nikhan.law.ru@gmail.com

Admiralty Cases

2024-11-05

Since there is no Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction or Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this court to-day, part IX and Order XLIX of the Code are practically useless. It should further be remembered that the juris- diction exercised by this court under the Admiralty Act, Court the Companies Act and other statutory pro- visions are neither Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction nor Extra-ordinary civil Jurisdiction of this court rather they are Special Statutory Jurisdiction of this Court and the actions initiated under those laws are governed by the respective statutes and the rules framed thereunder. We have already seen that the jurisdiction exercised by this court as Admiralty Court emanates from the statute and the procedure is governed by the Rules framed thereunder. Thus Rule 35 of the Admiralty Rule will prevail over the provisions of the Code. Besides, the provisions of Part IX and Order XLIX of the Code have no manner of application to the instant cases, as the Admiralty Jurisdiction is completely different from both Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the erstwhile High Court. In Rule 3 of the Admiralty Rules it has been provided that a suit shall be instituted by a plaint drawn up, subscribed and verified according to the provisions of the Code and excepting as provided in Rule 3, there is nothing in the Rules which made the Code applicable for any other purpose in a proceeding in suit brought before the Admiralty Court. Provision of Rule 51 is very clear and it can not be construed to say that it makes the Code applicable to Admiralty Suit. Thus I do not find any force or substance in this argument.

Ref: 10 M.L.R(HC)(2005) -212
 

2024-11-04

The court as a successor of the Calcutta High Court inherited the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction and Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction under the Letters Patent, 1865 but these jurisdictions were never exercised either by the erstwhile Dacca High Court or by the High Court Division of Supreme Court when the Letters Patent was in force. These juris- dictions were theoretically available to this court but it never exercised that jurisdiction. Letters Patent was repealed and consequently the provisions as contained in Part IX of the Code and the Rules contained in Order XLIX of the Code have become useless, redundant, superfluous and unnecessary. Since there is no Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction or Extra- Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this court to-day, Part IX and Order XLIX of the Code are practically use- less. It should further be remembered that the jurisdiction exercised by this court under the Admiralty Court Act, the Companies Act and other statutory provisions are neither Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction nor Extra- Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court rather they are Special Statutory Jurisdiction of this court and the actions initiated under those laws are governed by the respective statutes and the rules framed thereunder this court as a successor of the Calcutta High Court inherited the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction and Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction under the Letters Patent, 1865 but these jurisdictions were never exercised either by the erstwhile Dacca High Court or by the High Court Division of Supreme Court when the Letters Patent was in force. These juris- dictions were theoretically available to this court but it never exercised that jurisdiction. Letters Patent was repealed and consequently the provisions as contained in Part IX of the Code and the Rules contained in Order XLIX of the Code have become useless, redundant, superfluous and unnecessary. Since there is no Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction or Extra- Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this court to-day, Part IX and Order XLIX of the Code are practically use- less. It should further be remembered that the jurisdiction exercised by this court under the Admiralty Court Act, the Companies Act and other statutory provisions are neither Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction nor Extra- Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court rather they are Special Statutory Jurisdiction of this court and the actions initiated under those laws are governed by the respective statutes and the rules framed thereunder.

Ref: 10 M.L.R(HC)(2005) -211
 

2024-11-03

To meet the argument suffice it to say that admiralty action is an action in rem as well as in personem. Secondly, it brooks no controversy that the Admiralty suits are not governed by the provisions of the Code rather they are governed by the Admiralty Rules and the Admiralty Rules appear to be complete for the purpose of regulating the proceedings in suits brought before Admiralty Court. So, the question of applying Rule 82 to onwards of Order XXI of the Code does not arise at all in the instant case.

Ref: 10 M.L.R(HC)(2005) -209
 

2024-11-02

Therefore, the considered opinion is that the present applications are governed by rule 35 of the Admiralty Rule of this court and pursuant to that the decree holder has filed an application for publishing an advertisement for sale of both movable and immovable properties of the judgment-debtor. It appears from the record that earlier also similar applications were filed in both the suits and those were allowed by the court and ordered for publication of advertisement for sale but due to filing of Judgment debtor the properties at that point of time could not be sold. The contention now raised by Mr. Reza, it appears from record, was never agitated earlier by the judgment-debtor. Be that as it may, I am of the clear view that in the instant case these applications are maintainable as these are governed by the Admiralty Rules and the instant applications are covered by the provision of rule 35 of the Admiralty Rules, 1912. In that view of the matter I am inclined to allow the applications for publication of notice for sale of the properties of the judgment debtor.

Ref: 10 M.L.R(HC)(2005) -209
 

2024-10-30

The said rule was framed in 1912 which was gazette on 12th June, 1912 and that rule is still in force in Bangladesh pursuant to the provisions of section 24 of the Admiralty Act, 2000. Section 24 of the present Act pro- vides that until rules are framed under the new Act the Admiralty Rules which were in existence will be followed and admittedly no rule has yet been framed under the Admiralty Act, 2000. Therefore the rules framed in 1912 under the provisions of the previous Act are still in force and govern the procedure in the Admiralty Court. Rule 35 of the Admiralty Rule, 1912 provides the procedures for sale of the property in execution of the decree and it shows that the decretal amount can be realized by adopting a procedure, which is laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for sale of movable proper- ties. It has been specifically provided by Rule 35 that every sale under the decree of the Admiralty Court shall unless the court otherwise order, be made by the Marshal in like manner as a sale of movable property in execution of a decree in an ordinary civil suit. In the instant case Rule 35 applies as it has not been ordered by the court that sale of immovable property be conducted in a manner as done by civil court in execution of a decree. Therefore, in order to realize and satisfy the decretal amount the decree holder need not at all resort to any execution case at all as contemplated by Order 21 of the Code. Be that as it may, a practice has developed though not required by law that sometimes to satisfy the decree in Admiralty Court execution cases are started. It must be emphasized that it is not the requirement of law. 

