ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT, 1956

Section 3(4)- Englands 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 subject matter 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).
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.
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.
Practices as followed by Englands 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.
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 & others

ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 1861

Rejection of a plaint filed in the Admiralty Jurisdiction under Order VII, rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil
Procedure is not permissible under the Rules.
M/S. Shaleh Steel Industries Ltd. vs TSS PACIFIC ABETO

Suit to recover compensation for nondelivery of goods carried by a ship is maintainable under the High Court
Divisions Admiralty Jurisdiction.
Albert David vs M/S. Brosterm Shipping Company

S. 6. Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act gives the Courts Jurisdiction only when there is damage done to
the 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.
Al-Sayer Navigation vs Delta Int.

S. 5. Incidental expenses as were necessity on the ship- When this condition is not fulfilled a suit u/s 5 will
not lie.
S. 6. A suit which is not for damage to the goods carried by the ship, nor it is for breach of contract, will not
come within the ambit of section 6.
Eastern Steamship Enterprise Private Ltd. vs Bangladesh Ag. Research Institute.

Bangladesh Supreme Court exercises its admiralty jurisdiction by virtue of Admiralty Court Act of 1861 read
with Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act of 1890 (India) in like manner as done in Englands Admiralty Courts
by virtue of Admiralty Court Act, 1890 read with Admiralty Court Act of 1861.
Kings Shipping Trading Co. vs Messrs LS Line

Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court of England was extended by section 3 of the Administration of Justice Act of
1956.
Kings Shipping Trading Co. vs Messrs LS Line

The Court of Admiralty of High Court Division has derived its jurisdiction from these Acts- The suit is
maintainable.
Mahajak Shipping Co. Ltd. vs M.V. Sagar

There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff controverted allegations of the owner of the vessel and
then the application for attachment/arrest being belated is liable to be rejected.
Captain Md. Mobarak Hossain vs MT Dolors and Others

There is no legal bar in the Customs Act to the supply of goods and services to the ship in distress and
anchored at any port in Bangladesh. High Court Division was not justified to refuse a decree on the ground that
the goods and services were not supplied with the approval of the customs officer on board the
vessel.
Giasuddin (Md) vs MV Forum Power and others

Sections 2 and 7- Ship shall include any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars
occurring in section 7 of the Act. The expression ship used in navigation shall mean vessels of all kinds in
navigation external or internal.

The Court of Admiralty of this Court would have the same jurisdiction as that of the Court of Admiralty in
England and as a matter of fact that Court of Admiralty in England never admitted to have made any
distinction between collisions within the body of the country and collision on the high seas.
A cause of action arising out of tort has never been excluded or taken away from the jurisdiction of the High
Court either by Act of 1917 or by Ordinance of 1976. This Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit alleging
collision within the internal water.
Al Falha-Shipping Lines Ltd. vs Bangladesh, IWTC

Sections 4-6, 7, 13, 17 and 35- Jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty in England over any claim for
necessaries supplied to any ship elsewhere in the port to which the ship belongs and have jurisdiction over any
claim by the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods carried into any port in England
or Wales in any ship for damage done to the goods by negligence or misconduct on the part of the owner,
master or crew of the ship.
Al Falha Shipping Lines Ltd. vs Bangladesh IWTC

Section 6- Provisions of section 6 of Admiralty Court Act, 1861 is the relevant law for the present dispute.
According to this section, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court can only exercise jurisdiction over
any claim for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligence or misconduct of or for any
breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of owner, master or crow of the ship.
Claim for damages was not a claim for damage to 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. If
does not fall within the mischief of provisions of section 6 of the Act of 1861.
Admiralty jurisdiction cannot be exercised in deciding the suit wherein no allegation has been made as to
damage to goods. Section 6 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861 cannot be invoked.
Mere allegation of breach of contract or misconduct on the part of the shipowner, the master and the crew of
the vessel, is not enough to invoke the provision of section 6 of the Admiralty Courts Act, 1861.
Administration of Justice Act, 1956 is not applicable to Bangladesh. The decision in the case reported in 34
DLR (AD) 110 discussed.
A careful reading of the decision in the case of Al-Sayer Navigation Co. does not also support the contention of
the learned Counsel of the plaintiff as in the said decision it has not been held that the Administration of Justice
Act, 1956 is applicable in Bangladesh. The decision so far as it relates to the Admiralty jurisdiction of the
courts in England, has traced the enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court in England from time
to time by enactments of the British Parliament.
TCB vs M.V. Corina

Section 6- In an action in rem under Admiralty Jurisdiction the proceeding is commenced by the arrest of the
res, the ship, such arrest is not an interlocutory order.

Section 6- Damages done to the goods as is appearing in section 6 has to be construed liberally so as to
include constructive damage, thus it shall apply to non-delivery or short delivery of goods.
Doon Valley Rice Limited vs MV Yue Yang and others

Section 6- The language of this section, which confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Admiralty is very
specific and definite as to persons who can raise a claim in the Court of Admiralty. Among the persons entitled
to raise a claim in the said Court, an insured is not included.
Eastern Insurance Co. Ltd. vs DB Deniz Nakliyati TAB

Section 6- There is no cause of action shown as regards any damage done to goods and there is no prayer for
decree of compensation for any damaged goods. Decree for damages must be prayed in an admiralty suit and
the prayer relating to declaration of General Average may be made as additional or consequential relief for
damage to goods by carrier during the voyage. The declaration as prayed in the present case cannot
independently come within the purview of any of the provisions of the Admiralty Court Act. The plaintiffs suit
is just like a declaratory suit of civil nature which is not contemplated under provisions of the Admiralty Court
Act.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs MV Birba

Section 6- In an admiralty suit where the plaintiff fails to produce the original bill of lading, the owner of the
ship or its master or agent cannot give delivery order of the cargo and if it is so given, the carrier shall be liable
for breach of contract. In order to invoke the courts admiralty jurisdiction two conditions are to be satisfied,
one is the damage done to the goods on board the ship by negligence or misconduct of the owner, master or
crews of the ship and the other breach of the contract in relation to the cargo.
Madina Vegetable and Oil Refinery Industries (Private) Limited Vs M. T. Dolores

Section 6- Although rejection of the plaint was prayed for, the plaint is returned to the filing advocate in
exercise of inherent power as the Admiralty Court lacks jurisdiction and the plaint cannot be rejected by such a
court, the provision for rejection of plaint having not been made applicable under the rule of the Admiralty
Court.
Madina Vegetable and Oil Refinery Industries (Private) Limited vs M. T. Dolores

Section 6- Only the owner or consignee or assignee of the Bill of Lading of any goods may claim damages
against the owner, master or crew of the ship. The plaintiff insurer having satisfied neither of these descriptions
they have no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bangladesh Shipping Corporation

Section 6- Since the plaintiff is neither the owner nor consignee nor assignee of any Bill of Lading of any
goods and since no damage was done to any goods of the plaintiff on board by the defendant, the plaintiffinsurer has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court Act. The plaint be returned to the
plaintiff with liberty to file it in appropriate court, if not otherwise barred.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bangladesh Shipping Corporation

Section 6- For fundamental breach of the contract the defendants are liable to deliver the consignment in the
order and conditions in which the goods were stuffed in the containers and were received by them on board the
vessel.
Resource International vs MV Sargodha and others

Section 6, 7 & 11- Causes arising out of a contract of marine insurance would come under the provisions of
Admiralty Courts Act of 1861 for this court to have jurisdiction.
Bengal Liner Ltd., Dhaka vs Sadharan Bima Corporation

Section 11- Jurisdiction of High Court in matters concerning marine insurance or maritime assurance arising
out of such contracts and claims arising out of a marine mortgage is covered by section 11 of the Admiralty
Courts Act of 1861.
Bengal Liner Ltd., Dhaka vs Sadharan Bima Corporation

Section 34- In the present situation of the case it would be quite just and proper if the proceeding of the
principal cause i.e. Admiralty Suit No. 33 of 1995, is suspended until security is furnished by the ship of the
plaintiff to answer the judgment in the cross-cause.
GD Alesio, Livorno, Italy, Owner of MV Mauro DAlesio vs MV Hawai Splendour & others

Section 52- There is nothing in the Shipping Ordinance barring the jurisdiction of Admiralty Court to entertain
any claim for damages done by any ship.
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. And others

Section 52- The Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit for compensation arising out of
the cause taking place both in inland water and on the high seas.
BIWTC vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. And others

Section 6- Return of Plaint- As the cargo had never been brought to any port in Bangladesh by the defendant
No. 1 vessel and unless the goods in question are carried into any port of Bangladesh, section 6 of the
Admiralty Court Act, 1861 cannot be made applicable and as such, the plaint is liable to be returned.
National Steel Industries Limited vs MV Ritz and others

Section 6- The applicant-petitioner as an insurer of the cargo in question has paid certain amount of money in
settlement of the plaintiffs claim for the loss of cargo in question but the plaintiff is prosecuting for a bigger
amount of claim than he received from the insurer under the letter of subrogation meaning thereby the plaintiff
still has a subsisting interest to proceed with the suit and as such, the applicant-petitioner is added as coplaintiff in the present admiralty suit.
Doon Valley Rice Ltd. vs MV Yue Yang and others

Section 6- Proceeding before the Admiralty Court is a civil proceeding as it involves the assertion or
enforcement of a civil right when Rules 3 and 51 of the Admiralty Rules, if read with sections 117 and 141 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, will show that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the
proceedings before the Admiralty Court unless it is excluded by any rule. There appears to be no rule making
the provision of Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure inapplicable to the Original Civil
Jurisdiction of the High Court Division, namely, its admiralty jurisdiction.
Doon Valley Rice Ltd. vs MV Yue Yang and others

Section 6- A suit for declaration is not maintainable under section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861.
Similarly, a suit for declaration that declaration of general average arising out of jettison is not amenable to the
jurisdiction of an Admiralty Court under section 6 of the Act. The Admiralty Judge acting on the strength of
section 157 read with sections 117 and 114 CPC rightly returned the plaint with the observation that the
plaintiff is at liberty to file the suit in an appropriate forum.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs MV Birba and others

Section 6- Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 provides that an Admiralty Suit can be filed by the
owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading of any goods carried by ship for damage done to the goods
or any part thereof by negligence or misconduct of the owner, master or crews.
Shahnaz Traders vs MV Sletter and others

Section 6- It is now well settled that damage suffered by the consignee on account of delay in delivery arising
out of breach of contract of carriage comes within the purview of section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861.
Whether there has been any breach of contract or not, and if there is any breach, what would be the quantum of
damage shall be decided at the time of final hearing of the suit.
Bangladesh Petroleum Corporation vs MT Saraband Ex-Sunrise-1 and others

Section 6- In the absence of any express provision in the bill of lading in the present case with regard to the
shipowners lien on the cargo of the plaintiff or that the plaintiff as a consignee was under obligation to take
delivery of the cargo at his own expense in case the ship is withdrawn from the charter for breach of the
charter-party by the charterers the shipsowners are not entitled to refuse delivery of the balance cargo of the
plaintiff in the name of exercising lien.
USS Enterprise vs MV Spiros and others

