1986 PLP 78(2) (SCMR)
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J. and S.A. Nusrat, J Versus HABIB BANK Ltd.‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 78(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J. and S.A. Nusrat, J |
| Parties | Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J. and S.A. Nusrat, J Versus HABIB BANK Ltd.‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 78(2) (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 78(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J. and S.A. Nusrat, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 78(2) (SCMR) (Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain Actg. C.J. and S.A. Nusrat, J Versus HABIB BANK Ltd.‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 186‑A‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980,
0. V, r. 3‑‑Refusal to entertain petition under Art. 186‑A by Registrar of Supreme Court‑‑No exception, held, could be taken to same‑‑No ground made out for interference‑‑Petition dismissed. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 186‑A‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980,
0. V, r. 3‑‑Refusal to entertain petition under Art. 186‑A by Registrar of Supreme Court‑‑No exception, held, could be taken to same‑‑No ground made out for interference‑‑Petition dismissed. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, ACTG. C.J.‑‑ The Registrar has rightly refused to entertain the petition under Article 186‑A of the Constitution. No ground is made out for interference in the order. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition which is an appeal under Order V, rule 3 of this Court's rules is dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.