Ref: 10 M.L.R (HC) (2005) -209
 

2024-10-28

Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that Admiralty Rules formed part of the Original Side Rules of the then Calcutta High Court. This is an independent rule framed pursuant to the statutory authority to carry out the obligation imposed upon the High Court by statute of the parliament and this jurisdiction conferred upon the court is neither Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction nor Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. It must be termed as Special Statutory Jurisdiction of this court as it has been conferred on the High Court by an Act of Parliament.

Ref: 10 M.L.R(HC)(2005) -209
 

2024-10-27

Until Rules under the newly enacted Admiralty Court Act is framed rule 35 of the existing rules 1912 shall be applicable to the sale of movable property for realization of the decretal amount. Rules of Order XXI CPC shall not be applicable in such matter. Therefore the notion which is entertained by the legal community in Bangladesh about the connotation of "Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction" and "Extra-Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction" of the High Court Division is nothing but a misnomer and to get rid of that confusion and to reflect the correct position of law I had to advert to this point to refute the argument of Mr. Reza that Original Side Rules are applicable to these applications. I have taken the pains to lay down the correct legal position to erase the confusion from the minds of the judges and the lawyers alike.

Ref: 10 M.L.R(HC)(2005) -209
 

2024-10-26

Since Respondent No.1, obtained the order of its release from the Court upon furnishing Bank Guarantee with the clear stipulation that the same shall remain valid till the disposal of the Admiralty Suit and the same shall be extended for further period or periods if so desired by the Court and that as the Admiralty Suit remains pending the Respondent No. 1 and other respondents are required to keep their commitment valid to the Court and as such we are of the view that appellant's prayer for extension of the Bank Guarantee in consonance with justice and fair play was required to be allowed and the Court ought to have directed the Respondent No. 1 to furnish fresh Bank Guarantee even though prayer for extension of the validity of the Bank Guarantee or for fresh Bank Guarantee was made after the expiry of the Bank Guarantee earlier furnished and thereby to bind the Respondent No.1, who filed the Bank Guarantee while the application for release of the vessel was filed by Respondent Nos.1-4, to remain stead fast to her commitment made to the Court previously. The Court in its initial order of arrest of the vessel did not mention for how such period the security is to be furnished in case of seeking release of the ship. It is the Respondent No.1 who for his convenience offered the Bank Guarantee valid for one year with the stipulation the same would remain valid until the adjudication of Admiralty Suit and other proceeding in connection therewith and the Court having allowed the same taking into consideration the difficulty of the Respondent, she being thus duty bound to keep the offered security valid till termination of Admiralty Suit, as such the Court in making order to the Respondent either to extend validity of 'security or to furnish fresh security acts quite legally.

Ref: 8 M.L.R(AD)(2003) -265
 

2024-10-24

The Respondent No.1 assured the Court to satisfy the claim of the appellant if on the disposal of the Admiralty Suit is awarded and as a security thereof furnished the Bank Guarantee. Now if the Respondent No.1 is allowed to take plea that he has been discharged from the liability since appellant did not take step for extension of the Bank Guarantee within the time the same was valid that would be something unconscionable and that would amount to allow the Respondent No.1 to play fast and loose with the Court. Since she assured the Court to satisfy the claim of the appellant in case of final adjudication in his favour and thereupon got the ship released from arrest by furnishing Bank Guarantee as such it was the obligation of the Respondent No.1 to remain stick to her commitment made to the Court. In view of the stipulation given in the Bank Guarantee it was the duty of the Respondent No.1 to see that her undertaking to the Court remains valid till the disposal of the Admiralty -Suit. But as because the appellant on the Court did not take step, while Respondent No.1 was not sincere to her commitment for the extension of the - Bank Guarantee within the period of others who along with the said Respondent applied for release of the 1 validity, the Respondent No.1 and ship cannot be allowed to steal a march on the appellant and the Court and then while appellant came before the Court for extension of the Bank Guarantee or for giving direction for furnishing fresh Bank Guarantee to plead since validity of the Bank Guarantee furnished earlier has expired she has been discharged from her liabilities and as such cannot be directed to get the validity of the security extended or to furnish fresh security.

Ref: 8 M.L.R(AD)(2003) -265
 

2024-10-23

When the defendant ship secured her release from arrest upon furnishing Bank guarantee to be valid for certain period or till disposal of the Admiralty suit finally, it is incumbent upon the defendant to opstick to her commitment to the court. The defendant ought to have sought for the extension of the Bank Guarantee or the Court should have extended the Bank Guarantee in its own accord. There is no logic in the concept that the Bank Guarantee - cannot be extended after the expiry of  its term or fresh Bank Guarantee cannot be ordered and allow the defendant to excepted the liability by her own act of indolence.

