Summary: An Admiralty claim was filed in Pakistan Rupees for Invoices raised in United States Dollars duly acknowledged by the master of the vessel. Neither evidence was brought on record to corroborate the rate of exchange applied, nor did the defendant raise any objections. The rate of exchange applied for the conversion of USD Invoices in PKR accepted. Court auction order passed by the Court of the Republic of Togo duly certified evidence of change in title of ownership. Court auction order evidenced that at the time of the cause of action accrued in Pakistan against the vessel, the vessel was not owned by the new owner. Plaintiff's claim is neither maritime lien nor sustainable under Sections 4(3) and 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance, 1980 nor is fraud alleged by Plaintiff proven. During the hearing, Defendant No.2, the Agent of Vessel, furnished an Affidavit of No Objection accepting the claim amount in personam. In the circumstances, the suit was decreed against the Defendants.

Summary: The plaintiff, an Istanbul-based shipping agency, filed the suit under admiralty jurisdiction for the recovery of PKR 71,450,396, claiming dues from the defendants related to repair works on a vessel, defendant No. 1, owned by defendant No. 2 and flagged under Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. The vessel was berthed at Karachi Port within Pakistan's territorial waters at the time of filing.The plaintiff alleged that despite a previous agency agreement and subsequent mutual understanding for repair works carried out by a third party, NARP Denizcilik San. Ve Tic. Ltd., at Tuzla Hidro Dinamik Shipyard, the defendant No. 2 failed to pay the invoiced amount of USD 374,000. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a case in the Commercial Court of First Instance in Turkey, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering defendant No. 2 to pay USD 371,666.90 along with additional indemnification and claims. The plaintiff received only USD 54,654 from the secured amount by defendant No. 2 before the Turkish Court.The suit in the Sindh High Court was not for enforcing the Turkish Court's judgment but an independent claim under admiralty jurisdiction for the unpaid dues. The vessel was ordered to be arrested subject to furnishing security in the claimed amount. The defendants contested the suit and the arrest application, arguing that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court of Turkey and that the claim was barred by time even under admiralty jurisdiction if not for the enforcement of the foreign judgment.Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui dismissed the suit and pending applications as not maintainable, applying the doctrine of res judicata. The court determined that the plaintiff's claim had already been adjudicated in the Turkish Court, and pursuing a similar claim under admiralty jurisdiction in the Sindh High Court was barred by the principles of res judicata, given that the foreign judgment was not being challenged or enforced directly in this suit. The court emphasized that litigation must come to an end at some point, and the sanctity of judgments, including foreign judgments, must be recognized to maintain legal certainty and prevent the re-litigation of decided matters. ---- ''Section 11 CPC is universal doctrine so it does not matter if the judgment is of a foreign Court or of a Court beyond the territorial limits of this Court. The subject claim is a tried and adjudicated issue (within competent jurisdiction) and hence it is being applied for enforcing res- judicata. There is no legislation enacted contrary to the acceptance ofsuch rule except as provided in Section 11 CPC. ''-- ''The explanation provides that a former suit is one which has beendecided prior, irrespective of its filing date. Explanation II provides thatfor the purpose of Section 11 competence of Court shall be determinedirrespective of any provision as to right of appeal from the decision ofsuch Court '' ''Explanation III provides that matter referred to must in theformer suit have been alleged by one party and either denied oradmitted expressly or impliedly by the other. Explanation IV providesthat any matter which might or ought to have been made ground ofdefence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been amatter directly or substantially in issue in such suit and underExplanation V any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expresslygranted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section be deemedto have been refused. The remaining explanation VI is not relevant forthe purposes of issue in hand. ''

Summary: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980 (XLII of 1980)------Ss. 3(2)(a) & 4--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O.VII R. 11--Suit for recovery--Negotiation for sale of vessel--Refusal to sale ofvessel--Vessel was sold out to Defendant No--1--Issuance of legal notice--Maritime claim--Admiralty jurisdiction--Power of Court--Non-payment of amount regarding sale of vessel--Maintainability--Neither plaintiff has paid any amount in respect of alleged sale transactionnor delivery has taken place nor any such promise of payment and delivery has been made byeither of parties--Claim of plaintiff does not arise out of any of conditions provided in section3 (2) of Ordinance as plaintiff has no claim of a nature provided in section 3(2) of Ordinanceupon or against defendant vessel--Damages apparently are not covered by provisions ofsection 3(2) of Ordinance and cannot, in my view, be enforced in rem against defendant ship--Plaintiff has failed to make out a case for passing any decree his favour and againstdefendants in terms as prayed for--Suit was rejected. [Pp. 82 & 87] C, E, F & GPLD 2011 Karachi 102 & 2002 SCMR 1771 ref.Word & Phrases------Valid gift--Basic requirements--Basic requirements of a valid and enforceable contract areoffer, acceptance, exchange of consideration and mutuality of obligations. [P. 81]ASale Transaction------Essential elements--Essential elements for any sale transaction are (a) payment of sale priceof property moveable or immovable or promise to pay same by buyer to seller, and (b)delivery of possession of property. [P. 82] BAdmiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980 (XLII of 1980)------S. 3(1)(g)--Claim of right--Any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in aship.

