Low Graphics Site
White bar
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

January 24, 2002 Thursday Ziqa’ad 9, 1422


KARACHI: SHC issues notices to CCB, DHA



By Our Reporter


KARACHI, Jan 23: A division bench of the Sindh High Court on Wednesday put the Clifton Cantonment Board and the Defence Housing Authority on notice for Feb 20 in a petition challenging removal of publicity hoardings despite a three-year contract with the petitioner.

The bench, comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Zia Pervez, passed the order when the petition of Naeema Wahid came up for hearing.

Naeema Wahid, the managing director of Usman and Wahid Associates, in her petition through Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, had contended, that after having allowed the petitioner to install neon-signs, trivisions for a period of three years, the respondents were stopped from removing such neon-signs.

It was the case of the petitioner that the company had paid rent in advance for obtaining such sign boards. The company was also under obligation to its clients, from who it had charged in advance, for displaying their advertisement for a specific period. The bench held that the contention required consideration and admitted it for hearing.

Khawaja Naveed Ahmed, counsel for the petitioner, stated that pre-admission notice had been directed in this petition on Dec 7, 1999, and the matter was fixed on Dec 24, 1999. But one day prior to the hearing, respondents removed the neon-sign.

He submitted that it would be proper for the court to grant a mandatory injunction directing restoration of status quo.

Counsel for respondent No.1, Nazar Hussain Dhoon stated that the order in the first precedent was modified. Counsel for respondent No. 2, Malik Khushal requested for adjournment as Ch. Muhammad Jameel, another counsel was reported to be busy before the Supreme Court.

The bench ordered that the application should be heard along with the main petition and held that interim order passed earlier would continue.

The counsel were informed that in case they were not available, their clients should make alternative arrangements and no further adjournment would be given.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005