Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3 views

    Question: Read The Case Study Su Muhammad Ishaque vs. The Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, and Identif..

    Uploaded by

    hamnah lateef
    The case involved a claim for damages in a tort case. The Supreme Court found that the lower court's award of damages was not supported by evidence and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that any claim for damages must be proven through evidence and the evidence in this case was vague and scanty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Question: Read The Case Study Su Muhammad Ishaque vs. The Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, and Identif..

    Uploaded by

    hamnah lateef
    3 views2 pages
    The case involved a claim for damages in a tort case. The Supreme Court found that the lower court's award of damages was not supported by evidence and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that any claim for damages must be proven through evidence and the evidence in this case was vague and scanty.

    Original Description:

    Read The Case Study ‘Sufi Muhammad Ishaque Vs. The

    Original Title

    Busn 460

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a claim for damages in a tort case. The Supreme Court found that the lower court's award of damages was not supported by evidence and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that any claim for damages must be proven through evidence and the evidence in this case was vague and scanty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    3 views2 pages

    Question: Read The Case Study Su Muhammad Ishaque vs. The Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, and Identif..

    Uploaded by

    hamnah lateef
    The case involved a claim for damages in a tort case. The Supreme Court found that the lower court's award of damages was not supported by evidence and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that any claim for damages must be proven through evidence and the evidence in this case was vague and scanty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

     

    Home Study tools  My courses  My books My folder Career Life

    home / study / business / operations management / operations management questions and 

    answers / read...

    Question: Read the case study ‘Sufi Muhammad Ishaque vs.


    The
    Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, and
    Identif...
    Find solutions for your homework

    Read the case study ‘Sufi Muhammad Ishaque vs. The


    Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, and

    a. Identify what was the claim of plaintiff in relation to damages


    for the tort.
    b. What was the final decision of the Supreme Court.
    c. Give your opinion on the final outcome of the case.

    Expert Answer

    Anonymous
    answered this

    Answer:

    It is thus clear from the record that though the learned Single
    Judge has made the appellant liable to pay a
    sum of Rs.250,000 to
    the respondent No.1 but no basis has been given as to how this
    amount has been
    quantified. Though it is a trite law that exact
    amount of damage cannot be determined but the person
    making a claim
    against any other person has to substantiate his claim with cogent
    material in respect of
    the amount claimed as damages against the
    said person. No vague and unreasonable amount could be
    claimed but
    the amount so claimed should be reasonable, which depends upon the
    facts of each case and
    no universal rule or rule of thumb could be
    applied in this regard. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above
    referred decision of Sufi Muhammad Ishaq has clearly held that
    “Any person claiming any damages has to
    prove it through
    evidence. The evidence in this regard is general, vague and scanty.
    We, therefore, do not
    propose to disturb the findings on these
    items.”

    0 Comments

    Was this answer helpful? 0

    0
    COMPANY

    LEGAL & POLICIES

    CHEGG PRODUCTS AND SERVICES

    CHEGG NETWORK

    CUSTOMER SERVICE

    © 2003-2022 Chegg Inc. All rights reserved.

    You might also like