Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 2094 2000 SLD 2094 2000 CLC 1892
Sindh High Court
Suits Nos.386 of 1982 and 781 of 1985, decision dated: 26-02-1999
M. SHAIQ USMANI, J
Muhammad Naeem and Javed Farooqi for Defendants (in Suit No. 386 of 1982). Shoib Ali Khan for Plaintiffs (in Suit No. 781 of 1985). Bashir Shaikh and Muhammad Naeem for Defendants (in Suit No.781 of 1985). Imtiaz Lari, Jamil Ahmed Khan and Ghulam Muhammad

TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN----Plaintiff

VS

INTERCONTINENTAL OCEANIC ENTERPRISES CORPORATION and 2 others----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XII of 1980)-------Ss. 3, 4 & 7---Hague Rules, Arts. l & 2---Suit for recovery of amount of shortlanded goods---"Carrier", determination and responsibilities of---Carrier of consignment need not have to be the owner of vessel and it was the "carrier" who was responsible for any loss or damage to consignment. being responsible for the cargo from the time of loading till discharging of the cargo---When vessel arrived at the port and consignee managed to retire Bill of Lading from the Bank, only then consignee had opportunity to learn about the identity of the carrier---Occasionally name of the carrier was mentioned in -the forwarding letter of the Bill of Lading, but more often than not it bore the name of either Charterer of Managing Agents of the owners or the Charterers ---If the consignment was shortlanded or was damaged then consignee had a claim against carrier, but when he or his under-writer chose to initiate legal proceedings against the carrier, only person he knew definitely to be connected with carrier/vessel was Shipping Agent who entered the vessel in the port and who issued delivery order for the consignments---If Bill of Lading indicated the name of a party in the forwarding letter then he invariably impleaded him as a defendant in the proceedings and then by way of abundant caution and also in view of .provisions of S.55, Customs Act, 1969 he impleaded local shipping agents as well--True identity of carrier was of no concern to the consignee for his claim was against the carrier, whosoever that might be---Carrier being principal of Shipping Agent who ~ entered the vessel in port, it would be sufficient if consignee, while suing the carrier, merely mentioned the Agent as primary defendant. (b) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XIII of 1980)--- ---Ss. 3, 4 & 7---Hague Rules, Arts.3.2, 3..4 & 4.2(m)---Suit for recovery of amount of shortlanded goods---Liability of carrier---Once carrier loaded the consignment on board the vessel and issued a Bill of Lading, then the same would be deemed to have certified that goods that had been received were as described in the…
🔒
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