Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 139 2022 SLD 139 2022 PLD 21
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 AND ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, JJ
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 Courts 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 travelled 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. 1989 CLC 2168; 2012 SCMR 123; Hong Leong Finance Limited v. m.v. Asian Queen through Nazir High Court PLD 1991 SC 1021; Atlantic Steamers Supply Copmany v. m.v. Titisee and others PLD 1993 SC 88; Inham Refrigeration b.v. v. The owners of F.T. Parivash and Transocen Holdings Ltd. PLD 1989 Kar. 65; Messrs Maratos and Co. v. Rice Traker and 2…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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