Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review Petition No. 5‑R of 1979, decided on 18th February, 1980.
(On review of the order of the Court dated 21‑12‑1978 in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1977).
‑‑ S. 114‑Review‑Grounds urged for review having no substance, review petition dismissed‑Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI. [Review].
The Province of East Pakistan v. Daulatpur Jute Mills Ltd. P L D 1968 S C 398 ref.
Iftikhar Ali Sheikh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents 1 and 3.
Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Date of hearing : 18th February, 1980.
‑The petitioner seeks review of this Court's order dated 21st of December, 1979, in Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1977, on the following grounds :‑
(1) That it was not the case of the first respondent that the original holders of the disputed shares were enemy nationals and this Court has erred in basing its decision on this premise ;
(2) That at the time of issuing the impugned Notification dated 5th of November, 1973, the first respondent had not applied its mind to the question as to whether the heirs of the deceased members had become members on their demise and took action on a ground which did not prevail with this Court ; and
(3) That the first respondent should not have taken the drastic action of taking over the assets and properties of the petitioner even though it was an enemy firm and vesting it with the Custodian of Enemy Properties in view of the dictum laid down in The Province of East Pakistan v. Daulatpur Jute Mills Ltd. P L D 1968 S C 398. The grievance of the petitioner was that this case, though cited, was not considered by the Court in its aforementioned judgment.
As to the first ground it cannot be‑ regarded as an error for if the decision was sustainable on a different ground it could be taken into con sideration by this Court. In regard to the second, the question relating to the ownership of the shares had been left open in the judgment to be decided on a suitable occasion, and, therefore, there can be no grievance for this reason. Lastly, as to the third ground, it is true that the above cited case was not referred to in the judgment but we fail to see how the dictum can apply to the instant case in the face of the order of the Tribunal which has given substantial reasons for taking over the assets of the petitioner as an enemy firm. Hence none of these grounds has an substance.
Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer