Law:

Section:

Keywords: Result: Petition allowed ORDER ' MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J. - Brief facts of the case are that petitioner's bank account No, BTA-004888-00-6, maintained with respondent No,, was attached by respondents No, 1, 2 and 5, on basis of an alleged tax demand created against respondent No, 4, and a Pay Order No, 2402021, dated 09.03.2015 amounting to Rs, 10,158,726/- was issued by respondent No, 3 from said account in favour of respondent No, 2. Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.05.2015, passed by respondent No, 1, and letter/order dated 23.07.2015, issued by respondent No, 3, whereby prayer for return of pay order, withdrawal of Illegal attachment/orders alongwith prayer for de-freezing the said account and cancellation of pay order, has been turned down. The relief sought from this Court, through instant petition, is as under:- a. "The impugned order dated 06.05.2015 issued by the respondent No, 1 may kindly be set aside by declaring it as illegal, issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect; and, the respondents No, 1 2 may very graciously be directed to return the Pay Order issued from the Petitioner accounts, beside withdrawing their order of illegal attachment of the Petitioner's account. b. The impugned letter dated 23.07.2015 issued by the respondent No, 3 may kindly be declared as illegal, issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect, by directing the respondent No, 3 to defreeze the Petitioner's account and cancel the Pay Order issued therefrom in favour of the respondent No, 2. c. The respondents No, 1, 2, 3 4 may, in addition to the cost of the instant and other cases, be burdened with appropriate fine payable as compensation to the petitioner for the mental agony and reputation damage caused to it. d. During the pendency of this petition the respondents may be restrained from encashing the Pay Order No, 2402021, dated 09.03.2015 amounting to Rs, 10,158,726.00 issued by the respondent No, 3 from the bank account of the petitioner in favour of the respondent No, 2, and, the respondent No, 3 may be directed to let the petitioner operate its account for its ongoing business transaction. 2.…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492