Section 3
The plaintiffs filed the Admiralty Sui praying for decree for immediate return of 311 pieces of containers owned by the plaintiff No. 1 and also for compensation. The plaintiffs also prayed for an order of interim injunction restringing the defendants from disposing of the suit containers. Continental Traders (BD) vs. GE Sea Co. Services (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J) (Civil) 8 ADC 505
Sections 3 and 4-Jurisdiction of Admi- ralty Court-The question of declaration of General Average Bond and signing of General Average Guarantee by the plaintiff is out of ambit of the jurisdiction of this Court (the Admiralty Bench of the High Court Division) and falls under the purview of arbitration. Bene Maritime Inc vs Aman Feed Limited (Civil) 71 DLR (AD) 50
Admiralty Court Act [XLIII of 2000]
Section 3(1) (Dha) and 4(3) -Since the seamens wages creates maritime lien against the vessel itself, the plaintiffs are entitled to initiate a proceeding in rem against the vessel in order to mature the inchoate right. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have initiated the instant Admiralty Suits which are maintainable under the provision of section 3(1) (Dha) and 4(3) of the Admiralty court Act 2000. Victor Simon Paat -Vs- M.V. Accord (Spl. Original) 23 ALR (HCD) 101
Admiralty Court Act [XLIII of 2000)
Section 3(2)(dha) -The plaintiff being the master and the crew members of the vessel are entitled to bring Admiralty suit in Admiralty jurisdiction for the purpose of realization of their salary including all other dues in respect of leave wages, compensation, vicutalling allowance, conveyance allowance and short hand wages. Victor Simon Paat -Vs- M.V. Accord (Spl. Original) 23 ALR (HCD) 101
Admiralty Court Act [XLIII of 2000]
Section 3(2)(dha) The demand for payment of the salary and other allowances fall on the shoulder of the ship manager and through him upon the shoulder of the owner of the vessel and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to initiate legal proceeding rem against the vessel as well against in personem the said owner of the vessel. Victor Simon Paat-Vs-M.V. Accord (Spl. Original) 23 ALR (HCD) 101
Recovery of Compensation
15 BLC 710: S Alam Vegetable Oil Ltd & others Vs. MT Trompeteros & others: Section 3(2)(Cha) of the Admiralty Court Act, 2000 and read with Section 156(1) (24) (2) of the Customs Act, 1969: The instant suit has been brought under the provision of Admiralty Court Ain, 2000. 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. Therefore 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. (Para-27, Mr. Justice AFM Abdur Rahman).
Admiralty Suit
Absence of the owner
6 XP 173: Creative Chemicals Ltd. Vs. MV Occan Hope now lying at the Chittagong Port & others: It has been held that no decree can be passed against the agent of the charterer in the absence of the owner of the ship and the charterer. (Para-19, Mr. Justice Md. Rezaul Hasan). Ref: 54 DLR 276, 612, 4 BLC 195, 20 DLR(SC)225, 34 DLR 362.
Act of God
Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Division
60 DLR 494: HRC Shipping Ltd Vs. MV Lady Fatima and MV Dali & others: The Court on an earlier occasion dwelt at length on the exact scope and nature of the term "Act of God". By reference to the case of Nugent Vs. Smith (1876) 1 CPD 423 subscribed to the view that "loss arising from and occasioned by the agency of nature which cannot be guarded against by the ordinary exertions of human skill and prudence so as to prevent its effect" is to be identified as a loss arising from an "act of God" (Para-10, Mr. Justice Syed Refaat Ahmed). Ref: 2007 BLD 31.
21 BLC(AD)40: Kyung Hae Maritime Co. Ltd. Vs. BF Glory (Ex- Kunai) & others: Sections 3(2), 4 and 5 of the Admiralty Court Act, 2000: Subject to the provision of Section 5, the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court Division may in all cases be exercised in personam. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides that in relation to claims mentioned in clauses (ka) to (ga) and (da) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Division as the Court of Admiralty may be exercised through an action in rem against the ship or property in question. (Para-17, Mr. Justice Syed Mahmud Hossain).
