| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2015 2023 891 2023 SLD 2015 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 371 of 2020, decided on 4th May,2023.(Against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh atKarachi dated 14.05.2019 passed in High Court Appeal No. 57of 2006)Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2022 (J.R.).
Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Faisal Mehmood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.Umer Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Liaquat Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for LRs. of
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 371 of 2020, decided on 4th May,2023.(Against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh atKarachi dated 14.05.2019 passed in High Court Appeal No. 57of 2006)Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2022 (J.R.).
Present: Ijaz ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Faisal Mehmood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.Umer Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Liaquat Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for LRs. of
Respondent.
HABIB BANK LIMITED through AttorneyVersusMEHBOOB RABBANI
Law: Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980
Section: 22
Law: Contract, Act, 1872
Section: 73
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Preamble---Whenever a Court is adjudicating a civil suit, it is regulated by the requisite laws and civil procedure applicable to it at the time the suit is filed and adjudicated upon. (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----First Sched. Art. 22---Bank employee---Wrongful dismissal---Suit for damages---Limitation---Respondent-employee was dismissed from service on 3.10.1991 and his review petition dated 19.4.1992 was rejected by the Competent Authority on 5.7.1992---Respondent filed his suit for on 12.6.1993, after almost one year---Cause of action to file a suit for compensation/damages arose to the Respondent on 5.7.1992 and was therefore within the limitation of one year provided in Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for claiming compensation for any other injury to the person---Appeal was dismissed. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 73---Breach of contract---Damages, award of---Purpose and scope---Damages are costs that are imposed not as a deterrent or as a means to punish person(s) or party(s) who has/have breached a contract but instead to bring the person(s) or party(s) who has/have suffered from the breach of contract into a position which they would have been had the breach of contract not accrued---Said principle is known as the principle of restitutio in integrum (restoration to original condition)---It therefore stands to reason that damages are in fact the compensation that the law awards when a breach of contract occurs as compensation for the loss that a person or party has suffered from a breach of contract. Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co. (1880) 5 App. Cas. 25; Great Easter Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1971 Cal. 150 and Robinson v. Harmain (1848) 1 Exch 850 ref. (d) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 73---Breach of contract---General and special damages---Distinction and scope---Concept of awarding damages is, by its very nature, inclusive of awarding both general as well as special damages---However, the nature of general and special damages and proving the two are different compared to each other. Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem 2012 PLC (C.S.) 571 ref. (e) Contract…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492