Find a Lawyer

DIR FLYING COACH COMPANY versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DIR\'701

West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Rules 1969 R 263 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OX X X X, RR 1 2 and Section 115 plaintiffs running Coach Stand Regional Transport Authority. Were issuing a license to open the respondent. Coaches' stand for approval of the same order, temporarily rejected by the courts below the Secretary's request for restriction, may allow such transport even by the conditions set forth in 8 263, West Pakistan. Completion of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1969 Not allowed thus The Secretary, opened another position by the regional transport authority, did not suffer any unlawful interference of the plaintiffs by introducing another coach stand, as they would be financially disadvantaged. Can easily generate daily traffic and such traffic and loss related revenue. Measures in the case of money where the unknown process causes some financial loss to a party, just because the new business concern has broken the party's monopoly, it will cause irreparable harm to this party and the fact The reason for the healthy competition would be that the plaintiff's position was also a cause of distress, the opening of the new coach stand would not hurt. Except for some financial damages other than the plaintiffs, the plaintiff was not entitled to a temporary injunction, so the courts should be searched accordingly. Interference with the High Court's review jurisdiction was unlikely solicitors from Cherat lawyer