1994 PLP 1421 (CLC)
PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN (NOW PUNJAB)‑‑‑Appellant Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN & COMPANY, COMMISSION
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1421 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Munir. A. Shaikh, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN (NOW PUNJAB)‑‑‑Appellant Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN & COMPANY, COMMISSION |
| Primary Law | Sale of Goods Act (111 of 1930)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1421 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sale of Goods Act (111 of 1930)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1421 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Munir. A. Shaikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1421 (CLC) (PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN (NOW PUNJAB)‑‑‑Appellant Versus MAQBOOL HUSSAIN & COMPANY, COMMISSION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Latif Ayaz for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑5. 55‑‑‑Government having purchased rice from plaintiff subsequently imposing cut of 23 per cent. in price‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Government before taking such decision (imposing cut in price) neither issued any notice nor gave opportunity of hearing to plaintiff‑‑‑Plaintiff's valuable right having been adversely affected by the decision of Government, he was entitled to notice hearing before imposition of cut in price of goods delivered by him‑‑‑Decisions of Courts below that imposition of cut in price of goods having been made without notice to plaintiff or affording him opportunity of hearing was not valid, not suffering from any illegality did not call for interference. Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, A.‑G. with
Judgment & Decree
Mian Abdus Sattar Najam, A.‑G. with Ch. Muhammad Latif Ayaz for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1993. The only question of law which requires determination in this second appeal was as to whether order for imposition of cut of 23% as regards price of the rice purchased by the appellant from the respondent was validly passed.
2. The respondent supplied rice to the appellant on 7‑12‑1965 and on the basis of super inspection made on 6‑2‑1967 it was decided to impose cut of 23% and accordingly a notice was issued to the respondent intimating him regarding the decision taken by the Department which was challenged by him in the suit.
3. Both the Courts below have held that the super inspection made after more than one year and the impugned order for imposition of cut of 23% was made without issuance of any notice to the respondent and affording him opportunity of hearing which could not be done, as such, the said decision as also the notice were not valid. In coming to the said conclusion reliance was placed on judgments reported as The Chief Commissioner, Karachi and another v. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak (PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 45) and Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan v. Fazalur Rehman (PLD 1964 SC 410). The suit was decreed through judgment dated 12‑12‑1968 by the trial Court which was upheld by the lower appellate Court through judgment dated 16‑12‑1970 by which the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
4. Learned Advocate‑General has been heard and record perused. There is no evidence that before taking the impugned decision and issuance of notice for imposition of 23% cut the respondent was issued any notice and given opportunity of hearing. Since a valuable right of the respondent was adversely affected by the impugned decision and the notice, therefore, it was necessary to grant him opportunity of hearing before the said decision was taken.
5. The judgments passed by the two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality calling for interference under section 100, C.P.C. by this Court in second appeal. The appeal has no merits which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./P‑92/L Appeal dismissed.