Case Details

Citation(s)
1994 SLG 1053 1994 SLD 1053 1994 CLC 1498
Sindh High Court
Admiralty Suit No. 669 of 1986, heard on 26th January,, 1994
GH. MALIK, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MESSRS V.N. LAKHANI & CO., --Plaintiff

VS

THE SHIP LAKATOI EXPRESS--Defendant

Law:

Section:

(a) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980).-----S. 3(2)(H)---Admiralty jurisdiction---Extent---Plaintiff's claim was stated to have arisen from agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship---Such suit would fall within clause (H) of S. 3(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 and was thus, maintainable. Messrs Sun Line Agencies Ltd. v. Vessel m.v. "Psiloritis" and 2 others 1984 CLC 1553 and Messrs Arshad Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. v. The Ship Maersk Astro and 2 others PLD 1988 Kar. 515 rel. (b) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----S. 4(4)---Agreement relating to carriage of goods---Action in rein--­Maintainability---Condition precedent in maintaining an action in rein against carrier (defendant) was that plaintiff must show that when action was brought, ship was beneficially owned by shipper as respects majority of shares in ship in question---Such requirement was not satisfied, for defendant having entered into slot charter agreement with the shipper (who had signed bill of lading), no beneficial interest was conferred on him in the ship in question---Present suit relating to action in rein against defendant (ship) was, therefore, not maintainable. (c) Partnership-Act (IX of 1932)--- ---S. 69(2)---Suit in rein relating to carriage of goods to enforce a right arising from contract---Plaintiffs though a firm but being not a registered firm, suit by them was not maintainable. (d) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)- ----S. 4(4)---Locus standi to claim title in goods in admiralty jurisdiction--­Plaintiffs being holders of bill of lading have title to the goods represented thereby. (e) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925)--- ----Sched. Article IV, Para 2(i)---Carrier acknowledging receipt only of containers and not of contents thereof---Carrier was, therefore, not bound by the description of goods in the bill of lading---None of goods received by carrier were lost or stolen in transit or after receipt and same were delivered at the port all that it received from the shipper---Carrier (defendant) was, thus, not liable for the loss of goods, if…
🔒
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