1976 PLP 316 (SCMR)
Messes MACDONALD LAYTON & COSTAIN LTD. Petitioner Versus MESSRS AVARI HOTELS LTD.‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 316 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ Art. 185(3) ‑Matter in dispute already taken in appeal before High Court and appeal also admitted for hearing‑Matter held, should first be decided by High Court‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed,‑Practice and Procedure. |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rehman, C. J. Muhammad Yaqub Ali |
| Parties | Messes MACDONALD LAYTON & COSTAIN LTD. Petitioner Versus MESSRS AVARI HOTELS LTD.‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 316 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 316 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ Art. 185(3) ‑Matter in dispute already taken in appeal before High Court and appeal also admitted for hearing‑Matter held, should first be decided by High Court‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed,‑Practice and Procedure. bench comprising: Hamoodur Rehman, C. J. Muhammad Yaqub Ali.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 316 (SCMR) (Messes MACDONALD LAYTON & COSTAIN LTD. Petitioner Versus MESSRS AVARI HOTELS LTD.‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Ahmad Farouqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by V. A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Saeed A Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Amer Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 24th October 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, dated the 22nd of August 175, in Suit No. 361 of 1975). ‑‑ Art. 185(3) ‑Matter in dispute already taken in appeal before High Court and appeal also admitted for hearing‑Matter held, should first be decided by High Court‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed,‑[Practice and Procedure].
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner had been given a contract by the respondent for the construction of a hotel at Lahore to be styled as "Lahore Hilton". The contract, Inter alia provided for furnishing the petitioner with a mobilisation fund for executing the work at Lahore. For this mobilisation fund the petitioner through Messrs National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., Karachi furnished to the respondent a bank guarantee to cover the amount of the mobilisation fund. For some reasons the petitioner stopped the construction work and the respondent pressed the Bank for encashment of the aforesaid Bank guarantee. The petitioner, however, disputed the encashment of the Bank guarantee and this is the dispute before us. The petitioner made an application under sections 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan and prayed for an order restraining the respondent from realising or encashing the said bank guarantee furnished by the National & Grindlays Bank. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application under sections 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and refused to give the interim injunction asked for. It appears that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the High Court and it has been admitted for hearing. We, accordingly, think that the matter should first be decided by the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.