Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 1502 2002 SLD 1502 2002 SCMR 1771
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions Nos. 92 and 93 of 2002, decision dated: 24-01-2002
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Ch. Naseer Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents

Messrs MASOOMI ENTERPRISES PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED and 2 others

VS

Messrs PING TAN FISHERY COMPANY and 5 others

Law:

Section:

Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)--- ----Ss. 3(2)(h) & 4(4)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 135(3)--­Admiralty suit---Maintainability---Plaintiff through an agreement authorized the defendant to operate ships/trawlers named therein on the plaintiff's fishing licence---Defendant defaulted in the payment of agreed amount and committed other breaches of contract, whereupon plaintiff filed Admiralty Suits claiming damages and arrest of the ships---High Court after finding that such vessels were owned by another company and not by defendant, transferred the suits to be dealt with on its original side as ordinary suits---Division Bench of High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the plaintiff on the grounds that such claim had not arisen from an agreement for hire of the ships; no ship belonging to plaintiff had been hired by defendant; said agreement could be termed as one for hire or use of a licence, which did not fall under S.3(2)(h) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980; and if it was assumed that defendant was sister concern and held majority shares in the owner company, yet no action in terms of S.4(4)(b) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 19$0, could be brought against those vessels as the plaintiff's claim had not arisen from those vessels---Validity---High Court had jurisdiction in any claim based on any agreement relating to carriage of goods in a ship or to its use or hire of a ship and none of the conditions was attracted to the present case---Defendant had only to ply its own ships on the licence of plaintiff and pay certain amount---Agreement in question basically was for use of licence, and such condition was not covered by S.3(2)(h) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980---Two arrested vessels were not those, which had been used in performance of the contract---High Court had rightly reached at the conclusion that ships in question did not belong to defendant, as such, even action under S.4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, was not warranted---Suits had rightly been transferred to original side--­Supreme Court refused to grant…
🔒
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