Summary: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)------Ss. 3 & 5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, Rr. 10 & 11---Suit for recovery ofmoney---Rejection/return of plaint---Grievance of plaintiff was that defendant did not makepayment of consideration amount regarding vessel purchased from plaintiff---Defendant soughtrejection of plaint on the ground that admiralty jurisdiction was not applicable-Validity-Suit forrecovery of amount of sale and damages for non-payment of such amount in respect of a ship didnot come within the jurisdiction of High Court under the provisions of Admiralty Jurisdiction ofHigh Courts Ordinance, 1980---Adjudication of suit would be coram non judice---When courtlacked jurisdiction, then under O. VII, R.10, C.P.C., the plaint should, at any stage of the suit, bereturned to plaintiff to be presented to the court having jurisdiction in the matter, instead ofrejection of plaint---High Court converted application of defendant from rejection of plaint intoapplication under O. VII, R.10, C.P.C. for return of the plaint---Application was allowed incircumstances.

Summary: The judgment ruled that the claim of respondent would have preference over the claim of other decree holders, including the appellant. The dispute revolves around various claims and dues related to a vessel, as well as other legal matters pertaining to the Admiralty Jurisdiction. The appellant contends that the dues of the Port Authority (respondent) do not fall within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the court. The appellant further argues that respondent's claim should not have priority over the claims of other plaintiffs and the appellant. The appellant presents various legal arguments, including references to relevant cases and statutes. The court examines the arguments presented by both sides. The court also dismisses the appellant's objection to the priority of respondent's claim and provides legal reasoning for its decision, referencing precedents and statutes. The court's judgment ultimately upholds the earlier decree in favor of respondent and dismisses the appellant's challenge. The court finds that the appellant has failed to establish any legal grounds for interference with the lower court's ruling.

Summary: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 198; sections 3(2)(l) and 4(4) supply of ?necessaries? (furnace oil). Liability of subsequent owner of vessel

Summary: Admiralty Decree in United States Dollars. Vessel furnished Bank Guarantee in Pakistan Rupees. USD Decree could only be part-satisfied against Vessel's PKRs Bank Guarantee. The vessel sailed away after furnishing the Bank Guarantee. No other assets/property were available. Execution adjourned sine die as enforceable under Section 4 (4) of Admiralty Ordinance, 1980, if and when the sister vessels of Defendant enter the jurisdiction of High Courts.

Summary: Admiralty-----Therefore, first the claim/outstandingdues of Karachi Port Trust (?KPT?) is to be settled; then the wages / claimsof crew as determined in already disposed of Admiralty of2018; where after claim of Mortgagee Bank subject to decision in Suitand then other claims. It is clarified that the Order stands merged in the present decision.26. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention that all the learnedAdvocates appearing for the Parties in the present and connectedsuits, have provided an able and fair assistance to the Court, which is highlyappreciated.

Summary: There cannot be two decisions with regard to same loan transaction / finance facility; that is, onepassed in the foreign jurisdiction as above and the other one in the present proceeding. theJudgment given by the Court of Sharjah (UAE) in the Case filed by present Plaintiff againstDefendant No.2, can be executed through the present proceeding. Therefore, the Judgment ofSharjah Court in a sum of AED 5723557 (Five Million Seven Hundred Twenty Three Thousand FiveHundred and Fifty Seven Dirhams) together with 5% (five percent) of the legal interest, can beexecuted through the present proceeding

Summary: Through this is a Suit under Section 3(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of HighCourts Ordinance, 1980 the Plaintiff had sought recovery of US$ 667,599.35in respect of the principal outstanding amount, interest, damages and legalcosts etc. and had also sought issuance of warrants of arrest for the Vesseli.e. Defendant No.1 and detain the same until sufficient guarantees arefurnished for the outstanding claim of the Plaintiff. As an interim measure thevessel was arrested and allowed to sail after furnishing surety for theprincipal amount. According to the Plaintiffs the Defendant No.5 (?Charterers?)contacted for supply of bunkers to the Vessel in question owned andoperated by Defendant No.2 to 4 (?Owners?). It is the case of the Plaintiff thatrequisite bunkers were supplied, whereas, Charterer has defaulted in makingpayments and therefore, owners as well as Charterers are liable to pay jointlyand severally. The plaintiff?s argument has been repelled by the Court andthe application for arrest of vessel has been dismissed in this matter andsurety has been ordered to be released / discharged in favor of the ownersas the bunker delivery note very clearly and specifically mentions that thesupply of bunkers by the bunker supplier is on ?Charterers Account?. This isan admitted document and placed on recorded by the Plaintiff itself.Admittedly nothing has been placed on record so as to suggest that at anypoint of Time; the plaintiff ever approached the owners of the Vessel beforeentering into any contract for supply of the bunkers. Nothing has been placedor even pleaded as to whether any consent of the owners of the Vessel wasever sought for making supplies of bunkers and the liability of any paymenton the part of the owners in case of any default. It has been further held thatthe Plaintiff here has not been able to show or substantiate that the TimeCharterer had any sort of authority to contract on behalf of the owners or theVessel; and secondly, even otherwise to safeguard its interest, knowinglythat its claim against the Vessel and owner would fail, had obtained sufficientsecurity in the shape of postdated cheques, and is at full liberty to seek itsencashment, and if not, then any other appropriate remedy as may beavailable for it in accordance with the applicable laws. The Plaintiff under nocircumstances can be permitted to take undue advantage under the Admiraltyjurisdiction of this Court by arrest of the Vessel and then compelling anddragging the owners to pay the amount being claimed when no case for aclaim in personam has been arguably made out. The application is thereforedismissed.

Summary: The learned single Judge stayed the admiralty suit keeping in view the clause of Bills of Lading with regard to gist of form provided therein, however, the appellate court set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge at O.S. and decided that the suit may be heard and decided in view of Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance, 1980.

Summary: Plaintiff has incurred and still incurring expenses for supply of necessaries and other products to Defendant No.1 since or about 09.10.2017 and onwards, when the Defendant No.1 (subject Vessel) is berthed at Karachi Port; therefore, only those documents can be considered, which relate to this period and onwards, or, when the subject Vessel entered territorial waters of Pakistan and not before that. Suit of the Plaintiff is partly decreed to the extent of US Dollars-120,710.6 (US Dollars One Lac Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten only) and Pak Rupees-22,42,497/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand and Four Hundred Ninety Seven only).

Summary: Suit filed by unauthorized person---Defect in filing proceeding was incurable, hence, suit was dismissed---The suit revolved around the non-payment of freight amounting to US $8900 for consignments of second-hand cellulose processing equipment imported from Italy. Despite delivering the goods to their Local Agent-Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants failed to settle the freight charges despite repeated demands. The Plaintiff sought a decree against the Defendants for Rs. 190,638, equivalent to US $8,900, along with interest and any other deemed fit relief. Following the issuance of notices and the filing of written statements by the Defendants, various issues were framed, including jurisdiction, non-joinder of shippers, and the necessity of Defendant No. 2 in the suit. Witnesses were examined, and during cross-examination, the Plaintiff's witness (PW-1) admitted to the lack of a Board Resolution authorizing the filing of the suit. Defendants raised objections based on legal precedent regarding the lack of authorization and the legal status of Jugolinija and its Local Agent. Despite the Plaintiff's arguments and reliance on prior case law, the court dismissed the suit on grounds that it was filed by an unauthorized person, citing the absence of proper authorization or a valid Board Resolution. The court's decision highlighted the importance of proper authorization and adherence to legal procedures in filing suits, ultimately leading to the dismissal of Jugolinija's claim.