Section 10- Since the plaintiff has not been discharged earlier by the owner or master of the vessel he is
entitled to get his salary/wages and other allowances as per contract till he is signed off from the vessel and
taking into consideration of the evidence of PW 1 and the documents exhibited it appears that the plaintiff has
been able to prove his case and he is entitled to get his total claim.
Volodymyr Portnov vs MV Terpsichore and others

Section 34- Although no cross cause has been filed shortly after filling of the principal cause but written
statement was promptly filed in the principal cause along with a counter claim for an amount for which cross
cause, and the application under section 34 of the Admiralty Court Act for obtaining security from the owner of
the other vessel collided with each other though filed belatedly it has not prejudiced the plaintiff of the
principal cause for which the plaintiff of the principal cause is required to furnish a bank guarantee of the equal
amount which the defendant of the principal has furnished.
GD DAlesio, Livorno, Italy, Owner of MV Mauro DAlesio vs MV Hawai Splendour and others
Section 7- It is contended on behalf of the decree-holder-petitioner that the admiralty suit has been decreed
long ago but yet the judgment debtors have paid but a negligible amount of the decretal amount and also they
have come with the applications for permission to sell the attached and mortgaged properties of the judgment
debtor to realize decretal amount though the sale of these properties would not satisfy the decree in its entirety.
The jurisdiction of the High Court Division is not derived from the Letters Patent of 1862 or that of 1865, but
from the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act (India) of 1891 and the Court of Admiralty Act 1861 of England.
Sonali Bank vs Bengal Liner Ltd. and others

Section 6- In an Admiralty Suit the plaintiff filed an application for extension of Bank guarantee which expired
on 17-12-2001 by efflux of time. It appears that it is the obligation of the defendant to take necessary steps to
renew the Bank guarantee because the arrested vessel was released only on furnishing the Bank guarantee and
since the Bank guarantee itself is the security instead of vessel such security must be continued and kept in
force till disposal of the suit.
Java Vegetable Oil Ltd. vs MT Komandarm Fedko and others

Section 10- Plaintiff as Master of the vessel was not given his monthly salary and other allowances from the
date of his joining the vessel and he could not sign off nor was relieved from his service even after the expiry
of his contractual period of employment and hence he is entitled to salaries and other allowances till the date of

his signing off or release from the vessel for an amount of US$ 29761.84 equivalent to Bangladeshi Taka
14,49,401.61. By an amendment of plaint his claim was enhanced.
Plaintiff proved his case ex parte and he is entitled to recover an amount of US$ 38,992.05 (or its equivalent
amount in taka as on the date of payment) with costs against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 with interest at the rate
of 10% per annum from the date of decree till its realization. It is an action in rem against the vessel and in
personam against the other principal defendants.
Captain Khawja Bakhtyiar Saleem vs MV Delta Star and others

Section 5- On a clear reading of section 5 of the Act of 1861 the High Court Division is of the view that the
judgment passed in decreeing the Admiralty Suit against the defendants ex parte cannot be said to have been
passed without jurisdiction. In that regard, the High Court Division finds itself to be in agreement with Mr.
Siddiques submission that the Admiralty Court having assumed jurisdiction under section 5 of the Act of 1861
to consider the claim of the plaintiff for supply of bunkers to the vessel MV Peleas K, section 230 of the
Contract Act, 1872 cannot be said to have an application in these facts and cannot, therefore, be interpreted to
have a co-extensive application with section 5 of the Act of 1861 for assumption of jurisdiction for passing a
decree for claims arising from the supply of fuel to the vessel.
Fairdeal Marine Services vs MV Peleas K

Section 5- The decree- holder- petitioner had a right to seek a comprehensive and complete relief the first time
around, but having not done so, as is evident in the facts and circumstances of this case, shall not, therefore,
have any avenue open to it for placing claims periodically at subsequent dates. Having thus failed to so fully
exercise its right by execution of the entire Decree at one go the decree-holder-petitioner, and as is evident in
the execution petition of 10-03-2005, having asked this Court to enforce the decree for the sum only of Taka
19,70,000, a sum lesser than the gross claimed amount of Taka 31,03,562.50 inclusive of interest, must now be
taken to have accordingly waived the right to claim the balance amount of Taka 11,33,562.50. Requiring this
Court to now allow satisfaction of the claim to the balance interest amount in the manner as sought in the
application dated 25-09-2005 is tantamount to effectively asking this Court to innovate on the execution
application and case which this Court is now reluctant to undertake in the facts and circumstances.
Fairdeal Marine Services vs MV Peleas K

Section 6- The Exhibit- B has not been considered by the trail Court and failed to consider that the defendants
delivered 15,891 tonnes of food grains at Chittagong and 9,271 tonnes of food grains at Chalna thus, the total
quantity being of 25,132 tonnes of food grains (wheat) were delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff should not
depend upon gross measurement of food grains contained in a bulk in a vessel of a surveyor. They should
calculate the actual quantity of food grains. Thus the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court suffers
from illegality and not sustainable in law.
Commerce Tanker Corporation vs Bangladesh

Section 6- It appears that the vessel MV Chosun Hope has not reached late in the discharge port and used its
maximum speed and dispatch to reach discharge port within the stipulated period as made in the addendum of
the charter party. The plaintiff did not suffer any loss as yet on the count of imposition of development

surcharge on the consignment of Soda Ash Light as imported through the defendants vessel which reached
Chittagong Port on 26-06-1997. In view of the discussion and reasoning as above, this Court finds that the
plaintiff succeeds in proving the cause in part for which the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in part in the suit
and accordingly this Court hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation from the defendant No. 1
at an amount of Taka 1,06,250 along with simple interest @ 18% PA from the date of discharge of the cargo
up-to the actual realization of the decreetal dues.
Fazlur Rahman & Co Private Ltd. vs MV Chosun Hopi

Section 6- Since the plaintiff has taken delivery of the cargo after the free time, the plaintiff is responsible for
his own negligence and the defendants is completely immune from any liability which may be occurred due to
the hole in the container allegedly damaging the goods therein. Therefore, this Court finds that the plaintiff
failed to prove the allegation that the defendants are liable for any damage caused to the household articles of
the plaintiff which was carried by the container from the port of Baltimore to the Port of Chittagong by the
defendants vessel.
Mizanur Rahman Khan vs American Liner Systems, USA

ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 2000

Section 4(4)- Beneficial ownership -Action in personem- Action in rem- Having regard to the provisions of the
Admiralty Courts Act and the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and on consideration of the decisions cited, the
court has no doubt that the vessels MV X-Press Manaslu and MV X-Press Resolve cannot be arrested for
security of the plaintiffs claims, for, the claims in the suit cannot be enforced in an action in rem against the
vessels owned by stranger to the dispute.
HRC Shipping Ltd vs MV X-Press Manaslu, MV X-Press Resolve

Section 24- It is contended on behalf of the decree-holder-petitioner that the admiralty suit has been decreed
long ago but yet the judgment debtors have paid but a negligible amount of the decretal amount and also they
have come with the applications for permission to sell the attached and mortgaged properties of the judgment
debtor to realize decretal amount though the sale of these properties would not satisfy the decree in its entirety.
The jurisdiction of this Court is not derived from the Letters Patent of 1862 or that of 1865, but from the
Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act (India) of 1891 and the Court of Admiralty Act 1861 of England.
The Admiralty Court Rules was framed in 1912 which was gazette in 12 th June, 1912 and that rule is still in
force in Bangladesh pursuant to the provisions of section 24 of the Admiralty Court Act, 2000. Section 24 of
the present Act provides that until rules are framed under the new Act the Admiralty Rules which were in
existence will be followed and admittedly no rule has yet been framed under the Admiralty Court Act, 2000.
Therefore, the rules framed in 1912 under the provisions of the previous Act arc still in force and govern the
procedure in the Admiralty Court.
Sonali Bank vs Bengal Liner Ltd.

Section 3(2)(Cha) of the said Act provides that Admiralty Suit shall be maintainable for recovery of
compensation arising out of loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship. This Court finds that the cause of the
plaintiff is squarely maintainable in this jurisdiction as such issue No. 1 is disposed of in favour of the plaintiff.
This Court finds that as the ulage survey report confirms that the vessel had the quantity of 24,000 MT of
CDSO and the same quantity of CDSO was discharged by the vessel in the lighter-age tankers which carried
the same to the shore tanks owned by the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiffs suffered no loss or damage on
this count. There being no short landing of the cargo from the vessel MT Trompeteros, the claim of the
plaintiff as to incurring loss in respect of short landing has no substance to be considered by this Court.
Moreover, since the adjudication made by the customs authority was not lawful, the plaintiffs have also not
incurred any loss in respect of the customs Penalty which is not at all a liability of the plaintiff. Therefore, the
question of business loss upon the alleged short landing does not come at all.
S. Alam Vegetable Oil Ltd. vs MT Trompeteros

Section 4(4)- Having, therefore, had regard to the referred provisions of section 4(4) of the Admiralty Court
Act, 2000 and section 2 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and having perused, in particular, this Courts
previous order in Admiralty Suit No. 27 of 2005 that dealt with a similar dispute arising out of the same facts
and circumstances, this Court is inclined to hold that the Order of arrest of 10-07-2007 of the vessels MV
Lady Fatima and MV Da Li is not sustainable in law. It is at this juncture that this Court is additionally put
on notice of the fact that of the two vessels subject to that Order of arrest, one vessel namely, MV Lady
Fatima did not, in fact, call on and was not available at Chittagong Port at any material time. This Court has
taken note of the fact, and as asserted in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1, 2
and 15, that in making the order of arrest on 10-07-2007 this Court possibly did not have the benefit of all
relevant facts and circumstances of this case placed before it.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The Order of arrest of the vessel MV Da Li is hereby vacated and it
is ordered that the vessel MV Da Li now berthed at Chittagong Port, Chittagong be forthwith released from
arrest. In the light of the fact that the other vessel MV Lady Fatima had never been effectively the subject of
the Order of arrest dated 10-07-2007, that Order of arrest to the extent that it applied to the vessel MV Lady
Fatima necessarily also stands vacated.
HRC Shipping Ltd. vs MV Lady Fatima and MV Da Li

Section 24- It is clear, however, that the plaintiffs claim has been proven in the regard only to that extent. The
instant Admiralty Suit is thus liable to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Taka 32,28,703
equivalent to US $ 47,134.35 inclusive of cost ex parte against the defendant No. 1. Hence it is ordered that the
Suit be decreed ex parte against the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff gets a decree for Taka 32,28,703 only
inclusive of cost with interest @ 13% per annum on the decretal amount assessed from the date of the
institution of the suit till the date of the realization of the decretal amount. The decretal amount shall be
realized from the defendant No. 1.
Evergreen Marine Corporation vs Fauzia Sharmin Tania

Section 3(2)(Ja)- The plaintiff having stated in the plaint that he is engaged in business of shipping and
substantiated it by filling document showing the dispute has arisen from the contract of carriage of goods by
sea and therefore amenable under section 3(2)(Ja) of the Admiralty Court Ain, 2000.
Evergreen Marine Corporations vs Habib and Brothers

