Page 1 of 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION)

ADMIRALTY SUIT NO OF 2016

Far East Oil and Marine Limited,

the reputed

company having business to supply marine gas oil

to the vessels at sea, having its head office at
house No 100, Building No. 200, Downtown,
Singapore and represented by its local office at
Building No- 100, Agrabad, Chittagong .
. Plaintiff
- Versus -

1.

MV PARADISE OCEAN, a sea going vessel,

now berthed at Jetty No. NCT- 5 at Chittagong
Port, Chittagong.

2.

The Master of the vessel, MV PARADISE

OCEAN, now laying at

Chittagong Port,

Chittagong.
3.

4.

Eastern Shipping Limited,

The Skyscraper Center, Wisma 46, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Pacific Bulk Carrier Limited, 100 Khidirpur,
Kolkata, Bangla, India.
. Principle Defendants

Page 2 of 7

5.

The Chairman, Chittagong Port Authority,

Chittagong.

6.

The Harbour Master, Chittagong Port

Authority, Chittagong.

7.

The Collector of Customs, Customs House,

Chittagong.

8.

The Principle Officer, Mercantile Marine

Department, Chittagong Port Authority,
Chittagong.

9.

Director General Bangladesh Coast Guard,

Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka

10.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Port),

Chittagong Metropolitan Police
. Proforma Defendants

SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF PRICE OF BUNKER

THE SUIT IS VALUED AT BDT= 588,0000.00 ONLY
EQUIVALENT TO US$ 73500 (@ US$ 1= BDT 80.00)

The plaintiff most respectfullyS H E W E T H:

1

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

its local office here in Bangladesh at

No.100, Agrabad, Chittagong

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

defendant No. 3 is a corporate

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 Principal Defendant No. 4 is the company having business of

carriage of goods by sea with vessels both of its own as well as charter
basis. The Proforma defendants Nos 5-10 are the parties/authorities
under whose legal and administrative jurisdiction the vessel
(defendant No.1) is laying at Chittagong port.

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.

That due to the extreme urgency of bunker as said by defendant No 2,

the plaintiff provided immediate support by arranging a supply vessel
of Bengal Maritime Services Limited, a Bangladeshi company being
situated at House No. 101, Agrabad, Chittagong which is also
engaged in sale, transporting and supplying of petroleum products to
vessels

calling at different Asian ports and which was available

beside Defendant ship at that time.

Page 4 of 7

That the Plaintiff arranged such a third party to supply bunker on

behalf of the plaintiff with a view to rendering efficient service to the
defendant No 1. The defendant No 1 received 50 metric tons of
marine gas oil

and acknowledged the receipt thereof by putting

signature on the bunker delivery receipt by the Chief Engineer on

behalf of the defendant No 2. i.e. master of the vessel.
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

during the time of such supply. In the correspondence the

defendant No 3 stated that as per the agreement of charter party the

charterer was responsible for bunkering which was not communicated
to the Plaintiff earlier.
11

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

That the Plaintiff after hearing of the matter of charter party

immediately communicated with the Principal defendant no.4 then
The Principal defendant no.4 informed the Plaintiff That they paid all
the dues including bunkering on 15.06.16 at the time of redelivery and
also give a notice of indemnity.

13

That such supply of bunker took place on credit only because of

previous good records of transaction between plaintiff and defendants
Nos 1 and 2 as well as for the good name of defendant No. 3.

14

That the Plaintiff is suffering from non-payment for the bunker

supplied to the defendant No 1 for which the plaintiff is entitled to
have the amount of US$70,000 along with an interest of US$3500
for last six months @ 10%

interest amounting a sum of BDT=

588,0000.00 only, equivalent to US$ 73500 (@ US$ 1= BDT 80.00)

15

That the plaintiff tried to have an amicable settlement by

communicating the defendants No 2,3 and 4 but it seems that they are
intentionally avoiding / ignoring the issue.

16

That the claim of the Plaintiff was reckoned on 15.05.2016 upon

supplying of the said bunker and the cause of action of the instant suit
arose on 16.05.16 when the Defendant No 2 refused to pay for bunker
and afterwards when the defendant failed/avoided to make the
payment upon repeated demand for which the defendants are jointly
and severally liable.

17

That the documents on behalf of the plaintiff including demand for

bunker vide email and receipt of delivery duly signed by the Chief
Engineer of defendant No. 1 and such other correspondence asking for

Page 6 of 7

payment of dues have been filed separately through the list of

document.
18

That the plaintiff has valued the suit at BDT= 58,800,00.00

(equivalent to US$ 73500 @ US$ 1= BDT 80.00) only and have
submitted requisite court fees thereupon.

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

e For such further and other relief as this

Honble Court may deem fit and proper to
which the plaintiff is entitled in law, equity
and justice.
And, for such act of kindness, the plaintiff, as duty bound, shall ever
pray.
V E R I F I C AT I O N
I .,
S/O,

NID

No. Manager, Far East

Oil

and

Marine

Limited

(Bangladesh

Office),. Agrabad, Chittagong 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 case which I believed to
be true and the rest of my submission before
Honble Court and I sign the verification on
this the . Day of ..,
20
Deponent
Advocate