diff --git "a/CASEDATA-3.json" "b/CASEDATA-3.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/CASEDATA-3.json" @@ -0,0 +1,50078 @@ +[ + { + "Case No.": "4720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 601 = 2002 SLD 601 = 2002 PTD 2007 = (2002) 85 TAX 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax – Show-Cause Notice and Order Validity\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe validity of an order passed after more than one year from the issuance of the show-cause notice was questioned, as it was imperative for the Deputy Collector to issue a fresh show-cause notice to ensure procedural fairness.\n2.\nBefore passing the order, the Deputy Collector was required to verify whether the notice for the hearing was properly served on the complainant. This step was crucial to uphold the principles of natural justice and avoid undue harassment of the taxpayer.\n3.\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman noted significant negligence in the handling of replies to such notices and recommended corrective measures, including disciplinary action against the responsible officials.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=14,18,33,33(1),45A(4)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1398-K of 2001, decision dated: 29-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Khalid\nRespondent by: Miss Shahnaz Maqbool D.C. (Adjudication)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 602 = 2002 SLD 602 = 2002 PTD 2225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition – Recovery of Customs Duty from Unrelated Companies\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe petitioner company, which had purchased assets from a respondent company, was wrongly targeted for the recovery of customs duty owed by the latter.\n2.\nThe High Court ruled that the Customs Department’s demand was unlawful as the petitioner company was neither legally liable for the dues of the respondent company nor connected in a manner justifying such recovery.\n3.\nSection 202 of the Customs Act, 1969, was deemed inapplicable, and the Court clarified that sales tax dues owed to one entity could not be used to recover customs duty from an unrelated entity.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=49Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Customs Act, 1969=202", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2001, heard on 11-04-2002, hearing DATE : 11-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah\nRespondent(s) by: Jawahar A. Naqvi", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. IRFAN TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE.\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD & 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 603 = 2002 SLD 603 = 2002 PTD 2237 = (2002) 86 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation on Storage Tanks – Validity of Departmental Demands\nConclusion:\n1.\nA storage tank initially marked as a sample and later sold at less than cost price had its sales tax correctly paid at the time of the sale. The demand for additional tax and penalties by the Department three years later was unwarranted.\n2.\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found the Department’s actions arbitrary, unjust, and legally invalid. The case was a clear example of administrative overreach and procedural delays not attributable to the taxpayer.\n3.\nRecommendations were made to set aside the Deputy Collector’s order and reassess the case based on the actual transaction value when the taxable supply occurred.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6,7,3,2(44),33(2)(7),34,36Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1473-K of 2001, decided/on 23rd January, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) TEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khushnood A. Khan, Attorney for the Complainant. Imtiaz Ahmad Shaikh, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax (East), Karachi.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MASSECO\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 604 = 2002 SLD 604 = 2002 PTD 2241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Advance Payments – Interpretation of Taxable Supply\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Court held that advance payments received in anticipation of future supplies could not be taxed as sales since no supply of goods had taken place.\n2.\nThe Department’s interpretation of advance payments as taxable under the Sales Tax Act was rejected as it sought to alter the scope of the tax from a levy on goods supplied to a tax on monetary transactions.\n3.\nThe Tribunal ruled that the demand was unlawful and set it aside.\nReference: Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1999 PTD 3907; Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Mehran Associates Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1993 SCMR 274 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(22),(30)", + "Case #": "Appeal No.H-60 of 2000, decision dated: 7-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND SULTAN AHMED SIDDIQUI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.N. Khokhar, Consultant for the Appellant. M.R.K. Warsi, Superintendent for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 605 = 2002 SLD 605 = 2002 PTD 2262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Credit on Furnace Oil for Electricity Generation\nConclusion:\n1.\nTaxpayers were entitled to claim input tax credit on furnace oil used in generating electricity for making taxable supplies during the relevant period.\n2.\nThe Tribunal directed the Department to verify records and refund the admissible input tax to the appellants, citing the exclusion of furnace oil from specific ineligible goods under relevant SROs.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,7", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2412/LB of 2001, decision dated: 4-05-2002, hearing DATE : 20-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Javed for Appellant. Imran Tariq D.R. with Saeed Akhtar Khan, Auditor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 606 = 2002 SLD 606 = 2002 PTCL 210 = 2002 PTD 2270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector in Assessments\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Assistant Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by passing a quasi-judicial order involving goods exceeding Rs. 100,000 in value. Such matters fell within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Sales Tax.\n2.\nThe Appellate Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for a fresh hearing by the competent authority, ensuring the assessee’s right to a fair defense.\nReference: PLD 1987 SC (AJK) 60; PLD 1988 Quetta 1992; PLD 1988 Rev. 1952 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,46", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 112 of 1996, decision dated: 8-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": "MUMTAZ ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND ZAFAR ALI WARRAICH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Appellant. Siddique Awan, Deputy Superintendent for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 607 = 2002 SLD 607 = 2002 PTD 2311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Metal Containers for Tax Purposes\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Department’s determination of a uniform price for metal containers, without the consent of manufacturers, was declared legally invalid.\n2.\nThe Tribunal noted the discriminatory application of valuation across different regions and emphasized that only the Central Board of Revenue could set tariff values under the law.\n3.\nThe valuation method lacked transparency and verifiable evidence, leading to the order being set aside.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(1),3(2)(3)Central Excise Rules, 1944=2(46),33Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=8,210", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 7(1520)CE/IB and 7(1623)CE/IB of 2001(PB), decision dated: 6-04-2002. dates of hearing: 20th March and 1st April., 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. M. KAZMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nazir Azhar for Appellants. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer of the Collectorate for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 608 = 2002 SLD 608 = 2002 PTD 2321 = (2003) 87 TAX 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Search and Abuse of Power\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Department’s actions during the search of the complainant’s premises were declared abusive and contrary to statutory requirements, including breaking locks and failing to leave a signed inventory or statements as required by law.\n2.\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended disciplinary proceedings against the responsible Assistant Collector for misuse of authority and harassment.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40AFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 107 of 2002, decision dated: 30-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Aslam, Chief Accountant and Abid Shafi, Manager Taxation for the Complainant. Dr. Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Collector for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs IHSAN YOUSUF TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 405 = 2003 SLD 405 = 2003 PTD 1805 = 2004 PTCL 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions under Fiscal Statutes\nConclusion:\n1.\nGearboxes and axles used in automotive vehicles were ruled ineligible for exemption under SRO 125(1)/70 as they did not meet the statutory definition of machinery for industrial processes.\n2.\nThe High Court overturned the Tribunal’s decision, reaffirming that exemptions must strictly adhere to legislative conditions.\nReference: 1991 PTD 1060 ref.; 1993 SCMR 274 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,3,17(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No. 158 of 1992, decision dated: 22-07-2002, hearing DATE 3rd March, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "ATTAUR REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Masooda Siraj for Appellant. Khalid Javed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 689 = 1999 SLD 689 = 1999 PTD 3907 = (1999) 80 TAX 41 = 2000 PTCL 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Advance Payments – Jurisdictional Limits\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe High Court held that mere receipt of money in advance without a corresponding supply of goods did not constitute a taxable event under the Sales Tax Act.\n2.\nInstructions issued by the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) interpreting such payments as taxable were declared unlawful and beyond jurisdiction.\nReference: Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1997 PTD 1555; Mehran Associates Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1993 PTD 69 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(30)(22)(28),3,11Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.8642 of 1995, decision dated: 8-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Salman Akram for Appellant. A. Karim Malik for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED\nvs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 346 = 1997 SLD 346 = 1997 PTD 54 = (1996) 75 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Wrongly Recovered Sales Tax\nConclusion:\n1.\nRefund claims were governed by the Central Excise Rules rather than the Sales Tax Act due to exemptions granted by the government.\n2.\nThe High Court nullified the order levying sales tax and remanded the case for reassessment under the relevant provisions.\nReference: Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,30ACentral Excise Rules, 1944=10Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1052 of 1995, decision dated: 21st January, 1996", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Zafar and Ali Zafar for Petitioner. Izhar-ul-Haq for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "RUPALI POLYESTER LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 347 = 1997 SLD 347 = 1997 PTD 63 = (1996) 75 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Withdrawal of Tax Exemptions – Vested Rights\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe withdrawal of tax exemptions by subsequent notifications could not impact vested rights acquired under earlier notifications, especially where contracts were made based on those exemptions.\n2.\nThe High Court ruled that such withdrawal was ineffective against accrued rights.\nReference: Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652 rel.; Collector, Central Excise v. Azizuddin Industries PLD 1970 SC 439 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,25Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114General Clauses Act, 1897=21", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 51 of 1996, decision dated: 16-09-1996", + "Judge Name:": "MAHBUB ALI KHAN AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Younis Khan Tanoli for Petitioner. Qazi Muhammad Ghazanfar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs WILY FOODS (PVT.) LTD., \nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 348 = 1997 SLD 348 = 1997 PTD 68 = (1996) 75 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Withdrawal of Tax Exemptions\nConclusion:\n1.\nNotifications withdrawing exemptions cannot have retrospective effect. Taxpayers who acted on earlier notifications and took definitive steps were protected from retrospective liability.\n2.\nThe Court reinforced that vested rights remain inviolable.\nReference: Al-Samrez Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917; Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(1)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5999 of 1996, decision dated: 3rd October, 1996", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MEHRAN FEED INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 349 = 1997 SLD 349 = 1997 PTD 609 = (1996) 75 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Proceedings – Competence of Officers\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Superintendent of Sales Tax lacked the legal authority to issue recovery notices under the Sales Tax Recovery Rules, as such powers were restricted to officers of Assistant Collector rank or higher.\n2.\nThe Tribunal invalidated the recovery proceedings and emphasized that delegation of powers does not equate to a change in the status of the officer.\nReference: Chaudhry Khalil-ur-Rehman v. Registrar Cooperative 1994 MLD 1637; Hafiz-ud-Din v. Mian Khadim Hussain PLD 1965 Lah. 439 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=31,48", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 21095 of 1996, decision dated: 28-11-1996", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. Izhar-ul-Haq Shaikh for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL TANNERS AND INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 377 = 1997 SLD 377 = (1996) 75 TAX 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Constitutional Petition and Territorial Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Lahore High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the imposition of regulatory duty levied by Customs Authorities in Karachi, as the main cause of action occurred in Karachi.\n2.\nThe Court emphasized that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the primary relief is sought, in this case, Sindh High Court.\n3.\nThe practice of filing writs in unrelated jurisdictions under the pretext of challenging the vires of a notification was criticized.\n4.\nRelief related to customs assessments at Karachi must be sought from the Sindh High Court.\nReference:\n•\nAl-Iblagh Ltd., Lahore v. The Copyright Board, Karachi (1985 SCMR 158).\n•\nAsghar Hussain v. Election Commission of Pakistan (PLD 1968 SC 387).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(1)(a)(i),(ii)Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=98(2)(a)(i)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1457/L of 1996, decision dated: 261-1997, hearing DATE : 26-1 -1997. On appeal from the judgment dated 13-2-1996 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No. 18516 of 1995", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Oadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, for the Petitioner. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Deputy Attorney-General, for the Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SANDALBAR ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 351 = 1997 SLD 351 = 1997 PTD 645", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Withdrawal of Concessions for Exporters – Discrimination\nConclusion:\n1.\nPetitioners, who were exporters of plastic bags to Afghanistan, challenged the withdrawal of concessions granted under a prior notification, claiming discrimination.\n2.\nThe High Court dismissed their plea, but the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the need to address the constitutional safeguard against discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution.\n3.\nThe case required examination of whether selective withdrawal of concessions violated equality principles.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 281 and 282 of 1995, decision dated: 7-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 281 of 1995). Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 282 of 1995). Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARYAN PETRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 352 = 1997 SLD 352 = 1997 PTD 1872 = (1996) 76 TAX 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemptions for Industries in Specified Zones\nConclusion:\n1.\nFixed sales tax imposed under a new notification was ruled unlawful as it negated prior exemptions granted to industries in designated zones.\n2.\nThe Court emphasized that exemptions tied to goods produced by such industries extended to all stages, including retail, to keep prices competitive.\n3.\nDoctrine of promissory estoppel was applied to protect vested rights arising from earlier concessions.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(4)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.959 of 1992, decision dated: 30-05-1995, hearing DATE : 27-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Mohibullah Kakakhal for Petitioner. Saadat Hussain, Deputy Attorney-General, K.G. Sabri and Eid Muhammad Khataec for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KHYBER PLASTIC & POLYMER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (MINISTRY OF FINANCE) through Secretary Finance, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 353 = 1997 SLD 353 = 1997 PTD 2303 = (1996) 76 TAX 281 = 1997 SCMR 1874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption for Newly Set Up Industries\nConclusion:\n1.\nA factory purchased at auction and modified to produce a new product was considered a newly established industry eligible for tax exemption.\n2.\nThe Court clarified that exemptions under SRO 580(1)/91 were applicable to industries genuinely set up during the specified period, irrespective of previous ownership.\nReference:\n•\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 509).\n•\nSandalbar Enterprises v. C.B.R. (PLD 1997 SC 334).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Companies Ordinance, 1984=305Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1019 of 1996, decision dated: 21st July, 1997, hearing DATE : 10-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Mian Tariq Mahmood, Deputy Attorney-General of Pakistan and K.G. Sabir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "FLYING KRAFT PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LTD., CHARSADDA\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 354 = 1997 SLD 354 = 1997 PTD 2353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "Demand for Sales Tax – Withdrawal of Exemption\nConclusion:\n1.\nImporters who opened letters of credit before the withdrawal of exemption were not liable for sales tax on such consignments.\n2.\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, acknowledging similar questions of law in related cases.\nReference: Messrs M.Y. Electronics Industries v. Government of Pakistan (1994 SCMR 2123).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Customs Act, 1969=31A", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2328-L of 1996, decision dated: 24-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE and 2 others\nvs\nMessrs HIRA FAROOQ (PVT.) LTD.," + }, + { + "Case No.": "4739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 144 = 1995 SLD 144 = (1995) 72 TAX 274 = 1995 PTD 1424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Claim for a New Industrial Unit\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe petitioner’s claim that a second unit constituted a separate factory was rejected, as evidence showed it was an extension of the first unit.\n2.\nThe Court ruled that questions of fact should be addressed through departmental remedies before resorting to constitutional petitions.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Amended W.P. No. 18 of 1991, decision dated: 07-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": "MAHBOOB ALI KHAN, JUSTICE\nJAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdullah Jan Mirza for Petitioner.\nHaider Ali for the Federal Government.\nJamshed Ahmad Sultan for Respondents Nos. 1, 2.and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAIF NADEEM ELECTRO LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN\nVS \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE/COMMISSIONER SALES TAX, PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1306 = 2015 SLD 1306 = 2015 PTD 560 = 2015 PTCL 510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Detention of Goods at Exit Gate\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe detention of goods after clearance was declared illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Act.\n2.\nThe High Court directed immediate release of goods and highlighted the lack of pending investigations or adjudication justifying the detention.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=186Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7972 of 2014, decision dated: 3rd April, 2014, hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2014.", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal along with, Aziz-ur-Rehman Principal Appraiser Customs and Nadeem Mahmood Mian, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs O.S. CORPORATION through Proprietor\nVs.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division 3 and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 559 = 1998 SLD 559 = 1998 PTD 2561 = (1998) 78 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Goods Transshipped to Other Territories\nConclusion:\n1.\nGoods imported through Pakistan for transshipment to Azad Jammu and Kashmir remained subject to sales tax unless specifically exempted.\n2.\nImporters could not presume exemption without explicit notification from the government.\nReference:\n•\nEast and West Steamship Co. v. The Collector of Customs (PLD 1976 SC 618).\n•\nFederation of Pakistan v. Jamaluddin (1996 SCMR 727).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1)(b),(3)(b)Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.731, 730 of 1998, 2469, 1069 and 1555 of 1997, heard on 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SHEIKH AMJAD ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Legal Adviser for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TAHSEEN (PVT.) LTD., \nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS DRY PORT, RAWALPINDI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 593 = 1998 SLD 593 = (1998) 78 TAX 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation for Customs Duties vs. Import Licenses\nConclusion:\n1.\nValuation determined under Section 25 of the Customs Act for customs duties could not be used to deduct amounts from import licenses.\n2.\nThe Court directed that deductions must align with the market value of goods, not artificial or notional values.\nReference:\n•\nEastern Rice Syndicate v. C.B.R. (PLD 1959 SC 364).\n•\nLatif Brothers v. Deputy Collector, Customs (1992 SCMR 1083).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25B", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5325 of 1994, heard on 26-11-1997, hearing DATE : 26-11-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Haq Nawaz Khan, Syed Najaf Hussain Shah and Sohail Akhtar, Advocates, for the Petitioners. A. Karim Malik, Advocate, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM MUHAMMAD DOSAL AND OTHERS\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ETC." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 594 = 1998 SLD 594 = (1998) 78 TAX 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration and Limitation in Tax Recovery\nConclusion:\n1.\nRecovery of short-levied tax due to alleged misdeclaration was barred by limitation under Section 32(3) of the Customs Act.\n2.\nThe Court set aside the orders for recovery, finding them legally and factually defective.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32(2),(3),156(1),(14)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 130 of 1997, decision dated: 18-5-1998.", + "Judge Name:": "AKHTAR HASSAN, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM, TECHNICAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem, Advocate; for the Appellants. Muhammad Javed Ghani, D.R., for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 595 = 1998 SLD 595 = (1998) 78 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Raw Materials\nConclusion:\n1.\nInput tax adjustment claimed by the appellant was valid, even though the dealers were not registered under Section 14 of the Sales Tax Act.\n2.\nThe show-cause notice and penalties imposed by the Department were set aside.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7(2)(iii),10,14", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. K-05 of 1996, decision dated: 25-02-1998, hearing DATE : 11-12-1997.", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL AZIZ MEMON, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUMTAZ ALI, TECHNICAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nasim, Advocate, for the Appellant. Nemo, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1076 = 2002 SLD 1076 = (2002) 258 ITR 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Estate Duty on Undrawn Remuneration\nConclusion:\n1.\nUndrawn remuneration and benefits could not be treated as a transfer of assets to the company for estate duty purposes.\n2.\nThe liability was limited to the amount due to the deceased from the company.\nReference: CED v. Lakshmi Saraswati Textiles (1984 145 ITR 15).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Estate Duty Act, 1953=17", + "Case #": "T.C. NOS. 1189 AND 1190 OF 1991, AUGUST 19, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND K.P. SIVASUBRAMANIAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Applicant. T. Ravikumar for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Indira Phadke\nvs\nTypewriter & Office Appliances India (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1077 = 2002 SLD 1077 = (2002) 258 ITR 485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Tax Deductions\nConclusion:\n1.\nSection 80AA, applied retrospectively, was deemed declaratory and did not violate constitutional rights, even if it increased the tax burden.\n2.\nThe Supreme Court clarified that deductions must be calculated based on income as defined under the Act.\nReference:\n•\nDistributors (Baroda) v. Union of India (1985 155 ITR 120).\n•\nMotilal Pesticides (I) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2000 243 ITR 26).", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),80K,72,139,85A,99,280Companies Act, 1956=25,4A", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 273 OF 1983, AUGUST 16, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S.B. SINHA, C.J. AND A.K. SIKRI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nAtam Ballabh Finance (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 561 = 1998 SLD 561 = 1998 PTD 2999 = (1998) 78 TAX 243 = 1999 PTCL 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Multiple Demands Under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act\nConclusion:\n1.\nMultiple demands under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act were permissible unless they resulted in manifest injustice or inequity.\n2.\nAmendments to Section 5 by the Finance Act, 1996, were prospective and not remedial.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,5General Clauses Act, 1897=14", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1917-K of 1998, decision dated: 8-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ul-Haque Memon, Advocate Supreme Court with Naraindas C. Motaini, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 562 = 1998 SLD 562 = 1998 PTD 3058 = (1998) 78 TAX 343 = 1999 PTCL 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "Power to Make Multiple Tax Demands\nConclusion:\n1.\nTax authorities could issue multiple demands under Section 36, provided no injustice occurred.\n2.\nThe General Clauses Act supported the repetitive exercise of statutory powers.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=36,45AGeneral Clauses Act, 1897=14", + "Case #": "S.T.C. Application No. 250 of 1997, decided 3rd February, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J. AND SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zamir-ud-Din Ahmed for Applicant. Farid-ud-Din for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nTHE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 563 = 1998 SLD 563 = 1998 PTD 3855 = (1998) 78 TAX 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Rules for Ginning Industries\nConclusion:\n1.\nAmendments made by the Central Board of Revenue to the Special Procedure for Ginning Industries Rules were ultra vires and had no legal effect.\n2.\nThe High Court declared the notification invalid.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=71Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 6694, 6695 and 712 of 1998, decision dated: 14-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui and Imran Anjum Alvi for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARUJ TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 564 = 1998 SLD 564 = 1998 PTD 3856 = (1998) 77 TAX 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Goods Manufactured for Self-Consumption\nConclusion:\n1.\nGoods manufactured for self-consumption fell within the definition of taxable manufacture. \n2.\nSales tax on such goods was consistent with legislative authority under the Federal Legislative List.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(35),(16),2(41),3", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 2027 and 259 of 1998, decision dated: 14-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Petitioner (in W. P. No. 2027 of 1998). A. Karim Malik for Respondent (in W. P. No. 2027 of 1998). Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui for Petitioner (in W. P. No. 259 of 1998). A. Karim Malik for Respondent (in W. P. No. 259 of 1998)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 565 = 1998 SLD 565 = 1998 PTD 3859 = (1999) 79 TAX 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Imported Raw Materials for Pharmaceuticals\nConclusion:\n1.\nWithdrawal of customs duty exemption did not affect sales tax exemption for raw materials used in pharmaceutical manufacturing.\n2.\nThe amendment benefited importers by lifting conditions tied to customs duty exemptions.\nReference: Not explicitly cited at the end.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3790 of 1998, decision dated: 5-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Aziz Khan for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik, Legal Advisor for the Customs Department, Government of Pakistan", + "Petitioner Name:": "DON VALLEY PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) LTD., \nvs\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE through Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 566 = 1998 SLD 566 = 1998 PTD 3860 = (1999) 79 TAX 251 = 2003 PTCL 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Recovery of Sales Tax During Pendency of Appeal\nConclusion:\n1.\nFiling an appeal does not automatically stay the recovery of assessed sales tax unless a specific stay order is granted.\n2.\nWithout a stay order, recovery proceedings initiated by the authorities remain lawful.\nReferences:\n•\nF.A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan (PLD 1964 SC 520).\n•\nCanada Motors, Karachi v. Central Board of Revenue (1990 PTD 948).\n•\nMessrs Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited v. The Collector of Central Excise and Sales Tax (1993 MLD 1645).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=12,34,48Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1615 and Miscellaneous No.4333 of 1997 decided on 19-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI, C.J. AND MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noor Muhammad for Petitioner. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, Dy. A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "THATTA CEMENT COMPANY LTD\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT, CUSTOM HOUSE, S.I.T.E., HYDERABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 567 = 1998 SLD 567 = 1998 PTD 3863 = (1999) 79 TAX 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Sale of Goods Act to Contractual Claims\nConclusion:\n1.\nSection 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, does not apply to works or service contracts such as replacing pipelines.\n2.\nA contractor cannot claim additional amounts due to increased customs duty or sales tax unless explicitly provided in the contract.\nReferences:\n•\nNagina Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 1988 Kar. 1).\n•\nMessrs Chaudhry Brothers v. Province of the Punjab (1993 MLD 2437).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=64Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Contract Act, 1872=2(h)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.25995 of 1997, decision dated: 14-09-1998, hearing DATE : 25-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Fazal Hussain for Petitioner. Ch. Ghulam Hassan Gulshan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs WAHEED CORPORATION (REGD.)\nvs\nCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD through Chairman and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 145 = 1995 SLD 145 = 1995 PTD 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Fresh Grounds and Definition of Partly Manufactured Goods \nConclusion:\n1.\nGrounds requiring further investigation cannot be raised for the first time before the appellate tribunal.\n2.\nItems like shoe lasts, not becoming integral to the final product, are not classified as partly manufactured goods and thus not exempt from sales tax.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(12),4", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.25 of 1961-62, decision dated: 8-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": "NUR ILAHI PRESIDENT, H. U. SIDDIQI AND K. SALAHUDDIN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Appellant. Malik Asrar Ahmad Khan, PTS for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 255 = 1994 SLD 255 = 1994 PTD 75 = 1994 PTCL 339 = (1993) 68 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Wooden Doors and Windows from Sales Tax\nConclusion:\n1.\nWooden doors and windows are exempt from sales tax under Item 40 of Notification No. 7 (dated 27-6-1951).\n2.\nTheir explicit inclusion in the notification reflects the intent to exempt them distinctly from other building components.\nReferences:\n•\nUsmania Glass Sheet Factory v. Sales Tax Officer (PLD 1971 SC 205).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 25 of 1977, decision dated: 17-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": "M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, C.J. AND SHAIKH ABDUL MANNAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Applicant. Muhammad Saleem Ch. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMessrs MUHAMMAD ASLAM & CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 283 = 1993 SLD 283 = (1993) 67 TAX 332 = (1991) 190 ITR 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Net vs. Gross Dividend Income\nConclusion:\n1.\nDeductions under Section 80M must be calculated based on net dividend income, clarified through retrospective amendments.\n2.\nRectification orders issued beyond the statutory four-year limitation period are invalid.\nReferences:\n•\nCIT v. New Great Insurance Co. Ltd. (1973 90 ITR 348).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2),154(7),80M,155,186", + "Case #": "IT APPLICATION NO. 462 OF 1988, SEPTEMBER 18, 1990", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR AND T.D. SUGLA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.S. Jetly, Mrs. Manjula Singh and K.C. Sidhwa for the Applicant. Mrs. Shobha Jagtiani for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nScindia Investment (P.) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 284 = 1993 SLD 284 = (1993) 67 TAX 335 = (1991) 190 ITR 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Depreciation Rate for Trucks in Quarrying Business\nConclusion:\n1.\nTrucks used primarily for business operations, not for hire, qualify for a 30% depreciation rate.\n2.\nRegistration as public carriers does not affect depreciation assessment if the primary use is business-related.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=263,256", + "Case #": "D.B. IT REFERENCE CASE NO. 77 OF 1985, NOVEMBER 22, 1990", + "Judge Name:": "K.C. AGRAWAL, C.J. AND B.R. ARORA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Singhal for the Applicant. N.M. Ranka and J.K. Ranka for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nManjeet Stone Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 609 = 2002 SLD 609 = 2002 PTD 2019 = (2002) 85 TAX 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Exempted Sales Tax and Maladministration\nConclusion:\n1.\nAuthorities cannot withhold refunds for exempted sales tax when the exemption is granted and documented.\n2.\nDelays in refund processing due to administrative inefficiencies constitute maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1246-K of 2001, decision dated: 27-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALGHAZI TRACTORS LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 158 = 1996 SLD 158 = 1996 PTD 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Inclusion of Incidental Charges in Sales Tax Calculation\nConclusion:\n1.\nSales tax is assessed on the ex-factory price, excluding incidental charges like freight or octroi borne by purchasers.\n2.\nDemands to include these charges in the taxable value are unsustainable.\nReferences:\n•\nVacuum Oil Company v. Secretary of State (AIR 1932 PC 168).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1046 to 1048 of 1991, decision dated: 26-01-1995, hearing DATE : 25-05-1994", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 445 = 1995 SLD 445 = (1995) 72 TAX 170 = 1995 PTD 87 = (1994) 205 ITR 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Dividends and General Reserve Reduction\nConclusion:\n1.\nInterim dividends must be deducted from the general reserve for capital computation.\n2.\nThis deduction applies regardless of how it is recorded in company accounts.\nReferences:\n•\nIndian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979 119 ITR 996).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1)Companies Act, 1956=205(1)", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 267 OF 1979, MARCH 5, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "SMT. SUJATA MANOHAR AND U.T. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. V. Balasubramanium, J.P. Devadhar and Mrs. S. Sengupta for the Applicant. F. Kaka for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nParke Davis (I) Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1307 = 2015 SLD 1307 = 2015 PTD 525 = 2015 PTCL 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Accountability of Tax Officers for Unlawful Acts\nConclusion:\n1.\nProtection under Section 227(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance applies only to legitimate acts performed in good faith.\n2.\nUnlawful acts, such as fraudulent tax refunds, fall outside this protection and may be investigated by NAB without FBR permission.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=227(2)(3),227(2),227(3)Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80DConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=72(2),72(3)National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)=3,31D,18(C)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.669 of 2014, decision dated: 13-06-2014, hearing DATE : 13-06-2014. (On appeal against the judgment dated 17-4-2014 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 185-A of 2014)", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamran Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Akbar Tarar, Additional P.G. NAB and Saeed Akhtar, Assistant Director NAB, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for NAB. Syed Zubair Shah, D.C. I.R. for FBR. Salman Aslam Butt, Attorney-General for Pakistan on Court‘s Notice.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMJAD QADOOS\nVs.\nCHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU, (NAB), ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 160 = 1996 SLD 160 = 1996 PTD 576", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for Industries Set Up on Auctioned Properties\nConclusion:\n1.\nIndustries established using auctioned properties qualify for tax exemptions under SRO 580(1)/91 if conditions are met.\n2.\nQuestions about the definition of industry in such exemptions require judicial scrutiny.\nReferences:\n•\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (AIR 1967 SC 509).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 125 of 1996, decision dated: 18-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHANJEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Qadir, Advocate and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. K.G. Sabir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "FLYING KRAFT PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 146 = 1995 SLD 146 = 1995 PTD 874 = (1995) 72 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petitions in Fiscal Matters\nConclusion:\n1.\nConstitutional petitions are maintainable for tax disputes, bypassing alternative remedies.\n2.\nTax exemption notifications must be upheld unless expressly revoked.\nReferences:\n•\nUsmania Glass Sheets Factory v. Sales Tax Officer (PLD 1971 SC 205).", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.494 of 1994, decision dated: 15-01-1995, hearing DATE : 12-12-1994", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL KARIM KHAN KUNDI, C.J. AND MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Jawad Pani assisted by Muhammad Sardar Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Latif Yousafzai for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "F.S. TOBACCO COMPANY (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, NOWSHERA and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 261 = 1994 SLD 261 = 1994 PTD 1031", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemptions on Specific Goods\nConclusion:\n1.\nGoods exclusively for government use, such as telephone poles, may qualify for exemptions under the relevant notification.\n2.\nInterpretation depends on the explicit terms of the notification.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 488 and 489-K of 1993, decision dated: 22-02-1994", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. A. Aziz Khan, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUNNY IMPEX and another\nvs\nDIRECTOR, TELEGRAPH STORES AND WORKSHOP and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 262 = 1994 SLD 262 = 1994 PTD 1320 = (1994) 70 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Telephone Poles\nConclusion:\n1.\nGoods not exclusively for government use do not qualify for exemption.\nReferences:\n•\nSultan Ahmad Barry v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs (1983 CLC 1538).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1947 of 1993, decision dated: 26-10-1993", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid M. Ishaque for Petitioner. A. Aziz Khan, DA. G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK AND COMPANY\nvs\nDIRECTOR, TELEGRAPH STORES & WORKSHOP, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 147 = 1995 SLD 147 = (1995) 71 TAX 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Cement and Incidental Charges\nDetermination of assessable value for sales tax.\nDetails:\n•\nThe case addressed whether incidental charges (e.g., transportation, loading/unloading fees, duties like octroi and export) incurred by the purchaser should be included in the value of goods for assessing sales tax.\n•\nThe Central Board of Revenue demanded that the value should include these charges, even if they were separately borne by the purchaser.\nCourt’s Findings:\n•\nThe assessable value is based on the ex-factory price—the price at which the manufacturer sells products to wholesale dealers—not the price wholesale dealers charge secondary wholesalers.\n•\nWhen freight or other incidental charges are not received as part of the price but are separately borne by the purchaser, they cannot be included in the taxable value for ad valorem tax purposes.\n•\nThe demand for including such incidental charges was declared invalid and unsustainable.\nConclusion:\n•\nSales tax must be calculated solely on the ex-factory price, excluding any separately borne incidental charges.\nReferences:\n•\nVacuum Oil Company v. Secretary of State AIR 1932 PC 168\n•\nFord Motor Company of India Ltd. v. Secretary of State AIR 1938 PC 15\n•\nUnion of India v. I.I.C. Limited AIR 1993 Supp. (4) SCC 326\n•\nHyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 24 STC 487 (SC)\n•\nHindustan Sugar Mills v. The State of Rajasthan AIR 1978 SC 1496 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1046 to 1048 of 1991, decision dated: 26-01-1995, hearing DATE : 25-05-1994", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 446 = 1995 SLD 446 = (1995) 72 TAX 158 = (1994) 205 ITR 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": ": Income from House Property\nClassification of income and allowable deductions under the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nDetails:\n•\nThe assessee, previously involved in ginning and spinning, ceased operations in 1946 and leased out properties originally acquired for its business.\n•\nThe assessee argued that rental income should be treated as business income instead of income from house property, and sought various deductions (e.g., municipal taxes, vacancy allowances) and set-offs for past excess assessments.\nCourt’s Findings:\n1.\nIncome Classification:\no\nThe assessee's rental income was treated as income from house property because the properties were not exploited as commercial assets. No new land/buildings were acquired, and no business activities were carried out.\n2.\nVacancy Allowance:\no\nAllowance under Section 24(1)(ix) is only applicable to properties let out during the year and vacant for part of it. Properties not let out at all during the year are not eligible.\n3.\nMunicipal Taxes:\no\nMunicipal taxes paid by the owner cannot be deducted under Section 23(1) when determining the annual letting value if the property is owner-occupied.\n4.\nSet-off of Excess Rent:\no\nExcess rent from earlier years could not be adjusted in subsequent years as there is no provision for such set-offs in the Income Tax Act.\nConclusion:\n•\nRental income from leased properties must be treated as income from house property.\n•\nClaims for vacancy allowance, municipal tax deductions, and set-offs were rejected.\nReferences:\n•\nLiquidator of Mahamudabad Properties (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 31 (SC)\n•\nCIT v. Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd. [1988] 169 ITR 597 (SC) rel.\n•\nNew Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1947] 15 ITR 319 (Bom.) (FB) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 277, 277A, 277B, 277C AND 277D OF 1980, MARCH 17/22, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "G.T. NANAVATI, JUSTICE AND S.M. SONI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.A. Puj and J.P. Shah for the Applicant M.J.Thakore for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Gujarat Ginning & Mfg. Co. Ltd\nv.\nCommissioner of Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 180 = 1990 SLD 180 = 1990 PTD 29 = (1990) 61 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Legislative Action and Sales Tax Exemption\nRetrospective withdrawal of tax exemptions.\nDetails:\n•\nA sales tax exemption for tallow (PCT heading 15.02-A) was withdrawn by a notification dated 26-6-1988, imposing 12.5% sales tax. The exemption had previously been granted by an earlier notification in 1986.\n•\nThe authorities attempted to apply the withdrawal retrospectively, affecting imports for which Letters of Credit (LCs) had already been opened.\nCourt’s Findings:\n•\nA notification operates prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.\n•\nSection 3(5) of the Sales Tax Act empowers the Customs Act machinery to collect sales tax but does not alter the inherent nature of the tax.\n•\nRetrospective withdrawal of exemptions cannot infringe vested rights already established (e.g., import orders backed by LCs).\nConclusion:\n•\nWithdrawal of exemptions can only apply prospectively. The importer’s vested rights, established upon payment and opening of LCs, remain protected.\nReferences:\n•\nAl-Samrez Enterprise v. The Federation of Pakistan 1986 S C M R 1917\n•\nPunjab Steel Ltd. v. Deputy Collector of Customs P L D 1989 Lah. 237 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(5)Customs Act, 1969=31A", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1135 of 1988, decision dated: 19-10-1989. dates of hearing: 14th and 18-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Memon for Petitioner. Asim Afzal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CRESCENT PAK. INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) LIMITED\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 181 = 1990 SLD 181 = 1990 PTD 184 = (1990) 61 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Authority and Sales Tax Jurisdiction\nJurisdiction of customs officials under the Sales Tax Act, 1951.\nDetails:\n•\nA Deputy Collector of Customs issued a notice under Section 28 of the Sales Tax Act for recovering escaped sales tax, which was challenged for lack of jurisdiction.\n•\nSection 5(2) of the Sales Tax Act allows the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) to appoint specific officers for tax recovery, and only those officers can exercise the relevant powers.\nCourt’s Findings:\n•\nOnly officers authorized under Section 5(2) of the Sales Tax Act can issue recovery notices.\n•\nThe Deputy Collector of Customs was not authorized to act as a Sales Tax Officer under the relevant provisions or circulars.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe Deputy Collector’s actions were declared illegal and without jurisdiction.\nReferences:\n•\nSales Tax Central Zone ‘A’ Karachi v. A & B Food Industries Ltd. 1989 P T D 594 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28,3(1)(b)(d),5(2)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1304 of 1988 and 17 of 1989, decision dated: 10-10-1989. dates of hearing: 7th and 14-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.M. Qureshi and Sirajul Haq Memon for Petitioner. SA. Wadood, DA.G. and Kazim Hassan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.M. SALEEM\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 182 = 1990 SLD 182 = 1990 PTD 189 = (1991) 63 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Partly Manufactured Goods\nTaxability of goods used in manufacturing.\nDetails:\n•\nSection 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act ensures that even goods used by manufacturers for their purposes are considered sold and taxable if the end product is not subject to sales tax.\n•\nSpecific examples included:\no\nYarn and ginned cotton: Considered partly manufactured goods and subject to sales tax.\no\nElectric bulb components: Glass shells and tubes used in bulb manufacturing are taxable.\nConclusion:\n•\nGoods used in self-manufacture are subject to tax, even if they are consumed in exempt end-products.\nReferences: None explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(6)(d),2(12)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 45 K to 50 K of 1982 and 82 K of 1986, decision dated: 18-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA ANDSAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ali, Athar, Ali Amjad, Advocates of Supreme Court and Yousuf Rafi, Advocate on-Record for Appellants. (in CAs. Nos. 45 K to 50 K of 1982 and 82 K of 1986)\nMrs. Rashida Patel, Advocate on-Record for Respondent (in CAs. Nos. 45 K to 50 K of 1982)\nS. Shahudul Haque, Advocate of Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hasan, Advocate on-Record for Respondents (in CA. No. 82 K of 1986)", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 610 = 2002 SLD 610 = 2002 PTD 2089", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax in Tribal Areas\nApplicability of Sales Tax Act in tribal regions.\nDetails:\n•\nThe Sales Tax Act of 1990 was not extended to tribal areas (FATA/PATA) under Article 247(3) of the Constitution.\n•\nAuthorities sought to impose sales tax on goods imported into settled areas but consumed in tribal areas.\nCourt’s Findings:\n•\nPersons manufacturing or consuming goods in tribal areas are not liable for registration or sales tax.\n•\nGoods imported into tribal areas cannot be taxed at the import stage or at any point thereafter.\nConclusion:\n•\nSales tax does not apply to goods manufactured, supplied, or consumed in tribal areas.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,14,18,7,13Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247(3),199,246,247", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 988 of 2001, heard on 21st February, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK HAMID SAEED AND ABDUR RAUF LUGHMANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Sardar Khan for Petitioner. Salahudin Khan and A. Rauf Rohaila for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GUL COOKING OIL AND VEGETABLE GHEE (PVT.) LTD. DARGAI, MALAKAND AGENCY\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Chairman, Revenue Division, Central Board of Revenue (Sales Tax Wing), Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 183 = 1990 SLD 183 = 1990 PTD 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Welding Electrodes\nTax exemptions for industrial goods.\nDetails:\n•\nWelding electrodes were classified as articles used with machinery and deemed exempt from sales tax for the relevant years.\nConclusion:\n•\nWelding electrodes qualify for tax exemptions under applicable SROs.\nReferences:\n•\nS.R.O. No. 125(1)/70 amended by S.R.O. 3(1)/75.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No. 11 of 1987, decision dated: 16th, November, 1989, hearing DATE 15-11-1989", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND ALLALIDINO MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. K. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nvs\nPAKISTAN WELDING ELECTRODE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 184 = 1990 SLD 184 = 1990 PTD 513 = (1990) 62 TAX 64", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Subject to Tax \nClarification of statutory terms.\nDetails:\n•\nLeave to appeal was granted to resolve ambiguities surrounding the phrases “subject to tax” and “subject to payment of tax” under Section 2(12) of the Sales Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(12)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave Appeal No. 185 K of 1987, decision dated: 14-01-1990", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Nurual Hassan, Advocate, Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Sheikh Hyder. Advocate, Supreme Court; M.S. Ghaury, Advocate on-Record and S.M. Abbas, Advocate on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DADA SOAP FACTORY LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL ZONE C, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 185 = 1990 SLD 185 = 1990 PTD 516 = (1991) 63 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Illegal Issuance of Sales Tax Notice by Deputy Collector\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe petitioner imported foreign gas, paid sales tax at the point of import, and transferred the gas into consumer containers without manufacturing it.\n2.\nThe Deputy Collector of Customs, not authorized to act as a Sales Tax Officer, issued an invalid notice for additional sales tax.\n3.\nProceedings initiated by the Deputy Collector were declared illegal and without jurisdiction. The Authority was directed to issue a proper notice if required.\n(b) Jurisdiction of Deputy Collector under Circular No. 7\nConclusion:\n1.\nThe Deputy Collector, vested with the powers of an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Circular No. 7, could not issue notices for escaped assessments, as such powers lie with the Sales Tax Officer.\n2.\nImpugned notice was declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28,3,5Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(f)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 1205 of 1980, decision dated: 10-10-1989. dates of hearing: 12th and 14-09-1989", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfar and Kazi Faez Isa for Petitioner. S.A. Wadood, D.A.G. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "HOECHST PHARMACEUTICAL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 186 = 1990 SLD 186 = 1990 PTD 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Penalty for Delay in Proceedings\nConclusion:\n1.\nDelay in initiating penalty proceedings (more than three years) was deemed unreasonable despite no statutory limitation.\n2.\nPenalty cannot be imposed after inordinate delay unless justified by circumstances.\nReference: K.P. Narayan Nappa Setty & Co. v. C.I.T. 100 (1975) I.T.R. 17.\n(b) Opportunity of Hearing\nConclusion:\n1.\nRight of hearing does not always mandate personal hearings if relevant pleas have been addressed through correspondence.\n(c) Right of Hearing Maxim\nConclusion:\n1.\nAudi alteram partem does not necessarily imply a personal hearing when adequate opportunity is given through other means.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=23,10(3)", + "Case #": "Sales tax Applications Nos. 15/KB to 17/KB of 1983 84, decision dated: 21st October, 1987", + "Judge Name:": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farid, D.R. for Appellant. Z.H. Jafri for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 187 = 1990 SLD 187 = 1990 PTD 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Export Rebate\nConclusion:\n1.\nExport rebate is limited to the prescribed customs duty, sales tax, and excise duty. Additional claims beyond the prescribed rebate are invalid.\n(b) False Declarations and Notifications\nConclusion:\n1.\nPenalties imposed under misinterpreted notifications need examination. Constitutional petitions were admitted to determine if false declarations occurred.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27(2A)Central Excise Rules, 1944=12AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Customs Act, 1969=21(c),32,156(1)(14)", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 6101, 6102, 6104 and 6105 of 1988, decision dated: 31st May, 1989", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Sami Hayat for Petitioners. Qureshi Muhammad Hafeez Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6", + "Petitioner Name:": "AL BADAR CORPORATION and another\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 188 = 1990 SLD 188 = 1990 PTD 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Independently Marketable Inputs\nConclusion:\n1.\nManufacturers using independently marketable materials in their products are liable to pay sales tax on such materials.\nReferences: Messrs Electric Lamp Manufacturers of Pak. Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (1989 PTD 42).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(4),(6)(d)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. D 106 of 1983, decision dated: 18-06-1989", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, C.J. AND QAISAR AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Qureshi for Petitioner. Naser Ahmed for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "A & B BEVERAGES LTD. (PRIVATE) through Managing Director\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 189 = 1990 SLD 189 = 1990 PTD 605 = (1990) 62 TAX 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sales Tax on Intermediate Products\nConclusion:\n1.\nIntermediate goods, like microcellular sole sheets, are liable for sales tax even if used internally to produce other marketable goods.\nReference: Esskay Limited v. Federation of Pakistan.\n(b) Definition of Partly Manufactured Goods \nConclusion:\n1.\nRubber sheets used in Hawai Chappals are deemed partly manufactured goods and treated as taxable.\n(c) Constitutionality of Sales Tax Imposition\nConclusion:\n1.\nSales tax on manufactured or consumed goods is constitutional, even if the end product is exempt.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(6)(d),2(12)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 341 of 1982, decision dated: 25-04-1990, hearing DATE : 6-03-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasim Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Syed Inayat Ali for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KAMRAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 190 = 1990 SLD 190 = 1990 PTD 680 = (1990) 62 TAX 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Steel Files in Manufacturing\nConclusion:\n1.\nSteel files, used in shaping surgical instruments, are tools and not raw materials, hence not eligible for sales tax refund.\nReference: Tax Reference No. 102 of 1971.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17(4),27", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 11 of 1987, heard on 3rd June, 1989", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mohammad Ilyas Khan for Applicant. Abdul Haq Kang for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJRANWALA ZONE, GUJRANWALA\nvs\nMessrs ARSHAD IMPEX, SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 191 = 1990 SLD 191 = 1990 PTD 688 = (1990) 62 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Applicability of Rule 19 of Sales Tax Rules\nConclusion:\n1.\nRule 19 was held inapplicable as the assessee sold products to an associate company on a wholesale basis.\n(b) Rule 22A and Sales Price Determination\nConclusion:\n1.\nRule 22A empowers authorities to determine sales tax on prices higher than the declared sale price if fraudulent declarations are suspected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale Tax Rules, 1951=19,22A", + "Case #": "Civil Reference Case No. 80 of 1982, decision dated: 14-05-1990, hearing DATE : 25-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Ali Athar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nvs\nMessrs PHILIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 192 = 1990 SLD 192 = 1990 PTD 837", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of S.28(1A)\nConclusion:\n1.\nSales Tax assessments made after the statutory four-year limit were void, as retrospectivity could not be assumed without explicit provisions.\nReference: Messrs Nagina Silk Mills, Lyallpur v. C.I.T. PLD 1903 SC 323.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28(1A)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 866 of 1976 and 334 of 1979, accepted on 10-03-1980", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Abdul Haque, Senior Advocate, S. Riazul Haque, Advocate and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX \nvs\nMessrs AMRITSAR SWEET SHOP and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 193 = 1990 SLD 193 = 1990 PTD 974 = (1990) 62 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Best Judgment Assessments and Limitation\nConclusion:\n1.\nActions for best judgment assessments must be taken within a reasonable period, even if not explicitly limited by statute.\n(b) Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities in Sales Tax Matters\nConclusion:\n1.\nIncome Tax authorities have concurrent jurisdiction for sales tax cases under specific conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,28,5,2(5),23,28,15", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Nos. 89 and 94 of 1982, heard on 23rd April, 1990. dates of hearings 19th and 23rd April, 1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem-ud-Din Ahmed for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MUSTAFA PRESTRESSED, R.C.C. PIPE WORKS LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (INVESTIGATION), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 194 = 1990 SLD 194 = 1990 PTD 1088", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Sales Tax Authority\nConclusion:\n1.\nAJ & K authorities lawfully exercised powers to levy and collect sales tax under their jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=5(1),(2),10Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974=41(2),2(2),3(4),50C", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.28 to 34 of 1986, decision dated: 5-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL MAJID MALLICK C.J. AND S.Z CHOUDRI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Choudri and Muhammad Rafique Dar for Petitioners. Ch. Riaz Akhtar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADDIQUE and others\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, EXCISE & TAXATION/SALES TAX OFFICER, MIRPUR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 210 = 1991 SLD 210 = 1991 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Withdrawal of Exemptions\nConclusion:\n1.\nWithdrawal of exemptions cannot apply retrospectively if vested rights were created under the earlier notification.\nReference: 1984 PTD 216.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-929/930/932/1203/1212/1221/1222/1223/1224/1225 of 1988, decision dated: 11-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": "HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND HAZIQUL KHAIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Sattar Usman Memon for Petitioner. Abul Khair Ansari for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "RACHNA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 211 = 1991 SLD 211 = 1991 PTD 352 = (1991) 63 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on Jelly Crystals\nConclusion:\n1.\nJelly crystals made without fruit or vegetables are not exempt under item 49 of the relevant notification.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.35 of 1983, decision dated: 23rd January, 1991", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURING AND PACKING CO. LTD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 212 = 1991 SLD 212 = 1991 PTD 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Notional Sale under Fiction of Law\nConclusion:\n1.\nArrangements involving raw material supplied by customers for manufacturing are treated as sales for tax purposes.\n(b) Determination of Sale Price\nConclusion:\n1.\nLabour and processing charges determine the value for sales tax when materials are supplied by the customer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(6)(c),3(1)(a),(4),Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-100 of 1987, decision dated: 31st January, 1991, hearing DATE : 10-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan and Anwar Mansoor for Petitioner. Zahir-ud-Din Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN OXYGEN LIMITED\nvs\nPAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 213 = 1991 SLD 213 = 1991 PTD 478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Authority of Excise Department in Sales Tax Recovery\nConclusion:\n1.\nExcise authorities can collect but not assess sales tax, limited to duties specified under CBR directives.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,2(16)Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4,11", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-996 of 1989, decision dated: 30-01-1991. dates of hearing: 11th and 12-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND HUSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq for Petitioner. Syed Tariq Ali for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ENGLISH BISCUIT MANUFACTURERS LTD\nvs\nTHE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISES & LAND CUSTOMS, LANDHI DIVISION KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 214 = 1991 SLD 214 = 1991 PTD 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "Raising Void Ab Initio Claims at Any Stage\nConclusion:\n1.\nIf proceedings are void ab initio, such objections can be raised at any stage.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,28", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No.10 of 1982, heard on 29-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX/IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs DIAMOND RUBBER MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 215 = 1991 SLD 215 = 1991 PTD 506", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Reduced Sales Tax Rates\nConclusion:\n1.\nGoods still in factories or warehouses when rates are reduced qualify for the lower rate.\n(b) Refund of Excess Sales Tax\nConclusion:\n1.\nRefunds must be issued when excess tax is paid under protest and within the statutory time.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,27Central Excise Rules, 1944=11Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-863 of 1989, decision dated: 10-12-1990, hearing DATE : 21st June, 1990", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND HAZIQUL KHAIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq for Petitioner. Zahir-ud-Din Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ASBESTOS CEMENT INDUSTRIES Ltd.\nvs\nTHE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, FACTORY CIRCLE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 216 = 1991 SLD 216 = 1991 PTD 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)--S. 7---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.31-A---Sales Tax, exemption from--¬Withdrawal of exemption letter---Effect---Importer had opened letter of credit much before exemption from Sales Tax was withdrawn---All arrangements for import of goods and financial commitments including invoice were also made before such withdrawal---Though withdrawal of exemption from Customs duty could not be challenged in view of S.31-A of Customs Act, but there being no parallel section like S.31-A in Sales Tax Act, withdrawal of exemption from Sales Tax, held, could not be treated to be legal and valid. \n \nAl-Samraz's case 1986 SCMR 1917 and Crescent Pakistan Industries Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others 1990 PTD 29 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Customs Act, 1969=31A", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-429 of 1988, heard on 8-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amanullah Khan for Petitioner. S.M. Sayedain Zaidi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMADI INDUSTRIES\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 217 = 1991 SLD 217 = 1991 PTD 513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---S. 7---Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944); First Sched., item 07.01 & P.C.T. 48.07---Notification No. S.R.O. 620(1)/83, dated 7-6-1983---Import of rolls of paper specially manufactured for use of transfer of design ---Assessee printed/designed on rolls of papers imported by him for selling same in the market---Assessee's liability to pay sales tax---Marketability of such product was only due to the printing of design ---Assessee's product was thus covered by the description P.C.T. 49.08 which mentioned transfer---When goods manufactured by assessee were taken out of the description provided by P.C.T. 48.07 then same would not correspond with the description mentioned in item 07.01 of First Sched., Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944---Printing process of all sort falling under Chapter 49 P.C.T. except metal printing having been exempted from Sales Tax by Notification S.R.O. 620(1)/83, assessee's goods were thus, not liable to sales tax.\n \n(b) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----First Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art: 199---Goods mentioned in First Sched., Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were alone excisable goods and excise duty could be levied only on those goods---Petitioner's goods not falling under said category were not subject to excise duty---Excise duty levied on such goods of petitioner was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.212 of 1987, decision dated: 6-12-1990, hearing DATE : 26-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.A. Rehmani for Petitioner. Shaikh Azizur Rehman for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.F.M.Y. INDUSTRIES Ltd\nvs\nADDITIONAL SECRETARY, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 218 = 1991 SLD 218 = 1991 PTD 517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---S. 7---Notification allowing exemption of sales tax on goods of petitioner--¬Subsequent withdrawal of such exemption---Whether notification of withdrawal of exemption retrospective in effect---Petitioner had acquired vested rights under the provisions of Notification granting exemption to petitioner's goods on the strength of which petitioner had made certain contractual commitments in the market---Since a vested right had already been created in favour of petitioner, the withdrawal Notification could not be given retrospective operation by executive act to discharge right of exemption earlier created in favour of petitioner. \n \nCrescent Pak Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Central Board of Revenue 1990 PTD 29 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos.D-1298, 1301 and 1302 of 1988, 183 and 184 of 1989, decision dated: 12-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND HAZIQUL KHAIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal Raad and A. Sattar Memon for Petitioner. M. Hasan Adil Khatri, Standing Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KAMRAN ENTERPRISES (Pvt.) Ltd\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 219 = 1991 SLD 219 = 1991 PTD 522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)--S. 7---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R. 11 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Exemption from payment of sales tax---Question whether certain type of cotton waste was soft cotton waste covered by P.T.C. Hdg. 55.03 or it was another kind of cotton waste falling under P.T.C. Hdg. 55.04 which was exempt from levy of sales tax, was a question of fact which could not be raised in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Central Excise Rules, 1944=11", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-179 of 1990, heard on 19-09-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rasheed A. Akhund for Petitioner. Arif Hussain Khilji for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NAGINA COTTON MILLS Limited\nvs\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 220 = 1991 SLD 220 = 1991 PTD 525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)--S. 2(11)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Statutory functionaries after holding inquiry found that goods seized, bore Trade Mark of \"\"Service\"\" used by Corporation for its products and that seized goods were manufactured on behalf of Corporation who held rights of sale and other rights to goods---Corporation did not disown seized goods nor it was its case that goods were not in its possession at time of seizure--¬Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked in case of question of fact for which an inquiry under law had been made by statutory functionaries. \n \nEnglish Boot House Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and another 1986 PTD 247 and Khurshid Marble Industries v. Central Board of Revenue and another 1985 CLC 2.137 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(11)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.529 of 1987, decision dated: 14-11-1990, hearing DATE : 4-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND HAZIQUL KHAIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Muhammad for Petitioner. Arif Hussain Khiljee for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SERVICE SALES CORPORATION, (Pvt.) Ltd\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 221 = 1991 SLD 221 = 1991 PTD 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---S. 3(4)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr. 53, 226, 237, 238 & 246---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Confiscation of goods---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Allegations against company were that production, clearance and counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents were not paying any heed even to this clarification on the point. In proof of their statement that they were being charged sales tax on both kinds of the cotton waste, the petitioners filed on record a table in respect of such payments. This is Annexure. \"\"D-1\"\" and is attested by the Inspector, Central Excise and Land Customs posted at the premises of the petitioner mill. Learned counsel for the petitioners then brought to our notice three letters sent by the petitioners to Respondent No.1 (Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Hyderabad) balance of goods, manufactured and cleared by company within one month, were not entered in R.G-1. registered, prescribed for the purpose and huge quantity of finished goods were found to have been .removed from factory without payment of sales tax and further large quantity was found unaccounted---Authorities on presumption that excess quantity of goods produced by company were removed by it without payment of sales tax leviable thereon, ordered confiscation of alleged excess quantity, allowing petitioner to exercise option to redeem goods on payment of fine alongwith sales tax---Authorities while deciding case, completely ignored and omitted to consider documents annexed by petitioner to the reply to show-cause notice issued to petitioner by Authorities below---Orders of Authorities based on no evidence and passed without applying their mind to facts of case, held, could not be sustained---Nigh Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside orders of Authorities below and remanded case to be decided afresh after giving parties opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(4)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Central Excise Rules, 1944=53,226,237,238,246", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-115 of 1990, decision dated: 29-11-1990, hearing DATE : 22-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner. Naimur Rehman, Standing Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHABBIR TILES AND CERAMICS LIMITED through Managing Director\nvs\nMEMBER (JUDICIAL), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 222 = 1991 SLD 222 = 1991 PTD 551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nSales Tax Act (III of 1951) - S.3(4)\no\nIssue: Recovery of sales tax on unaccounted raw material.\no\nOutcome: Authorities lacked evidence of stealthy removal of raw materials or manufacturing of non-taxable products. Charge-sheet was deemed speculative. Assessee rebutted charges successfully, and no liability was established.\n2.\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973) - Article 199\no\nIssue: Scope of constitutional jurisdiction.\no\nOutcome: Constitutional jurisdiction is limited but applies where findings are based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or arbitrary actions causing injustice.\n3.\nExemption under Sales Tax Act and Central Excise Rules\no\nOutcome: Goods exempt from excise duty are taxable under sales tax only if the Central Board of Revenue directs so. Lack of such direction rendered recovery proceedings void.\n4.\nAssessment Irregularities\no\nOutcome: Repeated non-compliance with product weighing directions invalidated tax recovery proceedings, which were declared illegal and without jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(4),Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Central Excise Rules, 1944=52A,210,226", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.1003-D of 1988, decision dated: 2-01-1991, hearing DATE : 12-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Petitioner. Umar Qureshi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ULBRICHTS PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR-II, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 223 = 1991 SLD 223 = 1991 PTD 562", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nSales Tax Act (III of 1951) - Ss. 5(2), 3(4), and Circulars\no\nIssue: Authority of Customs and Central Excise officials acting as Sales Tax Officers.\no\nOutcome: Officials’ powers depend strictly on directives issued by the Central Board of Revenue.\n2.\nReopening of Assessments\no\nIssue: Whether assessment reopening via R.10 of Central Excise Rules was valid.\no\nOutcome: Reopening is lawful only via S.28 notice under the Sales Tax Act. Failure to comply invalidated such actions.\n3.\nConstitutional Petition\no\nOutcome: Assessee may bypass statutory remedies for jurisdictionally flawed actions by directly invoking constitutional remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=5(2),3(4),28Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Central Excise Rules, 1944=10", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-724 of 1985, decision dated: 9-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioner. Nazar Akbar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, CITY CIRCLE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 224 = 1991 SLD 224 = 1991 PTD 618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nSales Tax Act (III of 1951) - Ss. 3(2), 7\no\nIssue: Discrimination between ingots and billets. \no\nOutcome: Discriminatory tax treatment violated constitutional guarantees of equality and lawful authority. Relevant notifications were invalidated.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(2),7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4,18,25Central Excise Rules, 1944=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-1087, D-1167 to D-1176, D-1203 of 1989 and D-158 of 1990, decision dated: 24-03-1991, hearing DATE : 18-02-1991", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sharif, Akram Zubair, Mustafa Lakhani and S. Tariq Hussain for Petitioner. Zahir-ud-Din Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMED INVESTMENT (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Managing Director\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 225 = 1991 SLD 225 = 1991 PTD 654 = 1993 PTCL 278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nSales Tax Act (III of 1951) - S.7\no\nIssue: Tax exemption for telephone cables.\no\nOutcome: Telephone cables, though part of machinery, did not meet the restrictive definition of “machinery” in the notification and were not exempt.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Customs Act, 1969=FirstSchedule", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-725 of 1989 and D-806 of 1987, decision dated: 10-02-1991. dates of hearing: 15th and 16-01-1991", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amanullah Khan for Petitioner. M. Ilyas Khan and Muhammad Jameel for Respondents (in Constitution Petition No. 806 of 1987)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL CABLES (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nTHE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 226 = 1991 SLD 226 = 1991 PTD 678 = 1993 PTCL 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nRes Judicata in Tax Matters\no\nIssue: Reassessment of claims previously decided.\no\nOutcome: Res judicata does not apply to tax proceedings. Authorities may take different views based on fresh evidence in subsequent years.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,17(4)", + "Case #": "S.T.Cs. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1982, decision dated: 15-10-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONEB, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs CAPTAIN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 227 = 1991 SLD 227 = 1991 PTD 778 = (1991) 64 TAX 81 = 1993 PTCL 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nSales Tax on Components\no\nIssue: Taxability of clock bodies used in exempted wall clocks.\no\nOutcome: Clock bodies lacked separate identity from wall clocks, exempting them from sales tax.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(6),3(4)(iv)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.28 of 1987, heard on 4-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": "IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rafiq Ahmed Bajwa for Petitioner. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Dy. A.G. and Ch. Muhammad Ishaq for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAMPION CLOCK COMPANY\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 228 = 1991 SLD 228 = 1991 PTD 783 = (1991) 64 TAX 34 = 1993 PTCL 443", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nNotification Interpretation\no\nIssue: Whether ordinarily applied to all items in the notification.\no\nOutcome: Ordinarily qualified all listed items, granting a broader exemption interpretation favorable to the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No.4 of 1983, heard on 25-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Muqtida Karim for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nvs\nMessrs RIZKI INK COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 229 = 1991 SLD 229 = 1991 PTD 835 = (1991) 64 TAX 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nRefund Claims\no\nIssue: Proof of sales tax payment for refund eligibility.\no\nOutcome: Refund claims failed due to lack of proof of sales tax payment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.36 of 1983, decision dated: 4-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs B.P. BISCUIT FACTORY LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 230 = 1991 SLD 230 = 1991 PTD 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Textile Machinery\no\nIssue: Tax exemption for bobbins as components of textile machinery.\no\nOutcome: Bobbins were exempt based on their role as machinery components.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.73 of 1984, decision dated: 8-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Sirajul Haque for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs PACKAGES LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 231 = 1991 SLD 231 = 1991 PTD 863 = (1991) 64 TAX 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nFair Price Assessment\no\nIssue: Ice-cream manufacturer charging fixed delivery rates.\no\nOutcome: Assessed fair price included delivery charges, justifying tax adjustments under S.11 of the Sales Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=11,2(16)", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 76 of 1983, heard on 20th February 1991", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muktida Karim for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "K. REHMAN MILK FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE \"\"A\"\", KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 232 = 1991 SLD 232 = 1991 PTD 909 = (1991) 64 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Biscuits\no\nIssue: Differentiation of packed/unpacked biscuits for tax exemption.\no\nOutcome: Sales Tax Officer could assess ratios and exemptions on a best-judgment basis.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,17(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.C. No. 27 of 1979, decision dated: 3rd April, 1991", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs A & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 233 = 1991 SLD 233 = 1991 PTD 973 = (1991) 64 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nCattle Feed Exemption\no\nIssue: Whether fodder included feed for tax exemption.\no\nOutcome: Both terms were synonymous and qualified for exemption.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,17(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.C. No. 36 of 1982, decision dated: 20-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Petitioner. N.A. Farooqui for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nvs\nLEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1308 = 2015 SLD 1308 = 2015 PTD 558", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nStay Against Recovery\no\nIssue: Sealing of business premises during tax appeal.\no\nOutcome: Sealing was illegal, and stay was granted pending appeal resolution.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=48,48(1)(d)Sales Tax Rules, 2006=72(1)", + "Case #": "M.A. (Stay) No.1305/LB of 2014 in S.T.A. No.590/LB of 2014, decision dated: 11-06-2014, hearing DATE : 11-06-2014.", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Imran Rashid for Appellant. Sajjad Tasleem, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ABDULLAH PLASTIC\nVs.\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 234 = 1991 SLD 234 = 1991 PTD 1018 = (1991) 64 TAX 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nTaxability of Raw Materials\no\nIssue: Retrospective taxation of exempted raw materials.\no\nOutcome: Taxation lacked retrospective effect; exemption at the time of purchase remained valid.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,8,3(1)(e),4Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.201-K of 1984, decision dated: 26-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, NAIMUDDIN AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Amjad, Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "METALEX CORPORATION LTD.\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 235 = 1991 SLD 235 = 1991 PTD 1089 = (1991) 64 TAX 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nRefund of Sales Tax under Ss. 27(1) & (3), and 27-A\no\nIssue: Refund eligibility under S.27 and S.27-A.\no\nOutcome:\n\nS.27-A is supplementary to S.27, not in conflict.\n\nRefund under S.27 requires an application within four years as per S.27(3).\n\nFailure to file an application within the prescribed time nullifies refund eligibility.\n\nAdjustment under S.27-A cannot be claimed independently of S.27.\no\nSignificance: Strict adherence to statutory requirements for refund applications is mandatory.\n2.\nInterpretation of Statutes\no\nPrinciple: Statutory provisions must be read harmoniously to avoid redundancy or contradiction.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27(1)&(3),27A", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No.2 of 1983, decision dated: 15-04-1991. dates of hearing: 1st and 2-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Sirajul Haque for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nM/S. PACKAGES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 236 = 1991 SLD 236 = 1991 PTD 1096 = (1991) 64 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nTaxability of Intermediate Products\no\nIssue: Liability for sales tax on intermediate product (formaldehyde) during the manufacturing process.\no\nOutcome: Intermediate product (formaldehyde) was taxable as it was independently marketable and had been previously sold. Manufacturer held liable to pay sales tax on formaldehyde used in producing the final product.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,7Central Excise Rules, 1944=10,210,226", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. 905 of 1987, decision dated: 27-02-1990. dates of hearing: 17th and 18-02-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Mansoor for Petitioner. Abdus Sattar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "DYNO PAKISTAN LIMITED\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 280 = 1992 SLD 280 = 1992 PTD 68 = (1992) 65 TAX 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nSales Tax on Goods without Evidence of Tax Payment\no\nIssue: Tax liability for goods purchased from non-licensed manufacturers or wholesalers without evidence of tax payment.\no\nOutcome: Sales Tax Officer justifiably imposed tax under S.12(1) as the assessee failed to provide evidence of prior tax payment.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=12(1)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.230 of 1986, decision dated: 4-09-1991, hearing DATE : 30-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. SAAD SAOOD JAN AND RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Oadri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUFI SOAP FACTORY, \nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX," + }, + { + "Case No.": "4813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 281 = 1992 SLD 281 = 1992 PTD 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nInterpretation of Ordinarily in Notification\no\nIssue: Scope of the word ordinarily in Notification No.7, dated 27th June 1951.\no\nOutcome: Ordinarily applied to all items listed in the notification, broadening the scope of tax exemption.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No.12 of 1985, decision dated: 16-09-1991", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Muktada Karim for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs RAZIKI INK CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 282 = 1992 SLD 282 = 1992 PTD 520 = (1992) 65 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Lozenges\no\nIssue: Tax exemption for lozenges as a medicinal composition under Notification No.7.\no\nOutcome: Lozenges qualified for exemption from sales tax as they fell within the definition of medicinal compositions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No.61 of 1982, decision dated: 6-10-1991. dates of hearing: 16-08-1990 and 6-10-1991", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI C.J. AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Sheikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "BHAGWANDAS MANGHARAM\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYDERABAD ZONE, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 283 = 1992 SLD 283 = 1992 PTD 545 = (1992) 65 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nRefund on Exempted Items\no\nIssue: Refund claim for sales tax paid on vegetable ghee used in manufacturing biscuits after ghee was exempted via notification.\no\nOutcome: Refund denied as sales tax was not included in the excise duty, and exemption removed the goods from the tax net.\n2.\nPrinciples of Statutory Interpretation\no\nKey Principle: Exemption statutes must be strictly interpreted, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(1),6(7),8(2),17,17(1),27,27(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),270A", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals No.112-K to 114-K of 1985, decision dated: 15-05-1991", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRA, AJMAL MIAN AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naim Pasha, Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Shaikh Haider, Advocate Supreme Court and Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "A & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/SALES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 284 = 1992 SLD 284 = 1992 PTD 945 = (1992) 65 TAX 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nInterpretation of Entry 61 in Notification\no\nIssue: Applicability of Entry 61 in Notification No.9 regarding biscuits marketed without brand names.\no\nOutcome: Biscuits sold without a name, brand, or trademark qualified for exemption under Entry 61, but branded products did not.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,7", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Cases Nos.l and 2 of 1982, decision dated: 7th April; 1992, hearing DATE : 1st April, 1992", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs A.B. FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 285 = 1992 SLD 285 = 1992 PTD 1000 = (1992) 66 TAX 167 = 1993 PTCL 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQ1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nJurisdiction of Sales Tax Officers\no\nIssue: Validity of assessments made by unappointed officers.\no\nOutcome: Assessment by Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction, rendering the order invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10", + "Case #": "Constitutional petition No. D-1011 of 1987, decision dated: 20-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Mansoor Khan for Petitioner. Zaherr-ud-Din Khan along with Muhammad Salah-ud-Din, Deputy superintendent Central Excise and Sales Tax, Law Branch, Karachi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN OXYGEN LTD\nvs\nPAKISTAN through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 286 = 1992 SLD 286 = 1992 PTD 1169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nDefinition of Manufacturing\no\nIssue: Whether transferring content from master to copy cassette constitutes manufacturing.\no\nOutcome: Such activity did not qualify as manufacturing under S.2(ii) of the Sales Tax Act.\n2.\nQuasi-Judicial Conduct\no\nOutcome: Tribunal order lacking judicial reasoning was remanded for fresh consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(ii)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 253 of 1990, decision dated: 27-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": "RAZA AHMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tasleem Hussain for Petitioner. Mian Muhammad Ajmal DA.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. SHER BAZ KHAN MUSIC CENTRE\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 287 = 1992 SLD 287 = 1992 PTD 1369 = (1992) 66 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Straw Boards\no\nIssue: Tax exemption for straw boards under Notification No.9.\no\nOutcome: Straw boards fell within the definition of chipboard under the notification, qualifying for exemption.\n2.\nInterpretation Principle\no\nKey Principle: Provisions granting exemptions must be strictly construed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 63 of 1982, decision dated: 30-04-1992, hearing DATE : 9-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND SHAUKAT H. ZUBEDI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ORIENT STRAW BOARD & PAPER MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 222 = 1989 SLD 222 = 1989 PTD 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nRetrospective Effect of Notifications\no\nIssue: Whether delegated legislation can have retrospective effect.\no\nOutcome: Retrospective application of notifications is invalid unless expressly permitted.\n2.\nInterpretation of Cassettes \no\nOutcome: Cassettes for sound recording were exempt, but not audio-visual cassettes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,7", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-3 and D-361 of 1982, decision dated: 29 September 1983, hearing DATE : 5-09-1983", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioners. S. Inayat Ali and Kanwar Mukhtar Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RAZZAK\nvs\nDEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT (PREV). CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, NAZIMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 223 = 1989 SLD 223 = 1989 PTD 42 = (1989) 59 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nDefinition of Manufactured Goods \no\nIssue: Whether glass shells used in bulb manufacturing qualify as manufactured goods. \no\nOutcome: Glass shells were considered manufactured goods and taxable separately despite bulbs being exempt.\n2.\nFiscal Interpretation\no\nPrinciple: Ambiguities in fiscal statutes must be resolved in favor of taxpayers.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(4)(6),6(d)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=FourthSched.", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.887 and 897 of 1988, decision dated: 3rd November, 1988", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, CJ AND ABDUL RAHIM QAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mohammad Faridul Haq for Petitioners. S.M. Noorul Hassan for A.G. (on Court notice)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ELECTRIC LAMP MANUFACTURERS OF PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 224 = 1989 SLD 224 = 1989 PTD 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Prescription Chemicals\no\nIssue: Tax exemption for chemicals used in pharmaceutical production.\no\nOutcome: Prescription chemicals were exempt under Notification No.7, item No.35.