1981CLC 601 (PLP)
Appellant Versus SIR E, H. JAFFER & SONS LTD.‑Respondent
| Citation | 1981CLC 601 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hayee Kureshi and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | Appellant Versus SIR E, H. JAFFER & SONS LTD.‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981CLC 601 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981CLC 601 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Abdul Hayee Kureshi and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981CLC 601 (PLP) (Appellant Versus SIR E, H. JAFFER & SONS LTD.‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Yousif Rafi for Appellant.
- J. H. Rahimtoola for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing : 19th and 24th March, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) ‑‑‑ S. 13(6) [as amended by West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (XXI of 1965)]‑Interpretation of statutes‑Amendment Procedural law‑Retrospectively‑No one can claim a vested right in matter of procedure‑Amendment in procedural law‑w‑Generally takes effect retrospectively‑Amendments in law also apply to pending cases before Court or Tribunal‑Such proposition however cannot be extended with its full vigour to provisions of law as deal with such vested rights of parties as may be procedural in nature in certain other aspects.‑[Interpretation of statutes]. Pir Bakhsh and another v. State P L D 1965 Lab, 308 ref. (b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑ ‑‑‑ S. 13(6).‑Procedural law‑Provisions of S. 13(6) of Ordinance may be procedural in some respects in nature, but cannot be legitimately described as wholly procedural since it does give rise to vested rights of parties in litigation in event of non‑compliance by other during pendency of proceedings. (c) interpretation of statutes‑ ‑‑‑ Amendment‑Retrospectively‑Amendment in law touches right of a party in existence on passing of an Act/Ordinance‑Amend ment in such case not a mere matter of procedure and operates only prospectively unless a different intention expressly borne out from amending Act,/Ordinance. (d) Interpretation of statutes‑: ‑‑‑‑‑ Alteration in law‑Rights of parties‑.‑Law altered during pendency of action‑Rights of parties determined and decided according to law existing when action began unless new statute shows a clear intention to vary such right or it lays down a mere rule of procedure. (e) Interpretation of statutes‑ Alteration in law ‑ Pending cases ‑ Procedure ‑‑‑ Pending cases instituted under old law but still pending‑May be governed by new procedure under amended law‑Part of procedure already applied or concluded before coming into force of new procedure however does not become bad nor can be reopened on basis of amendment unless of course statute expressly or by a compelling implication says so. (f) Interpretation of statutes‑ ‑‑‑ Rule of strict construction of a provision of law‑Means that provisions be so construed that no cases be held to fall within it as do not fall both within reasonable meaning of its terms and within spirit and scope of enactment. Massan and others v. Fancy Foundation P L D 1975 S C 1; Messrs Ansari Brother v. Holy Trinity Church P L D 1971 S C 700; Mst. Bachi Bai v. Ghulam Abbas Letters Patent Appeal No. 198 of 1971; Syed Ehsan Ali v. Jaffer Ali and another P L D 1964 Kar. 367 and Khair Muhammad Nizamani v. Abdul Quddus P L D 1966 Kar. 367 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ S. 13(6).‑Procedural law‑Provisions of S. 13(6) of Ordinance may be procedural in some respects in nature, but cannot be legitimately described as wholly procedural since it does give rise to vested rights of parties in litigation in event of non‑compliance by other during pendency of proceedings. (c) interpretation of statutes‑ ‑‑‑ Amendment‑Retrospectively‑Amendment in law touches right of a party in existence on passing of an Act/Ordinance‑Amend ment in such case not a mere matter of procedure and operates only prospectively unless a different intention expressly borne out from amending Act,/Ordinance. (d) Interpretation of statutes‑: ‑‑‑‑‑ Alteration in law‑Rights of parties‑.‑Law altered during pendency of action‑Rights of parties determined and decided according to law existing when action began unless new statute shows a clear intention to vary such right or it lays down a mere rule of procedure. (e) Interpretation of statutes‑ Alteration in law ‑ Pending cases ‑ Procedure ‑‑‑ Pending cases instituted under old law but still pending‑May be governed by new procedure under amended law‑Part of procedure already applied or concluded before coming into force of new procedure however does not become bad nor can be reopened on basis of amendment unless of course statute expressly or by a compelling implication says so. (f) Interpretation of statutes‑ ‑‑‑ Rule of strict construction of a provision of law‑Means that provisions be so construed that no cases be held to fall within it as do not fall both within reasonable meaning of its terms and within spirit and scope of enactment. Massan and others v. Fancy Foundation P L D 1975 S C 1; Messrs Ansari Brother v. Holy Trinity Church P L D 1971 S C 700; Mst. Bachi Bai v. Ghulam Abbas Letters Patent Appeal No. 198 of 1971; Syed Ehsan Ali v. Jaffer Ali and another P L D 1964 Kar. 367 and Khair Muhammad Nizamani v. Abdul Quddus P L D 1966 Kar. 367 ref. Yousif Rafi for Appellant. J. H. Rahimtoola for Respondent. Dates of hearing : 19th and 24th March, 1980.