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

Section: 3(2)

  Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----S.3(2)---Plaintiff's claim of wages against ship-owners---Owners denying fact that plaintiff had ever served as Master of their ship---Proof---Plaintiff produced in evidence appointment letter by the agent of the vessel appointing him as Master of the ship and also submitted copy of the articles of agreement signed in presence of Shipping Master---Plaintiff also produced portage bill which included all the staff wages and the individual account wages of himself---Evidence produced by the plaintiff proved that he was appointed as Master of Ship and had actually served thereon during the period in question---Defendant's evidence being full of contradictions was also inconsistent with the case set up by them in written statement---Plaintiff was thus entitled to the wages claimed. Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----Ss. 3(2) & 4(3)---Claim of wages on account of maritime lien of vessel--Jurisdiction---High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine any claim made by a Master of a ship for wages---In case of a maritime lien on any ship of the amount claimed, Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court could be invoked by an action in rem against that ship. Azhar Ahmed Khan v. m.v. Ashar P L D 1985 Quetta 278 ref. Merchant Shipping Act (XXI of 1923)--- ----S.65(1)---Master of a ship would have the same rights, leins and remedies for the recovery of his wages as a seaman has under Merchant Shipping Act or by any law or custom. England III Edition Volume 35 at p. 785; English Report Volume 167 at p. 365 and m.v. Ashar P L D 1985 Quetta 278 rel. Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----Ss. 3(2) & 4(3)---Maritime lien of Master of a vessel---Maritime lien of plaintiff over the defendant ship having been proved he was granted decree to the claimed amount. Shaiq Usmami for Plaintiff. Farooq Naek and Muhammad Muzaffar-ul-Haq for Defendants. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1988.   JUDGMENT This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 64,639.20. The case of the plaintiff is, that he was engaged and appointed as Master of Vessel m.v.…