P L D 1991 Lahore 381 (PLP)
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus PREMIER SUGAR MILLS and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1991 Lahore 381 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus PREMIER SUGAR MILLS and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1991 Lahore 381 (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 381 (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 381 (PLP) (GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN — Petitioner Versus PREMIER SUGAR MILLS and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioner. Ch. Sadiq Hussain for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
0. XXIX, R. 1
When a company institutes a suit, it has to establish that the suit has been competently and authorisedly instituted on its behalf
Even person incharge of the affairs of the company unless specifically authorised in this regard is not considered competent to institute proceedings on behalf of the corporate entity. [p. 384] A
0. XXIX, R.1
Plaintiff was only an Association of which other 8 plaintiffs were the Members, association as such was not the direct person who was to receive the amount in dispute as the amount claimed was the property of other 8 plaintiffs
Articles of Association showed that Secretary of plaintiff (Association) who alone was produced as witness in no manner represented other 8 plaintiffs in the suit as he even did not sign the plaint on their behalf nor did he depose anything about his competence to institute and file the suit on behalf of the said plaintiffs
Suit filed by Association, on the showing of the plaintiff (Association) itself therefore, had not been competently filed so far as other 8 plaintiffs (Members of Association) were concerned. [pp. 384, 385] B & C
Words "commence and institute" and "filing"
0. XIV
Proof and disproof--An issue can only be controverted by the opposite party when there is something on record to controvert it. [p. 386] E
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1968)
0. XXIX, R.1
Plaintiff was only an Association of which other 8 plaintiffs were the Members, association as such was not the direct person who was to receive the amount in dispute as the amount claimed was the property of other 8 plaintiffs
Articles of Association showed that Secretary of plaintiff (Association) who alone was produced as witness in no manner represented other 8 plaintiffs in the suit as he even did not sign the plaint on their behalf nor did he depose anything about his competence to institute and file the suit on behalf of the said plaintiffs
Suit filed by Association, on the showing of the plaintiff (Association) itself therefore, had not been competently filed so far as other 8 plaintiffs (Members of Association) were concerned. [pp. 384, 385] B & C (c) Words and phrases-..
Words "commence and institute" and "filing"
Significance and distinction The words "commence and institute" have significant and distinct meanings assigned to them in the dictionary as against the word "filing". The first two phrases as explained in the dictionary tend to show that some initiative and decision has to be made for taking some action whereas the third phrase viz. "filing" is only a ministerial and consequential act to follow up the intent of the first two viz. "commencement" and "institution". [p. 386] D Messrs Muhammad Siddiq-Muhammad Umar and another v The Australasia Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 684 ref. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
0. XIV
Proof and disproof--An issue can only be controverted by the opposite party when there is something on record to controvert it. [p. 386] E Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioner. Ch. Sadiq Hussain for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 11th and 18th March, 1991.