Pakistan Case Law
1992 SCMR 1166

MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 4 others vs UNITED BANK LIMITED and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1992 SCMR 1166
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,913/L of 1990
Date1991-04-03
Judge(s)Shafiur Rahman, Actg CJ. And Muhammad Afzal Lone
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal, addressing a question of constitutional importance regarding whether Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan is executory or non-self-executory. Noting a conflict of decisions between the High Court of Sindh and the Lahore High Court on this legal proposition, the Acting Chief Justice granted leave to appeal to settle the conflicting judicial interpretations. The court set security at Rs. 5,000 and declined to issue any interim order.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether Article 2-A is executory or non-self-executory?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 2-A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Article 2-Aself-executoryconstitutional importanceleave to appealconflicting decisions

ORDER

' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ACTG. C.J.---Leave to appeal is granted to examine the following question having Constitutional importance:--- "Whether Article 2-A is executory or non-self-executory?"

2. There appears to be a conflict of decisions in the High Court of Sindh and Lahore High Court e.g. Habib Bank Limited v. M/s. Waheed Textile Mills Ltd. And 5 others PLD 1989 Kar. 371, Bank of Oman Ltd. v. East Trading Co. Limited PLD 1987 Kar. 404, Shahbazud Din Chaudhry and 27 others v.

M/s.Services Industries Textile Limited and 4 others PLD 1988 Lahore 1, Tyeb v. Messrs Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. And another 1990 CLC 428 and Sindh High Court Bar Association, Karachi and another v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Parliamentary Affairs PLD 1991 Kar.

178.

3. Security Rs,5,000.

4. No interim order.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.