1983 PLP (1) (SCMR)
ASLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KHANPUR-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN EDIBLE CORPORATION AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP (1) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KHANPUR-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN EDIBLE CORPORATION AND OTHERS-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP (1) (SCMR)?
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: 1983 PLP (1) (SCMR) (ASLAM INDUSTRIES LTD., KHANPUR-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN EDIBLE CORPORATION AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 16th October, 1982.
- Sheikh Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 18th September, 1982 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 119/82/BWP) --Art. 185 (3) and Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 17, Sched. I Art. I as substituted by Punjab Finance Act, 1973--Leave to appeal Contention that S. 17 of Court Fees Act is subject to provisions of Art. 1 of Sched I of Act-Contention raised requires further consideration-Leave to appeal granted.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑The contention raised is that section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is subject to the provisions of the proviso to Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, as substituted by section 8 of the Punjab Finance Act, 1973, and, therefore, the demand of the additional court‑fee of Rs. 15,000 was unwarranted inasmuch as the court‑fee of Rs. 15,000 had already been paid on the suit. The contention raised requires further consideration. Leave is, accor dingly, granted. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000 within one month. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any. The payment of additional court‑fee stayed meanwhile. M. Y. H. Leave granted.