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

Eastern Insurance Co. Ltd (Petitioner)


D B Deniz Nakliyati TAB and others (Respondents)


Supreme Court

Appellate Division



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


            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.


Source : 46 DLR (AD) (1994) 185