P L D (Rev (PLP)
Sh. MUHAMMAD JAMIL Manager of the Layallpur Samundri Transport Co., Ltd., Layallpur and other Members of Company‑Appellants Versus CROWN and others‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Sh. MUHAMMAD JAMIL Manager of the Layallpur Samundri Transport Co., Ltd., Layallpur and other Members of Company‑Appellants Versus CROWN and others‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (Sh. MUHAMMAD JAMIL Manager of the Layallpur Samundri Transport Co., Ltd., Layallpur and other Members of Company‑Appellants Versus CROWN and others‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad, for Respondents 3 to 5.
Judgment & Decree
AKHTER HUSSAIN F. C.‑This purports to be an appeal against an order dated 25th April, 1950, item (3), passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, whereby the autho rity decided to comply with the orders contained in the injunc tion dated 21st March 1950 issued by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Layallpur in suit No. 70 of 1949 (The Lyallpur Co‑operative Transport Society Limited, Lyallpur etc. v. The West Punjab Transport Service Lyallpur). Further the Authority decided to issue permits in the name of the Samundri Transport Company Limited, Lyallpur.
2. It appears that before the partition a transport concern known as Samundri Transport Company Limited, held stage carriage permits for certain routes. After the evacuation of the non‑Muslim share‑holders this company ceased to function and a new concern called the Lyallpur Samundri Transport Company, Lyallpur came into being. This new concern was granted stage carriage permits by the Regional Transport Authority, Lahore, for the routes previou sly held by the Samundri Transport Company Limited. On 21st March 1950, an injunction was issued by the Civil Court, as mentioned above. In all probability this stimulated the Regional Transport Authority to pass the order appealed against. In doing that the Authority seems to have overlook ed the fact that the new concern called the Lyallpur Samundri 'Transport Company Lyallpur was no party to the suit in which the injunction in question was issued. As such the injunction in question was apparently not binding on the Lyallpur Samundri Transport Company Limited. It is difficult to locate at this stage as to which company was in possession of valid permits tm the 21st March 1950, when the injunction in question was passed whoever was in possession of valid permits on that day should have been allowed to have those permits after that. In the circumstances I remand the case back to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. If the permits were in the name of the Lyallpur Samundri Transport Company, Lyallpur, on the date the injunction was passed the same should not be deprived of the same and the permits held by it on that day should be restored to that Company. Announced. A. H. Case remanded.