Ref:8 M.L.R(AD)(2001) -150
 

2024-10-22

Section 479- Priority of claim- As provided under section 10 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, the High Court Division has the jurisdiction to decide the claim of the plaintiff seaman for salary, wages and allowances etc. which have preference over the other claim so long he is not signed off. His lien to the vessel can not be forfeited or he may not be deprived of his wages, allowances even on ground of loss of the ship. Since the action is in rem as well as personam the plaintiff is entitled to recover the decretal amount from the sale proceeds of the vessel or from the owner of the vessel or the operating agent as the case may be. Since the plaintiff has not been discharged earlier by the owner or Master he is entitled to his salary/wages and other allowances as per contract till he is signed off from the vessel and on consideration of the evidence of P.W.1 and documents exhibited, I have no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case and accordingly he is entitled to his total claim of US$ 7,162.90.

Ref: 5 M.L.R(HC)(2000) -217
 

2024-10-21

In the case of Haji Mohammad Suruj Miah and another Vs. Owners and parties interested in the Vessel M.I. Madina, the owner being Haji Abul Hashem reported in 20 D.L.R.(HC) 342 as far back as in 1967 it was held that the Admiralty Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine Marine accident for damages over Inland Water Ways in the province which is similar to that of the Court of Admiralty in England.

Ref: 3 M.L.R(AD)(1998) -59
 

2024-10-20

The controversy as to the jurisdiction of Admiralty Court for compensation arising out of accident of the vessels taking place in Inland waters has been settled. The jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court in entertaining and deciding suit for compensation or dam- age caused by accident due to negligent and rash driving within Inland Water has not been ousted by reason of the creation of Marine Court and empowering it to award compensation recover- able like a decree of civil court under section 52 of the Shipping Ordinance, 1976. The Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit for compensation arising out of the cause taking place both in Inland Water and on the high seas.

Ref: 3 M.L.R(AD)(1998) -59

2024-10-16

Damage for delay in delivery of Cargo can well be claimed. Such damage must be based on well reasoned criteria. Ship arrested can be released on furnishing sufficient Bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Court so that the damage as may be determined during trial of the suit can be easily paid to the plaintiff.

Ref: 2 M.L.R(HC)(1997) -194

2024-10-15

Section 19(1)(a) provides for tolls, dues, rates and charges upon vessel plying within or partly within and partly without the limits of the Chittagong Port. Section 19(1)(d) provides for charges for services rendered by the Port Authority to any vessel. Section 26 empowers the Port Authority to distrain vessels for non-payment of tolls, dues, rates, - charges or penalties payable under the Ordinance, while under section 27 the vessel requires a port clearance certificate before she is allowed to leave the Port. Under section 24 the Port Authority has, however, been invested with the power of remission of tolls, dues, rates or charges in special cases. We find no provision in the Ordinance, which empowers the court to exempt any vessel from payment of her dues payable to the Chittagong Port Authority.

Ref: 2 M.L.R (AD) (1997) -108

2024-10-14

The market value and the insured value of a vessel may be the same in some rare cases, as when a newly-built ship is insured for the first time and meets with an accident during the currency of the policy. But as the ship ages, her market value declines. The insured value will not represent her sound market value, because there are other considerations which weigh with both the insured and the insurer in putting an insured value on a vessel. The legal position is that the market value of a vessel will not be presumed to be her insured value, except in rare cases as indicated above, and the burden of proving the sound market value of the vessel at the termination of the policy will be on the plaintiff who claims on the policy.

Ref: 1 M.L.R(AD)(1996) -265

2024-10-09

On a true construction of the Schedule to the policy, therefore, in our opinion, the first amount of U.S.$ 2,2,50,000/- represents the maximum amount payable for partial loss caused to all or any of the subject matters of the vessel insured, the second amount of U.S $1,500,000/- represents the maximum amount payable for total loss of the vessel herself and the third amount of U.S. $2,2,50,000/- represents the maximum amount payable for repairs done during the currency of the policy. Accordingly, in the Dual Valuation Clause the insured value in (a) is U.S. $1,500,000/- and the insured value (b) is U.S $2, 2, 50,000/-That is how both the plaintiff and the defendant understood the policy is their respective plaint, written statement and evidence and it is too late in the day to put a different interpretation to it.

Ref: 1 M.L.R(AD)(1996) -265

2024-10-07

In the event of claim for Actual or Constructive total loss(a) shall be taken to be the insured value and payment by the Underwriters of their proportions of that amount shall be for all purpose payment of a total loss. In ascertaining whether the vessel is a constructive Total loss (b) shall be taken as the repaired value and nothing in respect of the damaged or break-up value of the vessel or wreck shall be taken into account. No claim for Constructive Total loss based upon the cost of recovery and/or repair of the Vessel shall be recoverable hereunder unless such cost would exceed the insured value as in. (b). In no case shall Underwriters' liability in respect of a claim for unrepaired damage, exceed the insured value as in.

 Ref: 1 M.L.R(AD)(1996) -265

2024-10-06

The vessel was not owned by the seller, rather, it was a chartered vessel by another charterer, again in violation of clause-7 of the contract, as such, delaying and detaining of the vessel would also cause serious loss to its owner who had no contractual obligation with the plaintiff. It might be that in order to balance the payment of 90% invoice value of the cargo they wanted to detain the vessel as a security against the payment fraudulently taken by the defendant no.5, but they ought to taken realized that they ought not to have done as against a third party who is a stranger to their contract, causing loss and damage to them and for such loss and damage to the de fondant nos.1 and 3, the plaintiff would now be held liable in detaining the vessel illegally since 15th July, 1999.