Deposition without power of attorney
6 XP 173: Creative Chemicals Ltd. Vs. MV Occan Hope now lying at the Chittagong Port & others: In the absence of any Power of Attorney to give deposition on behalf of the parties to the suit, the entire deposition of the witnesses is not admissible in evidence. (Para-19, Mr. Justice Md. Rezaul Hasan). Ref: 4 BLC 195, 20 DLR(SC)225, 34 DLR 362, 54 DLR 276, 612.
Locus-Standi
21 BLC 46: Praxis Energy Agents LLC Vs. MV Yu Fu & others: Section 4(3)(4) of the Admiralty Court Act, 2000: This Court noticed that the dispute as has been brought before this Court has arisen from the supply of bunkers by the plaintiff to the defendant vessel and arising out of the contract and therefore squarely falls under clause (8) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 and has locus-standi to invoke the jurisdiction under the provision of sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 4 the Admiralty Court Ain, 2000 and is clearly maintainable in this Admiralty Court. (Para-35, Mr. Justice AKM Abdul Hakim). Ref: 1981 AC(PC)221, 2010 EWCA Civ. 1050, 1851 PC 267, 34 DLR(AD)110.
Vacating the order of arrest of the Vessel
75. 20 BLC 698: Asset Wonder Limited Vs. MV Athens (formally My Hasan) others: Section 4(4) of the Admiralty Court Act, 2000: Sub- section (4) of Section 4 of the Act clearly excludes the case of maritime lien by referring to whether claim gives rise to a maritime lien on the ship or not. In other words, the right to sue (মামলা করা) in rem by virtue of Sub- section (4) of Section 4 of the Ain, is in addition to the right to maritime lien. (Para-36, Mr. Justice AKM Abdul Hakim). Ref: (1943) 1 KB 161, (1992) Lloyd's Law Reports Vol-2163, 1 KB (1942) 161, 1986 CLC 1569, 20 BLD(AD)230, 5 BLC(AD)169, 34 DLR(AD)110.
Section—6
The High Court of Admiralty exercised jurisdiction over claims for towage on the high seas and not within the body of county and this jurisdiction was extended by section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1840 to claims within the body of a county. ‘Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice’ by Meeson; Roscos’s ‘Admiralty Practice’, 5th Edition at page 2-3--referred. Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. and others, 17 BLD (AD) 136.
15 BLC 674: Fazlur Rahman & Co. Private Ltd. Vs. MV Chosun Hopi & another: Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 and read with Section 103 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Since the said loss occurred due to the defendants' negligence in discharging the consignment from the ship and remaining unpaid for the last 13 years the plaintiff is entitled to recover the compensation with interest @ 18% per annum which will meet the ends of justice. The defendant since never expressed his intention to pay off this lawful claim of the plaintiff, it is also liable to pay the cost of this suit to the plaintiff. (Para-37, Mr. Justice AFM Abdur Rahman).
Section 6
ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 1861
Section—6
Section 6 of the Act vests jurisdiction in the Admiralty Court to try a suit wherein the plaintiff seeks relief for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligences or misconduct or for breach of duty or contract by the ship owner, master and crew of the ship. In the instant case the declaration sought for in the plaint relates to declaration of general average arising out of jettison of cargo in order to save the ship and her merchandise. Declaration of general average arising out of jettison of cargo cannot be said to be damage to goods caused due to negligence or misconduct or breach of duty or breach of contract by ship owner, master or crew within the meaning of section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. Under section 6 of the Act, a suit for declaration is not maintainable and that 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 Admiralty Court Act, 1861. Sadharan Bima Corporation Vs M V BIRBA and others, 20 BLD (AD) 184
Section—6
The language of Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act which confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Admiralty is very specific and definite as to the persons who can raise a claim in the said Court. The insurer is not included among the persons entitled to raise a claim in the said court. The insurer has, of course, got right to raise his claim, before an appropriate court.
Eastern Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D.B. Deniz Nakliyati T.A.B and others, 14 BLD (AD) 38.
Section 6-At the end of the trial of the suit, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree only if he is able to satisfy the Court in respect of his claim and will recover the amount which he is able to prove by adducing satisfactory evidence. The defendants will have every opportunity to disprove or minimise the claim of the plaintiff. BCIC vs MV Thor Nexus, Now lying in Mongla Port, Mongla (Civil) 71 DLR (AD) 335
Admiralty Courts Act, 1961
Section 6
The language of this section, which confers jurisdiction . upon the Court of Admiralty is very specific and definite as to persons who cart raise a claim in the Court of Admiralty. Among the persons entitled to raise a claim in the said Court, an insurer is not included. Eastern Insurance Co Ltd vs DB Deniz Nakliyati TAB 46 DLR (AD) 185.
Section 6
The Courts of Admiralty Act, 1891 (Act. No.XVI of 1891)
Section 6- Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court—Jettison of cargo does not fall within such jurisdiction—
Suit for damage relating to goods arising out of negligence or misconduct or breach of duty or contract by the Shipowner, master or crew of the ship falls within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. Suit in respect of declaration of general average arising out of jettison of cargo does not come within the jurisdiction of Admiralty Court under section 6 of the Act. Sadharan Bima Corporation Vs. M.V. BIRBA & others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 58.
Section 6
The Courts of Admiralty Act, 1891 (Act. No.XVI of 1891)
Section 6— Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court— Claim for damage—
Section 6 of the Court of Admiralty Act, 1861 gives jurisdiction to the court 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 the damage to the goods to be carried by the ship. There is distinction between Maritime claims and maritime liens. All maritime liens are maritime claims but all maritime claims are not maritime liens. Parties by agreement cannot confer lien status on a claim which is not by nature a lien. The only lien recognised today are those created by statutes and those historically recognised in maritime law. Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 does not confer a maritime lien. Al-Sayer Navigation Co. Vs. Delia International Traders Ltd. 2 BLD (AD) 69.
Section-6
Who can file a suit in the Admiralty Jurisdiction?
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 thereby by negligence or misconduct of the owner, master or crews. Under Section 6 the owner or consignee or assignee of any bill of lading can file an Admiralty Suit— It is true that the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the amount for loss/damages of the consignment by the negligence of defendant No. 1 or its master and crews but all disputes from the port of loading to the port of delivery arose out of various contracts. So it is not correct to say that the claim of compensation for damages is independent of any contract. Thus, the learned Admiralty Judge was correct in holding that the suit is not maintainable in Admiralty Jurisdiction on this count as well. [Paras-12 & 14] M/s Shahnaz Traders Vs. M. V. Sletter & Ors. 7BLT (AD)-381
Admiralty Court Act, 1861
Section—6
Jurisdiction of Admiralty Court—Carriage of goods by sea—The section gives the Court jurisdiction only when there is damage done to 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.
Maritime Lien—Maritime lien is different from maritime claim—All maritime liens are maritime claims, but all maritime claims are not maritime liens—Only certain types of maritime claims give rise to maritime liens— Panics by agreement cannot confer lien status on a claim which is not by nature a 1ien—The only lien recognised today are those created b statutes and those historically recognised in maritime law—Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 does not confer a maritime hen—Admiralty Court Act, 1861, S.6. Al-Sayer Navigation Co. Vs. Delta International Traders Ltd. and others, 2 BLD (AD) 69.
Section—6
Section 6 of the Act vests jurisdiction in the Admiralty Court to try a suit wherein the plaintiff seeks relief for damage done to the goods or any part thereof by the negligences or misconduct or for breach of duty or contract by the ship owner, master and crew of the ship.
In the instant case the declaration sought for in the plaint relates to declaration of general average arising out of jettison of cargo in order to save the ship and her merchandise. Declaration of general average arising out of jettison of cargo cannot be said to be damage to goods caused due to negligence or misconduct or breach of duty or breach of contract by ship owner, master or crew within the meaning of section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. Under section 6 of the Act, a suit for declaration is not maintainable and that 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 Admiralty Court Act, 1861. Sadharan Bima Corporation Vs M V BIRBA and others, 20 BLD (AD) 184
Section—6
The language of Section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act which confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Admiralty is very specific and definite as to the persons who can raise a claim in the said Court. The insurer is not included among the persons entitled to raise a claim in the said court. The insurer has, of course, got right to raise his claim, before an appropriate court. Eastern Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. D.B. Deniz Nakliyati T.A.B and others, 14 BLD (AD) 38.
Section—6
The High Court of Admiralty exercised jurisdiction over claims for towage on the high seas and not within the body of county and this jurisdiction was extended by section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1840 to claims within the body of a county. ‘Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice’ by Meeson; Roscos’s ‘Admiralty Practice’, 5th Edition at page 2-3--referred. Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. and others, 17 BLD (AD) 136.
