10/2017 Adm. Suit M/S. SING FUELS PTE LTD (Plaintiff) V/S M.V. YASA AYSEN AND OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 29-AUG-19
Through this is a Suit under Section 3(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 the Plaintiff had sought recovery of US$ 667,599.35 in respect of the principal outstanding amount, interest, damages and legal costs etc. and had also sought issuance of warrants of arrest for the Vessel i.e. Defendant No.1 and detain the same until sufficient guarantees are furnished for the outstanding claim of the Plaintiff. As an interim measure the vessel was arrested and allowed to sail after furnishing surety for the principal amount. According to the Plaintiffs the Defendant No.5 (?Charterers?) contacted for supply of bunkers to the Vessel in question owned and operated by Defendant No.2 to 4 (?Owners?). It is the case of the Plaintiff that requisite bunkers were supplied, whereas, Charterer has defaulted in making payments and therefore, owners as well as Charterers are liable to pay jointly and severally. The plaintiff?s argument has been repelled by the Court and the application for arrest of vessel has been dismissed in this matter and surety has been ordered to be released / discharged in favor of the owners as the bunker delivery note very clearly and specifically mentions that the supply of bunkers by the bunker supplier is on ?Charterers Account?. This is an admitted document and placed on recorded by the Plaintiff itself. Admittedly nothing has been placed on record so as to suggest that at any point of Time; the plaintiff ever approached the owners of the Vessel before entering into any contract for supply of the bunkers. Nothing has been placed or even pleaded as to whether any consent of the owners of the Vessel was ever sought for making supplies of bunkers and the liability of any payment on the part of the owners in case of any default. It has been further held that the Plaintiff here has not been able to show or substantiate that the Time Charterer had any sort of authority to contract on behalf of the owners or the Vessel; and secondly, even otherwise to safeguard its interest, knowingly that its claim against the Vessel and owner would fail, had obtained sufficient security in the shape of postdated cheques, and is at full liberty to seek its encashment, and if not, then any other appropriate remedy as may be available for it in accordance with the applicable laws. The Plaintiff under no circumstances can be permitted to take undue advantage under the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court by arrest of the Vessel and then compelling and dragging the owners to pay the amount being claimed when no case for a claim in personam has been arguably made out. The application is therefore dismissed.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.