1986 PLP 82 (SCMR)
THE TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN HYDERABAD‑‑Appellant Versus PAKISTAN TEXTILE WORKERS UNION‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 82 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | THE TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN HYDERABAD‑‑Appellant Versus PAKISTAN TEXTILE WORKERS UNION‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 82 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 82 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J., Nasim Hasan Shah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 82 (SCMR) (THE TEXTILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN HYDERABAD‑‑Appellant Versus PAKISTAN TEXTILE WORKERS UNION‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Failure to deposit of security for costs‑‑Show‑cause notice issued to appellants for not depositing security for costs but none appearing on their behalf in response thereto‑‑Appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Appeal No. 227 of 1976, decided on 12th December, 1985. ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Failure to deposit of security for costs‑‑Show‑cause notice issued to appellants for not depositing security for costs but none appearing on their behalf in response thereto‑‑Appeal dismissed for non‑prosecution. Nemo for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C.J.‑‑ The show‑cause notice was issued to the appellant for not depositing the security for costs. None has, appeared in response to the show‑cause notice on behalf of the appellant. It seems that the appellant does not want to prosecute the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non‑prosecution but with no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.