KARACHI, Feb 8: A division bench consisting of Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Faisal Arab asked the city district government to deposit with the SHC nazir Rs5,000 as costs for its failure to file a counter-affidavit in a petition.
A petitioner claimed that he purchased a 1,515 square-yard plot (No B-10, Main Rashid Minhas Road, Gulshan-i-Iqbal) for Rs7.5 million in April 2005 but the city district government was not responding to his request for its mutation in his name. The bench had directed the respondent government to file a counter-affidavit on Thursday and awarded costs when none was filed. It warned that the government would be non-suited if it failed to pay the costs.
MEDICAL SEATS: The bench disposed of several petitions alleging that questions in entry tests for medical college admissions were ‘out of course’. The questions were referred to subject specialists, who said in their report that three out of the 15 questions were ‘out of course’. According to the advocate-general, even if the petitioner candidates were given full marks for the three questions, they would still remain ineligible. Advocates Ghulam Qadir Jatoi and Minhaj Farooqui, who represented the petitioners, said their clients have decided to approach the Supreme Court in appeal.
LAWYER’S APPEAL: The bench comprising Justices Mushir Alam and Mohammad Afzal Soomro reserved its order on an appeal moved by Advocate Azizullah Shaikh against the decision of a banking tribunal. The lawyer said he was left high and dry in Australia when his credit card was dishonored by the issuing bank. He suffered mental torture and humiliation and the trial court agreed he had made out a case for payment of damages. However, it held that the lawyer’s claim for $100 million was hit by Section 73 of the Contract Act. It awarded only $175 as damaged against the defendant bank. Advocate Shaikh pressed for his claim in appeal.
The bank said the payment was blocked as a certain amount was outstanding against the credit card holder. The lawyer said he was not given any notice and the bank’s action was culpably arbitrary.




























