PROCEEDING IN REM AGAINST THE VESSEL M.T. PORTOFINO and anothers vs M.T. PORTOFINODefendant
This matter involves an admiralty suit where the plaintiff sought to implead the owner of the defendant vessel as defendant No. 2 in an action in rem. The core legal question was whether an action in personam against the owner of a vessel can be joined together with an action in rem against the vessel itself within the same proceedings under the relevant admiralty law. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that an action in rem and an action in personam cannot be joined together except under the specific circumstances and conditions provided in Section 5 of the governing statute. The key principle laid down is that joining an action in personam requires satisfying specific statutory conditions relating to residence, cause of action within territorial waters, or pending related proceedings, failing which a personal action cannot be clubbed with an action in rem against a vessel.
- Can an action in personam against the owner of a vessel be joined with an action in rem against the vessel in the same proceedings?
- What are the conditions required for the exercise of jurisdiction in personam under the Admiralty Ordinance?
- Whether a plaintiff can implead the owner of a vessel as a defendant without satisfying the statutory exceptions for joining an action in personam?
- Section 4, Admiralty Ordinance 2001
- Section 5, Admiralty Ordinance 2001
ORDER
1. By consent granted.
2. The plaintiff through C.M.A. 2652 of 2001 seeks to implead of Messrs Order Shipping Inc. As defendant No,2 in the suit for proper adjudication.
3. The facts, which are not disputed, are that the plaintiff invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court against the defendant Vessel by an action in rem. The documents annexed supports the contention of Mr. Naeem Ahmed, learned counsel for the plaintiff that the proposed defendant is owner of the Vessel and has filed written statement. Therefore, he contends that his presence before the Court is necessary for proper adjudication.
' Mr. Mu iammad Naeem learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently opposed the application by filing counter-affidavit. His contention is that the plaintiff has already invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by bringing the action in rem against the Vessel. He cannot join action in personam in the same proceedings against the owner. He also contended that if the plaintiff wants to implead the proposed defendant in proceeding for action in personam then the plaintiff may withdraw the suit against the ship and may proceed against the owner and, the security furnished on behalf of the defendant be discharged. His further contention was that two actions viz. Action in rem and action in personam cannot be joined together except as provided in section 5. Section 4 of the Admiralty Ordinance provides mode of exercise of admiralty jurisdiction by this Court and an action in personam subject to section 5 which permits the exercise of jurisdiction in personam with regard to collision of similar cases, provided:--
(a) The defendant has his ordinary residence or a place of business within Pakistan.
(b) The cause of action arose within the internal or territorial waters of Pakistan; or
(c) An action arising out of the same incident or series of incidents is proceeding in the Court or has been heard and determined in the Court.
' Subsection (5) further contemplates that subject to the provisions of subsection (2), the High Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain an action in person am to enforce a claim to which this section applies whenever any of the conditions specified in clauses (a) to (c) of subsection (1) are satisfied.
' According to subsection (6) the claim to which this section applies are claims for damage, loss of life or personal injury caused by ships, or arising out of collision between ships or out of the carrying out of or omission to carry out a manoeuvre in the case of one or more of two or more ships, with the regulations made under section 214.
' None of the conditions enumerated in subsection (1) are available, which has also been conceded by the plaintiff's counsel. The action ,in personam could have been brought in respect of damage, loss of life or personal injury against as a result of collision. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Naeem Ahmad that since written statement on behalf of defendant No,1 has been filed by proposed defendant and it has submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court. On this plea they cannot be joined as a party. The application is therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- Abdul Wahid vs M/s. Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A, & another 2020 SHC 140
- MEGA INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK CO., LTD. vs F.T. SELNES and 3 2011 CLD 1602
- KHADIJA EDIBLE OIL REFINERY (PVT.) LTD. vs M.T. "GALAXY" and 4 others 2011 CLD 1329
- FAISALABAD OIL REFINERY (PVT.) LTD. and others vs M.T. GALAXY and others 2011 CLD 885
- KHADIJA EDIBLE OIL REFINERY (PVT.) LTD.s vs M.T. "GALAXY" and 4 others 2011 CLD 709
- CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD and others vs M.T. TASMAN SPIRIT and others 2004 CLD 695