2011 SCMR 956 (PLP)
Messrs BLACK GOLD IND. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 SCMR 956 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sair Ali and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs BLACK GOLD IND. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 SCMR 956 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 SCMR 956 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Sair Ali and Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 SCMR 956 (PLP) (Messrs BLACK GOLD IND. — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court states that the matter in issue already stands conclusively decided and there is no case pending against the petitioner on the issue which came before the High Court for decision. And that despite final decision of the said matter, petitioner's pay order remains in the custody of the respondents for the reasons that he had not deposited the Bank Guarantee in order to obtain release of the pay order in terms of High Court's judgment dated 5-3-2007. Learned Advocate Supreme Court states that as the matter stands finally concluded, therefore, neither the Bank Guarantee nor retention of the pay order by the respondents is required. And that the order of Hon'ble Judge in chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore is being used in not releasing the pay order submitted by the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 5-3-2007 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No. 747 of 2007)..
Art. 185(3)
Counsel for the petitioner had stated that matter in issue already stood conclusively decided and no case was pending against the petitioner on the issue which came before the High Court and that despite final decision of the matter petitioner's pay order remained in the custody of respondents for the reasons that he had not deposited the Bank Guarantee in order to obtain release of the pay order
Held, in absence of a live issue, respondents would release the pay order deposited by the petitioner, without obtaining a corresponding Bank Guarantee
In case the matter remains still pending, petitioner would remain bound to comply with the terms of impugned judgment of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.
The only grievance raised in the present Civil Petition is that the Hon'ble Judge in chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore while granting the relief to the petitioner directed as under: "Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the strength or validity of the aforesaid of other further action being taken by the respondents in the matter, it is directed in the interest of justice that the respondents may proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with law but after returning the petitioner's 'funds under the pay order recovered for an additional assessment that stands revoked by the ONO. The respondents shall make such refund within one week of the provision of bank guarantee by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 in the value equal to the disputed amount claimed by the respondents. The respondents shall retain such bank guarantee until they decide the matter in issue in respect whereof they are directed to act expeditiously. Disposed of."
2. The learned Advocate Supreme Court states that the matter in issue already stands conclusively decided and there is no case pending against the petitioner on the issue which came before the High Court for decision. And that despite final decision of the said matter, petitioner's pay order remains in the custody of the respondents for the reasons that he had not deposited the Bank Guarantee in order to obtain release of the pay order in terms of High Court's judgment dated 5-3-2007. Learned Advocate Supreme Court states that as the matter stands finally concluded, therefore, neither the Bank Guarantee nor retention of the pay order by the respondents is required. And that the order of Hon'ble Judge in chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore is being used in not releasing the pay order submitted by the petitioner.
3. In absence of a live issue, this petition can be disposed of with the observations hereinafter recorded. The respondents shall release the pay order deposited by the petitioner without obtaining a corresponding Bank guarantee in terms of High Court's judgment dated 5-3-2007, if the matter in issue stands conclusively and finally decided. In case the matter remains still pending, we hold that petitioner remained bound to comply with the terms of impugned judgment dated 5-3-2007. The petition is disposed of with the above terms. H.B.T./B-11/SC Order accordingly.