Find a Lawyer

MESSRS MASOOMI ENTERPRISES PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED versus MESSRS PING TAN FISHERY COMPANY

Sections 3 (2) (h) and 4 (4) of the Ordinance of the High Courts of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the Admiralty Suits Maintenance Plaintiff authorize the defendant to operate the ship / trawler through an agreement. In which it is nominated. The plaintiff's fishing license defaulted on payment of the unanimous sum and committed other breach of contract, after which the plaintiff claimed to have filed admiralty suits and seized the ship, after which it was discovered The vessel is owned by another company, not by the defendant, the suit has to be dealt with in its original aspect as the High Court's Common Suit Division Bench dismissed the plaintiff's appeals on the grounds that the ship's There was no such claim from the rental agreement. The defendant did not take any ship belonging to the plaintiff. The said agreement may be termed a rental or use of the license, which was not covered by section 3 (2) (h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance 1980. And if it is deemed that the defendant's sister is concerned and the owner owns a majority stake in the company, then no, the proceedings against these vessels under section 4 (4) (b) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance 1980 Can be The plaintiff's claim was not born of vessels that were legally subject to the High Court's jurisdiction in any contract related to the carriage of goods, the ship being used or leased to a ship, and any conditions existing Was not attracted to the case. The only thing to do was to operate your ships on the claimant's license and pay some money, which is basically a license best advocate from Khuzdar lawyer