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1979, decision dated: 17-08-1988", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND AHMED ALI U. KURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Appellant. S. Zamirul Haque for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER FOR SALES TAX, KARACHI\nvs\nEVANS MEDICAL LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 225 = 1989 SLD 225 = 1989 PTD 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Exports\no\nIssue: Tax liability for goods purchased for export contracts.\no\nOutcome: Purchases for export fulfillment were exempt from taxable turnover.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 221 to 231 (M) of 1986, decision dated: 21st July, 1986", + "Judge Name:": "P.N. BHAGWATI, C.J., V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CANDRA EXPORTS and others\nvs\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 226 = 1989 SLD 226 = 1989 PTD 77 = (1989) 59 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nInclusion of Insurance Charges in Turnover\no\nIssue: Whether insurance charges in bills should be included in taxable turnover.\no\nOutcome: Insurance charges were includible in turnover for tax calculation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2959-D to 2961-D of 1985, decision dated: 18-02-1987", + "Judge Name:": "R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND RANGANATH MISRA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.T. Desai, Senior Advocate, Kailash Vesdev and Naunit Lai, Advocate for Appellants. T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Ms. Sunita and W.A. Qadri for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "HYDERABAD ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS LTD., HYDERABAD\nvs\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 227 = 1989 SLD 227 = 1989 PTD 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nBurden of Proof for Exemption Claims\no\nIssue: Responsibility for proving entitlement to tax exemptions.\no\nOutcome: Claimants must establish eligibility; the department must disprove claims with evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Cases Nos. 4 and 4-A of 1979, decision dated: 15-09-1988", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs HERCULES CANVAS MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 228 = 1989 SLD 228 = 1989 PTD 145 = (1989) 59 TAX 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nReasonable Notice for Tax Assessment\no\nIssue: Validity of a three-day notice under Form SST-24.\no\nOutcome: Three-day notice was unreasonable and invalid. Reasonable time must be provided for compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 16 of 1979, decision dated: 4-09-1988. dates of hearing: 18th and 19-04-1988", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN, C.J. AND SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naim Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nINTERNATIONAL FISHERIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 611 = 2002 SLD 611 = 2002 PTD 2570 = 2003 PTCL 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nProcedure for Difference of Opinion in Appellate Tribunal\no\nIssue: Difference of opinion between Members of the Appellate Tribunal.\no\nOutcome:\n\nPoints of difference must be explicitly recorded and agreed upon by the Members before referring the matter to the Chairman.\n\nThe third Member's opinion resolves the matter, and the final decision must be signed by all Members who heard the case.\n\nRecording of the Tribunal’s order solely by the Chairman, without hearing the parties, is invalid.\no\nSignificance: Ensures adherence to procedural fairness and collaborative decision-making in multi-member tribunals.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=1(2),46Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=35B,35DCustoms Act, 1969=194C(5)", + "Case #": "S. A. No. 377 of 2001, decision dated: 26-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Appellant. M. M. Akram for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEPUTY COLLECTOR SALES TAX\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, EXCISE AND SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 229 = 1989 SLD 229 = 1989 PTD 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nLiability for Sales Tax Post Management Change\no\nIssue: Liability for sales tax after reassumption of mill possession by the original owner.\no\nOutcome: Assessee held liable for sales tax under S.10(4), as assessment was justified based on available records and repeated notices for submission of statements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10(4)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-260 of 1973. decided on 21st December, 1988. dates of hearing: 14th and 15-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioner. Shaikh Hyder for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. KA. Wahab for Respondent No. 5", + "Petitioner Name:": "WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 230 = 1989 SLD 230 = 1989 PTD 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nLegislative Competence in Tax Recovery Procedures\no\nIssue: Statute providing recovery procedure for wrongly collected tax.\no\nOutcome: Such statutes are valid and within legislative competence.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1862(NT) of 1971, decision dated: 29-10-1986", + "Judge Name:": "P.N. BHAGWATI, C.J., RANGANATH MISRA, V. KHALID G.L. OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KASTURI LAL HARLAL\nvs\nSTATE OF U.P. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 231 = 1989 SLD 231 = 1989 PTD 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nFactual Determination of Taxable Goods\no\nIssue: Classification of consignment as strips or wire. \no\nOutcome: Tests confirmed the consignment was wire, concluding the factual controversy. Leave to appeal was denied as tests were conducted with adequate notice and no defects were found.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.381 of 1981, decision dated: 13-07-1988", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND, JAVID IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Advocate (absent) and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs M. SHAH MUHAMMAD & SONS\nvs\nPAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 232 = 1989 SLD 232 = 1989 PTD 562 = (1989) 60 TAX 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nPowers of Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under S.28-A\no\nIssue: Revision of assessment orders prejudicial to revenue.\no\nOutcome:\n\nInspecting Assistant Commissioner can revise erroneous orders affecting revenue, provided the assessee is given notice and an opportunity to explain.\n\nFive-year limitation applies.\n2.\nPreservation of Records\no\nAssessees must retain records for at least five years post-assessment to comply with legal requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28(1)(a),19", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Cases Nos, 65 to 67 of 1979, decision dated: 15-03-1989, hearing DATE : 22nd December; 1988", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Appellant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS A & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD\nvs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 233 = 1989 SLD 233 = 1989 PTD 577 = (1989) 60 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Sanitary Articles\no\nIssue: Seizure of cast iron pipes exempt from sales tax.\no\nOutcome: Seizure was illegal as the pipes were exempt as sanitary fittings under applicable tariff entries.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Constitutional, Petition No.75 of 1988, heard on 23rd November, 1988", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Petitioner. Abdul Sattar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CENTRAL MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CO\nvs\nDEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT (PREV), CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS S.I.T.E. DIVISION, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 234 = 1989 SLD 234 = 1989 PTD 594 = (1989) 60 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nReference and Re-assessment Timing\no\nIssue: Limitation for re-assessment under S.28-A.\no\nOutcome:\n\nRe-assessment must occur within five years from the original assessment order.\n\nProvisions of S.10(7) are inapplicable to re-assessments initiated under S.28-A directives.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,10(7),28A", + "Case #": "Sales Tax References Nos.29, 30 and 32 of 1979, heard on 22-12-1988", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND ALLAHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nA & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 235 = 1989 SLD 235 = 1989 PTD 605 = (1990) 61 TAX 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nReasonable Notice Period in Assessment\no\nIssue: Reduction of notice period for compliance under S.28.\no\nOutcome: A 35-day period must be observed; reducing it renders the notice invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28,17(2)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No.28 of 1979, decision dated: 1st November, 1988", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs A & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 236 = 1989 SLD 236 = 1989 PTD 696", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nTurnover Inclusion for Distributors\no\nIssue: Inclusion of a transaction in the distributor’s turnover.\no\nOutcome: Transaction was included as the distributor acted as a purchaser, not an agent.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.523 (NT) of 1975, decision dated: 4th, May 1988", + "Judge Name:": "R. S. PATHAK C.J. AND M.H. KANIA., J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALWAYS AGENCIES\nvs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL Income Tax AND SALES-TAX, ERNAKULAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 237 = 1989 SLD 237 = 1989 PTD 770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nRefund of Sales Tax on Vegetable Ghee\no\nIssue: Refund eligibility for tax paid on ghee used in biscuits.\no\nOutcome: Refund denied as the ghee was exempt, and sales tax was not levied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,27(2)", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.27 of 1981 decided on 16-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Appellant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nvs\nMessrs A & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 238 = 1989 SLD 238 = 1989 PTD 771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nTaxability of Incomplete Film as Goods\no\nIssue: Sale of incomplete film classified as goods.\no\nOutcome:\n\nIncomplete film is goods and taxable under the Act.\n\nA single sale outside the scope of business is not taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.408 of 1975, decision dated: 22-12-1987", + "Judge Name:": "RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU\nvs\nTHIRU MURUGAN BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 239 = 1989 SLD 239 = 1989 PTD 774", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Cement Used in Energy Generation\no\nIssue: Exemption for cement used in energy-related projects.\no\nOutcome: Exemption granted based on certification, irrespective of actual use.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.937-38 of 1975, decision dated: 20-11-1987", + "Judge Name:": "M.H KANIA AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE OF HARYANA\nvs\nDALMIA DADRI CEMENT LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 240 = 1989 SLD 240 = 1989 PTD 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nRebate Eligibility with Late Return Filing\no\nIssue: Denial of rebate due to delayed returns.\no\nOutcome: Rebate allowed as authorities accepted the late returns, implying extension of filing time.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 948 to 950 of 1975, decision dated: 4-12-1987", + "Judge Name:": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FERTILISER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD\nvs\nSTATE OF BIHAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 241 = 1989 SLD 241 = 1989 PTD 781", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nClassification of Eucalyptus Wood\no\nIssue: Whether eucalyptus stacks qualify as timber. \no\nOutcome: Stacks without poles and ballies were not classified as timber.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 4026 and 4027 of 1987 in Special Leave Petition, (C) Nos. 1558 and 922 of 1987, decision dated: 18-12-1987", + "Judge Name:": "S. NATARAJAN AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL & Co\nvs\nSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 242 = 1989 SLD 242 = 1989 PTD 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Medicaments\no\nIssue: Classification of Nitrous Oxide Gas as a medicament.\no\nOutcome: Declared exempt as a therapeutic agent under relevant tariff headings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-351 of 1987, decision dated: 12-01-1989", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL RASUL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. A. Sattar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN OXYGEN LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 243 = 1989 SLD 243 = 1989 PTD 839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nPromissory Estoppel Against the Government\no\nIssue: Withdrawal of tax incentives for entrepreneurs.\no\nOutcome:\n\nGovernment estopped from withdrawing promised concessions without adequate justification.\n\nIncentive schemes operate as effective exemptions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2204 to 2247 of1980, decision dated: 5-05-1988", + "Judge Name:": "R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND M.H. KANIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ASST.) AND DHARWAR and others\nvs\nDHARMENDRA TRADING CO. Etc.ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 244 = 1989 SLD 244 = 1989 PTD 844 = (1989) 60 TAX 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Power Loom Products\no\nIssue: Scope of exemption for products of power looms.\no\nOutcome: Exemption applied to all power loom products, not limited to textiles.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-364 of 1982 decided on 21st February, 1989, hearing DATE : 21st February,1989", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riaz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner. Respondent (absent.)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AMIE INVESTMENT LTD.\nVs\nPAKISTAN through its Secretary Ministry of Finance Planning and Development, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 245 = 1989 SLD 245 = 1989 PTD 959", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nExemption for Components in Machinery Imports\no\nIssue: Exemption for components imported with machinery.\no\nOutcome: Full exemption granted for machinery components imported as part of complete units.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-216 of 1982, decision dated: 1st March, 1989", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Inyat Ali for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "STAR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nVs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 246 = 1989 SLD 246 = 1989 PTD 961", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "221.\nClassification of Diaries under Pakistan Customs Tariff\no\nIssue: Classification of diaries as per Pakistan Customs Tariff (PCT) headings.\no\nOutcome:\n\nDiaries with blank spaces for recording events fall under PCT heading 48.18, not Chapter 49.\n\nBooks derived from diaries of travelers or scientists fall under Chapter 49 as printed books but are excluded from diaries. \n\nDiaries produced in Pakistan are chargeable to sales tax under S.3(1)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, as they are goods manufactured locally.\n2.\nSales Tax Exemptions\no\nIssue: Exemption procedures and applicability.\no\nOutcome: Goods exempt from sales tax under S.7 require notification compliance. Past circulars cannot automatically extend exemptions to new scenarios unless explicitly stated.\n3.\nPrinciples of Fiscal Statutes Interpretation\no\nKey Rule: Charging sections of tax statutes must be strictly construed, favoring taxpayers. However, assessment and collection provisions are more flexible and serve as machinery for implementing the law.\n4.\nProviso Impact in Statutes\no\nRule: Provisos generally limit or clarify main provisions but may expand scope when legislative intent is clear.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,4,28,10,7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=9", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5319 of 1988, decision dated: 18th March. 1989. dates of hearings: 16th, 17th January and 1st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Petitioner. Syed Niaz Ali Shah, Standing Counsel with Khalid Bashir, Assistant Collector. Central Excise for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FRIENDS SONS AND PARTNERSHIP CONCERN\nVs \nTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 247 = 1989 SLD 247 = 1989 PTD 1061 = (1990) 61 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nInvalidity of S.28 Notices\no\nIssue: Issuance of notice under S.28 despite existing returns under S.10(3).\no\nOutcome: Tribunal held that notice under S.28 was redundant since returns had already been filed. Assessment based on S.10(3) returns was valid despite procedural irregularities in notices.\n2.\nExemption for Shotguns under Notification\no\nIssue: Whether shotguns are exempt under Item 2 of Notification No.9 of 1951.\no\nOutcome: Shotguns classified as sports goods were not exempt from sales tax under the specified notification.\n3.\nIncome-Tax Immunity and Sales Tax\no\nIssue: Immunity under S.3-C of the Income Tax Act for disclosed income.\no\nOutcome: Immunity applies only to undeclared income disclosed under S.3-C. Income declared in normal filings is not exempt.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10(3),28,7Income Tax Act, 1922=3C", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 15 of 1983, decision dated: 31st July, 1989. dates of hearing :8th 14th and 15-02-1989", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI G. KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Applicant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SAIFUDDIN GHULAMALI AND SONS, HYDERABAD\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 248 = 1989 SLD 248 = 1989 PTD 1299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nConditions for Exemption under SRO 7(1)/83\no\nIssue: Fulfillment of conditions for exemption from sales tax on goods manufactured after July 1, 1980.\no\nOutcome:\n\nConditions (i) and (iv) must be met by the assessee, while (ii) and (iii) fall under the department’s purview.\n\nNon-compliance with any condition renders the exemption inapplicable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.792 of 1989, decision dated: 17-06-1989", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Najib Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner. Qureshi Muhammad Hafeez Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAUJI FOUNDATION TRUST\nVs\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 147 = 1988 SLD 147 = 1988 PTD 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "1.\nMandatory Compliance with S.28(2) Notice Period\no\nIssue: Curtailment of mandatory 35-day notice period under Form S.J.15.\no\nOutcome: Sales Tax Officer cannot reduce the statutory notice period. Any such reduction violates the legal framework.\no\nCase Referenced: Commissioner of Sales Tax Karachi v. Messrs Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. Karachi 1985 PTD 282.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 41 of 1976, decision dated: 24-08-1987", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND ALLAHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPAKISTAN FISHERIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 148 = 1988 SLD 148 = 1988 PTD 54 = (1988) 58 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.3(1), (4), (6)\n•\nIssue: Tax liability on aluminium rods manufactured for use in cables/conductors exempt from sales tax.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAluminium rods are classified as manufactured goods and taxable under S.3(1).\no\nTax becomes payable under S.3(4)(iv) when the rods are actually used in manufacturing cables/conductors, even if the final product is exempt.\no\nPrevious cases affirmed this interpretation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(1)(4)(6)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax cases Nos. 31 to 34 and 42 of 1982 and 49 to 53 of 1986, decision dated: 11-11-1987, hearing DATE : 29-10-1987", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Ali Atta-ul-Aziz for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs PAKISTAN CABLES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 149 = 1988 SLD 149 = 1988 PTD 157 = (1973) 28 TAX 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.7(1)—Notification No.9\n1.\n Hot-patches as Cycle Accessories:\no\nHot-patches were classified as accessories under Notification No.9 and hence exempt from sales tax.\no\nAccessories include components aiding the primary function of the main item.\n2.\nOnus of Proof for Exemption:\no\nThe burden lies on the assessee to prove eligibility for exemption by meeting all conditions strictly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(1)", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.60 of 1967, decision dated: 15-05-1973", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S h. Abdul Haq for Applicant. Muhammad Amin Butt for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX\nVs\nLUTFI & COMPANY (PAKISTAN)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 150 = 1988 SLD 150 = 1988 PTD 321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.39\n•\nIssue: Informant's claim for reward regarding evasion of customs duty and sales tax.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nInformant entitled to reward even though the goods were released, as the evaded amount was recovered.\no\nThe High Court directed payment of the reward under para. 5 of the Notification.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=39Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-82 of 1986, decision dated: 20-10-1987", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. H. Malik for Petitioner. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Lt. (Retd.) HAZAR MUHAMMAD MALIK\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 151 = 1988 SLD 151 = 1988 PTD 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.7(3)\n•\nIssue: Retrospective exemption of steel ammunition containers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Government exempted sales tax on containers retrospectively through SRO 909(1)/85.\no\nAssessee granted exemption as the supplies were made in good faith and based on government representations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7(3)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-53 of 1984, decision dated: 24-09-1987. dates of hearing: 23rd and 24-09-1987", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Abdul Aziz for Petitioners. Shaikh Haider and Rasheed A. Akhund for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs JAFFAR IBRAHIM & CO. LTD.\nVs\nSALES TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 612 = 2002 SLD 612 = 2002 PTD 2591 = (2002) 86 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)—S.19 & 14(1)(ii)\n•\nIssue: Arbitrary registration of retailers by spot survey teams.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman ruled that retailers could only be registered after determining supplies exceeded the threshold of Rs. 5 million in the preceding 12 months.\no\nRecommendations included proper enquiry and adherence to procedural fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=19,14(1)(ii)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10(4)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1752 of 2001, decision dated: 26-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Ghulam Hussain for the Complainant. Sultan Haider, Assistant Collector, Headquarters for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KHANIAN ORIENTAL CARPETS & RUGS, ISLAMABAD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 613 = 2002 SLD 613 = 2002 PTD 2650 = (2002) 86 TAX 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)—S.34\n•\nIssue: Levy of additional tax through computer-generated demand without due process.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman highlighted maladministration due to lack of valid orders.\no\nRecommended corrective measures and actions against negligent officers.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1562-L of 2001, decision dated: 4-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Ghulam Asghar for the Complainant. Aftab Ahmad Bhatti, Deputy Collector Customs/Sales Tax, Multan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NEW AMJAD FAROOQ COTTON INDUSTRIES, DERA GHAZI KHAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 152 = 1988 SLD 152 = 1988 PTD 471 = (1988) 58 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.3(6)\n•\nIssue: Provision of biscuits to employees under an agreement—whether taxable as a sale. \n•\nOutcome:\no\nTransfer of property in biscuits constituted a sale under the Act due to the existence of consideration (employment benefits).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,19,20,21,22,23,24", + "Case #": "STA Nos. 1/KB and 2/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 28-03-1988, hearing DATE : 20-03-1988", + "Judge Name:": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MANZOOR-UL-HAQUE, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 153 = 1988 SLD 153 = 1988 PTD 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.8 & 17(2)\n•\nIssue: Levy of sales tax on raw materials imported under exemption for manufacturing exempted goods.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSales tax could not be levied on raw materials imported under a manufacturing license for producing exempt goods.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,8,17(2)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 6 of 1977, decision dated: 29-10-1987", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasarullah Awan for Applicant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI\nVs\nALAMGIR ROYAN MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 154 = 1988 SLD 154 = 1988 PTD 535 = (1988) 58 TAX 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.7(1)—Interpretation of Taxing Statutes\n1.\nIssue: Conflicting notifications regarding exemptions and reduced tax rates.\no\nLater special provisions (reduced rates) override earlier general exemptions.\n2.\nPrinciple:\no\nStatutes imposing pecuniary burdens must be interpreted strictly, favoring the taxpayer unless the law clearly imposes the obligation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.243 of 1987, decision dated: 24-04-1988", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Sheikh Masud Akhtar. Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Appellant. Sajjad Ahmad Sipra, Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BISVIL SPINNERS LTD.\nVs\nSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS CIRCLE, SHEIKHUPURA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 155 = 1988 SLD 155 = 1988 PTD 872", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund of Tax Paid Under Mistake\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAssessee entitled to refund of tax paid under an ultra vires provision.\no\nLimitation period for claiming refunds was determined by the date the mistake became known.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Limitation Act, 1908=5,96", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.874 to 876 of 1974, decision dated: 10-04-1986", + "Judge Name:": "SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.A. Gupta for Appellant. A.K. Verma and D.N. Mishra for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P\nVs\nMessrs AURIAYA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALLAHABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 156 = 1988 SLD 156 = 1988 PTD 962", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.28\n•\nIssue: Reopening assessment despite earlier exemption.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSales Tax Officer can reassess if exemption was wrongly granted earlier.\no\nConstitutional petitions challenging procedural notices were premature.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,28Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.355 of 1981, decision dated: 28-06-1988", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JAVID IQBAL, GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt. Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. M. Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHAUDHRI WIRE ROPE INDUSTRIES LTD., .\nVs\nSALES TAX OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLEI," + }, + { + "Case No.": "4860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 614 = 2002 SLD 614 = 2002 PTD 2751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)—S.3 & S.2(33)(a)\n•\nIssue: Taxability of bagasse used as fuel by manufacturers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nBagasse used internally constitutes a supply and is taxable.\no\nThe Central Board's price notification served as the minimum assessable value.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,3,2(33)(a),2(46),45A,33,34S.R.O.178(I),", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(44)ST/IB/2000(PB), decision dated: 15-06-2002, hearing DATE : 12-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Aslam, Controller of Finance of the Appellant Group of Companies. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer of the Collectorate for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 157 = 1988 SLD 157 = 1988 PTD 1000", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)—S.3(6)(d)\n•\nIssue: Retention of manufactured goods for further use—taxability.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSuch retention is treated as a sale, and sales tax is payable when goods are used for further manufacturing.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(6)(d)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.551 of 1988 decided on 31st May, 1988", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EXCIDE PAKISTAN LTD.\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 152 = 1960 SLD 152 = 1960 PTD 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Writs and Limitation in Sales Tax Cases\n•\nPrinciple:\no\nHigh Courts may refuse writ petitions if alternative remedies exist and limitation periods are ignored by the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Orissa High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Original Jurisdiction Case No. 82 of 1958, decision dated: 7th September 1959", + "Judge Name:": "R.L. NARASIMHAM, C.J., AND G. C. DAS, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mohanty and N. C. Mohanty for Petitioner. G. K. Misra for Opposite Party", + "Petitioner Name:": "ORISSA MINERAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, ORISSA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 153 = 1960 SLD 153 = 1960 PTD 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales tax Sale price Transport charges When can be included in sale price Liability of dealer to pay sales tax--Whether depends on his ability to recover from customer.\n \nUnder section 2 (h) of the C. P. and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, as extended to Vindhya Pradesh if transport charges have not been separately charged to the consumer, they become part of the sale price and if they have been separately charged then the taxing authority cannot include them in the taxable turnover of the assessee. The question whether the transport charges were or were not separately charged is a question of fact.\n \nA dealer is liable to pay sales tax whether or not he realises it from the customer. His liability is founded on, section 4 of the Act and does not depend on his ability to recover the tax from the customer or his willingness to do so. Section 8 B is only an enabling provision and not one casting an obligation on the dealer to pass on the amount of the tax to the consumer and realise it from him.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No. 398 of 1958, decision dated: 9th November 1959", + "Judge Name:": "P. V. DIXIT, C.J. AND N. M. GOLVALKER, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. K. Tankha for Petitioner. H. L. Khaskalam, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAGAT PRASAD PATHAK\nVs\nTHE ASSISTANT DISTRICT OFFICER OF SALES TAX, PANNA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 154 = 1960 SLD 154 = 1960 PTD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Dissolved Firms\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTax liability of a dissolved firm can be assessed and recovered from its partners under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=22", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8 of 1959, decision dated: 23-10-1959", + "Judge Name:": "BALAKRISHNA AYYAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Balasubramaniam for Petitioner. R. G. Rajan for the Additional Government Pleader for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "R. PONNUSWAMI GRAMANI\nVs\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CHINGLEPUT DISTRICT and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 155 = 1960 SLD 155 = 1960 PTD 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Public Demands Recovery\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTransferred property can be treated as vested in the transferor for recovering public dues.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Transfer of Property (Pakistan) Ordinance (IV of 1947)=4", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 5 D of 1959, decision dated: 19th January 1960. dates of hearing : 15th, 18th and 19th January 1960", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. S. Suhrawardy, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, (Abu Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Naim-ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney for Appellant.\nA. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Abdul Matin Khan Choudhury, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.\nSyed A. B. Mahmud Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, (Jani Alam, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by K. Shamsul Huda, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 2 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KUMUDINI WELFARE TRUST OF BENGAL LTD.\nVs\nPAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 156 = 1960 SLD 156 = 1960 PTD 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Manufacturers and Sales Tax Liability\n•\nOutcome:\no\nManufacturers using supplied materials for goods intended for another’s use are taxable as manufacturers. ", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(11),2(l5)", + "Case #": "Reference Case No. 10 of 1958, decision dated: 2nd January 1959", + "Judge Name:": "AMIN AHMAD, C.J. AND CHAKRABORTI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. A. Aziz for Applicant. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din with A. M. Khan Chowdhury for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "A. SAMAD KHAN \nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 157 = 1960 SLD 157 = 1960 PTD 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Non-Core Business Activities\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRegular sale of subsidiary products (e.g., cotton waste) constitutes business activity and is taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(c)]", + "Case #": "Sales tax References Nos. 34 and 35 of 1958, decision dated: 23rd July 1959", + "Judge Name:": "SHAH AND S. T. DESAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. P. Mehta for Applicant. M. J. Mistree for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE ARYODAYA SPINNING AND WEAVING Co. LTD\nVs\nTHE STATE OF BOMBAY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 158 = 1960 SLD 158 = 1960 PTD 538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Ginned and Unginned Cotton\n•\nIssue: Tax on transactions involving raw and ginned cotton under the East Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nGinned and unginned cotton are considered the same commodity and fall under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as goods of special importance.\no\nImposing additional tax on such goods under the East Punjab Act violates Section 15 of the Central Act.\no\nPetitioners liable to a maximum tax of 2% on sales within the state and no tax for sales outside the state.\no\nGinning is not considered manufacture under Section 2(ff) of the East Punjab Act.", + "Court Name:": "East Punjab High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Writ No. 359 of 1959, decision dated: 15th December 1959", + "Judge Name:": "G. D. KHOSLA, C.J. AND TEK CHAND, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "F. C. Mittal and D. S. Mehra for Petitioners. S. M. Sikri (Advocate-General) for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAGHBIR CHANDSOMCHAND\nVs\nEXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, BHATINDA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 159 = 1960 SLD 159 = 1960 PTD 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Works Contracts\n•\nIssue: Inclusion of works contracts within the definition of sales for tax purposes.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nWork contracts cannot be classified as sales under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.\no\nTax authorities lack jurisdiction to levy sales tax on such contracts.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1956=", + "Case #": "Tax Revision Case No. 2 of 1958, (against the decision in T. A. 365 of 1956 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum), decision dated: 13th January 1960", + "Judge Name:": "M.A. ANSARI AND P. GOVINDAH MENON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "The Government Pleader for Petitioner. T. N. Subramania Iyer and S. Subramania Iyer for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL Income Tax AND SALES-TAX, KOZHIKODE\nVs\nRAJU ENGINEERING Co.(This is a case under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 and not under the TravancorECochin General Sales Tax Act, 1125-Ed.)." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 160 = 1960 SLD 160 = 1960 PTD 580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedies\n•\nPrinciple:\no\nHigh Courts should not entertain writs if an alternative statutory remedy exists, unless the remedy is onerous or jurisdictionally flawed.\no\nCases requiring evidence are unsuitable for writ petitions.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1956=170", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 86 of 1959, decision dated: 15th January 1960", + "Judge Name:": "AKBAR AND ASIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. M. Abdullah and Abdul Rab for Petitioners. A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din and Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhury for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAND MIAH AND ANOTHERS\nVs\nIncome Tax AND SALES TAX OFFICER II, NARAYANGANJ CIRCLE AND another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 161 = 1960 SLD 161 = 1960 PTD 592", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Animals and Birds in Captivity\n•\nIssue: Whether captive animals and birds (e.g., monkeys, parrots) are goods under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSuch animals and birds are movable property and qualify as goods. \no\nParliament can impose sales tax on them under Entry 97 of List I of the Constitution of India.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "O. P. Nos. 191 and 192 of 1960, decision dated: 25th February 1960", + "Judge Name:": "P. T. RAMAN NAYAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "C. T. Peter, C. T. Joseph and T. C. Karunakaran for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "K. J. ABRAHAM\nVs\nTHE ASSISTANT SALES TAX OFFICER, ALWAYE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 615 = 2002 SLD 615 = 2002 PTD 2845 = 2003 PTCL 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on EVA Sheets for Footwear\n•\nIssue: Taxability of microcellular EVA sheets manufactured and used in-house for footwear.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nEVA sheets are taxable as they are put to business use within the manufacturing process.\no\nConstitutional petition dismissed by the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(33)(35),3(1)---S.R.O.553(I)/94Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7070 of 1996, heard on 10-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioner. Izharul Haq Sheikh for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SERVICE INDUSTRIES LIMITED through Executive (Customs, Excise & Sales Tax) Mirza Rashid Baig\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 162 = 1960 SLD 162 = 1960 PTD 593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—First Sale of Beedies\n•\nIssue: Taxability of beedies purchased from exempt manufacturers and resold by the dealer.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDealers’ sales were considered first sales under Section 5(vii) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, as manufacturers were exempt.\no\nTax was applicable to the dealer's sales.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Tax Revision Cases Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of 1958, decision dated: 10-03-1960", + "Judge Name:": "M.A. ANSARI AND T. C. RAGHAVAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "T. N. Subramania Iyer and S. Subramania Iyer for Petitioners. The Government Pleader for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "A. VASUDEVA PAI AND OTHERS\nVs\nTHE STATE OF KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 163 = 1960 SLD 163 = 1960 PTD 595", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Writ for Refund of Illegally Collected Tax\n•\nIssue: Mandamus for refund of illegally collected sales tax on works contracts.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court quashed assessment orders but did not issue a mandamus for refund.\no\nState allowed to raise lawful defenses during refund proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Mysore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12 of 1957, decision dated: 12th December 1958", + "Judge Name:": "M. SADASIVAYYA AND A. NARAYANA PAI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "J. S. Ullal for Petitioner. B. Venkataswamy for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Syed USMAN SHAH\nVs\nSTATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 164 = 1960 SLD 164 = 1960 PTD 599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Discriminatory Legislation on Hides and Skins\n•\nIssue: Validity of Rule 16 under the Madras Turnover and Assessment Rules, 1939, concerning discriminatory taxation.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRule 16 prescribes a single-point tax without discriminating between imported and locally sourced goods.\no\nIt does not violate Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India and is valid.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 400 of 1957 and Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5527 of 1959, decision dated: 1st December, 1959", + "Judge Name:": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. K. Nambiyar and T. S. Krishnamoorthi Iyer for Petitioner. Advocate General and Government Pleader for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "P. ABDUL SUBHAN & Co.\nVs\nTHE STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 165 = 1960 SLD 165 = 1960 PTD 610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Sales in the Course of Import\n•\nIssue: Whether sales by transfer of shipping documents during import are taxable.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSales occurring during the course of import are exempt under Article 286(1)(b) of the Constitution of India (pre-amendment).\no\nPetitioners' transactions with the Government of India were not taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Petition No. 38 of 1959, decision dated: 25th January 1960", + "Judge Name:": "B.P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND, J. C. SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Purshottam, Tricomdas Senior Advocate (I. N. Shroff Advocate, with him) for Petitioner. A. V. Viswanathu Sastri, Senior Advocate, (R. Ganapathi Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, Advocates with him) for Respondents. N. A. Palkhivala and I. N. Shroff, Advocates, for Interveners Nos. 1 to 3. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India (T, M. Sen, Advocate, with him) for Intervener No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "J. V. GOKAL & CO. (PRIVATE) LTD.\nVs\nTHE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX (INSPECTION) AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 166 = 1960 SLD 166 = 1960 PTD 630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption for Vanaspati Industry\n•\nIssue: Whether vegetable oil sold to a vanaspati industry is exempt from tax.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nVegetable oil used in the production of refined vegetable oil qualifies for exemption under the relevant notification.", + "Court Name:": "Madhya Pradesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Petition No. 128 of 1958, decision dated: 19-01-1960", + "Judge Name:": "P. V. DIXIT, C.J., AND K. L. PANDEY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. D. Sanghi for Petitioner. H. L. Khaskalam, A. G. A. for Opposite Party", + "Petitioner Name:": "UJJAIN OIL MILLS PRIVATE LTD.\nVs\nTHE SALES TAX OFFICER, UJJAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 167 = 1960 SLD 167 = 1960 PTD 634", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Appeal on Escaped Turnover\n•\nIssue: Appealability of an assessment order under Rule 17(1) of the Madras General Sales Tax Rules, 1939.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSuch orders are original assessment orders and appealable under Rule 13(1) of the Madras Rules, subject to Section 11 conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Tax Revision Case No. 62 of 1957, decision dated: 30-11-1959", + "Judge Name:": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Ramanujam for Additional Government Pleader for Petitioner. K. Srinivasan and D. S. Meenakshisundaram for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE OF MADRAS\nVs\nS. V. SHANMUGHAM & Co" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 168 = 1960 SLD 168 = 1960 PTD 635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Packing Materials\n•\nIssue: Taxability of packing materials used in the performance of contracts where charges for packing materials are not separately shown.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe existence of a sale depends on the agreement, which could be express or implied.\no\nPacking materials used in service contracts are not necessarily sold unless proven otherwise.\no\nTax liability arises if the agreement indicates a sale of the materials, even without profit.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Tax Revision Cases Nos. 79 and 80 of 1957, decision dated: 7th December 1959", + "Judge Name:": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "V. Thyagarajan for T. R. Srinivasa Aiyar for Petitioner. G. Ramanujan for Government Pleader for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BLEACHERS LTD.\nVs\nTHE STATE OF MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 169 = 1960 SLD 169 = 1960 PTD 643", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Oil Chekku Owners\n•\nIssue: Whether an oil chekku owner who purchases oil from others is entitled to exemption under a government notification.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption is not available if the person trades in oil not produced by their own chekku.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 664 to 667 of 1959 decided on 11-02-1960", + "Judge Name:": "RAMASWAMY, J, MUTHIAH CHETTIAR, IN RE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Srinivasagopalan for Petitioner. M. Narayanamurthi for The Public Prosecutor for the State", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 170 = 1960 SLD 170 = 1960 PTD 644", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—First Sale of Beedies\n•\nIssue: Liability of first sales to tax under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe first sale, within the state by a non-exempt dealer, is liable to sales tax, separating it from subsequent sales.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Tax Revision Case No. 1 of 1958, decision dated: 22-12-1959", + "Judge Name:": "M.A. ANSARI AND T. C. RAGHAVAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Madhava Prabhu and D. A. Kamath for Petitioner. The Government Pleader for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "SADHOO BEEDI DEPOT\nVs\nSTATE OF KERALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 171 = 1960 SLD 171 = 1960 PTD 720", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Horticultural Produce\n•\nIssue: Whether converting coconut husks into fiber retains the exemption for horticultural produce.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFiber made from husks is exempt if the processing is minimal and makes the produce marketable.\no\nThe character of horticultural produce is retained.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of India=", + "Case #": "Tax Revision Case No. 16 of 1958 against the decision in T. A. No. 16 of 1957 on the file of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Trivandrum,decided on 22nd February 1960", + "Judge Name:": "M.A. ANSARI AND T. C. RAGHAVAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "The Government Pleader for Petitioner. O. T. Silvester for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL, Income Tax AND SALES TAX, KERALA STATE\nVs\nA. P. RAMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 172 = 1960 SLD 172 = 1960 PTD 1308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Bleaching and Dyeing Materials\n•\nIssue: Liability to sales tax on raw materials used in bleaching and dyeing for other mills.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRaw materials used in processing third-party goods are not considered to be used for manufacturing goods for sale by the processor.\no\nPetitioners directed to follow statutory remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Punjab High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of India=226", + "Case #": "Civil Writ No. 1050 of 1958, decision dated: 8th December 1959", + "Judge Name:": "MEHAR SINGH AND DUA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bhagirath Dass and S. S. Mahajan for Petitioner. H. S. Doabia for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "PUNJAB WOOLLEN TEXTILE MILLS\nVs\nASSESSING AUTHORITY, SALES TAX, AMRITSAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 173 = 1960 SLD 173 = 1960 PTD 1319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Manufacturing from Customer Scrap\n•\nIssue: Whether converting scrap into finished products constitutes a sale.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nNo sale is involved when the transaction is limited to labor charges for converting scrap into finished products.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 168 of 1958 (Revision No. 97/58), decision dated: 21st December 1959", + "Judge Name:": "RAJAGOPALAN AND RAMACHANDRA IYER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. V. Venkatasubramania Iyer and Sethuraman for Petitioner. The Advocate General and The Government Pleader for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE SOUTH INDIA METAL WORKS AND ROLLING MILLS\nVs\nTHE STATE OF MADRAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 174 = 1960 SLD 174 = 1960 PTD 1353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Confidentiality of Returns\n•\nIssue: Whether sales tax returns can be disclosed in court.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nReturns and statements are confidential unless privilege under the Evidence Act applies.\no\nRule 47 of the General Sales Tax Rules allows disclosure under certain conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=54", + "Case #": "C. R. P. No. 146 of 1959, decision dated: 16th August 1960", + "Judge Name:": "S. VELU PILLAI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Achuthan Nambiar and T. P. Kelu Nambiar for Petitioners. B. Moosakutty for Respondent. Government Pleader for the State", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDULLA AND ANOTHER\nVs\nASSANKUTTY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 106 = 1982 SLD 106 = 1982 PTD 11 = (1982) 45 TAX 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax— Yarn Waste Distinction\n•\nIssue: Whether cotton yarn waste is distinct from cotton yarn under the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDetermination depends on findings of fact and cannot be resolved as a purely legal question.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(2),7", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Cases NOS. 101 and 102 of 1971, decision dated: 5th October 1981. dates of hearing : 1st and 5-10-1981", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND NASIR A. ZAHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Applicants. Iqbal Kazi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSERS HANIZJEE & SONS, HYDERABAD\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 107 = 1982 SLD 107 = 1982 PTD 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Demand Without Liability Determination\n•\nIssue: Demand for sales tax made without determining the taxpayer’s liability.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCollector directed to refer the case to a competent officer to ascertain liability.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 552 of 1965, decision dated: 16th November 1976", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HASSAN SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javid Hashmi for Petitioner. Saeed ur Rehman Khan, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "CRESCENT FACTORIES LTD. \nVs\nSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 108 = 1982 SLD 108 = 1982 PTD 17 = (1982) 45 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Exported Yarn\n•\nIssue: Whether ginned cotton used to manufacture yarn for export is exempt.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption does not apply to yarn or cloth exported, as raw ginned cotton is considered the taxable material.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,4,17,2(12),3(6)(d)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Cases Nos. 65, 66, 67, 69 and 71 of 1972, decision dated: 26-11-1981, hearing DATE : 11-11-1981", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND G. M. KOUREJO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Appellants. Haider Ali Pirzada for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTd\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST) KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 109 = 1982 SLD 109 = 1982 PTD 51 = (1982) 45 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Nationalized Firms\n•\nIssue: Liability for sales tax during a government takeover.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFormer owners are not liable for sales tax during the period the business was owned and managed by the government.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10", + "Case #": "Application No. 136 of 1972, decision dated: 1st July 1980", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND SULTAN HUSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Habibul Islam Bhuiyan for Applicant. S. M. Hossain with A. N. Mahmudur Rahman for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DACCA ZONE, DACCA\nVs\nDOCKYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD., NARAYANGANJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 110 = 1982 SLD 110 = 1982 PTD 273 = (1983) 47 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Raw Material for Mazri Cloth\n•\nIssue: Whether cotton is raw material for mazri cloth.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nGinned cotton, not yarn, is deemed the raw material for mazri cloth, justifying the Tribunal’s decision.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 232 of 1971, decision dated: 1-11-1973", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haq for Applicant. Muhammad Amin Butt for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nVs\nCRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 111 = 1982 SLD 111 = 1982 PTD 359 = (1983) 47 TAX 48 = 1983 PTCL 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption and Res Judicata in Taxation Matters\nDetails:\nThe petitioners, manufacturers of chipboard, had been exempt from sales tax for the years 1970-71 to 1973-74. However, they were assessed to sales tax for those years. An appeal was filed and accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 18-2-1978. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Department’s appeal on 31-7-1979, and the orders attained finality. On 6-5-1980, the Inspector, Central Excise and Customs, Gujranwala issued a letter stating that the chipboard could no longer be exempt from sales tax, as it could not be considered a substitute for timber. This was based on an instruction from the Central Board of Revenue (CBR), which was issued on 26-3-1980.\nThe petitioners challenged this letter, arguing that it contradicted the judicial determination that had already been made in their favor, and that the CBR had no authority to issue such a letter without any change in the law or the nature of the product. The Deputy Attorney General argued that the writ petition was premature and that the principle of res judicata did not apply to taxation matters because each assessment year is a separate unit.\nHeld:\nThe Court held that the petitioners had been judicially determined to be exempt from sales tax on their chipboard products up to the level of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and there was no change in the law. As such, the CBR had no authority to issue instructions contradicting this prior determination. While the Deputy Attorney General argued that res judicata did not apply to tax matters, the Court found that the principle was applicable unless there were new grounds or a change in the law, neither of which applied in this case.\nThe Court also rejected the argument regarding the availability of an alternate remedy, stating that once the disputed articles were declared exempt from sales tax, the Central Excise authorities could not refuse to clear the goods without payment of tax. The action of the Inspector amounted to harassment, which the Court could address under its constitutional jurisdiction.\nAs a result, the Court declared the actions of the CBR and the Inspector to be without lawful authority, and the writ petitions were allowed, with costs.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Wahiduzzaman (P L D 1965 S C 171)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,6,7Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4935 of 1980, decision dated: 23rd May, 1982", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAFARULLAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Hussain for Petitioner. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, Deputy Attorney General for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SULTAN PAPER BOARD MILLS LTD.\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 112 = 1982 SLD 112 = 1982 PTD 372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Sodium Silicate\n•\nIssue: Dispute on exemption for sodium silicate based on its form.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal required to provide detailed findings on the product's form for High Court review.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(1),(3),7", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 2 of 1972, decision dated: 5-05-1982, hearing DATE : 5-05-1982", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Haider Ali Pirzada for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FARROKH CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 88 = 1983 SLD 88 = 1983 PTD 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Double Taxation and Commodities\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDifferent commodities (e.g., rice and paddy) are not subject to double taxation.\no\nAgriculturists selling paddy are exempt from sales tax.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=6(i)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1801 to 1805 of 1975, decision dated: 24-03-1981", + "Judge Name:": "V. D. TULZAPURKAR, E. S. VENKATARAMIAH AND A. N. SEN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "N. Nattar Advocate for Appellant. J. Ramamurti and Miss R. Vaigat, Advocates for Respondent (in C. A. 1804 of 1975). Respondent .Ex pare (in C. As. 1801 to 1803 and 1805 of 1975)", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE OF KARNATAKA\nVs\nB. RAGHURAMA SHETTY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 89 = 1983 SLD 89 = 1983 PTD 27 = (1983) 47 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund and Definitions\n•\nIssue: Whether refund claims apply to taxes merged with other levies.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRefunds are limited to taxes explicitly collected under the Sales Tax Act.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(18),27", + "Case #": "S. T. As. Nos. 162/KB and 163/KB of 1980.81, decision dated: 14-12-1981, hearing DATE : 18-11-1981", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Ahmed D. R. for the Assesses. Mahmood A. Hashmey for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 90 = 1983 SLD 90 = 1983 PTD 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Registered Dealers\n•\nKey Finding:\no\nOnly registered dealers under the Act can claim statutory benefits.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 631 of 1973, decision dated: 8-10-1980", + "Judge Name:": "P. N. BHAGWATI, A. P. SEN AND E. S. VENKAIARAMIAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. P. Bhatt, (S. P. Nayara with him) for Appellant. Respondent . Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, STATE OF GUJRAT\nVs\nMESSRS UNION MEDICAL AGENCY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 91 = 1983 SLD 91 = 1983 PTD 44 = (1983) 47 TAX 153 = 1983 PTCL 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption – Validity of Purchaser’s Licence and Genuineness\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a licensed manufacturer under section 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, sold goods during the charge year 1963-64 and claimed exemption under section 4(a) for sales worth Rs. 53,479 made to Messrs Amin Weaving Mills, Karachi. The Sales Tax Officer disallowed the exemption on the ground that the buyer was a bogus party, citing later cancellation of the buyer’s manufacturing licence. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, relying on a prior decision involving similar transactions with the same buyer.\nHowever, the appellate authority noted that:\nAt the time of the sales (Feb–March 1964), Amin Weaving Mills held a valid manufacturing licence issued on 1-7-1963.\nThe cancellation and the intimation of such cancellation occurred after the relevant sales (intimation dated 29-5-1965).\nThe timing of the cancellation was not proved to be prior to the sales in question.\nSince section 4(a) only required that sales be made to a licensed manufacturer (which Amin Weaving Mills was at the time of the transaction), the denial of exemption lacked legal basis.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal erred in disallowing the sales tax exemption. The assessee was entitled to exemption under section 4(a) for sales made to Amin Weaving Mills prior to the cancellation of their licence. Question No. 3 (regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's decision) was answered in the affirmative.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4,4(a),4-A,8,17(2)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Case No. 113 of 1972, decision dated: 26-10-1982", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Applicant. \nNasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAZAL SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 92 = 1983 SLD 92 = 1983 PTD 53 = (1983) 47 TAX 191 = 1983 PTCL 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Exemption – Proof of Licensed Purchasers and Validity of Exemption under Section 4\nDetails:\nThe assessee claimed exemption from sales tax under section 4 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 for sales amounting to Rs. 77,13,700 during the charge year 1964–65. The claim was made on the ground that the sales were of partly manufactured goods to licensed manufacturers. The Sales Tax Officer disallowed the exemption, stating that some purchasers had not been issued licences and that the rest, though previously licensed, were either untraceable or had their licences cancelled later. The Assistant Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the disallowance on the grounds that the identity and genuineness of the purchasers could not be established.\nHowever, relying on a prior decision in Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax (1983 PTD 44), the Court held:\nThe assessee only needed to prove that the sale was made to a party holding a valid licence under section 8 at the time of sale.\nSubsequent cancellation of a licence does not invalidate a sale made before such cancellation and prior to the assessee receiving any intimation of the same.\nThe Sales Tax Officer’s own findings indicated that Rs. 29,67,964 worth of sales were made to parties who were issued valid licences by the Department. Thus, exemption for this portion of sales could not be denied.\nThe Tribunal failed to consider this distinction and unjustifiably confirmed the disallowance in full.\nHeld:\nQuestion No. 1 was answered in the negative — the Tribunal was not justified in denying exemption under section 4 for sales made to valid licence-holders, at least to the extent of Rs. 29,67,964. The rest of the issues were not answered. No order as to costs.\nCitations:\nFazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax (1983 PTD 44)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4,8,17(1)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Application No. 70 of 1972, decision dated: 1st November, 1982", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSITCE AND FAKHRUNDDIN H. SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Applicant. \nHaider Ali Pirzada for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 93 = 1983 SLD 93 = 1983 PTD 80 = (1983) 47 TAX 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Non-Licensed Manufacturers\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemptions under Section 4(b) and remedies under Section 27(1) are unavailable to non-licensed manufacturers.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27,4(b),27(1)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1981, decision dated: 13-04-1982", + "Judge Name:": "F. K. M.A. MUNIM, C.J., RUHUL ISLAM, BADRUL HAIDER CHOWDHURY AND SHAHABUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. A. M. Mahmudur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sajjadul Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HAJI NOOR ALI SOWDAGAR & Sorts LTD., CHAKTAI, CHITTAGONG\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CHITTAGONG ZONE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 94 = 1983 SLD 94 = 1983 PTD 108 = (1983) 47 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Export Exemptions\n•\nIssue: Conditions for exemption under export provisions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSeller meeting the conditions of the notification qualifies for exemption.\no\nExport need not be conducted directly by the seller.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Case No. 116 of 1972, decision dated: 29-11-1982", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Appellants. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS H. NIZAM DIN & Sons\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, EAST, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 95 = 1983 SLD 95 = 1983 PTD 114 = (1983) 47 TAX 234 = 1983 PTCL 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Eligibility for Sales Tax Exemption on Export Goods under Notification S.R.O. 51 (R)\nDetails:\nThe appellants, a textile mill, claimed exemption from sales tax on goods sold to exporters during the 1963-64 assessment year. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim, stating that the goods were sold to exporters who were not licensed under section 8(1) of the Sales Tax Act and that no certificate under section 16-A was produced. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision, arguing that the exemption under Notification S.R.O. 51 (R) was only available to exporters, not to manufacturers who exported through agents. The appellants argued that although the goods were sold to unlicensed exporters, they were eventually exported, which the Department did not contest. However, the Tribunal maintained that the exemption did not apply to sales made to unlicensed exporters.\nThe exemption notification provided that goods manufactured in Pakistan and sold for delivery outside Pakistan are exempt from sales tax if actually delivered outside the country. The applicants contended that they had met these conditions, even though the goods were sold to unlicensed exporters.\nThe case referenced a similar case (Adam Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax), where it was held that the exemption applied once the conditions were met, regardless of whether the exporter was licensed. The exemption only required the goods to be manufactured in Pakistan, sold for delivery outside Pakistan, and actually delivered outside the country.\nHeld:\nThe court concluded that the exemption under the notification applies to goods that meet the specified conditions, regardless of whether the exporter is licensed or not. The appellants had met these conditions, and therefore, they were entitled to the exemption from sales tax. The answer to the question posed was in the negative, meaning the Tribunal was wrong in its finding.\nCitations: Notification S.R.O. 51 (R), Sales Tax Act 1951, Adam Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1977) 16 Taxation 97", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,51(R)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 121 of 1972, decision dated: 29-11-1982", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Applicant. \nHyder Ali Pirzada for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "HUSEIN INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 96 = 1983 SLD 96 = 1983 PTD 117 = (1983) 47 TAX 226 = 1983 PTCL 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Bakery Products Served in Hotels and Restaurants under Sales Tax Notification\nDetails:\nThe applicant in these cases is the Commissioner, Sales Tax (Central), Karachi, and the respondent is Pakistan Services Limited, which operates the Hotel Inter Continental. The respondent’s bakery products served in the hotel were subject to sales tax during the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65, and 1965-66. The Sales Tax Officer initially ruled that bakery products manufactured and served in the hotel were not exempt from sales tax. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, granting exemption for bakery products served in the hotel, based on the interpretation of Notification No. 9 dated 27-6-1951.\nThe key issue was whether bakery products served in hotels fell under the exemption for food articles served in hotels and restaurants listed in Item No. 20 of the Notification. Another issue was whether the removal of Item No. 21 (which exempted bakery products) from the exemption list made bakery products taxable.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal was justified in holding that bakery products served in hotels and restaurants fell under the exemption for food articles as described in Item No. 20 of the Notification, as bakery products like pastries and biscuits are generally considered food items. The removal of Item No. 21 did not affect the exemption of bakery products served in hotels and restaurants, as this change pertained to bakery products manufactured by bakeries, not those served in hotels. The Sales Tax Act did not restrict bakery products served in hotels from being exempt. Therefore, the tribunal's ruling that the bakery products were exempt from sales tax was upheld.\nCitations: Notification No. 9 dated 27-6-1951, Sales Tax Act 1951, Annapurna Biscuit (Mfg.) Co. v. State of U.P. (1975), State of West Bengal v. Washi Ahmed (1977), Province of West Pakistan v. Din Muhammad (PLD 1964 SC 21).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,9,39", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Case No. 98 of 1972, decision dated: 7-09-1982", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicant. \nIqbal Nasim Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI\nVs\nM/S PAKISTAN SERVICES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 97 = 1983 SLD 97 = 1983 PTD 133 = (1983) 47 TAX 238 = 1984 PTCL 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Facts:\nThe applicant manufactures steel pipes/tubes from steel sheets through bending and welding.\nClaimed reduced sales tax rate under Notification No. 11 (Item 10: Iron and Steel ).\nAlso claimed exemption under Notification No. 9 (Items 2 & 9: “Bicycle components” and “Cycle accessories”).\nProducts used in cycle frames, but also for steel furniture and building material.\nFindings:\nTribunal held that “iron and steel” in Notification No. 11 referred to raw materials, not finished products like pipes or conduits.\nManufacturing process changes the form and function of raw steel, thus producing a new identifiable product (pipe).\nTherefore, pipes are not entitled to the 5% reduced rate under Notification No. 11.\nAlso held that pipes are not “bicycle components” or “cycle accessories” by themselves and thus not exempt under Notification No. 9.\nHigh Court upheld the Tribunal's view that end products like pipes cannot be equated with basic materials (iron/steel) or bicycle components.\nDecision:\nBoth questions answered in the affirmative (i.e., in favor of the Tax Department).\nApplicants not entitled to reduced tax or exemption.\nNo order as to costs.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7(1),3(1)(a)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Application No. 261 of 1972, decision dated: 25-01-1983", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN AND ALI NAWAZ BADHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Applicants\nShaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 98 = 1983 SLD 98 = 1983 PTD 216 = (1983) 47 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Ship Dismantling and Penalties\n•\nIssue: Taxability of ship dismantling and procedural flaws in penalty imposition.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTax on ship dismantling was upheld as per the agreed turnover.\no\nPenalties imposed without issuing a show-cause notice were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10(3),12(5)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. 12-KB to 15-KB of 1980-81, decision dated: 14-10-1982, hearing DATE : 6-10-1982", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yusuf Sharif, D. R. for Appellant. Mahmood A. Hashmy for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 99 = 1983 SLD 99 = 1983 PTD 221 = (1983) 48 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdiction and Illegal Recovery\n•\nIssue: Whether recovery of sales tax without jurisdiction or procedure is valid.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLack of jurisdiction or procedural flaws renders recovery illegal.\no\nAssessees cannot be penalized for procedural errors if prior declarations were accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=201", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 68 of 1973, decision dated: 11-01-1983", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND FAKHRUDDIN P. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Petitioner. M. Haider Ali Pirzada far Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BUTLA & Co\nVs\nSALES TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE I, EAST ZONE, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 100 = 1983 SLD 100 = 1983 PTD 266 = (1983) 48 TAX 83 = 1984 PTCL 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Partly Manufactured Goods and Liability for Sales Tax under the Sales Tax Act, 1951\nDetails:\nMultiple references (STC Nos. 72–79/72, 93/72, 281/74, and 290/74) arose out of disputes concerning exemption of sales tax on sales of welding electrodes by Messrs Pakistan Welding Electrodes Limited to licensed manufacturers during charge years 1957–58 to 1966–67. The assessee claimed exemption under section 4(1)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 ( the Act ) on the basis that the goods sold were “partly manufactured goods.” Initially, exemptions were granted for years 1957–58 to 1963–64, but were later withdrawn after reassessment under section 28. For subsequent years (1965–66 and 1966–67), the exemption was outright denied.\nThe central issue revolved around whether welding electrodes qualified as partly manufactured goods as defined in section 2(12) of the Act. The definition required such goods to be incorporated into and form a constituent part of the final taxable product.\nThe Tribunal had ruled against the assessee for earlier years and in favour of the assessee for the year 1963–64 where a Rule 16 certificate had been furnished. The department challenged this via references 93/72, 281/74, and 290/74.\nThe assessee, in reference Nos. 72–79/72, pressed for decision only on the question of whether in light of clause (e) added to section 3(1) of the Act in 1967, the Sales Tax Officer (STO) should have proceeded against the purchasing manufacturer rather than the seller.\nHeld:\nWelding electrodes do not qualify as “partly manufactured goods” under section 2(12) of the Act, as they are not incorporated into the final product.\nThe exemption under section 4(1)(a) was not available, irrespective of whether a certificate under Rule 16 was provided.\nThe mere addition of clause (e) to section 3(1) by the Finance Act, 1967, did not shift liability away from the selling manufacturer. The STO was within his rights to demand sales tax from the assessee under section 3(1)(a).\nTherefore, the Tribunal’s decision to uphold tax demand against the assessee was valid and lawful, and all questions raised by the department in references 93/72, 281/74, and 290/74 were answered in the negative.\nQuestion No. 1 raised by the assessee in references 72–79/72 was answered in the affirmative, meaning the assessee was liable for sales tax.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(1)(a),3(1)(e),4,4(1)(a),4(a),17,28Sales Tax Rules, 2006=16", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Application No. 72 of 1982, decision dated: 18-11-1982, hearing DATE : 1st November, 1982", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Petitioner\nHyder Ali Pirzada for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S PAKISTAN WELDING ELECTRODES LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 101 = 1983 SLD 101 = 1983 PTD 271 = (1983) 48 TAX 74 = 1984 PTCL 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Short Notice Period for Filing Return under Section 28(2), Sales Tax Act, 1951\nDetails:\nThis reference was made under Section 17(i) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, for assessment years 1955-56 to 1957-58. The Sales Tax Officer issued notices under Section 28(2) of the Act on 21.6.1965, directing the respondent (assessee) to file sales tax returns by 24.6.1965—effectively providing only a 3-day window. The assessment orders were based on estimated sales and did not receive returns from the assessee.\nThe assessee challenged the validity of the notices and consequent assessments before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who upheld the assessments. On further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessments, holding that the notices were invalid due to the unreasonably short filing period, contrary to the prescribed Form S.S.T. 15 which stipulated a 35-day return period.\nThe Department argued that:\nNeither the Act nor the rules prescribed a fixed timeframe for return submission under Section 28.\nThe 35-day period in Form S.S.T. 15 was not mandatory or binding.\nThe assessee/respondent argued that:\nBy virtue of Section 5(3) of the Act, instructions and forms issued by the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) were binding on all tax officers.\nForm S.S.T. 15, in use since 1951, established consistent departmental practice and was thus legally binding.\nA 3-day notice was neither reasonable nor lawful.\nHeld:\nThe High Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision and held:\nForm S.S.T. 15 prescribed by the CBR, which provides a 35-day period to file returns under Section 28, is binding on Sales Tax Officers by virtue of Section 5(3) of the Act.\nThe deletion of the 35-day period and substitution with only 3 days, intended to complete assessments before the cut-off date of 30.6.1965 (under the newly inserted Section 28(2)), was impermissible and invalidated the notices.\nLong-standing departmental practice creates legitimate expectation and cannot be arbitrarily disregarded, citing Nazir Ahmed v. Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 453).\nReliance was also placed on Indian Supreme Court rulings (Navnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen and Ellerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT) which upheld the binding nature of circulars/instructions issued by tax authorities.\nThus, the notices were void ab initio and the assessment proceedings based thereon were held invalid.\nCitations:\nNazir Ahmed v. Pakistan, PLD 1970 SC 453\nNavnit Lal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen, 1969 PTD 93 (Indian SC)\nEllerman Lines Ltd. v. CIT, (1971) 82 ITR 913 (Indian SC)\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Shaikh Inayatullah, 1966 PTD 287 (Distinguished)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=5(3),17(i),28,28(1),28(2)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Application No. 251 of 1972, decision dated: 18-04-1983, hearing date: 4-04-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZ ZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant\nAli Athar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI\nVs\nMESSRS CHAUDHRY FARZAND ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 102 = 1983 SLD 102 = 1983 PTD 322 = (1983) 48 TAX 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Claims\n•\nIssue: Refund claims based on inclusive invoices and unclear payment records.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRefunds require clear proof of tax payment, including specific invoice details.\no\nClaims relying on inclusive pricing without clarity are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(1},27(I)", + "Case #": "S. T. As. Nos. 23/KB, 23 A/KB and 23 B/KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 12-05-1983, hearing DATE : 26-10-1982", + "Judge Name:": "MRIAD MATHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R. for Appellant. Jqbol Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 103 = 1983 SLD 103 = 1983 PTD 410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Assessments for Non-Filing of Returns\n•\nIssue: Validity of assessments when returns are not filed.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAssessments can proceed under Section 28 even if returns are missing.\no\nProcedural flaws in notices do not necessarily invalidate assessments unless prejudice is demonstrated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,10(1),28,39", + "Case #": "S. T. As. Nos. 46 (KB), 50 (KB) and 67 (KB) to 70 (KB) of 1979-80, decision dated: 18-12-1982", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN, ABRAR HUSSAIN NAQVI AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Shaban for Appellant. Abrar Ahmad, Departmental Representative for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 101 = 1984 SLD 101 = 1984 PTD 1 = (1984) 49 TAX 72 = 1984 PTCL 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Building Components\n•\nIssue: Applicability of exemptions to building materials like doors and windows.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nWooden doors and windows are presumed exempt under historical interpretation of notifications.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,17(1)", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No. 45 of 1971, decision dated: 27-07-1983, hearing DATE : 19-07-1983", + "Judge Name:": "INAYAT ELAHI KHAN AND FAZAL ELAHI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amirzada Khan, Asstt. A. G. for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nMESSRS AMINULLAHNASRULLAH KHAN, TARBELA DAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 102 = 1984 SLD 102 = 1984 PTD 8 = (1984) 49 TAX 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund for Returnable Packages\n•\nIssue: Refund eligibility for sales tax on returnable packages.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRefunds are allowed if goods in returnable packages meet prescribed conditions.\no\nDepartmental instructions conflicting with rules are not enforceable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale Tax Rules, 1951=R-32", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 634 of 1982, decision dated: 12-09-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Harder for Applicant. Malik Muhammad Saeed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "The COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST) KARACHI\nVs\nMESSRS I.C. I. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 103 = 1984 SLD 103 = 1984 PTD 42 = (1985) 52 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Interrelated Businesses\n•\nIssue: Taxability of transactions between related businesses.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSales tax is based on the price at which goods are sold between businesses, not the final consumer price.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale Tax Rules, 1951=R-19", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 4 of 1972, decision dated: 8-12-1981", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah A wan for Applicant. Ali Athar for the Assessee", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI\nVs\nMESSRS PHILIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 104 = 1984 SLD 104 = 1984 PTD 44 = (1985) 51 TAX 111 = 1985 PTCL 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax – Refund/Adjustment on Input Tax for Packing Material – Definition of Partly Manufactured Goods \nDetails:\nThe assessee, owner of a cotton ginning factory, sold cotton bales (liable to sales tax) during assessment years 1958–59 to 1963–64. The bales were packed using hessian cloth, Sutli, and baling hoops, which were purchased from the market and already subjected to sales tax at purchase.\nThe assessee claimed:\nRefund under Section 27(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 for the first four years, and\nAdjustment for the last two years, on the basis that these items became part of the taxed end product.\nThe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Karachi Bench) accepted the assessee’s plea, holding that the said packing materials were “partly manufactured goods” as per Section 2(12) of the Sales Tax Act, and their use in the cotton bales (a taxable product) entitled the assessee to refund/adjustment.\nThe Commissioner of Sales Tax sought reference on the question:\n“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the hessian, bailing hoops, Sutli, etc. are partly manufactured goods and as such are exempted from levy of sales tax?”\nHeld:\nThe High Court answered the question in the affirmative, upholding the Tribunal’s ruling:\nCotton bales sold were taxable as a whole, including the packing material used.\nThe packing material was essential for the sale of the product—without it, the cotton could not be sold as bales .\nTherefore, the hessian cloth, Sutli, and baling hoops were integrated components of the final product and rightly classified as “partly manufactured goods” under Section 2(12).\nA contrary view from a previous 1973 PTD (Trib.) 1 case was distinguished, as that case involved an exempt end product, whereas cotton bales here were not exempt.\nThe Central Board of Revenue’s instruction (No. C-21(16)ST/66, dated 10-9-1966) treating packing material as partly manufactured goods was cited approvingly. Although not binding law, the Court found the instruction reasonable and consistent with statutory interpretation.\nCitations:\n1973 PTD (Tribunal) 1 – distinguished\nCBR Instruction No. C-21(16)ST/66, dated 10-09-1966\nHeld: Tribunal rightly granted refund/adjustment for sales tax paid on packing materials used as integral components of taxable cotton bales.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(12),27(1)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 6 of 1972, decision dated: 8-12-1981", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Haider Ali Pirzada for Applicant\nAli Athar for the Assessee", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI\nVs\nMESSRS CALCUTTA COTTON GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 105 = 1984 SLD 105 = 1984 PTD 125 = (1984) 49 TAX 46", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Corrugated Boards and Refunds\n•\nIssue: Taxability of corrugated boards and eligibility for refunds on raw materials.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCorrugated boards are taxable, but raw materials used in their production may qualify for refunds as partly manufactured goods. ", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(6)(d)", + "Case #": "S. T . A. No. 24 /KB of 1982 83, decision dated: 13-12-1983", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND CHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Ahmad, D. R. for Appellant. I.N Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 106 = 1984 SLD 106 = 1984 PTD 133 = (1984) 50 TAX 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Validity of Licenses for Exemption\n•\nIssue: Exemption claims based on purchaser licenses.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemptions are valid if licenses were active at the time of sale.\no\nThe burden of disproving validity lies with the department.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,4(a),8,17", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 689 of 1972, decision dated: 13-10-1983. dates of hearing : 15th and 21st September, 1983", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "I. N. Pasha for Appellant. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS JUPITER TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 107 = 1984 SLD 107 = 1984 PTD 142 = (1984) 50 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Self-Consumption of Goods\n•\nIssue: Liability for tax on goods consumed by the manufacturer.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nGoods produced and used by the manufacturer are taxable if they are marketable as independent products.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(1)(4)(iv),27(b)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 86 of 1983, decision dated: 21st September, 1983", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawwad S. Khawaja for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ESSKAY LTD.\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 617 = 2002 SLD 617 = 2002 PTD 2780 = 2003 PTCL 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Liability Based on Audit Reports\n•\nIssue: Demand based solely on an audit report.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAudit reports cannot determine liability without confronting the taxpayer.\no\nPetitioner cannot be burdened without due process.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 12355 of 2001, decision dated: 10-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Amir Ali Shah for Petitioner. Khan Muhammad Virk for the Department", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BISMA TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 108 = 1984 SLD 108 = 1984 PTD 216 = (1985) 51 TAX 85 = 1985 PTCL 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Burden of Proof for Exemptions\n•\nIssue: Responsibility for verifying the validity of purchaser licenses.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe department bears responsibility for verifying licenses issued to purchasers.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4,8,16,17(1)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Application No. 634 of 1972, decision dated: 9-10-1983, hearing DATE : 21st September, 1983", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z. C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Appellant\nSalah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S SILVER COTTON MILLS LTD.\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 109 = 1984 SLD 109 = 1984 PTD 259 = (1984) 49 TAX 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdictional Objections\n•\nIssue: Impact of jurisdictional objections on assessments.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAssessees participating in proceedings cannot later challenge jurisdiction.\no\nInspecting Assistant Commissioners are empowered to revise orders.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28", + "Case #": "S. T. As. Nos. 35/LB to 39/LB of 1982 83, decision dated: 20th December 1983, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1983", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir and Muhammad Asghar for Appellant. Qurban Ali Bugti for Departmental Representative for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 110 = 1984 SLD 110 = 1984 PTD 298 = (1984) 49 TAX 102 = 1984 PTCL 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Unsubstantiated Sales Claims\n•\nIssue: Denial of exemption due to failure to substantiate sales.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption is denied if sales are not supported by evidence such as sale receipts and delivery proofs.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4,8", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Case No. 389 of 1972, decision dated: 22-12-1983, hearing DATE : 20-10-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND FARKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Appellant. Salah-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "SULTAN TEXTILE MILLS KARACHI LTD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 111 = 1984 SLD 111 = 1984 PTD 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Retrospective Notifications\n•\nIssue: Validity of retrospective notifications under delegated legislation.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRetrospective effect cannot be given unless explicitly authorized by the statute.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,7", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-3 and D-361 of 1982, decision dated: 29-09-1983, hearing DATE : 5-09-1983", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naeem Pasha and Kanwar Mukhtar Ahmad for Appellant. S. Inayat Ali, State Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RAZZAQ\nVs\nDEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT (PREV), CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS AND OTHERS," + }, + { + "Case No.": "4921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 112 = 1984 SLD 112 = 1984 PTD 381 = (1984) 50 TAX 158 = 1984 PTCL 402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Strict Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nIssue: Interpretation of fiscal statutes and exemptions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTax laws are interpreted strictly based on statutory language.\no\nLegislative intent is secondary if the language is clear.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,57(2)", + "Case #": "Reference Application (Sales Tax) No. 105 of 1973, decision dated: 26-04-1984. dates of hearings: 12th, 14th and 15-03-1984", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. GHANI AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Hyder for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/SALES TAX (CENTRAL ZONE KARACHI\nVs\nMESSRS A & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 113 = 1984 SLD 113 = 1984 PTD 401 = (1985) 51 TAX 62 = 1985 PTCL 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Sodium Silicate Exemption\n•\nIssue: Exemption for Sodium Silicate under specific notifications.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSteam as an integral component makes Sodium Silicate eligible for exemption under the notification.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,7,17(4)", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 47 of 1981, heard on 19-01-1984, hearing DATE : 15-01-1984", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND FAZAL E MAHMOOD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX; ZONE A, \nVs\nMESSRS NEW AL FATEH CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES, MURIDKE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 114 = 1984 SLD 114 = 1984 PTD 410 = (1985) 51 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Mandatory Filing Deadlines\n•\nIssue: Impact of non-compliance with quarterly filing deadlines.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFiling deadlines are mandatory, and non-compliance invalidates assessments.\no\nNotices must strictly adhere to prescribed timeframes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,5(3),10&28,39,40", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 113 of 1974, decision dated: 10-05-1984, hearing DATE : 16-04-1984", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Hyder for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF. SALES TAX, KARACHI (CENTRAL), KARACHI\nVs\nMESSRS PAKISTAN FISHERIES LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 163 = 1985 SLD 163 = 1985 PTCL 36 = (1984) 50 TAX 138 = 1985 PTD 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Sales Tax – Requirement to Prove Actual Payment under Section 27(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951\nDetails:\nThe applicant, a manufacturer of vegetable ghee, claimed a refund of Rs. 6,79,491 on the purchase of cotton seed oil amounting to Rs. 52,07,143, for the period 1-7-1964 to 30-4-1965, asserting that sales tax was payable on those purchases. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the refund claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this, holding that actual payment of sales tax must be proved. The Tribunal framed a question of law for the High Court: whether refund can be ordered merely on the presumption that sales tax was payable, even if actual payment is not proved.\nThe applicant argued that if sales tax was legally payable on the goods, a refund must follow. The respondent countered that section 27(1) mandates proof of actual payment for refund.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that under section 27(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, the phrase “tax has been paid” requires proof of actual payment of tax as a condition precedent to a refund. Mere liability to tax or presumption of tax payment is insufficient. Since the applicant failed to prove that tax had been actually paid on the goods purchased, no refund could be ordered.\nCitations:\nMessrs Tribal Textile Mill Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1980 PTD 373\nMessrs Pakistan Toilet Works v. ITAT and another, 1982 PTD 14\nM/s Noorani Cotton Corporation v. Sales Tax Officer, 1965 PTD 273 (SC) – noted for background on confusion regarding tax liability on cotton seed oil.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,27,27(1)", + "Case #": "Income tax Reference No. 816 of 1972, decision dated: 4-04-1984", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nizam Ahmad for Appellant. \nM. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s MAQBOOL & CO. Ltd.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 164 = 1985 SLD 164 = 1985 PTD 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Sales to Licensed Manufacturers\n•\nIssue: Exemption eligibility when licenses of purchasers are later canceled.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSales made to licensed manufacturers at the time of the transaction qualify for exemption, regardless of subsequent license cancellations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Case No. 46 of 1973, decision dated: 23rd January, 1984", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ARAG INDUSTRIES Ltd.\nVs\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 165 = 1985 SLD 165 = 1985 PTD 204 = (1984) 49 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Exports\n•\nIssue: Proof requirements for exemption on sales to exporters.