ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 1840
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.

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

ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 1861
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.

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.

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.

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.

Admiralty Court Act, 1861
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.

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

Admiralty Court Act, 1861
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.

Admiralty Court Act, 1840
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.

The Admiralty Court Act, 1861
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] ....View Full Judgment

ADMIRALTY COURT ACT, 1861
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

Admiralty Court Act, 1861
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

Admiralty Court Act, 1861
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

Admiralty Courts Act, 1961
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.

Admiralty Courts Act, 1961
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.

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.

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.

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.

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— 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.

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.

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 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.

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.