| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 807 2022 SLD 807 2022 SCMR 752 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 1840 of 2016, decision dated: 15-12-2021, hearing date: 15-12-2021 (Against the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Civil Revision No. 349 of 2015)
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Gujjar, Advocate Supreme Court Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional A.G., Asad Burki, Legal Advisor MOFA and Syed Faraz Raza, Legal Advisor on Court's Notice.
Respondent(s) by: Nemo
Civil Petition No. 1840 of 2016, decision dated: 15-12-2021, hearing date: 15-12-2021 (Against the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Civil Revision No. 349 of 2015)
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE, JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Gujjar, Advocate Supreme Court Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional A.G., Asad Burki, Legal Advisor MOFA and Syed Faraz Raza, Legal Advisor on Court's Notice.
Respondent(s) by: Nemo
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, (WHO), ISLAMABAD
VS
MUHAMMAD ANSAR IQBAL
Law: State Immunity Ordinance, 1981
Section: 4
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962
Section: 201
State Immunity Ordinance (VI of 1981)--S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 201---Incorrect application of law by the High Court in its ---No precedential value of such ---World Health Organization (WHO)---Whether civil court had jurisdiction to try suit against the ‘WHO’---Plea on behalf of WHO that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against it, under the contract between the parties in the light of Clause 16 of General Conditions of Contract which contained amicable settlement between the parties in accordance with the practice and through conciliation in accordance with the conciliation rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and through the mode of arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, therefore, the civil court was having no jurisdiction---Held, that stance of the petitioner/WHO held ground that the law had incorrectly been applied while dismissing the petition filed before the High Court---Determination of scope, limits and extent of diplomatic and state immunity clauses of various statutes needed further deliberations---However, since the matter between the parties stood resolved out of court, it would become an academic exercise to give any finding on the issue of state/ diplomatic immunity---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned of High Court was set-aside with the direction that the said shall have no precedential value in term of Art. 201 of the Constitution. ORDER: AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional Attorney General present before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that actually the matter has been settled out of the Court and the plaintiff/respondent has withdrawn his suit on 10.12.2016. The only question for which this Court has been approached is that the learned High…
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