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption requires proof of actual delivery of goods outside Pakistan.\no\nMere sales to exporters do not suffice.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=8,8(1),7", + "Case #": "Income tax Case No. 696 of 1972, decision dated: 11th October 1983", + "Judge Name:": "Z.C. VALANI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Appellant. Waheed Farooqui for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messers MUHAMMAD HANIF MUHAMMAD SHAFI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 166 = 1985 SLD 166 = 1985 PTD 211 = (1984) 50 TAX 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Use of Partly Manufactured Goods\n•\nIssue: Taxability of raw materials used in finished goods exempt from tax.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nGoods used in the manufacture of other products are taxable under Section 3(6)(d), even if the end product is exempt.\no\nSupreme Court precedent binds High Courts.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(6)(d),17(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=189", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Case No. 171 of 1971, decision dated: 4-04-1984. dates of hearing: 3rd and 4th April 1984", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQI AND ALI NAMAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 167 = 1985 SLD 167 = 1985 PTD 227 = (1985) 51 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Reassessment and Notice Validity\n•\nIssue: Whether reassessment notices not following prescribed forms are valid.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nNotices in prescribed forms are directory, not mandatory.\no\nDepartures are permissible if reasonable periods are provided and no prejudice is caused to the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28,5(3),28(1)(a)(b)", + "Case #": "I.T.A. Nos. 80/KB to 84/KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 24th June 1984, hearing DATE : 19-06-1984", + "Judge Name:": "FARHAT ALI KHAN AND GHULAM MURTAZA KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin e Ajam, D.R. for Appellant. A.A. Gangat, C. A. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 168 = 1985 SLD 168 = 1985 PTD 259 = (1985) 51 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Cottage Industry\n•\nIssue: Interpretation of “assets employed in trade.”\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe term refers to assets already in use and excludes capital available for future use.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.18 (Pb) to 23 (Pb) of 1980 81, decision dated: 19-09-1984, hearing DATE : 18th September 1984", + "Judge Name:": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R. for Appellant. Akhtar Hussain for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 169 = 1985 SLD 169 = 1985 PTD 272 = (1984) 49 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Declarations under Martial Law Regulations\n•\nIssue: Reopening assessments for periods covered by declarations.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDeclarations made under Martial Law Regulations prevent reopening of assessments for the declared period.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.814 of 1972, decision dated: 22-12-1983, hearing DATE : 26-10-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naim Pasha for Appellant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMAD KARACHI HALWA MERCHANT\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 170 = 1985 SLD 170 = 1985 PTD 278 = (1984) 49 TAX 193 = 1984 MLD 475 = 1984 PTCL 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Applicability of Reduced Rates\n•\nIssue: Whether reduced rates apply based on production date or sale date.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSales tax is levied when the sale price is determined, not when goods are produced.\no\nReduced rates apply to goods sold after the effective date of the reduction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(16),3(1),3(3),3(4)Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(1)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3359 of 1981, decision dated: 25-03-1984. dates of hearing: 26th October and 2-11-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawwad S. Khawaja assisted by Salman Aslam for Petitioners. Zia Mahmood Mirza assisted by Sarfraz Ahmed Khan, Deputy Collector and Mumtaz Bhutta, Law Officer, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Ali Bin Abdul Kadir for Respondent No. 5", + "Petitioner Name:": "DARSON RUBBER WORKS INDUSTRIES Ltd. (through Managing Director)\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 171 = 1985 SLD 171 = 1985 PTD 282 = 1985 PTCL 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Non-Filing of Returns\n•\nIssue: Validity of notices with shortened periods for return submission.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe 35-day period prescribed in Form S.J. 15 is mandatory.\no\nShortened periods invalidate assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,28,39,40", + "Case #": "Sales Tax References Nos.113 and 114 of 1974, decision dated: 10-05-1984, hearing DATE : 16-04-1984", + "Judge Name:": "HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs PAKISTAN FISHERIES Ltd., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 172 = 1985 SLD 172 = 1985 PTD 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Assessment Validity\n•\nIssue: Whether lack of a specific notice under Section 28(2) affects assessment validity.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nNotices in other forms that provide an opportunity for representation are sufficient.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,28(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.R. Nos. 199 and 200 of 1973, decision dated: 6th February 1984. dates of hearing: 30th January; 1st and 6-02-1984", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassan Inamullah for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSTAFA Prestressed by R.C.C. Pipe Works Ltd\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 173 = 1985 SLD 173 = 1985 PTD 445 = (1985) 51 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Liability on Raw Materials\n•\nIssue: Taxability of raw materials used in exported finished goods.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption applies to finished goods, not raw materials.\no\nRaw materials like ginned cotton used in yarn and cloth are taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4,4(a)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 789 of 1972, decision dated: 1st November, 1984", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND TANZIL UR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. A. Dareshani for Appellant. Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nFAZAL SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 174 = 1985 SLD 174 = 1985 PTD 449 = (1985) 52 TAX 12 = 1985 PTCL 441", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax – Withdrawal of Exemption, Retrospective Operation of Notifications\nDetails:\nTwo constitutional petitions were filed by purchasers of vessels (“Subt. S. Pride” and “M.V. Harmoney”) imported in 1978 for scrapping. Customs authorities demanded 8% sales tax under section 3(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The petitioners relied on SRO 511/72, dated 13 May 1972, which exempted vessels imported for scrapping from sales tax. Authorities, however, based their demand on SRO 1057(I)/78, dated 24 August 1978, which deleted the exemption by adding a new Para 7 to SRO 820(I)/73, thus bringing vessels under taxable items, though it omitted specifying the tax rate. This omission was later corrected by SRO 1294(I)/78, dated 5 November 1978, which added the 8% rate retrospectively from 24 August 1978.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that:\nSRO 511/72 stood repealed by implication upon issuance of SRO 1057(I)/78, which removed the exemption for vessels.\nThe omission of the tax rate in SRO 1057 was clerical and accidental, not intentional.\nSRO 1294/78, though phrased as retrospective, merely corrected this omission and clarified the concessional rate (8%) instead of the default 20% rate under section 3(2) of the Act.\nSince the clarification was beneficial to the petitioners, there was no prejudice, and the notification could be treated as having effect from 24 August 1978, though not technically retrospective in the penal sense.\nThe petitioners’ challenge failed as the authorities lawfully demanded 8% sales tax, and bank guarantees were lawfully encashed.\nCitations:\nSROs: 511/72 (13 May 1972), 820(I)/73 (9 June 1973), 1057(I)/78 (24 Aug 1978), 1294(I)/78 (5 Nov 1978)\nPLD 1961 SC 452 – Burmah Shell v. Port of Chittagong\nPLD 1966 (W.P.) Karachi 79 – Mst. Fidai Zuhra case\nPLD 1983 Pesh. 112 – Khyber Electric Lamps case\nDisposition:\nPetitions dismissed; no order as to costs.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(3),7", + "Case #": "Civil Petition Nos. D-91 and 92 of 1979, decision dated: 26-02-1985", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Sadiq and Abbas Ali for Petitioner\nS. Inayat Ali and Akmal Waseem for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "DADA STEEL MILLS\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 142 = 1986 SLD 142 = 1986 PTD 238 = (1985) 52 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Manufacturer or Producer Definition\n•\nIssue: Taxability of goods like empty drums.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRetailers or intermediaries are not liable for tax on goods like empty drums, unless they qualify as manufacturers or producers.\no\nAmbiguities in fiscal statutes are resolved in favor of taxpayers.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(2)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 4 of 1978, decision dated: 21st January 1986, hearing date: 13-01-1986", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Ali Athar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX\nVs\nCRESCENT PAK SOAP AND OIL MILLS Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 143 = 1986 SLD 143 = 1986 PTD 243 = (1986) 54 TAX 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Effect of Declarations and Circulars\n•\nIssue: Whether declarations shield taxpayers from assessments.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDeclarations prevent assessments for covered periods, provided income from all sources was disclosed.\no\nTribunal’s decisions based on valid declarations stand.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,28,29(2)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 332 of 1974, decision dated: 9-12-1985", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN AND AHMAD ALI U. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.A. Dareshani and Waheed Faruqui for Applicant. Respondent in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nMessrs MOHAMMADI REROLLING MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 115 = 1984 SLD 115 = 1984 PTD 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Retailers as Manufacturers\n•\nIssue: Applicability of manufacturer definition to retailers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRetailers ordering goods manufactured under their name are liable for tax as manufacturers.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,(a.11(ii)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D 166 of 1985, decision dated: 18-12-1985, hearing DATE : 11-12-1985", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Kazi for Petitioner. Liaqat Merchant, Dy. Attorney General for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGLISH BOOT HOUSE Ltd.\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 144 = 1986 SLD 144 = 1986 PTD 396 = (1986) 53 TAX 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Affidavits and Disputed Facts in Constitutional Petitions\n•\nIssue: Deciding disputed facts in constitutional jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCourts can decide based on uncontroverted affidavits.\no\nPetitioners must establish direct injury or interest for maintainability.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 26 of 1985, decision dated: 23rd February, 1986, hearing DATE : 18-02-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal for Petitioners. M. Nisar Mirza, Addl. A. G. for Non Petitioners Nos. 1 to 5. Riaz Alam for Non Petitioner No. 7. Manzoor Hussain for Non Petitioner No. 8", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NAFEES BAKERS and 2 others\nVs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR EXCISE AND TAXATION/SALES TAX OFFICER, MIRPUR and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 145 = 1986 SLD 145 = 1986 PTD 450 = (1986) 54 TAX 106", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Penalty without Notice\n•\nIssue: Validity of penalties imposed without a show-cause notice.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nPenalties imposed without an opportunity to respond violate natural justice and are void.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=12,12(4)", + "Case #": "Sale Tax Case No. 2 of 1977, decision dated: 18-11-1985", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. GHANA AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX CENTRAL ZONE\nVs\nSHAHAB INDUSTRIES Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 244 = 2011 SLD 244 = 2011 PTCL 475 = 2011 PTD 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Input Tax Adjustments\n•\nIssue: Disallowance of input tax exceeding agreed limits.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAgreements not reduced to statutory instruments are unenforceable.\no\nAdjustments cannot be denied solely based on such agreements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,8", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.100/LB of 2009, decision dated: 11-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Nadeem Hassan, D.R. for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nVs\nMessrs SUN RISE FOOD INDUSTRY, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 185 = 2010 SLD 185 = 2010 PTCL 1128 = 2011 PTD 633", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Rectification of Invoices\n•\nIssue: Rejection of invoices corrected after issuance.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSubsequent rectification of invoices is permissible.\no\nNew objections raised by appellate authorities are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 815/LB of 2009, decision dated: 28-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hussain Ahmad Shirazi for Appellant. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, D.R. (LTU) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS\nVs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, LTU, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 186 = 2010 SLD 186 = 2010 PTD 957", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdiction of Audit Authorities\n•\nIssue: Legality of audits conducted by unauthorized bodies.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAudits conducted without jurisdiction are invalid.\no\nRecovery based on such audits is void.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25,36,46", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.663/LB of 2009, decision dated: 10-09-2009, hearing DATE : 7-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Muhammad Akmal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 487 = 2008 SLD 487 = (2008) 98 TAX 341 = (2007) 288 ITR 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=269UD", + "Case #": "WRIT PETITION NO. 125 OF 1993, OCTOBER 9, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "H.L. GOKHALE AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Asifa Khan and K.B. Bhujle for the Petitioner. R. Asokan for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Maimunabai Usman\nvs\nAppropriate Authority" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 328 = 2012 SLD 328 = (2012) 105 TAX 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance—Adjustable Tax for Manufacturers\n•\nIssue: Applicability of Section 153(6A) regarding adjustable tax for manufacturers and suppliers.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nTaxpayer claimed that as a manufacturer, they fell within the purview of Section 153(6A), rendering sub-section (6) inapplicable to them.\no\nReference was made to a Lahore High Court decision [(2008) 98 Tax 162 (H.C. Lah.) = 2008 PTD 1563], which clarified that sub-section (6) does not apply to manufacturers or suppliers.\no\nThe department argued for the inclusion of the manufacturer within sub-section (6B) but failed to substantiate their claim.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe taxpayer's stance was upheld, confirming their compliance under sub-section (6A).\no\nPrevious similar decisions favoring the taxpayer for the Tax Year 2007 were also referenced.\no\nAppeal by the department was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 616/IB of 2010, Tax Year 2008, decision dated: 8-2-2011", + "Judge Name:": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia ullah Khan, DR, for the Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 288 = 2008 SLD 288 = 2008 SCMR 435 = (2008) 97 TAX 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation—Condonation of Delay in Appeals\n•\nIssue: Whether the period spent pursuing a review petition could exclude the time for filing an appeal.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nAuthorities contended that the time used for the review petition should be excluded when calculating the limitation period.\no\nSupreme Court emphasized that review petitions do not affect the limitation period unless explicitly provided for by law.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDelay in filing the appeal was not condoned as the authorities' negligence could not disturb the accrued rights of the respondent.\no\nAppeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=5,185(3)Limitation Act, 1908=5", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.409-K of 2003, decision dated: 6-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No. 1 K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR SALES TAX (EAST), KARACHI\nVs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 289 = 2008 SLD 289 = 2008 SCMR 1039", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—High Court’s Inherent Powers\n•\nIssue: Whether the High Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Sales Tax Act, could invoke inherent powers under Section 151, CPC.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nDepartment contended that inherent powers should be available for equitable considerations in tax disputes.\no\nQuestion of whether delay in filing appeals could be condoned under such powers was also raised.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to settle these legal questions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.55-K of 2006, decision dated: 6-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ADNAN TRADING COMPANY\nVs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 290 = 2008 SLD 290 = 2008 SCMR 1093 = (2008) 98 TAX 1 = 2008 PTD 1459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Remand by High Court\n•\nIssue: High Court remanded cases to the Collector of Sales Tax for reassessment.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nParties agreed that the remand orders from the High Court required a uniform approach across similar cases.\no\nCounsel referred to precedents where similar remands were ordered for re-evaluation by authorities.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSupreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the case for reconsideration by the Collector.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,130Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "C.P. No.2689-L of 2002, decision dated: 7-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record, and Mumtaz Ahmad, Member (Legal) C.B.R. for Petitioner. Shahid Karim, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmud-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE and others\nVs\nHASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 291 = 2008 SLD 291 = 2008 SCMR 1416 = (2006) 93 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Delay in Filing Appeals\n•\nIssue: Appeal filed late due to an administrative lapse.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nAppellant argued that the delay was caused by internal office errors.\no\nHigh Court held that such lapses did not justify granting extensions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAppeal dismissed as time-barred, emphasizing the appellant’s responsibility to ensure timely filing.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1332-L of 2001, decision dated: 17-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "FALAK SHER AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmar Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Atta-ur Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nVs\nSERVICE INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "4950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 292 = 2008 SLD 292 = 2008 SCMR 1467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—New Plea in Supreme Court\n•\nIssue: Raising new arguments in a petition for leave to appeal.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nPetitioners argued for relief based on new grounds not raised earlier.\no\nSupreme Court noted that pleas not raised in response to initial show-cause notices could not be entertained at later stages.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nPetitioners were directed to seek adjustments with authorities.\no\nAppeal partially allowed for reconsideration on narrow grounds.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46)(a)(i),2(46)(c),3,33,34,36Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.2837-L, 2921-L, 2929-L, 2942-L, 2946-L, 2997-L to 3000-L, 3075-L, 3076-L, 3084-L, 3085-L, 3089-L, 3157-L to 3163-L, 31724, and 3220-L; of 2003 and 1584, to 163-L 191-L of 2004, decision dated: 11-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.2921-L, 3157-L to 3163-L of 2003).\nHamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.2929-L, 2942-L and 2946-L of 2003).\nAhmed Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.2997-L to 3000-L of 2003).\nHamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Shahid Karim, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.3075 and 3076-L of 2003).\nSyed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.3084-L, 3085-L and 3089-L of 2003).\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.158-L to 163-L and 191-L of 2004).\nImtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2837-L of 2003).\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.2929-L, 2924-L and 2946-L of 2003).\nM.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court, Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record and Mahmood-ul-Islam Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.2997-L to 3000-L of 2003).\nDr. Sohail Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.3075-L and 3076-L of 2003).\nHamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Mahmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C. Ps. Nos.3084-L, 3085-L, 3089-L of 2003, 158-L to 163-L, 191-L of 2004 and 2837-L of 2003).\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.P. No. 3160-L and 3163-L of 2003).\nNemo for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.3157-L to 3159-L and 3162-L of 2003)", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHANAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. and others\nVs\nCOLLECTOR, CUSTOMS SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 284 = 2006 SLD 284 = 2006 PTCL 373 = 2008 SCMR 1510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Limitation on Show-Cause Notices\n•\nIssue: Validity of show-cause notice issued beyond the limitation period under Section 36(2).\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nTaxpayer argued that the notice for the tax year 1994-95 issued in 1999 was time-barred.\no\nHigh Court held that statutory limits must be strictly adhered to.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court struck down the demand as the notice was time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(2)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.387-K of 2004, decision dated: 12-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs K&A INDUSTRIES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 285 = 2006 SLD 285 = 2006 PTCL 329 = 2006 PTD 286 = 2008 SCMR 1511 = (2006) 93 TAX 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Determination of Liability\n•\nIssue: Taxpayer's liability determination by the Collector of Sales Tax.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nPetitioners agreed to resolve the matter expeditiously within the statutory period.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSupreme Court directed the Collector to finalize the liability assessment within four weeks, permitting prosecution thereafter.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No.24-K of 2004, decision dated: 6-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "M. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court with Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record\nRespondent(s) by: Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX\nVS\nMUHAMMAD ASHFAQ AHMED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 402 = 2004 SLD 402 = 2005 PTD 2267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(c),3(1A),3(2)(a),3(2)(c),7,8,14Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=18,25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1365 of 1999, dated 13/05/2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR UL MULK, JUSTICE AND TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Northern Bottling Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. \nVS \nFederation of Pakistan through Federal Secretary of Finance and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and 2 Others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 284 = 2005 SLD 284 = 2005 SCMR 132 = (2005) 91 TAX 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Passing On and Refund of Sales Tax\n•\nIssue: Eligibility for refunds based on whether tax was borne by the company or passed to customers.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to determine refund eligibility under Section 58 and the extent of passing on taxes to end consumers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCase remanded for factual determination on these issues.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=58Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1250 to 1274-L of 2004, decision dated: 26-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izhar-ul-Haque, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others\nVs\nMessrs SHAHBAZ & CO. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 285 = 2005 SLD 285 = 2005 SCMR 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption After Withdrawal\n•\nIssue: Whether an exemption applied when goods arrived after withdrawal of the relevant notification.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nPetitioners argued exemption applied as their goods were dispatched before the withdrawal.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLeave granted to examine the timing of exemption applicability.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.495 K of 2002, decision dated: 10-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. S. Zaki Muhammad, Deputy Attorney General, Pakistan on Court notice Afsar Ali Abidi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate on-Record for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF ENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI and nother\nVs\nDEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and others --Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 287 = 2005 SLD 287 = 2005 SCMR 1308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Delayed Notification Issuance\n•\nIssue: Liability for delays caused by government negotiation processes.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nSupreme Court upheld the tribunal’s finding that taxpayers should not be penalized for government-caused delays.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLeave to appeal denied, affirming the High Court’s decision.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,33,34,36Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.493-K of 2002, decision dated: 24-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Farid, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (WEST), KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs AMSONS TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 288 = 2005 SLD 288 = 2005 SCMR 1352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Machinery\n•\nIssue: Applicability of exemptions under two different SROs.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSROs were clarified as applicable to specific categories of importers, with distinctions in exemption criteria.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,Sixth Schedule", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.4255 to 4258-L of 2002, decision dated: 4-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "FALAK SHER AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Ahmer Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE and others\nVs\nMessrs M. RAMZAN SEWING MACHINES COMPANY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 304 = 2004 SLD 304 = 2004 PTCL 306 = 2004 PTD 942 = (2004) 90 TAX 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Internal Transfers and Taxable Supply\n•\nIssue: Taxability of internal transfers for distribution by manufacturers.\n•\nKey Arguments:\no\nManufacturers argued self-consumption should not attract tax.\no\nSupreme Court disagreed, holding that internal transfers constituted taxable supplies.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTax imposed only on internal transfers, exempting value-added during distribution.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(41),2(35),2(33),33(2)(ee),36(1)", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order Nos. 104 and 175 of 2001, decision dated: 27-12-2002, hearing DATE : 12-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR UL MULK AND TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellant. Abdur Rauf Rohaila for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs A.G.E. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Director\nVs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR SALES TAX, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 289 = 2005 SLD 289 = 2005 SCMR 1590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Constitutionality of Investigative Powers\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to decide whether investigative powers under Sections 38, 40, and 40-A violated constitutional rights.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.3382-L and 3383-L of 2004, decision dated: 29-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Advocate Supreme Court with Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Private Respondents. Nemo for other Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others\nVs\nMessrs MEDORA OF LONDON LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 245 = 2011 SLD 245 = 2011 PTD 912", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Input Tax Refunds\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRejection of refunds without considering valid evidence was set aside.\no\nCase remanded for proper verification.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,3,7,21Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1732/LB of 2009, decision dated: 23rd September, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed A.R. for Appellant. Muhammad Jamil Bhatti, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "I.A. TEXTILES, FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 246 = 2011 SLD 246 = 2011 PTD 2216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Time Bar on Orders\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal invalidated orders passed beyond statutory deadlines, reinforcing mandatory adherence to time limits.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),45B(2)", + "Case #": "F.E.A. No.64/LB of 2009, decision dated: 7-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farooq Sheikh for Appellant.Nayyar Mehmood, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ANMOL PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nC.I.R., (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 247 = 2011 SLD 247 = (2011) 104 TAX 217 = 2011 PTD 2260 = 2012 PTCL 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Premature Challenge of Notices\n•\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court dismissed premature petitions, directing issues to be resolved administratively.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Sales Tax Ordinance (II of 2000)=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.2799, 7307, 8.122, 8123 and 8854 of 2011, heard on 2-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOORALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Baig for Petitioner.\nRana Munir Hussain and Zahid Attique Chaudhry for Petitioners (in Connected with petitioners).\nSarfraz Ahmed Cheema for Respondents (in Writ Petitions Nos.2799/2011, 8122/2011, 8123/2001 and 8854/2011.\nSajjad H. Rizvi, for Respondent (in Writ Petition No. 7307 of 2011).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUGHALEAZAM BANQUET COMPLEX through Managing Partner\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 150 = 2012 SLD 150 = (2012) 105 TAX 177 = 2011 PTD 2332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Supplier Compliance for Input Tax Credit\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCase remanded to verify if suppliers deposited taxes before granting credit to the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(1)(ca),73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.43/LB of 2010, decision dated: 28-04-2011, hearing DATE : 21st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAVAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mohidin, D.R. for Appellant. Fakhar Mehmood Chandu for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL), RTO, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nMessrs H.S. AHMEDALLY, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 248 = 2011 SLD 248 = (2011) 104 TAX 337 = 2013 PTCL 786 = 2011 PTD 2347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Blacklisting and Refund Recovery\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRecovery of refunds for purchases from subsequently blacklisted suppliers was declared unlawful.\no\nShow-cause notices and related orders were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(37),10,21,33,34,36,45A,66Sales Tax Rules, 2006=12(5)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.15/LB of 2010, decision dated: 13-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed for Appellant. Naeem Hassan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ASHAR INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 249 = 2011 SLD 249 = 2011 PTD 2459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act—Disallowance of Input Tax on Diesel Oil\n•\nKey Issue: Disallowance of input tax adjustment on diesel oil used by a cement manufacturing company.\n•\nArguments:\no\nThe department, based on an audit by DRRA, disallowed the adjustment, claiming diesel oil could be used for non-taxable activities.\no\nAssessee argued the audit was conducted by an unauthorized entity (DRRA), which lacked legal standing under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal vacated the impugned orders and canceled the show-cause notice, citing the illegality of DRRA’s audit.\n•\nReferences: 2007 PTD (Trib.) 1600, 2008 PTD (Trib.) 261, 2010 PTD 1355, PTCL 2011 CL 109.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,11,25,32A,33,34,36,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.2188/LB of 2009, decision dated: 17-06-2011, hearing DATE : 19-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hussain Ahmed Sherazi for Appellant. Farrukh Majeed, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FLYING CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, LAHORE\nVs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, LTU, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 151 = 2012 SLD 151 = (2012) 105 TAX 233 = 2011 PTD 2462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Consultancy Services Outside Tax Scope\n•\nKey Issue: Imposition of sales tax on income from consultancy services.\n•\nArguments:\no\nTaxpayer contended services did not fall under taxable services as per the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) found maladministration in the arbitrary issuance of a show-cause notice.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended rectification of the impugned order and issued instructions to ensure no assessment was made based solely on income tax returns without providing the taxpayer a reasonable opportunity to be heard.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 55/ISD/ST(18)/664 of 2011, decision dated: 29-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TELECOM ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANCY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 250 = 2011 SLD 250 = 2011 PTD 2470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Absence of Proper Show-Cause Notice\n•\nKey Issue: Taxpayer was issued a show-cause notice for failing to deposit sales tax on cotton lint supplies, but no specific provisions were cited.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal set aside all orders based on the notice, terming them illegal.\no\nUnder Rule 6 of the Ginning Industries Rules, liability to pay tax was on the buyers, not the supplier.\n•\nReferences: 2003 PTD 1593, GST 2004 CL 423, GST 2005 CL 239.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,36,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.2209/LB of 2009, decision dated: 21st December, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Basit for Appellant. Usman Asghar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "PASBAN COTTON INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD, BAHAWALNAGAR\nVs\nCOLLECTOR, R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 251 = 2011 SLD 251 = 2011 PTD 2538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Hypothetical Charges of Evasion\n•\nKey Issue: Bank account details were used to accuse a factory of tax evasion.\n•\nArguments:\no\nTaxpayer argued the case was based on presumptions without establishing violations of the law.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe Tribunal dismissed the department’s appeal, affirming the First Appellate Authority’s decision to vacate the charges.\n•\nReferences: 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,2(9)(37);3,3-1A,23,26,37(C),71,33,34,36(1)(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1434/LB of 2009, decision dated: 8-10-2010, hearing DATE : 5-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Sheryar, D.R. for Appellant. Mian Abdul Basit for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MULTAN\nVs\nMessrs NAEEM CORPORATION, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 252 = 2011 SLD 252 = 2011 PTD 2619", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund of Input Tax from Blacklisted Suppliers\n•\nKey Issue: Refund claims were rejected as the suppliers were later blacklisted.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled that blacklisting of suppliers could not have retrospective effect, and refunds claimed before blacklisting were valid.\n•\nReferences: Superior Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2001 SC 340.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10,2(14),4,7,8(1),11(2),26", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.644/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed for Appellant. Syed Javed Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZAHID JEE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 253 = 2011 SLD 253 = 2011 PTD 2770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Disallowance of Input Tax on Gas Bills\n•\nKey Issue: Input tax adjustment on gas bills was disallowed despite valid certification.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal directed the department to allow the adjustment as per the claims.\n•\nAdditional Issue: Special federal excise duty wrongly imposed on sugar manufactured before the imposition date was deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.449/PB of 2008 and 198/ATIR of 2009, decision dated: 23rd May, 2011, hearing DATE : 18-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Danish Ali Qazi for Appellants. Shad Muhammad, DR and Shuaib Sultan, IRAO for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PREMIER SUGAR MILLS & DISTILLERY CO. LTD., MARDAN\nVs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 254 = 2011 SLD 254 = 2011 PTD 2783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Limitation on Appeals and Refund Claims\n•\nKey Issue: An appeal was dismissed as time-barred.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled that time limitations do not apply to void orders, allowing the appeal and granting refund claims.\n•\nReferences: 2006 PTD 1412.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10(4),11(2),46,66,73", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 929/LB of 2009, decision dated: 29-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant.Khawar Mansoor for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUFI WEAVING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPEALS), FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 255 = 2011 SLD 255 = 2011 PTD 2788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Misuse of Concessionary Rates for Raw Material\n•\nKey Issue: Allegation of misuse of concessionary import duties for agricultural implements.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal found evidence favoring the taxpayer and vacated all penalties and tax demands.\n•\nReferences: PLD 2000 SC 208.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,11(2)(4),22,23,26,33,36,46---S.R.O.501(7)/94", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 282/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-02-2011, hearing DATE : 20-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant. Sahibzada Umer Riaz, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MODEL STEEL ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 152 = 2012 SLD 152 = (2012) 105 TAX 70 = 2011 PTD 2795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdictional Errors in Adjudication\n•\nKey Issue: Adjudication authority exceeded jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication by a competent officer.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=30,31,32,45,45AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5030 of 2007, decision dated: 30-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Izhar ul Haq Sheikh for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PLYFO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., GUJRANWALA through Director\nVs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (AUDIT-I), SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, GUJJRANWALA and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 153 = 2012 SLD 153 = (2012) 105 TAX 148 = 2011 PTD 2822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Adjustment of Refunds Against Arrears\n•\nKey Issue: Denial of adjustment of refundable amounts against tax arrears.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal allowed adjustment, holding that arrears could be set off against refunds.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,26,36", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.112/LB of 2009, decision dated: 19-07-2010, hearing DATE : 22-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmad Sh. for Appellant. Asim Halim, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MEHR DASTGIR TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN\nVs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 256 = 2011 SLD 256 = 2011 PTD 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Input Tax Disallowance on Packing Material\n•\nKey Issue: Input tax on packing material disallowed based on an agreement with an association.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled the agreement lacked legal force and allowed the input tax adjustment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,7,11,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.960/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed for Appellant. None for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NAVEED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 154 = 2012 SLD 154 = 2012 PTD 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Time-Barred Show-Cause Notices\n•\nKey Issue: Notices issued beyond the statutory limitation period.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal struck down the notices, holding them invalid and coram non judice.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4),3,7,73Sales Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002=4,8(1),9", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.239/LB of 2009, decision dated: 5-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmad Sh. for Appellant. Adnan Ahmad Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MEHR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES, MULTAN\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 155 = 2012 SLD 155 = 2012 PTD 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Claims on Exports\n•\nKey Issue: Rejection of refund claims based on alleged weight discrepancies in exported goods.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld the Commissioner’s decision allowing the refund claims.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,66,67,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1232/LB of 2009, decision dated: 19-10-2011, hearing DATE : 18-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atif Bashir, D.R. for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, FAISALABAD\nVs\nMessrs AMTEX (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 156 = 2012 SLD 156 = 2012 PTD 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdictional Errors in Refund Adjudication\n•\nKey Issue: Refund claims adjudicated by an officer lacking jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal vacated the orders as void and without lawful authority.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),33,45,46Sales Tax Rules, 2006=37", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.411/LB of 2009, decision dated: 9-08-2011, hearing DATE : 9-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Sajid Taslim, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs INTERLOOP (PVT.) LTD. KHURRIANWALA, FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR, F.S.T., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 157 = 2012 SLD 157 = 2012 PTD 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Third-Party Evidence in Tax Evasion Cases\n•\nKey Issue: Taxpayer liability based on documents seized from a third party.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled that unverified third-party documents could not be used as evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=1(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.145/LB of 2010, decision dated: 6-01-2011, hearing DATE : 23rd December, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmad Sheikh for Appellant. Tahir Tanveer, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MULTAN ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN\nVs\nSUPERINTENDENT, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, F.B.R., MULTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 158 = 2012 SLD 158 = 2012 PTD 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Blacklisting and Retrospective Recovery\n•\nKey Issue: Recovery of tax from supplies made before the supplier’s blacklisting.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled the demand, holding that blacklisting could not have retrospective effect.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,2(46),3,6,23,26,33,34Special Procedure for Ginning Industries Rules, 1996=5(5),6(5)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1635/LB of 2009, decision dated: 27-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asad Ahmed Ghani for Applicant. Mrs. Fouzia Adil D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHEEMA COTTON FACTORY, BUREWALA\nVs\nC.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 159 = 2012 SLD 159 = (2012) 106 TAX 96 = 2012 PTD 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Tax Fraud Allegation Based on Bank Entries\n•\nKey Issue: Allegation of non-registration and tax fraud based on bank entries, treating them as sales.\n•\nArguments:\no\nTaxpayer argued that no audit was conducted, and bank entries alone could not be treated as sales.\no\nInvoking Section 36(1) was time-barred, and the department lacked authorization for audit as per Sales Tax General Order No. 03 of 2004.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal dismissed the department's appeal, ruling that bank entries alone do not constitute taxable supplies and that the proceedings were time-barred and unauthorized.\n•\nReferences: 2010 PTD 1376, 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),3,21,36,47", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.307/LB of 2011, decision dated: 13-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad Kalwar, D.R. for Appellant. Muddasar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, F.B.R., LAHORE\nVs\nMessrs PRIME PVC FACTORY, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 160 = 2012 SLD 160 = 2012 PTD 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Rejection of Refund Claim Using STARR System\n•\nKey Issue: Refund claim rejection based on objections raised by the STARR system, which lacked legal backing.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal set aside the show-cause notice and orders, ruling that STARR was not a legislatively supported system and could not override legal provisions of the Sales Tax Act or Rules.\n•\nReferences: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 483.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(14),4,7,8,10,11,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.2259/LB of 2009, decision dated: 29-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed for Appellant. Syed Jawad Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs COTTON ARTS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 161 = 2012 SLD 161 = 2012 PTD 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Time-Barred Show-Cause Notice on Refunds\n•\nKey Issue: Refund claim rejected through a show-cause notice issued after the statutory period.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled that the notice was time-barred and ab initio void, directing the refund to be processed in accordance with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2002=R-8,8(1),4,9Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,11(2),3,7,8(1),73,33(1)(c)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1025/LB of 2009, decision dated: 2-11-2010, hearing DATE : 28-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Appellant. Dr. Sheryar, D.R. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MEHAR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES, MULTAN\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 162 = 2012 SLD 162 = (2012) 105 TAX 498 = 2012 PTD 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Limitation on Record Retention and Refund Recovery\n•\nKey Issue: Department demanded recovery of refunds on the ground of non-production of records beyond the statutory retention period.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld that the department's demand was time-barred and that amendments in record retention requirements could not apply retrospectively.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=24,36(1),25,33,73", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.57/KB and 58/KB of 2011, decision dated: 12-07-2011, hearing DATE : 10-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaffar Akhtar, D.R. for Appellant. Arshad Shahzad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-I, R.T.O., KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs CENTURY 21 SPORTSWEAR, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 163 = 2012 SLD 163 = (2012) 105 TAX 239 = 2012 PTD 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Electricity for Charitable Hospitals\n•\nKey Issue: Denial of exemption on electricity supply to charitable hospitals.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended allowing exemptions as provided under the Sixth Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, ruling the denial as maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=SixthSched,52A,S.2(12)Customs Act, 1969=FirstSched,26,27", + "Case #": "Complaint No.282/LHR/ST(35)572 of 2011, decision dated: 20-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Akhtar, Advisor Dealing Officer. Syed Saeed Ahmad Shah for Authorized Representative. Tehseen Sadiq, ACIR for Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "Sh. IFTIKHAR AHMAD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 164 = 2012 SLD 164 = (2012) 105 TAX 362 = 2012 PTD 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Reopening of Finalized Appeals by FBR\n•\nKey Issue: FBR reopened finalized appeals without issuing notice to the taxpayer.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled the reopening void, emphasizing that FBR could not override appellate decisions without due process.\n•\nReferences: 2004 PTD 714.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A,2(46),2(37),3,6,11,22,23,26,33,36(1),37A(4),37B,37C(1)(a)(c),45(3),45A,40,40A", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.890/KB of 2009, decision dated: 9-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Kazmi for Appellant. Zafar Akhtar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KRUDDSON (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX (ENFORCEMENT), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 165 = 2012 SLD 165 = 2012 PTD 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Delay in Acting on ADRC Recommendations\n•\nKey Issue: Delay by FBR in acting on Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee (ADRC) recommendations.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman recommended FBR finalize the case within 14 days, highlighting maladministration due to the delay.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,47A(4)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.338/LHR/ST(52)/668 of 2011, decision dated: 20-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Akhtar, Advisor for Dealing Officer. Riaz Ahmad Raja, ITP for Authorized Representative Saleem Akhtar Khan, DCIR for Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHICAGO METAL WORKS, MULTAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 166 = 2012 SLD 166 = (2012) 105 TAX 1 = 2012 PTD 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Cancer Medicine\n•\nKey Issue: Discriminatory denial of exemptions for certain imports of cancer medicines.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed uniform application of S.R.O. provisions and refund of duties for eligible medicines.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,13", + "Case #": "Review Application No.31 of 2011 in Complaint No.26/Khi/Cust(06)/51 of 2011, decision dated: 23rd August, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Justice (R) M. Nadir Khan, Advisor Dealing Officer. Aziz A. Sheikh for Applicant. Musthaq Shahni, Deputy Collector for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NAVARTIS PHARMA (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 167 = 2012 SLD 167 = 2012 PTCL 159 = 2012 PTD 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Time-Limited Order Issuance for Show-Cause Notices\n•\nKey Issue: Penalty imposed despite expiry of the statutory timeframe for adjudication.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal set aside the penalty, emphasizing adherence to prescribed timelines under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4),33,34,36(3),46", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No.2/LB of 2011 and S.T.A. No.1110/LB of 2009, decision dated: 28-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khuram Shahbaz Butt and Miss Nida Malik, ITP for Appellants (in M.A. (AG) No. 2/LB of 2011). Nemo for Respondents (in M.A. (AG) No. 2/LB of 2011). Khuram Shahbaz Butt and Miss Nida Malik, ITP for Appellant (in S.T.A. No. 1110/LB of 2009). Nemo for Respondents (in S.T.A. No. 1110/LB of 2009)", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHIAS-UDDIN, LAHORE and another\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 168 = 2012 SLD 168 = (2012) 106 TAX 30 = 2012 PTD 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Electricity Supplies to AJK\n•\nKey Issue: Tax exemption based on a treaty between Pakistan and AJK.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld the treaty as binding, exempting electricity supplies from sales tax despite lack of an S.R.O.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,3(1)(a),3(3)(a),2(14)(e),2(41),2(39),6,7,8,22,23,26(1),33,34,61ACustoms Act, 1969=2(s),50,130,131", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.65/IB of 2011, decision dated: 7-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt, Muhammad Faisal Banday, FCA and Muhammad Ahmed for Appellants. Syed Tauqeer Bokhari and Imran Shah, D.R. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ISLAMABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (LEGAL), ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 169 = 2012 SLD 169 = (2012) 106 TAX 49 = 2012 PTD 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Adjustment of Input Tax by Power Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Dispute over adjustments under Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled that the tax collected under Rule 58H could not be adjusted as input tax, maintaining the department's demand.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,3,14,71", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.253/LB, 254/LB and 284/LB of 2011, decision dated: 14-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt, Kamran Iqbal Butt, F.C.A. and Abid Latif Lodhi, Finance Manager for Appellants (in S.T.As. Nos.253/LB and 254/LB of 2011).\n Asif Iqbal Hashmi, Legal Advisor and Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, D.R. (LTU) for Respondents (in S.T.As. Nos.253/LB and 254/LB of 2011).\n Shahbaz Butt and Kamran Iqbal Butt, FCA for Appellants (in S.T.A No. 284/LB of 2011).\n Syed Tauqeer Bokhari, Legal Advisor and Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, D.R. (LTU) for Respondents (in S.T.A No. 284/LB of 2011).", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 170 = 2012 SLD 170 = 2012 PTD 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Delay in Appeal Effects and Refund Processing\n•\nKey Issue: Inordinate delays in refund issuance despite Tribunal rulings.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman criticized departmental inefficiency, directing expedited processing within 15 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,10Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),16(a),32", + "Case #": "Complaint No.279/KHI/ST(95)704 of 2011, decision dated: 2-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Hussain Kureshi, Advisor for Dealing Officer. Ammar Yasser for Authorized Representative. Tariq Hussain Shaikh, DCIR and Akhtar Hussain Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent for Departmental Representatives", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs INNOVATIVE IMPEX, KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 171 = 2012 SLD 171 = 2012 PTD 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Recovery from Former Director After Company Liquidation\n•\nKey Issue: Attempt to recover company liabilities from a former director post-liquidation.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman ruled the recovery attempt unlawful and directed the refund of amounts wrongfully recovered.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=48,45BFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b)Sales Tax Rules, 2006=71(2)(b)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.430/KHI/ST(129)/1112 of 2011, decision dated: 20-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Hussain Kureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Khushnood A. Khan and Shiraz A. Khan, Advocate Authorized Representatives. Abdul Rehman Khilji Additional Commissioner, IR Mushtaq Ali Tunio, ACIR Departmental Representatives", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mrs. SHAMA RAUF\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 172 = 2012 SLD 172 = (2012) 106 TAX 107 = 2012 PTD 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Restoration of Dismissed Appeals\n•\nKey Issue: Appeals dismissed for non-prosecution without serving notice.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal restored appeals, citing the violation of natural justice principles.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46", + "Case #": "M.As. (Cond.) Nos.32/LB to 36/LB and M.As. Nos.8/LB to 12/LB of 2011, decision dated: 27-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Applicant Miss Sumaira Omer, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TIWANA ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 173 = 2012 SLD 173 = 2012 PTD 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Improper Blacklisting and Refund Denial\n•\nKey Issue: Blacklisting without substantiated evidence of fraud.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled the blacklisting, restoring registration retrospectively and approving refund claims.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(2),10(4),11(2),46General Clauses Act, 1897=24A", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.678/LB of 2011, decision dated: 12-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abuzar Hussain and Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Nayyar Mehmood, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs R.J. COTTON WASTE FACTORY, FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Zone-III), (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 174 = 2012 SLD 174 = 2012 PTD 350 = 2013 PCTLR 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Fraud Allegation Without Evidence\n•\nKey Issue: Allegation of fraud based on transactions with blacklisted suppliers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal dismissed allegations, ruling that taxpayers could not be penalized for suppliers' non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),3,6,7,8(1)(ca),8(1)(d),8A,14,22,23,25,26,28,36&73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.226/LB of 2011, decision dated: 6-07-2011, hearing DATE : 21st June, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Appellant. Atif Bashir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FAROOQ KHALID PIPE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER, INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-II), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 272 = 2013 SLD 272 = (2013) 108 TAX 227 = 2012 PTD 359 = 2013 PCTLR 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Retrospective Application of Tax Provisions\n•\nKey Issue: Excess input tax adjustment based on retrospective application of amendments.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled amendments prospective, setting aside demands for prior periods.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(a)(b)(ca)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.107/IB of 2010, decision dated: 22-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idris for Appellant Imran Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs WISE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS (PVT) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (LEGAL), ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 175 = 2012 SLD 175 = 2012 PTD 370 = 2013 PCTLR 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Condonation of Delay and Recall of Ex Parte Order\n•\nKey Issue: Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution due to counsel’s illness.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal condoned the delay, restored the appeal, and reaffirmed the principle of natural justice.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46", + "Case #": "M.As. (Cond.) Nos.37/LB and 29/LB of 2011, decision dated: 12-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Applicant. Miss Samia Ijaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZIS TEXTILE (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "4999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 176 = 2012 SLD 176 = 2012 PTD 374 = 2013 PCTLR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Retrospective Blacklisting of Suppliers and Maladministration\n•\nKey Issue: Retrospective blacklisting of suppliers led to input tax disallowance for the taxpayer.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAppellate Tribunal ruled that retrospective blacklisting is untenable, emphasizing the illegality of applying such orders retrospectively.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) recommended compliance with the Tribunal’s order and disciplinary action against involved officials.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Rules, 2006=R-28", + "Case #": "Complaint No.19/ISD/SUO MOTU (1)/159 of 2011, decision dated: 12-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Hussain Kureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Zulfiqar Ali Chaudhary, Chairman Authorized Representative. Abdul Hameed Anjum, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALL PAKISTAN TEXTILE PROCESSING MILLS ASSOCIATION\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 177 = 2012 SLD 177 = 2012 PTD 392 = 2013 PCTLR 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Delayed Refunds and Systemic Maladministration\n•\nKey Issue: Refund claims blocked due to objections by the STARR system without statutory backing.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO criticized systemic inefficiencies and recommended issuing refunds with compensation within 21 days, citing delays as maladministration under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nReferences: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 483.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A(4)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.581/LHR/ST(94)1177 of 2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Mian Abdul Basit Authorized Representative. Qasswar Hussain, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD TUFAIL\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 178 = 2012 SLD 178 = 2012 PTD 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Delayed Refunds and Systemic Maladministration\n•\nKey Issue: Refund claims blocked due to objections by the STARR system without statutory backing.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO criticized systemic inefficiencies and recommended issuing refunds with compensation within 21 days, citing delays as maladministration under the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nReferences: 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 483.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,45A(4)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.512/LHR/ST(79)/1034 of 2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Ahsan Mehmood Authorized Representative. Taimoor Kamal Malik, DCIR Department Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "EJAZ SPINNING MILLS LTD. through Company Secretary\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 179 = 2012 SLD 179 = 2012 PTD 437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Denied on Technical Grounds\n•\nKey Issue: Refund claim rejected due to incomplete compliance with procedural requirements.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO held that rejection without evaluating merits was maladministration. Recommended reappraisal and passing of a speaking order within 21 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Rules, 2006=R-28", + "Case #": "Complaint No.576/LHR/ST(93)/1172 of 2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. M. Bashir Malik, Authorized Representative Sultan M. N. Nasir, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "BILAL SAEED\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 180 = 2012 SLD 180 = 2012 PTD 445 = 2013 PCTLR 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Unjust Blacklisting Due to Department’s Fault\n•\nKey Issue: Blacklisting due to alleged non-compliance, despite address change approval by the department.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO deemed the blacklisting as unjust and recommended re-examining the case, ensuring accurate records and no harassment of the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A", + "Case #": "Complaint No.380/LHR/ST(57)/736/2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Ahmad and Saeed Akhtar, Advisor Dealing Officers. Hafeez Ahmad, Authorized Representative. Muhammad Arshad, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs UROOJ TEXTILES\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 181 = 2012 SLD 181 = 2012 PTD 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund on Zero-Rated Exports\n•\nKey Issue: Refund denied based on consumption of input goods rather than purchase records.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal clarified that refund is based on purchases, not consumption, as per Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act. Appeal dismissed as meritless.\n•\nReference: Messrs Blue Horizon (Pvt.) Ltd. Sialkot case.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,11(2),33,34,36(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.543/LB of 2011, decision dated: 1st November, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A. , JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nayyer Mehmood, D.R. for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-III, R.T.O., FAISALABAD\nVs\nMessrs KAMAL FABRICS, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 182 = 2012 SLD 182 = 2012 PTD 469", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Delayed Quantitative Entitlement Certificate\n•\nKey Issue: Delay and arbitrary reduction in entitlement certificate limits for manufacturers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO termed the delay and reduction maladministration, recommending procedural improvements and personal hearings to resolve disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2", + "Case #": "Complaint No.523/LHR/ST(81)1054 of 2011, decision dated: 11-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Imran Iqbal, Authorized Representative. Ashfaq Ahmad, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD EHSAN MEHBOOB\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 183 = 2012 SLD 183 = 2012 PTD 472 = 2013 PCTLR 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector in High-Value Refund Cases\n•\nKey Issue: Assistant Collector exceeded pecuniary jurisdiction in adjudicating high-value refund claims.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal declared proceedings void and directed adherence to jurisdictional limits under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,10(4),11(2),2(14),4,7,8,10,26,33(11)(c),73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1811/LB of 2009, decision dated: 10-05-2011, hearing DATE : 29-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh, for Appellant. Dr. Javed Iqbal Sh., learned D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MEHAR DASTGIR LEATHER AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES, MULTAN\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, MULTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 184 = 2012 SLD 184 = (2012) 105 TAX 386 = 2012 PTD 478 = 2012 PTCL 663 = 2013 PCTLR 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Assessment Based Solely on Income Tax Returns\n•\nKey Issue: Taxable supplies were assessed based on income tax returns without bifurcating taxable and non-taxable sales.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal found the assessment arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. Reduction in sales tax liability was similarly criticized for lack of explanation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,2(41),3", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.89/IB of 2011, decision dated: 1st October, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Farooq Saeed, Advocate and Abdullah Akhter Butt, ITP for Appellants. Zia Ullah Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PEACOCK RESTAURANT, MOTORWAY SERVICE AREA, (SOUTH), CHAKWAL\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (APPEALS-III), ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 185 = 2012 SLD 185 = 2012 PTD 491 = 2013 PCTLR 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Claim After Allegations of Fake Invoices\n•\nKey Issue: Refund of payment made under protest for transactions linked to fake invoices.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended refunding amounts deposited under protest and conducting thorough investigations to identify perpetrators.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No.501/LHR/ST(76)999 of 2011, decision dated: 10-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Waheed Shahzad Butt, Authorized Representative. Malik Fazal ur Rahman, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YASIN BUTT\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 286 = 2006 SLD 286 = 2006 PTCL 673 = (2006) 94 TAX 222 = 2006 PTD 2066", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exceptions in Statutes and Subordinate Legislation\n•\nKey Issue: Conflict between substantive provisions of the Sales Tax Act and subordinate legislation (S.R.O.).\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld the principle that substantive provisions of the law override conflicting subordinate legislation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(1),8(1)(b),33", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 255 of 2002, decision dated: 27-02-2004, hearing DATE : 22-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh\nRespondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Iqbal and S. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHANDHARA NISSAN DIESEL LTD., THROUGH SR. GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE, KARACHI\nVS\nCOLLECTOR, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 287 = 2006 SLD 287 = 2006 PTD 2091", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Non-Deposit of Tax Within 48 Hours and Additional Tax\n•\nKey Issue: Additional tax imposed for non-deposit within 48 hours as prescribed by an S.R.O.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled the imposition unjust, emphasizing that additional tax must adhere to statutory due dates.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(9),26", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.44 of 2002/BWP, heard on 5-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muhammad Afzal for Appellant. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FIVE STAR CORPORATION LTD. through Chief Executive\nVs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MULTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 288 = 2006 SLD 288 = 2006 PTD 2405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Adjustment of Input Tax for Exempted Goods\n•\nKey Issue: Input tax adjustment for stocks predating exemption of end-products.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal allowed input tax adjustment, rejecting departmental demands for recovery on exempted stock.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1317 of 1999, decision dated: 10-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SULTAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Appellant. Iftikhar Ansari, Senior Auditor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 289 = 2006 SLD 289 = 2006 PTD 2530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Determination of Tax on Lubricant Oil\n•\nKey Issue: Tax charged on lubricant oil based on retail price instead of declared value.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld that tax should be based on declared value, not retail price, absent statutory requirement.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1)(2)(c)", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No.241 and C.M.A. No. 1682 of 2004, decision dated: 7-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASIA LUBRICANTS, KARACHI\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 290 = 2006 SLD 290 = 2006 PTD 2763", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Medicinal Gases\n•\nKey Issue: Dispute over exemption for Nitrous Oxide used in hospitals.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal affirmed exemption, citing consistency with earlier High Court and Supreme Court rulings.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(20),3,7,13,46Customs Act, 1969=FirstSched,30", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.K-139 of 2005, decision dated: 15-09-2005, hearing DATE : 7-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Fizza Kazmi for Appellant. Azam Nafees, Senior Auditor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 618 = 2002 SLD 618 = 2002 PTD 2890 = (2003) 88 TAX 364 = 2004 PTCL 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Interpretation of Notifications and Statutes\n•\nKey Issue: Exemption of gearboxes and axles under S.R.O. was contested.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court ruled that exemptions must meet both conditions of power operation and industrial use, denying the claim.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,7,14,15,17(I)", + "Case #": "S. T. R. No. 158 of 1992, decision dated: 22-07-2002, hearing DATE : 8-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ATA-UR-REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Masooda Siraj for Applicant. Khalid Javed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, CENTRAL, ZONEB, KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 619 = 2002 SLD 619 = 2002 PTD 2902", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Retrospective Applicability of S.R.O.\n•\nKey Issue: Retrospective application of an amended S.R.O. affecting tax benefits.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled that amendments beneficial in nature can apply retrospectively.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1),3A,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.379 of 2002, decision dated: 1st August, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Aziz Sheikh for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ABDULLAH SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Chief Executive\nVs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 620 = 2002 SLD 620 = 2002 PTD 2959 = 2003 PTCL 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Conflict Between Notifications and Statutory Provisions\n•\nKey Issue: Input tax disallowance under S.R.O. despite statutory provisions allowing it.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld statutory provisions over conflicting S.R.O., allowing input tax adjustments.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(1),8(1)(a)(b)", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 3941, 4706, 6422, 6251, 6052, 7630, 7629, 8345 8346, 11791 and 11734 of 2000, heard on 14-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioner. Khan Muhammad Virk for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SHEIKH SPINNING MILLS LIMITED\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat Islamabad through Secretary and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 621 = 2002 SLD 621 = 2002 PTD 2966", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQVNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Audit by Unauthorized Authorities\n•\nKey Issue: Audit conducted by non-sales tax officers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled the audit void, affirming only authorized officers could conduct such proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,47", + "Case #": "S. T. A. No. 410 of 2002, decision dated: 21st August, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "FATIMA SUGAR MILLS LTD\nVs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SALES TAX, LAHORE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 289 = 2007 SLD 289 = 2007 PTCL 694 = 2008 PTD 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Audit by Unauthorized Authorities\n•\nKey Issue: Audit conducted by non-sales tax officers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled the audit void, affirming only authorized officers could conduct such proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(1),8(1)(b),1307(I)", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7(2150)ST/IB of 2001, decision dated: 19-07-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Najeeb Chaudhry for Appellant. Naveed Alam for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 188 = 2010 SLD 188 = 2010 PTD 845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Arbitrary Blacklisting of Registered Person\n•\nKey Issue: Blacklisting based on alleged paper transactions without evidence.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal set aside the blacklisting, citing lack of evidence and procedural lapses by the department.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,46", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.847/LB of 2008, decision dated: 24-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 186 = 2012 SLD 186 = 2012 PTD 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Illegal Adjudication Beyond Statutory Limitation\n•\nKey Issues: Prolonged audit (2007-2011), issuance of time-barred show-cause notice, incorrect sales tax liability calculations, and exceeding pecuniary limits.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended canceling the time-barred order-in-original, ensuring adherence to limitation periods, and issuing warnings to officials exceeding their jurisdiction.\n•\nReferences: 2008 PTD 609; 2006 PTD 219 (Trib.); 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1943.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,36,45A(4)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.614/LHR/ST(107)/1284 of 2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi Adviser Dealing Officer. Waseem Ahmad Malik Authorized Representative. Shabana Aziz, DCIR and Munir Ahmad Chaudhry, ACIR Departmental Representatives", + "Petitioner Name:": "POLY PACK (PVT.) LTD. through C.E.O\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 187 = 2012 SLD 187 = 2012 PTD 538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Maladministration in Input Tax Adjustment Audits\n•\nKey Issues: Mechanical issuance of show-cause notice without evaluating audit objections or providing details for reconciliation.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO directed reconciliation of facts and set aside the order-in-original for fresh adjudication.\n•\nReferences: Section 45A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,36,73", + "Case #": "Complaint No.130/ISD/ST(34)/1179 of 2011, decision dated: 28-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer. M. Mansoor Saeed Authorized Representative. Zahid Hussain, Audit Officer, RTO, Islamabad Departmental Representative.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ATM ENTERPRISES PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 188 = 2012 SLD 188 = 2012 PTD 544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Delay Due to Software Limitations\n•\nKey Issues: Refund claims delayed as the STARR system did not accommodate claims arising from appellate orders.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFTO recommended revisiting refund procedures in STARR software and processing refunds as per appellate orders.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66", + "Case #": "Complaint No.452/KHI/ST (138)/1167 of 2011, decision dated: 19-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Hussain Kureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Arshad Shehzad Authorized Representative. Nasir Khan, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FROOTO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 189 = 2012 SLD 189 = 2012 PTCL 554 = 2012 PTD 619", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Denial for Invoices of Blacklisted Units\n•\nKey Issues: Input tax credit denied based on blacklisted suppliers, despite compliance with banking channels under Section 73.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld that curative amendments (Finance Act, 2011) applied retrospectively to protect taxpayers.\n•\nReferences: 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2619, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=153,10,11(2),21(3),23,36(1),73", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.541/LB of 2011 and 121/LB of 2010, decision dated: 22-11-2011, hearing DATE : 22-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed, D.R. for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmed, for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE, Zone-III, FAISALABAD\nMessrs KAMAL FABRICS, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 190 = 2012 SLD 190 = 2012 PTCL 658 = 2012 PTD 637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Limitation and Condonation in Appeals\n•\nKey Issues: Appeal filed 127 days late but dismissed without addressing merits.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal condoned the delay and remanded the case for a decision on merits.\n•\nReferences: Controller Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katija (1987) 56 Tax 130 (SC India).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B,10(4),11(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.994/LB of 2009, decision dated: 11-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN CHAIRMAN AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ORIENT COATING AND FINISHING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPEALS)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 257 = 2011 SLD 257 = 2011 PTCL 62 = 2012 PTD 641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Adjudication Without Legal Basis\n•\nKey Issues: Rejection of input tax due to procedural errors and absence of demands in the show-cause notice.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal vacated orders, emphasizing proper procedure and compliance with Federal Board of Revenue instructions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6,7,22,33,36,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.857/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid-ul-Hassan Chatta, DR for Petitioner. Tariq Najeeb for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nVs\nMessrs KHALIL JUTE MILLS, FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 191 = 2012 SLD 191 = 2012 PTD 754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Blacklisting Order Nullified by Tribunal\n•\nKey Issues: Refund recovery based on a blacklisting order that was set aside.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal dismissed the department’s appeal, emphasizing that blacklisting no longer held legal validity.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,7,36", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.229/LB of 2010, decision dated: 22-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHEER-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atif Bashir, DR (RTO) for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.R. (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD\nVs\nMessrs BHARARA TEXTILE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 258 = 2011 SLD 258 = 2011 PTCL 109 = 2012 PTD 759", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—DRRA’s Lack of Jurisdiction in Audits\n•\nKey Issues: Tax demanded based on DRRA audits, which lacked statutory authority.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled DRRA-issued orders and allowed lawful fresh audits, if necessary.\n•\nReferences: 2010 PTD 1355.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,11,26,34,35,36,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1773/LB of 2009, decision dated: 23rd November, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA LEHRASSAB KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, MEMBER (ACCOUNTANT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hussain Ahmad Sherazi for Appellant. Karamat Ali Ch., DR. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS, LAHORE\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, LTU, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 259 = 2011 SLD 259 = 2011 PTCL 497 = 2012 PTD 846", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Time-Barred Recovery Orders\n•\nKey Issues: Recovery orders issued 400 days after statutory deadlines without lawful extensions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal declared orders time-barred and annulled them.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1963 SC 322.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,11,36,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1029/LB of 2009, decision dated: 26-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hussain Ahmad Sherazi for Appellant. Ashfaq Ahmad D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ARZOO TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 260 = 2011 SLD 260 = 2011 PTCL 856 = 2012 PTD 854", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Retrospective Application of Circulars for Tax Benchmarks\n•\nKey Issues: Tax imposed retrospectively based on electricity consumption benchmarks.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision, stating that retrospective application was unjustified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,46", + "Case #": "S.Ts. Nos.157/PB and 213/ATIR of 2009, decision dated: 29-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din for Appellant. Mohsin Khan, ITO and Shuaib Sultan Senior Auditor for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FRONTIER STEEL MILLS, GADOON AMAZAI\nVs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS) CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 192 = 2012 SLD 192 = (2012) 106 TAX 245 = 2012 PTD 858", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Invalid Appointment of Adjudicating Officers\n•\nKey Issues: Orders issued by officers not notified in the official gazette, violating Section 30 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal vacated orders due to jurisdictional defects.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=30,7", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.201/LB of 2010, decision dated: 19-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Faisal Asghar (DR) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KAMAL SPINNING MILLS, FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 193 = 2012 SLD 193 = (2012) 105 TAX 479 = 2012 PTD 864", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Blacklisting’s Impact on Previous Transactions\n•\nKey Issues: Input tax denied based on transactions with later blacklisted suppliers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal remanded the case for inquiry and re-adjudication, affirming that prior verified transactions could not be invalidated retroactively.\n•\nReferences: 2011 PTD (Trib.) 162.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),7,8(1)(ca),21,33(5),36(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.902/IB of 2011, decision dated: 4-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shezad Mehmood and Fazal Butt Taxpayer. Muhammad Jawad, DR for Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ISLAMABAD AUTOS, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 194 = 2012 SLD 194 = 2012 PTD 885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Tax Fraud and Fake Invoices\n•\nKey Issues: Allegations of fraud based on fake invoices without evidence of intent or knowledge.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal struck down allegations, emphasizing the absence of willful intent and the taxpayer’s compliance.\n•\nReferences: GST 2004 CL 102.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.592/LB of 2009, decision dated: 9-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Appellant. M. Farrukh Majeed D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs RAIN DROP, LAHORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-III), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 195 = 2012 SLD 195 = 2012 PTD 925", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Ex Parte Decisions and Input Tax Refusals\n•\nKey Issues: Rejection of input tax claims based on non-compliance by suppliers and ex parte proceedings.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the taxpayer’s right to be heard.\n•\nReferences: S.T.A. No.960/LB/2009.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=73,7", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 2144/LB to 2148/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-02-2012, hearing DATE : 16-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farrukh Majid, D.R. for Respondent. Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TIWANA ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 196 = 2012 SLD 196 = 2012 PTD 928", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Extension of Limitation Without Reasons\n•\nKey Issues: Extension of limitation for adjudication granted on flimsy grounds.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal declared the orders void, emphasizing the necessity of plausible reasons for extensions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B(2)", + "Case #": "S.T. No. 205/KB of 2009 and Order-in-Appeal No.1079 of 2008, decision dated: 27-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD SAEED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muneer Fareedi for Appellant. Gohar Ali, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GREEN STAR MACHINE TOOLS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, KARACHI\nVs\nCOLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 197 = 2012 SLD 197 = 2012 PTD 931", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Zero Rating and Refund of Input Tax\n•\nKey Issues: Blacklisted supplier, limitation for passing the order, and retrospective application of blacklisting.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal vacated the order-in-original as the supplier's status was restored, and the order exceeded the statutory time limit.\n•\nReferences: PTCL 2005 CL 138; 2008 PTD 60.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,7,8,8A,10,22,26,11(2),33,34,36(3),73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.263/LB of 2010, decision dated: 23rd February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID AZIZ BANTH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Nadeem Arif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs A.B.M. TEXTILE, FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 198 = 2012 SLD 198 = 2012 PTD 934", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdictional Defects in Reassessment Orders\n•\nKey Issues: Commissioner (Enforcement & Collection) acted beyond authority under Section 45A.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAppellate Tribunal declared the order void due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of legal procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A,45B", + "Case #": "M.A. (Say) No. 97/LB of 2011 and S.T.A. No.169/LB of 2011, decision dated: 2-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND TABBANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abid Raza Kazmi for Appellant. Syed Javed Ali Shah, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALLAHDIN STEEL MILLS, S.I.E., DASKA\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 199 = 2012 SLD 199 = 2012 PTD 941", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Stay of Recovery During Appeal\n•\nKey Issues: Denial of stay during the pendency of an appeal.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal stayed recovery until the First Appellate Authority decided the appeal, emphasizing fairness and avoiding irreparable loss to the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=5,5B", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.247/LB of 2012, decision dated: 15-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad and Rana M. Arshad, ITP for Appellants. Mrs. Kehkashan Khan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHENAB BOARD, FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 261 = 2011 SLD 261 = 2011 PTCL 62 = 2012 PTD 942", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Defective Show-Cause Notices\n•\nKey Issues: Omission of substantive legal provisions in the notice.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCase remanded for fresh adjudication, directing the authority to consider relevant rules and bills of entry.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.857/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid ul Hassan Chatta, D.R. for Petitioner. Tariq Najeeb for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD\nVs\nMessrs KHALIL JUTE MILLS, FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 200 = 2012 SLD 200 = 2012 PTD 946", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Non-Retrospective Application of Blacklisting\n•\nKey Issues: Refund claims denied due to blacklisting of suppliers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal vacated the orders, holding that blacklisting could not affect transactions made when the supplier was active.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,7,8,8A,10,22,26,11(2),33,34,36(1),73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.269/LB of 2010, decision dated: 23rd February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID AZIZ BANTH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Nadeem Arif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs Z.N. EXPORTS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 273 = 2013 SLD 273 = (2013) 107 TAX 327 = 2012 PTD 999", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdiction of Ombudsman and Appeals\n•\nKey Issues: Filing a complaint instead of pursuing statutory appeals.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court upheld that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction in the matter due to the availability of appellate remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4),33,34,36(3),46Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9(2)(b),32", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1884 of 2007, decision dated: 13-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Petitioners. Moulvi Anwar-ul-Haq, Attorney -General of Pakistan for the State. Nazir Abbassi, Standing Counsel. Ms. Miraj Tareen for Respondent No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIVE STAR BUILDING MATERIALS AND GEN. ORDER SUPPLIERS and another\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Islamabad and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 201 = 2012 SLD 201 = (2012) 106 TAX 65 = 2012 PTD 1016", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Time-Barred Orders and Limitation Principles\n•\nKey Issues: Delay of 313 days in issuing the order-in-original.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled the order, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,36(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.1 of 2007, decision dated: 14-03-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI AND SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Petitioner. Syed Touqeer Bukhari and Raja Karim Akhtar, Inland Revenue Officer Legal-II for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN ORDINANCE FACTORIES (POF) WAH, CANTT\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE ADJUDICATION), ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 202 = 2012 SLD 202 = 2012 PTD 1040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdictional Issues in Officer Appointments\n•\nKey Issues: Adjudication by an unnotified officer.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal declared the proceedings void due to lack of lawful jurisdiction, setting aside the orders.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=30,11,36(1),45", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.258/LB of 2010, decision dated: 30-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasir Pirzada, D.R. for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION) INLAND REVENUE (RTO), FAISALABAD\nVs\nMessrs ZAHID JEE FABRICS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 203 = 2012 SLD 203 = 2012 PTD 1092", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Mandatory Limitation Under Section 36(3)\n•\nKey Issues: Orders issued beyond statutory timelines.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld that orders issued beyond the limitation period were void.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3)", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.114 of 2011, decision dated: 7-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sarfraz Ahmed Cheema for Applicant. Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE\nVs\nMessrs CRESENT TEXTILE MILLS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 204 = 2012 SLD 204 = 2012 PTD 1094", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Discretion in Imposing Penalties and Additional Taxes\n•\nKey Issues: Tax liability paid in installments under compelling circumstances.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal deleted additional tax and penalties, recognizing that payment delays were not willful.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33,34,11(5)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 214/LB of 2010, decision dated: 19-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez Jami for Appellant. Rizwan Ahmed Urfi, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "PUNJAB BEVERAGES COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 205 = 2012 SLD 205 = 2012 PTD 1102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Illegal Recovery and Blocking of NTN\n•\nKey Issues: Forced recovery without a show-cause notice.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal dismissed the department’s appeal, emphasizing procedural violations and unjustified recovery.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=48,2(2A),45B&21", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.675/LB of 2011, decision dated: 28-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Raza Bodla, D.R. for Appellant. Riaz Ahmad Raja, ITP for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-II, REGION, MULTAN\nVs\nMessrs CHICAGO METAL WORKS (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 206 = 2012 SLD 206 = 2012 PTD 1113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Liability for Blacklisted Suppliers' Invoices\n•\nKey Issues: Denial of input tax based on blacklisted suppliers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal vacated orders, ruling that liability rested with suppliers and not buyers.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(3)(a),11(2),8(1)(d),8(l)(c)(a),21(2),33,34,36(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.157(PB) of 2011, decision dated: 22-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND YUSUF GHAFFAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Danish Ali Qazi for Appellant. Shuaib Sultan, IRAQ for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SWAT CERAMICS (PVT.) LTD., NOWSHERA\nVs\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE AUDIT DIVISIONI, R.T.O., PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 207 = 2012 SLD 207 = 2012 PTD 1120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Invalid Objections Raised for the First Time in Appeals\n•\nKey Issues: Blacklisting not alleged in the original proceedings.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal dismissed appeals, holding that objections not included in the show-cause notice could not be raised later.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,21,36,46", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.179/LB and 180/LB of 2010, decision dated: 5-04-2012, hearing DATE : 29-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Fouzia Fakhar D.R. for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL) R.T.O., FAISALABAD\nVs\nMessrs KAMAL SPINNING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 208 = 2012 SLD 208 = 2012 PTD 1123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Invalid Appointment of Inland Revenue Officers\n•\nKey Issues: Lack of official notification for officer appointments.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal annulled the orders, citing jurisdictional defects and procedural violations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=30,36(3),11(5),2(18),33(13)", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No.15/LB of 2012 and S.T.A. No.247/LB of 2010, decision dated: 20-03-2012, hearing DATE : 15-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Mrs. Fouzia Adil, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZAHID JEE TEXTILE MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER (APPEALS) INLAND REVENUE (R.T.O.), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 209 = 2012 SLD 209 = 2012 PTD 1265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Investigations into Blacklisted Suppliers\n•\nKey Issues: Transactions with blacklisted suppliers and failure to provide records.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld the investigation, directing thorough inquiry into false invoices.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=37,38Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,11", + "Case #": "Complaint No.80/LHR/ST(16)/150 of 2012, decision dated: 7-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Riaz Ahmad, ITP Authorized Representative. Muhammad Nayyar Shafiq, Deputy Director I & I Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHZAD ANWAR SHEIKH\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 210 = 2012 SLD 210 = 2012 PTD 1287 = 2011 PTCL 835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Claims Under Obsolete Rules\n•\nKey Issues: Refund claims made under omitted rules.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal rejected the taxpayer's appeal, holding that the claim was not admissible under the applicable rules.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,4,66,72", + "Case #": "S.T. Nos.89-113/PB of 2008 and 157-181/IRAT of 2009, decision dated: 13-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ishtiaq Ahmad for Appellant. Muhammad Tariq Arbab and Shoaib Sultan, D.Rs. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AGRO PAK (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR\nVs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (REFUND), SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXICSE, PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 211 = 2012 SLD 211 = 2012 PTD 1316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Taxation of Self-Consumed Goods\n•\nKey Issues: Levy of tax on self-consumed raw materials during manufacturing.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal set aside the levy, ruling that intermediate goods consumed during production do not constitute taxable supplies.\n•\nReferences: 2002 PTD (Trib.) 475; 2007 PTD 2410 (S.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)(a)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.186/LB and FEA No.1/LB of 2012, decision dated: 5-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAK ARAB FERTILIZERS LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nC.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 212 = 2012 SLD 212 = 2012 PTD 1335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdictional Defects and Time Limitations\n•\nKey Issues: Legal points raised for the first time, lack of appointment notification, and time-barred adjudication.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOrder passed by an Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue without proper notification was declared illegal.\no\nAdjudication exceeding 180 days was void as FBR's extension of time beyond statutory limits was invalid.\n•\nReferences: Messrs Kamal Spinning Mills v. CIR (2010).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,30,11,36,45", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No. 78/LB of 2011 and S.T.As. Nos. 220/LB and 261/LB of 2010, decision dated: 15-05-2012, hearing DATE : 2-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND TABBANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant, Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent (in S.T.A. No. 261/LB of 2010) Mrs. Nabila Iqbal, D.R. for Respondent (in M.A. (AG) No. 78/LB of 2011 and S.T.A. No. 220/LB of 2010) Nabila Iqbal D.R. for Appellant (in S.T.A. No. 261/LB of 2010)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NASEEM PLASTIC HOUSE, FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 213 = 2012 SLD 213 = 2012 PTD 1343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Suspension of Registration and Discrimination\n•\nKey Issues: Prolonged suspension of sales tax registration without justification.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOmbudsman directed the restoration of registration, finding the suspension discriminatory as similar cases had been resolved.\no\nRefund claims were to be processed within specified timelines.\n•\nReferences: 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2090.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,2(17)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 100/LHR/ST(21)192 of 2012, decision dated: 7-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Khubaib Ahmad, Authorized Representative. Azhar Abbas Shirazi, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHOAIB AHMAD, MUHAMMAD ALI COTTON WASTE FACTORY, FAISALABAD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 274 = 2013 SLD 274 = (2013) 107 TAX 301 = 2012 PTD 1361 = 2012 PTCL 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Illegal Search and Seizure\n•\nKey Issues: Unauthorized raid, search, and seizure without compliance with statutory provisions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe raid and subsequent proceedings were declared illegal and void.\no\nAll seized records were ordered to be returned, and the show-cause notice and order-in-original were set aside.\n•\nReferences: Collector of Customs (Preventive) v. Muhammad Mehfooz, PLD 1991 SC 630.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),3,6,7,22,23,33(2),(5),(6),(8),(11),(13),(16),38,73Federal Excise Act, 2005=3ACriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497,497(2)", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.10333/B of 2011, decision dated: 27-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Adnan Ahmad for Petitioner. Nadeem Mahmood Mian and Ms. Kausar Parveen for the Complainant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Khawaja SHAHBAZ AHMED\nVs\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, RANGE OFFICE, GUJRANWALA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 214 = 2012 SLD 214 = (2012) 105 TAX 108 = 2012 PTD 1416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Raising Questions of Law for the First Time\n•\nKey Issues: Fundamental legal questions raised before the Supreme Court.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe Supreme Court allowed raising new legal points to ensure complete justice.\no\nCase remanded for adjudication of fundamental issues under Section 65 of the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nReferences: Gatron (Industries) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan, 1999 SCMR 1072.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=4(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1140/LB of 2009, decision dated: 13-03-2011, hearing DATE : 8-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Amin for Appellant. Riaz Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 305 = 2004 SLD 305 = 2004 PTCL 494 = 2006 SCMR 1519 = 2005 PTD 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Amnesty Scheme and Input Tax Adjustment\n•\nKey Issues: Entitlement to input tax adjustment under an amnesty scheme.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled that input tax adjustment was not available to non-registered persons during the relevant period.\no\nDemand for the full principal amount, additional tax, and penalties was upheld.\n•\nReferences: Messrs Hamza Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax, 2005 PTD 1131.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(2),65Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.1968 of 2002, decision dated: 20-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Irshad, Deputy Attorney-General and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CALTEX OIL (PAKISTAN) LTD.\nVs\nCOLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 291 = 2006 SLD 291 = 2006 PTD 715 = (2006) 93 TAX 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Manufacturing Polyethylene Bags as Taxable Supplies\n•\nKey Issues: Tax liability on self-manufactured polyethylene bags for packing ghee.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal ruled that poly bags constituted a distinct taxable supply, even for self-consumption.\no\nHigh Court's judgment exempting such activity was overturned.\n•\nReferences: Sheikhu Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan, 2001 SCMR 1376.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No.200 of 2003, decision dated: 17-01-2006, hearing DATE : 2-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant. Sattar Silat for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (EAST), KARACHI\nVs\nMessrs ASPHALT INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 292 = 2006 SLD 292 = 2006 PTD 730 = (2006) 93 TAX 419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Penalty for Fraudulent Refund Claims\n•\nKey Issues: Fraudulently claiming refunds using fake invoices.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nPenalty imposed was reduced significantly due to the absence of mens rea.\no\nHigh Court recognized the technical nature of the offense and the taxpayer’s compliance in repaying the disputed amount.\n•\nReferences: Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narayandas Ramkishan, 1994 PTD 199.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(16),2(33),3,33(4),SixthSchedCentral Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(25),3", + "Case #": "C.As. Nos. 813 to 821, 932 and 933 of 2002, decision dated: 21st December, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, A.G. along with Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Khurram Hashmi, Advocate for Appellants (In all cases), Zaeem-ul-Farooq Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in all cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and others\nVs\nMAHBOOB INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 306 = 2004 SLD 306 = 2004 PTD 1048 = (2004) 89 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Forgery of Tax Challans\n•\nKey Issues: Forged treasury challans submitted to evade sales tax.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal upheld penalties and additional tax due to the severity of fraud.\no\nHigh Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing strict compliance with legal obligations.\n•\nReferences: Eastern Rice Syndicate v. Central Board of Revenue, PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 364.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(4A),34,36", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 312 to 326 of 2002, decision dated: 4-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafaqat Mahmood Chohan for Appellant. A. Karim Malik for the Revenue", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BHOLA WEAVING FACTORY\nVs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 293 = 2006 SLD 293 = 2006 PTD 2461 = (2007) 95 TAX 81 = 2007 PTCL 394 = 2007 PTR 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 33(2), 34 & 47---Fraud in payment of Sales Tax---Imposition of penalty---Appeal---Appellant company was paying fixed monthly sales tax at the rate of Rs.1,73,250 per month---Records of appellant were audited by staff of Sales Tax Collectorate and it was observed as many as eight treasury challans for eight months contained overwriting, manipulation and alteration in the figures appearing on original treasury challans---In said eight challans an amount of Rs.73,250 each challan was actually deposited, but said challans were forged to show by adding the figure of one thereby showing deposit of Rs.1,73,250 in each challan, thereby appellant defrauded public exchequer to the tune of Rs.8,00,000---Additional Collector directed appellant to deposit defrauded amount of Sales Tax along with additional tax and surcharge---Penalty of Rs.8,80,000 was also imposed on appellant under S.33(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Fraud of serious nature had been committed by tampering and forging the amount deposited in National Bank of Pakistan on account of fixed monthly sales tax---Appellant had deposited principal amount of defrauded sales tax and had prayed for waiver of additional tax; surcharge and penalty on the sole ground that fraud was committed by their Munshi---Plea of appellant with regard to innocence could not be accepted as the law stipulated under S.68 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 had prescribed that where any person was expressly or impliedly authorized by a registered person to be an agent, said registered person would be responsible for the act done by his agent---Appellant company, in circumstances could not be absolved of its responsibility stipulated by the law---Since it was a matter of forgery and manipulation in the record, penalty imposed under S.33(2) of Sales Tax Act, 1990 was not harsh, but seemed to be reasonable and fair enough---Imposition of additional tax in terms of S.34 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 being directory in nature, prayer for its waiver, was not maintainable-Orders passed by competent Authorities, could not be interfered with in appeal by High Court.\n \n2005 PTD 165 and Eastern Rice Syndicate v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 364 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33(2),34,37", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.27-S of 1999, decision dated: 19-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Kamal for Appellant. \nSyed Tahir Abbas Rizvi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Sh. MAHMUDULHAQ\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SALES TAX (APPEALS), LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 307 = 2004 SLD 307 = 2004 PTD 1117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Maladministration in Audit Process\n•\nKey Issues: Delay in providing audit reports, refusal to accept adjournment requests, and passing orders without proper procedure.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration in delayed responses and unlawful refusal to acknowledge adjournment applications.\no\nRecommended case transfer for fresh adjudication by a different officer and reprimand of the responsible staff.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.980 of 2003, decision dated: 13-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tahir Razzaque Khan and Waseem Ahmad for the Complainant. Yousuf Haider Orakzai, Deputy Collector (Adjudication) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TAHIR RAZZAQUE KHAN & CO\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 308 = 2004 SLD 308 = 2004 PTD 1161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Complaint Against PTCL for Evasion\n•\nKey Issues: Alleged evasion of sales tax and duty by PTCL.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nComplaint dismissed as the complainant failed to substantiate claims.\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman found no maladministration and upheld PTCL's explanation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-745 of 2003, decided 11-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD), SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs S.M. HASSAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 309 = 2004 SLD 309 = 2004 PTCL 224 = (2004) 90 TAX 1 = 2004 PTD 1179 = 2004 SCMR 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Advance Payments and Penalty\n•\nKey Issues: Tax payment due on advance payments and imposition of penalties for delays.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTax on advance payments was deemed payable within the tax period of receipt.\no\nPenalties for delays were mandatory but could be waived if delays were not willful or mala fide.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1991 SC 963; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 928.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(22),3,28,30,34", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1866 of 1996, 1262 of 1999, 1288 of 2000, 1293, 1294, 1296 and 1306 of 2001, decision dated: 11-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR A. SHEIKH, IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWANDAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1866 of 1996).\nRaja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2 to 7 (in Civil Appeal No. 1866 of 1996).\nA. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1262 of 1999).\nAbdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and M. S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2000).\nTasleem Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No. 2 (in Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2000).\nRaja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3 (in Civil Appeal No. 1288 of 2000).\nImtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1293 of 2001).\nSheikh Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents (in Civil Appeal No. 1293 of-2001).\nAhmar Bilal Sufi Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for, Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos. 1294 and 1296 of 2001).\nSheikh Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents (in Civil Appeals Nos. 1294 and 1296 of 2001).\nMian Qamar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1306 of 2001).\nSheikh Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 1306 of 2001).", + "Petitioner Name:": "D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LTD. and others\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 310 = 2004 SLD 310 = 2004 PTD 1267 = (2004) 89 TAX 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Audit and Adjustment of Input Tax\n•\nKey Issues: Jurisdiction of audits and denial of input tax adjustments.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman upheld additional tax liability for delayed payments but directed the department to allow adjustments of input tax inadvertently unclaimed.\no\nDenial of adjustments without valid reasons was termed maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,11(2),22,25,31,32A,32AA,33,34,36,36(2),37,38,45,48,66Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 951 of 2002, decision dated: 24-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sikander Hayat Khan for the Complainant. Amer Rasheed D.C. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.M.T.I. PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 311 = 2004 SLD 311 = 2004 PTD 1296 = (2004) 89 TAX 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Improper Remand by Collector (Appeals)\n•\nKey Issues: Unlawful remand of a case by the Collector (Appeals).\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman declared remand improper and recommended the Collector (Appeals) decide the case themselves after inquiry.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B(3),45(2a),45", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 744-K of 2003, decision dated: 21st August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant alongwith Anwar Yasir for the Complainant. Zulfiqar Kazi; Additional Collector (Sales Tax) and Samiullah, Deputy, collector (Sales Tax) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SEAGUL EXPORTS, KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 312 = 2004 SLD 312 = 2004 PTD 1621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Claims Post Statutory Period\n•\nKey Issues: Refund claims based on retrospective application of Supreme Court decisions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRefund claims made after the statutory one-year period were rejected as past and closed transactions.\no\nSupreme Court rulings applied prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.\n•\nReferences: PLD 1998 SC 64; 2001 SCMR 777.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=11Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1283 of 1989, decision dated: 12-02-2004, hearing DATE : 15 September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar-ul-Islam for Petitioner. Mr. A. Karim Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Chief Executive\nVs\nG. A. JAHANGIR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 313 = 2004 SLD 313 = 2004 PTD 1640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman—Review Application\n•\nKey Issues: Extension of filing deadlines for tax returns.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nReview application dismissed as the findings addressed the inconvenience caused, and further recommendations were outside the scope of review.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=861(I)", + "Case #": "Review No.7 of 2004 in Complaint No. 1453 of 2003, decision dated: 24-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Riaz Hussain, A.R. for Applicant", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 314 = 2004 SLD 314 = 2004 PTD 1987", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Legality of Tax on Services\n•\nKey Issues: Constitutionality of sales tax on services under federal and provincial laws.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLaws imposing sales tax on services in Islamabad and Punjab were upheld as constitutional.\no\nFederal legislature had jurisdiction to legislate for areas not included in any province under Article 142(d).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Islamabad Capital Territory (Tax on Services) Ordinance, 2001=2,3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=1(2),70(4),142(d),199,FourthSched", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 3574 of 2001, decision dated: 9-04-2004. dates of hearing: 30-01-20th, 27-02-16th March and 31st March, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Muhammad Tariq, D.A.G.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GURGSON DRY CLEANS THROUGH PROPRIETOR MUHAMMAD ISHAQ AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\nSALES TAX OFFICER, RAWALPINDI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 315 = 2004 SLD 315 = 2004 PTD 2085", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Clover Seeds\n•\nKey Issues: Demand of sales tax on exempt goods.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDemand of sales tax on exempted clover seeds was declared unlawful.\no\nTribunal set aside the order as exempt goods fell outside the scope of taxable supplies.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,SixthSched", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals Nos. H-82/2000/6261, decision dated: 13-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.S. Jaffery for Appellant. Ali Gohar Jaffery and Iftikhar Hussain Inspectors for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 316 = 2004 SLD 316 = 2004 PTD 2214 = (2004) 90 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Plant and Machinery\n•\nKey Issues: Differentiation between commercial and industrial importers for exemption.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSRO 582(I)/98 allowed exemption for all importers meeting specific conditions, while SRO 987(I)/99 restricted exemption to specific users.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,SixthSched", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.4255-L to 4258-L of 2002, decision dated: 4-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "FALAK SHER AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Ahmer Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE and others\nVs\nMessrs M. RAMZAN SEWING MACHINES COMPANY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 317 = 2004 SLD 317 = 2004 PTD 2217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—WAPDA Levy and Necessary Party\n•\nKey Issues: Challenge to WAPDA's levy of sales tax without involving the relevant tax collector.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nPetition dismissed for lack of impleading the necessary party (Collector of Sales Tax).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, (XXXI of 1958)=12,13,25Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.2951, 2952 and 3006-L of 2002, decision dated: 4-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": ", JAVED IQBAL, TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Zia Haider Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX\nVs\nMUHAMMAD TAHIR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 319 = 2004 SLD 319 = 2004 PTD 2249 = (2004) 90 TAX 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Non-Compliance with Payment Period\n•\nKey Issues: Imposition of embargo without following procedural requirements.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nEmbargo imposed without allowing 15 days for payment was declared illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax (Recovery) Rules, 1992=R-84", + "Case #": "C. A. No.71 of 2002, decision dated: 31st July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ejaz Ahmad Awan for Applicant. Maqsood Ahmed Butt for Revenue", + "Petitioner Name:": "PATTOKI SUGAR MILL\nVs\nTHE COLLECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 320 = 2004 SLD 320 = 2004 PTCL 425 = 2004 PTD 2267 = (2004) 90 TAX 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Constitutionality of S.3(2)(c)(1-A)\n•\nKey Issues: Discrimination and penalty under amended provisions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSection deemed ultra vires for being discriminatory and punitive under the guise of taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(2)(c)(1A)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=18,25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1365 of 1999, decision dated: 13-05-2004, hearing DATE : 14-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR UL MULK AND TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Issac Ali Qazi and Yahya Khan Afridi for Petitioner. Salah-ud-Din, D.A.G. and Abdur Rauf Rohaila for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "NORTHERN BOTTLING CO. (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary of Finance and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 293 = 2008 SLD 293 = 2008 PTCL 293 = 2008 PTD 509 = (2008) 97 TAX 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Withholding of Refunds\n•\nKey Issues: Withholding refunds despite favorable appellate orders.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court ordered immediate issuance of refunds per the appellate decision, which had attained finality.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A,66,67Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.198 of 2008, heard on 24-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Ahmad Tanveer for Petitioner. Muhammad Nawaz Waseer for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHENAB LIMITED through Director\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 294 = 2008 SLD 294 = 2008 PTD 515 = (2005) 91 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Suspension of Registration\n•\nKey Issues: Suspension without proper inquiry and hearing.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSuspension order declared invalid as it violated mandatory procedural requirements and principles of natural justice.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,21(4)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-194-K of 2004, decision dated: 30-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer).Tahir Razzaq Khan, F.C.A., Authorized Representative. Zahid Habib, Farrukh Sajjad, Deputy Collector (Adjudication)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SLECTO FABRICS TRADING CO., KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 295 = 2008 SLD 295 = 2008 PTD 536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Correction of Errors and Rewards\n•\nKey Issues: Rectification of Appellate Tribunal's order and reward claims.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman dismissed the complaint, stating no maladministration in denying rectification or rewards.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=57,7(1),2(14)Customs Act, 1969=194B(2)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27(1),2(12)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1008 of 2004, decision dated: 28-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Rana Manzoor Hussain for the Complainant. Zulfiqar Hussain Khan, D.C. Sales Tax, Rawalpindi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Rana MANZOOR HUSSAIN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 296 = 2008 SLD 296 = 2008 PTD 541 = (2008) 97 TAX 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Scope and Limitation of Notices\n•\nKey Issues: Tax liability based on differences in income tax and sales tax returns; limitation on notices under S.36(1).\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTax liability cannot be determined based solely on income tax records.\no\nShow-cause notice served after the prescribed five-year limitation was invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.295/LB of 2007, decision dated: 20-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mumtaz-ul-Hassan for Appellant. Hafiz Abdul Waris, Auditor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 297 = 2008 SLD 297 = 2008 PTD 578 = 2010 PTCL 1113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Defective Show-Cause Notices\n•\nKey Issues: Time-barred notices, non-bifurcation of liabilities, and delayed adjudication.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOriginal notice and subsequent orders were declared void due to non-compliance with time limits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,36,47", + "Case #": "S.T.Rs. Nos.68 of 2006 and 13 of 2007, decision dated: 18-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azim for Appellant. Afzaal Ahmad Hashmi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HANIF STRAW BOARD FACTORY through Proprietor\nVs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, GUJRANWALA and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 298 = 2008 SLD 298 = 2008 PTD 609", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax and Excise Duty—Time Limits for Adjudication\n•\nKey Issues: Combined show-cause notices for sales tax and excise duty exceeding prescribed time limits.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOrders passed beyond time limits were invalid.\no\nFailure to reconcile within prescribed limits did not justify extensions.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=33(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 940-L of 2005, decision dated: 26-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervaiz Jami for the Complainant. Moin-ud-Din Ahmad Wani, DC Sales Tax, Rawalpindi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DANDOT CEMENT COMPANY LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 299 = 2008 SLD 299 = 2008 PTD 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Adjustment of Input Tax and Time-Barred Notices\n•\nKey Issues: Claiming input tax adjustments and issuing notices beyond the statutory period.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAdjustment claims made within allowable periods were valid.\no\nShow-cause notices issued after the three-year limit were declared illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=59", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1532 of 2003, decision dated: 10-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant, Dealing Officer. Syed Mohsin Raza Naqvi, the Complainant along with Isaac Ali Qazi for Petitioner. Imtiaz Ahmad Sheikh, DC (Sales Tax) for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs RAZA TRADING COMPANY, PESHAWAR\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 300 = 2008 SLD 300 = 2008 PTD 675 = (2005) 91 TAX 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Registration Rules—Unauthorized Circulars\n•\nKey Issues: Additional requirements for registration imposed via circulars.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCirculars modifying statutory rules without authority were declared acts of maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=18,19Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1669 of 2003, decision dated: 28-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant, Dealing Officer. Muhammad Saleem Malik for the Complainant.Kamal Afzal, A.C., Sales Tax, for the omplainant", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZIA ULLAH\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 301 = 2008 SLD 301 = 2008 PTD 731", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Dispute Resolution and Evasion Allegations\n•\nKey Issues: Resolution of disputes through non-statutory agreements.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDisputes were referred to a resolution committee as per mutual agreement.\no\nAgreements not codified into law were held to lack binding force.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,47A,2(46)(e),32AFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint Nos. 282 and 335 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer.Akhtar Javed, for the Complainant. Mazhar Waseem, D.C. (Audit) and Najeeb Qadir, Cost Accountant for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASHIF CHEMICAL CORPORATION, LAHORE\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 302 = 2008 SLD 302 = 2008 PTD 744", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Omnibus Authorization Orders\n•\nKey Issues: Authorization of broad search powers under S.38 and S.40-A.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOmnibus orders without specific targets were prone to abuse and held invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40A", + "Case #": "Complaint No.927-L of 2003, decision dated: 4-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer). Tahir Razzak Khan, F.C.A., and Ahmad Khalil for the Complainant Naureen Ahmed Tarar, A.C. Sales Tax, Lahore and Muhammad Naseem, Senior Auditor, Sales Tax for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BAYER CHEMICALS, LAHORE\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 303 = 2008 SLD 303 = 2008 PTD 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Improper Registration and Penalty\n•\nKey Issues: Compulsory registration without notice and penalties imposed without proper inquiry.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOrders were declared void for lack of notice and inquiry.\no\nMaladministration was established.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=19,26,45,A19Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1413 of 2003, decision dated: 21st November, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant (Dealing Officer). Mubarik Ahmad Qureshi for the Complainant. Imtiaz Shaikh, DC (Sales Tax) Peshawar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SNOW LAND HOTEL, NARAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 304 = 2008 SLD 304 = 2008 PTD 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Delay in Deregistration Applications\n•\nKey Issues: Delay in processing deregistration applications despite the absence of outstanding dues.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDelay was deemed maladministration, and authorities were directed to process applications promptly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1043-L of 2003, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer).Ch. Abdul Razzak for the Complainant. Ms. Azmat Tahira, D.C. (Refunds), Sales Tax, Lahore for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TAXILA TEXTILE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE through Ch. Muhammad Ali\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 305 = 2008 SLD 305 = 2008 PTD 784", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Premature Recovery of Additional Tax\n•\nKey Issues: Deduction of additional tax from refunds without adjudication.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSuch deductions were held improper and premature.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(34),11,33,34,48(1)(a)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1143-L of 2003, decision dated: 31st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer)Rana Muhammad Afzal for the Complainant. Fazal-ur-Rehman for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "RELIANCE WEAVING MILLS LTD., MULTAN\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 306 = 2008 SLD 306 = 2008 PTD 858", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Further Tax and Constitutional Validity\n•\nKey Issues: Application of S.3(1-A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLeave to appeal granted to examine the constitutional validity of the levy.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1A)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.588-K of 2006, decision dated: 3rd March, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for represented", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE L.T.U\nVs\nMessrs QASIM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 307 = 2008 SLD 307 = 2008 PTD 894 = (2008) 98 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Beneficial Notifications and Retrospective Effect\n•\nKey Issues: Retrospective application of beneficial notifications.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nBeneficial notifications were allowed retrospective effect by the Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,11,47", + "Case #": "S.T. Appeal No.189 of 2002, decision dated: 14-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Appellant. A. Karim Malik for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE\nVs\nMessrs ABDULLAH SUGAR MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 308 = 2008 SLD 308 = 2008 PTD 962 = (2004) 90 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exported Goods and Departmental Advice\n•\nKey Issues: Refunds on exported goods and departmental responsibilities.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOfficials’ failure to advise the taxpayer constituted maladministration.\no\nRefunds were directed to be processed appropriately.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,34Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,11", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-41-K of 2004, decision dated: 18-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer) M. Nissar Dossa, Chairman of Company. S.M. Shoaib, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax, Karachi", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DOSSA COTTON & GENERAL TRADING (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 309 = 2008 SLD 309 = 2008 PTCL 365 = 2008 PTD 981 = (2008) 97 TAX 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Limitation for Recovery of Refunds\n•\nKey Issues: Recovery actions initiated after limitation period expired.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nProceedings initiated after the limitation period were declared unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,47", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.22 and 23 of 2006, heard on 1st April, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar for Appellant. Syed Khalid Javed Bukhari for Respondent. Muhammad Farooq Custom Inspector", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs JOYLA SADAT COTTON INDUSTRIES\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 310 = 2008 SLD 310 = 2008 PTD 1267 = (2008) 98 TAX 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Remand of Cases for Hearing\n•\nKey Issues: Referring disputes back to collectors for adjudication.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCases remanded to collectors for fresh resolution after providing proper hearings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1)(1A),3B,47,66", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.180 of 2002, decision dated: 13th December 2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed Awan for Appellant. A. Karim Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHISHTIA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nVs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL SALES TAX, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 311 = 2008 SLD 311 = 2008 PTD 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Limitation and Invalid Orders\n•\nKey Issues: Orders passed beyond prescribed time limits under S.36(3).\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOrders passed after the statutory period were held void due to time-bar.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 958-L of 2005, decision dated: 26-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer. Shahid Pervaiz Jami for the Complainant. Muhammad Akram Ch. D.C. Central Excise, Sales Tax and Customs, Multan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs S.S. OIL MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 113 = 2009 SLD 113 = 2009 PTD 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Audit Observations and Excess Tax Adjustment\n•\nKey Issues: Adjustment of excess tax without refund claims.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nActions against taxpayers were deemed unjustified and maladministrative.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(2),36(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-108-K of 2004 decided on 23rd April, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RTD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer). A. Majeed Khan, Legal Officer, PMDC for the Complainant. Aijaz Ahmed Khan, Deputy Collector of Sales Tax, (Adjudication) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD\nVs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 189 = 2010 SLD 189 = (2010) 101 TAX 272 = 2010 PTD 592 = 2010 PTCL 741", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Taxability of Free Samples\n•\nKey Issues: Taxability of free-of-cost supplies by pharmaceutical companies.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFree samples without consideration were held non-taxable.\no\nCirculars were binding on tax authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,.2(35)(41)(46),3(1),72", + "Case #": "Spl. Sales Tax Ref. No.279 of 2007, decision dated: 9-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mohsin Imam for Applicant. Fazle Rabbi for Respondent. Siraj-ul-Haq Memon, Amicus Curiae", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE\nVs\nMessrs ABBOTT LABORATORIES (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1936 34 = 1936 SLD 34 = (1936) 4 ITR 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax—HUF Assessment and Accounting Rejection\n•\nKey Issues: Revising earlier wrong assessments and rejecting incomplete accounts.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTax authorities were justified in reassessing HUF status and rejecting unreliable accounts.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 75 OF 1935 FEBRUARY 19, 1936", + "Judge Name:": "SIR, JAMES ADDISON AND ABDUL RASHID, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Tarachand Pohumal\nv\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 215 = 2012 SLD 215 = 2012 PTD 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Disallowance of Input Tax on Packing Material\n•\nKey Issues: Legality of disallowing input tax based on association agreements.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAgreements without legislative backing were invalid for tax purposes.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,3,7,11,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.960/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NAVEED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD\nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 191 = 2010 SLD 191 = 2010 PTD 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Illegal Raids and Searches\n•\nKey Issues: Searches and seizures conducted without proper warrants or compliance.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRaids conducted in violation of S.38, S.40, and S.40-A were declared illegal.\no\nAll resulting proceedings were invalidated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40A", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.828/LB of 2009, decision dated: 28-09-2009, hearing DATE : 15-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD TAHIR, MEHR MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA, JUDICIAL MEMBERS AND KHALID NASEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant. Muhammad Nawaz Cheema for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 192 = 2010 SLD 192 = (2010) 102 TAX 100 = 2010 PTD 1652", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Input Tax Adjustment\n•\nKey Issues: Adjustment of input tax disallowed due to lack of intent to pay output tax.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nVague allegations without specific evidence were insufficient.\no\nTaxpayer allowed to adjust input tax as it prevented double taxation and undue hardship.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,7,8,47", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 153 of 2005, decision dated: 16-05-2008, hearing DATE : 26-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND QAMARUDDIN BOHRA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Sheikh for the Applicant. Mohsin Imam for the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.\nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 193 = 2010 SLD 193 = (2010) 102 TAX 103 = 2011 PTCL 213 = 2010 PTD 1717", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Validity of S.R.Os and Input Tax Credit\n•\nKey Issues: Denial of input tax credit due to conflicting S.R.Os; challenge to S.R.Os' vires.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nS.R.Os restricting input tax credit were not ultra vires.\no\nBeneficial notifications could not be applied retrospectively unless explicitly stated.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,8(1)(b),10(1)", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-750 of 2009, heard on 26-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Farough Naseem for Petitioner. Mohsin Imam for Respondent. Ashiq Raza, D.A.G", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DEWAN CEMENT LTD. Through Authorized Representative\nVs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division and Ex-officio Chairman, F.B.R., Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 194 = 2010 SLD 194 = 2010 PTCL 398 = 2010 PTD 2064", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Use of Audited Accounts and Income Tax Records\n•\nKey Issues: Use of statutory documents for sales tax audits.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nStatutory documents like audited accounts and income tax returns were valid for audits.\no\nDisposal of assets without paying sales tax was proved using balance sheet discrepancies.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25", + "Case #": "Appeal No.S.T. 434/PB of 2008, decision dated: 9-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din and Zulfiqar Hussain, G.M. for Appellants. Abdul Razzaq, DR/Additional Collector, Muhammad Haroon Khattak and Dost Muhammad Sr. Auditors for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 195 = 2010 SLD 195 = 2010 PTD 2144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Claims and Adjudication\n•\nKey Issues: Entitlement to refund without time limitation.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTaxpayer entitled to refund after scrutiny by the department.\no\nDirected to process refunds within a stipulated period.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.684/LB of 2009, decision dated: 15-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Attique-ur-Rehman Mughal, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 196 = 2010 SLD 196 = 2010 PTD 2157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Invalid Show-Cause Notices\n•\nKey Issues: Rejection of refund claims based on issues not confronted in notices.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOrders passed on grounds not specified in show-cause notices were illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.793/LB of 2009, decision dated: 22-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Attique-ur-Rehman Mughal, D.R. for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 197 = 2010 SLD 197 = 2010 PTD 2252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Double Taxation and Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues: Issuance of duplicate show-cause notices for the same period.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDuplicate notices amounted to double taxation and were vacated.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,45", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.91/LB of 2009, decision dated: 4-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Adnan Ahmed Ch. for Appellant. M. Numan Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 263 = 2011 SLD 263 = 2011 PTD 2325 = 2012 PTCL 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Torts—Damages for Misconduct by Tax Officials\n•\nKey Issues: Damages for maltreatment and unlawful actions by tax officials.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nPlaintiff awarded damages for mental agony.\no\nCourt emphasized the need for evidence of exact financial losses.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=35,35A,48", + "Case #": "H.C. Appeals Nos.98 and 128 of 2009, decision dated: 24-06-2011, hearing DATE : 26-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Gul Muhammad Awan Appellant in person (in HCA No. 98 of 2009 and Respondent in HCA No. 128 of 2009) Mrs. Masooda Qureshi for Respondents in HCA No. 98 and for Appellant in HCA No. 128 of 2009)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Malik GUL MUHAMMAD AWAN and others\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 198 = 2010 SLD 198 = 2010 PTD 1269 = (2010) 102 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Processing and Packing as Taxable Activity\n•\nKey Issues: Taxability of value-added activities.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nProcessing and packing of oil were taxable activities as they involved value addition.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(16),2(33)(a),Sixth Schedule", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No.3 of 2004, decision dated: 16-02-2010, hearing DATE : 20-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J. AND LIAQAT ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rauf Rohaila for Appellant. Ishaq Ali Qazi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR\nVs\nMessrs SOLV-TECH. (PVT.) LIMITED, HATTAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, HATTAR-HARIPUR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 199 = 2010 SLD 199 = 2010 PTD 1286 = (2010) 102 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Cooked Food\n•\nKey Issues: Tax exemption for food supplied to industrial canteens.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption was denied for food supplied for profit.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,3(1),SixthSched", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No.4 of 2009 with C. M. 2 of 2009, decision dated: 21st January, 2010, hearing DATE : 20-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J. AND LIAQAT ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Jawad Pani for Appellant. Abdul Latif Yousafzai for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BALANA RESTAURANT, PESHAWAR\nVs\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 114 = 2009 SLD 114 = 2009 PTD 350 = (2008) 98 TAX 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refunds and Procedural Deficiencies\n•\nKey Issues: Rejection of refund claims due to procedural lapses.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nProcedural deficiencies in verifying documents did not justify denial of refunds.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(2),2(14),4,7,8(1),10,26", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1186/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umer Arshad for Appellant. Ms. Nyma Batool, D.R. and Rashid Mehmood, Auditor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 115 = 2009 SLD 115 = (2009) 100 TAX 64 = 2009 PTD 431 = 2009 PTCL 771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Scope of Taxable Activity and Value Addition\n•\nKey Issues: Taxability of value addition and double taxation.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTax was levied on total value, not just value addition.\no\nArguments of double taxation were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,3,2(46),7", + "Case #": "I.C.As. Nos. 489, 437, 438, 440 to 443, 463 to 466 and 474 to 485 of 2008, decision dated: 29-01-2009, hearing DATE : 14-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar and Mian Mehmood Rasheed for Appellant. Izhar ul Haq Sheikh, Ahmer Bilal Soofi and Ms. Kausar Parveen for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GUJRANWALA STEEL FURNACE, SIALKOT through Authorized Representative\nVs\nCHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 294 = 2006 SLD 294 = 2006 PTD 1238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Jurisdiction and Transfer of Cases\n•\nKey Issues: Adjudication by Collector (Adjudication) after case transfer.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTransfer and adjudication by authorized officials were valid.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=31,4(2),3D", + "Case #": "Ex. A. No. 1722 of 2002 and S.T.A. No. 1859 of 2002, decision dated: 19-12-2004, hearing DATE : 19-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Khalid Bashir, D.R. assisted by Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, S.I.O. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 406 = 2003 SLD 406 = 2003 PTD 1580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Natural Justice and Arbitrary Orders\n•\nKey Issues: Determination of tax based on undisclosed formulas.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOrders passed ex parte without sufficient evidence were set aside for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,34", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 102/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-05-2002, hearing DATE : 17-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYVUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muhammad Afzal for Appellant. Imran Tariq, D.R. with Rana Shabbir Ahmad, S.A for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 568 = 1998 SLD 568 = 1998 PTD 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Mandatory Period for Filing Returns\n•\nKey Issues: Compliance with mandatory timelines for filing returns.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nOfficers lacked authority to curtail mandatory filing periods.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28,28(2)", + "Case #": "I.T.R. No. 41 of 1976, decision dated: 24-08-1987", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND ALLAHDINO G. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVs\nPAKISTAN FISHERIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 744 = 2001 SLD 744 = 2001 PTCL 226 = 2001 SCMR 775 = (2001) 83 TAX 252 = 2001 PTD 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Goods in Transit and Jurisdiction Issues\n•\nKey Issues: Applicability of sales tax on goods in transit to Azad Jammu and Kashmir.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLeave to appeal granted to examine jurisdiction and constitutional issues.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(b)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1414 of 1998, decision dated: 4-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, SH. IJAZ NISAR AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmed, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MASTER FOAM (PVT.) LTD. through Iftikhar Khan, Executive Director\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 450 = 2005 SLD 450 = 2005 PTD 1811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTST0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.521 of 1998, dated 21/12/2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUCTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 451 = 2005 SLD 451 = 2005 PTD 1813", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2(s),156(1),156(89),187", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.59-P of 2004, dated 27/01/2005", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 452 = 2005 SLD 452 = 2005 PTD 1816", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1981=20(2)", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No.92 of 1998, 08/12/2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax/ Wealth Tax, Faisalabad Zone, Faisalabad \nVS \nMessrs Saeed Steel Casting, Factory Area, Faisalabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 453 = 2005 SLD 453 = 2005 PTD 1817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2(s)", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. 15 and 16 of 2003, dated 15/10/2003", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN, JUSTICE AND TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Amjad Pervaiz and others \nVS \nAdditional Collector Customs (Hq)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 745 = 2001 SLD 745 = 2001 PTD 1908 = (2000) 246 ITR 230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYQlNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Definition of Manufacture\n•\nKey Issues: Whether crushing dolomite constituted manufacture. \n•\nOutcome:\no\nCrushing dolomite did not produce a new commodity and was not considered manufacturing.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2287 of 1995, decision dated: 11-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND V. N. KHARE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for Appellants. Prakash Shrivastava, Advocate for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIVISIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX and another \nVs \nBHERAGHAT MINERAL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 746 = 2001 SLD 746 = 2001 PTCL 127 = 2001 PTD 2600", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Voluntary Registration and Input Tax\n•\nKey Issues: Input tax adjustments for voluntarily registered taxpayers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nVoluntary registration did not preclude claiming input tax adjustments.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=18,7,59", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 116/LB of 2000, decision dated: 5-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN AND FALAK SHER, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Shafiq for Appellant. Ms. Rukhsana Yasmin, D.R. and Ishtiaq Ahmed, Law Officer for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 747 = 2001 SLD 747 = 2001 PTD 3471 = 2003 PTCL 428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Input Tax on Pre-Registration Stocks\n•\nKey Issues: Refund claims for input tax on pre-registration stocks.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRepeal of relevant provisions did not invalidate the taxpayer's claim.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=59,7,8,10", + "Case #": "Appeal No.243 of 1998, decision dated: 18-12-2000, hearing DATE : 13-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN MEMBER ((TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellant. S.K.M. Kiani, Deputy Superintendent for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 748 = 2001 SLD 748 = 2001 PTD 3945 = (2002) 85 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Manufacturing Definition and Taxability\n•\nKey Issues: Taxability of goods subjected to slitting processes.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSlitting processes did not alter the nature of goods; thus, not taxable as manufacturing. ", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(f)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.707-K of 2000, decision dated: 8-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI and another\nVs\nMessrs HILAL STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 749 = 2001 SLD 749 = 2001 PTD 3948 = (2002) 85 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Constitutional Petitions and Alternate Remedies\n•\nKey Issues: Filing constitutional petitions without exhausting alternate remedies.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nPetition dismissed due to availability of alternate remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=5,5(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 18 of 2001, decision dated: 18-06-2001, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI AND FAZAL-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Saeed for Petitioner. K. N. Kohli, Dy. A.G. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB ARKADY LTD \nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, SALES TAX HUB, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, QUETTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 750 = 2001 SLD 750 = 2001 PTD 3961 = (2002) 85 TAX 174 = 2001 MLD 1969", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Estoppel—Promissory and Legal Implications\n•\nKey Issues: Application of promissory estoppel in tax matters.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nEstoppel could not be invoked against legislative actions or in cases of fraud.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(4),45,48Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3(5)Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No. 420 of 1994, In re: Writ Petition No. 16532 of 1993, heard on 2-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik for Appellants. Ashtar Ausaf Ali for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others \nVs \nPAKISTAN PULP PAPER AND BOARD MAKERS ASSOCIATION through Kamran Khan and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 569 = 1998 SLD 569 = 1998 PTD 3200 = (1998) 78 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Promissory Estoppel and Exemptions\n•\nKey Issues: Withdrawal of exemptions and legal applicability.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemptions granted for specific periods could not be prematurely withdrawn.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974=44", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 50 of 1997, decided 25-03-1998. dates of hearing: 22nd and 23rd December, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH AND MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Mahmood Kasuri and Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Advocates for Appellants. S. M. Zafar and Syed Zahid Hussain, Advocates for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 4 others \nVs \nMessrs SPINTEX LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 570 = 1998 SLD 570 = 1998 PTD 3061 = (1998) 78 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Pharmaceutical Exemptions\n•\nKey Issues: Withdrawal of exemptions on pharmaceutical raw materials.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAuthorities lacked lawful authority to demand sales tax on exempted materials.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,SixthSched,42,43Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.29612, 2077 of 1997, 2222, 1492 and 1684 of 1998, heard on 20-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Talat Farooq Sheikh for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs WILSHIRE LABORATORIES (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 571 = 1998 SLD 571 = 1998 PTD 3064 = (1998) 78 TAX 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes—Exemption Period\n•\nKey Issues: Definition of setting up industries for tax exemptions and subsequent amendments.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExplanation in the amended notification clarified, rather than extended, the eight-year exemption period.\no\nDemand notices issued after the exemption period were upheld as valid.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(7),47", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 1 of 1997, decision dated: 24-03-1998, hearing DATE : 12-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Ali Pirzada and Sultan Ahmed Sheikh for Petitioner. M. S. Rakhshani for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "BOLAN CHEMICALS (PVT.) LIMITED \nVs \nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX, HUB, BALOCHISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 622 = 2002 SLD 622 = 2002 PTD 2153 = (2003) 87 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Input Tax on Electricity Bills\n•\nKey Issues: Adjustment of input tax for electricity bills not in the name of the registered person.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDenial of adjustment upheld due to non-compliance with Sales Tax General Order requirements.\no\nComplaint dismissed for lack of evidence of maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8,22,23,33,34Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.72 of 2002, decision dated: 27-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ahmed Nizami for the Complainant. Dr. Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Collector of Customs and Sales Tax, Faisalabad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KAMRAN WEAVING FACTORY, FAISALABAD \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 623 = 2002 SLD 623 = 2002 PTCL 200 = 2002 PTD 1525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Input Tax Adjustment in Subsequent Returns\n•\nKey Issues: Legality of input tax adjustments made in tax periods subsequent to the related invoices.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAdjustments deemed unlawful under amended provisions.\no\nTribunal allowed leniency by requiring payment of principal tax without additional penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7(1)", + "Case #": "Appeal No. ST-2733/IB of 2001, decision dated: 9-03-2002. dates of hearing: 9th, 16th, 22nd January and 6-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. M. KAZMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din for Appellant. Nasir Mehmood, D.S., Pir Alam Shah, D.R. and Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer of the Collectorate", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 264 = 1994 SLD 264 = 1994 PTD 1031", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Manufactured Goods\n•\nKey Issues: Interpretation of notifications granting sales tax exemptions for specific goods.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLeave granted to examine the applicability of exemptions on telephone poles/tubes.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 488 and 489-K of 1993, decision dated: 22-02-1994", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. A. Aziz Khan, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUNNY IMPEX and another \nVs \nDIRECTOR, TELEGRAPH STORES AND WORKSHOP and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 9 = 2014 SLD 9 = 2014 SCMR 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of High Court—Tribal Areas\n•\nKey Issues: High Court jurisdiction under Art. 199 in matters related to Tribal Areas.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nHigh Court lacked jurisdiction in cases originating from Tribal Areas.\no\nAppeal allowed, and bail order set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)=11Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=247(7),199", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.141-P of 2010, decision dated: 23rd May, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Neelam Khan, AAG, KPK for Appellants. Wali Khan Afridi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FATA) and others \nVs \nPIAYO NOOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 123 = 1987 SLD 123 = 1987 PTD 64 = (1986) 54 TAX 166 = (1987) 55 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Cotton\n•\nKey Issues: Exemption applicability for cotton lint or waste.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal's decision upheld as the matter was deemed factual, not legal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(1)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Case No.11 of 1977, decision dated: 1st September, 1986", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaik Haider for Applicant. Naimur Rahman for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (CENTRAL), KARACHI \nVs \nMessrs KARACHI OIL SEED INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 124 = 1987 SLD 124 = 1987 PTD 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Concessional Tax Rates\n•\nKey Issues: Avoidance of tax liabilities and scope of exemptions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLevying concessional rates on ship-breaking activities upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=12", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 3/KB and 4/KB of 1983-84, decision dated: 24-09-1986, hearing DATE : 30-08-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin-e-Ajam, D.R. for Appellant. S. Mukhtar H. Naqvi, I.T.P. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 125 = 1987 SLD 125 = 1987 PTD 121 = (1987) 56 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund on Gas Consumption\n•\nKey Issues: Refund claim for gas used in ship dismantling.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDepartment's partial disallowance restored as it was based on magnanimous yet correct interpretation of law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(12),27(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 32/KB to 35/KB of 1982-83, decision dated: 28-08-1986, hearing DATE : 10-08-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND GHULAM SADIQ, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amin-e-Ajam, D.R. for Appellant. Sirajul Haq for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 126 = 1987 SLD 126 = 1987 PTD 182 = (1987) 56 TAX 32", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption on Goods for Export\n•\nKey Issues: Applicability of exemptions for goods sold outside Pakistan.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nGoods exported locally for delivery outside Pakistan were exempt under the relevant notification.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "S.T.C. No. 41 of 1978, decision dated: 27th October 1986", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ALLY MADAD SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Appellant. Ali Athar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX \nVs \nMEKRAN FISHRIES Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 127 = 1987 SLD 127 = 1987 PTD 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Lottery Tickets as Goods\n•\nKey Issues: Classification of lottery tickets and legislative competence to tax.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLottery tickets classified as goods for taxation purposes.\no\nDifferential taxation on local and external lottery tickets deemed discriminatory.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition Nos. 435 and 436 of 1985 and Civil Appeal No. 4099 (NT) of 1984, decision dated: 4-10-1985", + "Judge Name:": "V.D. TULZAPURKAR AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Soli J. Sorabjee, Senior Advocate, K. Srinivasan, N.D.B. Raju and Vineet Kumar for Petitioners (in W. P. No. 435 of 1985).\nDr. Y.S. Chitale, Vineet Kumar and K. Srinivasan for Petitioners (in W.P. 436 of 1985).\nK. Parasaran, A.G. with A.V. Rangam for Respondent (in W.P. Nos. 435-36 of 1985).\nK.K. Venugopal with Vimal Dave, Miss Kailash Mehta and Mrs. Neelam Kalsi for Appellants (in C.A. No. 4099 of 1984).\nN. Gooptu, with H.K. Purl for Respondent (in C.A. No. 4099 of 1984).", + "Petitioner Name:": "H. ANRAJ and others \nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 128 = 1987 SLD 128 = 1987 PTD 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund Claims for Iron and Steel\n•\nKey Issues: Conditions for claiming refunds under exemptions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRefund restricted to goods processed through specified manufacturing methods.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,10(3)", + "Case #": "S.T.As No. 13/113 of 1983-84 and S.T.As Nos. 1/IB to 3/113 of 1984-85, decision dated: 7-10-1986, hearing DATE : 9-09-1986", + "Judge Name:": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN AND AMJAD ALI, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Fakar-ud-Din Khan for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 129 = 1987 SLD 129 = 1987 PTD 420 = (1987) 56 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Interpretation of Subject to Tax \n•\nKey Issues: Definition of tax liability and conditions for refunds.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRefund eligibility contingent upon satisfying statutory preconditions, including proof of tax payment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(12)", + "Case #": "S.T.C.No.94 of 1984 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 10 of 1985, decision dated: 12-04-1987, hearing DATE : 25-02-1987", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND AHMAD ALI U. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Shaikh Haider for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DADA SOAP FACTORY LIMITED \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, CENTRAL ZONE B, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 130 = 1987 SLD 130 = 1987 PTD 502 = (1987) 56 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Refund on Packing Materials\n•\nKey Issues: Refund claims for labels and cartons used in products.\n•\nOutcome:\nSales Tax—Refund on Packing Materials\n•\nKey Issues: Refund claims for labels and cartons used in products.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nTribunal’s finding that materials were integral components upheld, allowing refund.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27", + "Case #": "Income-tax Reference No.511 of 1972, decision dated: 27-09-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND Z.C. VALIANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KARACHI (EAST), KARACHI \nVs \nMessrs ALLIED TRADING CORPORATION LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 131 = 1987 SLD 131 = 1987 PTD 704 = (1988) 57 TAX 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Repairing as Taxable Activity\n•\nKey Issues: Tax liability for retreading old tires.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRetreading not deemed manufacturing; sales tax liability overturned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(f)", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 2058 and 2897 of 1983, decision dated: 15-05-1987, hearing DATE : 9-05-1987", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ NISAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt and Izhar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "TYREX PAKISTAN LTD\nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 146 = 1986 SLD 146 = 1986 PTD 16 = (1986) 53 TAX 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Raw Materials\n•\nKey Issues: Applicability of exemptions for raw materials used by manufacturers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption upheld due to insufficient details from the department.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(2),3(1)(e)", + "Case #": "S.T.R No. 51 of 1976 decided on 5th November, hearing DATE : 31st October, 1985", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Hyder for Appellant. Ali Athar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OE Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE) \nVs \nMESSRS SHAHSONS BEVERAGES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 147 = 1986 SLD 147 = 1986 PTD 29 = (1986) 53 TAX 8 = 1986 PTCL 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of “Fodder” under Sales Tax Law – Exemption Applicability\nDetails:\nThe case concerned whether cattle feed sold by the respondent during assessment year 1971–72 (amounting to Rs. 72,592) qualified as fodder under Item No. 6 of Sales Tax Notification No. 7, dated 27-6-1951, thereby being exempt from sales tax.\nThe Sales Tax Officer disallowed the exemption, holding that cattle feed, being a prepared item containing molasses and salt, was not covered under “fodder” which, according to the Officer, included only oil-cakes and bran. On appeal, however, the Appellate Tribunal reversed this finding, holding that “cattle feed” is synonymous with “fodder,” and relied on dictionary meanings to support its interpretation.\nThe Commissioner filed a reference under section 17(4) of the Sales Tax Act, 1971, contending that the Tribunal wrongly treated fodder and cattle feed as identical. The Tribunal had earlier rejected a reference application under section 17(1), stating the question involved was one of fact, not law.\nThe High Court, however, held that the meaning of “fodder” in the context of a statutory notification is a question of law, or at minimum, a mixed question of law and fact. Relying on dictionary definitions and precedents—including:\nPakistan Progressive Cement Industries Ltd. v. CST (1985 PTD 312)\nUsmania Glass Sheet Factory v. STO, Chittagong (PLD 1971 SC 205)\n— the Court concluded that fodder is a broad term encompassing various forms of cattle feed, and that the inclusion of oil-cakes and bran in Item No. 6 of the Notification evidences legislative intent to exempt all such feed given to cattle.\nThe Court analogized that just as porridge remains porridge whether or not it contains sugar or salt, similarly cattle feed remains fodder even with added molasses or salt. Hence, the preparation remained within the scope of exempted “fodder”.\nHeld:\nReference answered in the affirmative. Cattle feed qualifies as “fodder” under the relevant sales tax notification, and is thus exempt from sales tax.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Notification No. 7, dated 27-6-1951 – Item No. 6\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Pakistan Progressive Cement Industries (1985 PTD 312)\nUsmania Glass Sheet Factory v. STO, Chittagong (PLD 1971 SC 205)\nChambers Dictionary (1983) and Oxford English Dictionary for interpretation of fodder and feed ", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(4)", + "Case #": "S. T. R. No. 11 of 1976 decided on 19th October 1985, hearing DATE : 3-10-1985", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN AND K. A. GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Nasim Farooqui for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/SALESTAX, CENTRAL ZONE \nVs \nM/S LEVER BROTHERS (PAK.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 148 = 1986 SLD 148 = 1986 PTD 126 = (1986) 53 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Standard Batten Boards\n•\nKey Issues: Restriction of exemptions based on board sizes.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption applied to all batten board sizes; restrictive instructions declared unlawful.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(1)(2)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-224 and D-278 of 1984, decision dated: 16-10-1985, hearing DATE : 14-10-1985", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abul Khair for Petitioners. Wajeeh-ud-Din Ahmed for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN WOODCRAFTS \nVs \nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 149 = 1986 SLD 149 = 1986 PTD 185 = (1986) 53 TAX 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Right to Appeal in Refund Rejections\n•\nKey Issues: Appeal rights against refund rejections.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRight to appeal upheld; case remanded for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(3),10(3),14(1),27(1)", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1(1B) STA No. 2(1B), STA No. 3(IB) STA No. 4(18), STA NO.5 (1B) and STA No. 6(IB) of 1983 84, decision dated: 15-06-1985, hearing DATE : 8-06-1985", + "Judge Name:": "AMJAD ALI AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.H. Zaidi, Chief Accountant for Appellant. Maqbool Hussain Shah, Departmental Representative for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 150 = 1986 SLD 150 = 1986 PTD 203 = (1986) 53 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemptions on Raw Materials\n•\nKey Issues: Exemption for chemicals and explosives used in cement manufacturing.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption inapplicable to raw materials; refund claims rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 17(PB) of 1980 81, S.T.A. No. 27(PB) and S.T:A. No. 28(PB) of 1981 82, decision dated: 25-11-1984. dates of hearing: 5th and 25-11-1984", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN AND SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Hussain Shah, D.R. for Appellant. S.M. Masood, C.A. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 116 = 1984 SLD 116 = 1984 PTD 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Retailer Manufacturing Liability\n•\nKey Issues: Applicability of tax for goods manufactured by third parties for a retailer.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLiability established as retailer held proprietary rights over the goods.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,(a.11(ii)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-166 of 1985, decision dated: 18-12-1985, hearing DATE : 11-12-1985", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Kazi for Petitioner. Liaqat Merchant, Dy. Attorney General for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGLISH BOOT HOUSE Ltd \nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 151 = 1986 SLD 151 = 1986 PTD 586 = 1986 PTCL 356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Sales Tax and Surcharge — Proof of Tax Payment Requirement\nDetails:\nThe case concerns departmental appeals for sales tax assessment years 1965–66 and 1966–67 against a combined order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, who had directed the Sales Tax Officer to allow the assessee’s refund claims for sales tax, defence surcharge, and rehabilitation tax on purchases of partly manufactured goods. The assessee, a public limited company, claimed refunds amounting to Rs. 1,89,510 and Rs. 14,18,509 respectively for the two years.\nThe Sales Tax Officer disallowed the claims due to lack of proof of tax payment on the goods, as required under Section 27(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 and Rule 31 of the Sales Tax Rules, 1951. Though the assessee submitted purchase vouchers, these did not indicate tax paid at importation or in previous sales.\nThe Tribunal held that the assessee failed to meet the mandatory documentary requirements to support the refund claims. Consequently, the appellate order was reversed, and the disallowance by the Sales Tax Officer was upheld.\nHeld:\nRefund claims disallowed due to absence of proof of tax payment on goods purchased. The assessee failed to comply with mandatory documentary requirements under law. Departmental appeals allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27,27(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 49/KB and 50/KB of 1980 81, decision dated: 27-05-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, CHAIRMAN AND M.A.M. SIDDIQUI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Fareed, D.R. for Appellant\nSaeed Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 152 = 1986 SLD 152 = 1986 PTD 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Pottery and Decoration Pieces\n•\nKey Issues: Classification of goods as pottery for tax exemption.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nGoods classified as pottery exempt from sales tax.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "I.-T. As. Nos. 1, 2 and 3(IB) of 1985-86, decision dated: 31st March,1986", + "Judge Name:": "SIKANDAR HAYAT KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Alam Khan, C.A. for Appellant. Bilal Khan, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 249 = 1989 SLD 249 = 1989 PTD 839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Promissory Estoppel on Tax Incentives\n•\nKey Issues: Withdrawal of sales tax concessions.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nGovernment estopped from withdrawing promised concessions without valid justification.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2204 to 2247 of1980, decision dated: 5-05-1988", + "Judge Name:": "R.S. PATHAK, C.J. AND M.H. KANIA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ASST.) AND DHARWAR and others \nVs \nDHARMENDRA TRADING CO. Etc.ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 250 = 1989 SLD 250 = 1989 PTD 844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax—Exemption for Power Loom Products\n•\nKey Issues: Exemption for wire gauze produced by power looms.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nExemption applied to all power loom products, not limited to textile factories.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-364 of 1982 decided on 21st February, 1989", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL RASOOL AGHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riaz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner. Respondent (absent.)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AMIE INVESTMENT LTD. \nVs \nPAKISTAN through its Secretary Ministry of Finance Planning and Development, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1362 = 2016 SLD 1362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,153(1),153(7),165,165(1),165(2),DivisionII,DivisionIIChapterXII", + "Case #": "ITA NO.661/LB/2012 (Tax Year 2012), hearing DATE : 03-10-2016, DATE of Order 05-10-2016", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Sh. Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate\nRespondent by: Mr. Zahid Mahmood, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 442 = 2005 SLD 442 = 2005 PTD 1770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),2(3)(ii),2(3)(iv),2(3)(v)Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(4),50(7),59,59(4),59(7),62", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 331-L of 2004, 04/08/2004", + "Judge Name:": ", JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Wattan Technical Industry, Gujranwala \nVS \nSecretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 443 = 2005 SLD 443 = 2005 PTD 1770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(c),62,116,Clause(118-E),Part-I of Second Schedule", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 508 of 1998 Complaint No. 331-L of 2004, dated 04/08/2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Wattan Technical Industry, Gujranwala \nVS \nSecretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 444 = 2005 SLD 444 = 2005 PTD 1778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(31)(a),2(46),3,6,22,23,25,26,33,36(2),38,49", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7(100)ST/TRF of 2003(PB), dated 08/04/2005", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 355 = 1997 SLD 355 = 1997 SCMR 1093", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990—Tax Liability and Penalty\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPetitioners’ products were declared subject to sales tax. They failed to pay during the specific period, assuming their products were exempt.\no\nA show-cause notice was issued, and they were found liable for a specified sales tax amount, along with penalties under Ss. 33 & 35 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nThe petitioners challenged the imposition of additional tax, surcharge, and penalties, arguing that the provisions of Ss. 33 & 35 were inapplicable. They also claimed clerical errors in the assessment and discrimination in penalty imposition.\no\nThe Central Board of Revenue reduced the penalty by 50%, but other appeals were dismissed.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe petitioners’ constitutional petition was dismissed.\no\nLeave to appeal was granted to consider:\n1.\nWhether Ss. 33 & 35 of the Act applied.\n2.\nWhether penalties were inequitable and discriminatory.\n3.\nWhether input sales tax adjustments were wrongly excluded.\n4.\nAllegations of clerical errors in assessments.\n.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,35Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1015-L of 1994, decision dated: 14-06-1995", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA AND RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with Hafiz Muhammad Anis, Deputy Collector for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRIPLE EM (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Managing Directorer \nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 4 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 298 = 1991 SLD 298 = 1991 PLC 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance—Back Benefits\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nA workman was dismissed for absence from duty but reinstated by the Labour Court.\no\nThe Labour Court made back benefits conditional on the outcome of a fresh inquiry.\no\nThe employer appealed against reinstatement, while the workman appealed against conditional back benefits.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled that a fresh inquiry was unnecessary but did not grant full back benefits.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe High Court declined to interfere, citing the discretionary nature of back benefits.\no\nThe employer could not be burdened with payment unless the workman was fully exonerated.\no\nRelief sought by the workman was denied due to his failure to participate in the inquiry process actively.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-601 of 1987, decision dated: 9-04-1991.", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Javed for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Nasim for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD QASIM\nvs\nSINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 299 = 1991 SLD 299 = 1991 PLC 771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Termination Due to Absence from Duty—Reinstatement\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nA workman proceeded on leave but failed to return for over four years due to prolonged illness.\no\nUpon recovery, he submitted a medical certificate, but his services were terminated for extended absence.\no\nThe employer argued that Fundamental Rule 18 applied, but the Labour Court reinstated the workman, holding that Fundamental Rules did not govern him as he was covered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe High Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision, emphasizing that Fundamental Rule 18 was inapplicable to the workman.\no\nThe Court dismissed the employer's constitutional petition, stating that concurrent factual findings could not be disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-27 of 1987 decided on 22-01-1991.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND HAZIQUL KHAIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nAkhtar Ali Mahmud for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN RAILWAYS\nvs\nSINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 300 = 1991 SLD 300 = 1991 PLC 809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Servants—Seniority Dispute\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nA seniority list was issued, placing the appellant above the respondent based on regularization and continuous appointment.\no\nFive years later, the respondent challenged the list, leading to its revision and the appellant being declared junior.\no\nThe appellant contested the revised seniority, arguing that:\n1.\nHis regularization predated the respondent's.\n2.\nThe respondent failed to object to the provisional seniority list within the stipulated time.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe Service Tribunal reinstated the appellant’s seniority, ruling that the respondent’s delayed representation was time-barred.\no\nThe revised seniority list was deemed unjustified as it was issued without prior notice to the appellant.", + "Court Name:": "Service Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Service Appeal No.83 of 1984, decision dated: 25-09-1989.", + "Judge Name:": "MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND MOBEEN AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, A.A.G. for Government", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mir MAQBOOL TALPUR\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 266 = 1993 SLD 266 = 1993 SCMR 1894", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)—Import Duty Assessment\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nA dispute arose over the classification of imported load switches based on voltage ratings for determining customs duty under the Import Policy Order.\no\nThe petitioner argued that testing voltage (2,500 volts) exceeded the standard classification threshold (999 volts) and requested assessment under a more favorable tariff heading.\no\nCustoms authorities assessed the goods at a higher rate, rejecting the petitioner’s contention.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLeave to appeal was granted to consider:\n1.\nWhether the testing voltage justified the classification under a lower customs duty heading.\n2.\nWhether the classification properly adhered to statutory criteria under the Customs Act.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.971 of 1990, decision dated: 24-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFIUR REHMAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Akhter Ali Naeem, A.C. Customs (L) and M. Saleem, Dy. Supdt. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. TAHIR BROTHERS--Appellants \nVs \nADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 2 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 265 = 1994 SLD 265 = 1994 SCMR 712 = (1994) 69 TAX 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act—Exemption of Duties and Sales Tax\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nA notification exempted certain goods from customs duty and sales tax.\no\nThe petitioner contended that regulatory duties (imposed as an additional customs charge) were also exempt under the same notification.\no\nCustoms authorities argued that the exemption applied only to standard customs duties under S. 18(1) of the Customs Act.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the words whole and leviable in the notification implied total exemption from all customs duties, including regulatory duties.\no\nThe notification was interpreted to exempt both primary and additional customs charges.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,19", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petition No-35 of 1993, heard on 7-12-1993", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Ali Mirza, DA. G. and Nur Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners A. Hameed Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MARDAN DIVISION, MARDAN and 2 others \nVs \nM/s. GADOON TEXTILE MILLS LTD., SWABI through General Manager (Operation)--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 266 = 1994 SLD 266 = 1994 SCMR 2123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (1990)—Applicability of Customs Laws\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nThe case centered on the interpretation of S. 6 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and whether it allowed the wholesale application of customs laws to sales tax disputes.\no\nAdditional considerations included whether amendments to fiscal laws through Money Bills were constitutionally valid.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nLeave to appeal was granted to determine:\n1.\nWhether the phrase charged and paid in S. 6 extended customs laws to sales tax matters.\n2.\nThe scope of amendments to fiscal laws via Money Bills bypassing the Senate.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),73", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 221, 123-P, 135-P, 137-P, 140-P to 144-P, 146-P, 149-P, 228-P to 232, 234, 236 to 243, 245, 250, 254, 542-L, 543, 547-L. 548-L, 583-L, 595-L and.596-L of 1994, decision dated: 15-06-1994", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J., WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN,ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, MUHAMMAD ILYAS AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Fazle Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 221 of 1994).\nAbdul Hakim Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court with Abdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 134P and 135P of 1994).\nZahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 137P and 140P to 142P of 1994).\nAbdul Hamid Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 143P and 144P of 1994).\nQazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with Zahoor Ahmed Azad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C. P. No. 146P of 1994).\nNoor Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 149P of 1994).\nAbid Hussain Minto, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 228 to 231 of 1994).\nM. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 232 and 250 of 1994).\nRaja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No. 234 of 1994).\nQamarul Islam Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Anwar H. Mir, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 245 of 1994).\nAbdul Latif Yousuf Zai, Advocate Supreme Court with A. Hamid Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 236, 238, 240 to 242 of 1994).\nA. Hamid Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.237 and 239 of 1994),\nSyed Afzal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Asim Jafferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps.Nos. 254 and 543L of 1994).