1990 PLP 398 (SCMR)
KARACHI‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. NISHAT MILLS LIMITED‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 PLP 398 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KARACHI‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. NISHAT MILLS LIMITED‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 398 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 398 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 398 (SCMR) (KARACHI‑‑Petitioner Versus M/s. NISHAT MILLS LIMITED‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Haider, Advocate (absent), Ch. Muhammad Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of High Court Sindh dated 31‑3‑1988 in Income‑tax Reference No.5 of 1979). ‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑‑Several petitions, involving same questions of law as arose in the petition, were pending‑‑‑Petition was kept pending till decision of said petitions in the interest of justice and to be re‑fixed for hearing after decision of the pending petitions.
Judgment & Decree
2. CP 372 of 1987 17‑9‑1987 CIT v. Quality Steel Ltd.
3. CP 369 of 1987 19‑9‑1987 CIT v. Karachi Can Ltd.
4. CP 379 of 1987 24‑9‑1987 CIT v. Sanat‑o‑Hirfat Ltd.
5. CP 385 of 1987 24‑9‑1987 CIT v. Sanat‑o‑Hirfat Ltd.
6. CP 380 of 1987 24‑9‑1987 CIT v. Sanat‑o‑Hirfat Ltd.
7. CP 364 of 1987 17‑9‑1987 CIT v. Shah Nawaz Ltd.
8. CP 370 of 1987 17‑9‑1987 CIT v. Pakistan Lubricants Ltd.
9. CP 381 of 1987 22‑9‑1987 CIT v. Jang Ltd.
10. CP 386 of 1987 24‑9‑1987 CIT v. Jang Publications. (2) That the above‑noted cases involve the same question of law as arise in the above‑noted petition namely CPSLA No.247/R of 1988. (3) That the above information could not be supplied in time due to strike in the Department which continued for more than 10 days. (4) That the delay in filing this application is very much regretted." In view of the pendency of several petitions at Karachi as stated in the afore quoted memorandum which "involve the same questions of law as arise in this petition", therefore, it is in the interest of justice to keep this petition pending till the decision of the said petitions. The learned A.O.R. shall inform the Court about the progress of the said cases at Karachi every three months. The petitioners office shall give due assistance and information to the learned A.O.R. for doing the needful as above directed. Accordingly this petition shall be re‑fixed for hearing at Lahore after the decision of the said matters. In view of the explanation of the learned counsel, the notice dated 29th May, 1989 issued to him is discharged. M.A.K./C‑45/S Order accordingly.