The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, Sindh, in which an admiralty appeal filed against the judgment of the Judge in Chambers was dismissed in limine. The petitioner imported goods which were shipped under a bill of Lading on board the vessel Commandante Revello owned by CNM Compagnie Di Navigazione Merzario SRL (Merzario). Although transhipment was prohibited, the goods were transhipped on board the vessel Lakatoi Express belonging to Artemis Lines SA. From the evidence, it transpired that this vessel was time chartered to Merzario. The petitioner filed an admiralty suit against the Lakatoi Express, its owners and the local agent of the vessel. The petitioner's claim was that the vessel, being owned by the same owner at the time when the cause of action arose in personam, was liable to be arrested. The respondents argued that the suit in rem was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed as the vessel was under time charter to Merzario and the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam was not, when the cause of action arose, the beneficial owner as respect majority shares therein. After assessing the evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that Merzario was only a time charterer of the ship and the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed was also dismissed in limine.

Held: Petition denied.

The Supreme Court discussed the English authorities on the interpretation of the equivalent provision in the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) and art 3 of the Arrest Convention 1952. The Court noted that the issue was also considered in the High Court in Sun Line Agencies Ltd v The MV 'Psiloritis' (1984 CLC 1553) where Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui J (as he then was), after considering the English cases, agreed with the conclusions of Robert Goff J in I Congreso del Partido [1981] 2 All ER 1064. Again, in Arshad Corp (Pvt) Ltd v The Ship Maersk Astro PLD​ 1988 Karachi 515 the same view was affirmed. In our view the Judges have taken the correct view by excluding the charterer, be it a time charterer or a charterer by demise, from the category of persons who beneficially own majority shares in the ship sought to be arrested. The pre-condition for invoking jurisdiction under s 4(4)(a)(b) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980 is that the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam when the cause of action arose, should beneficially own the majority of the shares in the ship. Only then can a sister ship be arrested. If we take the view that the words 'beneficially owned' may include even a demise charterer then the words 'as respects majority shares' will be completely redundant. The ownership of majority shares may be beneficial or legal is a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction. It is a well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes that each and every word of a statute has to be given its meaning and no part of a statute can be treated as redundant or surplus. It therefore seems clear that the legislature intended to give an effective meaning to the words 'as respects majority shares' which can only be attributed to the owners.