1989 PLP (1) (MLD)
Messrs GERRY'S TRAVELS (PRIVATE) LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM‑COMMERCIAL BANK LTD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP (1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin, CJ and Mamoon Kazi, J |
| Parties | Messrs GERRY'S TRAVELS (PRIVATE) LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM‑COMMERCIAL BANK LTD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (1) (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Naimuddin, CJ and Mamoon Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (1) (MLD) (Messrs GERRY'S TRAVELS (PRIVATE) LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM‑COMMERCIAL BANK LTD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- R.F. Virjee for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Constitutional petition, competency of‑‑Matter in dispute not only required evidence as to whether liability upon petitioner has been correctly imposed by respondent or not, but also arose out of contract between parties‑ Constitutional petition would not be an appropriate remedy where petitioner could easily file a suit for declaration.
Judgment & Decree
NAIMUDDIN, CJ.‑‑The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that' the petitioner has been debited in his account by the respondent to the extent of an amount equivalent to $ 2,
000. The petitioner has submitted that there was no justification for that debit merely on account of the fact that a servant of the petitioner had accompanied a foreigner to the respondent‑bank and the bank had cashed the travellers cheque of that foreigner. This matter would require evidence as to whether the liability upon the petitioner has been correctly imposed or not. It would further be a matter of contract between the petitioner and the respondent and, therefore, this petition is not an appropriate remedy for the same because the petitioner can easily file a suit for declaration that he is not Gable to pay the said amount to the respondent and then the decision of that suit would be obviously based upon the evidence which is furnished by the petitioner as well as the respondent. In view of above, this petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./G‑97/K Petition dismissed.