Section 4- Maritime lien accrues as only as security for payment for a debt of a person or company and only
against the property of the creditor. Although these two Admiralty Suit have been heard separately one after
another, yet as the factual and legal aspect involved in these suits are similar, the same are disposed of by this
single judgment. High Court Division find that as all the Issues have been disposed off in favour of the
plaintiff, these three suits is required to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff not to the strict sense of the prayer
but in modified form.
Kyung Hae Maritime Co. Ltd. vs M. V. BF Glory (Ex-Kunai) and others

Dismissal of Admiralty Suit for non-prosecution: It appears that the plaintiff has compromised its suit with
the defendants as per terms and conditions stated above and as such the plaintiff is not interested to continue
with the suit as such the same is required to be dismissed for non-prosecution and vacate the order of arrest and
also release of the vessel.
Marodi Service S.A.S vs M. V. SWIFT CRO

S. 4(4)- Clause (b) of Section 4(4) provides that if person is liable in personem for the plaintiffs cause against
a particular vessel and the said person is beneficial owner of 100% share of another vessel, then the plaintiff
will be entitled to proceed against the latter vessel in rem in respect of his cause.
Acquila Voyager Maritime GMBH vs M. V. Jin Acc

ADMIRALTY COURT RULES, 1912

Rule 23 & 31- The rules being enabling provisions do not in any way circumscribe the discretionary
jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court to either reduce or enhance the amount of Bank Guarantee for release of the
arrested vessel.
SM Monirul Islam vs MV You Bang

Rules 3 and 51- Proceeding before the Admiralty Court is a civil proceeding as it involves the assertion or
enforcement of a civil right when Rules 3 and 51 of the Admiralty Rules, if read with sections 117 and 141 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, will show that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the
proceedings before the Admiralty Court unless it is excluded by any rule. There appears to be no rule making
the provision of Order I, rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure inapplicable to the Original Civil
Jurisdiction of the High Court Division, namely, its admiralty jurisdiction.
Rule 12- An insurer of the cargo has no independent right to invoke admiralty jurisdiction as a plaintiff in
view of section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 as it is neither an owner nor a consignee or assignee of the
bill of lading of the cargo but it can be added as a co-plaintiff as per provision of Rule 12 of the Admiralty
Rules and Order I, rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in a pending Admiralty suit provided it acquires
an interest in the vessel on the basis of letter of subrogation.
Doon Valley Rice Ltd. vs MV Yue Yang and others

Rule 35- The Admiralty Court Rules were framed in 1912 and since then rule 35 is in operation and till today
the vires of this rule has not yet been challenged anywhere and on scrutiny of the provisions of the Act and the
rule it appears that rule 35 has provided a complete procedure of realization of the decretal amount by selling
the property of any kind of the judgment debtor unless otherwise directed by the court itself. Of course, there is
discretion and the discretion vests in the court and not to the judgment debtor. In the instant case, it appears
that the court did state that the immovable properties will be sold in a manner as provided by the Code for
immovable property. Thus as per rule 35, immovable properties of the judgment debtor will be sold by the
Marshal in like manner as a sale of movable property in execution of a dectree in an ordinary civil suit. Both
movable and immovable property can be sold in a mode as provided for sale of movables by the Code and that
is what is done here and is done in every Admiralty suit.
Sonali Bank vs Bengal Liner Ltd. and others

Bank guarantee furnished earlier had expired and refusal of its extension is not legal. In all accepted norms of
good conscience and fairplay the respondents were required to keep their commitment valid till disposal of the
Admiralty Suit but for the lapse on the part of the respondents would in no way disentitle the appellant to seek
order from the Court to compel the respondent No. 1 to keep her commitment to the Court valid till
adjudication of the said suit. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 was directed to furnish fresh Bank Guarantee
in the Admiralty Suit.
Loyal Shipping (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs MV Anangel Wisdom and others

Rule 3- Upon a perusal of the documents as produced by and on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 15
this Court finds no reason to question the scope and validity of the agency powers vested in the concerned
Protecting and Declaring Agents to represent their foreign principals before this Court in all matters pertaining
to and arising out of this Suit.
HRC Shippong Ltd. vs MV Lady Fatima and MV Da Li

Rule 35- The defendants Nos. 3 and 4 have neither adduced any oral evidence nor produced any documentary
evidence to prove that the plaintiff has not supplied the necessaries i.e. bunkers and fresh water. From the
deposition of the witness for the plaintiff and the documentary evidence produced in support thereof it is clear
that the plaintiffs claim has been proved. The instant Admiralty Suit is thus liable to be decreed in favour of
the plaintiff for a sum of US $ 55,465.61 equivalent Taka 28,18,762.30 with costs against the defendant Nos. 1,
3 and 4.
Jove International Private Ltd. vs MV Accord

BANGLADESH MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE, 1983

Section 43- Jurisdiction of High Court in matters concerning marine insurance or maritime assurance arising
out of such contracts and claims arising out of a marine mortgage is covered by section 11 of the Admiralty
Courts Act of 1861 and by section 43 of the Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Ordinance.

Bengal Liner Ltd., Dhaka vs Sadharan Bima Corporation

Section 388- Law does not require the petitioner to procure any prior approval or permission of the Ministry of
Fisheries and Livestock as a condition precedent to grant registration and licence to his trawler.
Jane Alam (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh

Section 460(1) - The owner of a vessel continues to own and has claim over the wreck of that vessel within six
months. The wreck does not become the property of the Government like drift timber making the Government
liable for the customs duty.
Bashiruddin Ahmed vs Ministry of Finance

Sections 477 and 479- Since the plaintiff has not been discharged earlier by the owner or master of the vessel
he is entitled to get his salary/wages and other allowances as per contract till he is signed off from the vessel
and taking into consideration of the evidence of PW 1 and the documents exhibited it appears that the plaintiff
has been able to prove his case and he is entitled to get his total claim.
Volodymyr Portnov vs MV Terpsichore and others

BANGLADESH TERRITORIAL WATERS AND MARITIME ZONE ACT, 1974

S. 3. Government issued notification defining territorial waters and economic zone of Bangladesh and it is
not Courts function to decide what should be the limits of Bangladeshs territorial waters.
Bangladesh has in exercise of its sovereign right fixed the limits of the territorial waters. It confers the
authority on the Government to fix the base line and declare the limits of the territorial waters. The notification
set out above gives in details, in conformity with the powers conferred upon it by the Statute the limits of
territorial waters of Bangladesh. The limits of the territorial waters has been fixed at twelve nautical miles
measured seaward and has also defined the baseline giving the details set out in the notification mentioned
earlier.
It is patent that all the three trawlers ware captured from the places which clearly fall within the territorial
waters of Bangladesh as defined by the notification issued by the Government under the statutory powers
conferred upon it by the Territorial Waters and Maritime Zones Act 1974.That being the position, both the
Customs Authority and the High Court misdirected themselves in assuming the power to decide what should
be the limits of territorial waters of Bangladesh.
The three trawlers were seized within the territorial waters of Bangladesh which is co-terminus with the
Customs waters and hence their seizure was with jurisdiction.
In the Customs Act though there is no specific mention of the Government, the language is plain enough to
include the power of the legislature and Government to determine the appropriate baseline. Measurement of
twelve nautical miles from the appropriate base line on the coast of Bangladesh as provided in the Customs
Act, therefore, cannot be the function of the Court.

There is no conflict between the territorial waters as defined by the notification under the Territorial Waters
and Maritime Zones Act 1974 and the Customs Waters as defined under the Customs Act, 1969
They (the trawlers) were captured not within the economic zone but within the territorial waters of
Bangladesh which is co-terminus with the Customs Waters and hence the Customs Authorities has full
jurisdiction over the three offending Thai trawlers and those came within the mischief of the penal sections of
the Customs Act. The actions taken by the Customs Authorities were done with jurisdiction and in accordance
with law and no interference is called for.
Bangladesh vs Somboon Asavahan

BILL OF LADING ACT, 1856

Bill of lading- Burden of proof about misstatement in it (e.g., where the complaint is that the goods has not
been shipped) is on the buyer.
It is quite correct that although statement in the bill of lading is not a conclusive proof in law if buyer wanted
to challenge the fact of shipment recorded in the bill of lading it was their duty to lead evidence in proof of
their allegation that the goods had not been shipped.
It was incumbent on the buyer to prove that the goods had not been shipped. Where this onus has not been
discharged it is not possible to hold that the goods were not shipped or the bill of lading was a forged
document.
Master of the ship is liable in case of transshipmentnot the person further endorsing the bill of lading in
favour of a third party.
Even in cases where the hindrance of the ships voyage is not caused by an excepted peril the ship owner is
only liable for delay or failure to deliver and to compensate for terms more onerous to the shipper in
transshipment. But this only is the responsibility of the Master of the ship and not of the person who has
further endorsed the bill of lading in favour of a third party.
Haji Moosa Haji Omar vs Ahmed Abdul Ghani

The expression apparent good order and condition means in a bill of lading that apparently and so far as met
the eye and, externally, the goods were placed in good order on board the ship.
M/S, Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs M/S, United Oriental Steam-Ship Co., Karachi and others

Bill of lading not being in itself a contract between shippers and shipowner, though evidence of its terms
evidence is admissible of the oral contract of carriage arrived at between the shipper and shipowners agent
before the bill of lading had been signed.
Muhammdi Steam-Ship Co. Ltd. and others vs M/S, Dada Limited Chittagong

The bill of lading contained the following clause: All cargo carried on deck are conveyed solely at the risk of
the shipper and the particular consignment in the present case was carried on deck.
The consignee did not receive a part of the consignment for which he brought a suit claiming damage for nondelivery of the goods shipped per defendants steamship. The defendant company, relied on the foregoing
clause in the bill of lading as relieving them (including the negligence of their agents and servants) of all
liability for the loss of the goods and further relied on clause (c) of Article 1 of the Schedule to the Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act under which cargo carried on deck are not governed by the provisions (vide para 8 of Article
III) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and contended that a common carrier can contract out of all liability
by special terms of contract such as the one set forth above.
Held: General condition in the bill of lading as to the exemption for negligence does not help the ship owner.
On the foregoing terms it cannot be said that the defendants have completely absolved themselves from taking
any care of the goods of which they took delivery for carrying them to their destination. It may be that they
were carried on deck but that does not mean that they will not take any care of these goods. They are to take
such care as one can take of goods carried on deck and if they are carried under a stipulation even then they
will take such reasonable care as a man of ordinary prudence would do of the goods that are on the deck.
The duty of a common law carrier, generally speaking, is to take utmost care of the goods entrusted to him and
he can only limit the liability of taking extraordinary care by certain special terms and contract.
When goods are delivered to a carrier, they are usually no longer under the eye of the owner. If they should be
lost or injured by the grossest negligence of the carrier or his servants or stolen by them or by thieves in
collusion with them, the owner would be unable to prove either or these causes of loss. To give due security to
property, the law has added to the responsibility of a carrier, which immediately arises out of his contract to
carry for a reward that of taking all reasonable care of it.
If the parties are to contract out completely as to their liability, even according to English Common Law they
must do so in so many plain and unambiguous words. In other words, It is poen to the parties to even enter into
terms of contract which will change the character of the common carrier altogether or destroy the character of
a common carrier as a carrier.
Onus of proof is on the carrier where the goods are lost, even though there was the special condition of
carrying the goods at owners risk.
Trans-Oceanic Steam-Ship Co. Ltd. and others vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Bills of lading though not forming the contract of carriage of goods by sea themselves are first class evidence
of contract between the parties.
Shipowners liability to pay damage for goods shipped where the bill of lading contained the clause that the
good were shipped in apparent good order and condition.
A clause was added in the bill of lading which was to the effect: Attention is drawn to the packing of these
goods which in the option of the carrier is insufficient.
It was thereupon contended that the ship owner is not liable for loss and damage to the foods shipped.
Held : The statement as to apparent good order and condition estop the shipowner from proving that the
goods were not in apparent good order and condition when shipped and therefore, from alleging that there
were at shipment external defects in them which were apparent to reasonable inspection.

