1982 PLP 351 (SCMR)
MESSRS SUPER PUNJAB COAL Co. LTD. — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & MINERAL DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 351 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MESSRS SUPER PUNJAB COAL Co. LTD. — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & MINERAL DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 351 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 351 (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: 1982 PLP 351 (SCMR) (MESSRS SUPER PUNJAB COAL Co. LTD. — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES & MINERAL DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate -on-Record for Petitioner.
- Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 25th November, 1980,
- A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment add order of the Lahore High Court, dated 19-11-1979, in W. P. No. 4883/79). -- Arts. 199 & 185 (3)-Writ jurisdiction - Stay of proceedings-Grant of stay in pending cases-Always in discretion of Court concerned High Court despite admitting writ petition for regular hearing not thinking just and fit to issue any stay order to petitioner, High Court's order, held, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ Arts. 199 & 185 (3)‑Writ jurisdiction - Stay of proceedings‑Grant of stay in pending cases‑Always in discretion of Court concerned High Court despite admitting writ petition for regular hearing not thinking just and fit to issue any stay order to petitioner, High Court's order, held, cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by Supreme Court. A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th November, 1980, KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑A constitutional petition being W. P. No. 4883/79 is pending in the High Court. The petitioner in that case applied for issuance of a stay order, which was refused on 19‑11‑1979. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court. It is well settled that grant of stay in a pending case is always in the discretion of the Court concerned. If in this case the High Court despite admitting the writ petition for regular hearing has not thought it just and fit to issue any stay order to the petitioner, its order cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.