P L D 1991 Lahore 427 (PLP)
SH. ABDUL HAO & SONS LTD. — Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAHORE
| Citation | P L D 1991 Lahore 427 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SH. ABDUL HAO & SONS LTD. — Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAHORE |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 427 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1991 Lahore 427 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1991 Lahore 427 (PLP) (SH. ABDUL HAO & SONS LTD. — Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S. M. Zafar for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Akram for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Contention that though oral order was announced by the Chief Justice, whereby he accepted the writ petition, but the judgment had not been written or signed by him before he became a Judge of the Supreme Court, the judgment subsequently delivered by him was of co legal effect
Held. there was nothing on the record to show with certainty that the judgment was not written and signed by the Chief Justice while he held that office
Merely because blue slip was added or verified on the date when the Chief Justice had left his office as such would not mean that the judgment was signed and written at the time of adding of blue slip
Chief Justice having signed the judgment as Chief Justice, a presumption of highest credibility would arise that he was holding that office at that time and the mere fact that the file was received by the office later on from
Judgment & Decree
and 3 others--Respondents Civil Miscellaneous No.1424 of 1983 in Writ Petition No.1355 of 1975, heard on 8th May; 1991. Judgment
Contention that though oral order was announced by the Chief Justice, whereby he accepted the writ petition, but the judgment had not been written or signed by him before he became a Judge of the Supreme Court, the judgment subsequently delivered by him was of co legal effect
Held. there was nothing on the record to show with certainty that the judgment was not written and signed by the Chief Justice while he held that office
Merely because blue slip was added or verified on the date when the Chief Justice had left his office as such would not mean that the judgment was signed and written at the time of adding of blue slip
Chief Justice having signed the judgment as Chief Justice, a presumption of highest credibility would arise that he was holding that office at that time and the mere fact that the file was received by the office later on from Chief Justice, or blue slip was added by the ministerial staff at that time could not rebut the presumption. [pp. 429, 430] A & B S. M. Zafar for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Akram for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th May, 1991.