\nZaheer Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P.No. 542L of 1994).\nMirza Hafizur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 547L of 19941.\nEjaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 548L of 1994).\nSh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in C.P.No. 583L of 1994).\nMehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 595L and 596L of 1994).\nS.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Jehanzeb Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3 (C.B.R. in all the Petitions).\nNemo for the Remaining Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. M.Y. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD through Managerer\nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN (MINISTRY OF FINANCE), ISLAMABAD and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 134P of 1994\nDYECRAM INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 135P of 1994\nM/s. MARGALLA PACKAGES AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD:er \nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 137P of 1994\nM/s. AMAZAI TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 140P of 1994\nM/s. AL REHMAN STEEL INDUSTRIES \nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 141P of 1994\nM/s. KHYBER EXTRUSION (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 142P of 1994\nM/s. ABSON INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 143P of 1994\nM/s. GADOON INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 144P of 1994\nM/s. SUPER STAR LORAX AND SILK PLANTS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN end 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 146P of 1994\nM/s. TAWAKKAL POLYESTER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 149P of 1994\nM/s. SHIRAZ INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.228 of 1994\nM/s. QAMAR AWAN (NOW JAUHAR PLAST POLIMAR) (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No. 229 of 1994\nM/s. S.S. FURNACE (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.230 of 1994\nM/s. KHYBER SPINNING MILLS GADOON LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.231 of 1994\nI.C.E.L. AND ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LTD. er\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and 3 others--Respondents\nCivil No.232 of 1994\nALRAZZAQ SYNTHETIC (PVT.) LTD. and anothers \nvs \nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and 4 others--Respondents\nCivil No.234 of 1994\nM/s. KHYBER PLASTIC AND POLYMERS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.236 of 1994\nZEENAT MANUFACTURES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.237 of 1994\nM/s. ASHRAF FABRICS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.238 of 1994\nM/s. TURKISTANI INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.239 of 1994\nM/s. PAKISTAN MINERAL WATER BOTTLING PLANTer \nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.240 of 1994\nM/s. KHYBER ARGO (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.241 of 1994\nM/s. PEL APPLIANCES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.242 of 1994\nM/s. GADOON PACKING (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.245 of 1994\nINDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others--Respondents\nCivil No.250 of 1994\nM/s. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ, MUHAMMAD AFZAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.254 of 1994\nM/s. PREMIER ALLIANCE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.542L of 1994\nM/s. DIAMOND INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.543 of 1994\nM/s. MEHRAN COMFORTS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.547L of 1994\nM/s. YAQOOB INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil 1Vo.548L of 1994\nM/s. HAYAT INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.583L of 1994\nADIL POLY PROPYLENE PRODUCTS LTD.\nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 5 others--Respondents\nCivil No.595L of 1994\nM/s. DIAMOND CORPORATION (PVT..) LTD.\nvs \nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad and 4 others--Respondents\nCivil No.596L of 1994\nM/s. CRESCENT INDUSTRIAL (GADOON) ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD.\nvs \nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and 4 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 285 = 1993 SLD 285 = (1993) 67 TAX 388 = (1991) 190 ITR 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nSection 64(1)(iii): Whether the income derived from the partnership through a trust created for minor children can be taxed in the hands of the parent under Section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n2.\nApplicability of Explanation 2A (inserted in 1980): Whether the Explanation introduced in Section 64 can be applied retrospectively to an assessment year prior to its enactment.\nFacts\n•\nThe trust was created on February 1, 1976, to provide benefits such as education, medical aid, and marriage expenses to four minor children.\n•\nThe trust funds were invested in two firms, and the trustee (the assessee) became a partner in the firms.\n•\nThe income generated from these investments was credited to the trust and distributed to the minor children.\n•\nThe revenue authorities contended that this arrangement indirectly admitted the minors to the benefits of the partnership, making the income taxable under Section 64(1)(iii).\nHeld\n•\nNo Admission of Benefits of Partnership: The trust, not the minors, was the partner in the firms. The income distributed to the minors was a result of their status as trust beneficiaries, not partners.\n•\nNo Retrospective Effect: Explanation 2A, introduced by the Finance Act, 1979, took effect from April 1, 1980, and cannot apply to earlier assessment years.\n•\nBurden of Proof on Revenue: The revenue failed to substantiate that the trust was a mere device for admitting minors to the benefits of the partnership.\n•\nConclusion: The income was not includible in the hands of the trustee-assessee.\nCase Referred\n•\nChandrakala Bai Naila v. CIT [1989] 178 ITR 341 (MP)", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=64(1)(iii)Partnership Act, 1932=30", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE CASE NO. 78 OF 1984, JANUARY 14, 1991", + "Judge Name:": "K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA., JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "G. Sarangan and K. Gajendra Rao for the Applicant. Chandrakumar and S.R. Shivaprakash for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "G. Sarangan and K. Gajendra Rao for the --Applicant. Chandrakumar and S.R. Shivaprakash for the --Respondent\nvs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 161 = 1996 SLD 161 = 1996 SCMR 922", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nInterpretation of Set Up in SRO 580(1)/91: Whether repurposing an existing factory into a new industrial unit qualifies as setting up for the purpose of claiming sales tax exemption.\nFacts\n•\nA company in liquidation sold its land, buildings, and machinery in a court auction in 1990.\n•\nThe petitioner purchased these assets and formed a new company to produce a different product.\n•\nThe petitioner claimed a 5-year sales tax exemption under SRO 580(1)/91.\n•\nThe Collector denied the exemption, arguing that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria of setting up a new factory.\nHeld\n•\nThe court granted leave to appeal to interpret the notification and determine whether substantial modifications and investments made to transform the existing facility qualify as setting up a new industry.\n•\nConclusion: Questions of first impression warranted detailed examination.\nCase Referred\n•\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax, Madras v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. AIR 1967 SC 509", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 125 of 1996, decision dated: 18-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Qadir, Advocate and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. K. G. Sabir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "FLYING KRAFT PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LTD. \nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 162 = 1996 SLD 162 = 1996 SCMR 1468 = (1995) 74 TAX 87 = 1996 PTCL 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nExemption for Components: Whether sales tax exemption for wall clocks extends to their components, such as cases/bodies.\nFacts\n•\nThe assessee manufactured cases/bodies for wall clocks and exclusively used them in producing finished wall clocks.\n•\nThe finished wall clocks were exempt from sales tax under the relevant notification.\n•\nThe revenue argued that cases/bodies are partly manufactured goods and thus separately taxable.\nHeld\n•\nExemption Extends to Components: Components solely used in the production of exempt goods cannot be separately taxed.\n•\nNo Double Taxation: Sales tax cannot be levied at multiple stages of the same manufacturing process. Since the cases/bodies were not sold separately but incorporated into the exempt final product, they were not taxable.\n•\nHigh Court's Decision Affirmed: Sales tax was chargeable only on the final product (wall clocks), which was exempt.\nConclusion\nThe High Court correctly ruled that cases/bodies used in the exempt final product are not subject to separate sales tax.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(4)(iv)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,614/C of 1991 in Civil Appeal No.95 of 1992, decision dated: 2-03-1994", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Rafiq Ahmed Bajwa, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others \nVs\nMessrs CHAMPION CLOCK COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 356 = 1997 SLD 356 = 1997 SCMR 968", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nWithdrawal of Concession: Whether the withdrawal of customs duty repayment and sales tax refund for plastic shopping bags exported to Afghanistan was discriminatory.\n2.\nViolation of Constitutional Rights: Whether the withdrawal violated Article 25 of the Constitution (equal protection under the law).\nFacts\n•\nA Notification dated May 9, 1994, withdrew the concession previously granted under a Notification dated May 10, 1991, for repayment of customs duties and refund of sales tax on plastic goods, specifically targeting plastic shopping bags exported to Afghanistan.\n•\nPetitioners argued that this withdrawal was discriminatory, as they were the sole exporters of plastic shopping bags to Afghanistan.\nHeld\n•\nThe High Court rejected the petitioner’s claim of discrimination.\n•\nLeave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine whether the withdrawal of concessions targeting a single industry or item violated constitutional safeguards against discrimination.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,185(3)Customs Act, 1969=18,21", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 281 and 282 of 1995, decision dated: 7-11-1995", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 282 of.1995). Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARYAN PETRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. er\nVs \nMINISTRY OF FINANCE and 4 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1078 = 2002 SLD 1078 = (2002) 258 ITR 735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nPowers of Commissioner (Appeals): Whether Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, restricts the Commissioner (Appeals) from interfering with assessments made as per directions under Section 144B(4).\n2.\nHierarchical Authority: Whether the Commissioner’s appellate powers are subordinate to directions issued by the IAC.\nFacts\n•\nAn assessment allowed a deduction for short-term capital loss based on directions under Section 144B(4).\n•\nThe Commissioner, upon discovering new facts, initiated enhancement proceedings and set aside the assessment for fresh determination.\n•\nThe Tribunal set aside the Commissioner’s order, citing Section 144B(5) as a limitation on appellate powers.\nHeld\n•\nSection 251 does not inhibit the Commissioner from interfering with assessments made under Section 144B(4).\n•\nThe appellate power of the Commissioner is plenary and not subordinate to the directions of the IAC.\n•\nThe Tribunal’s interpretation of Section 144B(5) was erroneous.\nCases Referred\n•\nCIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 (SC)\n•\nJute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=144B(4),251(1)(a)", + "Case #": "TAX CASE NO. 389 OF 1997 SEPTEMBER 24, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "T.C.A. Ramanujam for the Applicant. V.S. Jayakumar for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nExpress Newspapers Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1079 = 2002 SLD 1079 = (2002) 258 ITR 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nRevenue vs. Capital Expenditure: Whether expenditure incurred for obtaining technical know-how qualifies as revenue or capital expenditure.\n2.\nEnduring Benefit: Whether the expenditure created an enduring benefit.\nFacts\n•\nThe assessee paid a foreign supplier for technical know-how related to a paint-finishing system for motor vehicles and claimed it as revenue expenditure.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer classified it as capital expenditure.\n•\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal upheld the assessee's claim, noting no enduring benefit for the assessee.\nHeld\n•\nThe expenditure was of a revenue nature, as the assessee acted as an intermediary, passing on the know-how to a client without deriving enduring benefit.\n•\nThe Tribunal’s order was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2002 SEPTEMBER 20, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "AJOY NATH RAY AND MS. INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Deb for the Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nFlakt India Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1080 = 2002 SLD 1080 = (2002) 258 ITR 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nCapital vs. Revenue Expenditure: Whether the purchase of leasehold land and related assets constitutes capital expenditure.\n2.\nApportionment of Capital Expenditure: Whether capital expenditure can be apportioned over the lease period.\nFacts\n•\nThe assessee purchased an industrial unit, including leasehold land, for INR 75 lakhs.\n•\nThe Assessing Officer classified INR 45 lakhs (allocated to leasehold land) as capital expenditure.\n•\nThe Tribunal directed the apportionment of this amount over the lease period (71 years).\nHeld\n•\nPayment of INR 45 lakhs was capital expenditure, as it secured leasehold rights integral to the business.\n•\nThe Tribunal’s direction to apportion the amount was inconsistent with its classification as capital expenditure and was set aside.\nCase Referred\n•\nCIT v. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. [1998] 233 ITR 468 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=260A,37,30", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 1399 OF 2000 SEPTEMBER 13, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S.H. KAPADIA AND, J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.V. Desai and P.S. Jetley for the Appellant. N.S. Joshi for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nKhimline Pumps Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 572 = 1998 SLD 572 = 1998 SCMR 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nDemand for Sales Tax: Validity of sales tax demands for consignments where letters of credit were opened before withdrawal of exemption.\n2.\nConsistency in Law Application: Whether such demands conflict with legal precedents or prior notifications.\nFacts\n•\nImporters were asked to pay sales tax on consignments for which letters of credit were established before the withdrawal of exemption.\n•\nThe High Court declared the demand invalid.\n•\nLeave to appeal was granted to consider this issue in line with pending cases addressing similar legal questions.\nCase Referred\n•\nMessrs M.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1994 SCMR 2123", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Customs Act, 1969=31A", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2328-L of 1996, decision dated: 24-02-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, NABHA ROAD; LAHORE and 2 others \nVs \nMessrs HIRA FAROOQ (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 573 = 1998 SLD 573 = 1998 SCMR 1237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nScope of Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944: Whether charges like loading, unloading, transportation, octroi duty, and export tax should be included in the value of goods for determining sales tax.\n2.\nFirst Impression Case: Need for Supreme Court interpretation of Section 4.\nFacts\n•\nThe Department included additional charges in the product value for calculating sales tax.\n•\nRespondents successfully challenged this inclusion in the High Court.\n•\nThe Department argued that the wholesale cash price should be the basis for calculating duty under Section 4.\nHeld\n•\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to interpret Section 4 and clarify whether additional charges should be included in determining the value for sales tax.\nCase Referred\n•\nPLD 1993 SC 136", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=4Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 157, 158 and 159 of 1995, decision dated: 11-07-1995", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Ali Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in all Petitions). Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with Manzoor Illahi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all Petitions)", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others \nVs \nMessrs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY, LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 576 = 1998 SLD 576 = 1998 SCMR 2202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nSeniority and Appeal Maintainability: Whether an appeal affecting seniority is maintainable without impleading affected officers.\nHeld\n•\nAppeals involving seniority require impleading all affected officers. The employee's service in non-gazetted posts was rightly excluded from seniority calculation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Service Tribunals Act, 1973=4", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.967 of 1995, decision dated: 12-06-1998, hearing DATE : 15-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, MUNAWAR AHRITAD MIRZA AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Usman Ghani Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Maulvi Anwarul Haq, D.A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAMSUL HUDA \nVs \nDIRECTOR-GENERAL, FEDERAL SEED CERTIFICATION DEPARMENT, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 577 = 1998 SLD 577 = 1998 SCMR 2207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nDemand Under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act: Whether multiple demands at the same level are permissible.\n2.\nRetrospective Application: Whether amendments to Section 5 of the Sales Tax Act can be applied retrospectively.\nHeld\n•\nMultiple demands under Section 36 are permissible unless they result in manifest injustice. Amendments to Section 5 are not retrospective.\nCases Referred\n•\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Olympia 1988 PTD 532", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=14", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No .191-K of 1998, decision dated: 8-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ul-Haque Memon, Advocate Supreme Court with Naraindas C Motiani, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs STATE CEMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. \nVs\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 578 = 1998 SLD 578 = 1998 SCMR 2339 = 1998 PTD 2410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nExemption from Sales Tax: Validity of demand despite claimed exemption for specific products.\n2.\nHigh Court's Jurisdiction: Whether the High Court should have refrained from expressing views on merits after dismissing a constitutional petition.\nHeld\n•\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the High Court erred in expressing views on merits after dismissing the petition.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,185(3)", + "Case #": "C.P. for Leave to Appeal No. 666 of 1995, decision dated: 19-11-1996 On appeal from the judgment, dated 07-06-1995 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench) in Writ Petition No. 18 of 1991", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nIRSHAD HASAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record.\nRespondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney-General and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAID NADEEM ELECTRO LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN\nVS \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX, PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 579 = 1998 SLD 579 = 1998 SCMR 2514 = (1998) 78 TAX 327 = (1999) 80 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nApplication of SRO for Tax Exemptions: Whether the respondents' manufacturing process qualified under the relevant SRO.\n2.\nHigh Court's Role in Disputed Facts: Whether the High Court should resolve disputed factual questions in constitutional jurisdiction.\nHeld\n•\nCases were remanded to the Central Board of Revenue to decide the matter based on evidence.\nCases Referred\n•\nAssistant Collector v. Orient Straw Board PLD 1991 SC 992", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=2F", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.848 to 852 of 1995, decision dated: 25-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, C.J., SH. RIAZ AHMAD AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.G. Saber, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all Appeals).\nM. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all Cases except in C.A. No. 849 of 1995).\nM. Aitzaz Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C.A. No. 849 of 1995).", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX DIVISION, MARDAN and others \nVs \nALRAZAK SYNTHETIC (PVT.) LTD. and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 693 = 1999 SLD 693 = 1999 SCMR 979 = (1999) 80 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n•\nWithdrawal of customs duty and sales tax exemption on imported raw materials after an extension period.\n•\nAdministrative discretion and judicial review in Constitutional jurisdiction.\nHeld\n•\nPetitioners could not claim further extension as a matter of right. Time for availing benefits was extended multiple times, and petitioners were aware of the time constraints.\n•\nNo arbitrariness or discrimination by the Authority was established.\n•\nSupreme Court dismissed the leave to appeal, upholding the High Court's dismissal of the petition.\n•\nJudicial review of administrative discretion is permissible only in cases of perversity, discrimination, or unreasonable conduct.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1348 of 1998, decision dated: 24-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, C.J., MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA AND SH. RIAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farooq Adam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZEENAT MANUFACTURING (PVT.) LTD., GADOON AMAZAI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SWABI \nVs \nTHE SECRETARY, SURVEY AND REBATE, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 694 = 1999 SLD 694 = 1999 SCMR 1072 = (1999) 79 TAX 647 = 1999 PTCL 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n•\nExemption withdrawal under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992.\n•\nCompetence of High Court to hear Constitutional petitions bypassing alternate remedies.\nHeld\n•\nLeave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine whether exemptions could be withdrawn under the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992.\n•\nHigh Court's discretion to entertain the Constitutional petition despite the availability of alternative remedies was upheld, as objections were not pressed by opposing parties.\n•\nSupreme Court affirmed that Constitutional jurisdiction can address pure questions of law or ensure complete justice even if new points arise during the appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.223 of 1994, decision dated: 16-12-1998. dates of hearing: 15th and 16-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Makhdoom Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Muhammad Yawar Ali, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2, 4 and 5", + "Petitioner Name:": "GATRON (INDUSTRIES) LIMITED\nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 747 = 1999 SLD 747 = (1999) 79 TAX 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n•\nReversal of customs duty exemption on imported machinery after issuance of clearance certificates.\n•\nProcedural fairness in revisiting finalized assessments.\nHeld\n•\nReopening a finalized assessment undermines the principle of finality and public confidence in official decisions.\n•\nLack of confrontation of evidence or findings against the appellant invalidated the reversal of exemption.\n•\nSupreme Court set aside the penalty and levy of duty, citing procedural lapses and lack of evidence against the appellant.", + "Court Name:": "Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(1),32,156(1)(14)", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 113/LB of 1998, decision dated: 27-1- 1999, hearing DATE : 27-1-1999", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Mehmood, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shafaqat Mahmood, D.R, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 751 = 2001 SLD 751 = 2001 SCMR 775 = (2001) 83 TAX 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYR1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n•\nApplicability of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, to goods in transit to Azad Jammu and Kashmir.\nHeld\n•\nLeave to appeal was granted to address the contention that provisions of the Sales Tax Act and Customs Act do not apply to AJK territories.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1414 of 1998, decision dated: 4-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, SH. IJAZ NISAR AND KAMAL MANSOOR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmed, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MASTER FOAM (PVT.) LTD. Through Iftikhar Khan, Executive DirectoR \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 290 = 2007 SLD 290 = 2007 PTD 1039 = 2008 PTCL 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n•\nConduct of a search without a warrant under Sections 38 & 40-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nHeld\n•\nThe search was declared unlawful as no search warrant was obtained, and authorities lacked reasonable grounds for their action. The Supreme Court emphasized compliance with statutory safeguards to ensure procedural fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,38A,40,40AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. Nos.535 and 536 of 2006, decision dated: 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, NASIR-UL-MULK AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhry Saghir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and, Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, for Advocate on-Record Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others \nVs \nMessrs HAQ COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD. BUREWALA-\nC.P.L.A. No.536 of 2006\nCHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others \nVs \nMessrs ALFAZAL COTTON INDUSTRIES, BUREWALA-" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 291 = 2007 SLD 291 = 2007 SCMR 1131 = 2008 PTCL 45 = (2007) 96 TAX 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n•\nExemptions and conditions for customs duties under the Customs Act, 1969, and the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nHeld\n•\nExemptions were denied due to non-compliance with S.R.O. conditions. The court highlighted that all conditions for claiming exemptions must be met, including timely acquisition of necessary certifications.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=5,6(1)Customs Act, 1969=31A,79,104", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.323 of 2004, decision dated: 9-02-2007, hearing DATE : 8-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Ms. Naheeda Mehboob Ellahi, D.A.G. Malik Ittaat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record, M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record and Mumtaz Ahmed, Member Legal, C.B.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASHWANI HOTELS LIMITED \nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Finance and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 292 = 2007 SLD 292 = 2007 SCMR 1153 = (2008) 97 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n•\nWithdrawal of exemption after opening Letters of Credit (LC) and its effect on liability for sales tax.\nHeld\n•\nLiability for sales tax arises on the date of submission of the Bill of Entry. The withdrawal of exemptions after the LC’s opening but before submission of the Bill of Entry makes the exemption inapplicable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=6", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.13 of 2004, decision dated: 9-02-2007. dates of hearing: 7th and 9-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, NASIR-UL-MULK AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Irshad, D.A.G. and Mumtaz Ah.mad Sheikh, Member (Legal) C.B.R. for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX and another \nVs \nDEWAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 293 = 2007 SLD 293 = 2007 SCMR 1705 = (2007) 96 TAX 264 = 2008 PTCL 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n•\nSales tax applicability on raw materials used in exempt final products (e.g., cement).\nHeld\n•\nRaw materials like limestone and clay used in manufacturing exempt goods are subject to sales tax. The court ruled that the taxable supply includes goods involved in any step of a taxable activity, even if the final product is exempt.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,3(1),7,13,SixthSched", + "Case #": "Civil. Appeal No.344 of 2002, decision dated: 24-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Barrister Ch. Muhammad Jameel, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Sher Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Additional Collector, Hub- \nVs\nCUSTOMS EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI BENCH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 238 = 1991 SLD 238 = 1991 MLD 2580 = (1992) 65 TAX 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nValidity of regulatory duty exceeding 50% of customs duty under the Customs Act, 1969.\n2.\nImpact of vested rights under import licenses.\nHeld\n•\nLevy of regulatory duty exceeding 50% on goods specified in the First Schedule of the Customs Act was declared ultra vires.\n•\nImporters who opened letters of credit and completed payments before changes in duty rates acquired vested rights, and such duties could not be increased retroactively.\n•\nPromissory estoppel applied to ensure fairness.\n•\nConclusion: Excess regulatory duties were unlawful, and vested rights were protected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,18(2),FirstSchedConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-628 to D-631 of 1984, decision dated: 13th August 1991", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ABDUR REHMAN AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioner. Abdul Ghaffar Siddiqui for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMED MARITIME, BREAKERS LTD. \nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 289 = 1992 SLD 289 = 1992 MLD 2135 = (1993) 67 TAX 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues\n1.\nScope of Money Bills under Article 73(2) of the Constitution.\n2.\nConstitutionality of discretionary powers under the Customs Act, 1969.\nHeld\n•\nArticle 73(2) defines Money Bills but does not limit tax-related changes (e.g., remission or revision) to the legislature alone.\n•\nDelegation of discretionary powers under Section 19 of the Customs Act was valid and did not constitute legislative abdication.\n•\nEqual treatment under Article 25: Differential treatment in tax exemptions was valid if based on rational classification (e.g., area-specific incentives).\n•\nConclusion: Delegated powers for tax exemptions were upheld, and constitutional petitions challenging them were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=73(2),189,175,199,25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2097 of 1991, decision dated: 10-06-1992. dates of hearing: 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th and 29-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Dy. A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mian ANWAR-ULHAQ RAMAYer \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 267 = 1993 SLD 267 = 1993 MLD 1645 = 1993 PTCL 656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nAmendments: Clarification on when an act constitutes an amendment and when it is the termination of a statute.\n2.\nSales Tax Act, 1990 (Section 45(3)): Requirement to deposit disputed tax and penalties before filing an appeal.\n3.\nInterpretation of Statutes: Whether the provision is mandatory or directory.\nHeld:\n•\nAmendment Definition: The termination of a statute's existence entirely does not qualify as an amendment.\n•\nDeposit Requirement: Section 45(3) is directory, not mandatory:\no\nThe use of shall in the provision does not imply mandatory compliance.\no\nNon-compliance does not automatically invalidate an appeal unless explicitly penalized in the statute.\no\nAppellate authorities must evaluate the circumstances and determine whether a deposit is necessary before proceeding with an appeal.\n•\nIslamic Principles: Emphasis on justice and natural rights within Islamic jurisprudence, affirming the fundamental right of appeal without undue restrictions.\n•\nConclusion: Courts must interpret fiscal statutes, such as Section 45(3), with a preference for inclusivity and fairness to ensure the right to appeal is not obstructed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45(3)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=2A,227", + "Case #": "W.P. No.1058 of 1993, heard on 10-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt for Petitioner. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Dy. Attorney-General for Pakistan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD. \nVs \nTHE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SALES TAX (APPEALS), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 163 = 1996 SLD 163 = 1996 MLD 1221 = (1995) 73 TAX 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nImport of machinery under a notification granting exemptions.\n2.\nWhether goods arriving before the withdrawal of the notification qualify for exemptions.\nHeld:\n•\nInterim Relief: Machinery was released upon the furnishing of an indemnity bond.\n•\nProhibitory Orders: High Court has the jurisdiction to restrain unjustified actions by public functionaries under Article 199.\n•\nConclusion: Constitutional jurisdiction was invoked to safeguard petitioners’ rights and ensure fair adjudication pending final determination.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=XXXIX,Rr.1,2,151", + "Case #": "Constitutional petition No.D-2269 of 1995, decision dated: 7-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH ABBASI AND DR. GHOUUS MUHAMMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioner. Farooq H. Naek, Dy. A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs THARPARKAR SUGAR MILLS LTD.\nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division and Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 587 = 2005 SLD 587 = (2005) 91 TAX 294 = 2005 PTD 454 = 2005 PTCL 385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n•\nWealth escaping assessment and valuation discrepancies.\n•\nReopening assessments under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963.\nHeld:\n•\nValuation Date: Net wealth must be assessed on the valuation date (30-06-1998); deviation to another date was unjustified.\n•\nDefinite Information: Assessments could not be reopened based on assumptions, speculation, or insufficient evidence.\n•\nLegal Standards: Assessing Officer must possess material evidence and obtain requisite approvals before reopening.\n•\nConclusion: The reopening of the assessment was declared unlawful, and the original order was restored.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(1),2(16),2(24),16(3),16(4),17,Second ScheduleIncome Tax Act, 1922=23,24,25,26,27,29Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(4)", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No. 270/LB of 2003, decision dated: 17-07-2004, hearing DATE : 15-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RAJA SIKANDAR KHAN, ACCOUNANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Dr. Samra Ashraf, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 295 = 2007 SLD 295 = 2007 PLD 517 = (2007) 96 TAX 105 = 2007 PTCL 565 = 2007 PTR 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nInterpretation of Goods and Taxable Activity in the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n2.\nTaxability of Fixed Assets and Disposals.\nHeld:\n•\nDefinitions and Scope:\no\nFixed assets, including old machinery, are considered goods under the Act.\no\nDisposals for consideration fall under taxable supplies.\n•\nNexus with Business Activity:\no\nTransactions involving fixed assets contribute to business operations and are taxable.\n•\nJudicial Interpretation:\no\nHigh Court’s interpretation was erroneous; assets were taxable, and sales tax was due.\n•\nConclusion: High Court’s judgment was set aside; tax liability affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(12),2(33),2(15)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.2687 to 2696 of 2001, Civil Appeals Nos.551 and 552 of 2002, Civil Appeals Nos. 2087 to 2094 of 2004, Civil Appeal Nos.791 decided on 5-03-2007. dates of hearing: 1st and 2-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant (in C.A. No. 791 of 2005). Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in CMA No. 2628 in C.A.No. 152 of 2005). Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A.No. 2092 of 2004)\nPresent at hearing. Syed Iftikhar Gillani, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, M.S. Khattak, Advocate on-Record (in C.A. Nos. 551 and 552 of 2002) Dr. Sohail Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court, Nazir Ahmed Lughmani, Advocate on-Record (in CMA Nos. 2627 and 2628 of 2005) A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate on-Record (in C.A. Nos. 2687 to 2696 of 2001 and 2087 to 2094 of 2004) for Appellants. Raja Muhammad Akram, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court (in CMA No. 2628 of 2005), Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Zaidi, Advocate on-Record (in C.A. No. 2092 of 2004), Dr. Muhammad Farooq Nasim, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 2687 to 2691 of 2001 and C.A. Nos. 551 and 552 of 2002), Munir A. Malik, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 2693 of 2001), Muhammad Farid, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 2694 of 2001), Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No. 2090 of 2004), Anwar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate on-Record (in C.A. No. 2093 of 2004), Zulfiqar Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Zaidi, Advocate on-Record (in C.A. No. 2094 of 2004), Farrukh Jawad Panni, Advocate Supreme\nCourt, M.S. Khattak, Advocate on-Record (in CMA No. 262 of 2005), Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record (in C.A. No. 791 of 2005), for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE and others--Appellants\nVs\nMessrs SANGHAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. KARACHI and others \nALAbbas Sugar Mills, Karachi\n(in C.A. No. 2688 of 2001)\nMirpur Khas Sugar Mills, Mirpur Khas\n(in C.A. No. 2689 of 2001)\nSindh Abadgar Sugar Mills Ltd., Deh Deenpur Taluka T.M. Khan\n(in C.A. No. 2690 of 2001)\nMathari Sugar Mills Hyderabad\n(in C.A. No. 2691 of 2001)\nNational Tiles and Ceramics Ltd., Main Super Highway Nooriabad\n(in C.A. No. 2692 of 2001)\nContinental Biscuit Ltd., Karachi\n(in C.A. No. 2693 of 2001)\nAnsari Sugar Mills, Hyderabad\n(in C.A. No. 2694 of 2001)\nZulfiqar Industries Ltd., Hyderabad\n(in C.A. No. 2695 of 2001)\nIshtiaq Textile Mills, Nooriabad\n(in C.A. No. 2696 of 2001)\nNovartise Pakistan Ltd., Karachi\n(in C.A. No. 551 of 2002)\nLever Brothers Pakistan Ltd., Karachi\n(in C.A. No. 552 of 2002)\nFateh Textile Mills Ltd., Hyderabad\n(in C.A. No. 2087 of 2004)\nZaman Textile Mills, Hyderabad\n(in C.A. No. 2088 of 2004)\nSaya Woollen Mills Ltd., Kotri\n(in C.A. No. 2089 of 2004)\nGlobe Textile Mills Ltd., Kotri\n(in C.A. No. 2090 of 2004)\nMoro Textile Mills Ltd., Moro\n(in C.A. No. 2091 of 2004)\nZeal Pak Cement Factory Ltd., Hyderabad\n(in C.A. No. 2092 of 2004)\nMari Gas Co. Ltd., Dharki\n(in C.A. No. 2093 of 2004)\nHilal Confectionary Pvt. Ltd., Karachi\n(in C.A. No. 2094 of 2004)\nS.G. Fibre Ltd., Karachi\n(in C.A. No. 791 of 2005)\nKoHENoor Textile Mills Ltd., Rawalpindi\n(CMA No. 2627 of 2005 in C.A. No. 152 of 2005)\nPakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Islamabad\n(CMA No. 2628 of 2005 in C.A. No. 43 of 2005)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 314 = 2008 SLD 314 = 2008 PLD 320 = (2008) 98 TAX 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nValidity of Sales Tax Rules (SRO 678(I)/2007):\no\nChallenges to rules’ conformity with the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nHeld:\n•\nLegislative Reconciliation:\no\nDelegated legislation must align with enabling statutes and ensure transparent tax collection.\no\nHigh Court failed to reconcile rules with the Act, misinterpreting the provisions.\n•\nTax Liability on Electricity Units:\no\nObjective criteria for tax computation enhance transparency and reduce corruption.\n•\nConclusion: Supreme Court suspended the High Court’s decision and allowed appeals for detailed review.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=71,50,3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007=Preamble", + "Case #": "C.P.L.As. Nos. 48 to 186 of 2008, decision dated: 6-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J., IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN AND CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmer Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in all cases). Nemo for Respondents (in all cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAIRMAN, C.B.R. and others \nVs \nHaji SULTAN AHMAD and 138 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 117 = 2009 SLD 117 = 2009 PLD 169 = 2009 PTCL 459 = (2009) 99 TAX 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSuit for Declaration:\no\nChallenging withdrawal of customs duty and sales tax exemptions under SROs.\no\nBar on civil suits under the Customs Act and Sales Tax Act.\n2.\nDelegated Powers of Government:\no\nAuthority to issue or withdraw exemptions via SROs.\n3.\nProcedure for Corporate Plaintiffs:\no\nFiling suits without appropriate authorization (e.g., Board resolutions).\nHeld:\n•\nBar on Civil Suits:\no\nClaims challenging notifications issued under special statutes (Customs and Sales Tax Acts) are not maintainable in civil courts. Relief must be sought through mechanisms provided under the respective statutes.\n•\nPrevailing of Special Laws:\no\nSpecial laws override general laws, and provisions under these cannot be made redundant via a declaratory suit.\n•\nCorporate Procedure:\no\nA corporation must file suits through duly authorized representatives; failure results in rejection of the plaint.\n•\nConclusion: The plaint was rejected under O. VII, R. 11, CPC.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(2)(a)Customs Act, 1969=19,217", + "Case #": "Civil Suit No. 979 of 2003 and C.M.A. No.9172 of 2007, decision dated: 17-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "None present for Plaintiff. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendant No. 1. S. Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SHADMAN COTTON MILLS LTD. through Director----Plaintiff \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Chairman Central Board of Revenue (Revenue Division), Islamabad and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 6 = 1958 SLD 6 = 1958 PLD 187 = (1959) 1 TAX 19 = 1959 PTD 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nExtension of Sales Tax Laws to Bahawalpur State:\no\nValidity of such extension under the Second Supplementary Instrument of Accession and the Government of India Act, 1935.\nHeld:\n•\nExtension of federal sales tax laws to Bahawalpur State by the Governor-General was intra vires under the Instrument of Accession and relevant provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935.\n•\nLegislative debates are not relevant where statutory language is clear.\n•\nFederation of Pakistan could collect sales tax arrears in Bahawalpur under the Bahawalpur (Extension of Laws) Order, 1952.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Government of India Act, 1935=6(4)proviso,(5),7(2).", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1957, decision dated: 1st, April 1958. dates of hearing: 13th, 14th, 17th, 18th & 19th March 1958", + "Judge Name:": "M. SHAHABUDDIN A. C.J., A. R CORNELIUS AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "1. I. Chundrigar, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, (Sharif-ud-Din, Advocate, Supreme Court With him), instructed by M. A. Rahman, Attorney for Appellant. Faiyaz Ali, Attorney-General of Pakistan. (Abdul Hayue Advocate, Supreme Court with him) instructed by Nazir-ud-Din, Attorney for Respondents 1, 3 and 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS. ABBASI TEXTILE MILLS LTD.--Appellant \nVs \nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others --Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 7 = 1958 SLD 7 = 1958 PLD 276 = (1959) 1 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nSales Tax on Short-Landed Goods:\no\nImproper payment and liability for refund.\no\nObligations of carriers under contracts.\nHeld:\n•\nSales Tax is not payable on goods not actually imported; improper payments cannot be claimed as contractual disbursements.\n•\nRefund under Section 27 of the Sales Tax Act is authorized, and short-landing certificates are not mandatory if other evidence satisfies the Sales Tax Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27,3", + "Case #": "Civil Rule No. 1034 of 1956, decision dated: 13th May 1957", + "Judge Name:": "AMIN AHMED, C.J. AND NANDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hye. Chowdhury for Petitioner. Muhammad Mozammal Huq for Opposite-party", + "Petitioner Name:": "ELLERMAN & BUCNALL STEAMSHIP Co., LTD. \nVs \nSHAHIDI TRADING CORPORATION, LTD. --Opposite party" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 7 = 1959 SLD 7 = 1959 PLD 915 = (1959) 1 TAX 37 = 1959 PTD 722", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nIssuance of Writs:\no\nWhether writ jurisdiction can be invoked despite alternative remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1922.\nHeld:\n•\nAvailability of alternative remedies does not bar the High Court's writ jurisdiction if it expedites relief or prevents undue hardship.\n•\nSales Tax Act, 1951, continued under Article 224 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1956) unless repealed by competent authority.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(11)Income Tax Act, 1922=66Constitution of Pakistan, 1956=69,224", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 585 of 1958, decision dated: 30th June 1959. dates of hearing : 16th and 17th June 1959", + "Judge Name:": "SHABIR AHMAD AND MASUD AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Hussain Qureshi for Petitioners. Abdul Hague for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSERS KHALIQ AND NAJAM COMPANYs \nVs \nSALESTAX OFFICER, BWARD, LAHORE and another--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 8 = 1959 SLD 8 = 1959 PLD 955 = (1959) 1 TAX 31 = 1959 PTD 718", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nWrits Despite Other Remedies:\no\nHigh Court’s discretion to entertain writs for expedience and convenience.\n2.\nDefinition of Manufacturer :\no\nApplicability to lessees of forests.\nHeld:\n•\nHigh Court can issue writs even when statutory remedies exist if doing so benefits parties and saves time.\n•\nCutting, processing, and selling timber qualifies as manufacture under the Sales Tax Act, 1951.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=170", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 447 of 1958 decided on 17th August 1959, hearing DATE : 2nd December 1958", + "Judge Name:": "SHABIR AHMAD AND MASUD AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Muhammad Iqbal and Raja Muhammad Akram for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Hayue for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Malik SHAMAS DIN & BRothers\nVs \nTHE Income Tax AND SALES TAX OFFICER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 532 = 2003 SLD 532 = (2003) 261 ITR 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nBusiness Expenditure Allowability:\no\nDisallowance of expenses for directors’ wives’ travel.\nHeld:\n•\nTravel expenses for directors' spouses are personal unless proven otherwise. Tribunal must reassess the matter with appropriate reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Kerala High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "INCOME-TAX REFERENCE NO. 197 OF 1996, SEPTEMBER 26, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. SANKARASUBBAN AND KUMARI A. LEKSHMIKUTTY, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nRam Bahadur Thakur Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 533 = 2003 SLD 533 = (2003) 261 ITR 673", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nRectification of Mistakes:\no\nWhether adjustments under Section 154 constitute apparent errors.\nHeld:\n•\nIssues requiring substantive debate cannot be treated as apparent errors for rectification under Section 154. Tribunal directed to reconsider the matter.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "TAX CASES NOS. 3 TO 5 OF 1998, OCTOBER 1, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nv.\nMadras Fertilisers Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1966 14 = 1966 SLD 14 = 1966 PLD 505 = (1966) 13 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Key Issues:\n1.\nLimitation for Assessments:\no\nApplicability of extended accounting periods to limitation provisions.\nHeld:\n•\nAssessments for extended accounting periods are valid within the four-year limitation defined under the Sales Tax Act, 1951.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28Income Tax Act, 1922=34(2)", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 13 of 1965, decision dated: 5th January 1966, hearing DATE : 22nd December 1945", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI AND MUHAMMAD FAZLE GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haque for-Applicant. Muhammad Amin Butt for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX--Applicant \nVs \nMESSRS ANSAR TEXTILE MILLS, LAHORE --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 15 = 1970 SLD 15 = 1970 PLD 93 = 1970 PTD 140 = (1970) 21 TAX 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Turnover under Sales Tax Act\n•\nIssue: Whether exempt goods under Section 7 can be included in determining turnover under Section 8(2).\n•\nConclusion: Goods exempt under Section 7 are excluded from the Act’s purview, and their turnover cannot be considered for calculating total turnover under Section 8(2).\n•\nCitation: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Agha Textile Mills PLD 1962 Lah. 816.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7(1),8(2)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 34-D to 36-D of 1967, decision dated: 24th December 1969, hearing DATE : 15th December 1969", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., ABDUS SATTAR AND M. R. KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzalul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Matin Khan Chowdhury, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.\nSisir Kumar Sen, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Zinnur Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 34D of 1967).\nB. C. Panday, Advocate-on-Record Supreme Court for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 36D of 1967).", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN--Appellant \nVs \nMESSRS AYURVEDIC PHARMACY (DACCA) LTD: --Respondent\nCivil Appeal No. 35D of 1967\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN--Appellant \nVs \nMESSRS SAKTI AUSHADHALAYA (DACCA) LTD.--Respondent\nCivil Appeal No. 36D of 1967\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN--Appellant \nVs \nMESSRS SADHANA AUSHADHALAYA LTD.--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 153 = 1986 SLD 153 = 1986 PLD 731 = (1986) 54 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYSFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption on Electric Fans and Raw Materials\n1.\nRetrospective Taxation:\no\nIssue: Whether tax on raw materials used in manufacturing exempt electric fans could be imposed retrospectively.\no\nConclusion: Once raw materials are incorporated into the final product (electric fans), they lose their separate identity. Tax cannot be imposed retrospectively after the final product becomes exempt from sales tax.\no\nCitations:\n\nLatif Bawany Jute Mills Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer 1971 PTD 26\n\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Muhammad Hussain and Co. 1974 PTD 20.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,5(b),3(1)(b),5(1)(b)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 137 of 1974, decision dated: 25-05-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan instructed by S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Ex parte for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX---Appellant\nVs\nMESSRS SHAIQ CORPORATION LIMITED--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 164 = 1996 SLD 164 = 1996 PLD 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Topic 1: Validity of Land Sale by Attorneys for a Minor Female\n•\nIssue: Whether a sale of land owned by a minor female by her father's attorneys was valid.\n•\nConclusion: Transactions involving minors are void ab initio, as minors cannot consent to binding contracts. The transaction was unauthorized and lacked independent evidence of sale.\n•\nCitations:\no\nMahomedan Law by Mulla, S.362\no\nGhulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1.\n•\nAuthors: Supreme Court of Pakistan.\nTopic 2: Limitation Act in Minor’s Property Transactions\n•\nIssue: Whether the transaction was challenged within the limitation period.\n•\nConclusion: The suit was within the limitation period as the minor challenged the transaction promptly after attaining majority.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Yamin v. Settlement Commissioner 1976 SCMR.\n•\nAuthors: Supreme Court of Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=11,183Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos.6 and 7 of 1990, heard on 13-02-1996. dates of hearing: 11th, 12th and 13-02-1996", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD AQIL MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Munir Badar for Appellants. Jawad S. Khawaja for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHER BAZ KHAN and 73 others --Appellants \nVs \nMst. Malkani SAHIBZADI TIWANA and 2 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 165 = 1996 SLD 165 = 1996 PLD 550 = (1996) 75 TAX 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Constitutional Petition in Excise and Tax Disputes\n•\nIssue: Whether the petitioner could bypass ordinary remedies through a constitutional petition to challenge excise duty on varnish.\n•\nConclusion: High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that excise disputes should follow proper appellate remedies. However, penalties were remitted due to mitigating circumstances.\n•\nCitations:\no\nChemical Process Industries by R.N.S.\no\nEncyclopedia Britannica.\n•\nAuthors: Supreme Court of Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=7,9,43,226Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.928 of 1995, decision dated: 28-03-1996, hearing DATE : 21st December, 1995", + "Judge Name:": "WAJIHUDDIN AHMED AND AGHA SAIF-UD-DIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Mansoor for Petitioner. A.S. Pingat for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "IMPERIAL PAINTS AND VARNISH WORKS, KARACHI\nVs \nTHE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Additional Secretary and 2 others --Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 166 = 1996 SLD 166 = 1996 PLD 718 = (1995) 74 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Regulatory Duty and Exemption from Sales Tax\n•\nIssue: Legitimacy of imposing regulatory duties and their compatibility with exemptions in customs and sales tax laws.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nRegulatory duty under Section 18 of the Customs Act is valid if imposed within statutory limits.\no\nExemptions must be explicitly withdrawn to be ineffective.\no\nRetrospective application of new duties or withdrawal of exemptions violates vested rights.\n•\nCitations:\no\nGadoon Textile Mills v. Assistant Collector PLD 1992 Pesh. 191.\no\nM/s. Yousuf Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Customs PLD 1989 SC 232.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Customs Act, 1969=8,18(2),19,25,25B,31AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17231 of 1995, decision dated: 28-08-1996. dates of hearing: 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 23rd and 25-06-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SH. IJAZ NISAR AND TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Qadir, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Salman Akram Raja; Tariq Javid, Imtiaz Rashid Siddique, Shahid Hamid, Khalid Pervaz, Kh. Jawar A. Naqvi, S. Mansoor Ali Shah, Umar Ata Bandial, Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Ch. Ghulam Mustafa Bandesh, Zahir-ud-Din Khan and Sh. Shahid Waheed for Petitioners.\nSaleem Sahgal with Naeem Sahgal, Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, D.A.G., Muhammad Saleem, Superintendent Customs and Malik Muhammad Suleman Awan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FLYING BOARD AND PAPER PRODUCTS\nVs \nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others --Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 580 = 1998 SLD 580 = 1998 PLD 64 = (1998) 77 TAX 172 = 1998 PTCL 354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Customs Duties and Taxes Paid Under Exemption\n•\nIssues:\n1.\nWhether refusal to refund duties and taxes under statutory exemptions violated constitutional rights.\n2.\nInterpretation of Sections 32, 33, and 224 of the Customs Act, 1969, and limitations on refund claims.\n•\nConclusions:\no\nRefund claims under Sections 32 and 33 of the Customs Act are subject to a six-month limitation unless the levy is found ultra vires. In such cases, the limitation does not apply.\no\nPayments made under a mistake of fact or law are refundable under Section 72 of the Contract Act, but claims must be timely to avoid disrupting financial governance.\no\nThe case was remanded to the Collector of Customs to verify compliance with exemption notification conditions. If compliance was established, withholding the refund would violate Article 24(1) of the Constitution.\n•\nCitations:\no\nGhulam Abbas v. Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue 1994 CLC 1612.\no\nSales Tax Officer v. Budhparkash Ji AIR 1954 SC 459.\n•\nAuthors: Supreme Court of Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.48 of 1993, decision dated: 28-11-1997. dates of hearing: 13th and 14-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, SH. IJAZ NISAR AND SH. RIAZ AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan. Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PFIZER LABORATORIES LIMITED \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 758 = 2001 SLD 758 = 2001 PLD 326 = (2001) 83 TAX 583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excises Act, Fresh Inquiries, and Administrative Res Judicata\nIssues:\n•\nFresh inquiries despite previous investigations.\n•\nPowers of excise and sales tax authorities to summon witnesses.\nConclusions:\n•\nFresh inquiry is justified upon discovery of new material.\n•\nRes judicata does not strictly apply to administrative decisions if prior inquiries were incomplete or objectionable.\n•\nConstitutional petitions challenging inquiries require evidence of mala fide intent or lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=37Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=14", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18757 of 2000, heard on 30-01-2001. dates of hearing: 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th; 26th and 30-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan assisted by Uzair Karamat Bhandari for Petitioner. A. Karim for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. \nVs \nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, C.B.R. HOUSE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 759 = 2001 SLD 759 = 2001 PLD 340 = (2001) 84 TAX 262 = 2001 PTCL 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Fiscal Notifications, Retrospective Effect, and Exemptions\nIssues:\n•\nRetrospective application of fiscal notifications.\n•\nAlleged discrimination in sales tax exemptions.\nConclusions:\n•\nNotifications cannot operate retrospectively to disadvantage parties unless explicitly stated.\n•\nGovernment has the right to amend or rescind exemptions based on changing circumstances.\n•\nNo violation of Article 25 of the Constitution if classification for exemptions is reasonable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13(1)Customs Act, 1969=19Supreme Court Rules, 1980=3(ii)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,185(3),199", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1485, 1487, 1488, 1490, 1492, 1504, 1526, 1591 to 1599, 1600 to 1605 of 2000, decision dated: 16-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.1485, 1487, 1490, 1492 and 1504 of 2000). Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. Ps. Nos.1526, 1591 to 1605 of 2000). Nemo for Respondents (in all Cases).", + "Petitioner Name:": "ANOUD POWER GENERATION LIMITED and OTHERS\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 760 = 2001 SLD 760 = 2001 PLD 600 = 2001 PTCL 237 = (2001) 83 TAX 557 = 2001 PTD 1486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Ginning Industry and Substantive Provisions of Law\nIssues:\n•\nLegality of shifting sales tax liability under Special Procedure for Ginning Industry Rules, 1996.\nConclusions:\n•\nRules 5 and 6 were deemed inapplicable as they conflicted with substantive provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nAmendments in subsequent notifications aligned the rules with the parent law.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=71", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals No. 1094 to 1303 and 1328 to 1343 of 2000, decision dated: 29-01-2001, hearing DATE : 24-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J., CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND QAZI MUHANUNAD FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As Nos. 1094, 1095, 1342 and 1343 of 2000).\nMansoor Ahmed, Deputy Attorney-General for the Federation (in All Appeals).\nAli Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 1094 and 1095 of 2000).\nK. M. Virk, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 1096 to 1103, 1328 to 1341 of 2000).\nM. Siddique Mughal, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in C.A. No. 1101 of 2000).\nAli Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (C. As. Nos. 1103, 1339 and 1340 of 2000).\nNemo for the Remaining Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others--Appellants \nVs\nSUPERIOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 217 = 2012 SLD 217 = 2012 PTCL 232 = 2012 PTD 1635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation on Installation and Ancillary Services\n•\nLegal Framework: Sales Tax Act, Sections 2(46), 3, 6, 7, 26, 34, 36(1).\n•\nIssue: Whether charges for installation and ancillary services were part of the value of supply for tax purposes.\n•\nFacts:\no\nTaxpayer sold generating sets and provided installation services.\no\nRevenue included service charges in the taxable value.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nInstallation charges were distinct from the value of the goods sold.\no\nTax was already paid on generating sets, and ancillary charges did not form part of taxable supply.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal accepted. Service charges were excluded from taxable value.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46),3,6,7,11(2)(4),26,34,36(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.(237)/LB of 2009, decision dated: 9-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SVED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Najib for Appellant. M. Numan Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MILLAT TRACTORS LTD, LAHORE \nVs \nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 218 = 2012 SLD 218 = 2012 PTCL 475 = 2012 PTD 1638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Zero-Rating for Exports to Afghanistan\n•\nLegal Framework: Sales Tax Act, Section 4.\n•\nIssue: Non-allowance of zero-rating benefit due to missing import clearance documents.\n•\nFacts:\no\nTaxpayer contended that prescribed documents were provided later.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nDocuments needed verification by the adjudicating officer.\n•\nConclusion: Matter remanded for verification and decision.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,7,8(1)(a),3,2(33)", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.2124/LB, 2127/LB and 2125/LB of 2009, decision dated: 8-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NDDEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali,. FCA, Shabbar Zaidi FCA and Munawar-us-Islam for Appellants. M. Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COCA COLA BEVERAGES PAKISTAN LTD., GUJRANWALA \nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 219 = 2012 SLD 219 = 2012 PTD 1749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisting and Suspension of Registration\n•\nLegal Framework: Sales Tax Act, Section 21; Sales Tax Rules, Rule 12(5).\n•\nFacts:\no\nTaxpayer received refunds based on invoices from blacklisted suppliers.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nRule 12(5) applies prospectively, not to recoveries after refunds are issued.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; First Appellate Authority’s order upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21Sales Tax Registration Rules, 2006=12(5)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.28/LB of 2011, decision dated: 21st May, 2012, hearing DATE : 2-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Humaira Maryam, D.R. for Applicant. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD \nVs \nMessrs KAY AND EMMS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 220 = 2012 SLD 220 = 2012 PTD 1736", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Recovery Based on Supplier’s Blacklisting\n•\nLegal Framework: Sales Tax Act, Sections 2(37), 2(14), 8A, 11, 21, 26, 34, 36(1).\n•\nFacts:\no\nRefunds were claimed based on invoices from a supplier later removed from the blacklist.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nBlacklisting was invalidated, and invoices were valid.\n•\nConclusion: Refunds were lawful; departmental appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),2(14),4,7,8,8A,10,11(2),21,22,26,34,36(1),73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.226/LB of 2010, decision dated: 21st May, 2012, hearing DATE : 18-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Tasleem DR for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD\nVs \nMessrs UMER ABDULLAH TEXTILES, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 221 = 2012 SLD 221 = (2012) 106 TAX 236 = 2012 PTD 1762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Recovery During Appeal\n•\nLegal Framework: Sales Tax Act, Sections 11, 26, 34, 36(1); Constitution, Article 199(4-A).\n•\nFacts:\no\nTax authority demanded payment despite an active stay order.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nStay orders from higher authorities must be respected until set aside.\n•\nConclusion: Tax authority acted beyond its jurisdiction. Petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,26,34,36(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199(4A)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1707 to D-1711 of 2012, decision dated: 28-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB AND NADEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barrister Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioner. Siddique Mirza for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FAUJI OIL TERMINAL AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. through General Manager\nVs \nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 222 = 2012 SLD 222 = (2012) 106 TAX 187 = 2012 PTD 1869 = 2012 PTCL 608 = 2012 PTR 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of High Court in Federal Tax Matters\n•\nLegal Framework: Sales Tax Act, Section 37; Constitution, Article 199.\n•\nIssue: Whether Lahore High Court had jurisdiction over proceedings initiated by an officer in Karachi.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nOfficers with limited territorial jurisdiction fall under the High Court’s jurisdiction for their area.\n•\nConclusion: Lahore High Court lacked jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=37Federal Board of Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2011=Preamble", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6581 of 2012, heard on 31st May, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Ali Sibtain Fazli, Nasar Ahmad, Hasham Ahmad Khan, Ahmad Sibtain Fazli, Omer Gill, Muhammad Raza, Rana Muhammad Afzal, Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Mian Masood Ahmad, Ch. Zahid Attique, Rana Hamad Aslm, Ch. Abdul Razzaque, Khurram Shahbaz Butt, Abdul Samil Qureshi, Muhammad Farooq Sheikh, M.M. Akram, Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Hashim Aslam Butt, Shahbaz Siddique, Muhammad Mohsin Virk, Ikram-ul-Haq Sheikh, Muhammad Ejaz and Shahbaz Siddique for Petitioners.\n Dr. Rana M. Shamim, Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Ch. Zafar Iqbal, Kausar Parveen, Ch. Imtiaz Elahi, Mian Yusuf Umar, Tahir Zia Mahar, Sajjad H. Rizvi, Ehsan-ur-Rehman Sheikh and Saeed-ur-Rehman Dogar, Legal Advisor-FBR for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SETHI AND SETHI SONS through Humayun Khan\nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 41 = 2016 SLD 41 = 2016 PTD 2532 = (2018) 117 TAX 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Honey Products\n•\nLegal Framework: Sales Tax Act, 1951, Section 3(4); Central Excise Rules, 1944; Sindh Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, Section 2(9).\n•\nIssue: Whether honey packed in tubes for sale to medical stores qualifies as a taxable food item or an exempt medicinal product.\n•\nContentions:\no\nPetitioner: Claimed honey is a natural product with medicinal properties and not subject to sales tax or excise duty.\no\nDepartment: Argued honey's primary use is as a food item, not medicine.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nHoney's medicinal properties do not override its primary classification as a food item under the Sindh Pure Food Ordinance.\no\nTo be classified as a medicine, a product must meet drug laws and registration requirements.\n•\nConclusion: Honey is taxable as a food product; petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3(4)Central Excise Rules, 1944=10,210,226", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-419 of 1986, DATE of decision: 12-02-2016. dates of hearing: 22nd, 29th January and 3rd February, 2016.", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN SAADAT KHAN AND ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Monawwar Ghani for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Aslam Butt, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 1.\nShakeel Ahmed for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAMDARD LABORATORIES (WAQF)\nVS.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 763 = 2001 SLD 763 = 2001 CLC 385 = (2001) 83 TAX 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions and Compliance with Customs and Sales Tax Notifications\n•\nLegal Framework: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 18, 19, 32; Sales Tax Act, 1990, Section 13.\n•\nIssues:\no\nExemptions under various SROs and their applicability to subsequent changes in policy.\no\nUse of duty-free materials for unauthorized projects.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nExemptions granted under notifications remain valid until formally withdrawn and cannot apply retrospectively.\no\nMisuse of duty-free materials violates notification conditions.\n•\nConclusions:\no\nExemptions upheld for valid imports during the notification period.\no\nViolations of notification conditions result in penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 505 of 1997, decision dated: 31st July, 2000, hearing DATE : 19-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram and Salman Akram Raja for Petitioners. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi and Raja Bashir Ahmad Kiani for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram and Salman Akram Raja for ers. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi and Raja Bashir Ahmad Kiani for --Respondents\nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and another--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 152 = 1995 SLD 152 = 1995 CLC 413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Replacement Import Exemption\n•\nLegal Framework: Customs Act, 1969; Sales Tax Act, 1990; S.R.O. 484(1)/92.\n•\nIssue: Whether replacement machinery imported after the original was destroyed qualifies for exemption.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nReplacement machinery is treated as a first import and qualifies for exemption under the SRO.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption granted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 886 of 1993, decision dated: 17-04-1994", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Javed for Petitioner. Ijaz Ahmad. Dy. Attorney-General for Pakistan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAH JEWANA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., LAHORE\nVs \nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 627 = 2002 SLD 627 = 2002 CLC 597", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Tyres and Tubes for Agricultural Tractors\n•\nLegal Framework: Customs Act, 1969; Relevant SROs.\n•\nIssue: Whether tyres and tubes qualify for exemption when also usable in non-agricultural machinery.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nImporter provided evidence of agricultural usage.\no\nAuthorities failed to rebut claims with substantive evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption granted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,32(1),156(1)", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.43 of 1998, heard on 10-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MANSOOR AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Qamar-ud-Din for Appellant. Jawahar A. Naqvi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAFIQ & COMPANY through Managing Partner--Appellant \nVs\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 3 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 286 = 1993 SLD 286 = 1993 CLC 576", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Filing Appeal\n•\nLegal Framework: Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Limitation Act, 1908.\n•\nIssue: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a void decree.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nDelay requires lawful justification.\no\nVoidness of decree does not bypass limitation.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed due to delay.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.1Limitation Act, 1908=5", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 1785/13 of 1992, decided on 29th November, 1992", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rashid Khan for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and anothers\nvs\nINAYAT ALI --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 287 = 1993 SLD 287 = 1993 CLC 579", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Reduction of Examination Marks\n•\nLegal Framework: Board Regulations; Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199.\n•\nIssue: Legality of reducing marks awarded by a sub-examiner.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nReduction within permissible limits of regulation by head examiner.\no\nProcedures followed properly.\n•\nConclusion: Reduction upheld; petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 7441 of 1991, decided on 7th December, 1992.", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riasat Ali Chaudhry for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Hussain Chatha for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Miss ROBINA AFZAL\nvs\nTHE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE & SECONDARY EDUCATION, GUJRANWALA and 2 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 288 = 1993 SLD 288 = 1993 CLC 583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay of Suit for Arbitration\n•\nLegal Framework: Arbitration Act, 1940; Civil Procedure Code, Order XXXVII.\n•\nIssue: Whether proceedings can be stayed for arbitration after a written statement is filed.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nRequest for stay must precede substantial steps in litigation.\no\nFiling a written statement indicates submission to the court's jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Stay application rightly rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,R.3", + "Case #": "A.O. No. 247 of 1991, heard on 21st December; 1992", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.R. Raza Khokhar for Appellants. \nShaukat Ali Javaid Chaudhry for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FRIENDS CORPORATION PESTICIDES DEALERS and another--Appellants\nvs\nMessrs GRANULARS (PRIVATE) LIMITED--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 581 = 1998 SLD 581 = 1998 CLC 706 = (1998) 77 TAX 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Customs Duty Post-Rescission\n•\nLegal Framework: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss. 18, 30 & 31-A); Constitution of Pakistan (Art. 199).\n•\nIssue: Claim for exemption based on a rescinded notification where the Letter of Credit was opened after the cutoff date.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nExemptions are governed by the date of Bill of Entry filing.\no\nImporters have no vested rights to exemption after its withdrawal.\no\nHigh Court lacked territorial jurisdiction based solely on the location of the Letter of Credit opening.\n•\nConclusion: Customs duty demands upheld; constitutional petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,30,31AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.68 of 1997, decision dated: 28-08-1997, hearing DATE : 5-08-1997", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sarwar Javed for Petitioner. M. S. Rakhshani for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PARKS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and another--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 272 = 1994 SLD 272 = 1994 CLC 1251 = 1996 PTCL 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Excise Duty on Aerated Waters\n•\nLegal Framework: Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (S. 3(1), 3(4)); Excise Duty Rules, 1990 (R. 7).\n•\nIssue: Imposition of duty exceeding production capacity for franchised manufacturers.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nHigher duty based on past production is discriminatory.\no\nProviso to Rule 7 contradicts the purpose of uniform duty based on production capacity.\n•\nConclusion: Proviso to Rule 7 invalidated; excess duty demands quashed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3(1)(4)Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990=7", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 245 of 1992, decision dated: 7-07-1993", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar and Ashtar Ausaf Ali for Petitioner. Aftab Iqbal Chaudhry, DyA.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "7UP MANUFACTURERSer \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 628 = 2002 SLD 628 = 2002 CLC 1275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Vested Rights in Customs Duty Determinations\n•\nLegal Framework: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 30); Finance Act, 1999 (S. 18).\n•\nIssue: Applicability of vested rights based on Bill of Entry date against retrospective notifications.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nVested rights accrue on the date of Bill of Entry manifestation.\no\nNotifications apply prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.\n•\nConclusion: Importer's claim upheld; retrospective application of notifications disallowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30,18Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Finance Act, 1999=18", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-548 of 2000, decision dated: 27-03-2001, hearing DATE : 24-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Rasheed for Petitioner. Raja M. Iqbal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALAHUDDINer \nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 273 = 1994 SLD 273 = 1994 CLC 1612 = (1994) 69 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Wrongly Charged Sales Tax\n•\nLegal Framework: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 33).\n•\nIssue: Refund claim for sales tax paid on exempted goods beyond the six-month limitation.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nSales tax recovery on exempt goods is illegal.\no\nSection 33 does not bar refund claims in cases of unlawful recovery.\n•\nConclusion: Refund allowed despite the delay.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-217 of 1983, decision dated: 9-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents (called absent)", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM ABBAS\nVs \nMEMBER (JUDICIAL), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, and others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 765 = 2001 SLD 765 = 2001 CLC 1625", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption Claimed Outside Notification Period\n•\nLegal Framework: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 19); Sales Tax Act, 1990 (S. 13); Constitution of Pakistan (Art. 199).\n•\nIssue: Whether importers can claim exemptions for goods imported after the notification period.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nExemption is tied to the period specified in the notification.\no\nLegitimate expectation does not override explicit conditions in the notification.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption denied; customs duty demands upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=13Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Customs Act, 1969=19,31A", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16071 of 1996, decision dated: 9-01-1997. dates of hearing: 11th and 12-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Qadir for Petitioner. Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAMAN CEMENTer \nVs \nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 300 = 2007 SLD 300 = 2007 CLC 1700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Performance and Breach of Contract\n•\nLegal Framework: Specific Relief Act, 1877 (S. 12); Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (S. 57).\n•\nIssue: Refusal of specific performance for breach of contract.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nCompensation in damages is adequate for breach.\no\nSpecific performance was rightly denied as damages could remedy the breach.\n•\nConclusion: High Court upheld appellate court’s decision; suit for specific performance dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=57,12,42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.2059 of 1998, heard on 22-06-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Ahmad Chaudhary and.Muhammad Gul Zaman for Petitioner. Ch. Shahid Saeed and Umer Sharif for Respondents Nos.1 and 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "Malik ABDUL WAHID, Ex-Senator, Senate of Pakistan through Muhammad Tariq Khan \nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 153 = 1995 SLD 153 = 1995 CLC 1853 = (1995) 72 TAX 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Regulatory Duty During Exemption Period\n•\nLegal Framework: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 18(2)); Constitution of Pakistan (Art. 199).\n•\nIssue: Imposition of regulatory duty during an exemption period.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nRegulatory duty is equivalent to customs duty.\no\nExemptions under the notification apply until its rescission.\n•\nConclusion: Regulatory duty demands invalidated; refunds ordered.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,18(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=19_9", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 625 of 1992, decision dated: 20-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUR REHMAN KHAN AND, JAWAID NAWAZ GANDAPUR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Latif Yousafzai for Petitioner. Saadat Hussain, DA.G. and K.G. Saber for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. KHYBER AGRO (PVT.) LIMITED\nVs \nASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CENTAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX MARDAN DIVISION, MARDAN and 2 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 274 = 1994 SLD 274 = 1994 CLC 2181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Excise Duty and Sales Tax on Aerated Water\n•\nLegal Framework: Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Ss. 3, 35, 36); Sales Tax Act, 1951 (S. 3(4)).\n•\nIssue: Validity of excise duty and sales tax assessments based on outdated machinery claims.\n•\nCourt's Analysis:\no\nOrders lacked reasoning and ignored claims about machinery inefficiency.\n•\nConclusion: Orders set aside; case remanded for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3,35,36,7,10Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,35,36", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5775 of 1992, decision dated: 20-04-1994, hearing DATE : 27-02-1994", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD:\nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 634 = 2002 SLD 634 = 2002 PTD 2874 = 2003 PTCL 644", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Heat Transfer Oil from Customs Duty and Sales Tax\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nClassification of Heat Transfer Oil as a component or catalyst.\no\nGovernment’s reversal of exemption after initial confirmation.\n•\nCourt’s Analysis:\no\nHeat Transfer Oil is essential for machinery operation, qualifying as a component.\no\nVested rights arise when the letter of credit is established.\no\nGovernment actions reversing exemptions deemed arbitrary and unlawful.\n•\nConclusion: Exemption upheld; petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-322 of 1998, decision dated: 9-07-2002. dates of hearing: 10-05-2001; 18-02-4-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem for Petitioner. Syed Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondent No. 1. Shakeel Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. S.D. Rana for Respondent No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "CELANESE PAKISTAN LIMITED \nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 635 = 2002 SLD 635 = 2002 PTD 2478 = 2003 PTCL 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRVNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Unpaid Customs Duty and Regulatory Duty\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAuthority to recover unpaid customs duty through bank guarantees.\no\nApplicability of regulatory duty under conflicting SROs.\n•\nCourt’s Analysis:\no\nCustoms Authorities can recover dues from bank guarantees.\no\nRegulatory duty is independently leviable under S. 18(2) of Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; regulatory duty recoverable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=202,18(1)(2)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2139 of 1996, decision dated: 16-08-2001, hearing DATE : 5-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood Akram Shaikh for Petitioner. Raja Khalid Ismail Abbasi and Karamat Hussain Dy. Supdt. For Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "BESTWAY CEMENT (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 115 = 1980 SLD 115 = 1980 PTD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Sales Tax on Excisable Goods\n•\nKey Issue: Determination of value for sales tax purposes under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.\n•\nCourt’s Analysis:\no\nValue for sales tax includes excise duty and declared value.\no\nSales Tax Officer cannot independently revise values determined under the Central Excises Act.\n•\nConclusion: Sales tax demands must align with excise valuations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1955=2Finance Act, 1967=2(16),3", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. K. Co. ST/2/B/AAC & K Co. T,/3/B/AAC and K. Co. T/4/B/AAC of 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 respectively, decision dated: 1st April, 1978", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI AND M. KARIM, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "I. N. Pasha for Appellant. S.S. Ali Zaidi D. R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 11 = 2014 SLD 11 = 2014 MLD 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code – Bail on Grounds of Further Inquiry\nConclusion:\nThe accused was granted bail under S. 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code due to the lack of direct evidence connecting them to the alleged offenses of attempted murder, abduction, and common intention (Ss. 324, 365, 511 & 34, PPC). The accusation was based solely on the confession of a co-accused recorded by the police, which is inadmissible under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Additionally, the complainant implicated the accused through a delayed supplementary statement, further weakening the prosecution's case. It was noted that the evidentiary value of such statements must be evaluated during the trial. In the absence of direct or corroborative evidence, the case against the accused required further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.\nCitation: Abdul Qadir Motiwala v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1734 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497(2)Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=324,365,511,34", + "Case #": "Criminal Bail Application No.78 of 2013, decision dated: 13-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN SAADAT KHAN AND NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Waris Lari for Applicant. Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AQEEL alias TAPLA--Applicant \nVs \nThe STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 116 = 1980 SLD 116 = 1980 PTD 150 = (1966) 13 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act – Void Re-assessment\nConclusion:\nThe re-assessment initiated by a third Sales Tax Officer under S. 28 of the Sales Tax Act was deemed void ab initio. The original assessments for two quarters each were completed by two different officers at stations L and J. However, the third officer issued a notice under the assumption that income had wholly escaped assessment, which lacked proper legal foundation. This unauthorized assumption rendered the re-assessment null and void.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 18 of 1965, decision dated: 8-12-1965", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI AND MUHAMMAD FAZLE GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haque for Applicant. Muhammad Amin Bull for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE \nVs\nHAJI & COMPANY, CHINIOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 117 = 1980 SLD 117 = 1980 PTD 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act – Definition of Year and Limitation on Assessment\nConclusion:\nThe limitation period for reassessment under S. 28 of the Sales Tax Act was examined concerning the assessment year 1957-58. The reassessment, made on 11-4-1962, was found to fall within the permissible timeframe, as the period of four years from the end of the assessment year (31-3-1962) had not lapsed. The court clarified that S. 28 of the Sales Tax Act is not pari materia with S. 34(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nCitation: Nagina Silk Mills v. Income-tax Officer PLD 1963 SC 322 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28,2(20)General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=3(19)", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 13 of 1965, decision dated: 5-01-1966", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI AND MUHAMMAD FAZLE GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haque for Applicant. Muhammad Amin Butt for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nVs \nANSAR TEXTILE MILLS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 118 = 1980 SLD 118 = 1980 PTD 201 = (1980) 42 TAX 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act – Definition of Manufactured Article \nConclusion:\nThe court held that cotton waste (small or inferior fiber cotton) became a manufactured product once it underwent a process of blowing, enabling it to be sold in forms suitable for manufacturing carpets and durries. The transformation of the cotton waste into a commercially viable product satisfied the definition of a manufactured article under the Sales Tax Act.\nCitations: Messrs Noorani Cotton Corporation v. The Sales Tax Officer, PLD 1965 SC 161 affirmed; Superintendent of Central Excise v. Ch. Faqir Muhammad PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 103 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,2(11)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 28 to 36 of 1977, decision dated: 17th February 1980", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Anwar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in all the C. Ps. S. L. A.) Sh. Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court, Riazul Haq Sh., Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in all the C. Ps. S. L. A.)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD \nVs \nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nCivil s Nos. 31 to 33 of 1977\nMESSRS ZEENAT TEXTILE MILLS LTD \nVs \nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nCivil s Nos. 34 to 36 of 1977\nMESSRS CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LTD \nVs \nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 119 = 1980 SLD 119 = 1980 PTD 214 = (1980) 42 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act – Classification and Exemption of Goods\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that conduit pipes did not qualify for exemption from sales tax as mechanical and electrical control or transmission gear. These pipes were classified as general-use items, not fulfilling the specific criteria outlined in the relevant notification. This distinction was critical in determining their tax status under the Sales Tax Act.\nCitation: Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Messrs Premier Machinery Works, Karachi 1978 PTD 118 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,17(1),", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 155 of 1971, decision dated: 8th October 1979, hearing DATE : 2nd October 1979", + "Judge Name:": "M. S. H. QURESHI AND MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haq for Appellant. Mahmood A. Mirza and A. H. Najafi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI ZONE, RAWALPINDI \nVs \nMESSRS IJAZ OIL & CONDUIT PIPE MILLS, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 120 = 1980 SLD 120 = 1980 PTD 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes – Definition of Pottery \nConclusion:\nThe court determined that earthen pipes could not be classified as pottery under the Sales Tax Act. The term pottery, as used in the relevant exemption clause, was interpreted according to its ordinary sense, which referred to vessels and containers typically used for domestic purposes. Earthen pipes, being neither vessels nor containers, were excluded from this category.\nReferences: Oxford English Dictionary; Dharamdas Paul v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes AIR 1958 Cal. 302 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(1)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 37 of 1977, decision dated: 18th February 1980", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Abdul Haque Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court, Riazul Haq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASHMIR POTTERY WORKS, SIALKOT \nVs \nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 121 = 1980 SLD 121 = 1980 PTD 300 = (1980) 42 TAX 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax – Correction of Returns and Refunds\nConclusion:\nThe High Court upheld the acceptance of the petitioner's sales tax return, finding it fully compliant with the guidelines set forth in Circular No. MLR 1/69. The petitioner's case was adequately covered under para. 5, cl. (a) of the circular, and no evidence suggested that the High Court's view was incorrect.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,10(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 374 and 375 of 1978, decision dated: 15th March 1980", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court, Riazul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, ZONE A, LAHORE \nVs\nMESSRS STANDARD LEATHER WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 122 = 1980 SLD 122 = 1980 PTD 309 = (1980) 42 TAX 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act – Exemption Interpretation for Ice Cream\nConclusion:\nThe court rejected the taxpayer's claim for exemption from sales tax on ice cream under a federal government notification. The court emphasized that terms used in the notification must be understood according to commercial interpretations rather than dictionary definitions. The decision clarified that ice cream was not exempt from sales tax as it fell outside the intended scope of the notification.\nCitations: PLD 1976 Kar. 600, and other case law references.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(l)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 801 of 1978, decision dated: 28-05-1980, hearing DATE : 15-04-1980", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND S. A. NUSRAT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. S. Waswani for Petitioner. Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "K . RAHMAN MILK FOODS LTD., KARACHI \nVs \nCENTREL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 123 = 1980 SLD 123 = 1980 PTD 338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Refund and Verification of Transactions\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal ordered the verification of sales and consumption records to determine the validity of a refund claim. The Department's reference to the High Court, challenging the Tribunal’s order, was dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal's direction was procedural and not a substantive question of law.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(2)", + "Case #": "P. T. R. No. 45 of 1972 (T. R. No. 46 of 1972), decision dated: 23-10-1978, hearing DATE : 19th June 1978", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Haq for petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE \nVs \nLAYALLPUR INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 124 = 1980 SLD 124 = 1980 PTD 354 = (1980) 42 TAX 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax – Classification of Taramira Oil \nConclusion:\nThe court held that taramira oil could not be classified as mustard oil and was therefore not eligible for a reduced rate of sales tax under the relevant notification. This interpretation was based on linguistic and commercial distinctions.\nCitations: References to authoritative texts and cases such as Ramavatar Budhaiprasad v. Assistant Sales Tax Officer AIR 1961 SC 1325.