1987 PLP 392(1) (SCMR)
A.R. SMITH & CO. through Zafar lqbal and another‑‑Petitioners Versus GRINDLAYS BANK LTD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 392(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, J |
| Parties | A.R. SMITH & CO. through Zafar lqbal and another‑‑Petitioners Versus GRINDLAYS BANK LTD and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Supreme Court Rules, 1981‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 392(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Supreme Court Rules, 1981‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 392(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 392(1) (SCMR) (A.R. SMITH & CO. through Zafar lqbal and another‑‑Petitioners Versus GRINDLAYS BANK LTD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑O. XX, R. 1‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 6‑ Secuirity demanded twice‑‑Interim stay‑‑Miscellaneous application objecting to demand of security by High Court twice, first at time of entertainment of appeal and secondly when petitioner asked for stay order‑Notice issued to respondents, maintaining status quo meanwhile.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 400 of 1984 in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 544 of 1984, decided on 16th May, 1984. ‑‑O. XX, R. 1‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 6‑ Secuirity demanded twice‑‑Interim stay‑‑Miscellaneous application objecting to demand of security by High Court twice, first at time of entertainment of appeal and secondly when petitioner asked for stay order‑Notice issued to respondents, maintaining status quo meanwhile. Amir Alam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Petitioner's Counsel submits that the question which he wishes to raise in the case is as to whether security can be demanded by the Court from the petitioner twice. This contention arises from the fact that the High Court first asked him to furnish a security‑bond at the time of entertainment of the appeal, but subsequently, when he prayed for a stay order, the High Court required him to deposit decretal amount in cash. Notice to the respondents for a very early date. Status quo in the mean while. M.I. Interim stay granted.