The shipowner is not allowed to reduce his liability by proving or suggesting contrary to his statement in the
bill that the goods in respect of matters externally reasonably visible were not in good condition when shipped.
Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs United Oriental Steamship Co.

The carrier is a bailee and it is for him to show that he has taken reasonable care of the goods while they have
been in his custody.
The bailee is bound to restore the subject of the bailment in the same condition as that in which he received it,
and it is for him to explain or to offer valid excuse if he has not done so. It is for him to prove that reasonable
care had been exercised.
Where insufficient packing was definitely stated but at the same time it was also stated that the goods were
apparently in good order and condition and the shipowner would deliver them in the like order at the port of
destination the shipowners must prove facts as to whether they reasonably stowed and dealt with the goods
after they were put on board the ship bringing the case within the exception.
The carrier is bound to use care in carrying the goods and where the packages containing them are plainly
defective, or become so during the voyage, and he has notice of the defects and might remedy them, he may be
liable if he fails to do so.
M/S, Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs M/S, United Oriental Steam-Ship Co., Karachi and others

Where on account of non-delivery of goods shipped, the defendants have claimed exemption on account of the
special condition of owners risk the onus is on the defendants to explain as to how the goods were dealt with
and why they were lost and whether this was despite their taking such reasonable care of the goods as could be
taken of goods carried on the deck of the ship.
Trans-Oceanic Steam-Ship Co. and others vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Carriers (ship-owners) liability (when there is no declaration in the bill of lading that the value of each unit of
goods is over pound 100), under the law extends to the maximum of pound 100 per unit of goods, and any
contract reducing this liability below pound 100 is void.
M/S, Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs M//S, Karachi Steam Navigation Co., Ltd.

The bill of lading constitutes a contract between the ship-owner and the shipper or the endorsee of bill, but it
purports as a rule only to embody the terms of the contract on which the goods are carried, and not the terms of
any other contract for any other purpose.
At Common Law, after the contract of affreightment ends, the common carrier incurs a new liability as an
involuntary warehouse man or a bailee if the goods still continue to remain in his custody even by reason of
some fault of the consignee, and he is bound to take such care of the goods as a prudent man would take of his
own goods of the same kind, bulk or value, in similar circumstances.
Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs Mackinnon Mackenzi & Co. and another

The bill of lading contained the following clause: Goods shipped on deck at shippers risk.
Relying on this clause, it was argued that the goods, being carried on deck at shippers risk, are exempt from
the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act on account of definition of goods contained in Article 1, sub-clause (c),
and that on account of this clause in the bill of lading the carriers are also exempt from liability for the loss or
damages arising out of any cause whatsoever.
Held: It cannot be said that the special contract between the shipping company and the plaintiff is of such
comprehensive nature as to absolve the company from all liability so as to exclude sections 151 and 152 Indian
Contract Act from coming into operation.
By the addition of the clause in the bill of lading, the ship-owner was not exempted from all liability
whatsoever for the loss of the goods nor were they excused from giving any explanation for the loss.
The paramount clause in the bill of lading, while stating that all the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by
Sea Act will apply, further stated that if any term of lading was repugnant to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
to any extent it shall be void to that extent and no further. The provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
do not apply to goods carried on deck.
Held: Simply because the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply to deck cargo it cannot be said that
none of the provisions of the Act are applicable.
Trans Oceanic Steam-Ship Co., Ltd. Karachi and others vs Abdul Razak Abdul Kadir and other

In the bill of lading, the drums were described to be second hand with marks dim, drums broken and repaired
but at the same time the carrier definitely admitted in the bill of lading that the goods were shipped in apparent
good order and condition and that they would be delivered in the like good order and condition at the port of
destination.
Held: As there is no case by the defendant ship-owners that the loss was due to any perils dangers and
accidents of the sea or other navigable waters, they are, in spite of the provisions in the bill of lading, liable for
loss of the plaintiffs goods.
M/S, Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs M//S, Karachi Steam Navigation Co., Ltd.

The bill of lading constitutes a contract between the ship-owner and the shipper or the endorsee of the bill but
it purports, as a rule, only to embody the terms of the contract on which the goods are carried and not of the
terms of any other contract for any other purpose.
A clause in the bill of lading to the effect that in all cases, under all circumstances the Companys liability
shall absolutely cease when the goods are free of the vessels tackle and thereupon the goods shall be at the
risk, for all purposes and in every respect, of the shipper or consignee cannot be given such wide meaning as
to exclude the liability arising from wilful negligence or wanton misfeasance of the shipowner.
Under such a clause, the shipowners are exempt from liabilities which attach to them as carriers only.
M/S, Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs M/S, Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. and other

Two clauses in bill of lading, one to the effect that notice is to be given to the consignee and the other saying
that such directions are for the purpose of the ships agent and not for creating any responsibility to the
consignee- No obligation to notify the consignee is thereby created.
Shipowners liability to notify the charterer of the arrival of goods where he is under an obligation by the terms
of a contract.
The master of a ship is not bound, in the absence of a special agreement, to notify the arrival of the ship to the
consignee of the cargo; the latter are bound to watch for it and to take notice of it without communication.
Where there was contractual obligation imposed on the shipowner to notify the arrival of the ship, the posting
of a letter containing notification would be a sufficient performance of the obligation, even though the letter
were lost in the post.
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. vs Eastern Mercantile Co.

The condition in the bill of lading was in these terms: Any claim for short delivery of or damage done to
goods, and all other claims whatsoever, to be presented at Karachi and no other port.
Held: The condition is restricted to claim and does not apply to a suit. As the Head Office of the shipping Co.
was in Karachi it was stipulated that all claims should be laid there but this clause does not oust the jurisdiction
of the Courts at Chittagong. The restrictive clause used the word claim. It does not say anything about suits
or actions. Hence, there is no reason to import a limitation which the parties have not seen fit to express in the
contract.
M/S, United Oriental Steam Ship Co. vs M/S, Jamiluddin and others

Bills of lading though not forming the contract of carriage of goods by sea themselves are first class evidence
of contract between the parties.
M/S, Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs M/S, United Oriental Steam-Ship Co., Karichi and others

The clause as to Courts jurisdiction to try suits can be validly inserted in bill of lading.
Tar Mohammad & Co., vs Federation of Pakistan & others

Parties are bound by the terms laid down in the bill of lading.
Where it has been provided in a bill of lading that the parties (viz, the shippers and the consignee) to the
contract shall be governed by the laws of England, the contract shall be construed according to the rules for
construing English bills of lading. Where, therefore, under the terms of a bill of lading, defendants liability for
loss of goods is stated at pound 100 per unit, the monetary units shall be taken, following the English rule of
construction, to be gold value.

Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. of Pakistan Ltd. vs M/S, Dada Ltd., Khatunganj

The plaintiff company filed a suit against the shipping company for recovery of compensation for goods shortdelivered. The goods were shipped at a foreign port and for that reason the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act was
not applicable to the shipping company. The bill of lading governing the relationship between the plaintiff and
the company incorporated the provisions of Article 3, clause 6 of the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea
Act which specifies the period within which a suit for damage must be brought against the company.
Held: The effect of the incorporation of Article 3, clause 6 of the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act
into the bill of lading is that the rights of the plaintiff company are extinguished as soon as the period provided
therein is over.
The words the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is
brought within one year incorporated in the bill of lading mean that under the contract they will be totally
absolved from liability if the suit was not brought within one year.
Suit for damage is to be brought within one year from the date on which the cargo is discharged.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not hit the contract as embodied in the bill of lading nor does it come
within the meaning of local or special law referred to in section 29 of the Limitation Act.
Holland Bengal Burmah Line vs Dawood Corporation Ltd.

The plaintiff at the time of shipment paid freight for the entire cargo covered by the bill of lading. On
representation of the company that lighter may have to be used for unloading the cargo at the port of
destination the plaintiff paid a certain additional sum at the rate of Rs. 20/- per freight ton to meet the
lighterage and demurrage charge, if any. As the cargo carrying ship had not to take the help of any lighter to
discharge the cargo nor had any demurrage been paid, the plaintiff claimed refund of the additional amount
paid to the company to which the latter answered that the amount claimed was really a part and parcel of the
freight agreed upon and, therefore, refund of amount cannot be claimed. The company in this connection relied
on the endorsement under Freight in the bill of lading which was to the effect that Rs. 20/- per freight ton for
lighterage and accordingly contended that the additional charge had been shown in the bills of lading under the
rate and freight column and had been included in the total freight payable which implied that it was an
additional charge.
Held: The amount deposited at the rate of Rs. 20/- per freight ton was not a part and parcel of the freight. From
the mere fact that this amount was mentioned in the bill of lading, it cannot be said that it was a part and parcel
of freight.
If the said sum was a part of the freight, the company could have easily mentioned it as such in the bills of
lading.
It is, therefore, evident that the company was not entitled to charge this additional amount as freight.
M/S, Muhammadi Steam-Ship Co. Ltd. Karachi vs M/S, Abdur Rahim Abdul Gani

Freight is the remuneration payable for carriage of the goods in a ship and is payable on arrival of the goods
ready to be delivered to the consignee in a merchantable condition. If agreed upon it is also paid in advance on
shipment. Demurrage on the other hand, is a charge for delay in clearing goods at the destination by the
consignee.
In the absence of any specific term in the bill of lading about the responsibility of the shippers in respect of the
damages caused by the detention, the duty of the shipper or his consignee or assign is to be reasonably diligent
in discharging and receiving of the goods at the port of destination. What is reasonable time depends either on
the custom of the port or on the facts of a particular case.
The words lighterage and demurrage appearing in the bill of lading and the receipt are used in conjunction
and support the contention that demurrage was to be charged in respect of and connected with the use of
lighters. Amount charged under the head lighterage and demurrage was only to cover demurrage charges
payable to the Port Trust authorities who burdened the shipowners if they stayed at the outer anchorage
beyond the time allowed by them.
PLR (1960) 2 WP 199.

