Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLG 691 1999 SLD 691 1999 CLC 403
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeal No.64 of 1988 connected with Nos.73; 88 and 89 of 1988, decision dated: 13-07-1998, hearing DATE : 28-04-1998
ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, JUSTICE SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Amanullah Khan (in H.C.As. Nos.64 and 73 of 1988) and Iqbal Akhtar for Appellants (in H.C.As. Nos.88 and 89 of 1998). Iqbal Akhtar for
Respondent No. 1 (in H.C.As. Nos.64 and 73 of 1988). Amanullah Khan for
Respondent No. 1 (in H.C.As. Nos.88 and 89 of 1

MESSRS MASTER SONS

VS

MESSRS EBRAHIM ENTERPRISES and others

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 116

(a) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Definition---Unless a particular expression was defined in a statute it must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning---Definition of an expression as contained in one statute could not be used for the purpose of interpreting that expression in another law unless two statutes were in part materia. Kazi Abdul Majeed v. Province of Sindh PLD 1976 Kar. 600 ref. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.116---Responsibility of warehouse k0eeper---Where goods were in possession of warehouse keeper, but beneficial interest remained vested with owner of goods, an obligation in equity amounting to a trust would be created and matter would be covered by one of recognized exceptions to the privity rule. AIR 1942 Cal. 251; AIR 1973 Cal. 401; Allah Wasaya v. Sardar Shah PLD 1984 Lab. 59; Waters v. Monarch Fire and Life Insurance Company 1856 VE&B 890 and Hapburn v. A. Tomlinson (Hauliers) Limited 1966 AC 451 ref. (c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----S. 116---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.148---Bailment---Liability of warehouse keeper---Customs Act, 1969 having limited liability of warehouse keeper to a particular extent, question of liability could trot be decided on basis of ordinary law of bailment. JUDGMENT SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- These four appeals arise out of a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 22-12-1987 in Suits Nos.781 of 1981 and 32 of 1982 whereby each of the suit was decreed against tile common defendant No.l. in the sums of Rs.1,230,000 and Rs.158,328 respectively, and was dismissed against the common defendant No.2. The facts of the two suits were almost identical and may be briefly mentioned. 2. The plaintiffs in the two suits (hereinafter referred to as owners) imported certain goods which were stored in the bonded public warehouse of the defendant No.l (hereinafter referred to as the warehouse keeper) who had insured all the goods stored in their warehouse (including those belonging to the owners) with the defendant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the insurers). Apparently this was done pursuant to a Circular No.2 of 1979, dated 22-1-1979 issued by the Collector of Customs which reads as…
🔒
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