-Versus -
MV Polaris
--------------------Defendant
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.
45,00,000/20,00,000/3
03
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
Office)
hereinabove