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 152 of 1971, decision dated: 1st June, 1980, hearing DATE : 20-05-1980", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain for Appellant. Sh. Abdul Haq for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPIND ZONE \nVs\nMESSRS POTHOWAR OIL MILLS, GOJJAR KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 125 = 1980 SLD 125 = 1980 PTD 373 = (1980) 42 TAX 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax – Evidence and Refund Conditions\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that the manufacturer could not claim a refund for taxes purportedly paid on previous sales without providing substantive evidence. Furthermore, the statutory requirement under S. 27 of the Sales Tax Act mandated proof of prior tax payment, which the petitioner failed to meet.\nCitation: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 54 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 56 of 1973, decision dated: 2-04-1980", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. H. Najafi and Muhammad Saeed Butt for Appellant. Sh. Abdul Haq for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TRIBAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nVs \nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 12 = 2014 SLD 12 = 2014 MLD 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Dispossession – Jurisdiction of Civil Court\nConclusion:\nThe court held that disputes regarding the genuineness of ownership documents and possession claims over a property fall within the jurisdiction of the civil court. The ongoing suits in civil court were deemed the appropriate forums to resolve such issues.\nCitations: PLD 2008 Lah. 59; 1992 SCMR 48 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005=3,4", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal No.112 of 2012, decision dated: 10-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "FAROOQ ALI CHANNA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afaq Yousuf for Appellant. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani, A.P.G. for the State. Naimatullah Khan for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAKEEL AHMED KHAN \nVs \nThe STATE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 126 = 1980 SLD 126 = 1980 PTD 403 = (1980) 42 TAX 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax – Exemption for Partly Manufactured Goods\nConclusion:\nThe court denied the taxpayer's claim for exemption on goods classified as partly manufactured under S. 4(a) of the Sales Tax Act. The end product, aerated water, was not subjected to tax, thereby failing to meet one of the conditions for exemption.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4,4(a)", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 254 of 1971, decision dated: 19-09-1979. dates of hearing: 1-10-1978 and 19th June 1979", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AND .M. MEHBOOB AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haq for Petitioner. Khalilur Rahman for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax, RAWALPINDI \nVs \nCHEMICAL GLASS FACTORY, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 275 = 2013 SLD 275 = (2013) 107 TAX 216 = 2012 PTD 1897", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Fraud – Use of Fake Invoices\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer's use of fraudulent invoices was insufficiently addressed by the Department in terms of specific allegations. However, the burden of proof shifted to the taxpayer, who was required to provide evidence of genuine transactions. The adjudication was vacated due to procedural shortcomings and remanded for re-evaluation.\nCitation: Messrs Mi-Tech v. CIR STA No. 104/LB/2011 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),8A", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.229/LB, 228/LB, 202/LB and 591/LB of 2011, decision dated: 15-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHEER-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hashim Butt for Appellant. Sajjad Tasleem, D.R. RTO along with Nayyar Shafiq, Deputy Director Intelligence and Imran Hayee Khan, Dy. CIR for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HAQ BAHOO SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE and others \nVs \nC.I.R. (APPEALS-II) R.T.O., LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 226 = 2012 SLD 226 = 2012 PTD 1909", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax – Liability for Further Tax\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer's appeal was accepted, and the orders of the lower authorities were vacated. The court clarified that further tax could only be levied on supplies made to unregistered persons. The adjudicating officer's failure to substantiate the claim rendered the order invalid.\nCitation: Messrs Tanveer Weaving Mills v. Deputy Collector of Sales Tax and others 2009 PTD 762 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1A),2(25)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. NO.1580/LB of 2009, decision dated: 16-06-2011, hearing DATE : 16-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed Awan, Nouman Mushtaq Awan and Azeem Abbas Kazmi for Appellant. Farrukh Majeed, DR. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHISTIA SUGAR MILLS LTD., SARGODHA \nVs \nCOLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION) SALES TAX, R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 227 = 2012 SLD 227 = 2012 PTD 1950", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excise – Invalid Search Without Warrant\nConclusion:\nThe court declared the raid on the factory premises illegal due to the absence of a search warrant, violating S. 18 of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, all proceedings initiated on the basis of the raid, including the show-cause notice, were void.\nCitations: Multiple references including 2007 PTD 2356 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,9,18", + "Case #": "F.E. No.24/LB of 2009, decision dated: 23rd May, 2012, hearing DATE : 4-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFIAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant. Yasir Pirzada, D.R. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ADAM SUGAR MILLS LTD., BAHAWALNAGAR \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, MULTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 175 = 1985 SLD 175 = 1985 PTD 312 = (1985) 51 TAX 23 = 1985 PTCL 460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Fire Bricks from Sales Tax\nDetails:\nThe Commissioner of Sales Tax/Income-tax (Central Zone), Karachi, referred a question under Section 17(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, challenging whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that fire bricks are exempt from sales tax under Item 34 of Sales Tax Notification No. 7, dated 26-6-1951. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decision in holding that fire bricks are exempt.\nThe term brick was not defined in the Sales Tax Act or rules, prompting the Court to rely on dictionary meanings. The Court found that the term brick is used generically and encompasses all types, including fire bricks, which are simply a species of brick made for high-temperature uses such as furnace linings.\nIt was argued by the department that fire bricks, being a specialized product, should not fall within the generic term “brick” used in the exemption notification. However, the Court rejected this, noting that the language of the notification was broad and unqualified, thus covering all varieties of bricks, including fire bricks.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that the term “brick” used in Item 34 of the Sales Tax Notification No. 7, dated 26-6-1951, includes fire bricks and hence they are exempt from sales tax. The reference was answered in the affirmative after deleting the part relating to fire clay , which was not applicable in the present case.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Notification No. 7, dated 26-6-1951\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Pakistan Progressive Cement Industries Ltd. (STC No. 79 of 1973)\nBallentine’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed.\nShorter Oxford English Dictionary\nChambers 20th Century Dictionary\nWebster’s New International Dictionary, 2nd Ed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,17(1),34", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No.115 of 1974, decision dated: 07-03-1984", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN, JUSTICE AND K. A. GHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.A. Dareshani for Applicant\nNaseem Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX/Income Tax (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI \nVs\nM/s PAKISTAN PROGRESSIVE CEMENT INDUSTRIES Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 13 = 2014 SLD 13 = 2014 MLD 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Urban Rent Restriction – Restoration of Possession\nConclusion:\nThe court dismissed the tenant's application for restoration of possession, finding no evidence to support the claim that the landlord had failed to occupy the premises. The landlord successfully demonstrated personal use of the property.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.47 of 2013, decision dated: 10-10-2013, hearing DATE : 8-10-2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Imdad Shah for Appellant. Munir Ahmed Langove for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHAN \nVs \nMUHAMMAD IBRAHIM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 176 = 1985 SLD 176 = 1985 PTD 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Assessment Without Notice Under S. 28(2) of the Sales Tax Act\nConclusion:\nThe court held that the issuance of a notice in Form SST-24, followed by the assessment of sales tax, was valid despite the absence of a specific notice under S. 28(2) of the Sales Tax Act. The assessee, having responded to the notice in Form SST-24 and being given an opportunity to present their case, could not claim procedural invalidity. The sales tax assessment order was therefore upheld as lawful.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,28(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.R. Nos. 199 and 200 of 1973, decision dated: 6th February 1984. dates of hearing: 30th January; 1st and 6-02-1984", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassan Inamullah for Applicant. Nasrullah Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSTAFA Prestressed by R.C.C. Pipe Works Ltd \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 177 = 1985 SLD 177 = 1985 PTD 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Liability on Exported Goods and Raw Materials\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that although finished goods such as yarn and cloth exported out of Pakistan were exempt from sales tax, the raw materials used in their production—ginned cotton and cotton yarn—were not exempt. The assessee could not claim exemption under S. 4(a) of the Sales Tax Act as the raw materials did not qualify as partly manufactured goods. Consequently, the company was held liable for sales tax on the raw materials used.\nCitations: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central) Karachi 1984 PTD 211; Messrs Noorani Cotton Corporation v. Sales Tax Officer PLD 1965 SC 161 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=4,4(a)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 789 of 1972, decision dated: 1st November, 1984", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND TANZIL-UR-RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. A. Dareshani for Appellant. Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nVs \nFAZAL SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 14 = 2014 SLD 14 = 2014 MLD 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Quashing of Criminal Proceedings and Cancellation of Bail\nConclusion:\n(a) The court emphasized that the maintainability of criminal proceedings should be decided as a preliminary issue. Applications for quashing proceedings must address clear procedural irregularities or jurisdictional errors.\n(b) The court held that considerations for bail cancellation differ from those for its grant. Unless exceptional circumstances or strong grounds are demonstrated, previously granted bail cannot be revoked.\nCitations: Darya Khan v. The State PLD 1989 Kar. 115 rel.; PLD 2009 Lah. 415 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=561A,497(5)", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.302 of 2012, decision dated: 8-07-2013, hearing DATE : 22-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Siddiqui for Applicant. Fazlur Rahman Awan for Respondent No. 2. Saleem Akhtar, A.P.G. for the State.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAJJAD HUSSAIN and another--Applicants \nVs \nThe STATE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 170 = 1984 SLD 170 = 1984 PTCL 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duty – Relevant Date for Determining Rate of Duty – Filing of Bill of Entry and Vessel Manifest\nDetails:\nFour connected petitions involved a dispute over the applicable customs duty rate on imported goods arriving at Karachi Port aboard a vessel on 6-4-1977. The issue arose because the vessel, due to berth unavailability, could only partially discharge cargo and later returned to the port in July 1977, filing a second manifest. The petitioners had filed bills of entry either before the arrival of the vessel or on the date of its arrival. The customs authorities sought to levy duty based on the second manifest date or the date of filing of the bills of entry.\nThe key legal question was whether the duty rate should be based on the date of the first manifest (6-4-1977) or the second manifest (19-7-1977), or alternatively, on the dates of presentation of the bills of entry.\nHeld:\nThe Court held that under Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1969, the relevant date for determining the value and rate of duty is:\nThe date of the manifest, if the bill of entry was filed in advance of vessel arrival;\nThe date of the bill of entry, if filed after the vessel's arrival.\nIt ruled that the first manifest filed on 6-4-1977 was valid and operative, and the second manifest was merely a supplementary document, not affecting the duty liability date. The Court cited and relied upon the earlier decision in Amerliwala Hardware Industries v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1976 Kar. 196), which had upheld the legal relevance of the original manifest date even if later corrected or supplemented.\nCitations:\nAmerliwala Hardware Industries, Karachi v. Collector of Customs and another, PLD 1976 Kar. 196\nRelief Granted:\nThe petitions were allowed. Customs duty was to be calculated:\nAt the rate applicable on 6-4-1977 for bills of entry filed in advance;\nAt the rate applicable on the actual date of filing for other bills of entry filed after vessel arrival.\nThe respondents were allowed to seek recovery (via bank guarantees or deposits) only if amounts remained due under the revised calculation. Otherwise, bank guarantees were to be released and cash deposits refunded, subject to no stay from the Supreme Court within two months.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30,45(1),45(2),104,156(2)(a)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. D-428 of 1977, 25-10-1983", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Dada Steel Mills\nvs\nCollector Of Customs And Other" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 171 = 1984 SLD 171 = 1984 PTCL 188", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Excise Law – Forfeiture of Advance Licence Fee – Blacklisting and Refund Claims\nDetails:\nTwo civil petitions were filed by licensed Bhang vendors in Multan who had won annual contracts through auction for the year 1974–75. The petitioners in C.P. No. 159/1976 bid Rs. 64,000, and those in C.P. No. 282/1976 bid Rs. 17,000. They deposited Rs. 11,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively as advance payments, which were to be adjusted against the last two instalments. However, due to failure to pay subsequent instalments on time, their licences were cancelled, advance amounts forfeited, and they were blacklisted.\nThe Lahore High Court in writ petitions partially accepted their claims by setting aside the blacklisting orders but upheld the forfeiture of the advance payments. The petitioners challenged the High Court judgment before the Supreme Court solely on the issue of forfeiture and refund of advance payments.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court dismissed the petitions. It noted:\nThe advance amounts were liable to forfeiture under Section 40 of the Punjab Excise Act.\nIt was also unclear whether the amounts had already been adjusted for the duration the licences were actually operative.\nGiven these facts, the Court found no grounds for interference.\nThe challenge to licence cancellation had become academic as the licence period had expired.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 159 and 282 of 1976 Writ Petition Nos. 700 of 1975 and 811 of 1975 18-04-1982", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Haji Yar Mahammad And Lahore And Another.\nVS\nDirector General, Excise Another And Taxation, Punjab," + }, + { + "Case No.": "5252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 179 = 1985 SLD 179 = 1985 PTD 488", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes – Sales Tax Refund and Exemption\nConclusion:\n(a) The court reaffirmed the principle of strict interpretation in fiscal statutes. Taxing authorities cannot impose taxes unless expressly stated in the law.\n(b) Legislative speeches are irrelevant for interpreting statutes when the text is clear and unambiguous.\n(c) Claims for sales tax refunds due to the merger of excise duty with sales tax were rejected. Once capacity duty was made payable, no additional sales tax liability arose.\nCitations: Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, East Bengal v. W. M. Abdur Rehman 1973 SCMR 445 rel.; Zaibtun Textile Mills Ltd. v. CBR PLD 1971 SC 333 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Reference Application (Sales Tax) No. 105 of 1973, decision dated: 26-04-1984", + "Judge Name:": "K. A. GHANI AND NAIMUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Hyder for Petitioner. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX (CENTRAL ZONE), KARACHI \nVs \nMESSRS A & B FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 180 = 1985 SLD 180 = 1985 PTD 513 = (1985) 52 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Notice Period Under S. 28(2) of the Sales Tax Act\nConclusion:\nThe court declared that any notice issued under S. 28(2) of the Sales Tax Act without allowing the mandatory 35-day period for filing a return was void ab initio. Compliance with procedural timelines is essential for the validity of such notices.\nCitation: Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Messrs Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. STR No. 113 of 1974 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28,28(2)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Case No. 267 of 1974, decided op 17-11-1984, hearing DATE : 12-11-1984", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasrullah Awan for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax SALES TAX, EAST ZONE, KARACHI \nVs \nMESSRS O. K. MOTORS Co., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 181 = 1985 SLD 181 = 1985 PTD 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Partly Manufactured Goods\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that goods used in intermediate manufacturing stages, such as glass shells and tubes for bulbs, were subject to sales tax. The taxing authority could assess the value of such goods for tax purposes when they were retained for in-house manufacturing processes.\nCitations: Messrs Noorani Cotton Corporation v. Sales Tax Officer PLD 1965 SC 161 rel.\nSales Tax on Partly Manufactured Goods\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that goods used in intermediate manufacturing stages, such as glass shells and tubes for bulbs, were subject to sales tax. The taxing authority could assess the value of such goods for tax purposes when they were retained for in-house manufacturing processes.\nCitations: Messrs Noorani Cotton Corporation v. Sales Tax Officer PLD 1965 SC 161 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(6)(d),17(2)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-227 of 1985, decision dated: 6-05-1985", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN AND K. A. GHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Ather for Petitioner. Aziz Munshi, A. G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PH ILLIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN LTD \nVs \nTHE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS, KARACHI , ND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 121 = 2009 SLD 121 = 2009 PTCL 659", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Review Applications – Negligence of Counsel\nConclusion:\nThe application for restoring a dismissed review petition was denied. The court found no valid justification for repeated non-appearances by the counsel and the party. Negligence and failure to provide sufficient reasons for absence rendered the application meritless.\nCitations: Saifullah Siddiqui v. Karachi Electric Supplies Corporation Ltd. 1997 SCMR 926 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 111 of 2002, decision dated: 20-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND MR. JUSTICE MA. ZAFAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi. Respondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Kohinoor\nVs\nCollector" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 122 = 2009 SLD 122 = (2009) 100 TAX 249 = 2009 PTCL 671 = 2009 PTD 1083", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Inspections and Searches Under the Sales Tax Act\nConclusion:\nThe court held that visits under S. 38 of the Sales Tax Act must be based on reasonable cause, duly recorded in writing. Unauthorized inspections or seizures violate procedural fairness and natural justice principles, rendering subsequent actions null and void.\nCitation: Chemitex Industries Ltd. v. Superintendent of Sales Tax PTCL 2000 CL 508 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,12,38,40,40A,45,45A,46,47,51", + "Case #": "Suit Nos. 376 and 377 and C.M.As. Nos. 2335, 2338 of 2002, decision dated: 13-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SALMAN TALIBUDDIN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondent(s) by: Khawaja Shamsul Isman (in Suits Nos. 376 of 2002 and 377 of 2002)\nSiraj Haq (in Suits Nos. 376 of 2002 and 377 of 2002)", + "Petitioner Name:": "A.M.Z. SPINNING & WEAVINGMILLS (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 318 = 2008 SLD 318 = 2008 PTCL 126 = (2008) 97 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Show-Cause Notices Under S. 36 of the Sales Tax Act\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that vague and unspecific show-cause notices under S. 36 are invalid. Notices must clearly specify the alleged contravention, reasons for non-compliance, and applicable periods of limitation. Jurisdiction cannot be assumed without fulfilling these conditions.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 8 of 2004, decision dated: 9-07-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE NASIM SIKANDAR AND MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Habeeb Ullah Khan. Respondent by: Mr. Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Inam Packages\nVs\nAppellate Tribunal Lahore. V Customs, C.E. and Sales Tax, Custom House, Lahore and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 319 = 2008 SLD 319 = 2008 PTCL 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Sales Tax and Customs Duty\nConclusion:\nThe court clarified that exemptions granted via notifications under the Customs Act and Sales Tax Act only apply to imports made by third parties for government use. Contracts made after the withdrawal of exemption notifications cannot claim retrospective benefits.\nCitations: Molasses Trading & Export v. Federation of Pakistan PTCL 1994 CL. 222 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19Constitution of Pakistan Olympic Association=165", + "Case #": "C. Ps. Nos. 3278 to 3281 of 1993, heard on 18-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SABIHUDDIN AHMAD AND MR. JUSTICE ARIF HUSSAIN KHILJI", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mr. I.H. Zaidi\nVs\nMr. Nadeem Azhar, Deputy Attorney-General" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 320 = 2008 SLD 320 = 2008 PTCL 469", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Amnesty and Penal Amounts\nConclusion:\nThe court allowed the appeal regarding the penal amount under SRO No. 463(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007. The petitioner had paid the principal amount of sales tax and sought relief for the penal amount under the amnesty scheme extended to taxpayers who cleared their outstanding principal dues by 30-6-2007. The appeal was resolved without delving into the merits of the case, as the primary liability was not contested, and the amnesty provisions applied.\nCitation: SRO No. 463(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34A", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 80 of 2007, decision dated: 28-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE NASIM SIKANDAR AND MR. JUSTICE FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Awan. Respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Cheema", + "Petitioner Name:": "Yousaf Sugar Mills Ltd\nVs\nGovernment of Pakistan and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 321 = 2008 SLD 321 = 2008 PTCL 499", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation Principles and Invalid Procedure for Tax Levy\nConclusion:\nThe court declared SRO No. 678(I)/2007, dated 6-7-2007, ultra vires and without legal effect. Taxation procedures must align with the parent statute, and any deviation undermining the charging provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was impermissible. The ruling emphasized that tax liability must be based on clear statutory authority, and the reliance on electricity consumption to establish tax liability contradicted the Act’s provisions.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 7781, 7823, 8155, 8176, 8397, 8563, 8790 to 8795, 8841 to 8844 decided on 23rd November, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SYED HAMID ALI SHAH", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Haji Sultan Ahmed\nVs\nCentral Board of Revenue, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 411 = 2003 SLD 411 = 2003 PTCL 66 = (2002) 85 TAX 373 = (2002) 85 TAX 388 = 2002 SCMR 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemptions Under Customs Act and Retrospective Tax Provisions\nConclusion:\nThe court upheld the withdrawal of exemptions under SRO No. 484(I)/92 after the expiry of its stipulated period. The insertion of Section 31-A in the Customs Act, 1969, had retrospective effect, mandating the payment of duties irrespective of prior commitments. The exemption period could neither be extended nor applied retroactively once the notification expired. The court also clarified that administrative notifications could not override statutory provisions.\nCitation: Molasses Trading & Export v. Federation of Pakistan PTCL 1994 CL. 222 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1998 decided on 26-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI\nMR. JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Irfan Qadir, and Mr, Mehr Khan Malik Advocates. \nRespondents by: Mr. A. Karim Malik, and Ch. Akhtar Ali,Advocates", + "Petitioner Name:": "Zaman Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd\nVs\nCentral Board of Revenue and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 412 = 2003 SLD 412 = 2003 PTCL 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption on In-House Consumption of Goods\nConclusion:\nThe court held that in-house consumption of bagasse for manufacturing sugar became exempt under Sr. No. 43 of the Sixth Schedule after sugar became taxable in 1998. This exemption eliminated the need for a specific exemption for bagasse under Sr. No. 49. The judgment reinforced the principle of avoiding the cascading effect of VAT.\nCitation: C.B.R.'s letter C. No. 1/73-STT/96, dated 15-10-1999.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,43,49", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. STA-992/PB/2002, decision dated: 17-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MR. S.M. KAZINZI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. S.K. Masud Kiyani, Advocate. Mr. lshtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer and Mr. Phool Badshah, Cost Accountant", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Khazana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Peshawar\nVs\nAdditional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Peshawar & Collector of Sales Tax & Central Excise, Hayatabad, Peshawar" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 413 = 2003 SLD 413 = 2003 PTCL 692", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Installation of Imported Equipment in Non-Specified Locations\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that the exemption under SRO No. 279(I)/94, dated 02-04-1994, did not mandate the installation of generating sets at specific locations. The installation at alternative locations did not disqualify the importers from availing exemptions. The court relied on clarifications provided by the CBR in earlier cases, affirming the flexibility of the notification.\nCitation: C. No. Cus. App./RA No. 1951/99/438, dated 04-02-2000 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 08/2003, decision dated: 29.05.2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MOHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL, MR. JUSTICE (RERD.) ZAFAR PASHA CHAUDHARY, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Riaz Hussain Naqvi, Advocate. Mr. Tariq Ahad Nawaz, Additional Collector", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Zaman Energy Company Ltd., Lahore\nVs\nThe Collector of Customs, Central Excise & Sales Tax (Adjudication), Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 228 = 2012 SLD 228 = (2012) 106 TAX 378 = 2012 PTCL 681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Deduction of Input Tax Where Supplier Fails to Deposit Tax\nConclusion:\nThe court upheld the provisions of Section 8(1)(ca) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which bar input tax adjustment if the supplier fails to deposit the tax. The ruling clarified that tax authorities must provide prima facie evidence of non-payment by the supplier before shifting the burden of proof to the taxpayer. Registered persons must substantiate their claims of tax payment at the import stage or face denial of adjustment.\nCitation: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)(ca)", + "Case #": "STA No. 924/LB/2012, M.A. Stay No. 885/LB/2012, decision dated: 2-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MR. MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Advocate alongwith, Mr, Farooq Sheikh, Advocate. Mr. Nadeem Arif DR (RTO)", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Polymer Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore\nVs\nThe DCIR, Unit-06, ZonEVII, RTO-II, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 229 = 2012 SLD 229 = (2012) 106 TAX 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Retail Price for Excise Duty\nConclusion:\nThe court clarified that the retail price for excise duty purposes must include all charges incurred by the manufacturer but exclude costs not borne by them, such as retailer-incurred chilling costs. The revenue's attempt to modify the retail price without credible evidence of omitted costs was deemed invalid. The manufacturer’s prerogative to set the retail price was reaffirmed.\nCitations: Collector of Sales Tax & Central Excise v. Riaz Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd 2001 PTD 1854 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(2)Federal Excise Act, 2005=8(1)(ca)", + "Case #": "FEA No. I8/LB, 19/LB, 26/LB, 27/LB, 34/LB, 35/LB, 37/LB of 2009, decision dated: 5-9-2011, hearing DATE 28-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL RAUF ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar AIi, FCA, for the appellant. Muhammad Tahir, D_R, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 276 = 2013 SLD 276 = 2013 PTD 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Passing Tax Orders\nConclusion:\nThe court annulled an order-in-original issued six years after the show-cause notice, far exceeding the statutory limitation of 45 days (extendable by 90 days). The adjudicating authority’s failure to obtain an extension rendered the proceedings time-barred and null in law. The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory timelines.\nCitations: Super Asia Muhammad Din and Company v. Collector of Sales Tax 2008 PTD 60 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),11(4),2(37),3,6,7,22,23,26,33(2)(cc),34-", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1085/LB of 2009, decision dated: 4-08-2011, hearing DATE : 30-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IKRAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noman Mushtaq Awan for Appellant. Dr. Shehryar, DR for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GULBERG KABANA (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE \nVs \nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 277 = 2013 SLD 277 = (2013) 107 TAX 29 = 2013 PTD 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax and Procedural Lapses\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, finding that refund claims were improperly denied based on lapses in processing objections. The revenue authorities failed to adhere to procedural requirements under S.R.O. No. 575(I)/2002, including timelines for objections and inquiries. The court directed the issuance of refunds as per the law.\nCitations: 2012 PTD (Trib.) 34 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4),8AQanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=117", + "Case #": "M.As. (A.G) Nos.53/KB to 60/KB of 2012 and S.T.As, Nos.50/K, 75/K, 78/K to 81/K, 100/K, 101/K of 2009, decision dated: 30-08-2009, hearing DATE : 30-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Iqbal for Applicant. S.M. Javed (A.O.) and Kazi Afzal (D.R.) RTO-II for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LATIF KNITS, KARACHI \nVs \nC.I.R.(ENF) RGII COLL S.T. & F.E., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 278 = 2013 SLD 278 = (2013) 107 TAX 55 = 2013 PTD 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Stevedoring Services\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer was liable for sales tax on stevedoring services under the Sindh Sales Tax Ordinance, 2000, and Sales Tax Act, 1990. Despite arguments of being a terminal operator or claiming that stevedoring was not directly performed, the court emphasized the nature of services and the taxpayer's ownership of the infrastructure used for unloading bulk cargo. The liability extended irrespective of the method of payment (fixed throughput charges or otherwise). The Special Procedure Rules were upheld as intra vires, and the taxpayer was held responsible for compliance.\nCitations: Collector of Customs v. Dhan Fibre Ltd. 2010 PTD 515 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.116 to 120 of 2011, decision dated: 10-10-2012, hearing DATE : 27-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saqib Masood, FCA for Appellant. Tariq Hussain Tunio, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAUJI OIL TERMINAL AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., KARACHI \nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-I), LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 279 = 2013 SLD 279 = (2013) 107 TAX 698 = 2013 PTD 228 = 2013 PTCL 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalid Show Cause Notices for Recovery of Tax\nConclusion:\nThe court invalidated a defective show cause notice under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for failing to specify deliberate acts, collusion, or sufficient evidence. Administrative authorities must operate within the framework of law, clearly stating the grounds for allegations. The appellate tribunal emphasized strict compliance with statutory requirements.\nCitations: Caltex v. Collector 2006 SCMR 1519 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),2(44),3(1A),6,7,22,23,26,73", + "Case #": "S.T. No. 642/K of 2009, decision dated: 30-01-2012, hearing DATE : 11-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Appellant. Tahir Zafar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ANWAR ENGINEERING WORKS, KARACHI \nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1973 4 = 1973 SLD 4 = 1973 PTD 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Metallic Watch Chains and Bracelets\nConclusion:\nThe court held that metallic watch chains and bracelets did not qualify as ornaments or jewelry under the exemption notification. The items lacked inherent characteristics of jewelry (embellishment or adornment) and were not manufactured by goldsmiths or silversmiths. Exemption clauses in taxation statutes must be interpreted strictly.\nCitations: Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Forrest (1890) 15 A C 344 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(1)(a),7", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 39 of 1971, decision dated: 1st March 1973. dates of hearing : 28th and 29th September 1972", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Tufail for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS REHMAT ULLAH & SONS \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 255 = 1989 SLD 255 = 1989 PTD 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Sales Tax\nConclusion:\nThe court emphasized that a taxpayer claiming an exemption must prove eligibility within the terms of the notification. The department must substantiate claims that the exemption does not apply. Without sufficient evidence from the department, exemption claims may be upheld.\nCitations: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Cases Nos. 4 and 4-A of 1979, decision dated: 15-09-1988", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND IMAM ALI KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaikh Haider for Applicant. Iqbal Naeem Pasha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX CENTRAL ZONE A, KARACHI \nVs \nMessrs HERCULES CANVAS MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 449 = 2005 SLD 449 = 2005 PTD 1806", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Record Maintenance for Audit\nConclusion:\nThe court clarified that maintaining records for five years under Section 24 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, is mandatory and relevant during audits. Re-audit based on fraud is permissible, given that fraud vitiates all proceedings.\nCitations: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=27,115", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.650 of 1997, dated 02/06/2004", + "Judge Name:": "M. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Central Board of Revenue and 2 Others \nVS \nMessrs Tripple Em (Pvt.) Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 281 = 2013 SLD 281 = 2013 PTCL 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Electricity Bills\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal allowed input tax adjustment for electricity bills consumed in administrative offices, treating it as part of taxable activity. Non-mentioning of sales tax registration numbers on bills was deemed a procedural lapse.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=24,25", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1774-L of 2009 (Against the Judgment dated 17.6.2009 of Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in WP No. 3101/2003), decision dated: 2-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Colony Industries (Pvt.) Ltd\nVs\nFederation of Pakistan and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 282 = 2013 SLD 282 = 2013 PTCL 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Petroleum Products and Sales Tax Levy\nConclusion:\nThe court invalidated SRO. 922(I)/1999 for exceeding its scope by amending statutory provisions. It ruled that statutory exemptions could not be withdrawn by subordinate legislation, rendering related show-cause notices and orders nullities.\nCitations: DG Khan Cement v. FOP 2004 SCMR 456 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8", + "Case #": "STA No. 1159/LB/2009, decision dated: 18-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MR. M A., JAVED SHAHIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, MR. SOHAIL AJAAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. D.G Khan Cement Company Limited\nVs\nThe CIR (Legal Division) RTO, Multan. Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 283 = 2013 SLD 283 = (2013) 107 TAX 687 = 2013 PTCL 92 = 2013 PTD 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability and Administrative Oversight in Petroleum Products\nConclusion:\nThe Petroleum Products (Development Surcharge) Ordinance, 1961, had an overriding effect over the Sales Tax Act, 1990, for petroleum products. The taxpayer was not liable for sales tax during a period when regulatory confusion delayed the implementation of corresponding price notifications. The court annulled show-cause notices and orders, citing procedural lapses, including issuance beyond statutory time limits. It also invalidated SRO 922(I)/1999 for being ultra vires, as subordinate legislation cannot override primary statutory provisions.\nCitations: Assistant Collector Customs v. Khyber Electric Lamps 2001 SCMR 838; CIT v. Kashmir Edible Oil Ltd. 2006 SCMR 109 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,34,36,36(3),Sixth Schedule,ItemNo.8Petroleum Products (Petroleum Development Levy) Ordinance (XXV of 1961)=4", + "Case #": "ST. No. 166/K-09, ST. No. 167/K-09, decision dated: 27-02-2012, hearing DATE : 5-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. ZARINA N ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MR. ZAFAR IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Appellant\nChaudhry Jawed, DR (LTU) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SHELL (PAKISTAN) LIMITED \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, KARACHI\nChaudhry Jawed, DR (LTU) for --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 284 = 2013 SLD 284 = (2013) 107 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Obligation to Pay Customs Duty and Tax Fraud\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner was held liable for fraudulently evading customs duty and taxes under the Customs Act, 1969. The court ordered recovery of duties, surcharge, and mark-up at prevailing currency rates, emphasizing the government's right to revenue. It also directed criminal proceedings against involved parties for fiscal fraud.\nCitations: Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (1997) 76 Tax 5 (S.C. Pak).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(2)(3),83A,156(l)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 673-K of 2009, decision dated: 29-8-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. AND SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Advocate (S.C.) and K. A. Wahab, Advocate on-Record with Farooq Ahmed Adhemi, Dy. Secy/Principal Officer, for the Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate, (S.C.), Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record, Manzoor Hussain Memon, Collector, MCC and Iftikahr Ahmed, Additional Collector, MCC, for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "PARAMOUNT SPINNING MILLS LTD\nVs\nCUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 285 = 2013 SLD 285 = (2013) 107 TAX 80 = 2013 PTD 420", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Tax Recovery and Conflict of Legislation\nConclusion:\nThe court highlighted that recovery of taxes under Section 36(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, cannot exceed a five-year limitation. It dismissed actions based on expired notices and upheld that primary legislation overrides subordinate notifications in tax exemptions or zero-rating conflicts.\nCitations: PLD 2011 SC 619; PLD 2007 SC 517 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1),4,13,2(41),2(28),SixthSched", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1010/LB of 2012, decision dated: 19-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHARTI, CHAIRMAN, SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar Sheikh, FCA, for the Appellant. Muhammad Tahir, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NESTLE PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE \nVs\nC.I.R., Zone-II, L.T.U., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1389 = 2004 SLD 1389 = (2004) 90 TAX 326 = 2007 PTD 1141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration and Tax Recovery on Fixed Assets\nConclusion:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration in handling tax recovery related to fixed assets disposal. Arbitrary imposition of penalties and additional taxes was deemed unsupported by law. Auditors' negligence and ignorance of legal precedents led to their reprimand.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2(3)(ii).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,36,36(1)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i),(ii),(iii),(iv),(v),(vi),(vii),(a),10(4),9(2)(a)(b),33(2)(cc)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 329-K of 2004, decision dated: 20-7-2004", + "Judge Name:": ", JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Sibtain, Dealing Officer. Danish Zuberi and Ms. Umera Ali, Barristers at Law, for the Complainant. Abdul Hameed Memon, D.C.S.T., for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "RECKITT BENCKISER PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 471 = 2004 SLD 471 = 2004 PTD 2648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Competency of Grievance Petition in Labor Matters\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that grievance petitions against government-controlled corporations fall under the jurisdiction of service tribunals and not labor courts. Labor petitions were rightly dismissed as abated.\nCitations: Service Tribunals Act, 1973.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(7),2(16),50(4A),59(A),61,62,80C,132,159Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=171Companies Ordinance, 1984=247,361(1),366,370(b)", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.305/KB of 2003, dated 25/05/2004", + "Judge Name:": ", JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S. ABDUL MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 324 = 2000 SLD 324 = 2000 PLC 139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Res Judicata in Labor Cases\nConclusion:\nThe court held that a dismissed petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) precludes re-litigation of the same issue before labor courts. The principle of res judicata was upheld to maintain finality in judgments.\nCitations: Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=1(3),25A,38(3a)", + "Case #": "Revision No. 14 of 1999, decision dated: 21st May, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ghazi Shah for Petitioner. Qazi Muhammad Shehreyar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAHIR HUSSAIN\nVs\nPAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD through Chairman and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 325 = 2000 SLD 325 = 2000 PLC 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petitions and Appeals in Labor Matters\nConclusion:\nConstitutional petitions cannot substitute for a second appeal in labor disputes. Relief can only be sought for jurisdictional errors or fundamental violations under Article 199 of the Constitution.\nCitations: PLD 1974 SC 106 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=22A(8)(g),22D,22E,25A", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 7 of 1998, decision dated: 4-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar A. Seth for Appellant. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ANWAR ZAMAN\nVs\nCHIEF EXECUTIVE, BANNU WOOLLEN MILLS LTD BANNU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 326 = 2000 SLD 326 = 2000 PLC 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Taxing Statutes\nConclusion:\nIn taxation matters, courts must adhere strictly to statutory language. Provisions cannot be extended by implication to accommodate assumed deficiencies. Tax exemptions are confined strictly to their statutory terms.\nCitations: Interpretation of Statutes by Maxwell, 11th Edn., p. 278 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=25A,34,35,38Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D 2583 of 1993, decision dated: 1st June, 1999, hearing DATE : 25-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI AND S.A. RABBANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Majeed Jeelani for Appellant and Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUKHTAR AHMED and 2 others\nVs\nCHAIRMAN, S. L. A. T. and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 20 = 1971 SLD 20 = 1971 PTD 2000", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Hammer Work and Foundry Products\nConclusion:\nThe court emphasized that the nature of manufacturing processes is a factual determination, not a legal one, and cannot be agitated in appellate courts unless legal errors are involved.\nCitations: Not explicitly cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(16),3(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-50 of 1964, decision dated: 24th March 1966. dates of hearing : 22nd and 24th March 1966", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. F. Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Ali Athar, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdullah Faruqi, Attorney on behalf of Yousuf Rafi, Attorney-on-Record for Appellant. S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by K. A. Ghani, Attorney for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HIRJINA & Co. (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI--Appellant\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX CENTRAL, KARACHI--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 127 = 1980 SLD 127 = 1980 PTD 188 = (1980) 42 TAX 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Taxability of Sales and Exemptions for Infant Food\nConclusion:\nThe court clarified that statutory exemptions under primary legislation take precedence over conflicting subordinate notifications. The taxpayer's claims for zero-rated status on exempt goods were upheld as per statutory definitions.\nCitations: 2001 SCMR 1806; PLD 2011 SC 619 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,17", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 710, 711 of 1976; 200 of 1977 and 155, 156 of 1978, decision dated: 20-02-1980", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hague Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in all Petitions). Nemo for Respondent (in all Petitions)", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nVs \nMESSRS SULEMAN & Co\nCivil No. 711 of 1976\nTHE COMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE \nVs \nMESSRS SULEMAN & Co\nCivil No. 200 of 1977\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE \nVs \nMESSRS ABDUL SALAM & Co\nCivil s Nos. 155 and 156 of 1978\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX \nVs \nMESSRS ALNOOR INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 699 = 1999 SLD 699 = 1999 PTD 2899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Misappropriation of Jurisdiction in Tax Assessment\nConclusion:\nShow-cause notices issued by tax authorities beyond their pecuniary jurisdiction were deemed void ab initio. The court nullified all proceedings built upon such defective notices.\nCitations: PLD 1997 SC 582 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6210 of 1996, heard on 26-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Aisha Fazil Qazi for Appellant. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMAD FABRIC \nVs \nINSPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 230 = 2012 SLD 230 = (2012) 106 TAX 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Authority to Declare Notifications Ultra Vires\nConclusion:\nRevenue authorities lack jurisdiction to treat government notifications as ultra vires. Such actions, deemed indirect declarations of invalidity, exceeded their authority and were struck down.\nCitations: 2003 PTD 1276 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1),36(1)Federal Excise Act, 2005=3A", + "Case #": "STA No. 606/LB of 2011, decision dated: 13-10-2011, hearing DATE 13-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAVAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, M B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad Kalwar, DR, for the Appellant. Muddasar for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 286 = 2013 SLD 286 = 2013 PTD 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Refunds and Auditors’ Oversight\nConclusion:\nThe court found procedural lapses in denying tax refunds and remanded the case for re-adjudication, ensuring that both taxpayers and tax authorities comply with statutory requirements.\nCitations: PLD 2003 SC 344 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=14,33,34Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 698/LHR/ST(147)/1239 of 2012, decision dated: 26-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Syed Ali Imran Rizvi, Advocate Authorized Representative. Ashfaq Ahmad, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "AIMAN RAMSHA EMBROIDERS (PVT.) LTD., SHEIKHUPURA \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 287 = 2013 SLD 287 = 2013 PTD 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities\nConclusion:\nCustoms authorities were found to have exceeded their pecuniary jurisdiction and acted without lawful authority in seizing goods. The court ordered immediate restitution and condemned procedural violations.\nCitations: PLD 1969 SC 53 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 907/LB to 913/LB and M.As. (Stay) Nos. 814/LB to 820/LB of 2012, decision dated: 12th September 2012", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Applicant (in S.T.As. Nos.907/LB to 913/LB of 2012 and M.As. Nos. 814 to 820 of 2012). Mrs. Naheed Rakho, D.R, for Respondent (in S.T.As. Nos.907/LB. to 913/LB of 2012 and M.As. Nos.814 to 820 of 2012)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DECENT TEXTILE, FAISALABAD \nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 288 = 2013 SLD 288 = (2013) 107 TAX 680 = 2013 PTD 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Wrongful Charging of Tax and Refund of Further Tax\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Tribunal found that wrongful charging of further tax under Section 3(1A) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was rectified. Refunds were ordered for taxpayers where the department failed to provide counter-evidence. The tribunal criticized the abuse of natural justice and directed the refund of wrongly charged amounts.\nCitations: Fatima Sugar Mills' case GST 2003 P. 415; Northern Bottling Co. v. FOP 2004 PTD 226.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1A),2(25)Sales Tax Refund Rules, 2000=8(2)", + "Case #": "M.A.(Rect.) No.76-KB of 2011, decision dated: 29-06-2012, hearing DATE : 26-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND FARZANA, JABEEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Appellant. Absent for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MATIARI SUGAR MILLS LTD \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE (SALES TAX), HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 289 = 2013 SLD 289 = 2013 PTD 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Payment of Tax by Suppliers and Tax Credit Denial\nConclusion:\nThe denial of input tax credit under Section 8(1)(ca) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was upheld where suppliers failed to deposit tax. However, the tribunal mandated that the Department confront the taxpayer with prima facie evidence before issuing show-cause notices. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with clear guidelines.\nCitations: 2004 SCMR 456; 2010 PTD 465 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)(ca),73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 924/LB of 2012 and M.A. (Stay) No.885/LB of 2012, decision dated: 2-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ajmal Khan along with Farooq Sheikh for Applicants. Nadeem Arif, D.R. (RTO) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs POLYMER MARKETING (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE \nVs\nD.C.I.R., UNIT-06, ZONEVII, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 469 = 2004 SLD 469 = 2004 PTD 2663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Payment of Tax by Suppliers and Tax Credit Denial\nConclusion:\nThe denial of input tax credit under Section 8(1)(ca) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was upheld where suppliers failed to deposit tax. However, the tribunal mandated that the Department confront the taxpayer with prima facie evidence before issuing show-cause notices. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with clear guidelines.\nCitations: 2004 SCMR 456; 2010 PTD 465 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=Clause86A,Part-I,Second ScheduleIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001=122A", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1187-L of 2003, 11/05/2004", + "Judge Name:": ", JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs Quaid College of Commerce (Lahore) \nVs \nSecretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 290 = 2013 SLD 290 = 2013 PTD 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Tax Fraud\nConclusion:\nOrders passed by Assistant Commissioners without pecuniary jurisdiction, as prescribed under SRO 555(I)/1996, were declared coram non judice. The Federal Government's rescindment of the SRO in 2012 did not validate earlier jurisdictional overreach. All actions and orders were nullified.\nCitations: Izhar Alam Farooqi, Advocate v. Sheikh Abdul Sattar Lasi 2008 SCMR 240; Sardar Ahmad Yar Khan Jogezai v. Province of Balochistan 2002 SCMR 122.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),11(2),36(1),45,72A", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.638/LB of 2012, decision dated: 12-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad and Rana Muhammad Arshad, ITP for Appellant, Sarfraz Ahmad Qazi, DR for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHENAB BOARD, FAISALABAD \nVs\nC.I.R.(A), R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 291 = 2013 SLD 291 = 2013 PTD 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggling and Burden of Proof in Customs Cases\nConclusion:\nThe seizure and confiscation of goods were deemed illegal due to the Customs Authorities’ failure to adhere to procedural requirements, including obtaining written consent for auction and exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction. The accused provided sufficient evidence of lawful possession, shifting the burden back to Customs, which they failed to discharge. The tribunal allowed the appeal and directed restitution.\nCitations: PLD 1968 Kar. 599; PLD 1969 SC 53; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 135 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=168,169,2(s),6,179,187,201", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 361/PB of 2010, decision dated: 8-11-2012, hearing DATE : 12-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pir Alam Shah, Consultant along with Atiqur Rehman, Advocate. and Fakhr-e-Alam Managing Director for Appellants. Naseer Khan, Superintendent Customs for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KHYBER TEA AND FOOD COMPANY, PESHAWAR and others \nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), PESHAWAR and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 292 = 2013 SLD 292 = (2013) 108 TAX 49 = 2013 PTD 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax and Zero-Rated Exports\nConclusion:\nThe taxpayer was entitled to input tax refunds on zero-rated supplies to airlines under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1969, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Inland Revenue officials' interference with customs-cleared transactions was declared unlawful. The tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses could not override statutory rights.\nCitations: PLD 1972 SC 271; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 3810; 2011 SCMR 408 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,3,4(1)(b)Customs Act, 1969=24,27,131", + "Case #": "M.A. (Stay) No.116/KB and S.T.A. No.145/KB of 2011, decision dated: 17-02-2012, hearing DATE : 9-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND ZARINA M ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Applicant. Badar-ud-Din Qureshi, Addl. CIR for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SHELL (PAKISTAN) LIMITED \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (INLAND REVENUE SERVICES) Zone-IV" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 293 = 2013 SLD 293 = 2013 PTD 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Tax Adjudication\nConclusion:\nOrders-in-original passed without verification of transactions were declared arbitrary. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended fresh adjudication, emphasizing the necessity for independent verification of taxpayer claims before imposing liabilities.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,45A", + "Case #": "Complaint No.683/LHR/ST/(139)/1217 of 2012, decision dated: 11-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Ahmad, Advisor Dealing Officer. Sh. Ghulam Asghar for Authorized Representative. Saleem Akhtar, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "ECONOMY PESTICIDES CHOTI ZAREEN, DERA GHAZI KHAN \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 294 = 2013 SLD 294 = 2013 PTD 418", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Harassment in Tax Recovery\nConclusion:\nThe Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation exceeded its jurisdiction by coercing payment without adjudication of liability. The tribunal upheld taxpayers’ rights to due process and adjudication before recovery actions.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),36,73", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 696/LHR/ST/(145)/1237 of 2012, decision dated: 13-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Ahmad, Advisor Dealing Officer. Kamran Khalil, Authorized Representative. Ijlal Khan, Deputy Director and Muhammad lmran, Assistant Director Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "BEST PAPER AND BOARD MILLS, GUJRANWALA \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 295 = 2013 SLD 295 = (2013) 108 TAX 259 = 2013 PTD 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisting and Suspension of Registration\nConclusion:\nOrders for blacklisting and suspension of registration were void due to the absence of show-cause notices and hearings. The tribunal directed the restoration of registration while allowing the department to initiate proceedings in compliance with procedural and statutory requirements.\nCitations: Messrs JM Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan (Writ Petition No. 6990 of 2012).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,2(14)", + "Case #": "M.A. (stay) No.886/LB and S.T.A. No. 951/LB of 2012, decision dated: 3rd October, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Applicant. Nadeem Arif, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs H.G.R., TRADERS, FAISALABAD \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 296 = 2013 SLD 296 = 2013 PTD 466", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Input Tax and Consumption Requirements\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal ruled that input tax adjustments and refunds were permissible upon payment of input tax, with no precondition for consumption. Rule 33 of the Sales Tax Rules, 2006, could not override statutory provisions under Sections 7 and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nCitations: CIR Zone-III, RTO v. Messrs Kamal Fabrics S.T.A. No.543/LB of 2011 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,8(1)(a),7,4,2(14),23,26,33,34", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.297/LB of 2012, decision dated: 6-08-2012, hearing DATE : 26-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant. Mrs. Fiza Batool, DR for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MAGNA TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD \nVs\nC.I.R. (APPEALS), R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 297 = 2013 SLD 297 = 2013 PTD 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Suspension of Registration and Tax Fraud Allegations\nConclusion:\nThe suspension of registration from the date of registration was declared illegal due to procedural lapses, lack of evidence, and arbitrary exercise of power. The tribunal emphasized adherence to statutory requirements, including the issuance of detailed show-cause notices.\nCitations: University of Dacca v. Zakair Ahmed PLD 1965 SC 90; Collector, Sahiwal v. Muhammad Akhtar 1971 SCMR 681 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(2)(3),2(37),2(14)(a),3(3)(a),7,8(1)(ca),11,23,,73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. N0.960/LB and M.A. (Stay) No. 1097/LB of 2012, decision dated: 11-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHARTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed for Applicant. Ch,.laffar Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NASEEM PLASTIC HOUSE, FAISALABAD \nVs\nC.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 298 = 2013 SLD 298 = 2013 PTD 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court Reference and Authorization Under Section 47\nConclusion:\nThe High Court dismissed a reference filed by a counsel for the Collector of Sales Tax due to the absence of proper authorization. The court held that Section 47 required authorization exclusively in favor of an officer of the Sales Tax Department, not a private counsel.\nCitations:\nDirector, Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries 2006 SCMR 129; Messrs Ittehad Textile Industries v. Collector Sales Tax 2007 PTD 663.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No.64 of 2009, decision dated: 23rd February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ARA BANDIAL AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sarfraz Ahmed Cheema for Applicant. Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR SALES TAX, FAISALABAD \nVs\nMessrs CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 299 = 2013 SLD 299 = 2013 PTCL 136 = 2013 PTD 1800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Credit, Additional Tax, and Adjustment of Input Tax\nConclusion:\n1.\nInput Tax Adjustment for Separate Units: Taxpayer's claim for adjustment was allowed as both units were treated as a single entity for tax purposes. Penalty and additional surcharge were deleted.\n2.\nAdjustment Timing: Adjustments made before bill payments, though a procedural lapse, were deemed unintentional and not penalized.\n3.\nElectricity for Non-Taxable Activities: Input tax claimed for electricity consumption in canteens and administrative offices was allowed since these facilities were integral to the taxpayer's business operations.\nCitations:\n2000 PTD 1296; Layya Sugar Mills GST 2004 CL 318; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 1358.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(35),8(4),33,34", + "Case #": "STA No. 340/LB/2009, decision dated: 22-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. ABDUL RAUF ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MR. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Ahsan Mehmood for Appellant. Muhammad Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD., LAHORE \nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 269 = 2011 SLD 269 = (2011) 104 TAX 282 = 2011 PTD 1513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excise Duty on Telecommunication Services\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal upheld the chargeability of central excise duty on telecommunication services, including transponder services, provided by Pakistan Television Corporation Limited. It clarified that services terminating within Pakistan are taxable under the Central Excise Act, 1944, irrespective of contractual agreements between service providers and the recipient. Misconceptions regarding service definitions and exemptions were dismissed.\nCitations:\nPLD 1989 SC 128; PLD 1967 Lah. 553; S.R.O. 456(I)/1996.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,14,23,26,33(2cc),33(3)&36(2)Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,2(20),3B,4(3),FirstSchedPakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996=Preamble", + "Case #": "C.No. 13/CE/IB/2009 C.No.15/CE/IB/2009 (Old No.C.No.45(CE/ IB/2005, C.No. 16/CE/IB/2009 (Old No. C.No.46/CE/IB/2005) and S.T.A. No.7/IB of 2009, decision dated: 17-02-2011, hearing DATE : 15-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afnan Karim Kundi for Appellant (in C.Nos. 15/CE/1B and 16/CE/IB of 2009).\n Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and Danish Afzal for Respondents (in C.Nos. 15/CE/IB and 16/CE/IB of 2009).\n Tariq Mehmood, ITP for Appellant (in STA No. 7/IB of 2009).\n Shaukat Ali, LA and Ghulam Hasnain, Audit Officer for Respondent (in STA No. 7/IB of 2009).\n Danish Afzal for Appellant (in C.No. 13/CE/IB of 2009).\n Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and Ghulam Hasnain, Audit Officer for Respondents (in C.No. 13/CE/IB of 2009).", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LTD. (P.T.V.C.L.), ISLAMABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 300 = 2013 SLD 300 = (2013) 107 TAX 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Delayed Payment of Tax Due to Bank Error\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal annulled penalties and default surcharges imposed on the taxpayer for delayed deposits caused by the National Bank. It held that the bank acts as an agent of the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), and delays by the bank cannot penalize the taxpayer. The payment was deemed made on time.\nCitations:\nFederal Excise Rules, Rule 45(5).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Rules, 2005=45(5)", + "Case #": "Ex. No. 32/LB of 2009, decision dated: 6-9-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waseem Ahmed Malik, Advocate, for the Appellant. Karamatullah Ch, DR, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 301 = 2013 SLD 301 = (2013) 107 TAX 232 = 2013 PTD 1322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYRlNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Penalty and Default Surcharge\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal ruled in favor of the taxpayer, granting amnesty under SRO 648(I)/2011. Since the principal tax amounts were paid before the notification's issuance, penalties and surcharges were remitted. The department’s orders were set aside.\nCitations:\n2006 PTD 336; 2011 PTD 619.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34AFederal Excise Act, 2005=16(4)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. N0. 701/LB, 702/LB of 2011 & F.E.A No. 13/LB, 14/LB of 2011, decision dated: 11-1-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN AND TABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Shahzad Butt for Appellant. Ishtiaq Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 332 = 2004 SLD 332 = 2004 PTCL 97 = 2006 SCMR 1577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Sales Tax on Truck Parts\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court clarified that gearboxes qualified for exemption as machinery components, whereas axles did not fall within the relevant headings for tax exemption.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Section 13.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,FirstSched,125(I)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.53 of 2003, decision dated: 7-06-2006, hearing DATE : 15-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES, CENTRAL, ZONEB, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 302 = 2013 SLD 302 = (2013) 107 TAX 308 = 2013 PTD 572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation and Penalty on Counterfeit Goods\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal set aside confiscation and penalties due to procedural flaws, including issuing orders on grounds not stated in the show-cause notice and violating statutory limitations.\nCitations:\nCentral Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 210; Sales Tax Act, 1990, Section 36(3).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3B,3(1),6,14,22,23,26,34,36Central Excise Rules, 1944=7,9,49,51,52A,52C,210,226Customs Act, 1969=157,168", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2217/LB and C.E.A. No. 47/LB of 2009 decided on 20-12-2012, hearing DATE : 19-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant. Mrs. Ayesha Imran Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "GULZAR AHMED \nVs \nDEPUTY DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE), GUJRANWALA and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 304 = 2013 SLD 304 = 2013 PTD 530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Sales Tax and Procedural Requirements\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal remanded the case for fresh proceedings under Section 36(2) of the Sales Tax Act, as the show-cause notice failed to confront the taxpayer with allegations of deliberate evasion. The limitation period for such recovery was emphasized.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Section 36(1) and (2).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3)", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.628/LB and 822/LB of 2012, decision dated: 25-09-2012, hearing DATE : 25-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain and Ghulam Rasool, ACA for Appellants (in S.T.A. No. 628/LB of 2012)\nFarrukh Majeed, DR and Javed Badar, Aca for Respondents (in S.T.A. No. 628/LB of 2012)\nFarrukh Majeed, DR and Javed Badar, Aca for Appellants (S.T.A. No. 822/LB of 2012)\nMian Ashiq Hussain and Ghulam Rasool, ACA for Respondents (S.T.A. No. 822/LB of 2012)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FAISALABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nVs \nC.I.R. (APPEALS), FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 305 = 2013 SLD 305 = 2013 PTD 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims under Sales Tax Act\nConclusion:\nRefund claims delayed due to departmental objections and lack of timely communication regarding required documentation were deemed maladministration. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate issuance of refunds and compensation. The denial of compensation for the taxpayer’s faultless delay was declared unreasonable.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Section 66; Sales Tax Rules, 2006, Rule 38(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=66Sales Tax Rules, 2006=38(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.825/LHR/ST/(188)/1431 of 2012, decision dated: 31st December, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Ahmad, Advisor Dealing Officer. Khubaib Ahmad Authorized Representative. Syed Azhar Abas Sherazi, ACIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "BASHIR PRINTING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 306 = 2013 SLD 306 = 2013 PTD 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Tax Recovery and Pecuniary Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nThe appellate tribunal annulled the original order as it was passed beyond the statutory limitation period. Additionally, the Deputy Commissioner lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice and assessment order, rendering the orders void.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Section 36(3); SRO 555(I)/96.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3)", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.685/LB and 686/LB of 2012, decision dated: 21st December, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHARTI, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appeal accepted. Saood Nasrullah Cheema for Appellant. Mrs. Ayesha Imran Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZAMINDARA PAPER MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE \nVs \nC.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 307 = 2013 SLD 307 = (2013) 107 TAX 622 = 2013 PTD 740", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Fraud Allegations and Burden of Proof\nConclusion:\nThe department failed to establish that the taxpayer knowingly committed fraud by claiming input tax adjustments based on fake invoices. The tribunal annulled the orders, emphasizing that subsequent blacklisting of suppliers cannot retroactively affect taxpayers acting in good faith.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 2(37), 7, 23, 36, and 73.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),7,23,36,46,73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.242/LB of 2012, decision dated: 12-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farooq Sheikh for Appellant. Ch. Jaffar Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs UNITY TRADERS, LAHORE \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (APPEALS-III), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 308 = 2013 SLD 308 = (2013) 108 TAX 441 = 2013 PTD 556", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts\nConclusion:\nA reference must be filed in the High Court exercising jurisdiction over the tribunal that issued the impugned order. The Sindh High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a reference against an order issued in Punjab, and the reference was dismissed.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Section 47; Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Articles 201 and 203.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=201,203Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=130", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Reference Application No.71 of 2012, decision dated: 23rd January, 2013, hearing DATE : 17-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Mohsin Imam for Applicant. Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-III, KARACHI \nVs\nMessrs ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 309 = 2013 SLD 309 = (2013) 107 TAX 514 = 2013 PTD 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Amnesty Scheme and Default Surcharge\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal invalidated the levy of default surcharge and penalties when the taxpayer complied with the amnesty scheme. It noted the absence of tax fraud allegations and the department’s acceptance of supporting documents for input adjustments.\nCitations:\nFederal Excise Act, 2005, Sections 8, 19(1), and 19(3)(c); Sales Tax Act, 1990, Section 73.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=22,73Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25Federal Excise Act, 2005=8,19(1),19(3)(c),3A", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.1171/LB of 2012, decision dated: 14-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer-ud-Din Babar for Appellant. Ch. Jaffar Nawaz, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ISHTIAQ STEEL INDUSTRY, LAHORE \nVs \nC.I.R., R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 310 = 2013 SLD 310 = 2013 PTD 639", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Input Tax Adjustment\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal annulled an order passed after the statutory limitation period. It held that the taxpayer provided adequate evidence of compliance with Section 73, and input tax adjustments were valid despite the later suspension of the supplier's registration.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 11, 21(3), 36, and 73.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11,21(3),37B,33,36,73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.134/KB of 2012, decision dated: 7-11-2012, hearing DATE : 24-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Irshad-ur-Rehman for Appellant. Dr. Aftab Imam, DR-RTO-Il for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TECHNO FABRIK (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nC.I.R. UNIT-VIII, R.T.O., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 311 = 2013 SLD 311 = 2013 PTD 654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Suspension of Registration and Procedural Fairness\nConclusion:\nThe suspension of the taxpayer’s registration was deemed illegal as the department failed to follow due process, including issuing a proper show-cause notice and providing a hearing opportunity. The tribunal directed a fresh verification of invoices.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Section 21; Sales Tax Rules, 2006, Rule 12.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21Sales Tax Rules, 2006=12", + "Case #": "M.A (Stay) No.1000/LB along with S.T.A. No. 1041/LB of 2012, decision dated: 21st November, 2012, hearing DATE : 20-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed for Appellant. nlmtiaz Ahmed, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ROYAL EXPORTS, FAISALABAD \nVs \nC.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 312 = 2013 SLD 312 = 2013 PTD 713 = (2013) 108 TAX 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Investigative Audit under Sales Tax Act\nConclusion:\nThe court upheld the department’s right to initiate an investigation under Section 38 without completing an audit under Section 25. The preliminary notice for tax fraud investigation was declared lawful and did not violate the taxpayer's rights.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 25 and 38.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.20175 of 2012, decision dated: 28-01-2013, hearing DATE : 15-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Noman Yahya for Petitioner. Sh. Nadeem Anwaar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALIF PLASTIC INDUSTRY \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 313 = 2013 SLD 313 = 2013 PTD 718", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Audit by Inland Revenue\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal invalidated an audit conducted without proper authorization by the Commissioner Inland Revenue. The audit violated mandatory provisions of Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, rendering subsequent orders null and void.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 25 and 32-A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,ThirdSchedSales Tax Act, 1990=8(2),25,32A,72B", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.579/LB of 2012, decision dated: 18-10-2012, hearing DATE : 10-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad and Mian A.R. Bari for Appellants. Aftab Aalam, D.R. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "WORLD TELECOM LIMITED, LAHORE \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-I), LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 361 = 1997 SLD 361 = 1997 PLD 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of “Concrete Building Components”\nConclusion:\nThe court held that concrete refers to components made of cement concrete and excluded glass sheets from exemption under the Sales Tax Act. The term was interpreted in its trade-specific sense.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1951, Section 7(1).\nInterpretation of “Concrete Building Components”\nConclusion:\nThe court held that concrete refers to components made of cement concrete and excluded glass sheets from exemption under the Sales Tax Act. The term was interpreted in its trade-specific sense.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1951, Section 7(1).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(14)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 16-D of 1967, decision dated: 19th October 1970. dates of hearing: 8th, 9th and 15th June 1970", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, SAJJAD AHMAD AND WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood Ali Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Rata Kazim, (absent on 15-6-70) and Raqqul Huq, Advocates with him) instructed by Abu Backkar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Abdul Matin Khan Chowdliury, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS USMANIA GLASS SHEET FACTORY LIMITED, CHITTAGONG--Appellant\nVs\nSALES TAX OFFICER, CHITTAGONG--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1974 16 = 1974 SLD 16 = 1974 PLD 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Amendment and Pending Litigation\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled that curative amendments during litigation could affect pending cases unless rights were finalized. In this case, the amendment to Section 30-A of the Sales Tax Act applied retroactively, overruling the High Court’s earlier decision.\nCitations:\nSales Tax Act, 1951, Sections 27(2) and 30-A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=27,27(2),30A.", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-39 of 1972, decision dated: 30th January 1974. dates of hearing : 29th and 30th January 1974", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN. C.J., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mujahid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Respondent Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI--Appellant\nVs\nMESSRS KRUDDSONS LTD.--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 200 = 1990 SLD 200 = 1990 PLD 998", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Railways Police Employees\nConclusion:\nThe appellant retained a lien on their substantive post in the Provincial Police despite transfer to the Federal Railways Police. The tribunal was directed to determine whether the appellant was confirmed as a Federal Government employee.\nCitations:\nPakistan Railways Police Act, 1977, Sections 5 and 19.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977=5Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.136 of 1989, decided on 13th June, 1990. (On appeal from the judgment dated 20-11-1988 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No.240(L)/86-Old/95(R)/87-New).", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR BAJWA--Appellant\nvs\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 201 = 1990 SLD 201 = 1990 PLD 943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals for PIA Employees\nConclusion:\nThe court held that amendments to the PIA Act made employees subject to the Service Tribunals Act. The tribunal's jurisdiction excluded other courts in service matters, aligning with constitutional provisions.\nCitations:\nPakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, Section 10(2), (3), and (4).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956=10(2),(3),(4)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1988, decided on 12th June, 1990. (On appeal from the judgment dated 20-12-1987 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed in Appeal No. 322-R of 1985).", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND AJMAL MIAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES and another\nvs\nF. M. SHAMSI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 202 = 1990 SLD 202 = 1990 PLD 1013", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Seniority of Army Personnel Inducted into Police Service\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to examine the seniority of Army personnel inducted into the Police Service of Pakistan prior to a 1981 amendment. It was held that:\n1.\nAppointment Powers: Section 5 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, allows appointments without framed rules, as regulatory provisions cannot render a statute unworkable.\n2.\nExamination Requirements: Federal Public Service Commission tests and examinations are not the sole recruitment methods for All-Pakistan Services.\n3.\nSeniority Rights: Seniority is not a vested right and can be adjusted by competent authorities. The President's decision to assign seniority from the date of induction rather than regularization was valid.\n4.\nRules and Validation: The Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre, and Seniority) Rules, 1985, further supported the seniority assignments, and the Federal Public Service Commission Act permitted such appointments without mandatory consultation.\nCitations:\nCivil Servants Act, 1973, Sections 5 and 25; Federal Public Service Commission Rules, 1973.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=212(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 385 and 386 of 1988, decided on 18th June, 1990. (From the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 25-10-1984 passed in Appeals NoS.246(L)/83 and 239(L)/83 respectively).", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRSA SAAD SAOOD JAN AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAHANGIR MIRZA, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, LAHORE and another--Appellants\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, through Secretary, Establishment Division and others--Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 314 = 2013 SLD 314 = (2013) 107 TAX 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment on Fake Invoices\nConclusion:\n1.\nAssessment orders passed beyond the statutory limit of 120 days are void and of no legal effect.\n2.\nThe Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue (DCIR) lacked jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice and assessment orders, rendering them void.\n3.\nThe taxpayer was not proven to have committed tax fraud as the suppliers were registered and active during the transactions, and payments complied with Section 73 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n4.\nOrders were annulled, and appeals of the taxpayer were accepted.\nCitations: 2008 PTD 609; Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Village Development Organization, 2005 SCMR 492.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),33", + "Case #": "S.T.A. Nos. 685 & 686/LB of 2012, decision dated: 21-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saood Nasrullah Cheema, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mrs. Ayesha Imran Butt, DR, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 315 = 2013 SLD 315 = (2013) 107 TAX 532 = 2013 PTD 920", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Excavation for In-House Use\nConclusion:\n1.\nRaw materials used for manufacturing end products and by-products are taxable under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n2.\nNon-payment of sales tax constitutes deliberate evasion and falls under Section 36(1), with a limitation period of five years.\n3.\nTax levied is restricted to the period specified in the show-cause notice.\nCitations: 2001 PTCL CL 331; D.G. Khan Cement v. Collector Sales Tax.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(2)(cc),34,36", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 187/233(PB) of 2004/2009,decided on 16-2-2012, hearing DATE : 3-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Issac Ali Qazi. Advocate, for the Appellant. Mir Bad Shah Wazir. DR & Shnaib Sultan, IRAO, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 316 = 2013 SLD 316 = (2013) 107 TAX 537 = 2013 PTD 843", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Passing Assessment Orders\nConclusion:\n1.\nAssessment orders passed after the 120-day limit, even with an extension granted after the expiration of the original period, are void.\n2.\nThe extension of time by the Commissioner must occur before the original limitation expires.\nCitations: 2009 PTD 762; 2010 PTD 251.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(35),7,8(1)(ca),8(1)(d),11,36,73Federal Excise Act, 2005=3", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 174(PB) of 2011, decision dated: 20-06-2012, hearing DATE : 17-5-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAVID IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND YUSUF GHAFFAR KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ishtiaq Ahmed, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mir Alam Khan, DR & Mr. Shuaib Sultan, IRAO, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs INTERNATIONAL CIGARETTE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., MARDAN \nVs \nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (AUDIT-VI) INLAND REVENUE, PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 317 = 2013 SLD 317 = 2013 PTCL 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisting Following Suspension of Registration\nConclusion:\n1.\nBlacklisting based on an unlawful suspension of registration is invalid.\n2.\nThe Appellate Tribunal set aside the suspension and blacklisting orders.\nCitations: JM Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan, 2012 PTD (Trib.) 219.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21", + "Case #": "STA NO. 1202/LB/2012, decision dated: 26-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Miss Nida Malik, ITP. Respondent by: Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. I.M Steel Industries, Lahore\nvs\nTHE CIR, Zone-IV RTO, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 318 = 2013 SLD 318 = 2013 PTCL 235 = 2013 PTD 892", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment for Non-Blacklisted Suppliers\nConclusion:\n1.\nIf suppliers were not blacklisted at the time of supply and taxpayers adhered to Section 73 requirements, input tax adjustments must be allowed.\n2.\nTax liability due to non-deposit by suppliers should be recovered from the suppliers, not the taxpayers.\nCitations: STA No. 217/2004; 2004 PTD 868.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8,10,73", + "Case #": "STA No. 32/KB/2012, decision dated: 6-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAVED IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. FARZANA, JABEEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Naseem Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. Aslam Mari, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Deluxe Packages (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi\nVs\nThe CIR, ADII, RTO, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 322 = 2013 SLD 322 = 2013 PTCL 70 = (2014) 109 TAX 1 = 2013 PTD 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-Audit Based on Fraud\nConclusion:\n1.\nRe-audit is permissible when founded on fraud, as fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings.\nCitations: Faisal Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan, 2003 PTD 899.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=24", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1774-L of 2009, decision dated: 2-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs COLONY INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 323 = 2013 SLD 323 = 2013 PDS 1602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay and Restoration of Ex-Parte Order\nConclusion:\n1.\nDelay in filing was condoned as it was not deliberate or intentional.\n2.\nThe Tribunal restored the ex-parte order, adhering to the principle of Audi Alteram Partem.\nCitations: 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1625.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "MA (Cond.) NO.63/LB/2012 MA NO.317/LB/2012, hearing DATE : 21.01.2013", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Applicant by: Mr. Malik Waseem Ahmad, Advocate. \nRespondent by: Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. JUICE PACK INDUSTRIES, LAHORE--Applicant\nVS\nCIR, RTO-II, LAHORE--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 324 = 2013 SLD 324 = 2013 PDS 1604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Wrong Declaration and Tax Fraud Allegations\nConclusion:\n1.\nA typographical mistake in declarations is not sufficient for sustaining tax fraud charges.\n2.\nThe Tribunal sided with the department in finding the taxpayer liable.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),36(1),11,36Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114(6)", + "Case #": "STANO. 142/LB/2011, hearing DATE 01.02.2013. DATE of order 04.03.2013", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "CIR, RTO, I, Lahore--Appellant\nVs\nA one Oil Traders, Lahore--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 325 = 2013 SLD 325 = (2013) 107 TAX 632 = 2013 PTD 1001", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Pecuniary Limits in Assessment Orders\nConclusion:\n1.\nOrders passed beyond show-cause notices or without pecuniary jurisdiction are invalid.\nCitations: 2011 PTD 2538; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 408.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36,7,33(13),73", + "Case #": "STA NO. 883/LB/2012 STA NO. 884/LB/2012 STA NO. 885/LB/2012 STA NO. 886/LB/2012 hearing DATE 19-12-2012. DATE of order: 09-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI CHAIRPERSON AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Iqbal Hashmi and Qadeer Ahmed for Appellants. Miss Ayesha Imran Butt, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL POWER GENERATION COMPANY LIMITED GUUDU, DISTRICT KASHMORE \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE Zone-I, RTO, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 326 = 2013 SLD 326 = 2013 PDS 1606", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and Blacklisting Procedures\nConclusion:\n1.\nBlacklisting without proper confrontation and opportunity to be heard is invalid.\n2.\nCase remanded for proper adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(4)", + "Case #": "STA NO.121/LB/2009, hearing DATE : 23.01.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN), JUDICIAL MEMBER,(MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Mr. Nasar Ahmad, Advocate. Respondent by . Mr. Farrukh Majid , DR (RTO)", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. A Zee Textile, Lahore --Appellant\nVs\nThe Collector Sales Tax, Lahore --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 327 = 2013 SLD 327 = 2013 PDS 1607", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax Adjustment and Official Record\nConclusion:\n1.\nValid sales tax invoices and active supplier status at the time of transactions justify input tax adjustment.\n2.\nOrders denying adjustments were annulled.\nCitations: 2010 PTD 1675; Usman Fabrics case STA No. 1334/LB/2009.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1)(a)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=2(8),92", + "Case #": "STA No.800/LB/2012, hearing DATE :19.12.2012. DATE of order :30.01.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI) CHAIRPERSON, (SOHAIL AFZAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by .Mr. Muhammad Waseem Chaudhry, Advocate. Respondent by .Mrs. Ayesha Iman Butt, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s Ahmad Paper Products, Sultankey, Lahore\nVs\nCIR, Zone-II, RTO, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 328 = 2013 SLD 328 = 2013 PDS 1608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Blacklisted Vendors and Input Tax Claims\nConclusion:\n1.\nValid input tax claims are to be re-examined in light of compliance with Section 73 requirements.\n2.\nOrders were vacated, and de-novo proceedings were ordered.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)((d),8(1)(ca),11(2),36(1),73", + "Case #": "STA No. 308/IB/2012, hearing DATE :14.02.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(FAHEEM-UL-HAQ KHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, (MUNSE KHAN MINHAS), JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by .Mr. Fazul Butt, Advocate. Respondent by .Mr. Ehsanullah Khan, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. M. Sadique Engineering Rawalpindi --Appellant\nVs\nThe CIR (Appeals-IV), Islamabad & Others --Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 329 = 2013 SLD 329 = 2013 PTD 799 = (2014) 109 TAX 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax on Supplies to Employees\nConclusion:\n1.\nElectricity supplied to employees’ residential colonies constitutes a taxable activity under the Sales Tax Act.\nCitations: 2008 PTD 103.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(33),2(35),2(41),4,13", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Reference Application No. 381 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd January, 2013, hearing DATE : 5-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND SADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Anwar Kamal for Applicant\nMuhammad Altaf Mun for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ROUSCH (PAKISTAN) POWER LTD \nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR REFUND GROUP-III" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 330 = 2013 SLD 330 = 2013 PTD 807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction in Deregistration\nConclusion:\n1.\nOrders passed without lawful jurisdiction are invalid.\n2.\nScope of deregistration must align with established rules.\nCitations: Mahmood Barni v. I.A.C., 2005 PTD 165.