The bill of lading is a document of title to the goods and may as such be transferred to a third party who makes
it subject to everything that appears thereon. It is therefore, both transferable and negotiable. Usually as
between carrier and shipper, the contract is contained in the charter party and the bill of lading is not evidence
of the contract but only receipt for the goods and at the same time it is also a document which enables the
shipper to transfer the goods to a consignee. Therefore, apart from the receipt, the bill of lading in such case is
also a document of title.

Abu Bakr Siddique vs M. V. Aghia Thalassini

Section 1- the importer of the cargo being notifying party enters into the shoes of the supplier-shipper through
handing over of Bill of Lading by him to the importer.
Section 1- Under the voyage charter party agreement the liability of delay in reaching discharge port shifts to
the charterer if the delay is caused under agreement with the charterer and the same shall not be transferred to
the consignee.
Section 3- Ship owner remained legal carrier in a voyage charter party agreement and impliedly undertakes
that the ship will proceed with reasonable dispatch subject to the condition of the charter party agreement.
Jaya Vegetable Oil Ltd vs MT Komandarm Fedko

Section 3- Unless the original copy of the bills of lading is produced before the master of the Vessel the master
in no way is liable to deliver the cargo to any person, else he will face the consequence of the offence of
conversion.
LMJ International Ltd. India vs MV BK Ace

S. 1- The importer of the cargo being notifying party enters into the shoe of the supplier-shipper through
handling over of Bill of Lading by him to the importer.
Section 3- Ship owner remained legal carrier in a voyage charter party agreement and impliedly undertakes
that the ship will proceed with reasonable dispatch subject to the condition of the charter party agreement.
Section 1- under the voyage charter party agreement the liability of delay in reaching discharge port shifts to
the charterer if the delay is caused under agreement with the charterer and the same shall not be transferred to
the consignee.
Jaya Vegetable Oil Ltd. vs M.T. KOMANDARM FEDKO and others

The general purpose of issuing a HBL is if the forwarder in question wants to control the cargo and not leave it
under the direct control of the liner, and also since there will be variation in freights between the HBL and
MBL. But there is nothing stopping a forwarder issuing a HBL using the EXACT same details as the MBL, but
its just that such an issuance would be superfluous. Not only superfluous, but it will then mean that there are
two documents of title to the same shipment which cannot be the case.
Freight Management vs Bangladesh Bank

A house bill of lading issued by a forwarding agent acting solely in the capacity of the agent to arrange
carriage is not a bill of lading at all, but at the most a receipt for the goods coupled with an authority to enter
into a contract of carriage on behalf of the shipper. It is not a document of title, nor within the Bills of Lading
Act, 1855 and it is unlikely that it would ever be regarded as a good tender under a CIF-contract.
Freight Management vs Bangladesh Bank

CARRIAGE BY AIR (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION) ACT, 1966

Second Sch., r. 6 (1). Right of appeal is available to aggrieved party against orders of District Judge in
proceedings under the Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act, 1966 read with s. 141. Brother not
proved depending upon deceased passenger- Not considered member of family in terms of r. 6(1).
Cpt. Rahim Khan vs Miss Nisar Begum

Rules 6 and 7, Second Schedule- No court fee is required for the grant of a certificate by the District Judge
following the death of a passenger under rule 6, Second Schedule of Act IX of 1966.
Mrs. Nurunnahar Asdar vs Govt. of E. Pak.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT, 1925

Carriers by Sea are governed by the Common Law of England. These carriers by sea who offer to carry the
goods of all comers in a general ship or who run a line of ships from port to port habitually carrying all goods

brought to them are under the Common Law common carriers and thus incur the same liability in respect of
loss or damage to the goods carried by them as inland navigation carriers subject to any express exceptions
relieving them from such liability.
The position is not different where instead of a charter party agreement there is only a bill of lading.
The liability of a shipowner at Common Law is much higher than that of a bailee, for, he is in the position of
an insurer.
Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs Mackinnon Mackenzie

Art. III
Where liability of a common carrier does not arise under the bill of lading, but apart from it (in
the present case the common carrier has been held to be liable as a bailee), the special limitation prescribed by
the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not apply, and in such a case the suit must be held to which Article 115
of the first Schedule to the Limitation Act shall apply.
Where the liability of the ship-owner does not arise under the bill of lading but, apart from it by implication,
under the principles of the English Common Law, the special limitation of one year provided by Article III of
the Rules relating to the bills of lading set out in the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act does not
apply but Article 115 of the first Schedule to the Limitation Act governs the case and
applies.
A. Rahaman A. Gani vs Mackinnon Mackenzie

Carriers liability to deliver goods in good condition when they admitted that they received them in apparent
good order and condition.
Abdur Ranman Abdul Gani vs Karachi Steam Navigation

Article III, Clause (3) Time taken under section 80, C. P. Code is to be deducted in case of a suit filed under
Art. III, Clause of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.
The burden of proving when goods shipped ought to have been delivered lies on the shipper.
United Oriental Steamship vs Jamiluddin

Art. III, Rule 6

A ship is discharged from all liabilities under rule 6 of Art. 3 of the Schedule to the
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act in respect of loss or damage of the goods unless the suit is brought within one
year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.
The expression all liability in respect of loss or damage does not leave any claim, (such as payment of
custom duty and other charges on account of the goods) which is directly or remotely connected with the loss
or damage of the goods, outside its meaning.
Gladstone Wyllie & Co. vs Shahidi Trading Corporation

Rule 6 of Article III of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act is limited to the contract of carriage which ends with
the discharge of the cargo by the ship at the place of landing and, after the contract of affreightment ends, the
carrier incurs a new liability as bailee and the limitation for bringing a suit in that case would be 3 years under
Article 115 of the Limitation Act.

Art. III, rule 8 and art., IV, rule 5 Carriers (shipowners) liability (when there is no declaration in the bill of
lading that the value of each unit of goods is over pound 100) under the law, extends to the maximum of pound
100 per unit of goods and any contract reducing this liability below pounds 100 is void.
Abdur Rahman Abdul Gani vs Karachi Steam Navigation

At Common Law, after the contract of affreightment ends, the common carrier incurs a new liability as an
involuntary warehouseman or a bailee, if the goods still continue to remain in his custody even by reason of
some fault of the consignee, and he is bound to take such care of the goods as a prudent man would take of
his own goods of the same kind, bulk or value, in similar circumstances.

Where liability of a common carrier does not arise under the bill of lading, but apart from it (in the present case
the common carrier has been held to be as liable as a bailee) the special limitation prescribed by the Carriage
of Goods by Sea Act does not apply, and in such a case the suit must be held to be governed by the general law
of limitation to which Article 115 of the first Schedule to the Limitation Act shall
apply.
Abdur Ranman Abdul Gani vs Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co.

Sec. 4. Provision of the section is not applicable to contracts where the port of lading is not in Pakistan.
Makinnon Mackenzie & Co. vs Dada Ltd.

Art. III, r. 2 and Art. IV, r 1 :

Initial onus of proving that the cargo carried under the bill of lading was
delivered at the port of destination in damaged condition is on the consignee (owner of the goods)- The onus
thereafter shifts on to the carrier first to prove that he took all reasonable care while the cargo was in his
custody and then to prove that the cargo was damaged under circumstances beyond his control, which
exonerates him from the liability of such damage under the provisions of the Act.
Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd. vs Province of E. Pakistan

Art. III, Clause 6. Shipments of goods between inter ports in Pakistan and between one in Pakistan and one
outside Pakistan- suit shall be governed, for limitation purpose, by the Act.

Shipment of goods from a foreign port to one in Pakistan- limitation for the purpose of suit- will be governed
by the terms of the bill of lading.
The expression one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered
occurring in Article III, clause 6, really means one year after discharge of the goods or the goods should have
been discharged.
The word discharged implies complete discharge of all the goods covered by the consignment. Hence in a
case where the goods are completely discharged, the period of one year shall be calculated from the date of
discharge of the goods.
New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd. vs M. A. Rouf.

Art. IV, Para. 2(c). When the cargo was damaged by heat from the engine boilers, which did not pass away as
usual owing to the necessity of closing the ventilators during prolonged bad weather such damage was held to
be by accidents of the sea, rivers and steam navigation. But in such cases it is not the lack of ventilation but
the peril of incursion of sea water against which the ventilators are closed which is to be considered as the
peril of the sea.
Adam Ltd. vs Muhammadi Steamship Co. Ltd.

Art. IV, r. 5 & Art. 11, r. 8. Where liability has been fixed, as witnessed by the bill of lading between the
parties, at a sum below pound 100 per package, such a contractual term in the bill of lading is null and void.
Held: In view of the provisions of rule 8 of Article III of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, read with
rule 5 Article IV, clause 9 of the bill of lading must be held to be null and void as it seeks to limit the liability
of the carrier to less than pound 100 per package or unit. Clause 9 of the bill of lading comes within the
mischief of the third sub-paragraph of rule 5 of Article IV, which specifically requires that when the maximum
liability of the carrier is fixed the minimum rate per package or unit must be pound 100, which is the figure
representing maximum liability under the first sub-paragraph. In other words whenever a maximum liability is
assessed by parties, the assessment cannot be less than pound 100 per package or unit.
Art. IV, r. 5. The first sub-paragraph of rule 5 of Art. IV provides that, if the shipper does not specify the value
of the goods per package or unit, then the liability of the carrier is subject to a maximum of pound 100. The
second sub-paragraph states that, if a declaration of a specified value is made, it would be prima facie evidence
as to the value of the goods, but such valuation would not bind the carrier who may prove that the goods were
of lesser value. The third sub-paragraph requires that if a maximum liability per package or unit, as mentioned
in the first sub-paragraph, is fixed by parties to the contract, such liability cannot be less than the maximum
amount specified in the sub-paragraph, namely, pound 100. That is to say, it provides that the maximum
assessment of such liability must be the maximum stated under the first sub-paragraph.
Karachi Steam Navigation Co. vs Abdur Rahim

Clause 6, Schedule. Suit for damages for non-delivery to be filed within one year of the date when the goods
should have been delivered what the words really mean has to be determined in accordance with the provision
of Contract Act-Time for performance of contract can be extended under section 63 of the Contract Act.
Abdul Jalil Chowdhury vs Muhammad Steam ship Co. Ltd. and Federation of Pakistan

Rule 6, Art. III. Damages for non delivery of the goods from the shipping companys lighter after unloading
them from the ship. Liability of the shipping company for loss of goods not that of a bailee but of carriers, to
which Rule 6, of Article III is attracted.
Rule 6. Art. IV. Rule 6 of Art. IV of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act lays down that the maximum limit of a
claim to be fixed by agreement between the carrier and the shipper may exceed the figure of pound 100 but
cannot be lower than this figure.
Messrs. Karachi Navigation Co. Ltd. vs Messrs. Abdur Rahman, Abdul Gani

Hague Rules, Article 1(e) Rules 2 & 8 of Article III-The defendant ship to which the goods were consigned
remains responsible for the safe delivery of the goods to the port of discharge-Any transfer of goods to another
ship does not absolve the defendant ship from its responsibility.
Duration of carriers responsibility.- The operation of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, in this behalf
would commence from the time when the goods are loaded on the ship and would continue till their discharge
from the said vessel at the destined port. This is clear from the definition of carriage of goods in Article 1 (e)
of the rules in the said Act. Article 1 (e) Carriage of goods covers the period from the time when the goods
are loaded on to the time they are discharged from the ship.
Helenic Lines vs Bangladesh

Articles III and IV- As soon as the shipper delivers goods to the carrier at the port of origin in good condition
he is entitled to receive the goods at the port of destination in the same good condition and the carrier will be
held responsible for the loss or damage to the goods which are in his care and custody.
There is no onus under the law on the plaintiff to prove that the goods were damaged due to the negligence of
the employees of the carrier while in the ship. It is not possible for the shipper to prove negligence or
misconduct of the employees of the carrier while the goods were in the ship in their care and custody and it is
for the carrier to show that his employees took due care and caution as reasonable men of ordinary prudence
for the protection and preservation of the goods. That is why law provides that initial onus is on the shipper to
show that he delivered the goods in good condition and received the same in damaged condition and then the
onus is shifted on the carrier to prove that its employees took due care and caution as a reasonable man of
ordinary prudence to protect the goods but in spite of their taking such action due to circumstance beyond their
control such as perils of the sea, act of Good, etc the goods were damaged.
Transoceanic Steamship Co. Ltd. vs Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd.

