Administration of Justice Act, 1956

 

 

Administration of Justice Act, 1956

 

Section 3(4)

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 a similar power to arrest any ship which is not the subject­matter 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).

Kings Shipping Trading Co vs Messrs LS Line & Ors 38 DLR 30.

—Jurisdiction conferred by section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act of 1861 which is exercised by the Admiralty Court of Bangladesh is so exercised under the provisions of Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 and the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act (India), 1891.

Kings Shipping Trading Co vs LS Line & Ors 38 DLR 30.

—Superior Courts of the sub-continent, including Bangladesh Supreme Court never exercised admiralty jurisdiction on the basis of practices followed by the England Admiralty Court which the latter court continued to exercise until the year 1840 when by the Administration of Justice Act of 1840 the law about exercise of admiralty jurisdiction was defined by that Act of 1840.

Kings Shipping Trading Co vs Messrs LS Line & Ors 38 DLR 30.

—Practices as followed by England's Admiralty Courts were for long time discontinued and it was after that on the basis of the statute laws that these courts began exercising admiralty jurisdiction.

Kings Shipping Trading Co vs Messrs LS Line & Ors 38 DLR 30.

—Bangladesh Admiralty Court exercises jurisdiction given to it under section 6 of the Act of 1861 by virtue of the provisions of section 2(2) of Colonial Court of Admiralty Act, 1890 and as such Administration of Justice Act, 1956 is not applicable in Bangladesh.

Kings Shipping Trading Co vs Messrs LS Line & Ors 38 DLR 30.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT, 1956

 

ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE ACT, 1956

 

Section —3

Exercise
of Admiralty jurisdiction by the High Court Division—Supreme Court of
Bangladesh, High Court Division exercises Admiralty jurisdiction under
Admiralty Court Act, 1861 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 be
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).

Kings
Shipping Trading Co. Vs. M/s. L.S. Lines and others; 6 BLD (HCD) 117.

Ref:
A.I,R 1937(Cal)122; 34DLR(AD) 110; (1885) 5Aspinall’s Maritime Law Cases 391;
2ODLR. 25; 2All E.R.274.

 

Administration
of justice

If
a party to a litigation is allowed to take an action to the detriment of
another party in respect of the subject matter of the litigation it will be
negation of the basic principles of administration of justice:

Rule of Law—Administrative
interference of an incompetent authority in matters pending for judicial
determination, if encouraged, will auger the end of rule of law.

Saifur
Rahman Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others; 10 BLD (HCD) 286.