Summary: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)-------Ss.3 & 4---Suit for recovery of money---Maintainability---Action in "rem" and"personam"---Scope---Beneficial ownership---Proof---Plaintiff sought recovery of liability ofoutstanding price of fuel/bunker services provided by it to defendant company for ships---When the suit was filed defendants had already sold the ships which were in the process ofbreaking---Validity---Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court under S. 3(2)(l) of AdmiraltyJurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, could be invoked to determine any cause /claim in respect of necessaries supplied to a ship including fuel / bunker service--- Accordingto S. 4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, if a claim under S.3(2)(l) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, arising in connection witha ship, claim could give rise to a maritime lien on the ship only when Admiralty jurisdictionof High Court could be invoked by an action in rem against the ship, if at the time when theaction was brought, that ship was beneficially owned in respect of majority shares therein bythat person who was liable to the claim in an action in personam---Suit filed by plaintiff wasnot maintainable under Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court---Suit was dismissed, incircumstances.Messrs International Bunkering Middle East DMCC v. M. T. Tridonawati 2012 CLD1611; Atlantic Steamer's Supply Company v. m. v. Titisee and others PLD 1993 SC 88 andHong Leong Finance Limited v. Asian Queen PLD 1991 SC 1021 rel.Yousuf Kazi v. s.s Phoenix PLD 1978 Kar. 1052; Sajid Plastic Factory v. MSCBahamas PLD 2020 Sindh 568; Khadija Edible Oil Refinery (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M.T "Galaxy"2011 CLD 709; Ahmed Investment Ltd. v. M.V. "Sunrise IV" PLD 1980 Kar. 229; YukongLtd. South Korean Company. v. M.T. Eastern Navigator PLD 2000 SC 57; DiamondEngineering Mechanical, Electrical and Marine Engineering Contractors v. M.V LUCTOR-IPLD 1978 Kar. 837 and MSC Textiles (Private) Limited v. Asian Pollux 2007 CLD 1465distinguished.

Summary: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance (XLII of 1980)-------Ss. 3, 4 & 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Action in rem---Scope---Rejection of plaint---Sale of ship---Appellants/ plaintiffs sought recovery of outstandingwages from respondent/defendant company on the plea that it was beneficial owner of ship inquestion---Trial Court rejected plaint filed by appellants/ plaintiffs for the reason that theship had already been sold---Validity---Action in rem could be invoked against ship orproperty against which maritime lien was claimed by plaintiff---Maritime lien was aprivileged claim which could be exercised over res (ship)---Such claim occurred the momentcause of action had arisen and traveled with the res (ship) secretly and unconditionally andcould be enforced by an action in rem---Such right only extinguished when ship wasdemolished--- Action in rem against ship or her sister ship arose subject to conditionenumerated in S. 4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980---Purchaser/vendee of ship filed application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. along with bill of sale,whereby ship in question was owned/purchased through a leasing company free from allencumbrances---Sale document was not denied specifically by appellants/plaintiffs at thetime when suit was filed--- Beneficial title in ship in question was passed on to new ownerand condition laid down by S. 4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance,1980, was not satisfied---High Court declined to invoke action in rem against the ship,particularly when the ship had been demolished---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.PLD 1986 Quetta 107; 2005 YLR 2838; PLD 2006 SC 214; PLD 2000 Kar. 258; PLD1996 Kar. 365; PLD 2000 Kar. 691; 2003 CLC 1602; 2013 MLD 1132; PLD 1990 SC 859;;1995 SCMR 584 and AIR 1922 P.C. 269 ref.PLD 1993 SC 88; 1989 CLC 2168; PLD 1991 SC 102; Mst. Yamin and 2 others v.Muhammad Yamin and 2 others PLD 2006 SC 214; Hong Leong Finance Limited v. m.v.Asian Queen through Nazir High Court PLD 1991 SC 1021; Atlantic Steamer's Supply v.m.v. Titisee and others PLD 1993 SC 88; Inham Refrigeration B.V. v. The owners of "F.T.Parivash and Transocen Holdings Ltd. PLD 1989 Kar. 65; Messrs Maratos and Co. v. RiceTraker and 2 others PLD 1989 Kar. 94; Semco Salvage Pte Limited v. m.v. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan Turkish and 2 others 1995 MLD 706; Azhar Ahmad Khan and others v. M.V. and 3others PLD 1985 Quetta 278; Metal Construction of Greece S.A (Mekta S.A), Athensthrough Attorney v. Owners of the Vessel m.v. Lady Rea 2013 CLD 1829; Jaffer Brothers(Pvt.) Limited v. m.v. 'Eurobulker II' presently Brethed at Moorings in Karachi Port to beserved through Master 2002 CLD 926; Messrs Khadija Edible Oil Refinery (Pvt.) Ltd. v.m.v. "Glaxy" and 4 others 2011 CLD 709 and Messrs Sun Line Agencies Ltd. v. Vessel M.V."Psilorities" and 2 others 1984 CLC 1553 rel.

