Thursday, December 12, 2019 | ePaper

Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court

Interest of the Vessel should be Protected

  • Print
Appellate Division (Civil) :
Syed Mahmud Hossain CJ
Md Imman Ali J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
Mirza Hussain Haider J
Bene Martime Inc..........Petitioners
vs
Alam Feed Limited and others........Respondents
Judgment
February 27th, 2018
Admiralty Court Act (XLIII of 2000)
Sections 3 and 4
Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court-The question of declaration of General Average Bond and signing of General Average Guarantee by the plaintiff is out of ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court (the Admiralty Bench of the High Court Division) and falls under the purview of arbitration. ............(6)
Kamal-ul-Alam, Senior Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahbubar Rahman, Advocate-on-Record- For the Petitioner.
Rokunuddin Mahmud, Senior Advocate with M Hafizullah, Senior Advocate and Oliullah,  Advocate instructed by Zainul Abedin, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents.
Judgment
Md Inunan Ali J : This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 12th day of February, 2018 passed by the Admiralty Bench of the High Court Division in Admiralty Suit No. 5 of 2018 allowing the application filed by the plaintiff to deliver the cargo of 28,200.57 MTs of Soyabean Meal/Extraction.
2. The facts, relevant for disposal of this civil petition for leave to appeal, are that respondent No.1, Aman Feed Limited imported 28,200.57 MTs of Soyabean Meal/Extraction which arrived at Chittagong Port on Board Vessel MV Bene. Respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff filed Admiralty Suit No. 5 of 2018 before the Admiralty Bench of the High Court Division praying for a decree in the sum of taka 18,51,29,195.79 equivalent to US$22,17,116.11. In that admiralty suit, the plaintiff filed an application for direction upon defendant Nos. 1-4 for immediate delivery of 28,200.570 MTs of Soyabean Meal/Extraction from vessel MV Bene which was lying at Chittagong Port.
3. Defendant No.3, owner of Vessel MV Bene (the petitioner herein) appeared in the suit and filed written objection against the application for direction for delivery of the consignment and also filed an application for direction upon the plaintiff to furnish General Average Bond and General Average Guarantee before obtaining the delivery of the cargo. In the meantime, the plaintiff had obtained an order of arrest of defendant No. 1 Vessel on 25-1-2018.
4. By the impugned order dated 12-2-2018, the Admiralty Court allowed the application paying for direction for delivery of the cargo and at the same time rejected the prayer of the petitioner for direction upon the plaintiff to furnish General Average Bond and General Average Guarantee.
5. We heard Mr Kamal-ul-Alam, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr Rokunuddin Mahmud, learned Senior Advocate with Mr M Hafizullah, learned Senior Advocate and Mr Oliullah, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents.
6. We find from the impugned order that the Admiralty Court noted that the question of declaration of General Average Bond and signing of General Average Guarantee by the plaintiff is out of ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court (the Admiralty Bench of the High Court Division) and falls under the purview of arbitration and that this Court lacks jurisdiction to enter into the issue since the same squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.
7. We have considered the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties concerned.
8. The matter of entitlement to General Average Bond and sea-worthiness of the vessel will undoubtedly be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. We are of the view that before delivery of the cargo, the interest of the vessel is required to be protected by way of some security.
9. In the facts and circumstances, we are on the view that ends of justice would be sufficiently met if the plaintiff, respondent No.1 herein, is directed to furnish appropriate General Average Bond and General Average Guarantee in the sum of US$ 1,80,000 as assessed by Albatross Adjusters Limited (annexed in the additional paper book dated 26-2-2018).
10. On furnishing the aforesaid General Average Bond and General Average Guarantee in favour of the ship owners, the petitioner herein, shall discharge the cargo as directed by the Admiralty Court.
With the above observations and directions the civil petition for leave to appeal is disposed of.

More News For this Category

Law chamber is not a commercial enterprise

High Court Division : (Special Original Jurisdiction)Syed Muhammad Dastagir Husain JMd Iqbal Kabir JAriful Islam ............PetitionsvsDhaka South City Corporation and another…….RespondentsJudgment July 31st, 2018 Bangladesh Labour Act (XLII of 2006) Section

Non-agriculture Tenancy

Appellate Division :       (Civil)Md Abdul Wahhab Miah  Md Imman Ali JAHM Shamsuddin Choudhury JAwlas Hossain Babor……..Petitioner               vsZiaul Hasan Chowdhury and others….RespondentsJudgment June 15th, 2015 Non Agricultural Tenancy Act

Criminal Law Amendment Act

High Court Division :(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction) Md Nazrul IslamTalukder JKM Hafizul Alam JDurnity Daman Commission ... Petitioner vs Md Siddiqur Rahman and others......... Opposite PartiesJudgment January 23rd, 2019 Criminal Law

Period shall be deducted from the Sentence

Appellate Division :   (Criminal) Syed Mahmud Hossain CJ Md Imman Ali J Hasan Foez Siddique J Mirza Hussain Haider J Abdur Rab Munshi……Petitioner    vs State…….Respondent. Judgment October 7th, 2018Code of

Pre-emptor must deposit the value of the deed and the statutory compensation

Appellate Division (Civil) :Md Abdul Wahhab Miah Nazmun Ara Sultana J      Md Imman Ali J Md Nizamul Huq J J Ruhul Amin (Md)and others .. AppellantMd Forkan

But must act in accordance with law

(From previous issue) :24. From a plain reading of the show cause notice, it appears that the show cause notice merely states that an incident took place at the

No legal bar to initiate suit before Civil Court in case of failed settlement

High Court Division :(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction) SM Emdadul Hoque JMohi Uddin Shamim JCityscape Planners Ltd ......Defendant-PetitionervsKari Abul Kashem.........Plaintiff-Opposite-PartyJudgmentApril 28th, 2019Arbitration Act (1 of 200l) Section 10(1)(3) There is no

Artha Rin Adalat Ain (VIII of 2003)

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction) Md Ashfaqul Islam JMohammad Ali JJanata Bank Limited ... Petitioner vs Artha Rin Adalat, Chittagong and others ........... RespondentsJudgment October 11th, 2018 Artha

But must act in accordance with law

High Court Division :(Special Original Jurisdiction)Zubayer Rahman Chowdhury JSashanka Shekhar Sarkar JShamsujjaman (Md) and others............Petitioners vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Education, and others...........RespondentsJudgmentNovember 14th, 2018Constitution of

Applicable for the persons in service of the Republic Appellate Division

(Civil) Syed Mahmud Hossain CJ Hasan Foez Siddique J Zinat Ara JMd Nuruzaman J Durnity Daman Commission…………………..Appellant        vs Humaiyun Kabir  (Md) and others .............................. Respondents Judgment April 2nd, 2019