2002 PLP 1122 (MLD)
NOMAN HAFEEZ and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MANAGER SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION, RAHIMYARKHAN through Manager‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1122 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J |
| Parties | NOMAN HAFEEZ and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MANAGER SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION, RAHIMYARKHAN through Manager‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1122 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1122 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1122 (MLD) (NOMAN HAFEEZ and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MANAGER SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION, RAHIMYARKHAN through Manager‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.3/4‑‑‑Petition for contempt of Court‑‑‑Respondents stated that they had not adopted coercive measures against petitioner; that petitioner having not approached them within stipulated period, therefore, statement of rendition of accounts could not be made with petitioner; that they had not violated orders of Court and even now they were ready to make rendition of account‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Explanation by respondents was sufficient to satisfy the Court that order of Court had not been violated and there was no need in circumstances to proceed further against respondents under Ss.3/4 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976‑‑‑Petition being misconceived was dismissed. Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashmi and 2 others PLD 2000 SC 225 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Ss.3/4‑‑‑Petition for contempt of Court‑‑‑Respondents stated that they had not adopted coercive measures against petitioner; that petitioner having not approached them within stipulated period, therefore, statement of rendition of accounts could not be made with petitioner; that they had not violated orders of Court and even now they were ready to make rendition of account‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Explanation by respondents was sufficient to satisfy the Court that order of Court had not been violated and there was no need in circumstances to proceed further against respondents under Ss.3/4 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976‑‑‑Petition being misconceived was dismissed. Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashmi and 2 others PLD 2000 SC 225 ref. Nemo for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Mohandra for Respondents. A Writ Petition No‑716 of 2001 titled as "Noman Hafeez v. Small Business Finance Corporation Branch, through its Manager, Rahimayar Khan" had been filed which was disposed of by this Court on 15‑2‑2001 with the direction to the respondents to decide the chatter in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court, referred in case of Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Syed Muhammad Hashmi and 2 others (PLD 2000 SC 225), for the rendition of accounts.
2. Comments from the respondents have been received, wherein it is stated that in accordance with the order of this Court, the respondents have not adopted coercive measures against the petitioner and he has not approached them within stipulated period, therefore, the statement of rendition of accounts could not be made with the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondents have not violated the orders of the Court, even now, they are ready to make the rendition of accounts with the petitioner. The explanation given by the respondents is sufficient to satisfy the Court that the order of this Court has not been violated, thus, there is no need to further proceed against the respondents under section 3/4 of Contempt: of Court Act, therefore, this petition being misconceived is dismissed. Notice issued to the respondent shall stand discharged. H.B.T./N‑179/L Petition dismissed.