reported as Messrs Wak
Limited Multan Road, Lahore v. Collector Central
Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore (Now Commissioner
Inland Revenue, LTU, Lahore) and others (2018
SCMR 1474), Ardeshir Cawasjee v. Karachi
Building Control Authority (1999 SCMR 2883) and
Multilines Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2
others (PLD 1995 SC 423). In the case of Multilines
Associates (Supra) the Apex Court of the country
while dealing with the preposition under discussion
has inter-alia observed as under: -
“18. In such circumstances, legal position
which emerges is that the second Division
Bench of the High Court should not have
given finding contrary to the findings of the
1st Division Bench of the same Court on the
same point and should have adopted the
correct method by making a request for
constitution of a larger Bench, if a contrary view had to be taken. In support reference can
be made to the cases of the Province of East
Pakistan v Dr. Azizul Islam (PLD 1963 SC
296) and Sindheswar Ganguly v. State of West
Bengal (PLD 1958 SC (Ind.) 337), which is a
case of Indian jurisdiction. We therefore, hold
that the earlier judgment of equal Bench in
the High Court of the same point is binding
upon the second Bench and if a contrary view
had to be taken, then request for constitution
of a larger Bench should have been made.”
Lahore High Court
| WP- Against Civil Proceeding 162-15 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment