Respondent’s property already mortgaged with appellant

SECTION 53-A & 58
-    Respondent’s property already mortgaged with appellant – he entered another agreement to sell – terms of agreement showed cdlog on equity of redemption and could not be specifically enforced on agreement to sell. Such agreement was “mortgage by way of conditional sale.”
1992 SCMR 417

Applications praying therein for suspension of the constitutional provisions challenged

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ‘THROUGH SECRETARY VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS (P L D 2011 Supreme Court 269) = Various Civil Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Chief Justices of the Provincial High Courts were heard and decided by an interim order on 30-08-2010 by a seventeen-member larger Bench headed by Mr. Justice lftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, the honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan. The Chief Justices of the four province. had requested the Supreme Court to take steps in order for as many as 32 Additional Judges of the High Courts to continue performing their duties as Additional Judges till the determination of the matter sub judice before the Supreme Court in Constitutional Petition No 14/2010 challenging, inter alia, vires of Article’175-A pertaining to the mode of appointment of superior courts judges, inserted by 18‘" Amendment in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court Bar Association also filed Miscellaneous Applications praying therein for suspension of the constitutional provisions challenged in those petitions. The applicants stated that the Additional‘ Judges of their concerned provinces had already served for a period of one year and had got the expectancy for their permanent appointment, but their cases could not be taken up as the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court while referring to an earlier judgment in the case of Wukala Mahaz v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 1263) passed an interim order observing that in order to avoid any constitutional void, and other complications. the Additional Judges of all the tour High Courts could continue to perform their functions as Additional Judges subject to final determination of the matter sub judice before the Court.

Equitable doctrine of proviso to S. 41 which protected a subsequent transferee,

Sec. 41, proviso –
Sc.12, 27(b), 42, 54 of Specific Relief Act.
-    Equitable doctrine of proviso to S. 41 which protected a subsequent transferee, it is upon subsequent transferor to establish that he had acted in good faith and had taken reasonable care such as checking with the Sub-Registrar etc. before entering into transaction and that he had given valuable consideration for such transfer. Such equitable doctrine was a deduction from the law of estoppel which must be pleaded clearly with specific facts. Burden of proof is always on the person who pleaded such protection.
2012 SCMR 84
Rel: 2002 SCMR 2003
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search