Ref:26 B.L.D(HCD)(2006) -162

2024-10-05

The concerned officials of the plaintiff realized that the bulk of the cargo was dam- aged, off specification and not fit for human consumption. As such, immediately, they ought to have taken steps in accordance with the provisions as stated in clauses-11, 12 and 14 but instead of taking the procedure spelt out in the contract itself the concerned officials of the plaintiff detained the vessel and unnecessarily delayed unloading of the cargo.

Ref: 26 B.L.D(HCD)(2006) -162

2024-10-03

The legal responsibility to deliver the consignment of rice of correct specification was entirely upon the seller, the defendant no.5, but it failed to discharge its such obligation under the contract. The damaged, un- wholesome cargo of rice, which was unfit for. Human consumption was discovered on 28th April, 1999. But the defendant no.5 by playing fraud upon the plaintiff, already negotiated the shipping documents on 23rd February, 1999, even before loading of the cargo started and also got 90% of the invoice value of the cargo.

Ref:26 B.L.D(HCD)(2006) -162

2024-10-02

Admiralty Suit is an action in rem generally and cause of action arises due to collusion of ships in the seas and/or for causing damage to cargo. Money can be realized pursuant to a decree in an Admiralty Suit by sale of any kind of properties and when a bank guarantee is furnished the decretal amount is satisfied out of the bank guarantee itself but in a case if the decretal amount exceeds the guarantee and or in the absence of any guarantee, the decree in an Admiralty Suit can be executed in Bangladesh if the defendants are within the jurisdiction of this court and they have properties in Bangladesh. Rule 35 pro- vides a complete procedure for realization of the decretal amount by selling the property of any kind of the judgment debtor unless otherwise directed by the court itself.

Ref: 25 B.L.D (HCD)(2005) -253

2024-10-01

Since respondents obtained the order of release of the vessel from the Court upon furnishing Bank Guarantee with the clear stipulation that the same shall remain valid till disposal of the Admiralty Suit and the same shall be extended for further period if so de- sired by the Court and as the Admiralty Suit remains pending, the appellant's prayer for extension of the Bank Guarantee, in consonance with justice and fair play, was required to be allowed and the Court ought to have directed the respondent to furnish fresh Bank Guarantee even though the prayer for extension was made after the expiry.

Ref: 25 B.L.D(2005)(AD) -100

2024-09-29

The merit of the suit is not relevant in granting an order of mandatory injunction. The outcome of the suit will depend upon its merit on evidence but an order of mandatory injunction will be issued to remedy an immediate wrong, perpetrated by the offending party in obtaining an advantageous position. The administration of justice requires that - issuance of this kind of Mandatory order where it is justifiable should not be delayed - on any pretext; otherwise, confidence of the people in the administration of Justice will be seriously shaken up.

Ref:23 B.L.D(HCD)(2003) -247

2024-09-26

The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim by the owner, or consignee, or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods carried into any port in England or Wales in any ship, for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligence or misconduct of or for any breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master, or crew of the ship, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that at the time of the institution of the cause any owner or part owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales: Provided al- ways, that if in any such cause the plain- tiff do not recover Twenty Pounds he shall not be entitled to any costs, charges or expenses incurred by him therein, unless the Judge shall certify the cause was a fit one to be tried in the said court. It appears that in order to attract section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 "goods have to be carried into any port of England. or Wales" And as far we are concerned for the words "England or Wales" obviously we are to read "Bangladesh”. In the instant case the cargo in question had never been brought to any port in Bangladesh by the defendant No.1 vessel. Unless the goods in question are carried into any port of Bangladesh, section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 cannot be made applicable and as such the plaint is liable to be returned.

Ref: 19 B.L.D(HCD)(1999) -240

2024-09-25

In view of the apparent contradiction in the amount of actual damage claimed by the plaintiff the Admiralty Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction and fixed the amount of money for release of the vessel from arrest at Tk. 1 Crore which far exceeds the actual damage as- wed by the defendant-respondent's surveyor.

Ref: 19 B.L.D(AD)(1999) -91

2024-09-24

Admiralty jurisdiction -Exercise of such Jurisdiction by the High Court Division- Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division, Dhaka exercises Admiralty jurisdiction under Admiralty Court Act,. 1861, Colonial Court of Admiralty Act 1890 and Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act (India) 1891- This Court exercises the same jurisdiction as the High Court of Admiralty of England exercised under Admiralty Court Act 1961-Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court in England was enlarged by Administration of Justice Act 1956 and under section 3 of the said Act any ship of the defendant can be arrested by the Admiralty Court in England-But a Court. of Admiralty in Bangladesh cannot by virtue of section 3 of the said Act arrest any vessel or property not concerned in the cause of action-Admiralty court Act 1861 S.6-Administration of Justice Act 1956 S.3-Colonial Courts, of Admiralty Act 1890 S. 2(2).

