1. ' The plaintiffs have filed this suit under the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court for delivery of goods and liquidated damages. Alongwith the plaint application for arrest of the vessel was filed. The vessel was arrested on 27-1-1982 and was released by a short order passed on 4-2-1982.
2. ' The admitted position is that the Plaintiffs are the endorsees of a freight pre-paid bill of lading evidencing agreement for carriage of goods on board "GOOD HERALD", the defendant No, 1 from Atwerp to Karachi. The Plaintiffs have alleged that the vessel which is berthed at Karachi has refused to deliver the cargo as according to the defendant No, 3 the local agent of the vessel, the Charterers (the defendants No, 2) have asked them not to permit delivery as the Charterers' dues have not been paid.
3. ' Mr. Pishori the learned counsel for the defendants No, 1 has contended that the suit cannot be entertained under the Admiralty jurisdiction. The admilalty jurisdiction of High Courts in Pakistan is governed by the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 (Ordinance No, XIII of 1980).
4. Section 3 (2) of the Ordinance enumerates the causes, questions or claims in respect of which Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court is exercised. For purposes of the present case reference can be made to section 3 (2) (g) and (h) which enumerate the claims in respect of which Admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised :- "(g) any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship.
(h) any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship."
5. ' Section 3 (2) (h) relates to claims arising out of a contract while subsection (2)
(g) relates to claims for loss or damage not so arising. In the present case claim for delivery is covered by section 3 (2) (h). It is wide enough to cover all claims arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship. This provision will include claim based on breach of obligation under a bill of lading. All claims and cases of short delivery, non-delivery, delayed delivery, damage to cargo or refusal to give delivery, will fall within the ambit of section 3 (2) (h) provided they arise out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship.
6. The Ordinance is remedial, and is to be construed liberally so as to afford utmost relief without doing any violence to the fair meaning of the language. Section 3 (2) (h) covers two types of claims: (i) Any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship, and
(ii) any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the use or hire of a ship. However in both the cases the claim should arise but of any agreement which should relate to carriage of goods by ship or the use or hire of a ship.
7. In order to sustain a claim under subsection (2) (h) existence of agreement must be established from which the rights of the parties flow. Section 3 (2) is wide enough to cover all cases arising out of the agreement relating to the carriage of goods. Such cases may be in contract or tort arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods. In The St. Elefterio where the plaintiff filed an action claiming damages arising out of carriage of goods under bills of lading, it was held that "words of section 1 (1) (h) (identical to section 3(2)(h) of the Ordinance)... Are nevertheless wide enough to cover claims whether in contract or is tort arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship." It, therefore, follows that claim of any nature relating to or arising out of the agreement for carriage of goods will be covered by section 3 (2) (h). On the basis of evidence on record this Court under its Admiralty jurisdiction is competent to entertain and try this suit.
8. ' Another question which may arise is whether Plaintiffs as endorees or assignees of a bill of lading can file a suit. The endorsee of a bill of lading derives his right from the first section of the Bills of Lading Act, 1855. It provides that every endorsee of a bill of lading to whom the property in the goods therein shall pass upon or by reason of such endorsement shall have transferred to and vested in him all rights of suit, and be subject to same liabilities in respect of such goods as if the contract contained in the bill of lading had been made with himself. The endorsees' rights have therefore, to be read in unison with the aforestated provisions of the Bill of Lading Act. An endorsee to whom the property in the goods passes upon endorsement has a beneficial interest in the goods and is entitled 0 to file a suit under the provisions of section 3 (2) (h) of the Ordinance.
9. ' The defendants Nos. 1 and 3 have pleaded that they are ready and willing to deliver the cargo. As the plaintiff's prime facie were not able to establish' how their claim for liquidated damages arises out of any agreement relating E to carriage of goods I ordered the vessel to be released after she completes discharge of cargo and on a further condition that she furnishes security for Rs, 25,000 towards cost.
10. ' The application stands disposed of in these terms. accordingly. (1957) 2 A E R 374