1989 PLP 1425(2) (SCMR)
CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD Petitioner Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1425(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD Petitioner Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1425(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1425(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1425(2) (SCMR) (CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD Petitioner Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 22nd March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 6‑3‑1989 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W. Ps. Nos. 4529, 4530, 4460 and 4461 of 1988 respectively). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Impugned judgment of the High Court was based upon its decision in an earlier Constitutional petition reported as Lahore Textile & General Mills Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan P L D 1988 Lah. 461 and leave to appeal had already been granted to consider the correctness of the view taken by the High Court in the said judgment‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in the present petitions also with the observations that appeals should be listed for hearing at an early stage as a large amount of the State Revenue was involved and during pendency of the appeals bank guarantees were to continue to be renewed but not encashed.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The judgment of the High Court in these petitions for special leave to appeal is based upon its decision in an earlier constitution petition reported as Lahore Textile and General Mills Ltd v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (P L D 1988 Lah. 461). Leave to appeal has already been granted to consider the correctness of the view taken by the High Court in the said judgment. Leave to appeal is granted in these petitions also. Security for costs in the A sum of Rs. 2,500 in each petition. All the appeals should be heard together and be prepared for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The appeals should be listed for hearing at an early stage as a large amount of the State Revenue is involved. During the pendency of the appeals the bank guarantees shall continue to be renewed but not encashed. M.B.A./C‑36/S Leave granted.