Ref: 6 B.L.D (1986) -117

2024-09-23

Arrest of ship in exercise of Admiralty junsdiction Whether Admiralty Court in Bangladesh can arrest a sister ship of the same owner in a suit though it was not concerned with the cause of action-Whether remedy in rem can be exercised against ship which is unconnected with the cause of action -Admiralty Court in Bangladesh has been exercising the same juris diction as was conferred upon the High Court of Admiralty in England under the provision of Colonial Court of Admiralty Act 1890 and Colonial Courts of Admiralty (India) Act 1891-The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh never exercised Admiralty jurisdiction on the basis of practices of the English Court of Admiralty-The principles of Administration of Justice Act 1956 extending Admiralty jurisdiction in England cannot be followed in Bangladesh as the said Act is not applicable in Bangladesh-This court exercising Admiralty Jurisdiction has no power to arrest any property or ship of the defendant other than the one which was concerned in the cause of action-The suit in rem is not main- trainable but in personam is maintainable.

Ref: 6 B.L.D(1986) -117

2024-09-22

Attachment before judgment-Whether Admiralty Court can arrest- a ship before judgment in exercise of Admiralty Jurisdiction in a suit in personam High Court Division in exercising Admiralty jurisdiction is regulated by Admiralty Rules-Admiralty Rules having specifically provided arrest of a ship in an action in rem the procedure of attachment before judgment would not be available to the Admiralty Court in an action in personam Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) Or. 38 r. 5-Admiralty Rules, 1932 r. 4).

Ref: 6 B.L.D(1986) -118

2024-09-21

Admiralty Jurisdiction-Admiralty court in Bangladesh exercising admiralty Jurisdiction has power to arrest any property or ship of the defendant other than the one which was concerned in the cause of action-Suit is rem against other ship not maintainable nor such ship can be attached under order 38 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure-International Commerce and trade cannot be allowed to be disturbed by the arbitrary notions of conduct of a party to a suit- Admiralty Court Act 1861 S. 6-Code of Civil Procedure

Ref: 6 B.L.D(AD)(1988) -107

2024-09-08

At the end of the trial of the suit, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree only if he is able to satisfy the Court in respect of his claim and will recover the amount which he is able to prove by adducing satisfactory evidence. The defendants will have every opportunity to disprove or minimize the claim of the plaintiff.

Ref:71 D.L.R (AD) (2019) -335

2024-09-07

Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court-The question of declaration of General Average Bond and signing of General Average Guarantee by the plaintiff is out of ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court (the Admiralty Bench of the High Court Division) and falls under the purview of arbitration

Ref: 71 D.L.R (AD) (2019) -50

2024-09-03

A suit for the purpose of realization of investment/loan amount against a maritime or inland vessel or any navigable device is squarely maintainable under section 3(2) of the Act against which the provision of section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 is not applicable. The suit, filed in the Admiralty Jurisdiction for realization of invested money on the vessels is squarely maintainable.

Ref: 69 D.L.R (2017)- 409

2024-09-02

Beneficial owner – Action in persona – The shareholders of the company which owns MV X- Press Manaslu, the defendant No. 1 vessel, and the defendant No. 5 are same, and that the two vessels viz MV X-Press Manaslu and MV X- Press Resolve, are presently under charter with the defendant No. 5 who in law will be deemed to be the beneficial owner of the same. Since the defendant No. 5 would be liable for the claim in the suit in an action in personam the same is capable of being enforced by an action in rem against the vessels.

Ref: 58 D.L.R (2006) -185

2024-09-01

The language of this section, which confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Admiralty is very specific and definite as to persons who can raise a claim in the Court of Admiralty. Among the persons entitled to raise a claim in the said Court, an insurer is not included.

Ref: 46 D.L.R (1994) -185

2024-08-26

Although rejection of the plaint was prayed for, the plaint is returned to the filing advocate in exercise of inherent power as the Admiralty Court lacks jurisdiction and the plaint cannot be rejected by such a court, the provision for rejection of plaint having not been made applicable under the rule of the Admiralty Court.

Ref: 45 D.L.R (1993) -740   

2024-08-22

In an admiralty suit where the plaintiff fails to produce the original bill of lading, the owner of the ship or its master or agent cannot give delivery order of the cargo and if it is so given, the carrier shall be liable for breach of contract. In order to invoke the court's admiralty jurisdiction two conditions are to be satisfied, one is the damage done to the goods on board the ship by negligence or misconduct of the owner, master or crews of the ship and the other breach of the contract in relation to the cargo.

Ref: 45 D.L.R (1993) -740

2024-08-20

Maritime claim – Suit by insurer relating to declaration of General Average whether maintainable under the Admiralty Jurisdiction – There is no cause of action shown as regards any damage done to goods and there is no prayer  for decree for compensation for any damaged goods. Decree for damages must be prayed in an admiralty suit and the prayer relating to declaration of General Average and may be made as additional or consequential relief for damage to goods by carrier during the voyage. The declaration as prayed in the present case cannot independently come within the purview of any of the provisions of the Admiralty Court Act. The plaintiff’s suit is just like a declaratory suit of civil nature which is not contemplated under provision of the Admiralty Court Act.

Ref: 44 D.L.R (1992) -171  

2024-08-19

Agent’s liability – An action of the principal which has got a criminal liability is an action in personem, not in rem. There having been nothing to show that the agent has taken all the liability for even such individual action, the agent defendant No. 3 cannot be held liable in the present case for the principal defendant Nos. 1 & 2. The agent  will in fact be liable only for those actions of the principal which are prescribed in law or in some contract between the agent and the principal.

