1984 PLP 1913(1) (CLC)
MESSRS GHANDHARA INDUSTRIES LTD.,‑Applicant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE DP (ARMY),
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1913(1) (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | K. A. Ghani, J |
| Parties | MESSRS GHANDHARA INDUSTRIES LTD.,‑Applicant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE DP (ARMY), |
| Primary Law | Practice and procedure‑, ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1913(1) (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Practice and procedure‑, ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1913(1) (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: K. A. Ghani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1913(1) (CLC) (MESSRS GHANDHARA INDUSTRIES LTD.,‑Applicant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE DP (ARMY),). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing : 27th February, 1983.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ Communication by post‑Reply to Court's letter addressed to Superintendent of Court sent by post‑No proper application supported by affidavit filed‑Such communication, being not permissible under Rules, held, need no action. Z. U. Ahmed alongwith S. 1qba1 Ahmed for Plaintiff. Letter dated 8‑11‑1982 has been received addressed to the Superintendent, of this Court purporting to be reply to the letter, dated 14‑9‑1981. No communication by post is permissible under the rules. No proper application supported by an affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances no action can be taken on this letter. Mr. Inayat Ali, Standing Counsel shall inform the concerned officer. Mr Z. U. Ahmed, learned Advocate for plaintiff requests that notice of application C. M. A. 505/83 be issued to the other side, which purports to have been made under section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Perusal of the record however, shows that the suit was disposed of by order, dated 11‑8‑1981 which order is self‑explanatory. Since the case stands disposed of. No clarification is required to be made by this Court. Application is dismissed. M. Y. M. Application dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Suit No. 456 of 1975, decided on 27th February, 1983. ‑‑‑ Communication by post‑Reply to Court's letter addressed to Superintendent of Court sent by post‑No proper application supported by affidavit filed‑Such communication, being not permissible under Rules, held, need no action. Z. U. Ahmed alongwith S. 1qba1 Ahmed for Plaintiff. Date of hearing : 27th February, 1983. Letter dated 8‑11‑1982 has been received addressed to the Superintendent, of this Court purporting to be reply to the letter, dated 14‑9‑1981. No communication by post is permissible under the rules. No proper application supported by an affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances no action can be taken on this letter. Mr. Inayat Ali, Standing Counsel shall inform the concerned officer. Mr Z. U. Ahmed, learned Advocate for plaintiff requests that notice of application C. M. A. 505/83 be issued to the other side, which purports to have been made under section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Perusal of the record however, shows that the suit was disposed of by order, dated 11‑8‑1981 which order is self‑explanatory. Since the case stands disposed of. No clarification is required to be made by this Court. Application is dismissed. M. Y. M. Application dismissed.