2002 PLP 1395 (SCMR)
Messrs MULTICORP SA RE DE LAUSAME and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, F.I.D. and others‑‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1395 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, Actg. C.J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J |
| Parties | Messrs MULTICORP SA RE DE LAUSAME and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, F.I.D. and others‑‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1395 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1395 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, Actg. C.J. and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1395 (SCMR) (Messrs MULTICORP SA RE DE LAUSAME and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, F.I.D. and others‑‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 15th February, 2002.
- 3. Learned Advocate‑on‑Record stated that he has been asked by Mr. M.N. Beg, learned counsel for the petitioners through his Clerk to seek adjounrment though neither the petitioners themselves nor the learned counsel contacted him.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6‑4‑1999 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No.5968 to 5970 of 1999). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal against interim order of High Court passed in Constitutional petition calling comments from respondents‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑High Court through impugned order had not decided in any manner directly or indirectly the controversy raised by petitioners in Constitutional petitions‑‑‑Impugned order was interim in nature and did not amount even to a judicial pronouncement on any dispute or point raised in Constitutional petitions‑‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere in the same and dismissed the petitions and refused to grant leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, ACTG. C.J.‑‑‑By this common judgment, we intend to decide Civil Petitions Nos.484, 486 and 487‑L of 1999 involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. In the Constitutional petitions filed by the petitioners, learned Judge of High Court through the impugned order dated 6‑4‑1999 called the learned Deputy Attorney‑General and handed over to him copies of the said petitions for tiling comments and the cases were ordered to be listed on 19‑4‑1999.
3. Learned Advocate‑on‑Record stated that he has been asked by Mr. M.N. Beg, learned counsel for the petitioners through his Clerk to seek adjounrment though neither the petitioners themselves nor the learned counsel contacted him.
4. We are not inclined to adjourn the cases. Through the order impugned in these petitions, the learned Judge of the High Court had not decided in any manner directly or indirectly the controversy raised by the petitioners in the Constitutional petitions.
5. The order is interim‑ in nature and does not amount even to a judicial adjudication of any dispute or point raised in the Constitutional petitions, therefore, in our discretion, under Article 185 of the Constitution, we are not inclined to interfere in the same at this stage.
6. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M‑375/S Leave refused.