Ref: 44 D.L.R (1992) -31

2024-08-18

Collision between two ship – Their liability when no ratio of responsibility could be determined – Considering the materials on record it is concluded that both the vessel were careless and negligent which resulted in the collision. So applying the principal that if the negligence of on party is such as to cause the other party to make a negligent mistake that he would not otherwise have made, than both of them are equally responsible and liable.

Ref: 44 D.L.R (1992) -31

2024-08-17

Suit under Admiralty jurisdiction when not maintainable – Since the plaintiff is neither the Landing of any goods and since no damage was done to any  goods of the plaintiff on board by the defendant, the plaintiff -insurer has no locus standi to invoked the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court Act. The plaint be returned to the plaintiff with liberty to file it in appropriate court if not otherwise barred.

Ref. 43 D.L.R (1991) -548

2024-08-16

Locus standi to invoked Admiralty jurisdiction – Only the owner or consignee or assignee of the Bill of Lading of any goods may claim damages against the owner, master or crew of the ship. The plaintiff insurer having satisfied neither of these descriptions they have no locus standi to invoked the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court.

Ref: 43 D.L.R (1991) -322

2024-08-14

The Court of Admiralty of this Court would have the same jurisdiction as that of the Court of Admiralty in England and as a matter of fact that Court of Admiralty in England never admitted to have made any distinction between collision on the high seas.

Ref: 42 D.L.R (1990) -289

2024-08-13

Jurisdiction of the High Court of  Admiralty in England over any claim for necessaries supplied to any ship elsewhere in the Port to which the ship belongs and have jurisdiction over any claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods carried into any Port in England or Wales in any ship for damage done to the goods by negligence or misconduct on the part of the owner, master or crew of the ship.

Ref: 42 D.L.R (1990) -289

2024-08-12

Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance.

Jurisdiction of High Court in matters concerning marine insurance or maritime assurance arising out of such contracts and claims arising out of a marine mortgage is covered by section 11 of the Admiralty Courts Act of 1861 and by section 43 of the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance – This Court (H.C. Division) is competent to her this application and proceed on merit.

Ref: 42 D.L.R (1990) -281

2024-08-11

England’s Admiralty Court was conferred jurisdiction by section 3(4) of Administration of justice Act of 1956 to arrest any vessel or property of the defendant though it had no concern with the cause of action. But similar power to arrest any ship which is not the subject matter of the suit cannot be exercised by the Admiralty Court of Bangladesh by virtue of the power given to the England Admiralty Court by section 3(4).

Ref: 38 D.L.R (1986) -31   

2024-08-10

Inland water ways, High Court’s jurisdiction over. –One the day when the Courts of Admiralty (Pakistan) Act was enacted in 1891 the High Court had the same jurisdiction over inland waterways in the province, which is similar to that of the court of admiralty in England.

Ref: 20 D.L.R (1968) -343

 

2024-08-08

A Session Judge is competent to try an office under sec.23, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, as amended by Act 32 of 1956 read with sec. 29 (2), Criminal procedure code, and to impose unlimited amount of fine and, thereby Act 40 of 1957 dose not amount to retrospective enhancement and hence conviction by the Session Judge for offences committed in 1956 and imposing a fine of Rs.20, 000 in trial held after the Act 40 of 1957 came into force is valid.

Ref: 11 D.L.R (S.C) 1959 -239

2024-08-07

Agent –Substituted agent.

Bank –Its responsibility when acting on behalf of and on the instruction of a consignee of imported goods who is also its constituent in nominating and instructing a clearing agent.

Clearing Agent –Circumstances when someone engaged for clearance of goods by Bank for the benefit of an importer become the agent, not of the bank, but of the importer.

Ref: 10 D.L.R (1958) -552

2024-08-06

Contract –Shipowner no liable (in absence of special contract) to notify the arrival of ship to the consignee –In case of contractual obligation, a letter addressed to the consignee is enough

Two clauses in the bill of lading, one to the effect that notice is to be given to the consignee and the other saying that such directions are for the purpose of the ship’s agent and not for creating any responsibility to consignee. –No obligation to notify the consignee is thereby created.

Ref: 10 D.L.R (1958) -228

2024-08-04

Liability of Carrier by Sea.

Carrier by Sea are governed by the Common Law of England. These carriers by sea who offer to carry goods of all comers in a general ship or who run a line of ships from port to port habitually carrying all goods brought to them are under the Common law common carriers and thus incur the same liability in respect of loss or a damage to the goods carried by them as inland navigation carriers subject to any express exceptions reliving them from such liability.

The position is not different where instead of a charter party agreement there is only a bill of lading.

The liability of a ship-owner at Common Law is much higher than that of a bailce, for, he is in the position of an insures of the goods.

Ref: 10 D.L.R (1958) -213 

2024-07-18

Admiralty Court of Bangladesh-Its jurisdiction.

Bangladesh Supreme Court exercises its admiralty jurisdiction by virtue of Admiralty Court Act of 1861, read with Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890 (India) in like manner as done in England's Admiralty Courts by virtue of Admiralty Court Act, 1890 read with Admiralty Court Act of 1861.

Ref: 38 DLR (1986) -30

2024-07-17

High Court Division of Bangladesh exercising jurisdiction has no power to arrest/attach any vessel, belonging to the defendant, a foreign shipping company, when it is not the vessel which carried the goods of the plaintiff seeking reparation for loss and damage to his goods carried by another vessel of the defendant; nor the prevision of Orer 38, rule 5, CP Code can be invoked for attachment before judgment in such a case : Prevision of section 3 of the administration of Justice Act 1956 have no application and cannot be called in aid by the admiralty jurisdiction of the Bangladesh High Court Division.

