Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2749 2007 SLD 2749 = 2007 CLD 1465
Sindh High Court
Admiralty Suit No.29 of 2004 decided on 23rd December, 2006.
MUSHIR ALAM, J
Nisar A. Mujahid for Plaintiff.M. Naeem for Defendants.

Messrs MSC TEXTILES (PRNATE) LIMITED through Executive Director--PlaintiffvsASIAN POLLUX and 5others----DefendantsAhmed Investment Ltd. v. Sunrise IV PLD 1980 Kar. 229; Bangladesh Shipping Corporation v. Nedon PLD Kar. 246 and Yukong LTD.outh Korea

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

Section: 3(2)

Law: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXV1 of 1925)

Section: III, Cl. (6), para.3

Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 63

Law: Indian Limitation Act (1X of 1908)

Section: 31

(a) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)-------S. 3(2)---Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), Art. III, Cl. (6), para.3---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.63---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.31---Admiralty suit---Breach of contract for affreightment---Limitation---Computation---Bills of lading in original were with the plaintiff as the contract with the named consignee was rescinded; cargo was never delivered, it was in the defendant's warehouse; correspondence on record. showed that the delivery was 'not made and amidst reshipment negotiations the notice of auction was issued yet the defendants did not inform the plaintiff about the auction proceedings and goods were eventually auctioned which fact the plaintiff learnt later---Defendants until last minute continued to represent that they were making arrangements and efforts to re-export the goods to Pakistan---Allegation of fraud, committed by one of the employees of the consignee, who allegedly was mixed up with the auction-purchaser of the subject goods was, on record---Held, prima facie, at the best, date of auction could be taken as reckoning date to compute limitation of one year on which date the defendant could be said to have failed to deliver the goods---Principles. Abdul Jalil Chowdhury v. Muhammadi Steamship Company PLD 1961 SC 340 quoted.British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Abdul Razzak Abdul Kadir PLD -1967 SC 68; Dutsche Dampschiffaharts-Gesellschaft PLD 1975 Kar. 819 and Central Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Chitagong Steamship Corporation Ltd. PLD 1963 SC 633 ref.(b) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)-------S. 4---Charterer---Definition and scope---"Slot Charter" is included in the definition of "charterer"---Expression the charterer of the ship can include a slot charterer and a slot charterer can properly be described as the charterer of the Ship---Principles.Slot charter is included in the definition of charter. There is no reason to construe the word "Charterer" as if it meant demise charterer. If the draftsman had meant to confine the expression "charterer" to one type of charterer namely the demise charterer, there is no reason why…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register