Section 6
Demurrage charge– This is a sound principle and no demurrage can be claimed by the ship owner-who himself was liable for the delay and deviation. The claim for demurrage has been rightly rejected. .....Al-Sayar Navigation Co. =VS= Delta International Traders Ltd., (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 558]
Section—7
Section 7 of Admiralty Court Act, 1861 lays down that the High Court of Admiralty shall ha.ve jurisdiction over any claim for damages by any ship. Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. and others, 17BLD (AD) 136
Section-7
Jurisdiction to entertain a claim of compensation for accident taking place in inland water—the plaintiff-respondent’s case was that the accident took place solely due to the negligence on the part of the appellants employees. The plaintiffs claimed a total amount of Tk. 2,01.62,716.70 against the defendants— Held : The Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. (Para-1 1] BIWTC Vs. Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. & Ors 6 BLT (AD)-103
Section—7
Section 7 of Admiralty Court Act, 1861 lays down that the High Court of Admiralty shall ha.ve jurisdiction over any claim for damages by any ship. Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. and others, 17BLD (AD) 136
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 51 DLR (AD) 71.
Section 52
The Admiralty Court bas 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 51 DLR (AD) 71.
Admiralty Courts Act, 1961
Admiralty Suit
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 ors 53 DLR (AD) 19.
Bank guarantee furnished earlier had expired—
Admiralty Courts Act
Admiralty Suit
Bank guarantee furnished earlier had expired—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 9 BLC (AD) 19.
Amendment of plaint in Admiralty-
The Courts of Admiralty Act, 1891 (Act. No.XVI of 1891)
Amendment of plaint in Admiralty
suit-Plaint may be amended at any stage of the suit if it does not alter the nature and character of the suit. Amendment of the plaint on account of subsequent events does not change the nature and character of the suit as it is not introduction of new ideas but is a continuation of the original cause of action.
Pakistan National Shipping Corporation & another Vs. Resource International and others. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 439.
The Courts of Admiralty Act, 1891 (Act. No.XVI of 1891)
The Chittagong Port Authority Ordinance, 1976—Section 19— Admiralty Court can not grant exemption from payment of dues of Port Authority—
The Judge of the Admiralty Court has no jurisdiction to grant exemption from payment of dues to the Chittagong Port Authority. The portion of the judgment by which such exemption was granted by the Admiralty Court is liable to be expunged.
Chairman, Chiltagong Port Authority & another Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others. 2, MLR (1997) (AD) 107.
Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court—
The Courts of Admiralty Act, 1891 (Act. No.XVI of 1891)
Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court— Award of compensation
Despite the establishment of the Marine Court under the Shipping Ordinance, 1976 empowering it to award compensation for damage due to accident taking place in Inland Water recoverable like a decree of the Civil Court under section 52, the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction to decide suit for compensation for damages on account of accident due to rash and negligent driving taking place both in Inland Water and high sea. Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation Vs. Al-Falah Shipping Lines Ltd. and others, 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 59.
No arrest of property
The Courts of Admiralty Act, 1891 (Act. No.XVI of 1891)
No arrest of property other than the one concerned with the cause of action— Since International Commerce and Trade cannot be disturbed by the arbitrary conduct of a party to a suit. Admiralty Court in Bangladesh has no power to arrest any property or ship of the defendant other than the one which was concerned in the cause of action. Suit in rem against other ship is not maintainable nor such ship can be attached under Order 38 rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Kings Shipping Trading Co. Vs. M/S. L.S. Lines and others. 6 BLD (AD) 107.
Admiralty suit— Limitation of the claim—
Admiralty suit— Limitation of the claim— Exempted from liability when the damage is caused by act of God-Limitation Act, 1908— Limitation for a suit claiming damage is one year from the date of delivery of goods. When the damage is caused by act of God, the ship is exempted from the liability, in the instant case the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation and as such the suit is held barred by limitation. The High Court Division i.e the Admiralty Court in the facts and circumstances released the vessels from arrest which the apex court held perfectly justified. H.R.C Shipping Limited Vs. M.V Lady Fatema and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 113.
