| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1170 2021 SLD 1170 2021 CLD 1180 |
Balochistan High Court
Admiralty Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018, decided on 23rd November, 2020, Date of hearing: 2nd November, 2020.
MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, JUSTICE, ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Riaz Ahmed and Dr. Adeel Abid for Appellants (in Admiralty Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018). Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi for
Respondent (in Admiralty Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018).
Admiralty Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018, decided on 23rd November, 2020, Date of hearing: 2nd November, 2020.
MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, JUSTICE, ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Riaz Ahmed and Dr. Adeel Abid for Appellants (in Admiralty Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018). Mujeeb Ahmed Hashmi for
Respondent (in Admiralty Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018).
EDUARD BILYAYEV THROUGH ATTORNEY AND 4 OTHERS
VS
M.V. "FIGARO" (EX-FREE GODDESS) THROUGH MESSRS COMMERCIAL METAL
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 11
Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----Ss. 3, 4 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Action in rem---Scope---Rejection of plaint---Sale of ship/ plaintiffs sought recovery of outstanding wages from respondent/defendant company on the plea that it was beneficial owner of ship in question---Trial Court rejected plaint filed by appellants/ plaintiffs for the reason that the ship had already been sold---Validity---Action in rem could be invoked against ship or property against which maritime lien was claimed by plaintiff---Maritime lien was a privileged claim which could be exercised over res (ship)---Such claim occurred the moment cause of action had arisen and traveled with the res (ship) secretly and unconditionally and could be enforced by an action in rem---Such right only extinguished when ship was demolished--- Action in rem against ship or her sister ship arose subject to condition enumerated in S. 4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980---Purchaser/vendee of ship filed application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. along with bill of sale, whereby ship in question was owned/purchased through a leasing company free from all encumbrances---Sale document was not denied specifically by appellants/plaintiffs at the time when suit was filed--- Beneficial title in ship in question was passed on to new owner and condition laid down by S. 4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, was not satisfied---High Court declined to invoke action in rem against the ship, particularly when the ship had been demolished---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. PLD 1986 Quetta 107; 2005 YLR 2838; PLD 2006 SC 214; PLD 2000 Kar. 258; PLD 1996 Kar. 365; PLD 2000 Kar. 691; 2003 CLC 1602; 2013 MLD 1132; PLD 1990 SC 859;; 1995 SCMR 584 and AIR 1922 P.C. 269 ref. PLD 1993 SC 88; 1989 CLC 2168; PLD 1991 SC 102; Mst. Yamin and 2 others v. Muhammad Yamin and 2 others PLD 2006 SC 214; Hong Leong Finance Limited v. m.v. Asian Queen through Nazir High Court PLD 1991 SC 1021; Atlantic Steamers Supply v. m.v. Titisee and others PLD 1993 SC 88; Inham Refrigeration B.V. v. The owners of F.T. Parivash and Transocen…
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