1985 PLP 914 (SCMR)
Dr. P. N . SETH‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 914 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. P. N . SETH‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 914 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 914 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 914 (SCMR) (Dr. P. N . SETH‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6‑5‑1976 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.702 of 1976). ‑‑‑Art185(3)‑‑Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1985‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider (i) whether Defence of Pakistan Rules could be applied to ascertain company without first deciding nature of interest of "enemy" in such company; (ii) what was effect of continuance in possession of petitioner of disputed property after passing resolution of sale by company, and (iii) whether respondent‑Government could recall reference to arbitration when stay order issued by High Court could hold field.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑After hearing Mr. Muhammad Arif, learned counsel for the petitioner we would grant leave to appeal to consider the following questions which have been raised in this petition:‑ (a) Could the Defence of Pakistan Rules. 1965 be applied to the Kaycee Industries Limited without first deciding the nature of the interest of the energy in the Company and whether the application the said status could be continued despite the decision of the High Court dated 5‑7‑1972 in Dr P.N. Seth & Co. v. The Chairman, Enemy Property Management Board etc., W.P_ No. 770/1969? (b) What is the effect of the continuance in possession of the petitioner in the disputed property after the passing of the "sale resolution" by the Kaycee Industries Ltd. Bombay, vis‑a‑vis the terms of section 55‑A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? (c)Whether the respondent‑Government could recall the reference to arbitration, particularly at a point of time when the stay order passed in Writ Petition No.827 of 1976 held the field? Security for costs will be furnished in the sum of Rs.1,
000. S.Q. Leave granted.