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(2),25A,38,2(23)Sales Tax Rules, 2006=2(5),5(1)(c)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.519/LB of 2012, decision dated: 18-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Imran Rashid and Farooq Ijaz, ITP for Appellants. Mrs. Fouzia Fakhar D.R. and Ahmad Kamal, DCIT for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF \nVs \nC.I.R., R.T.O. FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 331 = 2013 SLD 331 = 2013 PTD 834", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Input Tax Adjustment\nConclusion:\n1.\nAssessment orders passed beyond statutory time limits are invalid.\n2.\nExtensions granted post-expiry of limitation have no legal effect.\nCitations: 2009 PTD 762.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),11(4)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 515/LB of 2012, decision dated: 5-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASAOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sadia Sadaf, DR for Appellant. M. Farooq Sh., for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SHAHID CABLE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE \nVs \nC.I.R., ZONEVIII, R.T.O.-II, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 332 = 2013 SLD 332 = 2013 PTD 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax on Electricity Bills\nConclusion:\n1.\nInput tax on electricity consumed for taxable supplies is admissible even if registration numbers are missing.\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 64.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(1),8(a)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1159/LB of 2009, decision dated: 18-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Ahsan Mehmood for Appellant. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED, LAHORE \nVs\nC.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 333 = 2013 SLD 333 = 2013 PTD 881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex-Parte Orders and Tax Fraud Allegations\nConclusion:\n1.\nOrders passed without confronting taxpayers lack sustainability.\n2.\nNo evidence of fraud invalidates departmental allegations.\nCitations: STA No. 478/LB of 2012.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B(3),11(2),36", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 450/LB of 2012, decision dated: 5-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Farooq Sh., for Appellant. Mrs. Sadia Sada, DR for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CH. AMIR GHAFOOR BROTHERS, LAHORE \nVs \nC.I.R., ZONEV, R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 334 = 2013 SLD 334 = 2013 PTD 929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Alternative Dispute Resolution Maladministration\nConclusion:\n1.\nDelays in ADR recommendations and orders are maladministration.\n2.\nDisciplinary actions were recommended.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,47A(4)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 79/KHI/ST(30)238 of 2012, decision dated: 7-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Hussain Kureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Muhammad Afzal Awan Authorized Representative. Abdul Hameed Shaikh, DCIR and Mirza Nasir Ali, DCIR Departmental Representatives", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DATA STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 335 = 2013 SLD 335 = 2013 PTD 933", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Alternative Dispute Resolution Maladministration\nConclusion:\n1.\nDelays in ADR Committee formation and functioning reveal inefficiency.\n2.\nSystemic issues in tax administration were highlighted.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,47A(4)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii)", + "Case #": "Review Application No. 50 of 2012 in Complaint No. 79/KH/ST(30)/238 of 2012, decision dated: 25-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Hussain Kureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Fazal Abrejo, Commissioner, IR for Applicant. Muhammad Afzal Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD \nVs \nMessrs DATA STEEL PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 336 = 2013 SLD 336 = 2013 PTD 951", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Suspension and Blacklisting of Registration\nConclusion:\n1.\nBlacklisting based on invalid suspension orders is void.\nCitations: 2012 PTD (Trib.) 453.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(2),37", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No, 1200/LB of 2012, decision dated: 26-02-2013, hearing DATE : 25-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Nida Malik, ITP for Appellant. Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, DR for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NOORANI STEEL, Proprietor Muhammad Jamshed Khalid, Lahore \nVs \nC.I.R., ZONE-IV, R.T.O., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 337 = 2013 SLD 337 = 2013 PTD 966", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Input Tax on Blacklisted Suppliers\nConclusion:\n1.\nInput tax cannot be denied where suppliers were active during transactions.\nCitations: 2005 SCMR 492.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(3),8A,33,34,36,73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 349/LB of 2011, decision dated: 7-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Tasleem DR for Appellant. Khubaib Ahmad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.R. (LEGAL DIVISION) R.T.O., FAISALABAD \nVs \nMessrs IHSAN YOUSAF TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 338 = 2013 SLD 338 = 2013 PTCL 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Commissioner in Sales Tax\nConclusion:\n1.\nSections 25 and 72-B confer independent powers to Commissioners without requiring prior selection.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25,72BIncome Tax Ordinance, 2001=171,214CFederal Excise Act, 2005=42B,46", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No. 555 of 2013, decision dated: 28-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. CHIEF, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI & MR. JUSTICE SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: M/s. Muhammad Raza Qureshi, Advocate. Respondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "Warid Telecom Pvt. Ltd\nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 339 = 2013 SLD 339 = 2013 PTCL 334 = 2013 PTD 1796", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Exemption for Building Materials\nConclusion:\n1.\nBuilding materials used in construction are exempt from sales tax if covered under the Sixth Schedule.\nCitations: 1987 SCMR 1840.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13,13(1),SixthSched", + "Case #": "STA No. 181/LB of 2012, decision dated: 26-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRMAN & MISS TABARIA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Najib for Appellant. Yasir Pirzada, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GUJRAT PRECASTING INDUSTRIES, GUJRAT \nVs\nC.I.R. (Zone-II), RTO., SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "0000 0 = 2013 PLJ 340 = (2013) 107 TAX 180 = 2013 SCMR 742 = 2013 PTD 1041 = 2013 PTCL 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---S. 4, first proviso, Cl. (iii)---Customs Rules, 2001, R. 247(c)(i)---S.R.O.190(I)/2002 dated 2nd April, 2002---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Claim for refund of sales tax---Exemption from sales tax granted on exported goods in terms of R. 247(c)(i) of Customs Rules, 2001---Scope---Tax payer (petitioner) was granted manufacturing bond license under the Customs Rules, 2001 and exported its products to Afghanistan---Tax payer was exempted from payment of sales tax on raw material utilized in manufacturing of its exported products---Tax payer claimed refund of sales tax paid by it on electricity bills and packing material used for products exported to Afghanistan in terms of R. 247(c)(i) of Customs Rules, 2001---Claim of tax payer was rejected by tax authorities on the basis of S.R.O.190(I)/2002 dated 2nd April, 2002---Appeals filed by tax payer before appellate fora and the High Court were also dismissed---Tax payer contended that it was entitled to refund of sales tax in accordance with R. 247(c)(i) of Customs Rules, 2001; that S.R.O.190(I)/2002 dated 2nd April, 2002 relied upon by the tax authorities was issued under a different regime i.e. Sales Tax Act, 1990 and thus was not attracted to the claim of the tax payer, which was based on the Customs Rules, 2001---Validity---S.R.O.190(I)/2002 dated 2nd April, 2002 was issued by Federal Government in exercise of its power under clause (iii) of the first proviso to S.4 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, which clause allowed Government to withdraw the exemption from payment of sales tax on goods exported---Exemption from sales tax could only be granted under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and the Rules framed thereunder---Rule 247(c)(i) of Customs Rules, 2001, on proper construction did not provide for such exemption---Provision of issuing invoice under R.247(c)(i) of Customs Rules, 2001 was only procedural and not a substantive provision granting exemption from sales tax---Contention of tax payer that S.R.O.190(I)/2002 dated 2nd April, 2002 was issued under Sales Tax Act, 1990 and thus could not take away an exemption granted under Customs Rules, 2001 was devoid of merits---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances.\n \n Pakistan v. Aryan Petro Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 2003 SCMR 370 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Customs Rules, 2001=247(c)(i)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition Nos. 271-P to 295-P of 2011, heard on 24-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE NASIR-UL-MULK & MR. JUSTICE TARIQ PARVEZ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in all cases). Dr. Farhat Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in all cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AGRO PACK (PVT.) LIMITED, PESHAWAR \nVs \nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE PESHAWAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 113 = 1982 SLD 113 = (1982) 45 TAX 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Liability on Government-Owned Businesses\nConclusion:\n1.\nGovernment-managed businesses are not liable for sales tax.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10", + "Case #": "Application No. 136 of 1972, decision dated: 1-7-1980", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD HUSAIN AND SULTAN HOSSAIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Habibul Islam Bhuiyan, for the Applicant. S.M. Hossain with A.M. Mahmudur Rahman, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DACCA ZONE, DACCA\nVs\nDOCKYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD., NARAYANGANJ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 64 = 1979 SLD 64 = (1999) 79 TAX 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Incompetency in Initiation of Proceedings\nConclusion:\n1.\nOrders initiated by incompetent authorities are void.\n2.\nRemands should not revive void proceedings.\nCitations: PLD 1965 SC 434; Fateh Ali v. Pir Muhammad, 1975 SCMR 221.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(2),(3)", + "Case #": "C. A. Nd. 8/LB OF 1999, decision dated: 6-4-1999", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SLKANDAN CHALRRNAN AND MUHAMMAD ASLAM, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Shafaqat Mahmood, Advocate, for the Respondents. Yousef Ali v. M. AsIam PLD 1958 SC 104 , Khawaa M. Ashrat Advocate, for the Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 341 = 2013 SLD 341 = (2013) 108 TAX 458 = 2013 PTD 924", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 45, 45A, 45B, 46, and 47; Conflict of interest in adjudication.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAn officer who issued the show-cause notice and adjudicated the original order cannot serve as a member of the appellate tribunal deciding an appeal against that order.\no\nPrinciple: No one should judge a matter where their interest is directly involved.\no\nOutcome: High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for adjudication by an unbiased tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45A,45B,46,47", + "Case #": "Sales Tax References Nos.23 to 25 and 70 of 2009, decision dated: 15-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID MEHMOOD AND SHAH, JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Khan for Appellant. Abdul Lateef Yousafzai for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LOCOMOTIVE FACTORY PAKISTAN, RAILWAYS through Managing Director \nVs \nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX, PESHAWAR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 342 = 2013 SLD 342 = 2013 PTD 965", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 21 & 46; Suspension of registration.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nSuspension order's validity questioned due to procedural irregularities.\no\nTribunal granted a 30-day stay on the suspension pending appeal resolution.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,46", + "Case #": "M.A. Stay No.935/LB of 2012 in S.T.A. No.960/LB of 2012, decision dated: 17-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASPOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Applicant. Shahid Sardar DR for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NASEEM PLASTIC HOUSE, FAISALABAD \nVs\nC.I.R., R.T.O.FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 343 = 2013 SLD 343 = (2013) 107 TAX 553 = 2013 PTD 1189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 2(37), 36(1), and 73; Tax fraud allegations and input tax adjustments.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTax fraud requires evidence of knowing, dishonest, or fraudulent actions, which was absent.\no\nThe taxpayer's transactions were legitimate, with suppliers active and compliant during the relevant period.\no\nThe department failed to establish collusion or deliberate fraud.\no\nOutcome: The show-cause notice and adverse orders were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(37),8A,11(3),30A,36(1),36(3),proviso,45B(3),45(3)(2),73Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=177", + "Case #": "MA (AG) No. 44/IB & M.A.(AG.) No. 45/IB of 2012, STA Nos. 50 & 327/IB of 2012, decision dated: 08-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAVAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farooq Sheikh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Hassan Ullah, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MALIK ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-III), ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 344 = 2013 SLD 344 = (2013) 107 TAX 606", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Central Excise Act, 1944, Ss. 3 & 4; Sales Tax Act, 1990, S. 3; Evasion of excise duty and sales tax.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nThe excise duty is payable on the actual amount received by the manufacturer, not presumed prices.\no\nAdditional duty demands and findings by the respondent were declared null and void.\no\nOutcome: Appeal accepted, show-cause notice annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,4", + "Case #": "M.A. (AG) No.95/LB of 2009, F.E.A No. 16/LB of 2009, decision dated: 12-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad F arooq Sheiklz, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ch. Jafar Nawaz, DK. for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 119 = 1984 SLD 119 = (1984) 49 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act, 1951 (III of 1951), S. 7; Exemption for steel furniture.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDespite some use of plastic in manufacturing, the furniture was predominantly steel-based and met exemption criteria.\no\nOutcome: The appeal for exemption was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 125-A(KB) of 1980-81 (Assessment year 1975-76), decision dated: 18-5-1982, hearing DATE : 18-4-1981", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, PRESIDENT (NOW CHAIRMAN) AND GHULAM MUTTAZA KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yusuf Sharih, D.R., for the Appellant. I.N. Pasha, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 810 = 2004 SLD 810 = (2005) 91 TAX 222 = 2004 PTD 2786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "#: 10852 to 10856\n•\nKey Themes: Procedural irregularities, time-barred assessments, and jurisdictional issues in sales tax and excise matters.\n•\nKey Outcomes:\no\nOrders passed beyond statutory time limits (e.g., under S. 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990) were declared null and void.\no\nErrors in show-cause notices or procedural lapses invalidated assessments and penalties.\no\nAmnesty provisions under specific SROs were upheld when applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(b),30(2)(e),30(2)(2),55,56,59A,59(1),61,62,63,65,65(1)(c),80C(4),80C(7),80CC,80B,143B", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 185/IB of 2002 and 298/KB of 2003, decision dated: 5-06-2004, hearing DATE : 7-05-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH CHAIRMAN, KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, AND SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kashif Aziz Jehangir for Appellant. Dr. Tariq Mehmood, D.R. and Muhammad Iqbal D.C.I.T. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 414 = 2003 SLD 414 = 2003 PTD 1257 = 2004 PTCL 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Themes: Procedural irregularities, time-barred assessments, and jurisdictional issues in sales tax and excise matters.\n•\nKey Outcomes:\no\nOrders passed beyond statutory time limits (e.g., under S. 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990) were declared null and void.\no\nErrors in show-cause notices or procedural lapses invalidated assessments and penalties.\no\nAmnesty provisions under specific SROs were upheld when applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,3(b),34,36", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.316/CE of 2001, decision dated: 10-02-2003, hearing DATE : 25-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Akbar Qureshi, Saood N. Cheema and Malik Naveed Sohail for Appellant. A. Karim Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZAMINDARA PAPER & BOARDS MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED, FAISALABAD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 346 = 2013 SLD 346 = 2013 PTD 1026 = (2014) 109 TAX 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Themes: Procedural irregularities, time-barred assessments, and jurisdictional issues in sales tax and excise matters.\n•\nKey Outcomes:\no\nOrders passed beyond statutory time limits (e.g., under S. 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990) were declared null and void.\no\nErrors in show-cause notices or procedural lapses invalidated assessments and penalties.\no\nAmnesty provisions under specific SROs were upheld when applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=6", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.36 of 2003, heard on 4-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN AND NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Petitioner. Ayaz Shoukat for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE \nVs \nMessrs HUSSAIN AND COMPANY, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 347 = 2013 SLD 347 = 2013 PTD 1037 = (2014) 109 TAX 144 = 2014 PTCL 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Themes: Procedural irregularities, time-barred assessments, and jurisdictional issues in sales tax and excise matters.\n•\nKey Outcomes:\no\nOrders passed beyond statutory time limits (e.g., under S. 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990) were declared null and void.\no\nErrors in show-cause notices or procedural lapses invalidated assessments and penalties.\no\nAmnesty provisions under specific SROs were upheld when applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,33", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.38 of 2003, heard on 4-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN AND NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Idrees for Petitioner. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PREMIER KADANWARI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD \nVs \n, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 301 = 2007 SLD 301 = 2007 PTD 2286 = (2007) 95 TAX 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---Ss. 7, 10 & 33(2)(cc)---C.B.R. Letter C. No. 2(1)STP/97 dated 3-10-2002---Determination of tax liability---Adjustment of arrears recoverable from assessee along with additional tax involved was made from verified amount of carry-forward input tax credit but the demand was adjudged on the basis of C.B.R. letter C. No.2(1)STP/97 dated 3-10-2002 whereby the Collectorates had been directed to discontinue the practice for adjustment of arrears against the amount carry-forward---Validity---Admittedly, adjustment of sales tax was allowed by the Sales Tax Collectorate against verified amount of input tax carried forward---Deposit of said amount separately and then claiming refund of the same as carry forward would be an exercise in futility as the Government will not stand to gain anything---No loss of revenue being involved and that the demand had been raised only in the light of instructions of Central Board of Revenue, there was no restriction in law prohibiting adjustment of arrears against an amount due to assessee/registered person---Even if there was some irregularity involved in the light of instructions of Central Board of Revenue, the same was condoned' being a procedural lapse as no loss of revenue was involved---Appeal was accepted and .the order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,10,33(2)(cc)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 814/LB of 2006, decision dated: 31st January, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Razaq for Appellant. Ashiq Hussain Duggal, Supdt. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 348 = 2013 SLD 348 = (2013) 108 TAX 6 = 2013 PTD 1246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 11(4) & 74; Time-barred show-cause notices.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNotices issued beyond statutory limitations are without lawful authority.\no\nFBR cannot condone delays exceeding statutory limits.\no\nOutcome: The proceedings were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4),74", + "Case #": "STA No.38/IB/2013 hearing DATE 10.04.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nazir Azhar and Saeed Hassan, ITP for Appellant. Syed Imran Shah, FCA, DR for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED, ISLAMABAD \nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (Zone-I), ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 276 = 1994 SLD 276 = (1994) 70 TAX 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Issue: Refusal to hear an appeal on merits by the Collector after a remand order.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nThe Collector was obligated to decide the appeal on merits despite previous litigation outcomes.\no\nOutcome: The case was remanded for adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17194 of 1994, decision dated: 27-6-1994", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Zia Ullah, Advocate, for the Petitioner. A. Karim Malik, Advocate, for the Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUSTRIAL ADHESIVES LTD\nVs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR (NORTH), CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 202 = 2010 SLD 202 = 2010 PTCL 1134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Issue: Limitation for passing orders under S. 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nOrders passed after the lapse of statutory periods were invalid.\no\nTimeliness is mandatory when public authorities create liabilities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36", + "Case #": "STA No. 1417/LB/2009, decision dated: 9-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "CHAUDHRY MUNIR SADIQ, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. AMJAD IKRAM ALI, MEMBER (ACCOUNTANT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr, Hussain Ahmad Sherazi, Advocate. Respondent by: Mrs. Amna Faiz Bhatry, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Zeenat Printing\nVs\nThe Collector of Sales Dyeing, Gujranwala. Tax & Central Excise, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 349 = 2013 SLD 349 = (2013) 108 TAX 79 = 2013 PTD 1256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Themes: Input tax adjustments, blacklisting, flying invoices, and procedural compliance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTaxpayers cannot be penalized for suppliers’ defaults if they acted in good faith and complied with S. 73 requirements.\no\nBlacklisting or status changes of suppliers after transactions should not retroactively affect the validity of input tax claims.\no\nMultiple cases were remanded for re-verification of facts and compliance with procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.353/IB of 2012, decision dated: 11-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Farooq, ACA for Appellant. Imran Shah, FCA, DR for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HOTEL ONE (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Zone-I), ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 351 = 2013 SLD 351 = (2013) 108 TAX 83 = 2013 TAX 83 = 2013 PTD 1283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Themes: Input tax adjustments, blacklisting, flying invoices, and procedural compliance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTaxpayers cannot be penalized for suppliers’ defaults if they acted in good faith and complied with S. 73 requirements.\no\nBlacklisting or status changes of suppliers after transactions should not retroactively affect the validity of input tax claims.\no\nMultiple cases were remanded for re-verification of facts and compliance with procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=23,73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 208/IB of 2012, decision dated: 11-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rai Umer Ashraf Bhatti for Appellant. Ehsan Ullah Khan D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MOTORCYCLE ZONE SHOP, SARGODHA \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS), RTO, FAISALABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 352 = 2013 SLD 352 = (2013) 108 TAX 88 = 2013 PTD 1290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Themes: Input tax adjustments, blacklisting, flying invoices, and procedural compliance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTaxpayers cannot be penalized for suppliers’ defaults if they acted in good faith and complied with S. 73 requirements.\no\nBlacklisting or status changes of suppliers after transactions should not retroactively affect the validity of input tax claims.\no\nMultiple cases were remanded for re-verification of facts and compliance with procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,23", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.418/IB of 2012, decision dated: 14-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atif Bin Arshad, FCA for Appellant. Syed Imran Shah, FCA, D.R, for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION LIMITED, ISLAMABAD \nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-II), ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 353 = 2013 SLD 353 = 2013 PTD 1300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues:\no\n(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.3; Wastage claims during storage or handling.\no\n(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 2(46) & 3; Tax on self-consumed stock.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNo statutory allowance for wastage; tax on wastage amounts must be recovered.\no\nSelf-consumed stock is taxable, and value should align with market rates for similar supplies.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(46)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.241/IB of 2012, decided 17-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mehmood for Appellant. Syed Imran Shah, FCA, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs UNIQUE ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 354 = 2013 SLD 354 = (2013) 108 TAX 452 = 2013 PTD 1304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues:\no\nPunjab Finance Act (XV of 1977), S.3; Professional tax on corporations.\no\nConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 163, 260 & 199; Jurisdiction and maintainability.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nProvincial governments can impose professional tax on companies.\no\nThe petitioner's constitutional challenge to professional tax was dismissed as the tax was valid under provincial jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Finance Act, 1977=3,SecondSchedConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=163,260,199West Pakistan General Clauses Act, (IV of 1956)=3(47)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16354 of 2010, decision dated: 17-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suqrat Basit for Petitioner. Muhammad Arif Yaqoob Khan, A.A.G. and Akhlaque Rasheed, Excise and Taxation Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "BASIT CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY through AUTHORIZED, REPRESENTATIVE \nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, Lahore and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 355 = 2013 SLD 355 = (2013) 108 TAX 74 = 2013 PTD 1309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.25; Withholding tax on taxable supplies.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nReopening the supplier's case when a demand has already been raised against the registered person constitutes double taxation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.382/IB of 2012, decision dated: 5-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Basit, FCA for Appellant. Imran Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TOYOTA RAWAL MOTORS, RAWALPINDI \nVs \nC.I.R., L.T.U., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 231 = 2012 SLD 231 = (2013) 108 TAX 24 = 2013 PTD 1327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.23; Fraud in supplier's invoices.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nThe department must verify supplier records before imposing liability for fraud on the buyer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(14),3,6,7,8(A),22,23,26,34,36(1),36(3)", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.181/IB to 183/IB of 2012, decision dated: 13-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurshid Ali Rana for Applicant. Muhammad Jawad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NIAZI BROTHERS, BHAKKAR \nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., SARGODHA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 356 = 2013 SLD 356 = 2013 PTD 1402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues:\no\nSales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 3, 7, 11, and others; Tax liability determination.\no\nSales Tax Rules, 2006; Sales tax computation errors.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDepartment’s assessment based on self-devised formulas without evidence was declared unlawful.\no\nOrders passed below were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,7,11,13,33,34,40B,46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 656/LB of 2012, decision dated: 7-03-2013, hearing DATE : 12-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khuram Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUPER IDEAL SWEETS AND BAKERS, FAISALABAD \nVs \nC.I.R. (APPEALS), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 289 = 1993 SLD 289 = (1993) 67 TAX 343 = (1991) 190 ITR 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Income-tax Act, 1961, S.147; Reopening of assessments.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal found full and true disclosure during the original assessment.\no\nReassessment proceedings were declared invalid.\n•\nReferences: Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Gauhati High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=147(a),148,256,139,149,150,151,152,153,34(1)(a)", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 17 OF 1978 AND 1 OF 1981, APRIL 3, 1991", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF AND H.K. SEMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "L. Nanda Kumar Singh for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nvs\nPremchand Jain" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 357 = 2013 SLD 357 = 2013 PDS 1652", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990); Appeal timelines.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal allowed a miscellaneous application challenging a time-barred order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "MA (AG) No. 34/IB/2012 IN STA No. 69/IB/2012 DATE of Order 02.10.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Anwar and Brother --Appellant\nVs\nCIR(A-III), Rawalpindi --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 358 = 2013 SLD 358 = 2013 PDS 1653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 7 & 8(1)(ca); Input tax adjustment.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal granted a stay as the appellant met all conditions for tax adjustment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8(1)(ca)", + "Case #": "MA. (Stay) STA 181/IB/2012 Assessment Year Aug, 2011 - Oct, 2011 hearing DATE 09.08.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. QURBAN ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. The Hub Power Company Limited --Appellant\nVs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-I), Large Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 359 = 2013 SLD 359 = 2013 PDS 1654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990); Stay applications.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nStay was granted to prevent financial hardship during pending appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "MA (Stay) STA No. 197/IB/2012 In STA No. 249/IB/2012 hearing DATE 14.09.2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taxpayer by Syed, Tauqeer Bukhari, Advocate. Department by Mr. Muhammad Jawad, DR.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s Ahson Stationers. M, 157, Street No. 78 Amarpura, Rawalpind --Appellant\nVs\nCIR, RTO, Rawalpindi --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 360 = 2013 SLD 360 = 2013 PDS 1655", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990); Blacklisted suppliers and input tax adjustments.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal remanded the case for proper verification of supplier’s blacklisted status during transactions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "MA(R) STA No.39/IB/2012 hearing DATE 06.11.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. General Business Promotors, Rawalpindi. --Applicant\nVs\nCIR(A), RTO, Rawalpindi. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 361 = 2013 SLD 361 = 2013 PDS 1656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Rule (6); Registration controversy.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDemands for periods prior to mandatory registration were deleted; modifications were made for later years.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=R-6", + "Case #": "STA No. 230/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2006-07), STA No. 231/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2007-08), STA No. 232/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2008-09), STA No. 233/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2009-10) hearing DATE 01.11.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Unique Plastic, Rawalpindi. --Appellant\nVs\nCIR, RTO, Rawalpindi. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 362 = 2013 SLD 362 = 2013 PDS 1657", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues:\no\nSales Tax Act, 1990; Federal Excise Act, 2005; Tax on developed land.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFederal Excise Duty (FED) applies only upon the transfer of physical possession of developed plots, not advance payments.\no\nPremature demand for FED was annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(30)Federal Excise Rules, 2005=3,3(5)(c),2(9),2(19a),2(23),2(23)(a)", + "Case #": "FEA No.09/IB/2012 hearing DATE 09.10.2012", + "Judge Name:": "IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Defence Housing Authority, Islamabad. --Appellant\nVs\n1. Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Appeals-I), Islamabad. 2. Assistant Commissioner, Inland Revenue (Audit-III), Large Taxpayers Unit, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 363 = 2013 SLD 363 = 2013 PDS 1658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 34(1); Default surcharge on delayed payment of sales tax.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDefault surcharge applies from the date of service of the earlier Tribunal order.\no\nThe appeal was partially accepted, and the Tribunal clarified the timeline for default surcharge computation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,34(1)", + "Case #": "STA No.67/IB/2012 hearing DATE 07.11.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR.IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Oil and Gas Development Company Limited, OGDCL House, Blue Area, Islamabad. --Appellant\nVs\n1. C.I.R.(Appeals-II), RTO, Islamabad. 2. C.I.R., ZonE-I, Islamabad. 3. D.C.I.R., LTU, Islamabad. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 364 = 2013 SLD 364 = 2013 PDS 1659", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 33, 34, 11(2), and others; Input tax adjustment against blacklisted units.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal allowed the filing of a revised sales tax return to correct an error.\no\nOrder facilitated resolution of the input tax adjustment issue.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,11(2),36(1),7,8(1)(ca),12(5)", + "Case #": "STA No.94A/IB/2012 hearing DATE 28.08.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-III), Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi --Appellant\nVs\nM/s. Saify Stationers, Shop No.1, Saify Market, Adamjee Road, Rawalpindi --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 365 = 2013 SLD 365 = 2013 PDS 1660", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 11(2), 36(1); Extension of stay application.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal extended the stay on tax recovery due to coercive measures adopted by the department.\no\nPremature recovery during pending appeal was deemed harsh.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),36(1)", + "Case #": "MA (Stay) STA (Ext.) No. 213/IB/2012, (Tax year 2007-2008), hearing DATE 05.10.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Spur Interactional, Rawalpindi, --Applicant\nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Rawalpindi, --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 366 = 2013 SLD 366 = 2013 PDS 1661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 7, 8(1)(ca), and others; Input tax adjustment on blacklisted transactions.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal remanded the case to verify invoices during the supplier's active period.\no\nAppellant was given a chance to justify transactions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,8(1)(ca),12(5),", + "Case #": "STA No.79/LB/2011, hearing DATE 23-5-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. ASAD ALI, JAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINJIAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taxpayer by S. Shehzad Mehmood, Advocate. Department by Mr. Zia Ullah, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Adil Traders, Rawalpindi --Appellant\nVs\nCIR, LTU. Rawalpindi --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 367 = 2013 SLD 367 = 2013 PDS 1662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Review and re-calling of order.\n���\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal recalled orders due to ambiguities between announced and written decisions.\no\nThe appeal was restored to its original number for a fresh hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "MA (R) STA No.40/IB/2012, hearing DATE : 09.01.2013. DATE of order: 30.01.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI) CHAIRPERSON, (SOHAIL AFZAL), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Applicant by: Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate. Respondent by . Mr. Hameed Ullah DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s Petrosin Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad...--Applicant\nVs\nCIR, RTO, Islamabad--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 368 = 2013 SLD 368 = 2013 PDS 1663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Miscellaneous application for stay extension.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal extended the stay for 30 days or until the appeal decision, whichever is earlier.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "MA (Stay) No.180/LB/2013, (Tax Year 2006), MA (Stay) No. 181/LB/2013, (Tax Year 2010), hearing DATE : 27.02.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(NAZIR AHMAD), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (MIAN MASOOD AHMAD), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., Lahore..--Applicant\nVs\nCIR, Zone-III, LTU, Lahore..--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 369 = 2013 SLD 369 = 2013 PDS 1664", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 2(46)(e); Rectification and recall of order.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal allowed rectification as the original order lacked legal basis.\no\nThe appeal was restored for rehearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46)(e)", + "Case #": "MA No. 478/LB/2011 in STA NO.1257/LB/2009, hearing DATE : 21-12-2011. DATE of order : 22-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "(M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (SOHAIL AFZAL), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Applicant by . Mian Ashiq Hussain, Advocate. Respondent by . Mr. Nayyar Mehmood, D.R.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Javed Nazir Brothers, Lahore. --Applicant\nVs\nCIR, RTO, Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 370 = 2013 SLD 370 = 2013 PDS 1665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Tax fraud, penalty, and default surcharge under Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) and Federal Excise Act (2005).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal upheld partial relief granted by the lower court due to minimal involvement of fake invoices (2.40%).\no\nRevenue’s appeal was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(4),33(6),33(8),33(11),33(13),33(16),34(1),35(5)Federal Excise Act, 2005=7,14(2),19(3),19(3)(b),19(3)(c)", + "Case #": "STA No. 156/LB/2011, hearing DATE : 31.05.2012. DATE of Order : 27.06.2012", + "Judge Name:": "(CH. MUNIR SADIQ), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (KHALID AZIZ BANTH), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Miss Naureen Yaqoob. DR. Respondent by . Mr. Basir Solatch, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "The CIR, RTO 1, Lahore --Appellant\nVs\nM/S Heaven Engineering Lahore--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 371 = 2013 SLD 371 = 2013 PDS 1666 = 2013 PTD 1807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 21(2), 37; Blacklisting and procedural violations.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal agreed that blacklisting was carried out without following legal formalities.\no\nSuspension and subsequent proceedings were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(2),37", + "Case #": "STA NO.1202/LB/2012, hearing DATE : 25.02.2013. DATE of order : 26.02.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(MIAN MASOOD AHMAD), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, (NAZIR AHMAD), JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s I.M Steel Industries, Lahore. .. --Appellant\nVs\nThe CIR, ZonElV RTO; Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 372 = 2013 SLD 372 = 2013 PDS 1667", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 3(1-A); Levy of further tax.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal followed the Peshawar High Court ruling declaring further tax unconstitutional for beverages.\no\nRecovery was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3(1A),33,34,46-.-3rd Schedule", + "Case #": "STA No. 1430/LB/2009, hearing DATE : 23.01.2013. DATE of order: 29.01.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(CH. MUNIR SADIQ), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (SOHAIL AFZAL), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Mr. Nasar Ahmad, Advocate. Respondent by . Mr. lmran Hayee, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. 7-Up Bottling CO. (Pvt) Ltd, Lahore. --Appellant\nVs\nAdditional Collector, Safes Tax, Customs, Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 373 = 2013 SLD 373 = 2013 PDS 1668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Non-payment of sales tax on waste parts under Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal upheld the lower court's annulment of assessment orders due to lack of justification.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,4,6,7,8,10,11(2),22,26,33,33(5),34,36(1)", + "Case #": "STA NO.737 /LB/2011, hearing DATE : 23-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "(SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN), CHAIRMAN, (TABBANA SAJJAD NASEER), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Muddassar Shuja, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. Muhammad Farrukh Majeed, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "The CIR., RTO., Lahore--Appellant\nVs\nM/s. Eastern Spinning Mills, Lahore.. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 374 = 2013 SLD 374 = 2013 PDS 1669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Input tax adjustments on invoices from blacklisted suppliers.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nSuspension orders and show-cause notices issued improperly were declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),21(2)", + "Case #": "STA NO.1251/LB/2012, M.A. (Stay) No.85/LB/2013, hearing DATE : 01-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "(CH. MUNIR SADIQ), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (SOHAIL AFZAL), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Mr. Muhammad Farooq Sheikh Advocate. Respondent by . Mrs. Nabeela Iqbal DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s Taj Packrite Pvt. Ltd. Lahore .--Appellant\nVs\nCIR Zone-II RTO Lahore.--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 375 = 2013 SLD 375 = 2013 PDS 1670", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 8B; Default surcharge and penalty.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNo revenue loss was found; appeal allowed, and default surcharge deleted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8B", + "Case #": "STA No.132/LB/2013, hearing DATE : 04.03.2013. DATE of order: 05.03.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(NAZIR AHMAD), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( MIAN MASOOD AHMAD ), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Mr. Naeem Munawar, Adv. Respondent by: Ms. Fauzia Fakhar, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Tahir Asad Industries(Pvt) Ltd, Lahore. ...--Appellant\nVs\nThe CIR, RTO, Faisalabad.... --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 376 = 2013 SLD 376 = 2013 PDS 1671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Section 36; Limitation and excise duty.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nOrders violating mandatory provisions were deemed void.\no\nTribunal upheld the appellate authority’s decision.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1),36(2),36(3),74,33,11(2)Federal Excise Act, 2005=2(12a)", + "Case #": "STA No. 203/IB/2011, hearing DATE : 21.02.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER, IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant By . S.H. Gardezi, Advocate Respondent By . Mr. Imran Shah, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. S.H.V. Energy Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., 52, Margalla Road, F8/2, Islamabad.\nVs\nCommissioner-IR (Appeals-ll), 2. Commissioner-IR (Zone-I), LTU, 3. Deputy Commissioner-IR (Audit-III), LTU, 4. Deputy Commissioner-IR (Audit-IV), LTU, --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 377 = 2013 SLD 377 = 2013 PDS 1672", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Input tax claim on invoices from undeclared suppliers.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nOrders from lower authorities were declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B(3),7,8(1)(ca)", + "Case #": "STA No. 1123/LB/2012, hearing: 06.03.2013", + "Judge Name:": "(JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI), JUDICIAL MEMBER, (MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Muhammad Aamir Qadeer, Advocate. Mrs. Sadia Sadaf, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Aftab Mohyuddin Hafiz, 15-Link Mcload Road, Patiala Ground, Lahore--Appellant\nVs\nThe CIR (Appeals-IV), Lahore.--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 378 = 2013 SLD 378 = 2013 PDS 1673", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Reconciliation of accounts and sales tax/income tax differences.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCase remanded for reconciliation and re-adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=555(1)", + "Case #": "STA No. 276/IB/2012, hearing DATE : 07.03.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. IKRAM ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Saeed Hassan Khan, ITP. Respondent by: Mr. Naveed Hassan, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Team sun Technology Pakistan (Private) Limited\nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Islamabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 379 = 2013 SLD 379 = 2013 PDS 1674", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Refund claims and discrepancies.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal rejected the department’s appeal and upheld the decision that exceeded jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,9(1),8(1)(ca),10,45", + "Case #": "S.T.A. NO.247/LB/2009, decision dated: 09.04.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, DR for Appellant. Mr. M. M. Akram, Advocate for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Collector of Sales Tax, Faisalabad\nVs\nM/s. S. S. Fabrics, Faisalabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 380 = 2013 SLD 380 = 2013 PDS 1675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Withdrawal of appeal.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAppeal was dismissed upon withdrawal request.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 948/LB/2P12, decision dated: 23.04.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Mudassar Shuja, Advocate for Appellat. Ms. Fouzia Fukhar, DR for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Hassan Paper Cone Factory, Faisalabad\nVs\nThe CIR (Zone-II), RTO, Faisalabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 381 = 2013 SLD 381 = 2013 PDS 1676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Federal Excise Act, 2005; Short payment of Special Excise Duty (SED).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal vacated earlier orders and remanded the case for further investigation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(16)Federal Excise Act, 2005=3(a)", + "Case #": "STA No. 180/IB/2012 hearing DATE 08-05-2013. DATE of order 07-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Syed Tauqeer Bokhari, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Naveed Hassan & Mr. Hameed Ullah Shah, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Agha Jee Printers, 12-D, Bewal Plaza, Fazle Haq Road, Blue Area, Islamabad --Appellant\nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, R.T.O., Islamabad --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 382 = 2013 SLD 382 = 2013 PDS 1677", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Input tax disallowance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInterim relief granted, pending resolution by the High Court.\n•\nSections & Issues: Input tax disallowance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInterim relief granted, pending resolution by the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "STA No.130/IB/2013 hearing DATE 30.05.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. FAHEEM UL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Umar Arshad Hakim, Advocate. Department by Mr. Imran Shah, ACMA, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Saba Power Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore --Appellant\nVs\nCIR, LTU, Islamabad, --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 383 = 2013 SLD 383 = 2013 PDS 1678", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Input tax claim denied due to reconciliation issues.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCase remanded to allow filing of revised returns and verification.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7", + "Case #": "STA No.252/IB/2012 Tax period Aug & Oct, 2011 STA No.333/IB/2012 Tax period November, 2011, hearing DATE 18.06.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. SAJJAD HAIDER KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "The Hub Power Company Limited, Karachi. --Appellant\nVs\nCIR, LTU, Islamabad. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 384 = 2013 SLD 384 = 2013 PDS 1680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Amendments in SROs related to input tax adjustments.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal suspended operations of the amended SROs until further review.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7", + "Case #": "W.P. 18539/2013, dated 25-07-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. M.M. Akram, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Senior Advocate, for the respondent-department", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. MOHAMMAD AMIN BROTHERS PVT LTD\nVs\nF.O.P. ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 385 = 2013 SLD 385 = 2013 PDS 1681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 33, 34, 7, 2(37); Input tax adjustment, fake invoices, tax fraud, and jurisdiction.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nShow-cause notice lacked proper allegations, rendering it invalid.\no\nTribunal emphasized that no charge can be made unless explicitly stated in the show-cause notice.\no\nTax fraud allegations were dismissed due to the department's failure to prove collusion or deliberate intent.\no\nTribunal set aside orders and held that the burden of proof lay with the department.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,33(4),33(5),33(6),33(8),33(16),36,45B(3),23,7,3(3),2(37)", + "Case #": "STA No.69/LB/2013 hearing DATE 26-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN, MR. SABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Kamran Khalil, Advocate Malik Naveed Sohail, Advocate Respondent by Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. Malik Board & Papers Industries (Pvt) Ltd., Lahore --Appellant\nVs\nCIR., Zone-III, LTU, Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 386 = 2013 SLD 386 = 2013 PDS 1682 = 2013 PTD 1723", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 36, 3, 26; Manufacturing vs. service activity, excise duty, and proper audit.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal observed insufficient evidence from both parties.\no\nCase remanded for detailed investigation, including site visits and submission of additional records.\no\nEmphasis placed on proper distinction between manufacturing and service activities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1),3,6,26,33,34,22,25,2(16)", + "Case #": "STA No.92/IB/2011 STA No.93/IB/2011 hearing DATE 12.03.2013. DATE of order 30.06.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Hamidullah Shah, DR. Respondent by Ch. Naeem ul Haq, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "The CIR, RTO, Islamabad, --Appellant\nVs\nM/s. Dazzle Glass (Pvt.) Ltd. Islamabad --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 387 = 2013 SLD 387 = (2013) 108 TAX 1 = 2013 SCMR 1337 = 2013 PTCL 591 = 2013 PTD 1491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYS1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Sections 3, 13(1); Sudden GST increase and its constitutionality.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nGST increase from 16% to 17% without parliamentary approval was deemed unconstitutional.\no\nExcess GST collected was directed to be refunded to consumers.\no\nFederal Government's delegation of taxing power to the Executive was declared invalid under Article 77 of the Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,13(1),Sixth ScheduleSales Tax Special Procedure (Withholding) Rules, 2007=20(2)(c),provisoConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=3,9,24,70,77,184(3)Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931=3,4,5", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.33 & 34 of 2005 and Civil Misc. Application No.3821 of 2013, decision dated: 21-6-2013. dates of hearing: 19-21 June, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ, IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY AND IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ikram Ch., Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No. 33 of 2005).\nNemo for Petitioners (in Constitutional Petition No. 34 of 2005).\nMuneer A. Malik, Attorney-General for Pakistan Assisted by Faisal Siddiqui for Respondents (Federation of Pakistan).\nDil Muhammad Alizai, D.A.G. and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (Federation of Pakistan).\nDr. Rana M. Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court, Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record, Muhammad Aaqil, Member (Legal), Raza Baqir, Member and Ashfaq Tunio, Chief Sales Tax for Respondents (FBR).\nSalman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court, Saeed Ahmad Khan, Chairman, Abdul Basit, Law Officer and Ms. Misbah Yaqoob, JED(F) for Respondents (Ogra).\nCh. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (M/o Petroleum).\nNemo for M/o Finance\nDilawar Khan, Dy. Director for M/o Climate change.\nNemo for OCAC", + "Petitioner Name:": "Engineer IQBAL ZAFAR JHAGRA and another \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 389 = 2013 SLD 389 = (2013) 108 TAX 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 36(2), 36(3); Sales tax on road construction contracts.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal ruled that road construction is not subject to sales tax as it involves immovable property.\no\nOrders subjecting such contracts to sales tax were deemed discriminatory and violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(2),36(3)", + "Case #": "New STA No. 339/KB/2009, Order-in-Original No. 02/2005, decision dated: 30-09-2010, hearing DATE : 06-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ZAREEN SALEEM ANSARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ZAFAR IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Shaban, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ayaz Mehmooal D.R., for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 126 = 1981 SLD 126 = (1981) 44 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Promissory estoppel and tax concessions.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nGovernment promises regarding tax concessions are binding under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.\no\nTribunal ruled that the withdrawal of promised tax holidays was inequitable and directed the government to honor its commitments.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Government of India Act, 1935=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1597 of 1972, decision dated: 12-12-1978", + "Judge Name:": "P.N. BHAGWATI AND V.D TULZAPURKAR, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.T. Desai, Sr. Adv. (Shri Narani,.J.B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain, S. Swarup & Talat Ansari, Adv. G.N. Dikshit, Senior Adv., (M. V. Goswami and O. P. Rana Adv. Girish Chandra, Adv.,Dewan, Sr. Adv. (Ravinder Narain. S. Swarup and A.N. Hakasar, Adv.) for the intervener (Modi Rubber Ltd)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD\nVs\nSTATE, OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 65 = 1979 SLD 65 = (1980) 41 TAX 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Constitutionality of defense surcharge under the Finance Act, 1965.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDefense surcharge levied under a temporary statute was later made perpetual.\no\nTribunal upheld the constitutional validity of the surcharge and dismissed objections to its continuation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Government of India Act, 1935=43,131(2)", + "Case #": "S.T. Nos. 18 of 1972-73; 35 of 1975-76 (Assessment years 1966-67 and 1968-69), decision dated: 20-1-1977", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER(NOW PRESIDENT) MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KH. HABIBULLAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mohammad Ali Khan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate and Khalid Mahmood, D.R. for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 66 = 1979 SLD 66 = 1979 PTD 488 = (1980) 41 TAX 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act, 1951, Sections 2(15), 3(1)(a); Contract for goods vs. contract for work and labor.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal clarified the distinction between contracts for goods and labor.\no\nCase remanded for further evaluation of whether the contract fell under sale of goods or work and labor. ", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(15),3(1)(a)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 68 of 1972, decision dated: 9-5-1979. dates of hearing: 7-10-1978, 1st, 2nd , 7th and 9-04-1979", + "Judge Name:": "SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Hussain, for Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL BODY BUILDERS\nVs\nSALES TAX OFFICER, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 67 = 1979 SLD 67 = (1980) 41 TAX 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues: Sales Tax Act, 1951, Sections 2(16)(i), 3(1); Sale price and exciseable goods.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal ruled that the sales tax officer must accept the sale price determined by the excise authority.\no\nDecision reinforced alignment between excise and sales tax determinations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(16)(i),3(1),10(3)", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. K. Co. ST/2 (B) AAC ; K. Co. T/3 (B)/AAC and K. Co. T/4 (B)/AAC (Assessment years 1964-65 to 1966-67), decision dated: 1-4-1978", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha, Advocate, forthe Appellant. S.S. Ali Zaidi, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 415 = 2003 SLD 415 = 2003 PTCL 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues:\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (Articles 2A, 25, 185).\no\nCustoms Act, 1969 (Sections 19, 31-A).\no\nNotification S.R.O. 484(I)/92; interpretation and expiration of tax exemptions.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nSection 31-A of the Customs Act was upheld as constitutional and not violative of Articles 2A and 25.\no\nTax exemptions under S.R.O. 484(I)/92 were conditional and tied to a specific timeframe (1990-1995). Exemptions expired on June 30, 1995, and could not be claimed for transactions beyond that date.\no\nAfter the insertion of Section 31-A, customs duty and sales tax became mandatory, irrespective of prior contracts or LCs.\no\nNotifications cannot override legislative provisions or extend exemptions retrospectively unless explicitly authorized by law.\no\nVested rights must be protected unless explicitly repealed or amended by legislation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1998, decision dated: 26-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND MR. JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Irfan Qadir, and Mr, Mehr Khan Malik, Advocates. Respondents by: Mr. A. Karim Malik, and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocates", + "Petitioner Name:": "Zaman Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd\nVs\nCentral Board of Revenue and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 769 = 2001 SLD 769 = 2001 PTCL 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues:\no\nSales Tax Act, 1990 (Sections 2(46), 3(1A), 13).\no\nNotification S.R.O. 751(I)/2000; retrospective tax adjustments for sugar pricing.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNotification S.R.O. 751(I)/2000, which retroactively fixed sugar prices for tax purposes, was declared ultra vires and non-existent.\no\nRetrospective fiscal measures must align with public interest and cannot protect vested interests at the cost of public welfare.\no\nAppellants were directed to pay sales tax on the market price of sugar sold to registered persons and further tax under Section 3(1A) for sales to unregistered persons.\no\nPenalties and additional tax were waived due to the legal complexity of the case.\no\nNotifications must comply with legislative provisions and cannot contradict statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2", + "Case #": "Appeal Nos. 1409/LB/2000; 1366/LB/2000, 1408/LB/2000, 1445/LB/2000, 1460/LB/2000, 1475/LB/2000, 1485/LB/2000, 1492/LB/2000, 1493/LB/2000, 1494/LB/2000, 10/LB/2001, 19/LB/2001 and 101/LB/2001, decision dated: 31st March, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED NWANA, CHAIRMAN AND MR. FALAK SHER, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: M/s. Sajid Mahmood Sheikh, Mr. Shahid Karim Ali, Mr. Sibtain Fazli, Mr. Khalifa Abdul Qayyum, Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Sh. Maqbul Ahmed and Mr. Naveed Suhail Malik, Advocates. Respondent by: Mr. Ahmad, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "1. M/s. Shakargang Sugar Mills. (1409/LB/2000) etc\nVs\nRespondent: Collector of Sales Tax, Faisalabad\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE --Appellants\n1. M/s. Shakargang Sugar Mills. \n2. M/s. Kashmir Sugar Mills Ltd. \n3. M/s. National Sugar Mills Ltd. \n4. M/s. Hussein Sugar Mills Ltd. \n5. M/s. Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd. \n6. M/s. Fecto Sugar Mills Ltd. \n7. M/s. Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. \n8. M/s. Chanar Sugar Mills Ltd.\n9. M/s. Chaudhry Sugar Mills Ltd.\n10. M/s. Ramazan Sugar Mills Ltd. \n11. M/s. Kohinoor Sugar Mills Ltd.\n12. M/s. Chishtian Sugar Mills Ltd.\n13. M/s. Pahrianwali Sugar Mills Ltd.\nVs\nRespondent: Collector of Sales Tax, Faisalabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 640 = 2002 SLD 640 = 2002 PTCL 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSections & Issues:\no\nCentral Excises Act, 1944 (Sections 12-A, 12-B).\no\nSales Tax Act, 1990 (Sections 33, 65).\no\nNotification S.R.O. 455(I)/96; excise duty on metal containers for vegetable ghee.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nExcise duty on metal containers used for packing vegetable ghee at a concessional rate of 5% was deemed correct despite ambiguities in S.R.O. 455(I)/96.\no\nThe linking of the duty concession to impractical conditions (e.g., melting point below 10°C) was ruled invalid as it was not feasible for vegetable ghee.\no\nCentral Board of Revenue's (CBR) clarifications supported the assessment of excise duty at 5%.\no\nSales tax on the duty-paid value was a consequential matter; imposition of penalties under the Sales Tax Act was deemed unlawful as there was no violation of its provisions.\no\nTribunal clarified that discussions regarding Section 65 benefits should be handled by appropriate forums.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=12,12A", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 914/LB of 2001, decision dated: 12-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Ashter Ausaf Ali, Mr. Zaeem-ul-Farooq and Mr. Muhammad Akram Nizami, Advocates. Respondents by: Mr. Amer Ahmed, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "United Industries Ltd., Faisalabad\nVs\nCollector of Customs, Sales Tax & Central Excise, Multan" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 641 = 2002 SLD 641 = 2002 PTCL 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "[INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE].......Machinery section has to be construed in a manner where by the realization of proper tax is made possible. Any construction otherwise defeating the intention of legislature and preventing the realization of the tax is to be avoided. (As per Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad).\nSALES TAX ACT, 1990----Section 2(14)(20)---The provisions regarding input as well as output tax as defined in the definition clause of the Act read with sections 7 and 8 thereof are only the modalities prescribed to protect the interest of the exchequer against any pilferage, evasion or fraud. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nThe input tax paid by the appellant goes to national exchequer as input tax, it is a trust till the time it was to be adjusted or refunded. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nSection 3---The provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act are not charging provisions and -that these are machinery provisions to crystalise the liability to pay the tax as contemplated in sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nThe charging provisions of section 3 read with sub- section (3) thereof are conditional that the levy would be subject to other provisions of the Act. The other provisions inter alia contemplate input tax and output tax and their adjustment in certain specific situations. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nIf the appellant paying input tax on the supply of goods received by him was not entitled to its adjustment or refund then he was not covered by the charging provisions of section 3 inasmuch as he never made taxable supplies. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nThe view that Sales Tax Act is not a tax on consumption is not well based, sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 3-B make it clear that the incidence of tax charged under section 3 has to pass on to the consumer ultimately.--(As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar) --It will be seen that charging provisions of section 3 of the Act provided for the charge and levy of a tax known as Sales Tax. This charge is \"\"subject to the provisions of this Act\"\". Sub-section (3) of section 3 goes to state that liability to pay tax shall be, in the case of supply of goods in Pakistan, of the person making the supply. These provisions are to be seen in the perspective of over all scheme and the definition of word \"\"input tax\"\" as given in section 2(14), the word \"\"output tax\"\" as given in section 2(20) and the \"\"taxable activity\"\" and \"\"taxable supply\"\" as defined in section 2(35) and 2(41) of the Act respectively. The view of the department that Sales Tax Act is not a tax on consumption is also not well based. If nothing else, sub-section (l) and sub-section (3) of section 3-B make it clear that the incidence of tax charged under section 3 has to pass on to the consumer ultimately. The provisions regarding input as well as out put tax as defined in the definition clause of the Act read with sections 7 and 8 thereof are only the modalities prescribed to protect the interest of the exchequer against any pilferage, evasion or fraud, Every maker of a taxable supply is an agent of the exchequer to receive the amount on its behalf and then to pass it on to the next supplier till finally the consumer bears the brunt.\nChargeability of sale tax.--(As per Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad).--Chargeability of sale tax is provided under section 3 of the Act which enunciate that there shall be charge levied and paid a tax known as sale tax at the rate of 15% of the value of taxable supplies made in Pakistan by a registered person in the course or furtherance of any taxable activity carried on by him and goods imported into Pakistan.\nSection 3-B---The view that Sales Tax Act is not a tax on consumption is not well based, sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of section 3-B make it clear that the incidence of tax charged under section 3 has to pass on to the consumer ultimately.--See section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nSection 7----Sections 7 and 8 are not the charging sections and these pertains to the domain of payability.--(As per Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad). In the scheme of Sales Tax Act, 1990, the provision of section 7 & 8 are not the charging section Both the sections pertains to the domain of payability. Section 7 enunciate the principle for determining the tax liability for particular tax period of a registered person in respect of taxable supplies and it is provided that such registered person shall be entitled to deduct input tax paid during the tax period for purpose of taxable supplies made or to be made by him from the output tax that is due from him in respect of a particular tax period.\n(As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar, agreeing).\nIt is rightly pointed out in the order of the Customs authorities that the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act are not charging provisions and that these are machinery provisions to crystalise the liability to pay the tax as contemplated in sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act.\nIn order to avoid double taxation and ensure the proper levy of sale tax, a mechanism of input tax and its adjustment was provided under section 7 of the Act.--(As per Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad).--In order to avoid double taxation and ensure the proper levy of sale tax, a mechanism of input tax and its adjustment was provided under -section 7of the Act. A registered person is entitled to deduct input tax paid during the tax period for the purpose of taxable supply made or to be made by him from the output tax, that was due from him in respect of tax period. The registered person was also provided such other adjustment as was specified in section 9 and under section 10 the registered person is allowed to carry forward the excess amount or seek the refund.\nA registered person is entitled to reclaim or deduct input tax paid inter alia where the goods on which input tax was paid by the registered person were subsequently destroyed and were not meant for use nor were intended to be used for any purpose other than taxable supplies. To with- hold the amount paid as input tax in this situation amounts to confiscation which the state can not resort to accept in due process of law.--(As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).--In view of the legal question raised this court vide order dated 19.6.2001 admitted the appeal to regular hearing to consider the question whether the provision of section 7 & 8 were applicable in the facts of the case particularly when a part of goods in question were destroyed by fire. \nFacts of the case in brief are that appellant which is a public limited company, engaged inter alia in the manufacture of cotton yarn is registered person under Sales Tax Act. The appellant purchased ginned cotton during the cotton season of 1996-97. Total numbers of cotton bales purchased by the appellant were 28899 having a value of Rs. 305,120,240/- and paid input sales tax of Rs. 30,512,024/- at the rate of 10%. The appellant submitted sale tax return for December 1996 on 20.1.1997 and claimed refund of Rs. 28,579,872/- as the excess amount of input tax paid by the appellant for that period. In the return the total output tax for the same period was showed as Rs. 2,113,969/-. Thus after deducting the output tax from the total input tax of Rs. 30,693,841/- a refund for a sum of Rs. 28,579,872 was claimed by the appellant under section 10 of the Sales Tax Act.\nThe Assistant Collector Sales Tax Refund, Lahore vide his memo dated 2.4.1997 issued a show cause notice to the appellant in terms of section 7, 9 and 10 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 read with the Sales Tax Refund Rules, 1996, on the ground that cotton bales 4102 involving Rs. 244,3472/- have been partially damaged as a result of fire which broke out on 11.1.1997 and cotton bales 16786 valuing Rs. 175,881,240/ were completely burnt and could not be used in taxable supplies.\nAccording to section 7 a registered person is entitled to deduct input tax paid during the tax period for the purpose of taxable supply made or to be made by him from the out put tax. The learned counsel for the appellant is correct in pointing out that the use of word \"\"purpose\"\" and \"\"supplies made or to be made\"\" arc indicative of the fact that the payment of input tax is available for adjustment as well as refund not with regard to any specific goods but with regard to the input tax paid during a particular tax period. The negatives contained in section 8 were also improperly interpreted by the Departmental authorities. According to sub- section (l) of section 8, a registered person is not entitled to reclaim or deduct input tax paid inter alia on the goods used or to be used for any purpose other than for taxable supplies made or to be made by him. The goods on which input tax was paid by the appellant and were subsequently destroyed were not meant for use nor were intended to be used for any purpose other than taxable supplies. The intention of the appellant at the time of receiving the supplies and making and paying (put tax) was apparently to make taxable supply of them. It has never been the case of the Department that either the supplies were not received or that these supplies were covered by the negative list as given in section 8 of the Act, The only objection of the department being that the goods for which input tax was paid were no more available for taxable supplies. While holding that opinion, as noted earlier, the departmental authorities over looked the use of word \"\"purpose\"\" and \"\"supplies made or to be made\"\", as used in section 7.\nThe interpretation of departmental authorities does not appear justified while placing stress more on goods in respect of which the input tax was paid rather than the amount of tax itself and the period during which it was paid. Section 7 of the Act supports outrightly the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claim of input tax for adjustment as well as for refund is co-related only to the payment of input tax \"\"paid during the tax period\"\" and for the purpose of \"\"supplies made or to be made,\"\" The purpose for which supplies were received as also the amount of input tax paid having never been doubted, at least by the departmental authorities, their refusal to allow either refund or adjustment cannot be supported on any premises. I cannot believe that the State through its revenue department, like an ordinary individual will try to retain the money which was in the first instance paid to it as a trust till the time it was to be adjusted or refunded. The charging provisions of section 3 read with sub-section (3) thereof are conditional that the levy would be subject to other provisions of the Act. The other provisions inter alia contemplate input tax and output tax and their adjustment in certain specific situations. The liability to pay tax under section 3(3) is on the person making taxable supplies. The appellant, it will be noted while paying input tax was DOI making any taxable supplies. Looking at the preposition from that angle as well, I am of the view that if the appellant paying input tax on the supply of goods received by him was not entitled to its adjustment or refund then he was not covered by the said charging provisions inasmuch as he never made taxable supplies and therefore, was entitled to receive the sum paid as input tax to the exchequer. To withhold the amount paid as input tax in this situation, amounts to confiscation which the State cannot resort to except in due process of law. To state it does not behave to eye upon the money paid by a citizen either on the promise of refund or adjustment or even due to any misconception. The amount paid by the petitioner in this ease by all reasonable interpretation of the provisions of law belonged to him and the appellant was entitled to seek, at its discretion, either adjustment or refund.\n(As per Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja. Agreeing with Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nThe of my learned brother Nasim Sikandar, J., has set out the reasoning leading up to the interpretation of the aforesaid statutory provisions. The said reasons reflect fully my understanding of the said provisions in an articulate manner. I, therefore, do not consider it necessary to repeat the said reasoning or to paraphrase the same in my own words. In the circumstances, I would answer the reference by construing the provisions of Sections 3, 7 and 8 of the Sales Tax Act in the same manner as has been done by my learned brother Nasim Sikandar, J. As a consequence, agreeing with him I would allow the appeal.\n(As per Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad), (Contra)).\nThe doctrine of input and output tax is introduced in the sale tax act to avoid multiplicity of taxation because sale tax is one time tax and in large number of cases before a goods become a consumable item/goods, it is subject to taxable supplies at various intermediary stages. Therefore, the sale tax paid on the goods would be taken an input tax if the said goods travel to another stage of taxable supply. It the journey of goods to another taxable supply fails, the leviability of Sales Tax thereon would be defeated by construing section 7 and 10 in isolation. We therefore, hold that the tax paid on the ginned cotton would remain a sales tax simpliciter because no further taxable supply was made or were to be made out of the said cotton, Section 8(a) of the Act further clarifies the provision of section 7. It lays down that a registered person shall not be entitled to reclaim or deduct input tax if the goods used or to be used for any purpose other than for the manufacture or production of taxable goods or for taxable supplies made or to be made by him, Section 8 is couched in the negative language providing that if taxable supplies made or to be made is not achieved or the goods are used for any purpose other than manufacture or production, the reclaim or deduction of input tax would not be available. In the instant case, no taxable supplies was made or was to be made, therefore, it negated the right of appellant to claim any refund of any tax paid.\nThe provision of section 7 and 10 are a part of machinery section and are not the charging provision. (As per Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmed).\nThe provisions regarding input as well as output tax as defined in the definition clause of the Act read with sections 7 and 8 thereof are only the modalities prescribed to protect the interest of the exchequer against any pilferage, evasion or fraud. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nThe provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act are not charging provisions and that these are machinery provisions to crystalise the liability to pay the tax as contemplated- in sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nThe charging provisions of section 3 read with sub- section (3) thereof arc conditional that the levy would be subject to other provisions of the Act. The other provisions inter alia contemplate input tax and output tax and their adjustment in certain specific situations. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nIf the appellant paying input tax on the supply of goods received by him was not entitled to its adjustment or refund then he was not covered by the charging provisions of section 3 inasmuch as he never made taxable supplies. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar):\nSection 8---The provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act are not charging provisions and that these are machinery provisions to crystalise the liability to pay the tax as contemplated in sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Act. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nThe provisions regarding input as well as output tax as defined in the definition clause of the Act read with sections 7 and 8 thereof are only the modalities prescribed to protect the interest of the exchequer against any pilferage, evasion or fraud. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nA registered person is entitled to reclaim or deduct input tax paid inter alia where the goods on which input tax was paid by the registered person were subsequently destroyed and were not meant for use nor were intended to be used for any purpose other than taxable supplies. To with- hold the amount paid as input tax in this situation amounts to confiscation which the state can not resort to accept in due process of law.--See Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 7 and 8 are not the charging section stand these pertains to the domain of payability.--See Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\nIf the appellant paying input tax on the supply of goods received by him was not entitled to its adjustment or refund then he was not covered by the charging provisions of section 3 inasmuch as he never made taxable supplies. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar.\nThe input tax paid by the appellant goes to national exchequer as input tax, it is a trust till the time it was to be adjusted or refunded. (As per Mr. Justice Nasim Sikandar).\nSection 10----The provision of section 7 and 10 are a part of machinery section and are not the charging provision. (As per Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad).\nWORDS AND PHRASES \"\"Purpose\"\".\n\"\"Supplies made or to be made\"\".", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(14)(20)", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 66-S 1999, decision dated: 4-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE MANSOOR AHMAD, MR. JUSTICE NASIM SIKANDAR AND MR. JUSTICE, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Sardar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. Jawaher A. Naqvi, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd., Lahore\nVs\nCustoms, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and two others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 642 = 2002 SLD 642 = 2002 PTCL 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nFixation of uniform prices for metal containers used in packaging under Central Excises Act, 1944 and Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nSections discussed: 3, 4(1) (Excises Act), 2(46) (Sales Tax Act).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDetermination of Tariff Value :\n\nFixation of uniform price for containers by a Superintendent or Collector is unlawful; only CBR has the authority under Section 3 of the Excises Act.\n\nMetal containers, being custom-designed for specific brands, cannot be treated as uniform or of like kind and quality.\no\nDiscrimination:\n\nSuperintendent’s actions in Haripur Circle were discriminatory, applying different rates compared to other jurisdictions (e.g., Peshawar Circle).\no\nOutcome:\n\nTribunal set aside the Superintendent’s letter and invalidated discriminatory pricing practices.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,4(1)", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 7(1520)CE/IB/200l(PB) and 7(1623)CE/IB/2001(PB), decision dated: 6-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MR. S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mian Nazir Azhar, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. lshtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer of the Collectorate", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Hafeez Iqbal Oil & Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Hattar, Haripur, 2. M/s. Chiniot Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., Hattar\nVs\n1. The Collector of Sales Tax, Peshawar, 2. The Collector (Adjudication), Customs, Excise Sales Tax, Rawalpindi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 643 = 2002 SLD 643 = 2002 PTCL 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nClassification of Petroleum Solvents under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Customs Act, specifically under Heading 27.10 and Item 34 of SRO 505(I)/91.\no\nSections discussed: 13, 30, 31, 45-A, 65, 72.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nClassification:\n\nPetroleum solvents classified under Heading 2710.0039 (Others) are exempt from sales tax per Item 34 of SRO 505(I)/91.\n\nEarlier misclassification under Heading 27.11 (petroleum gases) was invalid.\no\nJurisdiction:\n\nAdditional Collector of Sales Tax, as appointed by the CBR, had authority to re-open cases under Section 45-A.\n\nShow-cause notice issued within the 5-year limit was valid.\no\nSection 65:\n\nClaims for tax exemption under Section 65 must be filed with CBR, not the Tribunal.\no\nOutcome:\n\nTribunal upheld reclassification and exempted petroleum solvents from sales tax under the correct heading.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 132, 231, 232 of 1998, 34 and 439 of 1999, decision dated: 15-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MOHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi and Dr, Ilyas Fazal, Advocates. Respondents by: Mr. S.K.M, Kiani, DS/DR, Mr. Raja Asif Jah & Mr. Athar Minallah, Advocates and Mr. Amir SULTAN, Law Officer\n General--It is for the C.B.R to give opinion on the classification of goods", + "Petitioner Name:": "1. Collector of Customs, Central Excise and ST (Appeals) Northern Zone, RwP. 2. Collector of ST, Rawalpindi. 3. Add. Collector Sales Tax, Rwp\nVs\nGeneralIt is for the C.B.R to give opinion on the classification of goods" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 644 = 2002 SLD 644 = 2002 PTCL 332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nMaintainability of a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution for challenging sales tax assessments under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nSections discussed: 2(30), 3, 12, 48, 66 (Sales Tax Act, 1990).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAdvance Tax on Payments:\n\nTax levied on advance payments received by a supplier is lawful under Section 2(30).\n\nPetitioner's obligation to pay tax on such advances is justified and aligns with statutory provisions.\no\nAdequate Remedy:\n\nWrit petition under Article 199 is not maintainable as the petitioner has an adequate remedy under Section 12, allowing appeals against assessment orders.\no\nRefund Provisions:\n\nAny excess tax debited can be claimed as a refund under Section 66.\no\nOutcome:\n\nPetition dismissed as non-maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 2431 of 1995, decision dated: 30-05-1995", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE RIAZ HUSAIN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Imtiaz R. Siddiqui, Advocate. Respondents by: Mr. M. Khalid Alvi, and Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan Babar. Advocates", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. D.G. Khan Cement Co. Ltd\nVs\nFederation of Pakistan etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 645 = 2002 SLD 645 = 2002 PTCL 356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nLiability of a taxpayer to remit sales tax on advances received from customers under Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nSections discussed: 2(24), 2(30), 3, 6.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTime of Supply:\n\nSection 2(30) clarifies that supply is deemed to occur when payment is received.\n\nAbsence of the word advances in Section 2(30) does not exempt them; the provision inherently includes them.\no\nCompliance Obligations:\n\nPetitioner was obliged to pay sales tax on advances received within the statutory timeframe.\n\nComplaints regarding procedural bottlenecks were deemed unsubstantiated.\no\nLegitimacy of Section 2(30):\n\nThe definition of time of supply under Section 2(30) remains binding unless declared ultra vires, which was not challenged in this case.\no\nOutcome:\n\nPetition dismissed; liability upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(30),3,6", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 581 of 1995, announced on 18-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate. Respondents by: Mr. Shahzad Akbar, DAG and Mr. Abdur Rauf Rohila, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Cherat Cement Company Limited, Nowshera\nVs\nThe Deputy Superintendent Central Excise and Sales Tax Incharge Cherat Cement Company Limited, Nowshera" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 646 = 2002 SLD 646 = 2002 PTCL 322 = 2002 PTD 1912", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nApplicability of sales tax registration to retailers of liquor under Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nSections discussed: 2(28), 2(33), 2(35), 2(41), 3AA, 14.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nScope of General Public :\n\nSupreme Court held that the High Court's narrow interpretation of general public in Section 2(28) was incorrect.\n\nCustomers purchasing liquor under permits are part of the general public and cannot be excluded from this definition.\no\nDistinct Taxable Activities:\n\nRetail of liquor and operation of hotels are distinct taxable activities requiring separate registrations.\no\nOutcome:\n\nSupreme Court set aside the High Court judgment, validating notices for sales tax registration of liquor retailers.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(28),3AA,14", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1587 of 1999 alongwith Civil Petition No.2564/L of 2000. decided on 15-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed A. A. Jafari, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1587 of 1999). K.M. Virk, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.P. No. 2564/L of 2000). Ali Sibtain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents No. 1 and 2 (in C.A. No. 1587 of 1999) and Tariq Mahmood Khokhar, Addl. A.G. for Respondent No. 3 (in C. A. No. 1587 of 1999). \nNemo for Respondent (in C.P. No. 2564/L of 2000)", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, COLLECTORATE OF SALES TAX, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE \nVs \nAVARI HOTEL LIMITED, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 278 = 1994 SLD 278 = 1994 PLC 517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nAppointment and cadre change under Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977.\no\nSections and rules discussed: Section 11 (Act, 1977); Rules 10 & 17 (Pakistan Railways Police Rules, 1980).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCadre Change:\n\nTransfer between wings (Prosecution to Investigating) requires the transferee to be placed junior to existing staff in the new wing.\no\nSeniority Adjustment:\n\nEmployees transferring at their own request cannot claim seniority over existing staff in the receiving wing.\no\nOutcome:\n\nEmployees’ challenge to cadre change and seniority adjustments dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977=11", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 319, 320, 321 and 322(L) of 1993, decision dated: 8th December. 1993.", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ISMAIL, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Tariq Naseem for Appellants.\nFida Hussain alongwith Khalid Farooq, PDSP for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2\nMasood Ahmed Riaz and Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Private Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADIO and 3 others\nVs \nINSPECTORGENERAL OF RAILWAY POLICE, LAHORE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 279 = 1994 SLD 279 = 1994 PLC 525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nCompliance with mandatory provisions under Payment of Wages Act, 1936.\no\nSection discussed: 17(a).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nMandatory Nature:\n\nSection 17(a)(1) mandates deposit of decretal amounts in cash, not by cheque.\no\nMaxim:\n\nActions prescribed by statute must be performed as specified or not at all.\no\nOutcome:\n\nDeposit by cheque declared non-compliant.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Payment of Wages Act, 1936=17(a),17(a)(1)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. S-302 of 1993, decision dated: 10-02-1994.", + "Judge Name:": "AHMED YAR KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zawar Hussain Jaffri, Addl. A.G. for Petitioner.\nShaikh Amanullah for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF SINDH \nvs \nMAZHAR HUSSAIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 280 = 1994 SLD 280 = 1994 PLC 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nDismissal of an employee for willful insubordination.\no\nAllegations included refusal to replace damaged equipment and inciting co-workers.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFair Procedure:\n\nProper inquiry established willful insubordination.\n\nEvidence showed no bias against the employee.\no\nOutcome:\n\nEmployee's reinstatement order overturned; dismissal upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "AGHA ALI HYDER, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izhar Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. \n Zafar Farooqui, Representative for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PREMIER RUBBER BELTING MANUFACTURING CO. (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nSAGHIR AHMED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 770 = 2001 SLD 770 = 2001 PTD 1854 = 2004 PTCL 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nFixation of retail price for central excise duty under Central Excises Act, 1944.\no\nSections discussed: 4(2) (Excises Act); 3 (Sales Tax Act, 1990).\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nRetail Price Fixation:\n\nManufacturer retains the right to fix retail price, including all incurred charges except sales tax.\n\nChilling charges cannot be included if not incurred by the manufacturer.\no\nJurisdiction:\n\nHigh Court correctly excluded chilling charges from retail price for excise duty computation.\no\nOutcome:\n\nSupreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, declining interference.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4,4(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3),199", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1512 and 1686 of 1999, Civil Petitions Nos. 1916-L of 1999, 185-L, 198-L, 865-L, 951-L, 1060-L, 1061-L and 1064-L of 2000, decision dated: 31st January, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 1512 and 1686 of 1999).\nSh. Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P No. 1916L of 1999).\nCh. Saghir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C. Ps. Nos. 185L of 1999, 198L, 1060L and 1061L of 2000).\nK. M. Virk, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.865L, 951L and 1064L of 2000).\nAli Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court for the Private Respondent (in C. A. No. 1512 of 1999).\nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1686 of 1999 and for Petitioners in C. P. No. 865L of 2000).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in C. P. No. 1916L of 1999).", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE and others \nVs \nMessrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 333 = 2004 SLD 333 = 2004 PTCL 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nSales Tax Act, 1990: Comparison of Sections 11(2) and 36, and the jurisdiction to reopen cases involving refunds.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nScope of Sections:\n\nSection 11(2): Pertains to input tax credit/refunds that are claimed but not admissible.\n\nSection 36: Covers erroneous refunds that have already been issued, distinguishing between refunds due to deliberate acts (Section 36(1)) and those due to inadvertence or errors (Section 36(2)).\no\nJurisdictional Overreach:\n\nCollector invoked Section 45A(4) incorrectly for reopening refund cases, which should have been handled under Section 36.\n\nFurther, invoking Section 36(1) was beyond the jurisdiction of the Collector, as this authority rests with the Collector (Adjudication).