Action for violation of Court’s order-
Admiralty Court Act, 1861
Action for violation of Court’s order
Appellate Division passed order for keeping a vessel under attachment—Whether High Court Division competent to take action for violation of such order—After the order was passed by the Appellate Division in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition the appeal before the High Court Division was rendered in- fructuous—Impugned order which may be argued to have merit, seems to have been passed without any competence to do so—Its legality or illegality therefore loses all significance—Anxiety to do justice cannot have free play so as to enable the court to overcome the barrier of competence. Md. Muzaffar Hossain Vs. King Fishers Industries Ltd; 4 BLD (AD) 237.
Question of extending the period of limitation—
Admiralty Court Act, 1861
Admiralty Suit
Question of extending the period of limitation—-Discretion of the Court in extending the period of limitation—if the plaintiff had failed to bring the action within two years having ample opportunity Court will not extend period of limitation—It is not clear why the appellant allowed the period of limitation to run out even though the period of limitation was known to it—It appears that there was no agreement between the parties that the defendant would be bound to satisfy the claim outside the period of limitation— The appellant did not even make any application, explaining the reason for its inability to bring the action within time before the Court for granting an extension of time beyond two years—Court rightly held that the plaint was barred by time while rejecting the plaint—Maritime Convention Act, 1911, S.8.
Bangladesh Inland Water Transport Corporation vs. M/s. Seres Shipping Incorporated one World Trade Centre and others. 4 BLD (AD) 222.
Admiralty Jurisdiction-
Admiralty Court Act, 1861
Admiralty Jurisdiction
Admiralty Court in Bangladesh exercising admiralty jurisdiction has no power to arrest any property or ship of the defendant other than the one which was concerned in the cause of action—Suit in rem against other ship not maintainable nor such ship can be attached under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure—International Commerce and Trade cannot be allowed to be disturbed by the arbitrary notions of conduct of a party to a suit—Admiralty Court Act, 1861, S.6—Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908), Or. 38, R. 5. Kings Shipping Trading Co. Vs. M/s. L.S. Lines and others; 6 BLD (AD) 107.
Limitation of the claim—
Admiralty Court Act, 2000 (43 of 2000)
Admiralty suit— Limitation of the claim— Exempted from liability when the damage is caused by act of God-Limitation Act, 1908— Limitation for a suit claiming damage is one year from the date of delivery of goods. When the damage is caused by act of God, the ship is exempted from the liability, in the instant case the suit is instituted beyond the period of limitation and as such the suit is held barred by limitation. The High Court Division i.e the Admiralty Court in the facts and circumstances released the vessels from arrest which the apex court held perfectly justified. H.R.C Shipping Limited Vs. M.V Lady Fatema and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 113.
Rules 23 and 31
Rules 23 and 31 of the Admiralty Rules are enabling provisions and 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. S.M. Monirul Islam, Proprietor of Viva Trade international Vs MV You Bang now berthed at Mongla Port, Khulna and ors, 19 BLD (AD) 91
Rules 23 and 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 51 DLR (AD) 90.
Jurisdiction, the Courts in Bangladesh
61 DLR 463: Eximpo Trading Limited Vs. MV Banglar Kakoli: Section 19 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925: From the jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading it is clear that the contract in question would be governed by the law of the place where the carrier has his principle place of business. Hence the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. 1925 would be the law applicable to the instant voyage (সমুদ্রযাত্রা), Accordingly, the Courts in Bangladesh would have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of the carriage of gods. However, this did not prevent the plaintiff from litigating in Singapore. (Para-49, Mr. Justice Shamim Hasnain). Ref: 10 DLR 307, 46 DLR 23, 59 DLR 151, 1983 BLD 3= 34 DLR 362, PLD 1957(Karaci)315, 1986 MLD 54, AIR 1960(SC)105%, AIR 1981(Calcutta)298.
Limitation of claim/Arrest of Vessels
15 MLR(AD)113-14 BLC(AD)115: HRC Shipping Limited Vs. MV Lady Fatema & others: Ships carrying goods are exempted from the liability when the damage is caused by act of God. The suit for damage against ships shall have to be filed within one year from the date of delivery of the goods or the purported date of delivery of goods. The instant suit having been filed beyond one year is held barred by limitation and as such the release of the vessels from arrest is held perfectly justified. (Para-6 & 7, Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim). Ref: 1 CPD 423.