Eastern Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. D B Deniz Nakliyati TAB and others

Eastern Insurance Co. Ltd (Petitioner)

Vs.

D B Deniz Nakliyati TAB and others (Respondents)

 

Supreme Court

Appellate Division

(Civil)

JUSTICE

Shahabuddin Ahmed CJ

MH Rahman J

ATM Afzal J

Mustafa Kamal J and

Latifur Rahman J.

Judgment dated  : July 13th, 1993.

Lawyers Involved:

Manzur-ur?Rahim, Advocate, instructed by Mr. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioner.

M Hafizullah, Senior Advocate, instructed by Md. Aftab Hossain, Advocate-on-Record – For Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in CP No. 39 and CP Nos. 46 to 48 of 1991).

Civil petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 39 and 46 to 48 of 1991

JUDGEMENT

            Shahabuddin Ahmed CJ.- These four Leave Petitions have been heard together as they are directed against a common judgment of the High Court Division, in its Admiralty Jurisdiction, dated 13 November 1990. By the said judgment, plaints of all the four Admiralty Suits which were filed by the petitioner, have been returned to him with liberty to file the same in any appropriate Court.

2. Petitioner, Eastern Insurance Company Ltd., is the Insurer who already paid the insurance claim in respect of the goods for which he had stood surety, but which were damaged by the master or crew of the vessel. After the said goods were brought into Bangladesh, the petitioner filed the suits for recovery of the money he paid as an Insurer. An application was filed before the Admiralty Court by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 raising a preliminary objection that the Insurer neither being the owner nor consignee/assignee of the bill of lading in respect of the goods concerned, he got no locus standi to file the suits in the Admiralty Court. That Court, on construction of section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, accepted this contention and returned the plaints to the plaintiff.

3. Mr. Manzur-ur-Rahim, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that the Insurer has stepped into the shoes of the assignee, and under section 135A of the Transfer of Property Act, he has been subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the insured person in respect of the goods concerned. The petitioner thus acquired the right of the consignee/assignee of the bill of lading. This argument is quite reasonable, but language of section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, which confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Admiralty, is very specific and definite as to the persons who can raise a claim in the said Court. Among the persons entitled to raise a claim in the said Court, an Insurer is not included. The Insurer has, of course, got right to raise his claim in an appropriate Court as already indicated by the Admiralty Court.

All the four petitions are dismissed.

Ed.

Source : 46 DLR (AD) (1994) 185

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.