1988 PLP 1307(1) (SCMR)
Nawabzada GHULAM QASIM KHAN‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ZENITH COTTON & OIL MILLS‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1307(1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid lqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Nawabzada GHULAM QASIM KHAN‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ZENITH COTTON & OIL MILLS‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1307(1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1307(1) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid lqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1307(1) (SCMR) (Nawabzada GHULAM QASIM KHAN‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ZENITH COTTON & OIL MILLS‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in C.A. No.58 of 1976).
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.A. No.58 of 1976).
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousaf, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant (in C.A. No.59 of 1976).
- Nemo for Respondent (in C.A. No.59 of 1976).
- Date of hearing: 11th October, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeals from the judgment of the Lahore High Court passed on 31‑8‑1970 in R.F.A. No.13 of 1959). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O.VIII, R.6‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXIII, R.6‑‑Set off‑ Counter‑appeals‑‑In view of statement made by appellant's counsel, his appeal dismissed and counter‑appeal accepted partly, enhancing the decretal amount.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑In view of the statement of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, recorded separately Civil Appeal No.59 of 1976, preferred by M/s. Zenith Cotton and Oil Mills, and others is dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. As regards C.A. No.58 of 1976 filed by Ghulam Qasim Khan, we have heard Mr. S.M. Zafar. He has not been able to point out any flaw in the judgment delivered by the High Court which has exhaustly dealt with all the points raised before us. However, it view of the statement of Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel B for the respondent, the appeal is partly accepted and the decretal amount is raised to Rs.50,000/‑. The parties shall bear their own costs. M.I./G‑97/S Order accordingly.