Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Admiralty Suit No of 2016: The Skyscraper Center
Admiralty Suit No of 2016: The Skyscraper Center
the reputed
1.
2.
Chittagong Port,
Chittagong.
3.
4.
Page 2 of 7
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
That the Plaintiff Far East Oil and Marine Limited, is the
reputed company having business of sale, transporting and supplying
petroleum product and other marine items to the vessels at different
ports in Asia. The Head Office of the company is at Singapore and is
represented by
Building
Page 3 of 7
That the Defendant No. 1 is the sea going vessel engaged in carriage
in international waters as a bulk carrier. The defendant No 2 is the
Master of the vessel who has been commanding the vessel for more
than two years continuously. The
body having its office at Jakarta, Indonesia and the owner of the
defendant vessel which is being operated by the company for last five
years.
3
That the Plaintiff Far East Oil and Marine Limited was contacted
by the master of the vessel (Defendant No. 2) for supplying bunker to
the vessel (Defendant No. 1). Both the parties were known to each
other with regard to supply of bunkers for several occasions. The
plaintiff as a bonafide trader/supplier responded against the demand of
the master and supplied bunkers of marine gas oil of 50 metric tons
to MV Paradise Ocean (Defendant No. 1) on 15.05.2016 while she
was at Singapore port.
Page 4 of 7
That as per the business relation, the plaintiff immediately paid to the
instant supplier (Bengal Maritime Services Limited) for the bunker
and demanded for the payment to defendants No. 2 .
That the Plaintiff submitted bill for the supplied bunker amounting
US$70,000 on 16.05 2016 but the amount was not paid on demand;
rather the master of the vessel asked time for the payment.
That despite repeated reminders, the defendant No 2 did not turn up to
pay for the services rendered out of bonafide business relationship
10
until 15.06.2016.
That the unpaid supplier then communicated defendant No 3, the
owner of the vessel for such payment who denied to pay the amount
and put forward a story of charter party with the Principal Defendant
No.4
That the Plaintiff was not at all aware of such charter party contract
between Defendants No. 3 and Principal Defendant No 4 at the time
of supplying bunker and the information was not given by the master
as well.
Page 5 of 7
12
13
14
15
16
17
Page 6 of 7
19
That the Admiralty Bench of the High Court Division of the Honble
Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Dhaka has jurisdiction to entertain
the case under Clause (L) Sub- Section 2 of Section 3 {aviv 3(2)`} of
the Admiralty Court Act, 2000 (Act No. XLIII of 2000)
Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that Your Lordship
would graciously be pleaseda To pass a decree for BDT= 58,800,00.00
(equivalent to US$ 73500 @ US$ 1= BDT
80.00) in favour of the plaintiff and against
the
principle
defendants
jointly
and
severally;
b In the event of failure of the principle
defendants to pay the decretal amount to the
plaintiff an order be passed to sell the
defendant vessel to satisfy the plaintiffs due
out of sale proceeds.
c To pass a decree against the principle
defendants granting pendentilite interest of
the decretal amount @15% per annum from
the date of filling of the suit till realization
of the amount to the plaintiff.
d To pass a decree for costs of the suit in
favour of the plaintiff and against the
principle defendants; and/or
Page 7 of 7
NID
and
Marine
Limited
(Bangladesh