directly upon statute of the property and transfers an absolute title to the purchaser

"Action in personam" is an ordinary action as in common law courts

Judgment of Court is a personal one (in nature of a command or prohibition) against unsuccessful party, though it may be enforced against his property by subsequent proceedings but even if Court sells the property by execution under judgment, it does not thereby transfer to purchaser an absolute title but only such title as the owner may in fact have had.

2016 PLD 367 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 3(f)(i)Suit for recovery of damagesAdmiralty jurisdictionAbsence of owner of vessel

Plaintiff sought direction to defendants to arrange transship plaintiff's consignment to the port of discharge and had also sought recovery of damages

Validity

In the proceedings of the nature, that was, for an action in rem, a plaintiff even without participation of owner of a vessel, if the case (of plaintiff) otherwise fell within the purview of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, could succeed in its claim

One of the basic reasons for the same was that if an owner of vessel was a foreign entity and had no presence in Pakistan, then a genuine claim of a party should not fail or a plaintiff should not be remediless, merely due to absence of the owner of vessel or for any other technicality

Defendant was even resisting delivery of cargo in question to plaintiff and contract of carriage was breached by defendants as it was discharged at the port that too only after the orders of High Court whereas, port of discharge as mentioned on Bills of Lading was other one

Suit was decreed accordingly.

2014 CLD 417 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 7Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), Rr. 731 & 759Admiralty jurisdictionAppealMate's receiptPurposeBill of lading, non-production ofEffect

Shipping company filed suit for recovery of amount in lieu of freight, demurrage and other charges against defendant consignee

Application under Ss.731 & 759 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) was allowed by High Court and cargo was directed to be auctioned

Plaintiff company refused to release goods to defendant consignee as it only had mate's receipt and did not produce bill of lading

Validity

Mate's receipt was prima facie an evidence of quantity and condition of goods as it was a receipt of goods by carrier or ship owner and while taking goods alongside the ship, the ship-owner acknowledged receipt of the same through mate's receipt

Recipient or possessor of mate's receipt was entitled to have bill of lading issued to him

Shipper or anybody else did not lodge any claim with ship-owner and there was no issue of payment to be made to shipper, either on surrender of mate's receipt or of bill of lading

Plaintiff company did not deny that mate's receipt was not issued by them or the shipper or anybody else had lodged any claim in respect of goods in question

Name of defendant consignee mentioned in mate's receipt was not disputed and it was the notified party

No intimation or notice was served by shipper upon plaintiff company to withhold delivery of goods and being a donor of the goods had not undertaken to pay the freight, which had been received by plaintiff company

No ground existed to withhold delivery of subject goods, on the pretext that no bill of lading had been produced, as the same was admittedly withheld by plaintiff company

Division Bench of High Court set aside the order passed by Single Judge of High Court and directed plaintiff company to immediately hand over the goods loaded on vessel to defendant consignee

Division Bench of High Court further directed plaintiff company to issue necessary delivery order or release instruction for compliance and defendant consignee was directed to execute a personal bond for the total invoice value of goods

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2012 CLD 276 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.3Sales of Goods Act (III of 1930), S.37Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XII, R.6Admiralty jurisdictionAcceptance of goodsJudgment on admissionDispute between the parties was with regard to supply of quantity of Marine Gasoline Oil

Plaintiff claimed to have supplied 96.36 Metric Tons of the Oil onto the defendant vessel, whereas defendant claimed to have received 83.8 Metric Tons of the Oil, on board

Plaintiff sought judgment on the basis of admission made by defendant to the extent of oil received by it on board

Validity

If a buyer had the option of rejecting the goods short supplied but if he did not do so and accepted the goods so delivered, then under the provision of S. 37(1) of Sales of Goods Act, 1930, the buyer was bound to pay to seller at the contractual rate

Even if the defendants were correct and there was a short supply of Marine Gasoline Oil, it was clear that the quantity as supplied was in fact accepted and not rejected

High Court entered the judgment in favour of plaintiff for a sum of contractual amount to the extent of supply of the oil admitted by defendants and preliminary decree would follow

Application was allowed accordingly.