Home Maxims & Terms Salvage right meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Salvage right

Salvage right legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2013 SCMR 1533 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 3Solicitors Act, 1932, S. 69Salvage right"Salvor" of a vesselScopeLaw firm claiming right of salvage in connection with services rendered by it for a vessel

Law firm (appellant) were engaged by a company for pleading an admiralty suit in connection with a vessel which had been arrested for recovery of some outstanding amount

Plea of law firm that services rendered by it not only salvaged the vessel but also preserved the interest of their client-company, therefore, it was entitled to a charge thereon; that law firm had a salvage right which could be enforced under S. 3 of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980; that S. 69 of Solicitors Act, 1932 also recognized the enforceability of such right in the Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court

Validity

Record showed that vessel in question stood arrested before the law firm stepped into the arena

Vessel was no more in a state of danger when the law firm, instituted a suit on behalf of its client-company

Law firm in such context could not be treated as a salvor nor could it be said to have recovered or preserved something in a time of danger, by its labour or work

Even if the law firm preserved and protected interest of client-company, it was at a later stage, which did not make it a salvor by any attribute so as to entitle it to a charge in the nature of salvage right

Solicitors Act, 1932, was not in force in the country, and even it was, it would not entitle the law firm to a salvage right since at no stage of the proceedings, the court trying the lis declared that the services rendered by the law firm proved instrumental in recovering or preserving the property

In the absence of such declaration, which was sine qua non in terms of S. 69 of the Solicitors Act, 1932 for the enforcement of such right, the law firm could not on its own don the attire of a salvor and ask for the enforcement of such right

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2013 CLD 1815 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
S. 3Solicitors Act, 1932, S. 69Salvage right"Salvor" of a vesselScopeLaw firm claiming right of salvage in connection with services rendered by it for a vessel

Law firm (appellant) were engaged by a company for pleading an admiralty suit in connection with a vessel which had been arrested for recovery of some outstanding amount

Plea of law firm that services rendered by it not only salvaged the vessel but also preserved the interest of their client-company, therefore, it was entitled to a charge thereon; that law firm had a salvage right which could be enforced under S. 3 of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980; that S. 69 of Solicitors Act, 1932 also recognized the enforceability of such right in the Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court

Validity

Record showed that vessel in question stood arrested before the law firm stepped into the arena

Vessel was no more in a state of danger when the law firm, instituted a suit on behalf of its client-company

Law firm in such context could not be treated as a salvor nor could it be said to have recovered or preserved something in a time of danger, by its labour or work

Even if the law firm preserved and protected interest of client-company, it was at a later stage, which did not make it a salvor by any attribute so as to entitle it to a charge in the nature of salvage right

Solicitors Act, 1932, was not in force in the country, and even it was, it would not entitle the law firm to a salvage right since at no stage of the proceedings, the court trying the lis declared that the services rendered by the law firm proved instrumental in recovering or preserving the property

In the absence of such declaration, which was sine qua non in terms of S. 69 of the Solicitors Act, 1932 for the enforcement of such right, the law firm could not on its own don the attire of a salvor and ask for the enforcement of such right

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Salvage right", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942368

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Salvage right"

CLD 2013
2013-June-4

2013 C L D 1815

SURRIDGE AND BEECHENO — Appellant Versus M.T. EASTERN NAVIGATOR and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2013
Civil Appeal No.1678 of 2008, decided on 4th June, 2013.

2013 S C M R 1533

SURRIDGE AND BEECHENO — Appellant Versus M.T. EASTERN NAVIGATOR and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
CLC 1988
Admiralty Suit No 316 of 1984, decided on 4th July, 1988

1988 C L C 2377

Messrs ALEXANDER G. TAAVLIRIS & SONS‑‑Plaintiff Versus m.v. 'RICE TRADER' and 2 others‑‑Defendants

Court: Karachi
CLD 2005
2005-March-17

2005 C L D 1640

C.I.T. GROUP/CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FINANCING INC. — Plaintiff Versus M.T. EASTERN NAVIGATOR and another — Defendants

Court: Karachi
PLD 1994
Admiralty Suit No.2 of 1987, decided on 9th December, 1993.

P L D 1994 Quetta 51

SEMCO SALVAGE PTE. LTD ;Plaintiff Versus M.V. KAPTAN YUSUF KALKAVAN through

Court:
MLD 1989
Admiralty Suit No. 311 of 1984, decided on. 4th July, 1988.

1989 M L D 1615

HADI DASTBAZ, SIND CLUB‑‑Plaintiff Versus m. v. RICE TRADER and another — ‑Defendants

Court: Karachi
MLD 1987
High Court Admiralty Appeal No. 1 of 1986, decided on 31st March, 1987.

1987 M L D 674

m.v. DAL CARRIER — Appellant Versus Messrs ALEXANDER G. TSAVLIRIS and Sons — Respondent

Court: Karachi
MLD 1995
Admiralty Appeal No.1 of 1993, decided on 1st December, 1994.

1995 M L D 706

SEMCO SALVAGE PTE LIMITED‑‑‑‑Appellant Versus m.v. KAPTAN YUSUF KALKAVAN TURKISH and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Quetta
YLR 2019
Suit No. 882 of 2002, decided on 11th October, 2018.

2019 Y L R 1985

NAZEER AHMED and another — Plaintiffs Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST through Chairman Karachi Port Trust, Karachi and 2 others — Defendants

Court: Sindh
CLC 1992
Civil Miscellaneous Admiralty Appeal No.1 of 1990, Applications Nos.259 of 1988 and 194 of 1989, decided on 10th October, 1991.

1992 C L C 143

m.v. KAPTAN YOUSUF KALKAVAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus SEMCO SALVAGE PTD Ltd.‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Quetta