1976 PLP 81 (SCMR)
MESSRS MACDONALD LAYTON & COSTAIN LTD.‑Petitioner Versus Messrs. AVARI HOTELS LTD.‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 81 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MESSRS MACDONALD LAYTON & COSTAIN LTD.‑Petitioner Versus Messrs. AVARI HOTELS LTD.‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 81 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 81 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman, C. J., Muhammad Yaqub Ali and Salahuddin Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 81 (SCMR) (MESSRS MACDONALD LAYTON & COSTAIN LTD.‑Petitioner Versus Messrs. AVARI HOTELS LTD.‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nasim Ahmad Farouqui, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Y. A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 24th October 1975.
- Saeed A. Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S. Amer Alt, Advocate‑ on‑Record for .Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, dated the 22nd of August 1975 in Suit No. 361 of 1975). Art. 185(3)‑Matter in dispute already placed before High Court in appeal and appeal admitted for hearing‑Matter, held, to be first decided by High Court‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 20 do
41. Saeed A. Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by S. Amer Alt, Advocate‑ on‑Record for .Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner had been given a contract by the respondent for the construction of a hotel at Lab ore to be styled as "Lahore Hilton". The contract, inter alit, provided for furnishing the petitioner with a mobilisation fund for executing the work at Lahore. For this mobilisation fund the petitioner through Messrs National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. Karachi furnished to the respondent a hank guarantee to cover the amount of the mobilisation fund. For some petitioner stopped the construction work and the respondent pressed the bank for encashment of the aforesaid bank guarantee the petitioner, however, disputed the encashment of the bank guarantee and this is the dispute before us. The petitioner made an application under sections 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the High Court of Sind, Baluchistan and prayed for an order restraining the respondent from or encashing the said bank guarantee furnished by the National and Grindlays Bank. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's application tinder section 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1941 asked for. It appears that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the High Court and it has been admitted for hearing. We, accordingly, think that the matter should first be decided by the High Court‑‑ The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.