Find a Lawyer

Admiralty Suit No. 717 of 1977, decided on 29th May 1978.

‑‑‑ S. 6‑High Court's Admiralty jurisdiction exerciseable only when consigned goods covered by bills of lading carried into any port of Pakistan‑Certain goods loaded on ship and later off‑loaded but ship never leaving Pakistan port, nor such ship assumed to have entered Pakistan port carrying goods in question‑Provisions of S. 6, held, not attracted to case and suit not maintainable in admiralty jurisdiction.‑[Jurisdiction].

Pieve Superiore' case Aspinall's Reports of Maritime Cases, Vol. II, New Series, p. 162 distinguished.

Mustafa Lakhani for Plaintiffs.

Malik Muhammad Aslam for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

Ikramuddin Balkhi, Attorney for Defendant No. 3.

Iqbal Kazi for Defendant No. 4.

Sattar Silat for Proposed Defendant.

Date of hearing : 13th February 1978.

The plaintiffs, who are businessmen from Saudi Arabia, have brought this suit against the defendants for recovery of losses of Rs. 7,39,890.79 allegedly suffered by them on account of breach of the contract of carriage affreightment committed by the defendants. The defendant No. 4, a former agent of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, had accepted two consign ments of 1000 bundles of tents for shipment to Kuwait on board "s. s. PHEONIX", the defendant no. 1, against payment of freight by the plaintiffs shippers, Messrs National Tent House, Karachi. The said defendant issued three freight pre‑paid clean Bills of Lading in respect of the consignments in question for and on behalf of the defendant No. 1. It is alleged that there arose some dispute between the defendant No. 2 and their present agents, who are defendant No. 3, with the result that only 635 bundles could be loaded on the vessel while 365 bundles were left lying in barges, which however, were shipped later through another vessel on fresh payment of freight charges. The defendant No. 3 informed the plaintiff's shippers Messrs National Tent House, on 1 4‑2‑1977 that the vessel was to be dry‑docked for survey, classification and or urgent repairs and in the circumstances the entire cargo had to be off‑loaded from the vessel. The shippers approached the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for off‑loading the goods for arranging reshipment, which was refused by the said defendants unless off‑loading charges were paid to them at the rate of U S 30 per cubic meter, Pakistani rupees. The plaintiffs thereupon sought the assistance of Martial Law Authorities and finally the goods were off‑loaded from the ship between 18‑10‑1977 and 22‑10‑1977. It is alleged that on survey of the good, the plaintiffs found that some of them were totally damaged, while some were damaged partially; 50 bundles were in repairable condition and only 250 bundles were in good condition.

2. The ship was arrested on plaintiff's application under rule 731 of Sind Chief Court Rules (O. S.) on 17‑11‑:977. This very vessel also stands arrested in Suit No. 105 of 1975 filed by Captain Yousuf Kazi, partner of defendant No. 4, and another Suit No. 193 of 1977, filed by Pakistan Burmah‑Shell. This suit, therefore, is the third in the line of succession against the defen dant No. 1.

3. The claim in the suit is for damages caused to the goods of the plaintiffs on board the vessel of the defendant No. 2, s. s. "PHEONIX". Admittedly the vessel did not undergo any voyage and the goods of the plaintiff were allegedly damaged on board. The question requiring considera tion, therefore, is whether, in the aforesaid circumstances, this suit is maintainable in Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court and the ship could have been arrested.

4. Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, stated that the suit was maintainable under section 6 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861. According to him the words, "any goods carried into the port of England or Wales in any ship" were to be given wider interpretation enlarging the jurisdiction of the Board and the same did not merely mean importation of goods. Section 6 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861, on which reliance has been placed, is as under :‑‑

"Section 6.‑The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods carried into any port in England or Wales any ship, for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligence or misconduct of or for any breach of duty , or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master, or crew of the ship, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that at the time of the institution of the cause any owner or part owner of the ship in domiciled in England or Wales; provided always, that if in any such cause the plaintiff do not recover twenty pounds he shall not be entitled to any costs, charges, or expenses incurred by him therein, unless the Judge shall certify that the cause was a fit one to be tried in the said Court."

A plain reading of the above section shows that this Court will have jurisdic tion in Admiralty only if it is found that the consigned goods, covered by the disputed bills of lading, had been carried into any port of Pakistan.

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Pieve superiore (1) Aspinall's Reports of Maritime Cases, Vol. II, New Series, p. 162, wherein the words "goods carried into any port of England or Wales" came to be considered. Accord ing to the facts of the said case, the vessel, Pieve Superiore, which carried 5000 bags of rice, had sailed from Rangoon and her Master, in the exercise of his option, bad proceeded to the port of Falmouth for orders, and there received orders from the plaintiffs to proceed with the cargo in question to Bramen, which is a port on the continent between Havre and Hamburg, and discharged the cargo at. Bremen. Save as aforesaid, the said cargo was never brought into any port of England or Wales. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the said cargo of rice was not carried into any port of England or Wales within the true intent and meaning of section 6 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 and that by reason thereof the Court of Admiralty had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The above judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case the ship carrying the cargo had actually entered Falmouth, within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court of England, even though just for the purpose of receiving orders from the plaintiffs in that suit. In the instant case, however, all that had happened was that certain goods had been loaded on the ship and later off‑loaded with the blessings of the Martial Law Authorities. The ship never left the port o Karachi nor it can be said to have entered the port carrying the goods in question.

For the foregoing reasons it is held that the provisions of section 6 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861, are not attracted and the suit is not maintain able in the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court. As a result, the order of the arrest of the vessel dated 17‑11‑1977 is vacated and the defendant No. 1 is allowed to leave the port of Karachi. The concerned authorities be informed accordingly. The application is dismissed with costs.

S. A. H. Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.