COMPASS TRADING CORPORATION LTD. Versus MANTA LINE INSC.
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.86,444.50. Briefly the facts are that plaintiff shipped a consignment of 100 bags of Chilly Powder weighing approximately 5 M/Tons under bill of lading No. Kar/Dub/5 dated 7‑5‑1983 on board m.v. Maimosa Trader. The goods were shipped in good order and condition and were to be discharged at Dubai. The defendants Nos.l and 2 failed to deliver the goods and in spite of correspondence with the local agent of defendants Nos.l and 2 the same were not delivered. It transpired that defendant No.2 had been arrested at Kuwait. As the defendants Nos.l and 2 failed to deliver the cargo at destination, the plaintiff has claimed Rs.86,444.50 and interest. This suit has been filed under the Admiralty Jurisdiction and the plaintiff hop claimed satisfaction of decree from the sales proceed of m.v. Rice Trader.
2. The defendants in spite of service have remained absent. The plaintiff examined one Tanveer Paracha who has produced documents to prove its claim. m.v. Rice Trader was arrested in Suit No. 252/84 and was sold under the orders of the Court. The sales proceed are deposited with the Nazir. Other claimants have filed Admiralty Suits for the claim of salvage, mortgage bunker and necessaries supplied to ship against m.v. Rice Trader. All those Admiralty Suits have been taken together and the parties have agreed that evidence of ownership of m.v. Rice Trader in any suit shall be treated as evidence in all the suits. The, question of ownership of m.v. Rice Trader and m.v. Maimosa‑ Trader has to be determined first as it goes to the root of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court in an action against m.v. Rice Trader. The goods were not shipped on board m.v. Rice Trader, the defendant No.3. The plaintiff's claim is that the goods were shipped on board m.v. Maimosa Trader but she has failed to perform her contractual obligation causing loss to it, and as m.v. Rice Trader and m. v. Maimosa Trader are owned by the same Company the plaintiffs' claim falls within the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court. As the plaintiff wants to recover its claim from the sales: proceed of Rice Trader the provision of section 4 (4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 are attracted. From the evidence on record in Admiralty Suit No. 304/84 and Admiralty Suit 448/84 it is established that m.y. Maimosa Trader and m.v. Rice Trader are owned by Sports Maritime Inc. The conditions for applicability of section 4(4) of the Ordinance are also satisfied. Therefore in my view the suit against defendant No.3 is maintainable.
3. From the evidence on record, the plaintiff has proved its case. According to the evidence the value of the consignment was Rs.74,497.50. The plaintiff has not made out any case for grant of interest. The suit is therefore decreed for Rs.74,497.50 with cost of court‑fee against the defendants jointly and severally. The plaintiff will be entitled to claim satisfaction of decree from the sale proceed of m.v. Rice Trader subject to priority as determined in the case of Twaha v. The Master m.v. Asian Queen and 2 others P L D 1982) Kar. 749 and Admiralty Suit No. 311/84.
4. A.A./C‑56/K Suit decreed.