Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3079 2003 SLD 3079 2003 CLD 1655
Sindh High Court
Admiralty Suit No.11 of 2000, heard on 3rd September, 2002.
SHABBIR AHMED, J
Naeem Ahmed for Plaintiffs. Muhammad Naeem for Defendant.

VS

. M.T. PORTOFINO --Defendant

Law:

Section:

Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980) -- Ss.4 & 5 Admiralty suit Plaintiff had invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court against the defendant vessel by an action in rem Contention was that documentary evidence showed that the proposed defendant was owner of the vessel who had filed written statement therefore his presence before the Court was necessary for proper adjudication Validity Action in personam could have been brought in. respect of damage, loss of life or personal injury as a result of collision Contention that since the written statement on behalf of the vessel had been filed by the proposed, defendant, it had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and thus should be asked to be present in the Court was repelled and application of the plaintiff was dismissed. ORDER 1. By consent granted. 2. The plaintiff through C.M.A. 2652 of 2001 seeks to implead of Messrs Order Shipping Ind. as defendant No.2 in the suit for proper adjudication. 3. The facts, which are not disputed, are that the plaintiff invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court against the defendant Vessel by an action in rem. The documents annexed supports the contention of Mr. Naeem Ahmed, learned counsel for the plaintiff that the proposed defendant is owner of the Vessel and has filed written statement. Therefore, he contends that his presence before the Court is necessary for proper adjudication. Mr. Muhammad Naeem learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently opposed the application by filing counter affidavit. His contention is that the plaintiff has already invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by bringing the action in rem against the Vessel. He cannot join action in personam in the same proceedings against the owner. He also contended that if the plaintiff wants to implead the proposed defendant in proceeding for action in personam then the plaintiff may withdraw the suit against the ship and may proceed against the owner and, the security furnished on behalf of the defendant be discharged. His further contention was that two actions viz. action in rem can and action in personam cannot be joined together except as…
🔒
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