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 of the Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3

1. That the suit is not maintainable within the jurisdiction of this honble court and in
the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no cause of action to file this suit
against the defendant no. 1 MV. POLARIS, defendant no 2 Master of MV. POLARIS
and defendant no 3 owner of MV. POLARIS as such; the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
2. 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 no. 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 no. 1, 2, and 3 in an unnecessary litigation and, as such, the plaint is
liable to be rejected in limine.
3. That the Plaintiff has failed to chalk out and/or ascertain any specific cause of action
against the Defendant no. 1,2 and 3 in the whole point.
4. That the Plaintiff has no locus standi to file the instant admiralty suit against the
Defendant No. 1,2 and 3 and accordingly no cause of action has arisen for filling the
instant suit against this Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
5. That the suit is barred under the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and
is liable to be dismissed.
6. That the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties.
7. That any statement not specifically admitted by the Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3 shall,
hereinafter, be deemed to have been denied by the Defendant No. 1, 2 and 3.

8. The statement made in paragraph 1-3 is matters of records and here, no comment is
called for.
9. Save the statement that on 1st November 2016 the Defendant no-1, MV. POLARIS
was crossing the outer anchorage, the rest statements in paragraph-4 are not correct.
MV Polaris has taken all instant cautions for avoiding collisions between MV.
PADMA and MV. POLARIS but anchoring chains of MV PADMA has suddenly
broken down and hit our vessel MV. POLARIS to its back side.
10. The statement made in paragraph -5 is matter of records. After the collision on 1 st
November 2016 immediately we had informed Chittagong Port Authority and our
local agent which has an office at Agrabad, Chittagong and on the same day we
lodged a General Dairy at Chittagong Port Police Station.
11. The first statement made in paragraph- 6 is that the vessel MV. PADMA lodged note
of protest on 1st November 2016 with Master of MV. POLARIS, which is completely
false and rest of the statements are matters of records and here, no comment is called
for.
12. Statement made in paragraph 7 is completely false, frivolous and objective. Rather
we MV. POLARIS, provide all types of possible assistance instantly after collision to
MV.PADMA.
13. The statement made in paragraph - 8 is completely matter of records and here, no
comment is called for.
14. The statement made in paragraph- 9 is also completely matter of records and here, no
comment is called for.
15. The statement made in paragraph- 10 arent true and it is strongly matter of records
and here, no comment is called for.
16. The statement made in paragraph - 11 is also matter of records and here, no comment
is called for.
17. The statement made in paragraph- 12 also matter of records and here, no comment is
called for.
18. That the statement of paragraph 13 is matters of records and, hence, no comment is
called for.
19. The statement made in Para -14 is that the vessel MV. POLARIS shall be leaving
Chittagong Port to avoid payment. This statement is not correct because as we were
carrying perishable goods from China and without unloading that goods at
Chittagong Port our vessel shall not flee and as our vessel has also got damaged
thats why we required repair of our vessel.
20. That the particulars of the statement made in the Paragraph No.15 and 16 of the
plaint are denied by the Defendants No.1, 2 and 3. That the Plaintiff has no legal

claim to the Defendants. As our vessel carried perishable goods and also got
damaged, the honble court shall not pass any warrant of Arrest.
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. The statement made in Para -17 of the plaint are denied by the Defendants. For
carrying perishable goods the vessel MV. POLARIS shall not flee from the
Chittagong port, Chittagong. That the plaintiff has no legal claim to the Defendant
No. 1, 2 and 3. That the plaintiff with an ulterior motive has filed the instant suit
against the defendant No. 1,2 and 3 only to humiliate and harass the defendants.
Thats why there arises no questions of release.
22. That the statement of paragraph 18 is matter of records and, hence, no comment is
called for.
23. That the particulars of the statement made in the paragraph No. 19 of the pliant are
denied by the Defendants and therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to obtain a
decree from this Honble Court against the Defendant no. 1 to 3.
24. That the particulars of the statement made in the Paragraph No. 20 of the plaint are
denied by the Defendants. That the Plaintiff has no legal claim to the Defendant no.
1, 2 and 3 and, therefore, the principal Defendants are not jointly and severally liable
to pay any damages to the Plaintiff.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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 payment their so
called damage am ount.

28. That the statement made in paragraph No.24 of the pliant is not admitted by the
Defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the Plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief as been
prayed for by the Plaintiff in the plaint of the instant suit.

29. 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. Not only that Bangladesh as a common law country, the vessel
owner originally held liable for the negligent acts of the pilot in areas of voluntary
pilotage, but not in areas of compulsory pilotage.
30. That because of compulsory of pilot the master of MV. POLARIS was not in
command at the moment of collision with MV. PADMA.
31. 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.
32. That the defendants has also communicated with the Mercantile Marine Department
(MMD) on 2nd November 2016 and made a survey gave a report on 5 th November
2016. The surveyors found that the Defendant ship MV. POLARIS has also sustained
the damage in hull and machinery and amount of damage were worth tk. 80, 00,000.
(converted on 1st November, 2016 : 1$=80Tk).
33. That the Chittagong Port Authority declared a notice not to anchor lighter vessel on
the declared area due to rough weather but MV. PADMA was wrongly anchored in
the prohibited anchoring zone.
34. During lightering service the lighter vessel shall tided with mother vessel with 9
chains according to Chittagong Port Navigational Regulations but the plaintiff vessel
did not do so.
35. From May to November it is monsoon period, and in this period weather can change
at any moment and in this time lightering service is difficult. From this view point it
is state that the plaintiff vessel MV. PADMA never follow any sort of rules given by
Chittagong Port Authority.
36. That the MMD has said in their report that, the defendant vessel has sustained
following losses
01
.
02
.

Damage to the hull

45,00,000/-

Damage to the machinery

20,00,000/-

03

Damage to the cargo

Total (1$=80/-)USD =

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

37. That the suit filed with ulterior motive of plaintiff only to humiliate and haras the
defendants nothing else.
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) 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 the 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 Mohammad Anwar Ali, Son of Bashir Ahmed,
NID No 1978546378997, Manager of George
Shipping Limited (Bangladesh Local Office),
Agrabad, Chittagong - 1100, do hereby declare that
the statements made herein above 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 21 day
of November 2016.
Deponent

Advocate