Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMPASS TRADING CORPORATION LTD. VS Respondent: MANTA LINE INSC.Honorable Justice Saleem AkhtarK.A. Wahab
1988 C L C 2417
1988 C L C 2417
[Karachi]
Before Saleem Akhtar, J
Messrs COMPASS TRADING CORPORATION Ltd.‑‑Plaintiff
versus
MANTA LINE INSC. and 2 others‑‑Defendants
Admiralty Suit No.324 of 1984, decided on 4th July, 1988.
Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII oaf 1980)‑‑--
‑‑‑S. 4(4)‑‑Admiralty jurisdiction‑‑Maintainability of suit‑‑Defendants failing to deliver consignment of goods at agreed destination‑‑Admiralty suits by other claimants having been filed against defendants, one ship of defendants was arrested and sold by the orders of Court, sale proceeds whereof were lying with Nazir of Court‑‑Plaintiff having claim against the defendant‑Company wanted to get his decree satisfied through sale of proceeds of that Company already lying with the Court‑‑Conditions of applicability of provisions of S.4(4) of Ordinance (XLII of 1980) having been satisfied, suit of plaintiff was maintainable against defendant ship which had been sold by orders of Court‑‑ Plaintiff was entitled to get his decree satisfied through sale proceeds lying with the Court subject to priority as determined by Court.
K.A. Wahab for Plaintiff.
Date of hearing: 30th May, 1988.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.86,444.50. Briefly the facts are that plaintiff shipped a consignment of 100 bags of Chilly Powder weighing approximately 5 M/Tons under bill of lading No. Kar/Dub/5 dated 7‑5‑1983 on board m.v. Maimosa Trader. The goods were shipped in good order and condition and were to be discharged at Dubai. The defendants Nos.l and 2 failed to deliver the goods and in spite of correspondence with the local agent of defendants Nos.l and 2 the same were not delivered. It transpired that defendant No.2 had been arrested at Kuwait. As the defendants Nos.l and 2 failed to deliver the cargo at destination, the plaintiff has claimed Rs.86,444.50 and interest. This suit has been filed under the Admiralty Jurisdiction and the plaintiff hop claimed satisfaction of decree from the sales proceed of m.v. Rice Trader.
The defendants in spite of service have remained absent. The plaintiff examined one Tanveer Paracha who has produced documents to prove its claim. m.v. Rice Trader was arrested in Suit No. 252/84 and was sold under the orders of the Court. The sales proceed are deposited with the Nazir. Other claimants have filed Admiralty Suits for the claim of salvage, mortgage bunker and necessaries supplied to ship against m.v. Rice Trader. All those Admiralty Suits have been taken together and the parties have agreed that evidence of ownership of m.v. Rice Trader in any suit shall be treated as evidence in all the suits. The, question of ownership of m.v. Rice Trader and m.v. Maimosa‑ Trader has to be determined first as it goes to the root of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court in an action against m.v. Rice Trader. The goods were not shipped on board m.v. Rice Trader, the defendant No.3. The plaintiff's claim is that the goods were shipped on board m.v. Maimosa Trader but she has failed to perform her contractual obligation causing loss to it, and as m.v. Rice Trader and m. v. Maimosa Trader are owned by the same Company the plaintiffs' claim falls within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court. As the plaintiff wants to recover its claim from the sales: proceed of Rice Trader the provision of section 4 (4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 are attracted. From the evidence on record in Admiralty Suit No. 304/84 and Admiralty Suit 448/84 it is established that m.y. Maimosa Trader and m.v. Rice Trader are owned by Sports Maritime Inc. The conditions for applicability of section 4(4) of the Ordinance are also satisfied. Therefore in my view the suit against defendant No.3 is maintainable.
From the evidence on record, the plaintiff has proved its case. According to the evidence the value of the consignment was Rs.74,497.50. The plaintiff has not made out any case for grant of interest. The suit is therefore decreed for Rs.74,497.50 with cost of court‑fee against the defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff will be entitled to claim satisfaction of decree from the sale proceed of m.v. Rice Trader subject to priority as determined in the case of Twaha v. The Master m.v. Asian Queen and 2 others P L D 1982) Kar. 749 and Admiralty Suit No. 311/84. A.A./C‑56/K Suit decreed.