| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1968 SLG 91 1968 SLD 91 1968 PLD 15 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 4-D of 1967, decision dated: 17th October 1967. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 11th February 1965 it First Appeal No., 55 of 1956)
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLEAKBAR, HAMOODUR RPHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Muhammad Jaffar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdur Rab II, Attorney for Appellant. Muhammad JaniAlam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by J. H. Khan Attorney No. 1. Mozammel Huq, Advocate Supreme Cour
Civil Appeal No. 4-D of 1967, decision dated: 17th October 1967. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 11th February 1965 it First Appeal No., 55 of 1956)
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLEAKBAR, HAMOODUR RPHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Muhammad Jaffar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdur Rab II, Attorney for Appellant. Muhammad JaniAlam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. A. Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by J. H. Khan Attorney No. 1. Mozammel Huq, Advocate Supreme Cour
EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP Co.
VS
(1) HOSSAIN BROTHERS, (2) PAKISTAN, (3) QUEENSLAND INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AND (4) JAMES FINLAY & Co. Nos. 3 and 4: Ex parte.
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3)-Leave to appeal-Granted by Supreme Court to consider question whether shipowners operating in ports of Pakistan are protected (against damage to goods during transit) by terms and conditions mentioned in bills of lading. (b) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), Sched., Art. III, r.2-Words "shall properly and carefully discharge the goods carried"-Interpretation-Ordinary discharge of goods should be accompanied by ordinary duties of avoiding negligence. G. H. Renton & Co. Ltd. v. Palmyra Trading Corporation of Panama 1957 A C 149 ref. (c) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), Sched., Art. III, rr. 2 & 8 and Art. IV-Clauses in bill of lading exempting shipowners from liability for loss or damage-Cannot exonerate shipowners from liability for negligence in discharging cargo--Such clauses would also be null and void by reason of Art. III--Exceptions mentioned in Art. IV do not cover a case of failure to discharge goods "properly and carefully". The exception clauses do not exonerate the shipowners from liability for negligence. If there was a clause in the bill of lading exempting the shipowners from liability for loss or damage resulting from negligence in discharging the cargo even then it would not have helped them because the same would be null and void by reason of Article III of The Hague Rules. Rule 2 of Article III imposes on the carrier certain obligations in relation to those matters which the shipowner agrees to perform under the contract of affreightment. Further, the obligations set out therein must be carefully carried out by the shipowner. Article IV gives him certain tights and immunity in relation to those obligations which are mentioned in Article III, rule 2. Rule 8 of Article III, invalidates any provision in the bill of lading by which the carrier seeks to relieve himself from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with goods other wise than as provided in Article IV. Once the goods are loaded on the ship, the shipowner can free himself from the obligation by bringing himself within the exception mentioned in Article IV. Rule 2 of Article III is directed to the…
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