Find a Lawyer

SAJID PLASTIC FACTORY versus MSC BAHAMAS

20 Sections 20, 21, 22 and A. XXXIX, Order 1 and 2 of the Building of Lading Act (IX of 1856), Offer - Interim Order foreign Foreign Court Jurisdiction car Contract Ced Procedure for Car Vehicles - Defendants Defendants But called for legal action on the grounds that they intended to seek the jurisdiction of the illegal forum as available in the agreement. - Accuracy - According to the evidence of the lady's bills as to the plaintiff, the contract was not binding on the carriage - such an end was a disadvantage to the case presented in the Leading Act. , 1856, and it was most beneficial to the vegetarians in Pakistan. The ig was in full control of the conspiracy agreement and there was also a clause in its jurisdiction. Carriage was governed by English law, it was evident that the High Court in England would be better, for example, to deal with questions of law, the similarities between English law and Pakistani law in particular. Despite the familiarity with shipping issues and the Pakistani line of law, the dispute between the RSS parties with English law should have proceeded in England and not in Pakistan. ??? In cases related to the foreign jurisdiction clause, the case could not be returned, if the court concludes that the foreign jurisdiction should remain in the case, the matter must be heard. Stay tuned, [Page 401] A, B

PLD 2017 Sindh 396

Before Munib Akhtar, J

SAJID PLASTIC FACTORY through Sole Proprietor—Plaintiff

versus

MSC BAHAMAS through Master/Chief Officer and 9 others—Defendants

Admiralty Suit No.12 of 2012, decided on 11th June, 2014.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

—Ss. 20, 21, 22 & O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2--Bills of Lading Act (IX of 1856), Preamble—Interim injunction grant of—Jurisdiction of foreign Court—Contract of carriage—Procedure—Defendants sought stay of suit on the ground that they intended to invoke choice of foreign forum of jurisdiction as available in contract—Validity—plaintiff as consignee was not bound by Contract of Carriage as evidenced by bills of Lading—Such conclusion was contrary to what had been provided in Bills of Lading Act, 1856 and was most advantageous for consignees in Pakistan—Consignee was bound by totality of contract and jurisdiction clause was part thereof which was binding as well—Contract of Carriage was governed by English Law, it was obvious that High Court in England would be better placed to deal with e.g. questions of law and same was so notwithstanding similarity and connection between English law and Pakistan law especially in shipping matters and relative familiarity of Pakistan lawyers with English law—Dispute between parties should have been proceeded in England and not in Pakistan—Plaint could not be returned in cases involving foreign jurisdiction clause, proper course was to stay proceedings if court concluded that matter ought to proceed in foreign jurisdiction—Suit was stayed in circumstances, [p. 401] A, B

M.A. Chowdhury v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. PLD 1970 SC 373 and The Eleftheria [1969] 2 All ER 641 fol.

CGM (Compagnie General Maritime) v. Hussain Akbar 2002 CLD 1528; Light Industries (Pvt) Ltd. v.Zsk Stickmaschinen GmbH and another 2007 CLD 1324 and Light Industries (Pvt) Ltd. v. Zsk Stickmaschinen GmbH and another 2009 CLD 1340 ref.

Omair Nisar for Plaintiff.

Abad ul Hasnain for Defendants.

Dates of hearing: 3rd December, 2013 and 5th March 2014.

law websites from Kala Bagh lawyer