| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 1404 2007 SLD 1404 2007 SCMR 1394 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.2717 of 2005, decision dated: 22-03-2007. (On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 25-8-2005 passed by High Court Sindh, Karachi in H.C.A. No.142 of 2000)
NASIR-UL-MULK AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ
Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Civil Petition No.2717 of 2005, decision dated: 22-03-2007. (On appeal from the judgment/order, dated 25-8-2005 passed by High Court Sindh, Karachi in H.C.A. No.142 of 2000)
NASIR-UL-MULK AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ
Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
PUNJAB INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD
VS
UNITED SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XLI, R. 33---Duty of Appellate Court to decide controversy between parties after applying independent and judicial mind thereto---Principles. It is duty and obligation of the Appellate Court to decide the controversy between the parties after judicial application of mind. Appellate Court has to decide the appeal after independent application of mind and mere reproduction of the judgment of the Trial Court and thereafter dismissing the appeal would not be in consonance with the law laid down by Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohayyauddin's case PLD 1964 SC 829. After addition to section 24-A in the General Clauses Act, 1894, even the public functionaries are duty bound to decide the applications of citizens while exercising statutory powers with reasons after judicial application of mind. Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173; Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. Controller of Import and Export and 2 others PLD 1970 SC 158; Ghulam Mohayyauddin's case PLD 1964 SC 829 and Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185---Concurrent findings of fact reached by High Court and Courts below---Effect-Supreme Court normally would not interfere with such findings, if same were wholly reasonable and not arrived at by disregarding any provision of law or accepted principle concerning appreciation of evidence. JUDGMENT CH. IJAZ AHMED, J. ---The brief facts out of which the present petition arises are that the -Petitioner was the owner of Pasroor Sugar Mills. In pursuance to the policy of the Government of the Punjab -Petitioner has advertised for sale in the Press qua the project in question (Pasroor Sugar Mills) in July, 1984. -Respondent participated in the auction proceedings. Ultimately an agreement arrived between -Petitioner and -Respondent through negotiations among the Banks and Pakistan Banking Council in the following terms:-- "(i) PSM was to be sold on the basis of fixed assets and the shares to be transferred to -Respondent against a notional value of Rupees one only. (ii) Current assets…
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