Article 3, rule 6 of the Schedule- The carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liabilities in respect of
loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods
should have been delivered.
Continental Traders vs Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation

Section 19- From the jurisdiction clause in the bills of lading it is clear that the contract in question would be
governed by the law of the place where the carrier has his principal place of business. Hence the Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act, 1925 would be the law applicable to the instant voyage. Accordingly, the Courts in
Bangladesh would have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of the carriage of goods. However,
this did not prevent the plaintiff from litigating in Singapore.
Eximpo Trading Limited vs MV Banglar Kakoli

Section 19- That the words in Clause 6 of Article III of the Schedule to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act,
1925 are apt to express an intention of total extinction of the liability and national character of the legislation,
be construed in that sense. It is hardly necessary to add that once the liability is extinguished under this clause,
there is no scope of any acknowledgment of liability there under.
Eximpo Trading Limited Vs MV Banglar Kakoli
Section 2- Having, therefore, had regard to the above referred provisions of section 4(4)of the Admiralty Court
Act, 2000 and section 2 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and having perused, in particular, this Courts
previous order in Admiralty Suit No. 27 of 2005 that dealt with a similar dispute arising out of the same facts
and circumstances, this Court is inclined to hold that the order of arrest of 10-07-2007 of the vessels MV
Lady Fatima and MV Da Li is not sustainable in law. It is at this juncture that this Court is additionally put
on notice of the fact that of the two vessels subject to that order of arrest, one vessel namely MV Lady
Fatima, did not, in fact, call on and was not available at Chittagong Port at any material time. This Court has
taken note of the fact, and as asserted in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1, 2
and 15, that in making the order of arrest on 10-07-2007 this Court possibly did not have the benefit of all
relevant facts and circumstances of this case placed before it.
Accordingly, the application is allowed. The Order of arrest of the vessel MV Da Li is hereby vacated and it
is ordered that the vessel MV Da Li now berthed at Chittagong Port, Chittagong be forthwith released from
arrest. In the light of the fact that the other vessel MV Lady Fatima had never been effectively the subject of
the order of arrest dated 10-07-2007, that order of arrest to the extent that it applied to the vessel MV Lady
Fatima necessarily also stands vacated.
HRC Shipping Ltd vs MV Lady Fatima and MV Da Li

Article 1(a)- Excalivor Logistic is neither an owner nor a charterer of the vessel and had no authority to issue
any bill of lading. The bill of lading placed by the petitioner was not a bill of lading.
Ibrahim (Md.) Vs Bangladesh (Spl Original)

Article 3 Rule 6- Unless a suit is brought against the carrier within 1 year from the date of discharge of the
cargo the suit is barred by limitation.
Polish Ocean Lines vs Al-Amin Seatrans Ltd.

CARRIERS ACT, 1865

Secs. 6, 8 and 9
In a suit for the realisation of compensation under sec. 9 of the Carriers Act on the
ground of negligence on the part of the carrier or its servants or agents, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to
prove that such loss, damages or non-delivery was owing to the negligence or criminal act of the carrier, his
servants or his agents.
Section 6 of the Carriers Act enables the parties by a special contract to reduce their liabilities in certain
circumstances but, in view of sec. 8 of the Act, it is hardly tenable to suggest that even without proof of
relevant or requisite circumstances the liability as such can be said to be nil altogether. If there is a special
contract, then evidence should be adduced to show as to the extent or degree of reduction of liability claimed
on the basis of such a special contract.
Dada Ltd. vs R. S. N. Co. Ltd.

Sec. 8 The principle of determining the liability of a common carrier for loss of, or damage to, property or
goods arises as soon as it is delivered to be carried and it is irrelevant who delivers the same to it.
R. S. N. Co. vs Mabendra Kr. Roy

Liability of common carriers---Limited by contract---goods carried by two or more separate carriers, liability
for loss or damage, under terms of contract, distinct and separate.
I. S. N & Rly Co. vs Mehendra Kr. De.

Sec. 8 & 9 The position of a public carrier in respect of goods entrusted to its care is that of a bailee. To escape
liability, taking of reasonable care must be proved.
R.S.N. Co. vs Dada Ltd.

Liability of common carrier- No privity of contract between owner of goods and common carrier required for
making the carrier liable for loss due to carriers own negligence- Owner also not required to deliver the goods
personally.
The Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs District Council of Bakerganj

When the goods made over to the defendant but was not delivered in time when such delivery became due but
delivered after a long time of unexplainable delay the defendant is liable for damage.
Rivery Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. vs District Council, Bakerganj

From the relevant provisions of the Carriers Act and the Contract Act and the judicial decisions, it can be
accepted as the established principle that breach in a common carriers duty is a breach of the law; and for this

breach an action lies founded on the Carriers Act, and the same is not dependent on the aid of the contract to
support it.
B. I. W. T. C. vs Hellenic Lines Ltd.

Sec. 10. It was urged that in view of the provisions of section 10 of the Carriers Act, the plaintiff could
maintain this suit after giving six months clear notice to the carriers, that is, to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 but
as no such notice was given to the defendant No. 2 the suit is not maintainable.
In reply it was submitted that a combined notice under section 77 of the Railways Act was served on
defendant No. 1 as well as on the defendant No. 2 and as the contract was entered into by the defendant No. 1,
that notice was sufficient under section 10.
This contention of the plaintiff was upheld and it was held that sufficient notice was given to the defendant
and hence that there has been a compliance with the provision of section 10 of the Carriers Act.
R. S. N. Co. vs District Council, Bakerganj

CHITTAGONG PORT ACT, 1914

Sec. 50B If the condition of the imported goods worsens inspite of the port authoritys due care for them, for
any damage to the goods that may occur after the schedule time the responsibility thereof passes to the
consignee or owner.
As it is a case of loss of the suit car while in the custody of the statutory bailee, it does not come under the
purview of section 50B of the Chittagong Port Act. This finds support in the case of Chittagong Port Authority
Vs Md. Ishaque and others. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 364.
Trustees of the Port of Chittagong vs K. Mahbub Hossain

S. 57(1)(c). The petitioners are a Company dealing with oil and petroleum products at Chittagong. For their
business they constructed on their own land, jetties, tanks, wharves and other equipments for loading and
unloading oil and petroleum products from their tankers to their tanks.
The respondents who are the Trustees of the Chittagong Port have their own moorings which are used by the
petitioners for handling of their tankers.
The respondents on the basis of a notification imposed and realized tolls from the petitioners on account of
shipping and landing charges for handling done at Commissioners moorings under section 57(I)(e) of the
Chittagong Port Act and this was objected to by the petitioners who contended that though they are liable for
using the Trustees moorings, they are not liable to pay any charge for landing or shipping goods at Trustees
moorings. They further argued that landing in the notification has reference to land and there cannot be any
landing on the surface of the buoys.
Held: The goods might not be said to be landed if they were put there with the means and right of taking them
up on to the land. As a matter of good sense it might perhaps be that though goods would not be landed in the

usual sense of the word until they had got to the land, yet as soon as in any manner they had reached what
might be considered as the end of their transit that might be called a landing.
The tolls levied by the respondents is not for landing in the sense of using any land, wharves jetties etc. of the
Trustees which come under clause (b) of section 57(I) of the Act but for use of the moorings under clauses (c)
for landing or shipping the goods by the owner of the goods.
Sec.57 (3) Publication in the manner specified in sub-section (3) of section 57 of the Chittagong Port Act is
not the tolls or taxes and therefore non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) will not render the
scale of tolls, rates and charges illegal or void.
Standard Vacuum Oil Co. vs Trustees

Sec. 63 read with sec. 50B-Section 63 provides that where the conditions as laid down in section 50B are
fulfilled in that case trustee may cause such goods to be removed either to any warehouse belonging to them or
with the consent of the Custom Collector of the port to the public warehouse and the removal in such
warehouse shall be at the risk and expense of the owners of the said goods.
Sec. 63 (2)(3)(4) and Sec. 64-Consignees or owners to be notified as well by publication in paper when the
goods are removed- Port Authority empowered to sell the goods after expiration of two months by auction or
within 24 hours in case of perishable goods.
Trustees of the Port of Chittagong vs K. Mahbubul Hossain

S. 109 (2) S. 109(2) of the Chittagong Port Act does not lay down a special period of limitation for actions and
purported actions under the Chittagong Port Act.
Suit against Port Trust is maintainable from the date of the knowledge that the goods have landed into the care
and custody of the Port Trust.
The Trustees of the Port of Chittagong vs Sadharan Bima Corporation

Section 109(1) - It is well settled principle of law that a question of law can be raised even in the Court of last
resort even though not raised before. Moreover, the following observation of their Lordships in Trustees of
Chittagong Port vs Sadharan Bima, 32 DLR 99 is complete answer to the contention of Mr. Mokbul Ahmed
The defendant Port Trust is not even required to take up the defence that no notice under section 109(1) has
been served. It is also not competent to waive the mandatory requirement of
notice.
In view of the provisions of section 109(1) of the Chittagong Port Act, 1914 the court has no alternative but to
dismiss the suit where the plaintiff fails to comply with the mandatory requirement of section 109 (1) of the
Act. In this case, no notice having had been issued as contemplated in section 109(1) of the Act the suit must
be dismissed notwithstanding the fact that no plea was taken by the defendant that the suit is liable to be
dismissed for want of notice or that the defence waived the requirement of such notice by not raising the plea
of want of notice.
In this case as the owner of the drums did not remove the same from the jetty premises, without any fault on
the part of the Jetty Administration, within clear 7 working days from the time of lading of the drums in

question the Jetty Administration is not liable for any loss as in this case the Port Authority informed the
owners of the drums to find out the same and there was no fault on the part of the Port Authority to locate the
goods.
It is true that under section 50A of the Chittagong Port Act the Port Authority is responsible for the loss of
goods landed and remained in its possession or control as a bailee in view of the provisions of section 151,152
and 161 of the Contract Act, 1872. But section 50A will not operate in a case where the goods landed under nil
mark and the consignee fails to follow the nil mark procedure to locate the goods by reason of sub-rule (f) and
(g), Rule 64 of General Rules and the Schedule for Working of the Chittagong Port (Railway) Jetties.
Chittagong Port Authority vs Hong Kong Shipping Lines

Section 50B(2)- It is admitted that the defendant No. 5 as clearing agent of the plaintiff did not take any step
for delivery of the consignments from the defendant No. 2, local agent of defendant No. 1 within stipulated
period of time i.e. five days under section 50B(2) of the Chittagong Port Act. The plaintiff handed over
documents to his clearing agent, defendant No. 5, for the purpose of clearance of the goods from the
Chittagong Port on 02-06-74 and said clearing agent approached the defendant No. 3 for obtaining delivery of
the suit consignment after a lapse of about four months. Moreover, the plaintiff or his clearing agent, the
defendant No. 5 did not take any step to get the alleged damaged goods surveyed before 29-07-74 though they
knew that some cartons landed with trivial damage, which was nominal and of trivial nature due to normal
handling. Trial Court only considering the report of surveyors surveyed on behalf of the plaintiff decreed the
suit against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 only, which cannot be sustained in law.
Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd vs Bangladesh Jatiya Mashayajibi Samabaya Samity Ltd.

