COURT ACT, 1861
of Admiralty Court—Carriage of goods by sea—The section gives the Court
jurisdiction only when there is damage done to goods on account of breach of
contract of carriage or due to negligence, misconduct or breach of duty,
independently of the contract which resulted in damage to the goods to be
carried by the ship.
Lien—Maritime lien is different from maritime claim—All maritime liens are
maritime claims, but all maritime claims are not maritime liens—Only certain
types of maritime claims give rise to maritime liens— Panics by agreement
cannot confer lien status on a claim which is not by nature a 1ien—The only
lien recognised today are those created b statutes and those historically
recognised in maritime law—Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 does not
confer a maritime hen—Admiralty Court Act, 1861, S.6.
Navigation Co. Vs. Delta International Traders Ltd. and others, 2 BLD (AD) 69.
The St. Cloud, 1863 L.R. 2A & E 269; The Napoter, L.R.Z.A & E 375;
North Port Vs. Owners of Henrich Biorn, (1886) 2 App CAS 270; GIovanni Dapueto
Vs. James Wyllie, 1874 L.R. 5 P.C. 482.
for compensation for non-delivery of goods carried in a ship is maintainable
before the Admiralty Court —Admiralty Court Act, 1861, S. 6.
(Bangladesh) Ltd. Vs. M/s. Brestern Shipping Company Ltd. and others, 3 BLD
20 DLR (SC) 225.
done to the goods or any part thereof or for breach of any duty or breach of contract
on the part of the owner, master or crew of the ship is within Admiralty
jurisdiction—Claim of damages for detention of the vessel in the absence of any
condition in the bill of lading is not entertain able by the Admiralty
Court—Admiralty Court Act, 1861, S. 6.
for incidental charges whether within Admiralty Jurisdiction—When incidental
charges are not necessaries supplied to the ship the same cannot be claimed in
the Admiralty Jurisdiction—Admiralty Court Act, 1861, S.5.
Steamship Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute;
3 BLD (HCD) 178.
34 DLR356; 3 Asp (New Series) MLC 540; Arzepcitia 15 Asp MLC 426.
Court in Bangladesh 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—Suit in 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 (V of 1908), Or. 38, R. 5.
Shipping Trading Co. Vs. M/s. L.S. Lines and others; 6 BLD (AD) 107.
of such jurisdiction by the High Court Division—Supreme Court of Bangladesh,
High Court Division exercises Admiralty jurisdiction under Admiralty Court Act,
I 861, 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 exercises under Admiralty Court Act 1861—Jurisdiction
of Admiralty Court in England was enlarged by Administration of Justice Act
1956 and under section 3(4) of the Act, the Court of Admiralty of England can
exercise admiralty jurisdiction in an action in rem by arresting any vessel or
property of the defendant whether or not that was concerned in the cause of
action—But a Court of Admiralty in Bangladesh cannot by virtue of section 3(4)
of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956 of England in an action in rem or in
rem or in personem arrest any vessel or property not concerned in the cause of
action on the basis of the aforesaid English enactment.— Admiralty Court Act,
1861, S.6— Administration of Justice Act, 1956, S.3(4)— Colonial Courts of
Admiralty Act. 1890, S. (2)2.
ship in exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction
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 the ship which is unconnected with the cause of
action—Admiralty Court in Bangladesh has been exercising the same jurisdiction
as was conferred upon the High Court of Admiralty in England under the
provision of Colonial Court of Admiralty Act 1 890 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 maintainable but in personem is maintainable.
Admiralty Court can arrest a ship before judgment in exercise of admiralty
jurisdiction in a suit in personem—High Court Division in exercising Admiralty
jurisdiction is regulated by Admiralty the Rules— Admiralty Rules having
specially 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 personem—Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) Or. 38, R 5—Admiralty
Rules, 1932 r-4,
Shipping Trading Co. Vs. MIs. L.S. Lines and others; 6 BLD (HD) 117.
Beldis’ case 18 Aspirall’s Maritime Law Case 598; Henrich Biorn’s Case (1885) 5
Aspirall’s Maritime Law Cases 391; Al— Sayar Navigation Co. 34 DLR(AD) 110
(114) distinguished; 20DLR25; 2 All E.R. 274(277).
of maintainability of a suit for compensation for loss of money suffered due to
declaration of general average by the ship owner—From the pleading it seems
that the claim for damage is not a claim for damage of the goods, rather the
claim rests on the contribution to be made by the petitioner towards the
general average loss resulting from the damage suffered by the ship
itself—There being no allegation as to damage of goods, the damage due to “sand
gaining access into stem tube” for which the ship lost propelling power cannot
be equated with the damage to the goods due to breach of contract, negligence
or misconduct of the ship owner or the crews—In this view the admiralty
jurisdiction of this Court cannot exercised in deciding the present suit—Admiralty
Court Act, 1861, S.6.
Corporation of Bangladesh Vs. M. V. Corina and others; 9 BLD (HCD) 240.
