METAL CONSTRUCTION OF GREECE S.A. (MEKTA S.A.), ATHENS versus OWNERS OF THE VESSEL M.V. LADY REA
Sections 3 (2) (h) and 4 (4) claiming to carry the cargo were entered into evidence against the ship, the Maritime Certificate, the agreement between the parties to the expiry of the contract under which the plaintiff's cargo was mounted in the vessel. Was. Bills were issued twice in connection with the cargo, in which the plaintiff was shown as a compressor that the plaintiff believed that according to the contract of refinement, the vessel was to go directly from the loading port to the destination port, Vessel was responsible for the annual survey of the vessel which was in violation of the contract, when it traveled from port to loading and when it stopped the port authorities Refused to allow the ship to board until the proper certificate was available and the ship was not burdened. For the purposes of the ship's certificate, the cargo claimed to be entitled to a memorandum against the ship and it had arrested the accuracy duty to provide the ship with the sea. Aid could be present at the beginning of the ship's recovery. When she traveled from port to loading, her time was up and she had to be renewed, but technically, the owner of the ship had a breach of her responsibility. Valid Certificate When it left the loading port, the fact that such certification was about to expire and the shipowner knew about the Prima fee, the shipowner knew about the Prima fee, the ship owner Duty is owed. To provide a sea vessel; such a responsibility, among others
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
