| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1582 2008 SLD 1582 2008 SCMR 356 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No.586-K of 2005, decision dated: 29-08-2005.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-8-2005 in C.M.A. 1189 of 2005 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi)
HAMID ALI MIRZA AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ
Dr. Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Malik M. Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Civil Petition No.586-K of 2005, decision dated: 29-08-2005.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-8-2005 in C.M.A. 1189 of 2005 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi)
HAMID ALI MIRZA AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ
Dr. Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Malik M. Qayyum, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent
Messrs MAXIM ADVERTISING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.
VS
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government, Karachi and others
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art. 185---Interlocutory order of High Court---Interference by Supreme Court---Scope---Supreme Court would not interfere with such order, unless same was illegal, fanciful, arbitrary, capricious or against settled proposition of law. Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Mian Miraj-ud-Din and others 1994 SCMR 2281 and Habib Bank Ltd. and others v. Syed Zia-ul-Hassan Kazmi 1998 SCMR 60 fol. AIR 1969 SC 1081; AIR 1996 Delhi 343; AIR 1980 Cal. 7; SBLR 2001 K. 661; AIR 1991 SC 101; 2007 YLR 1107 and AIR 1994 All. 243 ref. ORDER HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 2nd August, 2005 in H.C.A (sic) Bench of the High Court Karachi (sic) XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. in Suit No.604 of 2005 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as such the interim relief was declined and order of learned Single Judge dated 15-7-2005 was maintained. 2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo of petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that he did not submit tender by the target date i.e. 25th April, 2005 though he received the letter issued by the concerned Ministry on 23rd April, 2005, through the said letter bids were kept in abeyance but the petitioner was not stopped from submitting bids on time. Admittedly published notice was merely an invitation to offer whereas terms of reference were made available to the petitioner on 7-4-2005 which inter alia contained stipulation as to submission of pay order of 20 million as bid money which was refundable. It also appears from the record that successor bidder would be entitled to claim commission as such it being money, for which there being compensation in money, hence no irreparable loss could be said to be caused, as such one of the ingredients for grant of interim relief/injunction would be missing. So far balance of convenience, second ingredient for grant of interim injunction, was also not in favour of the petitioner as stoppage of entire…
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