GRANADA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 3 others
The petitioner, Granada Textile Mills Ltd., challenged an order of the Lahore High Court which had declined their request to modify an interim order regarding the release of imported machinery. Initially, the petitioner had obtained the release of imported Ring Spring Frames from Customs by furnishing a Bank Guarantee. Following the disposal of the main writ petition, the petitioner sought to modify the earlier interim order to substitute the Bank Guarantee with an Insurance Guarantee, citing financial difficulties and a precedent where another petitioner was permitted to do so. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether a court should modify a fully complied-with interim order after the main petition has already been disposed of. The Court held that the request was misconceived and untenable, as the petitioner had already complied with the original condition of furnishing a Bank Guarantee to secure the release of goods, and the main writ petition had already been concluded. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Court's refusal to modify the interim arrangement.
- Can an interim order requiring a bank guarantee be modified to allow an insurance guarantee after the main writ petition has been disposed of?
- Is a petitioner entitled to modification of an interim order based on the financial hardship of the petitioner?
- Does a court have grounds to interfere with an interim order when the original condition for the release of goods has already been complied with?
1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner instituted Writ Petition No,4902 of 1993 before the Lahore High Court seeking release of imported Ring Spring Frames from the Customs without payment of Custom duties and surcharge. By an interim order dated 19-5-1993, the petitioner obtained release of the consignment of Ring Spring Frames upon furnishing of Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of Assistant Collector of Customs, Lahore, in respect of the disputed amount and on payment of 5% Iqra Surcharge in cash. The petitioner was disposed of by a learned Judge in Chambers by order dated 10-5-1994 with direction to Collector of Customs to hold an enquiry whether the Ring Spring Frames imported by the petitioner are locally manufactured or not in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Suhail Jute Mills Ltd. And others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1991 SC 329). The petitioner was also directed to furnish a fresh Bank Guarantee, if the Bank Guarantee furnished by him earlier had expired. The petitioner then moved the learned Judge in Chambers for modifying the interim order dated 19-5-1993, permitting the petitioner to furnish an Insurance Guarantee in place of Bank Guarantee, which was declined by the impugned judgment.
2. The petitioner is therefore, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned order.
3. ' Mr. Saeed-uz-Zafar, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in a similar Writ Petition No 16255 of 1993, a learned Judge in Chambers of that Court by order dated 24-11-1993 allowed release of the imported machinery on furnishing Insurance Guarantee, therefore, keeping in view the difficult financial condition of the petitioner, they too should have been allowed to furnish an Insurance Guarantee in place of a Bank Guarantee. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed, Standing Counsel for the respondent No,1, opposes the contention of petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
4. The petitioner was directed to furnish Bank Guarantee by order dated 19-5-1993, which he complied and obtained release of the consignment from the Customs. Thereafter, the petition filed by the petitioner was also disposed of by order dated 10-5-1994. In these circumstances, the prayer for modifying the interim order dated 19-5-1993 and allowing the petitioner to furnish an Insurance Guarantee in place of Bank Guarantee was totally misconceived and untenable. The learned Judge in Chambers, therefore, rightly declined the request of petitioner. The petition has no merit which is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave is refused.