34 DLR (AD) 110; 38 DLR 30; 34 DLR356.
for return of plaint claiming decree on account of damage to insured yese1—Plea
of absence of admiralty jurisdiction when not tenable—After the creation of
Bangladesh as an independent state the High Court Division of the Supreme Court
was dedared to be the Court of Admiralty for purposes of admiralty and maritime
nature—The jurisdiction of the High Court Division in matters which concern
marine insurance arising out of contracts and claims of marine mortgage is
covered by the admiralty jurisdiction—Admiralty Courts Act, 1861, Ss. 6,7 and
Ltd. Vs. Sadharan Bima Corporation & anr.; 1OBLD(HCD) 105
of—Section 7 of the Act is attracted only when damage is caused to the goods on
board due to negligence, misconduct :r breach of contract or breach of duty in
relation to the goods.
of Admiralty Suit
admittedly the goods were imported to Bangladesh from abroad and the vessel in
question admittedly belongs to a national of Bangladesh, considering the
provisions of Section 6 and the facts of the case it is held that the present
suit before the Admiralty Court is not maintainable.
an Admiralty Suit under section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861—Whether
plaintiff can be treated as a consignee— Learned Advocate for the plaintiff
submitted before the Court that the plaintiff may be treated as a consignee of
Performa defendant No. 3, the importer, because, the plaintiff paid
compensation money to defendant no. 3 and for that money the plaintiff filed
is difficult’, found the Court, “to accept the above contention” “because the
provisions of section 6 speak that the owner, consignee or assignee of any Bill
of Lading of goods carried into Bangladesh may file a suit for damages of the
goods on board the vessel against the owner of the vessel.”
Court held: The plaintiff is not such an assignee as contemplated in section 6
of the Act and as such the plaintiff is incompetent to invoke Admiralty Court’s
Court Act, 1861—Where the plaintiff is neither the owner nor consignee nor
assignee of any Bill of Lading of any goods carried to Bangladesh and when no
damage is done to any of his goods on board by defendant—Whether he
(plaintiff-insurer) has locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Admiralty
perusal of section 6 of the Act it appears that the owner or consignee or
assignee of the Bill of Lading of any goods carried into Bangladesh may claim
for damages against the Owner, Master or Crew of the Ship if the damage to the
goods done by their negligence or misconduct .or for any breach of duty or
breach of contract on the part of the Owner, Master or Crew of the Ship—In the
present case the plaintiff is neither the owner nor the consignee nor assignee
of any Bill of Lading of the goods imported to Bangladeshi—Performa defendant
no. 3 as the importer had a separate contract with the plaintiff insurer for
the goods imported—The plaintiff has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction
of this Admiralty Court under section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861.
of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908)—Order 7 Rule 11 read with section l151 of
C.P.C—Return of Plaint—Admiralty Court Act, 1861 Section 6—-The plaint of the
admiralty suit was returned to the plaintiff on the following Grounds: .
(a) non-applicability of section 6 of the
Admiralty Court Act, 1861;
(b) non-maintainability, and
locus standi of the plaintiff.
Bima Corporation Vs. Bangladesh Shipping Corporation and others; 10 BLD (HCD) 347.
34DLR (AD) 110; 2BLD (AD) 69; 2 BCR (AD) 228; 34 DLR (HCD) 356; 38 DLR (HCD)
30; 1872 Maritime Law Cases (Q.B) 337; 1 BLD (HCD) 105: 42DLR (HCD) 281; S34DLR
(HCD) 356: 3BLD (HCD) 3.
Court Act, 1861
suit under the Admiralty Court Act, whether is maintainable—I1 damage is done
to the goods and if compensation for that damage is prayed for and if the cause
of action and the claim arise for such compensation for damage.. then such a
suit under the Admiralty Court Act is maintainable, and all maritime claims and
disputes can be raised before the Admiralty Court only under the provisions of
the Admiralty Court Act, 186 I—The only law under which the Admiralty Suit is
to be entertained by this Court is the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 and under no
Bima Corporation Vs. M. V. BIRBA and others; 12 BLD (HD) 95.
16DLR(SC)61; 43DLR548; 34 [)LR(HCD )356; 34DLR(AD) 110; 72C.W.N. 635;
3BLD(HCD)104; 35 DLR(AD)188.
and scope of Admiralty jurisdiction in Bangladesh with reference to the law in
England as it stood in 1890—Section 5 of the.Admiralty Court Act, 1861
determines the claim for necessaries supplied to any foreign ship—Money claimed
by plaintiff from the defendant by way of recovery of loan, whether constitutes
claim for necessaries supplied to ship.
the materials produced before the Court, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs
claim has any nexus or proximity to the transaction of supply of necessaries so
as to bring the case within the ambit of section 5 of the Admiralty’ Court Act,
vs. M. V. Golden Gate Ex—Free Trader & ors.; 12 BLD (HCD) 539.
The Riga, L.R. 3A & E 516; The Hainrich Bjorn, 1921 L.R. 241.
violation of Court’s order
Division passed order for keeping a vessel under attachment—Whether High Court
Division competent to take action for violation of such order—After the order
was passed by the Appellate Division in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition the
appeal before the High Court Division was rendered in- fructuous—Impugned order
which may be argued to have merit, seems to have been passed without any
competence to do so—Its legality or illegality therefore loses all
significance—Anxiety to do justice cannot have free play so as to enable the
court to overcome the barrier of competence.
Hossain Vs. King Fishers Industries Ltd; 4 BLD (AD) 237.
of extending the period of limitation—-Discretion of the Court in extending the
period of limitation—if the plaintiff had failed to bring the action within two
years having ample opportunity Court will not extend period of limitation—It is
not clear why the appellant allowed the period of limitation to run out even
though the period of limitation was known to it—It appears that there was no
agreement between the parties that the defendant would be bound to satisfy the
claim outside the period of limitation— The appellant did not even make any
application, explaining the reason for its inability to bring the action within
time before the Court for granting an extension of time beyond two years—Court
rightly held that the plaint was barred by time while rejecting the
plaint—Maritime Convention Act, 1911, S.8.
Inland Water Transport Corporation vs. M/s. Seres Shipping Incorporated one
World Trade Centre and others. 4 BLD (AD) 222.
30 DLR 149—Cited.