IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION)
ADMIRALTY SUIT NO OF 2016
Eastern Marine Transport Ltd.
-----------------------Plaintiff

-Versus -

MV Polaris
--------------------Defendant

Written statement on behalf o the Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3

1. That the suit against the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, is not maintainable
within the jurisdiction of this honble court and in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. That the Plaintiff has no Locus standi against the Defendant Nos. 1, 2
and 3 and cause of action to file this suit against the Defendant Nos. 1, 2
and 3 and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
3. That the Plaintiff has filed this suit with mala-fide intention. The claims
made by the Plaintiff in the plaint are not only fictitious, baseless and
frivolous, but also have been made with a clear object to harass the
Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3. The present suit is an abuse of the process of
the court. The sole purpose of the suit is to involve the Defendant nos. 1,
2, and 3 in an unnecessary litigation and, as such, the plaint is liable to
be rejected in limine.
4. That the Plaintiff has failed to chalk out and/or ascertain any specific
cause of action against the Defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the whole point.
5. That the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the instant admiralty suit
against the Defend ant Nos. 1,2 and 3 and accordingly no cause of
action has arisen for filling the instant suit against this Defendant Nos. 1
to 3
6. That the suit is barred under the principles of estoppel, waiver and
acquiescence and is liable to be dismissed.
7. That the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties.
8. That any statement not specifically admitted by the Defendant Nos. 1 to
3 shall, hereinafter, be deemed to have been denied by the Defendant
Nos. 1 to 3
9. The statement made in paragraph 1-3 is matters of records and here, no
comment called for.
1

10. Save the statement that on 1 st November2016 the Defendant no-1, MV

Polaris was crossing the outer anchorage, the rest statements and in
paragraph-4 are not correct. MV Polaris has abided all cautions but
anchoring chains of MV Padma has suddenly teared and hit MV Polaris
to its back side.
11. The statement made in paragraph -5 is matters of records and here, no
comment called for.
12. The statement made in paragraph- 6 is matters of records and here, no
comment called for.
13. Statement made in paragraph 7 is totally wrongful, frivolous and
objective. All kinds of possible assistance to MV Padma had provided
by MV Polaris.
14. The statement made in paragraph - 8 is matters of records and here, no
comment called for.
15. The statement made in paragraph- 9 is matters of records and here, no
comment called for.
16. The statement made in paragraph- 10 is matters of records and here, no
comment called for.
17. The statement made in paragraph - 11 is matters of records and here, no
comment called for.
18. The statement made in paragraph- 12 is matters of records and here, no
comment called for.
19. That the statement of paragraph 13 is matters of records and, hence, no
comment is called for.
20. The statement made in Para -14 of the plaint are denied by the
Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. As the Defendant No. That without unloading
the cargo at Chittagong Port, Chittagong, the defendant No. 1 vessel MV
Polaris will not flee from the Chittagong port, Chittagong. That the
plaintiff has no legal claim to the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. That the
plaintiff with an ulterior motive has filed the instant suit against the
defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3 only to humiliate and harass the defendant
Nos. 1,2 and 3.
21. That the particulars of the statement made in the Paragraph Nos.15 and
16 of the plaint are denied by the Defendants Nos.1 to 3. That the
Plaintiff has no legal claim to the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
As the ship carries perishable goods, the honble court shall not pass
any warrant of Arrest.
22. The statement made in Para -17 of the plaint are denied by the
Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. As the Defendant No. That without unloading
the cargo at Chittagong Port, Chittagong, the defendant No. 1 vessel MV
Polaris will not flee from the Chittagong port, Chittagong. That the
plaintiff has no legal claim to the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. That the
plaintiff with an ulterior motive has filed the instant suit against the
defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3 only to humiliate and harass the defendant
Nos. 1,2 and 3.
23. That the statement of paragraph 18 is matters of records and, hence, no
comment is called for.
24. That the particulars of the statement made in the paragraph No. 19 of the
pliant are denied by the Defendants nos. 1 to 3. That the Plaintiff has no
legal claim to the Defendant Nos. 1,2 and 3 and, therefore, the Plaintiff
2