CHITTAGONG PORT AUTHORITY ORDINANCE, 1976

Section 19- The Admiralty Judge, in allowing the vessel to leave the territorial waters of Bangladesh without
payment of her dues payable to the Chittagong Port Authority, travelled beyond his jurisdiction.
Chairman Chittagong Port Authority & another vs Ministry of Defence and others

Section 19- The Regulations and the charge of schedule are read together and accordingly the levy is to be
calculated. If we read both these together then it appears that Regulation 163(2) does not have any SubRegulation which would attract that the rent of open space shall be half of the rate. So the note contained in
charge of schedule does not have any nexus with Regulation 163(2), the note shall be in Regulation 163(1) as
the Sub-Regulation indicates the same.
Chittagong Container Transportation Company vs Bangladesh

The survey Report is not a cogent evidence of loss at the time of discharge. The Carriers liability, if any, is
determined in terms and conditions of the cargo recorded at the time of discharge when the goods are removed
from the vessel itself.

In the instant case plaintiff respondent No. 1 imported a consignment of 1387 drums Creosote Oil from UK,
and found 33,250 Ibl shortage due to drums were leaky, mouth open, rusty and second hand. The plaintiff
sustained loss of taka 83,496.80 and claimed compensation. Trail Court decreed the suit against defendant No.
1 for the amount claimed. High Court Division held that the trail court illegally decreed the suit only against
the present defendant No. 1 appellant.
Bangladesh Shipping Corporation vs Bangladesh Railway Board and others

CHITTAGONG PORT (RAILWAY JETTIES) RULES

General Rules and schedules working of the Chittagong Port Railway Rules 122 clause (a) (ii) - Responsibility
of issuing short-landing certificate for imported goods being that of the Port Authority (Chittagong), the
Authoritys failure to notify the consignee (plaintiff) that a certain portion of the short-landed goods were lying
in certain shed not known to the plaintiff, will exonerate the plaintiff of any liability if he fails to take delivery
of the same. In case these goods were in damaged condition the plaintiff, if he had such notice, could have
them
duly
surveyed
to
ascertain
the
measure
of
damage
for
claiming
compensation.
The trail Court decreed the plaintiffs suit on contest. On appeal the High Court Division modified the trail
Courts decree holding that the plaintiff could get compensation in respect of the difference between 5567 bags
and 3337 bags, that is, 2230 bags; according to the High Court Division, 3337 bags out of 5567 bags were
laying in Shed No. 5 of which the plaintiff failed to take delivery and on account of its failure to clear those
bags from the shed it is not entitled to claim any compensation thereof.
Unless it could be shown that the plaintiff applied to the Port Authority for storing the cement bags and after
obtaining its permission entered into an open storage agreement, as referred to in clause (a) of Rule 122, the
exemptions provided in the sub-clause (ii), cannot be claimed by the Port Authority. The plaintiff did not have
an iota of knowledge regarding either the storage or the number of cement bags claimed to have been stored by
the Port Authority.
Bangladesh Railway vs Messrs Chartering and Shipbroking Corporation

CHITTAGONG PORT REGULATIONS FOR WORKING (CARGO AND CONTAINER), 2001

Regulation 163(1) and 163(2) - The Regulations and the charge of schedule are read together and accordingly
the levy is to be calculated. If we read both these together then it appears that Regulation 163(2) does not have
any Sub-Regulations which would attract that the rent of open space shall be half of the rate. So the note
contained in charge of schedule does not have any nexus with Regulation 163(2), the note shall be in
Regulation 163(1) as the Sub-Regulation indicates the same.
Chittagong Container Transportation Company vs Bangladesh

Regulation 163(1)(2)- In the present case, the space let out is outside the port protected area and it falls within
the regulation 163(2) which admittedly do not contain any sub-regulation as to the rate. It appears that
Regulation 163(2) does not have any sub-regulations from which it could be enforced that the rent of open
space shall be half of the rate.

Chittagong Container Transportation Company vs Bangladesh

Provision 2.4- Depositing the customs duty and other charges to the customs authority does not itself mean
automatic delivery of the goods. But, the petitioner is required to obtain a clearance certificate from the
customs authority.
Ibrahim (Md.) vs Bangladesh (Spl Original)

COURTS OF ADMIRALTY ACT, 1891

On the day when the Courts of Admiralty (Pakistan) Act (adopted) was enacted in 1891 the High Court had the
same jurisdiction over inland water ways in the province which is similar to that of the Court of Admiralty in
England.
Haji Mohammad Suruj Mia vs Owners of M. L. Madina

The Court of Admiralty of High Court Division has derived its jurisdiction from these Acts- The suit is
maintainable.
Muhajak Shipping Co. Ltd. vs MV Sagar

Causes arising out of a contract of marine insurance would come under the provisions of Admiralty Act of
1861 for this court to have jurisdiction.
Bengal Liner Ltd., Dhaka vs Sadharan Bima Corporation

Section 6- The Admiralty judge, in allowing the vessel to leave the territorial waters of Bangladesh without
payment of her dues payable to the Chittagong Port Authority, travelled beyond this jurisdiction.
Chairman Chittagong Port Authority & another vs Ministry of Defence and others

EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

Section 74- Procuring copy from the public body of private documents does not made the private document a
public document.
Section 87- Judicial notice of distance of any place may be taken through the internet by log in to Google map.
The plaintiff is a reputed company having Edible Oil Refining Industry, engaged in the business of refining
crude Soya bean oil, imported crude degummed Soya bean Oil, in short CDSO, FROM Buenos Aires,
Argentina in bulk through opening LC. In the instant case the plaintiff has claimed compensation on the loss
due to reduction of price in the Soya bean oil as a consequence of late delivery of the consignment from the
defendant vessel at a delay of 61 days. The learned court held that the alleged delay in delivery of the cargo is

well within the terms of breach of contract which squarely adjudicatable by the Admiralty Court as comes
under the provisions of Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. The Court has also found that the
defendant vessel reached Chittagong Port very late in derogation of the terms and conditions of the contract of
carriage and as such this court finds that the plaintiff has good cause of action for the instant Admiralty suit
under the bundle of facts and circumstances and decreed the suit in part in favour of the plaintiff for realization
of an amount of Taka 28, 89, 673. 00 as compensation from the defendant No.1 and 3.
Jaya Vegetable Oil Ltd. vs M.T. KOMANDARM FEDKO and others

HAGUE RULES
Article III, rules 2 and 8- Subject to the provisions of Article IV, the carrier shall properly and carefully load,
handle, stow, carry. Keep, care, for and discharge the goods carried. Any clause, covenant or agreement in a
contract of carriage relieving the carrier of the ship from liability for loss or damage to or in connection with
goods arising from negligence, fault or failure in the duties and obligations provided in this Article or lessening
such liability otherwise than as provided in these Rules, shall be null and void and of no effect.
A benefit of insurance or similar clause shall be deemed to be a clause relieving the carrier from liability.
Hellenic Lines vs Bangladesh

INLAND SHIPPING ORDINANCE, 1976

Section 52- Award of compensation by the Marine Court is as good as a decree passed by a civil Court and, as
such, the present admiralty suit is totally misconceived.
BIWTC vs Nazma Transport Company

Section 52- There is nothing in the Shipping Ordinance barring the jurisdiction of Admiralty Court to entertain
any claim for damages done by any ship.
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. And others

Section 52- The Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide suit for compensation arising out of
the cause taking place both in inland water and on the high seas.
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. And others

Section 54- The non-compliance of these rules will not make the timetable issued under Rule 15(1)(c) in
favour of MV Miraj to be illegal and without any lawful authority.
Sirajul Hoque and other vs BIWTA represented by its Chairman and others

MARINE FISHERIES ORDINANCE, 1983

Section 4 and 5- The power conferred on the Director is a statutory power. The legislators in their wisdom
have validated the Ordinance by the 7 th Amendment to the Constitution and the power given to the Director
being statutory in nature cannot be exercised by anybody not permitted by the Ordinance. The power
exercisable by the Minister is executive in nature and is regulated by the Rules of Business.
Mohammed Ali vs Director, Marine Fisheries Office

Section 8- Law does not require the petitioner to procure any prior approval or permission of the Ministry of
Fisheries and Livestock as a condition precedent to grant registration and licence to his trawler.
Jane Alam (Md) vs Government of Bangladesh

MARINE INSURANCE ACT, 1906

Section 18(3)(b)- Appellant has failed to make out a case of non-disclosure of any material fact on the part of
the assured- Circumstance as complained was known to the insurer in the ordinary course of business.
Express warranty in the insurance policy- Disclosure of the fact of insufficient packing- Condition of insurance
includes the risks of breakage.
Section 55(2) (c)- Inherent vice- Interpretation by English Courts of inherent vice Insurer not responsible.
Section 55(2) (c)- Section 55(2)(c) being qualified, parties to be governed by the contract itself. The policy in
the present case described risks including the risks of breakage and splitting subject to replacement clause and
these words must be held to constitute a sufficient contrary provision.
Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Company vs Bata Shoe Co.

