Case Details

Citation(s)
1986 SLG 966 1986 SLD 966 1986 SCMR 1788
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 915 of 1983, decided on 2nd July, 1986., (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11-5-1983 in F.A.O. 1011 of 1983).
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MAK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

VS

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN-

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Petitioner reiterating all grounds of objections raised in Court of first instance regarding arbitrators findings--Matter having been considered by Trial Court as well as by First: Appellate Court and both Courts coming to correct conclusion regarding question involved in petition--Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed. Kh. Ahmad Tariq Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Z. Khalil, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1986. ORDER MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--According to the petitioner it is a limited Company registered under the Companies Act, engaged in the construction work as Contractors and Mr. Shoaib is the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company. 2. Respondent National Bank of Pakistan issued a notice for pre-qualification of Contractors for the construction of its building in Civil Lines, Gujranwala. The petitioner, along with other contractors, submitted details asked for in this connection. Their pre-qualification was accepted and accordingly tender documents were issued to them. After the acceptance of the tender of the petitioner-Company they were informed vide letter No. Eng/HO/83/1675, dated 9-4-1981 and an agreement regarding the work was concluded wherein it was stipulated that the building was to be completed within a period of 18 months and payment of 10$ of the estimated cost as mobilization advance, against bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner-Company. 3. Later on there arose some differences between the petitioner ­Company and the respondent-Bank which subsequently developed into a dispute precisely to say that the agreement for construction of the building between the petitioner and respondent was executed with regard to the work relating to one unit. According to the petitioner, there was no indication in the Contract that the construction work was to be done in phases. Had this been the position the period for each phase would have been specified. The petitioner-Company submitted construction schedule…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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