AGL38.7▲ 0.88 (0.02%)AIRLINK130.73▼ -2.5 (-0.02%)BOP5.65▲ 0.01 (0.00%)CNERGY3.83▲ 0.06 (0.02%)DCL8.68▼ -0.18 (-0.02%)DFML42.14▲ 1.2 (0.03%)DGKC87.99▼ -1.7 (-0.02%)FCCL34.91▼ -0.15 (0.00%)FFBL66.59▲ 0.05 (0.00%)FFL10.56▲ 0.43 (0.04%)HUBC108.6▲ 2.04 (0.02%)HUMNL14.66▲ 1.33 (0.10%)KEL4.77▼ -0.08 (-0.02%)KOSM6.97▲ 0.17 (0.03%)MLCF41.89▲ 0.36 (0.01%)NBP59.78▲ 1.13 (0.02%)OGDC183.25▲ 2.61 (0.01%)PAEL26.23▲ 0.61 (0.02%)PIBTL5.9▲ 0.1 (0.02%)PPL146.4▼ -1.37 (-0.01%)PRL23.5▲ 0.34 (0.01%)PTC16.35▲ 1.15 (0.08%)SEARL68.2▼ -0.49 (-0.01%)TELE7.2▼ -0.03 (0.00%)TOMCL35.8▼ -0.14 (0.00%)TPLP7.72▲ 0.36 (0.05%)TREET14.2▲ 0.05 (0.00%)TRG50.55▼ -0.2 (0.00%)UNITY26.75▲ 0.3 (0.01%)WTL1.22▲ 0.01 (0.01%)

IHC reserves decision in petition of Monal Restaurant

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday reserved its judgment in a miscellaneous petition of Monal Restaurant’s administration against taking land’s possession by Capital Development Authority (CDA) without given time for vacation.

A two-judge bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb heard the case.

At the outset of hearing, the court asked the Deputy Commissioner ICT that who would be responsible if substances of the owner went missing.

The court had clearly given instruction in its order for giving time to the Monal Restaurant’s administration to pick its substances from the land.

The DC said that they had formed a committee in this regard.

Justice Aamer Farooq remarked that many things would be clear in detailed judgment of the single member bench but it was clear that the Monal owner should be allowed to take out equipments.

The court asked the lawyer of Monal Restaurant that it could collect its equipment. Monal’s lawyer expressed doubt that CDA may award such land to someone else.

Justice Farooq remarked that now it was clear that no commercial activity could take place at the said land.

Monal’s lawyer prayed the court to issue a stay order against the current situation of Monal. The bench subsequently reserved its judgment regarding the matter.

Related Posts