Panama Case was about London flats and the decision came over Iqama - Justice Qazi Faiz Eisa's remar

[RajaRawal111]

Re: Justice Isa says SC's ruling on Panamagate based on iqama instead of London flats

شاہ جی یار صحیح بتایں آپ کو تھریڈ کے موضوع کا پتا چلتا ہے یا نہیں
میں اس لئے پوچھ رہا ہوں کہ کہیں کوئی مرض ورض نہ ہو
چک کروائیں یار ہے بہت زیادہ ہونے لگا ہے

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Re: Justice Isa says SC's ruling on Panamagate based on iqama instead of London flats

As a matter of fact, the Panama Case has not been concluded yet. Though in the phase of investigation, Nawaz Sharif was found unfit to hold the office of PM, due to his Iqama which was breaching the implications of article 62/63. It is as simple as this.... why create confusions?

Moreover, it is also a fact that if Panama Case's decision goes against NS, he will be behind bars, rather than roaming around in the country freely.

 

[RajaRawal111]

Re: Justice Isa says SC's ruling on Panamagate based on iqama instead of London flats

Kidhr they yaaar Sohail itney din. I really missed you.

1: For the sake of discussion. the rule of thumb is the an asset something which is taxed or is evaluated for being taxable ---- which country on the face of earth charges the tax on the accumulated sallary which has hot been received yet. ---- bring me one just one. Set aside the FBR rules of Pakistan.

Try to answer my question, --- if you could not that we will go to next step.

2: Jahangeer tareen is disqualified. His disqualification was on the trust deed. However if you remember there were 4 objections on him. One of which was the income on the leased agricultural land. Tareen plea on this was that "Nomination paper does not ask for declaration of income on leased agricultural land" . He was disqualified on tryst deed. that means his pleas was accepted. That means the income not mentioned in the nomination paper cannot be used as cause of disqualification.

Question: Is accumulated salary not received yet mentioned in nomination paper

Try to answer my question, --- if you could not that we will go to next step.

3: Let us accept SCs verdict being justified. Article 62/63 has to be implemented one way or other

Question: In this form, is there a single person on face of earth other then ammbiya aleh asslam who satisfies this criteria? If no one can, then should it be implemented regardless. If it is implemented than what are the chances of being selective.

As a matter of fact, the Panama Case has not been concluded yet. Though in the phase of investigation, Nawaz Sharif was found unfit to hold the office of PM, due to his Iqama which was breaching the implications of article 62/63. It is as simple as this.... why create confusions?

Moreover, it is also a fact that if Panama Case's decision goes against NS, he will be behind bars, rather than roaming around in the country freely.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Re: Justice Isa says SC's ruling on Panamagate based on iqama instead of London flats

ارے راجہ جی ہم نے کہاں جانا ہے؟ بس ذرا کچھ غیر نصابی سرگرمیاں بڑھ گئی تھیں، لہٰذا صفحہ سیاست سے کچھ غائب تھا۔
بہرحال، آپکے سوالوں کو دیکھتے ہوئے لگتا ہے کہ ان سوالوں کا تو کوئی سوال ہی نہیں پیدا ہوتا کیونکہ آرٹیکل ۶۲ اور ۶۳ کسی اثاثے کے بارے میں نہیں ہوتا، بلکہ دھوکے اور غلط بیانی پر عائد ہوتا ہے۔ ضروری نہیں کہ کوئی تنخواہ ہی لی جائے، کنفلکٹ آف انٹرسٹ بھی کوئی شے ہوتی ہے میرے بھائی۔ اور اسی تناظر میں وزیر اعظم کوئی دوسرا عہدہ نہیں رکھ سکتا، چاہے تنخواہ لے یا نہ لے۔

Kidhr they yaaar Sohail itney din. I really missed you.

1: For the sake of discussion. the rule of thumb is the an asset something which is taxed or is evaluated for being taxable ---- which country on the face of earth charges the tax on the accumulated sallary which has hot been received yet. ---- bring me one just one. Set aside the FBR rules of Pakistan.

Try to answer my question, --- if you could not that we will go to next step.

2: Jahangeer tareen is disqualified. His disqualification was on the trust deed. However if you remember there were 4 objections on him. One of which was the income on the leased agricultural land. Tareen plea on this was that "Nomination paper does not ask for declaration of income on leased agricultural land" . He was disqualified on tryst deed. that means his pleas was accepted. That means the income not mentioned in the nomination paper cannot be used as cause of disqualification.

Question: Is accumulated salary not received yet mentioned in nomination paper

Try to answer my question, --- if you could not that we will go to next step.

3: Let us accept SCs verdict being justified. Article 62/63 has to be implemented one way or other

Question: In this form, is there a single person on face of earth other then ammbiya aleh asslam who satisfies this criteria? If no one can, then should it be implemented regardless. If it is implemented than what are the chances of being selective.

 

[mskhan]

Well in one sense he is right, Ganjoo should have been disqualified for concealment of assets, money laundering, dishonesty and tax evasion, but can somebody tell this idiotic of a judge that there is a law in the country according to which public office holders are to be Sadiq and Ameen, those who conceal, deceit and lie do not qualify to be Sadiq and Ameen. Why does a prime minister need Iqama, why his whole cabinet needs Iqama, does this idiot has the balls to ask those question, what a ******* moron.

 

[mubarik Shah]

Re: Justice Isa says SC's ruling on Panamagate based on iqama instead of London flats

شاہ جی یار صحیح بتایں آپ کو تھریڈ کے موضوع کا پتا چلتا ہے یا نہیں
میں اس لئے پوچھ رہا ہوں کہ کہیں کوئی مرض ورض نہ ہو
چک کروائیں یار ہے بہت زیادہ ہونے لگا ہے

Haha...

hum nay Nawaz ko "kioon Nikala" Ka moozee Marz laahak kar diya....

Parinday toofan bhanp kar parwaaz kar jatay hain........

 

[RajaRawal111]

Re: Justice Isa says SC's ruling on Panamagate based on iqama instead of London flats

اچھا یہ اتنا سادہ مسلہ تھا - میں تو اینوے ہی مخمسوں میں پھنسا ہوا تھا - اب اتنی سادگی کے بعد کوئی کیا کہ سکتا ہے - اکیسویں صدی میں پھر تو شریفوں کے علاوہ باقی سارے ہے ٦٢/٦٣ پر اترتے ہیں
ویسے آپس کی بات ہے یار - کبھی اس نے نوکری کی ہی نہیں تھی - اور جون ٢٠١٣ سے پہلے اس کے پاس کوئی سرکاری عہدہ نہیں تھا

ارے راجہ جی ہم نے کہاں جانا ہے؟ بس ذرا کچھ غیر نصابی سرگرمیاں بڑھ گئی تھیں، لہٰذا صفحہ سیاست سے کچھ غائب تھا۔
بہرحال، آپکے سوالوں کو دیکھتے ہوئے لگتا ہے کہ ان سوالوں کا تو کوئی سوال ہی نہیں پیدا ہوتا کیونکہ آرٹیکل ۶۲ اور ۶۳ کسی اثاثے کے بارے میں نہیں ہوتا، بلکہ دھوکے اور غلط بیانی پر عائد ہوتا ہے۔ ضروری نہیں کہ کوئی تنخواہ ہی لی جائے، کنفلکٹ آف انٹرسٹ بھی کوئی شے ہوتی ہے میرے بھائی۔ اور اسی تناظر میں وزیر اعظم کوئی دوسرا عہدہ نہیں رکھ سکتا، چاہے تنخواہ لے یا نہ لے۔

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Re: Justice Isa says SC's ruling on Panamagate based on iqama instead of London flats

اچھا یہ اتنا سادہ مسلہ تھا - میں تو اینوے ہی مخمسوں میں پھنسا ہوا تھا - اب اتنی سادگی کے بعد کوئی کیا کہ سکتا ہے - اکیسویں صدی میں پھر تو شریفوں کے علاوہ باقی سارے ہے ٦٢/٦٣ پر اترتے ہیں
ویسے آپس کی بات ہے یار - کبھی اس نے نوکری کی ہی نہیں تھی - اور جون ٢٠١٣ سے پہلے اس کے پاس کوئی سرکاری عہدہ نہیں تھا

ارے راجہ جی چھوڑیں، آپ بھی نواز شریف کی طرح کیوں نکالا کیوں نکالا کے نعرے لگا کر عوام کو کنفیوژ نہ کریں۔
آپ بھی جانتے ہیں کہ اقامہ رکھنا اور چھپا کر رکھنا یہ ایک قابل امتناعی جرم ہے۔ اب باقی کوئی صادق اور امین ہے یا نہیں، یہ یک علیحدہ مسئلہ ہے۔