Law:

Section:

Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)---S. 3---Solicitors Act, 1932, S. 69---Salvage right---"Salvor" of a vessel---Scope---Law 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. Kuttikrishna Memon v. Cochin Mercantiles Ltd. (1962) (32) Company Cases 378 and Greer v. Young (1883) 24 Chapter D. 545 distinguished. JUDGMENT EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492