Ref:38 DLR (1986) -30

2024-05-17

In Tattersall v. National S.S. Co. Reported in (1884) 12 Q.B.D. 297.
Cattle had been shipped under a bill of lading, by which it was stipulated that the defendants were in no way responsible for either their escape from the steamer, or for accidents, disease, or mortality, and that under no circumstances shall they be held liable for more than £5 for each of the animals.' The ship had not been properly cleansed before the cattle were received on board, and in consequence they were affected by foot-and-mouth disease. It was held that the liability of the defendants was not limited by the clause to £5 for each of the cattle. For the stipulations of the bill of lading related to the carriage of the goods on the voyage, and did not affect the liability to provide a ship fit for the reception of the cattle.

2024-05-11

In Reusse v. Meyers, Reported in(1813) 3 Camp. 475.
A ship was described as Swedish in a charter- party for a voyage from London to Gottenburg. The charterer refused to load her, on the ground that she was not Swedish but British built, whereby he had been prevented from sending her to Gottenburg. Evidence was given by the owner that she was, in fact, British built, but that, when the contract was made, she had a complete set of Swedish papers, and a treasury licence to sail as a Swedish ship, ali of which was known to the charterer. Lord Ellenborough said: 'I should hold that the ship must correspond with the description in the written contract; but she is Swedish in one sense, being furnished with Swedish papers, and in a condition to navigate as a Swedish ship. Although the expression in the memorandum for charter be ambiguous, I think it was enough that she had a Swedish national character imposed upon her, and that she was Swedish within the meaning of the parties to the contract.'

2024-05-10

In Maritime National Fish v. Ocean Trawlers Reported in [1935] A.C. 524
A trawler was chartered for the purpose of trawling with certain gear. That gear could not be used without a licence. A licence was refused because the charterers were only permitted to obtain licences for three trawlers, and had already obtained three licences. The Privy Council held that the adventure was frustrated by the charterers' own default, and that they could not rely on their own default to excuse them from liability under the contract.

2024-05-06

In Rendal v. Arcos Reported in (1937) 53 T.L.R. 953
The owners of the Rendal brought an action against charterers in respect of damage to the ship by ice. The Court of Appeal held that the owners were not entitled to recover on the ground that they had not given notice of claim within twelve months as required by the charterparty. A letter by which the owners claimed in detail for delay and reserved their right to claim compensation for damage to the ship, as the ship had not been surveyed, was sent to a trade delegation who acted as agents for the charterers. The delegation repudiated the claim. The House of Lords held, reversing the Court of Appeal, that sufficient notice had been given, on the grounds (i) that (per Lord Wright) the delegation by repudiating the claim waived further particularisation of it, or (per Lord Maugham) that the letter indicated that a claim would be made and that that was sufficient notice of claim; and (ii) that the prima facie inference of fact was that the delegation passed on the letter to the charterers.

2024-05-04

In Thrift v. Youle, reported in (1877) 2 C.P.D. 432.
100 barrels of oil and 106 bales of palm baskets were shipped under one bill of lading, which contained the clause 'not accountable for rust, leakage, or breakage.' On delivery two barrels of the oil were found to be empty, and sixty of the bales of palm baskets were damaged with oil. It was held, that the shipowner was responsible for the damage to the bales. Grove, J., said: "The words in the bill of lading simply mean that if the goods shipped are injured by rust, or if the casks containing them become leaky or are broken, the shipowner is not to be accountable; there is nothing in the bill of lading to show that the clause is to be extended to remote consequences; and the ulterior injury arising from leakage may be of a very important kind, and nevertheless of a totally different nature; suppose, for instance, that a cask of spirits leaks, and that what escapes from it catches fire and destroys other goods; I think that this clause would not protect the shipowner from liability to compensate the owner of the goods burnt."

'Denman, J.; said: "The sole question for our consideration is the meaning of the word "leakage." Some goods, such as oil stored in barrels, are apt to leak; and by the insertion of this word it was intended to protect the shipowner from liability to compensate the owner of the goods for the waste occasioned by leakage. I do not think the word can have a more comprehensive meaning. In like manner, by the use of the word "breakage," it was merely intended that the shipowner should be absolved from liability in respect of goods broken during the voyage; it would be absurd to suppose that it could extend to damage done by the broken goods to other goods."

2024-05-03

In Geipel v. Smith, reported in (1872)L.R. 7 Q. B. 404.
A British ship was chartered to load a cargo of coals in England to be carried to Hamburg; restraints of princes and rulers excepted. Before anything had been done, Hamburg was blockaded by the French, at war with Germany; England remaining neutral. The shipowner refused to take a cargo on board; and to an action by the charterer he pleaded that the charterparty could not have been carried out and fulfilled within a reasonable time in that behalf, except by running the blockade. It was held that this was a sufficient defence. For the blockade, being assumed to be effective, was within the exception of restraints of princes; and 'the effect of such a state of things as an effective blockade of the port of discharge is not merely to excuse delay in the carrying out of the contract, but that, after a reasonable time, it relieves the parties, the contract being altogether executory, from the performance of it. . . . The object of each of them was a carrying out of a commercial speculation within a reasonable time; and if restraint of princes intervened, and lasted so long as to make this impossible, each had a right to say, "Our contract cannot be carried out": and, therefore, the shipowner had a right to sail away, and the charterer to sell his cargo or refrain from procuring one, and to treat the contract as at an end.