Determination of Marine Insurance- As there is no law on marine insurance in the statute-book in

Bangladesh in determining issues of marine insurance in general and the issue of unreported damage in
particular the English law and practice will be applied as stipulated by the Institute Time Clause (Hull)
attached to the policy and in the absence of such stipulation the Courts of Bangladesh will follow the English
Law and practice in keeping harmony with the decisions of England as done in a case by an American Judge.
Section 69(3) - The insured can recover by way of one-time repair or several repairs during the currency of the
policy but when the ship had not been sold in her damaged state during the risk the question of unrepaired
damage will arise only after the policy terminates which is a matter of calculation and it can never be the
subject matter of a pre-determined amount in the policy.
Section 69(3)- When a newly built ship is insured for the first time and meets with an accident during the
currency of the policy then the market value and the insured value of a vessel may be the same but when the
ship ages, its market value declines and the insured value will not represent her sound market value, because
there are other considerations which weigh with both the insured and the insurer in putting an insured value on
a vessel. The market value of vessel will not be presumed to be her insured value, except in rare cases and the
burden of proving the sound market value of the vessel at the termination of the policy will be on the plaintiff

who claims on the policy. A contract of marine insurance is a contract of indemnity, that is, the amount
recoverable is measured by the extent of the assureds pecuniary loss but it is never a contract of guarantee or a
contract of compensation for damages.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bengal Liner Ltd. and others

Section 55- Admittedly, the defendant issued the Insurance cover on 02-05-1983 on receipt of the first
installment of the premium with the stamp duty. After issuance of the Marine Policy the Sadharan Bima
Corporation cannot be heard to den payment of the amount covered by the insurance policy if the trawler
capsized at any time after the insurance cover was issued on 02-05-1983. The trawler sailed on 02-05-1983 and
capsized on 05-05-1983. The reasons assigned by the trial Court while deciding issue No. 3 against the
plaintiff cannot be accepted. The Trail Court has kept out of consideration large number of papers which
clearly indicate that the vessel sailed on 02-05-1983 and capsized on 05-05-1983. Non consideration of the
aforesaid large number of documentary evidence by the trail Court has vitiated the impugned Judgment with
regard to issue No. 3.
Sadaran Bima Corporation vs MA Halim

MARITIME CONVENTION ACT, 1911

S. 1: From the evidence it appears that M. L Jalamoni was plying with passengers within the permissible
limit. It met with an accident at a time which was between 6-45 to 7 P.M. It is ture that as per licence M. L
Jalamoni was prohibited from carrying on passenger service beyond 7 P.M. But accident took place before 7
P.M. Even violation of that restriction in the licence cannot make M. L Jalamoni responsible for contributory
negligence. In this case the principle that a plaintiff who has voluntarily exposed himself to a known risk
cannot recover the damages, is not applicable. This question is to be determined by application of section 1 of
Maritime Convention Act, 1911.
Owner M. L. Madina vs Owner Jalamoni

S. 8 : No action in the Admiralty Court will lie after lapse of two years from the date of damage or loss, etc. to
any cargo. There is no reason to differ with the findings that the applicability of the Maritime Convention Act,
1911 in the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Court cannot be questioned in view of this Courts decision in M. L.
Madina Vs M. L. Jalanoni, 30 DLR 149
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation vs M/S. Seres Shipping lnc.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1923

Secs. 63 and 64 : Sections 63 and 64 provide mode how dues of a seaman employed in a foreign ship to be
recovered. Hence provisions of Industrial Relation Ordinance are not applicable in the case of a seaman
employed in a foreign ship.
Mesers Malconssis Shipping Co. and another vs Chairman, Labour Court, Chittagong and others

MERCHANT SHIPS REGISTRATION ORDINANCE, 1982

No citizen of Bangladesh or any Bangladeshi Company shall acquire any ship without the permission of the
Government.
Mahajak Shipping Co. Ltd. vs MV Sagar

NOTARIES ORDINANCE, 1961

Section 14- Whether exhibit 4 is admissible in evidence in view of section 14 of the Notaries Ordinance No
reciprocal arrangement between Bangladesh and India till 1980 asserted by the respondents advocateWhether there was any such reciprocal arrangement of material act between Bangladesh and India will have to
be proved on evidence by the plaintiffs.
Bimal Kanti Biswas vs Custodian of Enemy Property

Section 14- Under section 14 of the Notary Ordinance, 1961 notarial acts in a reciprocal country are
recognized in Bangladesh when reciprocal arrangement exists.
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) vs Serajuddin Ahmed and others

ORIGINAL SIDE RULES

Chapter XVI rule 27- The plaintiff filed an application for permission to put in the requisite after condoning
the delay for drawing up the decree in pursuance of the judgment and order passed in the Admiralty suit. On a
perusal of the application and on consideration of the submission it brooks no controversy that the said
application is founded on Rule 27 of the Original Side Rules as contained in Chapter XVI. But the Original
Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court was framed under clause 37 of the Letters Patent, 1985 with the
introduction of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1978 the Letters Patent has been repealed by section 3 of the said
Ordinance. On a scrutiny of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1978, it is found that the Original Side Rules framed
by the Calcutta High Court under Clause 37 of Letters Patent, 1865 have not been preserved by the Law
Reforms Ordinance, 1978. Thus the Original Side Rules died its natural death with promulgation of the Law
Reforms Ordinance, 1978. Therefore, there can be no manner of recourse to the Original Side Rules in any
matter now.
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation vs MV Helal Kamal and others

PILOTAGE ORDINANCE 1969

Section 3- The allegation of MV Shainpukur-1s negligence in plying the vessel was not established by the
evidence of the kind whereupon placing reliance the Court would have been able to arrive at the finding that
collision took place because of the negligence of the defendant No. 1s vessel MV Shainpukur-1. The plaintiff
asserted that collision took place at 5.30 AM on 13-05-1986. On consideration of the evidence on record it
appears that plaintiffs by credible evidence have failed to establish that collision took place at 5.30 AM. Since
the evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs is not of the kind wherefrom it can definitely be arrived at the
finding that because of the negligence of MV Shainpukur-1 accident took place, in that state of the matter the

High Court Division was quite correct in holding that plaintiffs failed to establish that the accident took place
because of the negligence of the vessel MV Shainpukur-1.
Chalna Carriers and Fibers Ltd vs Shainpukur Navigation Ltd.

UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE TO DOCUMENTARY CREDIT

Articles 2, 3, 4, 9 & 16- The consistent view of the courts are that only in two exceptional circumstances an
issuing bank can absolve its responsibility of not honoring the obligation created by it under a letter of creditFraud of which it has knowledge and special circumstances which warrant an interference by the
court.
Comforts Apparels (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Imperial Knitting Industries Ltd. and others

WORDS AND PHRASES

Cause of action Plaintiff was employed salvor and there was no negligence on his part to discontinue the
salvage work. So, no doubt could be entertained about the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court to try the suit
Prayer for rejection of the plaint on the plea of want of cause of action is rejected. The Provision of Civil
Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint have not been made applicable to Admiralty Court nor the Rules of
Admiralty Court provided for rejection of the plaint. Rather it is by invocation of inherent power of the
Admiralty Court it has to be returned. On facts and in law there is no case for rejection of the plaint in the
instant case.
Saleh Steel Industries Ltd. vs TSS Pacific Abeto and others

Observed the views expressed above seemed be correct and I am of the opinion that in the absence of express
provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or Rules of the Admiralty Court it may exercise inherent Power to
return the plaint if there is no cause of action triable by it or in the case it otherwise lacks its jurisdiction.
South Asia Shipping Ltd vs MV Tony Best

Collision between two ships- Their liability when no ration of responsibility could be determined considering
the materials on record it is concluded that both the vessels were careless and negligent which resulted in the
collision. So applying the principle that if the negligence of one party is such as to cause the other party to
make a negligent mistake that he would not otherwise have made, then both of them are equally responsible
and liable.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Philoship Co.

Arrest of ship there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff controverted allegations of the owner of the
vessel and then the application for attachment/arrest being belated is liable to be rejected.
Captain Md. Mobarak Hossain vs MT Dolores and others

Admiralty Suit- It is for the seller or supplier of the bunkers either to get credit before he makes any supply or
ensure that he will be paid from the time charterer or anybody else on his behalf.
Marine Oil Broking Company Pte Ltd vs MV Daizu Maru and others

Bill of Lading - Whether by the transaction by endorsement in a Bill of Lading the property in the goods
passes or not may not be free from doubt but this much appears to be settled that an endorsee is at least entitled
to the possession of the goods on the basis of a duly endorsed Bill of Lading.
Bangladesh and Abu Taleb vs Anis & Co. and others

Bill of Lading The Charter Party Agreement having not been incorporated or mentioned in the bill of lading,
it will be unjust to saddle the consignee with any conditions thereof.
Samsun Shipping Corporation vs Hossain and Sons and others

Charter- Party and bill of lading- Where the charter is also the shipper, the rights of ship power and charter
as such will be governed by the charter-party alone. The bill of lading cannot vary or add to the terms of the
charter-party unless it contains an express provision to that effect.
BCIC vs MV Kavo Alkyon

Lading in damaged condition Had the landing in damaged condition been notified to plaintiff, it could
apply for survey about damages which had thus been denied to it.
Bangladesh Railway vs Messrs Chartering and Shipbreaking Corporation

Marine Insurance- A contract of marine insurance is a contract of indemnity, i.e., the amount recoverable is
measured by the extent of the assureds pecuniary loss. It is never a contract of guarantee of a contract of
compensation for damages.
Sadharan Bima Corporation vs Bengal Liner Ltd. and other

It transpires from the documents on record that the cargo was never loaded onto the vessel in question and
therefore, no maritime liability was occasioned.
Global Traders vs MV GuijingVI and others

This Court finds no hindrance to accepting the view that the defendants are indeed, necessary and proper
parties as contemplated under the provisions of the Code. This is because some relief consequent to the Letters
of Guarantee is seen by this Court to lie against the defendant and the suits cannot, therefore, be completely
decided and no effective decree consequentially made in their absence.
United Edible Oils Ltd. vs London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd.

Appointment of Surveyor for Inspection- It appears that on an application at the instance of the plaintiffdecree-holder for appointment of an experienced surveyor having the knowledge of handling the containers,
the same was allowed asking the decree-holder to deposit Taka 5000 immediately. The High Court Division on
consideration of the application of the petitioner observed that it did not show at all why the petitioner is likely
to be affected by any such order of the Court in appointing a surveyor for inspection of the condition of the
containers in question and found that no injustice would be caused to the petitioner due to the impugned order.
Shafi Motors Ltd. vs HRC Shipping Ltd. and other

Unless a suit is filed within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have
been delivered, the carrier and the ship shall stand discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage.
Accordingly, the High Court Division held that the order of arrest dated 10-07-2007 in respect of vessel MV
Lady Fatima and MV Dali was not sustainable in law.
HRC Shipping Ltd. vs MV Lady Fatima

Indemnity Bond- If any connivance of manipulation of Indemnity Bond is found to have been made, the same
can be brought within the mischief of criminal offence but the same cannot be made responsible to the others
like guarantor or mortgagor as required in the loan agreement.
Dong Sung Shipping Company Ltd. vs Janata Bank (Civil)

Ullage Survey Report- In the event of conflict between 2 reports one by ullage survey report and the other by
shore tank survey report the ullage survey report must prevail over the shore tank survey report.
Novorossiysk Shipping Company USSR vs Lever Brothers Bangladesh Ltd. (Civil)

Waiver- It is now a well settled principle that if any party by disregarding the arbitration Claus institutes a suit,
the other party must raise objection before filing of the written statement, otherwise that would be deemed as
an waiver of the condition.
World Trade Shipping Corporation vs Sonat International Inc. (Civil)