Summary: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)-------Ss. 3, 4 & 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Action in rem---Scope---Rejection of plaint---Sale of ship---Appellants/ plaintiffs sought recovery of outstandingwages from respondent/ defendant company on the plea that it was beneficial owner of shipin question---Trial Court rejected plaint filed by appellants/ plaintiffs for the reason that theship had already been sold---Validity---Action in rem could be invoked against ship orproperty against which maritime lien was claimed by plaintiff---Maritime lien was aprivileged claim which could be exercised over res (ship)---Such claim occurred the momentcause of action had arisen and travelled with the res (ship) secretly and unconditionally andcould be enforced by an action in rem---Such right only extinguished when ship wasdemolished--- Action in rem against ship or her sister ship arose subject to conditionenumerated in S. 4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980---Purchaser/vendee of ship filed application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. along with bill of sale,whereby ship in question was owned/purchased through a leasing company free from allencumbrances---Sale document was not denied specifically by appellants/plaintiffs at thetime when suit was filed--- Beneficial title in ship in question was passed on to new ownerand condition laid down by S. 4(4) of Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance,1980, was not satisfied---High Court declined to invoke action in rem against the ship,particularly when the ship had been demolished---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.PLD 1986 Quetta 107; 2005 YLR 2838; PLD 2006 SC 214; PLD 2000 Kar. 258; PLD1996 Kar. 365; PLD 2000 Kar. 691; 2003 CLC 1602; 2013 MLD 1132; PLD 1990 SC 859;1995 SCMR 584 and AIR 1922 P.C. 269 ref.1989 CLC 2168; 2012 SCMR 123; Hong Leong Finance Limited v. m.v. Asian Queenthrough Nazir High Court PLD 1991 SC 1021; Atlantic Steamer's Supply Copmany v. m.v.Titisee and others PLD 1993 SC 88; Inham Refrigeration b.v. v. The owners of "F.T.Parivash and Transocen Holdings Ltd. PLD 1989 Kar. 65; Messrs Maratos and Co. v. RiceTraker and 2 others PLD 1989 Kar. 94; Semco Salvage Pte Limited v. m.v. Kaptan YusufKalkavan Turkish and another 1995 MLD 706; Azhar Ahmad Khan and others v. M.V. and 3others PLD 1985 Quetta 278; Metal Construction of Greece S.A (Mekta S.A), Athensthrough Attorney v. Owners of the Vessel m.v. Lady Rea 2013 CLD 1829; Jaffer Brothers (Pvt.) Limited v. m.v. 'Eurobulker II' presently Brethed at Moorings in Karachi Port to beserved through Master 2002 CLD 926; Messrs Khadija Edible Oil Refinery (Pvt.) Ltd. v.m.v. "Glaxy" and 4 others 2011 CLD 709 and Messrs Sun Line Agencies Ltd. v. Vessel M.V."Psilorities" and 2 others 1984 CLC 1553 rel.