2024-05-02

Where goods are delivered to a carrier insufficiently packed, and are damaged in the course of transit, the carrier's knowledge of their condition at the time of their receipt will not of itself estop him from setting up as a defence that the damage was due to insufficient packing.

Ref: Gould v. S.E. & C. Ry. [1920] 2 K. B. 186.

The carrier is still bound to use care in carrying the goods; and where the packages containing them are plainly defective, or become so during the voyage, and he has notice of the defects and might remedy them, he may be liable if he fails to do so.

Ref: See Richardson v. N.E.Ry. (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 75;

2024-05-01

Mellish, L. J., in a case reported in (1876) 1 C.P.D. 19, P. 441 observed: 
"It being a clear rule of law, that if the loss of the goods carried is occasioned by an irresistible act of nature, the carrier is protected; and another clear rule of law, that if the loss of the goods is solely occasioned by a defect in the thing itself, the carrier is also protected; it seems to me to follow that, if the loss is occasioned partly by an act of nature, although one not by itself irresistible, and partly by a defect in the thing itself, although that defect is not the sole cause of the loss, and the carrier has no means of preventing the combined effect of the two causes, he ought to be held protected. The principle seems to me to be that a carrier does not insure against acts of nature, and does not insure against defects in the thing carried itself; but in order to make out, a defence, the carrier must be able to prove that either cause taken separately, or both taken together, formed the sole and direct and irresistible cause of the loss. I think, however, that in order to prove that the cause of the loss was irresistible, it is not necessary to prove that it was absolutely impossible for the carrier to prevent it, but that it is sufficient to prove that by no reasonable precaution under the circumstances could it have been prevented."

 

2024-04-30

Best, C.J., in Riley v. Horne, observed:
"When goods are delivered to a carrier, they are usually no longer under the eye of the owner; he seldom follows or sends any servant with them to the place of their destination. If they should be lost or injured by the grossest negligence of the carrier or his servants, or stolen by them, or by thieves in collusion with them, the owner would be unable to prove either of these causes of loss; his witnesses must be the carrier's servants, and they, knowing that they could not be contradicted, would excuse their masters and themselves. To give due security to property, the law has added to that responsibility of a carrier, which immediately rises out of his contract to carry for a reward, namely, that of taking all reasonable care of it, the responsibility of an insurer."

Ref: (1828) 5 Bing. 217, 220.

Admiralty law

2024-04-28

Admiralty law

Admiralty law, also known as maritime law, is a distinct body of law governing maritime activities and issues that occur on navigable waters. This area of law encompasses various legal principles and rules related to shipping, navigation, marine commerce, and the transport of goods and passengers by sea. Admiralty law covers a broad range of topics, including:

  1. Maritime Contracts: This includes agreements for shipping goods, passenger transport, and other services related to maritime commerce.

  2. Shipping and Navigation: Admiralty law deals with regulations and safety standards for ships and other vessels, as well as the duties and liabilities of shipowners, captains, and crew.

  3. Maritime Liens and Claims: Claims for damage to cargo, personal injury, salvage operations, or other maritime-related issues can lead to maritime liens on ships or other property.

  4. Piracy and Crimes at Sea: Admiralty law also addresses criminal acts that occur on navigable waters, such as piracy and smuggling.

  5. Salvage and Rescue: Salvage laws govern the recovery of ships and cargo in distress at sea, as well as compensation for salvage operations.

  6. Torts: Maritime torts, such as collisions at sea or injuries to passengers and crew, are covered under admiralty law.

  7. Maritime Insurance: Admiralty law includes the rules and regulations governing insurance policies for ships, cargo, and other maritime risks.

  8. Jurisdiction: Admiralty law often involves the resolution of disputes in specialized courts or tribunals, depending on the country.

Admiralty law is a specialized and complex field that may vary from one jurisdiction to another. It can be influenced by international conventions and treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which set out global standards and rules for maritime activities.

2024-04-28

The term "Admiralty" has multiple meanings depending on the context, but it is most commonly associated with maritime law and naval administration. Here's an overview of the different contexts in which the term is used:

  1. Admiralty Law: This refers to the branch of law that governs maritime issues and private maritime disputes. It includes laws related to shipping, navigation, marine commerce, sailors' rights, and the transportation of goods and passengers over water. Admiralty law is a specialized field that deals with legal matters such as maritime contracts, torts, injuries, and offenses.

  2. Admiralty Courts: These are courts that have jurisdiction over maritime disputes and offenses. Admiralty courts handle cases involving maritime contracts, torts, and injuries, as well as crimes committed on the high seas.

  3. Naval Administration: Historically, "Admiralty" has also been used to refer to the government department responsible for overseeing a nation's navy. In the United Kingdom, the Admiralty was a key part of the government that managed the Royal Navy until it was merged into the Ministry of Defence in 1964.

  4. Admiralty Charts: These are nautical charts produced by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO) under the brand name "Admiralty." These charts are used for navigation and are known for their accuracy and detail.

Overall, "Admiralty" encompasses the legal, administrative, and technical aspects of maritime affairs, including laws and regulations governing maritime activities and the management of naval forces.