1985 PLP 1940 (SCMR)
ZONE, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus S. MUHAMMAD DIN AND SONS Ltd. — Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1940 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ZONE, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus S. MUHAMMAD DIN AND SONS Ltd. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1940 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1940 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1940 (SCMR) (ZONE, LAHORE — Petitioner Versus S. MUHAMMAD DIN AND SONS Ltd. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court with Iftikharuddin Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 20th February, 1980.
- Sh. Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court with Iftikharuddin Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 11-5-1973 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Tax Reference No. 93 of 1971).
Art. 185(3)--Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 66-A--Limitation- Petition time-barred--Time spent in pursuing application for grant of certificate of fitness to file appeal to Supreme Court--Such application being incompetent, time not excluded--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed as time-barred.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑The office note shows that this petition is barred by 954 days. In this case, the petition for leave to appeal was filed on 28‑7‑1976 against the order passed by the Lahore High Court dated 11‑5‑1973. Sh. Abdul Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had applied under section 66‑A of the Income Tax Act for the grant of a certificate of fitness to file an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was refused on 27‑5‑1976 and the petition is In time as from the date. According to the learned counsel, the time spent in pursuing the application for grant of a certificate should be excluded. We, however, find that the certificate was refused on the ground that an application, therefore, was not competent and that the petitioner has not challenged the correctness of the said determination. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that the time spent in prosecuting the application for grant of, a certificate cannot be excluded. This petition, therefore, must fail on the ground of limitation. It is dismissed accordingly. M. I. Petition dismissed.