| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 741 1997 SLD 741 1997 CLC 1005 |
Sindh High Court
Suits Nos.905, 916, 932 and Civil Miscellaneous ApplicationNos. 6598, 6659, 6757, 6836, 6850 of 1995 and 6, 478, 479and 2531 of 1996, decision dated: 19-03-1997
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J
Shahenshah Hussain and Abbas Ali for Plaintiffs (irr Suit Nos. 905, 916 and 932 of 1995). Faisal Arab for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 6 of 1996). Mustafa Lakhani and Amir Muslim Hani for Defendants
Suits Nos.905, 916, 932 and Civil Miscellaneous ApplicationNos. 6598, 6659, 6757, 6836, 6850 of 1995 and 6, 478, 479and 2531 of 1996, decision dated: 19-03-1997
SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J
Shahenshah Hussain and Abbas Ali for Plaintiffs (irr Suit Nos. 905, 916 and 932 of 1995). Faisal Arab for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 6 of 1996). Mustafa Lakhani and Amir Muslim Hani for Defendants
Messrs BABA HANDI CRAFT and 3 others--Plaintiffs
VS
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY AND THE AIRPORT. MANAGER----Defendants
Law:
Section:
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXIX, Rr.l, 2 & S. 151---Easements Act (V of 1882), S. 52---Suits for declaration and perpetual injunction---Petitioners who were licensees were carrying on various business at airport for many years, were refused renewal of their licences and they were not issued passes for entering international-cum-transit lounge ---Validity--Entitlement to seek temporary injunction allowing them to carry on their business till decision of their suits---Some of the licensees who were carrying on business at the Airport, had been recommended to get entry passes to carry on their business while no reasons were assigned to refuse entry passes to plaintiffs---Plaintiffs were, thus, not being given just, fair and equitable treatment which defendants had allowed to some other business concerns--Plaintiffs having been carrying on business for many years might have established commercial background, reputation and goodwill in market as well as abroad---Premises in question, having been put to commercial use dispossession' of plaintiff would not only mean physical dispossession but actually same would be financial and economic disruption which would not only. adversely affect plaintiffs but also Government who would be deprived of taxes---Plaintiffs having made out prima facie case, balance of convenience was in their favour and they were likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury which could not be measured in shape of coins---Cases of, plaintiffs were made out for ad interim orders---Orders of ad interim injunction already issued were. affirmed---Civil Aviation Authority was directed to recommend plaintiffs' applications to Airport Security Force for issuance of entry permits. Ismail Haji Sulaiman v. Messrs` Hansa Line and another PLD 1961 Dacca 693; M.A. Naser v. ,Chairman, Pakistan Eastern Railways and others PLD 1965 SC 83; Civil Aviation Authority v. Noor Muhammad PLD 1988 Kar. 401; Habib Bank Ltd. v. Iqbal 1. Chundrigar and another 1983 CLC 1464; PLD 1957 (W.P.) Kar. 918; PLD 1962 (W.P.) Kar. 663; PLD 1964 SC 106; Government of West Pakistan v. Meezan Corporation and another PLD 1971 Kar.…
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