is not entitled to obtain a decree from this Honble Court against the
Defendant nos. 1 to 3.
25. That the particulars of the statement made in the Paragraph No. 20 of the
plaint are denied by the Defendants No. 1 to 3. That the Plaintiff has no
legal claim to the Defendant nos. 1,2 and 3 and, therefore, the principal
Defendants are not jointly and severally liable to pay any damages to the
Plaintiff.
26. That the particulars of the statement made in the paragraph No. 21 of the
pliant are denied by the Defendants nos. 1 to 3 that the Plaintiff has no
legal claim to the Defendants nos. 1,2 and 3, and as such, the instant suit
is not maintainable under the Admiralty court act, 2000 and therefore,
this admiralty court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit of the
Plaintiff.
27. That the statements made in Paragraph No.22 of the pliant is not correct,
and, hence, denied by the Defendant nos. 1,2 and 3. There is no cause of
action in the instant suit and the suit is not sustainable in the eye of law
since the Plaintiff has no legal claim to the Defendant nos. 1 to 3.
28. That the particulars of the statement made in the paragraph No.23 of the
plaint are denied by the Defendants nos. 1 to 3. That the Plaintiff has no
legal claim to the Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3, therefore, the Plaintiff is not
entitled to obtain a decree from this Honble court against the Defendant
nos. 1 to 3.
29. That the defendant no.1 didnt hit MV PADMA rather MV PADMA has
hit Defendant No.1.
30. In Bangladesh No vessel of the measurement of two hundred tons or
upwards shall enter, leave or be moved in any port..without having a
pilot. That is the pilotage was compulsory.
31. That the Defendant No. 02 (Master of the ships) was not in command at
the time of collision with MV Padma and at this time the compulsory
pilot was at command.
32. That Bangladesh as a common law country, the ship owner was
originally held liable for the negligent acts of the pilot in areas of
voluntary pilotage, but not in areas of compulsory pilotage.
33. That it is submitted that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action in
the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no cause of action to
file this suit against the Defendant Nos. 1to 3.
34. That the defendants has filed a general diary in writing, on 1 st November
2016 to the Bandar police station. The general diary no. is 1055 of 2016.
35. That the defendants have also filed an application to the Mercantile
Marine Department (MMD) for the investigation of the casualty on 2 nd
November 2016. And the MMD has submitted the survey report on 5 th
November 2016, in favor of the defendants.
36. The lighter vessel MV Padma was wrongly anchored in the prohibited
anchoring zone. This is notified by the Master of Chittagong port on 28
October 2016.
37. That the defendant vessel has sustained following losses
01.
02.

Damage to the hull

Damage to the machinery

45,00,000/20,00,000/3

03

Damage to the cargo

15,.00,000/80,00,000/1,00,000 $

Total (1$=80/-)USD =

38. That the defendant has notified the Plaintiff about the damages suffered
by then on 6th November,2016. And proposed for a joint survey. But the
Plaintiff has denied the matter.
Wherefore, it is most humble prayed
that your honor would graciously be
please to:
a) Dismiss the aforesaid suit
summarily with compensatory
cost in favor of the Defendant
Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
b) Return the Letter of Guarantee
for
US$106000.00
dated
18.11.20016 to defendant No. 1
for the cancellation.
c) Pass such other order or orders as
You Honor may deem fit and
proper for ends of justice. And
for these act of kindness the
Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as in
duty bound shall ever pray.
And for this act of kindness the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as in duty
bound shall ever pray.

V E R I F I C AT I O N
I

MD.Abdul

Abdur

Khalek,

Rahman,

NID

19565416546466,

S/O
No

Managing

Director of George Shipping

Limited(Bangladesh

Office)

100 Agrabad, Chittagong 1100, do hereby declare that the

statements made

hereinabove

are true to the best of my

knowledge and information as
derived from the records of the
4

case which I believed to be true

and the rest of my submission
before Honble Court and I sign
the verification on this the 19
Day of November 2016.
Deponent
Advocate