| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 744 2020 SLD 744 2020 PLD 261 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 547 of 2012, decision Dated: 24-02-2020, hearing Date : 09-10-2019 (On appeal from the order Dated 19-3-2012 passed by the Preshawar High Court, Peshawar in R.F.A. No. 366 of 2011)
QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Tariq Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Ch. Afashiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No.1. Sikandar Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqt Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respon
Civil Appeal No. 547 of 2012, decision Dated: 24-02-2020, hearing Date : 09-10-2019 (On appeal from the order Dated 19-3-2012 passed by the Preshawar High Court, Peshawar in R.F.A. No. 366 of 2011)
QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE
Tariq Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Ch. Afashiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No.1. Sikandar Rasheed, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqt Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respon
CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS
VS
KONISH ENTERPRIRSE (PVT) LTD. AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Tort--- ----Negligence---Duty of care---Scope---For there to be liability in law a duty of care had to be owed and breached---Establishing the duty of care was essential---Mere fact that a man was injured by another's act gave in itself no cause of action---If the act was deliberate, the party injured would have no claim in law even though the injury was intentional, so long as the other party was merely exercising a legal right; if the act involved lack of due care, again no case of actionable negligence would arise unless the duty to be careful existed. Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. [1936] AC 85, [1935] UKPC 2, AIR 1936 PC 34 ref. (b) Tort--- ----Negligence---Duty of care---Licensor-licensee---Two licensees allowed to enter and be upon the licensor's same piece(s) of land simultaneously in order to work their respective licenses, which each licensee held independently and in its own right, and which respective license was for diverse, distinct and separate acts---Question as to what was the duty (if any) of each licensee towards the other in such a situation answered. There was a legal obligation owed by each licensee to the other in circumstances where two licensees were allowed to enter and be upon the licensor's same piece(s) of land simultaneously in order to work their respective licenses, which each licensee held independently and in its own right, and which respective license was for diverse, distinct and separate acts. That obligation was a duty to take such reasonable care as ensured that the working by each licensee of its license did not interfere with the working of the other license by its licensee, and also to take such reasonable care as ensured that (keeping in mind the nature of the other license) no damage was caused to the other licensee. Two important points had to be kept in mind; firstly, the liability was contingent upon the licensee (allegedly) at fault being aware of both the existence of the other license and licensee, and the nature thereof. If the licensee (allegedly) at fault was not aware of the other licensee and its license then there would be no liability, even if damage or injury was caused to the latter.…
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