Find a Lawyer

PAKISTAN HERALD PUBLICATIONS (PRIVATE) LTD. versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION

Article 16 The Special Relief Act (of 1877), clauses 39, 42 and 54 disposed of the suit, the declaration and the permanent injunction restraining suit disputed whether the defendant was entitled to revised rates of machine rent with prior effect. , The defendant had failed to lead in any way. Evidence, although it was his duty to amend the rates, the plaintiff had every right to oppose the submission of the documents by the defendant at the stage of the argument, leaving either party by surprise. The authorization was not allowed, nor can the document be allowed to be introduced. Delays without legal excuse If the High Court for the time had neglected such legal weakness and considered such documents, revise the rates claimed in February 1993. Was, should have been notified to users either by Gazette notification. Publications in the newspapers, but neither of the two defendants were resorted to, neither were billed at revised rates in the relevant years and the defendant continued to bill the plaintiff at the original rates. The plaintiff had not demanded an increase in rates for two long periods, and that was only when the plaintiff demanded the termination of service by a letter dated 30 1995 1995 when the plaintiff first issued an amendment. Was. No matter Section 16 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act 1991, the respondent was given the option of revising the rates, but such a revision had to be communicated to the consumers so that they could choose whether to continue or not. Seven of the convenience lawer from fb area from Goular Khel lawyer