Summary: [Admiralty (Attachment before Judgment in Admiralty law)] Admiralty Jurisdiction - Mode of action in Rem and in personam - Arrrest of Ship and Sister ship - what is an "offending ship" - Arrest of Vessel under Rule 731 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S) read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. --- The core issue is the plaintiff's claim for unpaid hire charges for the chartering of a utility boat "M.V. Osam Jumbo-5" to Defendant No.2, which was then engaged for services to Defendant No.3. Due to non-payment, the plaintiff sought the arrest of Defendant No.1 vessel "M.Y. Bofors" and an order for attachment before judgment against Defendant No.3, aiming to secure the claim amount.The court's order, delivered by Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, confirms the arrest of the vessel "M.Y. Bofors" as justifiable under Admiralty Jurisdiction, given the ownership and operation linkages. However, the request for attachment before judgment against Defendant No.3 was declined due to the lack of direct involvement with the plaintiff's claim. Furthermore, the plaintiff's application for a judgment and decree based on purported admissions by the defendants was dismissed, with the court finding the alleged admissions not unequivocal or unconditional to warrant such a judgment.This case underscores the complexities of Admiralty Law, particularly in matters involving charter agreements, vessel arrests, and claims against assets under maritime jurisdiction.

Summary: Background:Bourbon Maritime filed an Admiralty suit (Adm. Suit 14/1998) against the vessel M.V. Salaj under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court, claiming supply of bunker. Several other suits in rem were also filed against the same vessel for various claims. The Port Qasim Authority (PQA) intervened, claiming dues payable under the Port Qasim Authority Act, 1973. PQA's suit (Adm. Suit 7/2000) was decreed, and the vessel was sold to satisfy its claim, leaving Bourbon Maritime with no recovery. Bourbon Maritime appealed the decision, arguing that it should have been entitled to a share of the accrued profits from the sale.---Issues:Whether PQA's claim for port dues took precedence over Bourbon Maritime's claim in the Admiralty suit.Whether Bourbon Maritime was entitled to a share of the accrued profits from the sale of the vessel.Whether PQA's intervention and subsequent suit fell within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court.---Holding/Reasoning:The court held that PQA's claim for port dues had priority over Bourbon Maritime's claim based on the Admiralty law principles. PQA's suit was decreed, and the vessel was sold to satisfy its claim, as it exceeded the amount recovered from the sale.Bourbon Maritime's entitlement to a share of the accrued profits depended on whether PQA's claim included markup or interest. The court determined that PQA's claim did not include markup under the applicable law, so Bourbon Maritime was not entitled to a share of the profits.PQA's intervention and subsequent suit were found to fall within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court, as provided by the Port Qasim Authority Act, 1973.---Citations/Precedents:Hong Leong Finance Ltd. v. m.v. Asian Queen (PLD 1991 SC 1021)Muhammad Bashir Butt v. m.v. Taheri (PLD 1980 Kar. 458)Twaha v. The Master m.v. Asian Queen and others (PLD 1982 Kar. 749)

Summary: The suit revolved around Admiralty Jurisdiction under Section 3(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Court Ordinance, 1980, with the plaintiff seeking the arrest of a vessel (defendant No.1) and ancillary relief under Rule 731 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules. The plaintiff contends that the vessel is liable based on a Bill of Lading (BL), alleging contractual breaches and payment disputes with defendant No.4, the Charterer. The plaintiff asserts that despite the primary contract with defendant No.5, defendant No.4 functioned as the practical seller of goods. Disagreements arise over payments and cargo release, prompting legal actions. The court delves into the nature of actions in rem and in personam, citing legal precedents to address jurisdictional and procedural matters. Ultimately, the court orders defendant No.4 to provide a solvent surety or bank guarantee, recalling the vessel's arrest orders upon compliance, and advises on arbitration proceedings to resolve monetary disputes. The case underscores complex contractual intricacies and legal principles within maritime law.

Summary: The lawsuit under consideration is brought under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance 1980, with the plaintiff seeking a decree of US$ 874,161 against defendant No.3, along with a request to prevent the discharge of LPG cargo until adequate security is provided. The plaintiff, a UK-based company, alleges that defendant No.3, the charterer of the vessel (defendant No.1), breached a contract by diverting the cargo from Aden, Yemen, to a Pakistani port for sale. The plaintiff argued that the contract breach entitles them to recover the deposit paid to defendant No.3, citing Clause 14.1 of the contract. They emphasized that the claim arises from a contract of carriage, invoking Section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction ordinance. However, the defendants contest the jurisdictional basis of the suit, arguing that it does not qualify under Admiralty jurisdiction as there was no agreement directly involving defendant No.1 or No.2, the vessel owners. Legal precedents are cited by both parties to support their arguments, focusing on the nature of Admiralty jurisdiction, contract breaches, and the applicability of injunctions. Ultimately, the court dismisses the interlocutory applications, emphasizing the necessity of satisfying legal criteria for injunctive relief and affirming the need for clarity on jurisdictional issues and contractual obligations.