Admiralty Court Act in Bangladesh: TRW law firm in Bangladesh 

The Admiralty Court Act of 2000 is the primary legislation that authorizes the court to hear cases concerning admiralty matters, which are primarily concerned with the possession of ships and matters related to them.

The jurisdiction of the admiralty court is addressed in Section 03 of the Admiralty Court Act, 2000. The High Court Division (HCD) of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh is authorized to hear and resolve any inquiries or claims concerning admiralty under sub-section 01 of section-03. The HCD will approve the issues related to under sub-section 02 of section-03.

• Claim ownership of the vessel.
• Make a claim to the ship’s proprietorship.
• Disagreements that arise from the ship’s employment, possession, or income.
• Conflicts concerning the ship’s co-ownership.
• Access to the sea and other maritime territories of other countries.
• The damage to the ships and the damage caused by the damaged ships.
• Claim for any personal injury or loss of life that is directly or indirectly associated with the ship.
• Submit a claim for the products that have been lost or damaged.
• Claims concerning the seizure or disqualification for the use of any ship or commodities carried or attempted to be carried by any ship, as well as claims for the return of seized ship or cargo, are all subject to the rights of admiralty.

Cases concerning the Admiralty jurisdiction under Section-03:

Global Traders vs. MV Guijang VI & others (2005) 57 DLR 89

If the products in question are not lost or damaged and are visible in the evidence, no maritime liability is incurred.

Giasuddin (Md) v. MV Forum Power and Others (2001) 53 DLR (AD) 19

The supply of goods and services to a ship in distress that is anchored at any port in Bangladesh does not require prior permission from the Customs Officer. This is not prohibited by law, and the HCD’s argument that the customs officer’s permission is required is unjustified.

Marine Oil Broking Pte Ltd vs MV Daizu Maru and others (2003) 55 DLR 477

The court would contemplate action in rem against the ship and its owner under a time charter. However, if the time limit has elapsed and the claimant has not been diligent in safeguarding his own rights, this relief cannot be claimed.

Settlement Amount Calculation:

The HCD is authorized to satisfy the amount by selling the ship or the goods in question under sub-section 03 of section-02, and the amount is as follows:-

The remaining balance
The balance that remains unresolved between the parties involved in the lawsuit.
Legal precedent:

Bengal Liner Ltd. and others v. Sonali Bank, (2005)10 MLR 209

The application for the realization of decretal money is quite maintainable, so the decree-holder is not required to register an execution case.

A money decree issued by the Admiralty Court can be satisfied by the sale of both immovable and movable property.

The Admiralty Court’s execution proceedings are not subject to Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Admiralty Court Proceedings are subject to Rule 35 of the Admiralty Court Rules of 1912. The Admiralty Court Proceedings are not subject to Part IX and Part XLIX of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, following the repeal of Letters Patent by The Law Reforms Ordinance of 1978.

Modes of Exercise in Admiralty Court:

Section 04 pertains to the cases in personam that the HCD will consider.
The High Court Division’s admiralty jurisdiction as an admiralty court shall be exercised through an action in rem against the ship or property in question under this section.
The HCD will exercise its authority by taking action in rem against the ship, aircraft, or property in question in the event of a maritime lien or other charge.
Filing a lawsuit through a complaint:

According to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908), a case shall be filed in the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court Division –

by a written, signed and attested application,
in the case of urgent cases, the ship or the defendant shall be described in the application as the “owner or party in interest” in lieu of the asset being sued against.
Case law:

Doon Valley Rice Limited vs. M.V. YUE YANG, [16 BLD (HCD) 469]

The cargo in question has been allegedly delivered to a person who is not entitled to it under the bill of lading and as such, it is a case of total non-delivery of goods.

“Damages done to the goods” as appearing in section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 is to be constructive damages. It is thus evident that it shall apply to the non-delivery or short-delivery of goods as in the present case.

The instant the suit readily comes within the ambit of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 and consequently, it is maintainable.

National Steel Industries Limited vs M.V. Ritz and others, [19 BLD (HCD) 240]

The High Court of Admiralty shall 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 o any part thereof by the negligence or misconduct of or for any breach of duty or breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master, or crew of the ship, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that at the time of the institution of the cause, any owner or part owner of the ship is domiciled in England or Wales: Provided always, that if in any such case, the plaintiff does not recover Twenty Pounds, he shall not be entitled to any costs, charges or expenses incurred by him therein, unless the judge shall clarify the cause was a fit one to be tried in the said court.

It appears that in order to attract section 06 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 “goods have to be carried into any port of “England or Wales” and as far we are concerned for the words, “England or Wales” obviously we are to read “Bangladesh”.

In the instant case, the cargo in question had never been brought to any port in Bangladesh by the defendant no. 1 vessel. 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.

The exception to filing cases related to action in personam:

the defendant has a residence or place of business in Bangladesh.
Cause of action inside the territorial waters of Bangladesh.
Pending the suit for hearing before the court.

NEED ANY LEGAL HELP?

Tahmidur Remura Wahid (TRW) offers services on admiralty-related matters. However, if you need any legal help or clarification about admiralty-related matters, please reach us at:


Contact No:
+8801708000660
+8801847220062
+8801708080817

Emails:
info@trfirm.com
info@trwbd.com
info@tahmidur.com