This case involved two appeals involving similar facts and issues. The respondent consignor, Sadruddin & Co, was engaged in the business of import and exports. The first appellant was an ocean-going vessel owned/chartered by the second appellant. The third appellant was the local agent of the owner. The consignor exported potatoes from Karachi, Pakistan, to Colombo, Sri Lanka, in eight consignments involving four vessels: the Lamon Bay, La Boheme, the Sinar Padang, and the Swat. The respondent contended that these consignments were delivered to the consignee without the surrender of original bills of lading, and without obtaining a bank guarantee. As a consequence thereof, the consignor suffered loss. The respondent arrested the Lamon Bay and the Sinar Padang in respect of its total losses. A single Judge largely found in favour of the respondent. The appellant appealed.

Among other things, the appellant argued that there was a lack of jurisdiction in respect of some of the claims, as the respondent had not pleaded that the relevant four ships were sister ships. To support this contention, the appellant referred to MV Sea Success I v Liverpool & London Steamship Protection & Indemnity Association Ltd AIR 2002 Bombay 151.

Held: The appeals are partially allowed, but the claims against La Boheme and the Swat are disallowed.

The pivotal question for consideration is whether the action in rem against the Lamon Bay is maintainable in respect of a claim against La Boheme. In like manner, is an action in rem against the Sinar Padang maintainable in respect of a claim against the Swat? All four vessels are offending ships. The respondent consignor has invoked the admiralty jurisdiction of this Court by pleading its claim in terms of s 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980 (the Ordinance) in respect of a claim arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship. Section 4(4) of the Ordinance allows the arrest of a sister ship where the relevant person beneficially owns majority shares in the sister ship. On compliance of this condition, an action in rem for arrest of a sister vessel can be filed.

The respondent consignor has not pleaded that the Lamon Bay and La Boheme are sister ships. Likewise, nothing has been stated in its claim with regard to the Swat in relation to the Sinar Padang. In the absence of a plea that La Boheme is the sister ship of the Lamon Bay, the claim with regard to the offending ship La Boheme cannot be enforced in an action in rem against the Lamon Bay. Likewise, the claim against the offending ship Swat cannot be enforced in an action in rem against the Sinar Padang. The respondent consignor's claims are reduced to the extent of the consignments actually shipped on the vessels Lamon Bay and Sinar Padang.