Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1999 2011 SLD 1999 2011 PLD 102
Sindh High Court
Admiralty Appeal No. 3 of 2010, decided on 13th November, 2010
GULZAR AHMED AND IMAM BUZ BALOCH, JJ
Dr. Farogh Naseem for Appellant

Messrs KADRIAHI LTD. through duly Constituted Attorney

VS

M. V. "SPLENDOUR" through Owner and 2 others

Law: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)

Section: 3,4,3(2)

Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----Ss. 3 & 4---Admiralty suit for arrest of defendant-ship---Agreement for sale of plaintiff's ship with owner of defendant-ship---Sale of ship by plaintiff to another person for non-compliance of obligations by owner of defendant-ship under such sale agreement---Plaintiff's suit for damages against owner of defendant-ship on account of its such default pending in a court abroad---Filing of such suit by plaintiff for having suffered damages on account of such default by owner of defendant-ship---Maintainability---Action in rem under S. 3(2) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 was permissible only against a delinquent or defaulting ship---Plaintiff's claim neither arose out of any of conditions nor of a nature provided in S. 3(2) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 upon or against a ship owned or possessed by defendant---Plaintiff's claim for damages suffered on account of such default by defendant was not covered by provisions of S. 3(2) of Ordinance, thus, could not be enforced in rem against defendant-ship---Suit being not maintainable was dismissed. M.V. Elisabeth and others v. Harwan Investment and Trading (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 Supp (2) SC Caess 433) and Atlantic Steamer's Supply Company v. M.V. Titisee and others PLD 1993 SC 88 ref. Messrs V.N. Lakhani and Company v. M.V. Lakatoi Express and 2 others PLD 1994 SC 894 rel. ORDER GULZAR AHMED, J.---By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 6-11-2010, passed by a learned single Judge in Admiralty Suit No. 12 of 2010, by which the application seeking arrest of the respondent No. 1 ship was dismissed as not maintainable. 2. The facts as argued by learned counsel are that the appellant has entered into an agreement for sale of its ship M.T. Kadriah-I with the respondents Nos.2 and 3. The said agreement of sale apparently did not materialize for non-compliance of obligations by the respondents Nos.2 and 3, pursuant to which the appellant entered into an agreement for sale of the said ship with another party. While the appellant claims to have sold the said ship to another party,…
🔒
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