\no\nOutcome:\n\nActions under Sections 45A(4) and 11(2) were deemed unlawful. The appeal was allowed, and the Collector's orders were overturned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),36", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeals No. 957/LB/2003, 958/LB/2003, 1215/LB/2003, 1216/LB/2003, 1275/LB/2003 and 1292/LB/2003, decision dated: 28.08.2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SARFRAZ AHMED KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAB AND MR. SHER ZAHEER AHMED KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Rana Muhammad Afzal and Mr. Shahid Pervaiz Jami, Advocates. Respondent by: Mr. M. B. Tahir, S.D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Mishal Exports, Gujranwala and others\nVs\nCollectorate of Sales Tax and Central Excise, Gujranwala" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 334 = 2004 SLD 334 = 2004 PTCL 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nSales tax liability on advances received and interpretation of time of supply under Section 2(44) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTime of Supply:\n\nAdvances received are taxable at the time of receipt, not when the supply is made.\n\nSupreme Court decision in D.G. Khan Cement Co. Ltd. confirmed this principle.\no\nControversy and Penalty:\n\nDifferent interpretations of time of supply by courts caused payment delays.\n\nAdditional tax and penalties are not justified where delays are not willful or mala fide.\no\nOutcome:\n\nAppeal allowed; late payment penalties quashed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(44)", + "Case #": "S.T. Appeal No. 318/PB/2003, decision dated: 19-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondents by: Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, D.R., Mr. Shoaib Sultan, Sr. Auditor and Mr. Muhammad Younas, Sr. Auditor", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Janana De Malucho Textile Mills, Kohat\nVs\nDeputy Collector of Customs, Central, Excise and Sales Tax (Adjudication), Peshawar and other" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 335 = 2004 SLD 335 = 2004 PTCL 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nViolation of natural justice due to denial of the right to be heard under Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNatural Justice:\n\nMaxim audi alteram partem (right to be heard) is a fundamental legal principle.\n\nFailure to provide a hearing before issuing an order violates principles of natural justice.\no\nOutcome:\n\nImpugned order set aside; case remanded to provide a hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Old 3089/2001, New 24/2004, decision dated: 24-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. ALHAJ FIROZ-UD-DIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAYED MOHSIN ASAD MEMBER (TECHNICAL).", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mian Abdul Ghaffar. Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. Faisal Shahzad, Auditor of Sales Tax", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Faisal Pipe (Pvt.) Limited\nVs\nAdditional Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwal" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 304 = 2006 SLD 304 = 2006 PTCL 441 = 2007 PTD 2356 = (2006) 94 TAX 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nLegality of search and seizure under Sections 38, 40, and 40-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nProcedure for Searches:\n\nSearches must adhere to Sections 96–105 of the Criminal Procedure Code.\n\nSection 40-A requires proper authorization and documented reasons before conducting a raid.\no\nIllegality of Actions:\n\nSearches conducted without following due process under Section 40-A are invalid.\no\nOutcome:\n\nSearch, seizure, and subsequent actions declared void ab initio.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40ACriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos.1674-L and 1675-L of 2004, heard on 19-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izhar-ul-Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and others \nVs \nMessrs FOOD CONSULTS (PVT.) LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 297 = 2005 SLD 297 = 2005 PTCL 32 = (2005) 91 TAX 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nScope of Sections 38 and 40-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 regarding tax evasion detection.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nChecks and Balances:\n\nSection 38 grants free access to premises but requires prior authorization.\n\nSection 40-A allows extraordinary measures only with detailed justifications.\no\nProtection Against Misuse:\n\nActions bypassing standard procedures are unsustainable in law.\no\nOutcome:\n\nProcedural violations under Section 40-A invalidate subsequent actions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=38,40,40A", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-772 of 2003, decision dated: 15-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SHABBIR AHMED AND MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner Mr. Khawaja Shamsul Islam. Respondent by: Mr. Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Dy. A.G", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. N. P. Water Proof Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi\nVs\nFederation of Pakistan and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 390 = 2013 SLD 390 = (2013) 108 TAX 188 = 2013 PTCL 499 = 2013 PTD 1536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nInterpretation of Section 36(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and issuance of show-cause notices.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nEssentials of Show-Cause Notices:\n\nNotices must provide clear evidence of collusion, deliberate acts, or errors.\n\nGeneric references to statutory terms do not establish jurisdiction.\no\nOutcome:\n\nShow-cause notices lacking substantive evidence are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.1 of 2009, decision dated: 31st May, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Basit for Petitioner. Ahmed Raza for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CARETEX \nVs \nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 391 = 2013 SLD 391 = 2013 PTCL 658 = 2013 PTD 1545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nDelay in processing refund claims under Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nMaladministration:\n\nDelay in resolving systemic issues, such as input tax adjustments with provincial tax authorities, constitutes maladministration.\no\nRecommendation:\n\nFederal Board of Revenue (FBR) directed to resolve systemic issues and process claims within 30 days.\no\nOutcome:\n\nOmbudsman ruled in favor of the complainant.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(14),7(1),10Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 19/KHI/ST (03)l56 of- 2013, decision dated: 2-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Hussain Kureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Dr. M. Farogh Naseem, Ghulamullah, Abdul Wasey Samdani, CFO and M. Hanif Shaikh, FCA Authorized Representatives. Mirza Nasir Ali, DCIR, Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LOTTE PAKISTAN (PTA) LTD \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 10 = 2015 SLD 10 = 2015 PTD 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nTax credit apportionment for Independent Power Producers (IPPs) under Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nApportionment Rules:\n\nInput tax credit must be apportioned between taxable and exempt supplies under Section 8(2) and related rules.\n\nCapacity Purchase Price is excluded from the taxable value.\no\nOutcome:\n\nAppeals by taxpayers dismissed; tax credit apportionment upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(2),7,2(46),11(2),33,34,71", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos. 605/LB, to 608/LB and 979/LB to 982/LB of 2013, decision dated: 13-12-2013, hearing DATE : 6-12-2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JAVED IQBAL, CH. SHAHID IQBAL DHILLON, MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBERS, SOHAIL AFZAL, MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR AND FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, FCA, Rashid Ibrahim, FCA, Hafiz Muhammad Idrees and Umar Arsha for Appellants\nSikandar Naeem Qazi, LA, Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, LA and Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAUJI KABIRWALA POWER COMPANY LTD. and 8 others\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, Zone-III, LTU, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 92 = 2014 SLD 92 = 2014 PLD 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nEviction under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 on grounds of personal need.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nLandlord's Right:\n\nChoice of premises for personal use lies solely with the landlord.\n\nService of eviction notice at the demised premises is valid, even if the tenant is abroad.\no\nOutcome:\n\nEviction orders upheld; constitutional petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=2(g),13,14,15,19,21General Clauses Act, 1897=27Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.S-378 of 2009, decision dated: 15-01-2014, hearing DATE 21st November, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shamshad Ali Qureshi for Petitioner. Mirz,ad Sarfaraz Ahmed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mrs. SHABANA ANJUM\nvs\nMUHAMMAD GULZAR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 91 = 2014 SLD 91 = 2014 PLD 312 = (2014) 109 TAX 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nSale of mortgaged property and priority of government dues under Order XXXIV, Rules 12 & 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nPriority of Government Dues:\n\nGovernment dues do not take precedence over proceeds from the sale of mortgaged property unless the determination of such dues predates the mortgage or charge creation.\n\nMortgage in favor of financial institutions (1987) preceded government claims finalized in 2000.\no\nOutcome:\n\nIntra-Court Appeal dismissed; government dues cannot be cleared from sale proceeds of the mortgaged property.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O,XXXIV,Rr.12,13,73Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3Customs Act, 1969=201,202", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.127 of 2009, decision dated: 23rd January, 2014, hearing DATE : 5-11-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI AND MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sarfaraz Ali, Metlo for Appellants. Nabeel Kolachi for Respondents. Qadir Bux Umrani Official Assignee", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue/Chairman and another\nvs\nMessrs NAYA DAUR MOTOR (PVT) LTD. and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 90 = 2014 SLD 90 = 2014 PLD 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nJudgment requirements and evidentiary analysis in a suit for recovery of possession, declaration, and injunction under Order XX, Rules 4 & 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nJudgment Ingredients:\n\nMust include a concise case statement, issues, findings, and reasoning.\n\nTrial courts must analyze and evaluate evidence thoroughly, even if the defendant does not participate.\no\nOnus of Proof:\n\nLies with the party seeking relief under Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.\no\nOutcome:\n\nJudgments of lower courts set aside due to material irregularities; case remanded for de novo trial.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XX,Rr.4,5Specific Relief Act, 1877=8,42,54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=117", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.149 of 2011, decision dated: 9-12-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Naeem for Applicant. Abdul Sattar Soomro for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHOUS BAKHSH--Applicant\nvs\nSyed ALI NAWAZ SHAH and 8 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 89 = 2014 SLD 89 = 2014 PLD 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nMisuse of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nGuidance for Miscellaneous Applications:\n\nHigh Court directed offices to scrutinize applications under Section 151 carefully to prevent abuse of judicial process.\no\nCriteria for Review:\n\nApplications must be relevant, involve procedural matters, and not affect substantive rights unless justified.\no\nOutcome:\n\nDirections issued for stricter scrutiny of Section 151 applications.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)=14Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151", + "Case #": "Civil Suit No.443 of 2007 and C.M.As. Nos. 11847, 9340, 11846 of 2011; 1235 of 2009, 793 and 9107 of 2008 and 2929 of 2007, decision dated: 6-11-2013", + "Judge Name:": "NAZAR AKBAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Jabbar holding brief for Syed Zaki Muhammad for Plaintiff. Abdul Wajid Wyne and Syed Masroor Ahmed Alvi for Defendants. Irfan Hassan for Defendant. Ms. Naheed Naz for Advocate-General Sindh for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "HUMAIR ASSOCIATES BUILDERS (PVT) LTD. through Authorized Attorney--Plaintiff\nvs\nMessrs CHAPPAL BUILDERS and 9 others----Defendants" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 88 = 2014 SLD 88 = 2014 PLD 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nValidity of references filed under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 in the absence of a Chairman.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDelegation of Power:\n\nDelegated powers of the NAB Chairman remain effective until explicitly revoked or unless the office of the Chairman is vacant.\no\nReference Validity:\n\nReferences filed during a Chairman's absence are valid unless specifically challenged.\no\nOutcome:\n\nPetition dismissed; defect in reference cured upon Chairman's appointment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "National Accountability Ordinance, 1999=18(a),(g)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 3161, 3162 and D-3177 of 2013, decision dated: 6-02-2014, hearing DATE : 19-12-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam for Petitioners (in C.P.No. D-3161 of 2013). Noor Muhammad Dayo, ADPG for Respondents (in C.P.No. D-3161 of 2013). Dilawar Hussain, Standing Counsel for Federation of Pakistan (in C.P.No. D-3161 of 2013)\nKhawaja Shams-ul-Islam for Petitioners (in C.P.No. D-3162 of 2013). Noor Muhammad Dayo, ADPG for Respondents (in C.P.No. D-3162 of 2013). Dilawar Hussain, Standing Counsel for Federation of Pakistan (in C.P.No. D-3162 of 2013)\nHabibullah Khan and Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam for Petitioners (in C.P.No. D-3177 of 2013). NoorMuhammadDayo, ADPG for Respondents (in C.P. No. D-3177 of 2013).Dilawar Hussain, Standing Counsel for Federation of Pakistan (in C.P.No. D-3177 of 2013)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Syed ADNAN RASHEED and another\nvs\nNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Director-General, NAB, Sindh" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 392 = 2013 SLD 392 = (2013) 108 TAX 377 = 2013 PTD 1582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nConstitutionality of removing goods from zero-rated status under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 via S.R.O. No. 14(1)/2013.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFederal Government’s Powers:\n\nUnder Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the government can amend or rescind notifications, including zero-rating changes.\no\nImpact on Petitioners:\n\nNo retrospective effect or infringement of vested rights; S.R.O. applied prospectively.\no\nOutcome:\n\nConstitutional petition dismissed; S.R.O. upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=4,3General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9839 of 2013, heard on 20-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SHEZADA MAZHAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barrister Mian Bilal for Petitioner and Muhammad Yahya Johar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN READYMADE GARMENTSMANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION (\"\"PRGMEA\"\") through Chairman\nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 298 = 2005 SLD 298 = 2005 PTCL 62 = (2005) 91 TAX 75 = 2004 PTD 3020", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "o\nRe-agitation of finalized adjudication orders under Sections 36 and 45 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFinality of Orders:\n\nAdjudication orders unchallenged in appeals or revisions are binding and cannot be re-agitated.\no\nPrinciples of Justice:\n\nReopening settled matters creates legal uncertainty and undermines fairness.\no\nOutcome:\n\nRe-agitation disallowed; appeal upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,14,15,22,23,26,33,36,45,47(5),65,ItemsNo.37 oftheSixth ScheduleCustoms Act, 1969=Chapter30oftheFirstSchedule", + "Case #": "Special Sales Tax Appeal No. 62 of 2004, decision dated: 5-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SHABBIR AHMED AND MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Qazi Faez Isa. Respondent by: Mr. A. Saeed Khan Ghori", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Pakistan Limited, Karachi\nVs\nCollector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), KarachIIII, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 299 = 2005 SLD 299 = 2005 PTCL 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nApplicability of Sections 3B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and 3D of the Central Excises Act, 1944 for refunds.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nConditions for Applicability:\n\nThese sections apply only when taxes are collected due to misapprehension or error, not when collected under legal directives.\no\nRefund Claims:\n\nRefunds are valid if taxes are later declared ultra vires, irrespective of consumer burden.\no\nOutcome:\n\nRefund claims allowed; department’s denial overturned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3", + "Case #": "Appeal Nos. 2617, 2618/LB/2001 and 602/LB/2004, decision dated: 13-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL AND MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Tariq Najib ch., Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. M. B. Tahir, senior D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Leghari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Rahim Yar Khan and others\nVs\nAdditional Collector, Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Multan and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 300 = 2005 SLD 300 = 2005 PTCL 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\no\nPrinciples for granting similar relief under Section 3-D of the Central Excises Act, 1944.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nGood Governance:\n\nSimilarly placed individuals must be accorded the same relief as decided by courts.\no\nExceptions to Section 3-D:\n\nCourt rulings, such as misapprehension or ultra vires decisions, override Section 3-D.\no\nOutcome:\n\nRefund allowed under exceptions; broader application of equitable principles affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Appeal No. K-42/2002, decision dated: 21st December, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MIR FUAD MEMBER TECHNICAL, MR. SULTAN AHMED SIDDIQUI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND MR. ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Muhammad Usman, Consultant and Mr. Ikram Fayyaz, Advocate. Respondents by: Mr. Malik Muhammad Sadiq and Mr. Muhammad Jilani Khan, Supdt./D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. National Beverages (Pvt.) Limited\nVs\nAdditional Collector of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax (West), Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 301 = 2005 SLD 301 = 2005 PTCL 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nAmendment in memo of writ petition and consequential amendment in prayer clause under Articles 185 and 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nThe amendment was deemed necessary to determine the real controversy, avoid multiplicity of litigation, and serve justice without prejudice to the opposing side.\no\nRemand to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits was required due to the amendments.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nPetition converted into an appeal, allowed, and remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 141 of 2002, heard on 16-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE HAMID ALI MIRZA AND MR. JUSTICE TANVIR AHMED KHAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioners by: Mr. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Sr. ASC and Mr. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR. Respondent by: Mr. Raja Muhammad lrshad, D.A.G.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Pioneer Cement Ltd., Jauharabad\nVs\nAssistant Collector of Sales Tax, Sargodha & others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 302 = 2005 SLD 302 = 2005 PTCL 304 = 2005 PTD 1850 = (2005) 91 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nTribunal’s discretion to waive/remit additional tax and penalties under Sections 33, 34, and 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTribunal holds discretion to waive additional tax and penalties if non-payment is not willful or malicious but due to uncertainties in law or factual circumstances.\no\nThe use of discretion based on facts and law is justified and not open to challenge.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nWaiver/remission of additional tax and penalties upheld as a legitimate exercise of discretion.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,34(1),46", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 3, 6 AND 7 OF 2002, heard on 26-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE NASIM SIKANDAR AND MR. JUSTICE, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Ch. Saghir Ahmed, Advocate, Respondent by: Mr. Umar Arshad, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "Additional Collector Sales Tax, Collectorate of Sales Tax, Multan\nVs\nM/s. Nestle Milk Pak Ltd., Kabirwala and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 303 = 2005 SLD 303 = 2005 PTCL 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nDistinction between federal/provincial governments and local bodies under Article 7 of the Constitution and Section 2(46)(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFederal and provincial duties are included in the value of supply, but local body taxes (e.g., zila tax, octroi) are excluded.\no\nLocal bodies are distinct entities, separate from federal and provincial governments, per Article 7 of the Constitution.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nZila tax and octroi charges are excluded from the value of supply for sales tax calculations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46)(a)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 971/LB/2002, decision dated: 22-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL AND MR. SARJRAZ AHMED KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Ali, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. M.B. Tahir, S.D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Tetra Pak Limited, Lahore\nVs\nCollector of Sales Tax, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 304 = 2005 SLD 304 = 2005 PTCL 347 = (2005) 91 TAX 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nInterpretation and scope of Section 7-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and related rules for undocumented sectors.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nSection 7-A and Chapter XII of the Sales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2004 are complementary to other sections and aim to bring undocumented sectors into the tax net pragmatically.\no\nGuidelines issued to remove disparities in implementation, particularly regarding steel production and sales tax applicability.\no\nProvisions are not discriminatory or contradictory to the Act.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRules and provisions upheld as valid, with directions to remove disparities and ensure compliance with specified procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(41),2(46),3,7", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-845, D-872 and D-873 of 2004, decision dated: 21st September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SHABBIR AHMED AND MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULAH SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Abid S. Zuberi and Mr. Ishrat Alavi. Respondents by: Mr. Aziz A. Shaikh, Mr. Fateh Muhammad, Additional Collector, Mr. Raja M. Iqbal and Mr. M.G. Dastagir", + "Petitioner Name:": "Amreli Steels (Pvt.) Ltd. and others\nVs\nFederation of Pakistan and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 305 = 2006 SLD 305 = 2006 PCRLJ 927 = 2007 PTCL 400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nBail refusal in cases of large-scale fraud under Section 497 of Cr.P.C. and relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFraud exceeding Rs. 9 crore involving sophisticated schemes and deliberate evasion cannot justify bail, even if the offense does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1).\no\nBail petitions dismissed to protect the state exchequer.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nBail petitions rejected; fraud and plundering of national exchequer viewed as aggravating factors.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(2),2(37),3(1)(a),4(a),6,7,8,10(1),22(1),23(1),26(1),33,33(3),33(4),33(5),33(11),33(13),33(16),33(17),33(18),33(19),34,37,37A,37B,73Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497,497(1)", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.10404/B of 2006 and 945/B of 2007, decision dated: 28-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. Basit for Petitioner. \nMian Muhammad Abbas for Petitioner in (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 945/B of 2007).\nM. Nawaz Cheema Legal Advisor to Customs Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISHAQ SAQI \nVs \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 305 = 2005 SLD 305 = 2005 PTCL 536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nInclusion of provincial excise duty in the value of supply under Sections 2(19) and 2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nProvincial excise duty forms an integral part of the value of supply regardless of whether it is paid directly by the supplier or recipient.\no\nShort payment of sales tax due to misinterpretation is subject to recovery within the three-year limitation under Section 36(2).\no\nAdditional tax/penalty not justified when discrepancies arise from interpretation issues rather than willful evasion.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSales tax liability clarified, with a focus on compliance with Section 2(46); penalties waived due to non-willful default.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 7(100)ST/TRF/2003(PB), decision dated: 8-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJA MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL).", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. S. K. Masood Kiani and Mr. Isaac Ali Qazi, Adv. Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, D.R., Mr. Shuaib Sultan, Sr. Auditor, Mr. Muhammad Younas, Sr. Auditor, Mr. Fazal Hameed, Sr. Auditor and Mr. Abdul Rauf Rohaila, Advc.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Kazan Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Peshawar\nVs\nAdditional Collector of Customs, Sales Tax & Central Excise (Appeals), Rawalpindi and other" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 306 = 2005 SLD 306 = 2005 PTCL 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nClassification of catalysts and their exemption status under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 and related SROs.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCatalysts are not raw materials but integral parts of machinery/plant and essential for chemical processes (e.g., fertilizer production).\no\nExempt from customs duty and sales tax under SRO 515(I)/89 and SRO 959(I)/89, as they are inseparable from plant machinery.\no\nPlant and machinery are treated synonymously in this context.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nCatalysts, epoxy grout, and specialty paints exempted from customs duty and sales tax; definition and role of catalysts clarified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "CA No. 1093 and 1876 of 1996, heard on 8-06-2004 and 10-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J. MR. JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL AND MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. S. M. Zafar, Sr. ASC. Respondents by: Mr. Abdul Hafeez Piizada, Sr. ASC, Mr. M. Afzal Siddiqui, ASC, Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR and Mr. Khalid Anwar, Sr. ASC", + "Petitioner Name:": "The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi & others\nVs\nFauji Fertilizer Co. Ltd. & others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 307 = 2005 SLD 307 = 2005 PTCL 754 = 2005 PTD 2286 = (2005) 91 TAX 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nContempt of Court: Allegations of violating Supreme Court orders regarding refund of customs duty, sales tax, and service charges.\n2.\nRes Judicata: Application of constructive res judicata in refund matters under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).\n3.\nRefund Entitlement: Principles for determining refund eligibility under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCourt orders must be explicit, and compliance cannot rely on implied obligations.\no\nCentral Board of Revenue (CBR) had requested accounts to evaluate refunds, which the petitioner failed to provide, leading to adverse presumptions under Article 129, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.\no\nRefund claims are contingent upon proving that the burden of indirect taxes was not passed on to end consumers, per Section 64-A, Sales of Goods Act, 1930, and Section 3-B, Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nSupreme Court declined to grant refunds, emphasizing compliance with equitable and statutory obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3B,6,66Customs Act, 1969=30,33,18B,19Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=64-ACode of Civil Procedure of 1882=11,O.II,R.2", + "Case #": "Criminal Original Petition No.15 of 2002 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.179 of 2002 in Civil Review Petition No.80 of 1999, decision dated: 11-05-2005, hearing DATE : 11th to 14-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BAHGWANDAS AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nMakhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney-General for Pakistan; Faisal Hussain Naqvi, Advocate; Suleman Afridi, Advocate; M. Ramzan Bhatti, Member Customs and Shahid Ahmed Member Sales Tax for Respondent No. 1.\nAbdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court; Mian Gul Hasan Aurangzeb, Advocate and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.2 to 10.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FECTO BELARUS TRACTOR LTD \nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Finance Economic Affairs and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 308 = 2005 SLD 308 = 2005 PTCL 841", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nMandatory Time Limit under Section 36(3), Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nTime limits under Section 36(3) are mandatory as they empower public functionaries to impose liabilities on citizens. Failure to act within the prescribed time invalidates the claim.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman upheld the mandatory nature of the time limit, safeguarding taxpayer rights.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=32", + "Case #": "Representation under Section 32 of the Ordinance XXXV of 2000 against findings of the Federal Tax Ombudsman dated 28.05.2004 in Complainant No. 805/2003", + "Judge Name:": "PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN CBR/Sales Tax Department \nVs\nM/s. Pace International, Rawalpindi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 302 = 2007 SLD 302 = 2007 PTCL 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssues:\no\nExtension of Time: Authority of CBR and Collector to extend payment timelines under Sections 2(9), 26, and 74.\no\nWaiver of Additional Tax and Penalty: Whether paying sales tax in installments negates additional tax and penalties.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCompetent authority allowing installment payments implicitly waived additional taxes and penalties.\no\nAbsence of explicit orders for penalties does not negate implied waivers.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAdditional taxes and penalties imposed by lower forums were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(9),26,26AA", + "Case #": "STA NO. 763/LB/2006, decision dated: 14-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Omar Arshad, Advocate, Respondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Farooq Habib Textile Mills Limited, Lahore\nVs\nCollectorate of Sales Tax, Multan and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 303 = 2007 SLD 303 = 2007 PTCL 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nApplicability of Sales Tax General Order No. 1 of 1998 to independently registered manufacturers.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nThe General Order applies to manufacturers working under principals, not independent entities filing separate returns and paying taxes directly.\no\nMisapplication of the General Order invalidates the demand raised by the department.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nDemand against the appellant was quashed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3", + "Case #": "Appeal No. STA 85LB/2006, decision dated: 10-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MR. ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED MEMBER(TECHNICAL).", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr, M. Aslam Zaeem, Advocate. Respondents by: Mr. Khalid Mehmood, D.R. and Mr. Farhan Sayyed, Auditor", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Mian Cotton Industries, Ghalla Mandi, Faqirwali\nVs\nCollector of Sales Tax, Multan and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 306 = 2006 SLD 306 = 2006 PTCL 626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssues:\no\nClassification and exemption of needles under the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nRefund eligibility for Disposable Syringes when sales tax was inadvertently paid during exemption.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNeedles were not declared as drugs and were not exempt from sales tax.\no\nDisposable Syringes qualified for refunds as the incidence of sales tax was not passed to consumers during the exempt period.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nRefund for Disposable Syringes allowed; refund for needles denied.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 149/LB/2003, decision dated: 21st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. SHER ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Tariq Najib Chaudhry, Advocate. Respondent by: Mr. M.B. Tahir, S.D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Becton Dickinson Services (Pvt.) Ltd\nVs\nCollector of Customs, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 393 = 2013 SLD 393 = 2013 PDS 1683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue:\nRejection of refund or input tax credit due to blacklisting of suppliers under Rule 12(5), Sales Tax Rules, 2006.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nRefund or input tax credit cannot be denied if the blacklisting occurred after the transactions or if the buyer was uninvolved in tax fraud or evasion.\no\nTransactions were verified through FBR’s portal, confirming their legitimacy.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nAppeal by the Revenue Department dismissed as frivolous; order favoring the taxpayer upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Rules, 2006=R-12,12(5)", + "Case #": "STA No. 95A/IB/2012 Dale of hearing 26-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Jawad Ahmed, DR Respondent by Mr. Rahat Shaheen Khokhar, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "CIR, RTO, Rawalpindi --Appellant\nVs\nM/s. New Rashid Autos, Rawalpindi. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 394 = 2013 SLD 394 = 2013 PDS 1729 = 2013 PTD 2344 = (2014) 109 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Requisites for issuing a valid show-cause notice in taxation matters.\n•\nKey Points:\n1.\nA valid show-cause notice must meet requirements such as proper service, specific allegations, stated amounts, and clear, unambiguous grounds.\n2.\nThe notice should reflect an open mind and not a pre-judged conclusion.\n3.\nNon-compliance with these principles renders the proceedings void.\n•\nOutcome: Proceedings initiated without a valid show-cause notice violate principles of natural justice and are illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33", + "Case #": "STA No. 375/IB/2012 hearing DATE 28-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN AND MR. FAHIM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "AIRBLUE LTD., ISLAMABAD \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 395 = 2013 SLD 395 = 2013 PDS 1685", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Tax fraud allegations and procedural fairness.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRegistered person allegedly issued fake invoices for fraudulent refunds.\no\nAppellant denied allegations, claiming misuse of their registration number.\no\nTribunal found procedural lapses, including failure to provide relevant records for rebuttal.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded for de novo investigation, ensuring the appellant's right to rebut allegations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),34(1),33(4)(f)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1477/LB/2009 hearing DATE 23.07.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s Adil Textile Traders, Lahore. --Appellant\nVs\nThe C.I.R. (Legal Division), R.T.O., Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 396 = 2013 SLD 396 = 2013 PDS 1686", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Allegations of issuing fake invoices to facilitate tax fraud.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSimilar to SLD #10949, the appellant denied allegations and sought records for defense.\no\nTribunal emphasized the need for procedural fairness and thorough investigation.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded for de novo investigation with directives to ensure procedural compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),34(1),33(4)(f)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1517/LB/2009 hearing DATE 23.07.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Shahzad Textile Traders, Lahore. --Appellant\nVs\nThe C.I.R. (Legal Division), R.T.O., Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 307 = 2006 SLD 307 = 2006 PTD 1976", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Charging of regulatory duty on goods imported at 0% or free of duty .\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPetitioners argued that free of duty imports should not attract regulatory duty.\no\nCourt clarified that 0% and free of duty convey the same meaning under the Customs Act, 1969.\no\nRegulatory duty applies regardless of the distinction between the terms.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; regulatory duty upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,18(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos.223 to 226 of 2003, decision dated: 26-01-2005, hearing DATE : 26-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J. AND ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh and Ch. Muhammad Wasim Iqbal for Petitioners. Nadeem Qureshi for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "PARKE DAVIS & COMPANY LTD. and others \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through Assistant Collector Customs AFU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 203 = 2010 SLD 203 = 2010 PTD 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Jurisdiction of High Court to review its own orders in taxation cases.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nNeither the Customs Act, 1969, nor the Sales Tax Act, 1990, provides for review jurisdiction in the High Court.\no\nReview applications are not maintainable under these statutes.\n•\nOutcome: Review application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "C.M.As. Nos.1080, 2108 and 2109 of 2009 in Customs Reference No.237 of 2006, decision dated: 23rd October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SADAAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Iqbal for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAROOF OIL COMPANY through Authorized Representative \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 204 = 2010 SLD 204 = 2010 PTD 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Applicability of federal taxes on imports destined for tribal areas.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxes on imported goods are levied at the point of import, irrespective of their final destination.\no\nNon-extension of tax laws to tribal areas does not exempt goods imported into Pakistan from taxation.\n•\nOutcome: Levy upheld; petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=12BConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,247(3)Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1134, 1191, 1208, 1239, 1246, 1617 of 2004, 5, 6, 157, 158 of 2005, 50, 51, 223, 844, 854 of 2006 and 1049 of 2007, decision dated: 18-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J. AND ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isacc Ali Qazi for Petitioners. Iqbal Mohmand, Dy. A.G. for Respondents Nos.1, 2.\nRaja Muhammad Irshad, S. Muhammad Ghazi, Ozair Kirmat Bandari, Shamshad Ali Cheema, Muhammad Hamayun Khan along with Muhammad Jamil, Law Officer for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, 7 to 10.\nEid Muhammad Wahallah for Respondent No. 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LAL GHEE OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive \nVs \nPAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and 9 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 232 = 2012 SLD 232 = 2012 PTCL 115 = 2012 PTD 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Inclusion of royalty and license fees in customs value.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCompanies excluded royalty and license fees from customs declarations, leading to allegations of misdeclaration.\no\nCourt upheld the requirement under Section 25(2)(d)(e), Customs Act, 1969, to include such fees in customs value.\no\nDeliberate exclusion constituted misdeclaration.\n•\nOutcome: Misdeclaration charges upheld; orders against companies affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25(2)(d)(e),32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.K-306 and K-330 of 2009, decision dated: 2-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ZIAULLAH KAYANI, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Ishaq and Hussain Bukhari for Appellants (in Appeal No. 330 of 2009). Sultan Mehmood and Arshad Majeed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HONDA ATLAS CARS (PAKISTAN) LTD. LAHORE and others \nVs \nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS) CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 205 = 2010 SLD 205 = 2010 PTD 1024", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Jurisdiction and delegation of authority in appellate matters.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nChairman of the Tribunal must exercise authority for case allocation; it cannot be delegated to the Registrar.\no\nOrders passed by a single Member without proper entrustment are void for lack of jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome: Impugned order set aside; principles of jurisdiction clarified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(1),46,47(1)Federal Excise Rules, 2005=51Federal Excise Act, 2005=2(3),34(2)(3)Customs Act, 1969=194C,196", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos.12, 13 of 2005, Custom References Nos. 1, 14, 16, 20. 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35 to 40 43, 45, 46, 50, 71, 78, 79 of 2009, decision dated: 24-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haq, Zubair Khalid, Standing Counsel for Pakistan with Zia Ullah Kiani, Chairman, Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal for Petitioners. Anwar-ul-Haq, Umar Arshad Hakeem, Kh. Aamir Farooq, Malik Ahsan Mahmood, Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Umar Ahmad Khan,-Najam ul Hassan, Jabbar Qadir, Malik Muhammad Akram, Arslan Pervaiz Durrani, Muhammad Akram Nizami, Waseem Ahmad Malik and Andaz Jillani Khan Lodhi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE), FAISALABAD and another \nVs\nBAGH ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 327 = 2000 SLD 327 = 2000 PLC 258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Prohibitory orders against victimization of union members.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nUnion alleged victimization through charge sheets issued by the establishment.\no\nInterim prohibitory orders granted to prevent unfair labor practices.\n•\nOutcome: Interim prohibitory orders confirmed; parties directed to present evidence.", + "Court Name:": "National Industrial Relations Commission", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Cases Nos. 4 A(267) K and 24(266) K of 1998 L, hearing DATE ; 24-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "AIJAZ AHMAD K. SHAIKH, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.P. Lodhi for Applicant AND Shaikh Haider Bux for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "JABEES EMPLOYEES‘ UNION through General Secretary\nVs\nMessrs HOTEL JABEES through Managing Director" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 328 = 2000 SLD 328 = 2000 PLC 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Layoff due to financial difficulties and interim prohibitory orders.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nUnion alleged employer used financial difficulties as a pretext to pressure employees into a settlement.\no\nEmployer justified layoffs based on economic hardship and reduced production.\n•\nOutcome: Interim prohibitory order granted earlier was recalled, as financial difficulties are valid grounds for layoffs. Allegations of coercion to sign a settlement require evidence for final resolution.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973=32(2)(c)", + "Case #": "Cases Nos.4 A(294) K and 24(294) K of 1998, decision dated: 11-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "AIJAZ AHMAD K. SHAIKH, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Amjad for Applicant AND Mehmood Abdul Ghani for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASHIMI CAN COMPANY EMPLOYEES UNION through General Secretary\nVs\nHASHIMI CAN COMPANY through Manager Personnel and Administration" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 329 = 2000 SLD 329 = 2000 PLC 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Jurisdiction dependent on preconditions and wages dispute.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nJurisdiction requires existence of necessary facts and preconditions.\no\nCost of living allowance and overtime are not part of wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.\n•\nOutcome: Order by the Commissioner for payment of cost of living allowance was set aside as it was outside jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Payment of Wages Act, 1936=15Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Employees Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1974=7", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2708 of 1985, decision dated: 4-08-1999, hearing DATE : 3rd August, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mubin ud Din Qazi for Petitioner AND Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER, WORKMEN‘S COMPENSATION and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 206 = 2010 SLD 206 = (2010) 102 TAX 206 = 2010 PTD 2036", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Maintainability of constitutional petition for tax exemption dispute.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAuthority raised tax demand without issuing a show-cause notice, denying petitioner a chance to appeal.\no\nAFCAT (Artificial Filament Cellulose Acetate Tow) classified as a textile under relevant PCT heading was exempt from tax.\n•\nOutcome: Constitutional petition allowed; exemption upheld as AFCAT qualifies under the notification.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=4,4(c)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 252 of 2009, heard on 9-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousuf Sayeed for Petitioner. Zain A. Jatoi for Respondent No. 1. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "FILTERS PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED \nVs \nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Member Customs and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 397 = 2013 SLD 397 = 2013 PDS 1742", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Stay against sales tax demand and pending appeal.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer sought stay for a sales tax demand of Rs. 305.04 million but failed to provide evidence of coercion.\n•\nOutcome: Stay denied; appellate authority directed to resolve the matter within one month.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "STA NO.493/LB/2012 hearing DATE 21.05.2012", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Nestle Pakistan Ltd., Lahore. --Appellant\nVs\nCIR, Zone-II, LTU, Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 398 = 2013 SLD 398 = 2013 PDS 1743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Ex-parte order and lack of proper examination of documents.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer argued that relevant sales tax invoices and records were not properly reviewed.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded for de novo consideration to ensure a fair review of documents.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1),11(2),25,8(1)(ca)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.120/IB/2012 July, 2010 to March, 2011, hearing DATE 15/07/2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. MIA Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. No.384 Street No. 16, Industrial Area I9/3 Islamabad. --Appellant\nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, LTU, G9/1 Islamabad. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 399 = 2013 SLD 399 = 2013 PDS 1744", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Audit selection and legality of proceedings.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAudit selection under Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, challenged as unconstitutional.\no\nCited previous rulings declaring similar actions invalid.\n•\nOutcome: Audit proceedings declared void and null due to lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25,25(2)Federal Excise Act, 2005=46(1)Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=177(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1231/LB/2012, hearing DATE 15/07/2013. DATE of order 12/08/2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Khurram, Advocate and Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan, ITP, Respondent by Syed Mehmood-ul-Hassan Jaffri, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Bibojee Services Pvt. Ltd., Lahore. --Appellant\nVs\nThe CIR, RTO, Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 400 = 2013 SLD 400 = 2013 PDS 1745", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Late filing of returns, input tax claim, and penalty.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nInput tax claim disallowed and penalty imposed for late return filing.\n•\nOutcome: Input tax claim allowed; penalty for late filing upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 98/LB/2012, hearing DATE 05.04.2012. DATE of order 30.05.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Zahid Ateeq Ch., Adv. Respondent by Mrs. Humaira Maryum, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Qureshi Packages (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore. --Appellant\nVs\nCIR, (AppeaLII), RTO, Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 401 = 2013 SLD 401 = (2013) 108 TAX 269 = 2013 PTD 2219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Remand powers of appellate authority.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer argued denial of proper opportunity to present their case.\no\nAppellate authority remanded the case to the adjudicating officer for reconsideration.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal upheld the remand, emphasizing the authority's power to do so under Section 45-B(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 284/IB/2012, hearing DATE 28/05/2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON AND MR. FAHIM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, ISLAMABAD \nVs\nAIRBLUE LIMITED, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1010 = 2001 SLD 1010 = 2001 PLD 5 = (2001) 83 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Discrimination in valuation of goods.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPetitioner alleged unequal treatment in customs valuation compared to similar importers.\no\nCourt emphasized the need for authorities to justify any differential treatment.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded for reassessment, ensuring consistency in valuation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,199Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.840 of 1985, heard on 3rd October, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Khurshid for Petitioner. Izhar-ul-Haq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALEEM & CO. through Sh. Habib UllaH\nvs\nTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE DRY PORT, MUGHALPURA, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1305 = 2001 SLD 1305 = 2001 PLD 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Remand and treatment of documentary evidence.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nFirst appellate court remanded the case for further evidence despite existing sufficient evidence.\no\nHigh Court directed the appellate court to decide the case based on existing evidence or take additional evidence itself.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded to the first appellate court for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,Rr.23,24,115,27,31", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 1365 of 1990, heard on 26-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sandhu with Muhammad Yousuf Khan for petitioners. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD QASIM and 6 others\nvs\nMUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and 8 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1306 = 2001 SLD 1306 = 2001 PLD 13", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Blacklisting of a firm without a show-cause notice.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPetitioner failed contractual obligations but alleged it was due to material unavailability.\no\nBlacklisting was done without providing an opportunity to be heard.\n•\nOutcome: Blacklisting order was set aside as it violated principles of natural justice.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4866 of 1984, heard on 18-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Majid Khan for Petitioner. Jehangir A. J0Jha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZULFIQAR ALI \nvs\nDIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT (WORKSHOPS), PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MOGHALPURA, LAHORE and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 402 = 2013 SLD 402 = 2013 PDS 1748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Jurisdictional error in adjudication and double taxation issues.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAdjudicating officer acted beyond his legal jurisdiction.\no\nTribunal found subsequent proceedings and orders to be void.\n•\nOutcome: Orders were vacated, and the case was annulled based on jurisdictional grounds.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,32,36(1),36(3),33(4),33(5),72", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 155/IB/2012 Tax period July 2005 to June 2008", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Naveed Hassan, DR. Respondent by Mr. Atif Waheed, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "CIR, Legal Division, Zone-I, RTO, Islamabad. --Appellant\nVs\nM/s. Nera Asa, Islamabad. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 403 = 2013 SLD 403 = 2013 PDS 1749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Inadequate appellate disposal of input tax adjustment case.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCIR (A) failed to adequately address the facts and legal issues.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal vacated the order and remanded the case for a fresh decision with detailed narration and legal reasoning.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(2),33,34", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 187/IB/2012 hearing DATE 13-02-2013. DATE of order 28-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN TAREEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. D. Watson Chemist, Super Market F6, Islamabad. --Appellant\nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, Audit-III, Zone-I, R.T.O., Islamabad. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 404 = 2013 SLD 404 = 2013 PDS 1750", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Disallowance of input tax due to fake invoices.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer’s input tax claims were disallowed due to transactions based on fake invoices.\no\nTribunal upheld disallowance, citing legal requirements and lack of documentary evidence.\n•\nOutcome: Actions of revenue authorities were maintained; disallowance of input tax was justified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(14),2(37),7,8(1)(d),8A,11(2),36(1),46,46(1),73Sales Tax Rules, 2006=12(5)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=2(8),92,117,118", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 208/IB/2011 (Tax Year 2009) U/s. 46(1) hearing DATE 13.03.2013. DATE of order 25.03.2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN\nFAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Advocate\nRespondent(s) by: Mr. Ihsanullah, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. MUGHAL ENTERPRISES, RAWALPINDI\nVS\nTHE CIR (APPEALS-III), ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 405 = 2013 SLD 405 = 2013 PDS 1751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Presumptive tax demand on lubricating oil supplies.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDepartment alleged supplies were repacked instead of sold in bulk but failed to provide evidence.\no\nTribunal found the case based on presumptions.\n•\nOutcome: Demand was annulled; taxpayer’s appeal was successful.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(2)(cc)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2312/LB/2009 hearing DATE 05/03/2013", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Saood Nasrullah Cheema, Advocate. Respondent by Mrs. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Standard Petroleum (Pvt.) Ltd., Sheikhupura. --Appellant\nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, RTO, Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 270 = 2011 SLD 270 = (2011) 103 TAX 238 = 2011 PTD 838", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Refund of input tax deferred due to discrepancies.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRefund deferred for reasons like invalid registration and output exceeding declared input.\no\nTribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reassess the claim after providing the taxpayer an opportunity to explain discrepancies.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded for re-evaluation and a fresh speaking order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(4),11(2),2(14),4,7,8,26,73,33(11)(a)(c)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.476/LB of 2009, decision dated: 19-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "M.A., JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Javed for Appellant. Miss Sumaira Umer, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs J.K. SONS (PVT.) LTD., FAISALABAD \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 63 = 1976 SLD 63 = (1977) 35 TAX 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Constitutional petition filed despite pending statutory reference.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer filed a constitutional petition while a statutory reference was already pending.\n•\nOutcome: Petition was dismissed as premature, emphasizing the necessity to exhaust statutory remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1035 of 1975, decision dated: 21-6-1976. dates of hearing : 25th and 26-05-1976", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON AND M.A. RASHID, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Fazlur Rahman, for the Petitioner. S. A. Nusrat, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "SCHINDLER FATEHALLY & MERIN LTD\nVs\nSALES TAX OFFICER, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 64 = 1976 SLD 64 = (1977) 35 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Exemption and retrospective application of notification.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSarson oil was not exempt from sales tax during the relevant period.\no\nNotification granting exemption could not apply retrospectively without explicit legislative intent.\n•\nOutcome: Tax liability upheld; retrospective application of notification was rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(4),7(1),23", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 188 of 1971, decision dated: 21-1-1977", + "Judge Name:": "SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate, for the Petitioner. M. A. Lone, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAWAJA OF L MILLS, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 406 = 2013 SLD 406 = 2013 PTCL 663 = 2013 PTD 1651 = (2014) 109 TAX 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Exemption applicability to printing services and books.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSales tax exemption on books does not extend to printing services.\no\nTextbook Board was obligated to withhold sales tax on payments to printers.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal upheld the assessment order; exemption for books did not apply to printing services.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,2(3),2(46)13,Sched", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 11-P of 2013, decision dated: 13-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND UL-AMIN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ishtiaq Ahmad for Appellant. Ghulam Shoaib J ally for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA TEXT BOOK BOARD, PESHAWAR \nVs\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER IR (E&C) and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 407 = 2013 SLD 407 = 2013 PTD 1702", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Amnesty scheme for waiver of additional tax and penalties.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer sought benefit under amnesty after paying sales tax before scheme announcement.\no\nTribunal found the benefit should apply retrospectively in the taxpayer's favor.\n•\nOutcome: Federal Tax Ombudsman directed the resolution in favor of the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,34(1)(c),33(13)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.81/LHR/ST/(12)/153 of 2013, decision dated: 24-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Ahmad, Advisor Dealing Officer. M. Wasim Ch., Authorized Representative. Faisal Asghar, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "EAGLE ENGINEERING WORKS \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 408 = 2013 SLD 408 = 2013 PTD 1705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Suspension and blacklisting of sales tax registration.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSuspension based on presumptions without fulfilling procedural requirements.\no\nTribunal found the order to be void ab initio due to lack of evidence and procedural lapses.\n•\nOutcome: Suspension and blacklisting orders were annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21,21(2),2(14)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.150/LB of 2013, decision dated: 2-05-2013, hearing DATE ; 23 April, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Rashid for Appellant. Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs USMAN JAVED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD \nVs\nCIR (LEGAL DIVISION), FTO, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 409 = 2013 SLD 409 = 2013 PTD 1760 = (2014) 109 TAX 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Search and seizure by Sales Tax Authorities without a warrant.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPetitioner alleged unlawful seizure of private records without a warrant.\no\nThe court found no evidence of force or coercion during the search.\no\nSearch and seizure were deemed consistent with the provisions of Ss. 40 and 40-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nOutcome: Constitutional petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40,40AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6461 of 2005, heard on 19-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C.J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Khalid for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAMAL PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. and others \nVs \nSUPERINTENDENT INTELLIGENCE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 410 = 2013 SLD 410 = 2013 PTCL 655 = 2013 PTD 1770 = (2014) 109 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Refund of input tax and maladministration.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer’s refund was delayed despite the Appellate Tribunal's unequivocal decision in favor of refund.\no\nHigh Court reference did not bar disbursement.\no\nDelay constituted maladministration and created a right to compensation under S.67 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nOutcome: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate action on refund and compensation.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,67Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 293/LHR/ST(62)/488 of 2013, decision dated: 3rd July, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Munir Qureshi, Advisor Dealing Officer. Hussain Ahmad Sherazi Authorized Representative. Muhammad Ali, DCIR Departmental Representative", + "Petitioner Name:": "SECCO PAK (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 411 = 2013 SLD 411 = 2013 PTCL 645 = 2013 PTD 1773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Refund claim for zero-rated supplies.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer manufactured shelter houses used for Clean Drinking Water Facilities for All, qualifying as zero-rated supplies.\no\nRefund was denied based on the taxpayer not being the original contract awardee.\no\nTribunal upheld that the taxpayer’s supplies qualified for zero-rating under SRO 549(I)/2008.\n•\nOutcome: Refund claims allowed; prior orders annulled.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10,4(a),FifthSched", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.96/LB of 2012, decision dated: 14-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON AND MIAN MASOOD AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hussain Ahmad Sherazi for Appellant. Yasir Pirzada, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SECCO PAK (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs \nCIR (APPEALII), RTO, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 89 = 1975 SLD 89 = (1976) 34 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Assessment and limitation under the Sales Tax Act, 1951.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPetitioner argued delayed assessments led to tax escaping assessment. \no\nThe court clarified that tax liability accrues when goods are delivered and is not contingent on the assessment timeline.\no\nExemption notifications were not retroactive and did not absolve prior liabilities.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; assessments upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=10,10(3),28(1)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1181 of 1971, decision dated: 27-11-1975, hearing DATE ; 18-4-1975", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Abdul Qadir, Advocate, for the Petitioner. M.A. Lone, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUMTAZ INDUSTRIES\nVs\nSALES TAX OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 90 = 1975 SLD 90 = (1976) 34 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Refund claim based on unauthorized sales tax collection.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer collected sales tax without proper authority and sought a refund after depositing the collected amount with the government.\no\nCourt held the taxpayer acted as an agent of the government and became functus officio after depositing the tax.\n•\nOutcome: Refund claim rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(1),27", + "Case #": "Civil Reference I.T. R. No. 54 of 1967, decision dated: 7.6.1976. dates of hearing : 21-5-1976, 24-5-1976", + "Judge Name:": "SHAMEEM HUSSAIN KADRI AND GUL MOHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Applicant. Muhammad Amin Butt. Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI\nVs\nSAJJAD NAB! DAR AND CO., WAZIRABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 412 = 2013 SLD 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Show-cause notice issued beyond limitation.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTribunal found that the show-cause notice violated time limits set under Ss. 11(4) and 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nOrders were vacated due to procedural infirmities without addressing merits.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal accepted; impugned order set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),36(1),25(3)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 955/LB/2012, DATE of order 01.04.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Advocate. Respondent by Ms. Fouzia Fakhar, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Care Plastic Indus. Sheikhupura\nVs\nCIR(Appeals-III), Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 59 = 1978 SLD 59 = (1979) 39 TAX 8", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Exemption on raw material (copper) versus final product.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer claimed exemption on copper used to manufacture exempted goods.\no\nCourt clarified that raw material is taxable even if the final product is exempt.\no\nRefund of tax on raw material would nullify the exemption on the finished product.\n•\nOutcome: Refund claim denied; assessments upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(12),3(1)(b),4(b),7,8,27(2)", + "Case #": "S. T. A. Ns. 42 of 1975-76 (Assessment year 1971-72), decision dated: 24-4-1978", + "Judge Name:": "M. T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND M. KARIM, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, D. R., for the Appellant. S. A. Khan, Advocate, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 60 = 1978 SLD 60 = (1979) 39 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Refund claim for yarn sales without utilization in production.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessee claimed a refund for sales tax paid on yarn sold without utilizing it to manufacture taxable goods.\no\nTribunal directed verification of sales and refund only for sales to licensed manufacturers or taxable goods.\no\nReference to the High Court was dismissed as the question was not raised before the Tribunal.\n•\nOutcome: Reference dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17,17(2)", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 45 of 1972 (T.R. No. 46 of 1972), decision dated: 23-10-1978, hearing DATE : 19-6-1978", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMIN BUTT AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Haq, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Nemo, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE ZONE, LAHORE\nVs\nLYALLAPUR INDUSTRIES LTD., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1978 61 = 1978 SLD 61 = (1979) 39 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Sales tax return based on excess income declared.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nExcess income agreed upon by the assessee during assessment.\no\nCirculars issued under Martial Law Regulation No. 32 of 1969 permitted accepting returns in such circumstances.\n•\nOutcome: Sales tax return accepted under relevant circulars.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17", + "Case #": "T. R. No. 163 of 1972 (P. T. R. No. 157 of 1972), decision dated: 7-3-1978. dates of hearing : 19, 20, 27-11-1977 and 7-3-1978", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Butt, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nVs\nSTANDARD LEATHER WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 91 = 1975 SLD 91 = (1976) 34 TAX 5", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Exemption for liquefied sodium silicate under Notification No. 9 of 1951.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTribunal found liquefied sodium silicate to be a product of steam, thus qualifying for exemption.\no\nDirected further inquiry to ensure the product consistently met exemption criteria.\n•\nOutcome: Remanded for verification of product consistency.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A.Nos.81(KB) of 1971-72; 22(KB) of 1972-73; 483(KB) of 1973-74;465 (K3) to 468(KB) of 1973-74;477(KB) of 1973-74;K.C.X11565(KB) to CX11566(B) and K.C,XII/567(B) (Assessment years 1958-59 to 1960-61;1963-64 to 1965-66 and 1967-68 to 1971-72), decision dated: 14-12-1974", + "Judge Name:": "M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT, A.A. DARESHANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, M.Z. FARRUKH AND M. KARIM, ACCOUNT MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar and Saeed Ahmad, Advocates, for the Appellant. Miss. Razia Bano, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 413 = 2013 SLD 413 = 2013 PDS 1769", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Input tax adjustment under Section 8B(1).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRegistered person's case did not qualify for exemption under SRO 647(I)/2007.\no\nTribunal remanded the matter for re-adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue (ACIR).\n•\nOutcome: Orders vacated and remanded for fresh adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8B(1),34,33", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 389/LB/2013, DATE of order 22/08/2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. SHAHID IQBAL DHILLON, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MRS. SABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Advocate. Respondent by Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Rehan CAN Private Ltd., 199-A, Model Town, Lahore. --Appellant\nVs\nCommissioner of Inland Revenue, ZonEVII, RTO, Lahore. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 414 = 2013 SLD 414 = 2013 PDS 1770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Limitation in passing orders and reliance on income tax returns.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nOrders passed beyond the statutory limitation of 120 days deemed illegal.\no\nIncome tax records could not form the basis of sales tax adjudication.\no\nPenalty and surcharge require proof of willful default.\n•\nOutcome: Orders vacated and remanded for fresh consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4),36(3)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 49/IB/2012 (Assessment Year 2008-09), hearing DATE 03-09-2013. DATE of order 04-09-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. FAHEEM UL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Syed Tauqeer Bukhari, Advocate. Respondent by Mr. Hameed Ullah Shah, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Global Packers & Movers (Pvt.) Ltd., # 20, Main Murree Road, P & V Scheme IV, Islamabad. --Appellant\nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, R.T.O, Islamabad. --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 308 = 2007 SLD 308 = 2007 PTD 2537 = (2008) 97 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Tax on self-consumption of printed materials.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessee’s printing press produced items for internal use valued over the taxable threshold.\no\nTribunal deemed the self-consumption taxable.\n•\nOutcome: Reference dismissed; self-consumption held taxable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(35),19,45(2),47", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference Application No. 213 of 2006, decision dated: 12-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Farooqi for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, KARACHI \nVs \nCOLLECTOR, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU); KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 309 = 2007 SLD 309 = 2007 PTD 2598 = (2008) 97 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Retrospectivity of a beneficial notification.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nNotification conferred retrospective benefits on assessees.\no\nRetrospective application created vested rights.\n•\nOutcome: Notification upheld as conferring lawful retrospective benefits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(46),47", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 344 of 2001, decision dated: 21st September, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad for Petitioner. Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.A. No. 344 of 2001, decided on 21st September, 2006\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE \nVs \nMessrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS, SHEIKHUPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 310 = 2007 SLD 310 = 2007 PTD 2563 = (2008) 97 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Bank drafts and due date for sales tax payment.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessee deposited bank drafts before the due date.\no\nTribunal held clearance delay irrelevant as liability was absolved upon deposit.\n•\nOutcome: Orders imposing penalties were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(9),47Filing of Monthly Return Rules, 1996=5(3)(4)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 339 of 2001, decision dated: 21st May, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muhammad Afzal for Appellant. Izharul Haque and Mrs. Tayyba Zameer Qureshi for the Revenue", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HUSSAIN GINNERS LTD.; COTTON GINNING AND PRESSING FACTORY through Chief Executive \nVs\nCUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 322 = 2008 SLD 322 = 2008 PTD 1461 = (2008) 97 TAX 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Appeal regarding penalties under S.R.O. 463(I)/2007.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAppeal contested only penal amounts as principal tax was paid.\no\nTribunal granted relief as defects in the appeal were ministerial.\n•\nOutcome: Exemption granted; penalties adjusted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No. 80 of 2007, decision dated: 28-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Petitioner. Muhammad Nawaz Cheema for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "YOUSAF SUGAR MILLS LTD \nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 311 = 2007 SLD 311 = 2007 PTD 2481 = (2007) 96 TAX 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Input tax credit on diesel oil and sales tax on scrap.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDiesel oil listed under SRO 578(I)/1998 was not eligible for input tax credit.\no\nTax on scrap upheld in line with prior judgments.\n•\nOutcome: Tax demand upheld; partial relief granted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,33,8(1)(b)", + "Case #": "Appeal S.T.A. No. 806/LB of 2006, decision dated: 23rd May, 2007, hearing DATE : 9-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shamail Pirachi for Appellant. Khalid Mehmood, D.R. with Israr Khan, Auditor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 312 = 2007 SLD 312 = 2007 PTD 2234 = (2007) 95 TAX 368", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Waiver of additional tax and penalties on installment payments.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessee paid arrears as per installment schedule but without specific waiver for penalties.\no\nTribunal inferred waiver from the installment agreement.\n•\nOutcome: Additional tax and penalties waived.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34(1),33(5)(a)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.763/LB of 2006, decision dated: 14-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omar Arshad for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 313 = 2007 SLD 313 = 2007 PTD 2259 = (2007) 95 TAX 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Tax liability for unregistered wholesale business.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAppellant sought deregistration as a wholesaler but was treated as one without verification.\no\nTribunal found no evidence of wholesale activity post-registration.\n•\nOutcome: Order against the appellant set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3AAA", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1278/LB of 2005, decision dated: 1st March, 2007, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassan Imdad for Appellant. Khalid Mehmood D.R. and M. Haroon, Auditor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 314 = 2007 SLD 314 = 2007 PTD 2295 = (2007) 95 TAX 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Collector's powers to reopen cases.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCollector reopened cases without satisfying legality or propriety requirements.\n•\nOutcome: Reopening found contrary to the spirit of S. 45A(4).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45A(4)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 754/LB of 2006, decision dated: 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Masood Ishaq for Appellant. Nauman Yaqoob, Auditor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 315 = 2007 SLD 315 = 2007 PTD 2299 = (2007) 95 TAX 372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Delay in remanded case decision and input tax adjustments.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDelay did not vitiate proceedings as no limitation was prescribed.\no\nInput tax on wrapping material needed reassessment under the Sales Tax Act, 1951.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded for fresh consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=Preamble,27", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 564/LB of 2006, decision dated: 14-03-2007, hearing DATE : 25-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar, C.A. for Appellant. Khalid Mehmood, D.R. and Javed Shah, S.A. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 316 = 2007 SLD 316 = 2007 PTD 2407 = (2007) 95 TAX 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVYTFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Tax on disposal of fixed assets.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTax not chargeable on disposal as input tax adjustment was not claimed initially.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal accepted; order set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8(1)(b),33(2)(cc)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1073/LB of 2005, decision dated: 23rd February, 2007, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omer Arshad and M. Naeem for Appellant. Khalid Mahmud, D.R. and Irfan Ahmad, S.A. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 317 = 2007 SLD 317 = 2007 PTD 2262 = (2007) 95 TAX 384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Input tax adjustment on utilities without proper documentation.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nBills lacked GST numbers and were not in the taxpayer’s name.\no\nTribunal allowed adjustment using an apportionment formula for taxable supplies.\n•\nOutcome: Adjusted liability recalculated and modified.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 99/LB of 2002, decision dated: 22-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Ahmed, A.R. for Appellant. \nGhulam Sarwar Shah, Assistant Collector for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 318 = 2007 SLD 318 = 2007 PTD 2312 = (2007) 95 TAX 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--Ss. 36(3), 3, 6, 22, 23, 25, 35 & 38---Recovery of tax not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded---Supply against various contracts without payment of sales tax in violation of the provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990---During the proceedings after remand, department after conducting necessary enquiries established that the supplies against the contracts listed in the order actually comprised of goods manufactured by him, which was evident from documents produced and placed on record---Taxation---Assessee contended that demand of tax was raised in respect of over 11 years old period which was barred by time having crossed the limitation period of 3 years or 5 years---Validity---Demand was raised by issuing show-cause notice on 13-10-1993, i.e. within the period of 5 years prescribed under S.36(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the orders passed in consequence thereof were not hit by limitation---Plea that order having been passed after a period of 90 days provided under S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was illegal was not accepted by the Appellate Tribunal---Such provisions of Sales Tax Act, 1990 being directory in nature and not mandatory, did not render an order passed after the period provided therein as illegal---Order not suffering from any illegality or infirmity, appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal being devoid of merit.\n \n(b) Sales tax---\n \n----Exemption---Cottage Industry Scheme---Supply in huge quantities, valuing about Rs.21.14 Million, belies the claim for exemption under Cottage Industry Scheme, which provided for capital employed below Rs.1,00,000 to be entitled to it---Exemption certificates under Cottage Industry Scheme, even if issued by the Department, would be void having been issued by basing same on incorrect information given by the appellant.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,22,23,25,33(2),35,36(3),38", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 874/LB of 2004, decision dated: 14-03-2007, hearing DATE : 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Afzal Hussain, Consultant for Appellant.\nKhalid Mehmood, D.R. and Muhammad Ikram, Auditor for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 319 = 2007 SLD 319 = 2007 PTD 2289 = (2007) 95 TAX 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Additional tax under reduced rates.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessee could not claim reduced rates retrospectively without compliance.\no\nTribunal upheld the rate applicable at the time of default.\n•\nOutcome: Order modified for compliance with the original tax rate.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=26,34,34(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1318/LB of 2005, decision dated: 7-03-2007, hearing DATE : 22-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "CH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Appellants.\nFaisal, S.A. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan for --Appellants.\nFaisal, S.A. for --Respondent.\nARMY WELFARE TRUST - NIZAMPUR CEMENT PLANT, RAWALPINDI \nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 415 = 2013 SLD 415 = (2013) 108 TAX 412 = 2013 PDS 1785 = 2013 PTD 2174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Limitation for adjudication proceedings.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nOrder passed beyond 90 days from FBR’s directive was time-barred.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal set aside the order for exceeding the limitation period.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(3),45A", + "Case #": "M.A. (Rect) S.T.A. No.7/IB of 2013, decision dated: 3rd July, 2013, hearing DATE : 28-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON \nMR. FAHIM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tahir Razzaque Khan, FCA/AR for Applicant. \nImran Shah, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 416 = 2013 SLD 416 = 2013 PDS 1786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Unlawful input tax adjustment and denial of proper opportunity.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nInput tax adjustment claim was rejected as unlawful due to alleged clerical errors and lack of proper documentation.\no\nTaxpayer argued no Show-Cause Notice was received, rendering the proceedings one-sided.\no\nTribunal observed that the CIR(A)'s order was sketchy and failed to provide the taxpayer a fair opportunity.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded to CIR(A) for re-evaluation with proper consideration and opportunity for the taxpayer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,6,7,8,73,34,33", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 140/IB/2013 Tax Periods May, 2009, DATE of order 20/08/2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMR. MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. HINO AUTO WORKSHOP, BS-100, 10, AL SHEIKH MARKET, MIAN ROAD PIRWADHAI, RAWALPINDI. \nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (APPEALS-III), ISLAMABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 417 = 2013 SLD 417 = 2013 PDS 1787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Discrepancies in audit regarding wastage and inadmissible tax adjustment.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nWastage:\n\nTaxpayer claimed wastage during the industrial process, supported by IOCO certification.\n\nCIR(A) incorrectly shifted focus to sales of wastage without addressing wastage allowance.\n\nTribunal annulled the tax demand related to wastage.\no\nTax Adjustment:\n\nTaxpayer provided evidence of payment through a pay order, though not strictly adhering to Section 73.\n\nTribunal held that non-compliance with Section 73 warranted only penal action, not denial of tax adjustment.\n•\nOutcome: Wastage-related tax annulled; case remanded for fresh adjudication on tax adjustment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 316/LB/2013, DATE of order 30.04.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUNIR SADIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMRS. FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Zahid Ateeq Ch., Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. LUCKY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE. \nVS\nTHE CIR (LEGAL DIVISION), Zone-II, RTO-I, LHR." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 418 = 2013 SLD 418 = 2013 PDS 1788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Fake invoices and penalty remission.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer accused of claiming input tax on fake invoices issued by unverifiable suppliers.\no\nCIR(A) imposed tax and default surcharge but remitted penalties, citing harshness.\no\nTribunal upheld CIR(A)'s decision, noting no evidence of the taxpayer’s prior knowledge of fraud.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal dismissed; CIR(A)'s relief on penalties upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,33(13),37Federal Excise Act, 2005=8", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 149/LB/2011, hearing DATE 23.04.2013. DATE of order 27.06.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondent by Mr. Hashim Butt, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE CIR, RTO, LAHORE. \nVS\nM/S. WORLD OVER SUPPLIERS, LAHORE." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 420 = 2013 SLD 420 = (2013) 108 TAX 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Jurisdiction of High Court in tax refund based on fake invoices.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRefund claim relied on invoices from blacklisted suppliers.\no\nHigh Court clarified its advisory jurisdiction, limiting it to substantial questions of law with broad applicability.\no\nCase-specific factual issues were not deemed suitable for High Court reference.\n•\nOutcome: Reference declined; Tribunal's decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=22,25,47,73", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No. 05/2009, decision dated: 23-5-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nSYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Khalid Javed Bukhari, Advocate, for the Petitioner.\nSh. Zafar-ul-Islam and Mr. Niaz Ahmad Khan, Advocates, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVs\nMULTAN FABRICS PVT. LTD. etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 421 = 2013 SLD 421 = (2013) 108 TAX 226 = 2013 PTCL 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Constitutionality of Section 8(1)(ca) of Sales Tax Act.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer challenged denial of input tax credit due to non-deposit of sales tax by the supplier.\no\nSection 8(1)(ca) held buyers liable for suppliers' failures, which was deemed unconstitutional as it imposed liability without fault.\no\nTribunal struck down Section 8(1)(ca), asserting it violated constitutional rights to property (Articles 23 and 24).\no\nTaxpayer's transactions were found to be legitimate, with no collusion or tax fraud.\n•\nOutcome: Section 8(1)(ca) declared unconstitutional; impugned notices and orders set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7,7(2),8,8(1)(ca),8A,73,8(1)(a),8(1)(b),8(1)(c),8(1)(d),8(1)(e),", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 3515/2012, decision dated: 22-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rasheed Siddique and Barrister Shehryar Kasuri, Advocates, Nasir Javed Ghuman, Standing Counsel for Government of Pakistan and Muhammad Yahya Johar\nNasir Javed Ghuman, Standing Counsel for Government of Pakistan and Muhammad Yahya Johar, Advocate for the respondents, Ehsan-ur-Rehman Sheikh, Sajjad Haider Rizvi, Mian Qamar-ud-Din Ahmed and Sh. Nadeem Ahmad, Advocates for the respondents in connected petitions, Abdul Lat# Tariq, Advocate on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Advocate for respondents in WP. No. 9575/2012, Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, Chief Tax Policy, FBR, Muhammad Muzajfar Khan Lashari, Commissioner, Inland Revenue, ITU, Zone-I, Lahore and Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Additional Commissioner, Inland Revenue, Lahore, for the Respondents. Sher Hassan Parvez, Research Associate/Civil Judge, LHCRC for Research Assistance.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LTD\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN etc." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 422 = 2013 SLD 422 = 2013 PDS 1792", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Unlawful withholding of input tax refund.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAppellant contested the deferment of refund, arguing that Section 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, provides no authority to withhold refunds.\no\nRespondents failed to address the evidence submitted by the appellant, including sales tax invoices and supplier status.\no\nProcedural impropriety was evident as the refund was withheld without proper justification.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for reconsideration after proper evaluation of evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,10(1),28", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 112-KB-2011, hearing DATE 12-3-2012. DATE of order 22-3-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. ZAFAR IQBAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nMRS. FARZANA, JABEEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Imran Iqbal, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. MIMA KNIT (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI.\nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (APPEALS-II), REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, KARACHI & OTHERS." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 423 = 2013 SLD 423 = 2013 PDS 1793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Unlawful rejection of refund claims based on procedural void.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRefund claims were rejected based on alleged violations under various provisions of the Sales Tax Act.\no\nAppellant argued that foundational proceedings were void due to procedural violations.\no\nTribunal found merit in the appeal and directed the release of held-up refunds with delayed surcharge under Section 67.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal allowed; refund claims with delayed surcharge ordered.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=10,2(14),4,7,8(1),10,26,67", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 804/K-2909 (Old Sales Tax Appeal No. 135/2009, hearing DATE 18/02/2011. DATE of order 24/02/2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMRS. ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Awan, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Salfi Textile Mills Ltd. \nVs\nThe Collector (Appeals) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 424 = 2013 SLD 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Input tax adjustment on MS Products Angles/Channels.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDepartment alleged that MS Products were building materials and not eligible for tax adjustment.\no\nAppellant demonstrated that MS Products were used in manufacturing steel pipes for taxable supplies.\no\nADRC confirmed the legitimate use of MS Products in taxable activities, supporting the appellant’s claim.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulled prior orders, and vacated the show-cause notice, recognizing the appellant’s entitlement to input tax adjustment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)(a),8(1)(b),23,47A)(4)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. K-918/2009, hearing DATE 27.09.2012. DATE of order 01.11.2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD, JAMIL RAZA ZAIDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMRS. ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Afzal Awan, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Data Steel Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Ebrahim Building, 20 - West Wharf Road, Karachi.\nVs\n1. The Collector (Appeals) Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise, LMQ Road, Multan" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 207 = 2010 SLD 207 = 2010 PTD 1631 = 2013 PTCL 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Recovery of refunds based on retrospective blacklisting of supplier.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDepartment sought recovery of refunds issued before the supplier was blacklisted.\no\nTribunal held that retrospective application of supplier blacklisting was invalid, as transactions occurred in good faith.\no\nProceedings lacked a proper show-cause notice under Section 36.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal allowed; lower orders vacated due to procedural and substantive flaws.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36,36(1),7,8,8A,10,11,23,26,2(14),2(37),73Sales Tax Rules, 2006=12", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1334/LB of 2009, decision dated: 25-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmed for the Appellant. \nSardar A. Raza Qazailbash, D.R. for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 425 = 2013 SLD 425 = (2013) 108 TAX 342 = 2013 PTD 1780 = 2014 PTCL 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Validity of searches under Section 40 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAppellant challenged searches conducted on alleged false information.\no\nTribunal upheld the searches, ruling they were lawful under Sections 38 and 40.\no\n Any place under Section 40 includes third-party premises linked to the inquiry.\n•\nOutcome: Constitutional petition dismissed; search actions upheld as lawful.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40,38Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 11727 & 11728 of 2013, heard on 27-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SHEZADA MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naved A. Andrabi for Petitioner.\nMiss Kausar Parveen with Saad Waqas, Deputy Director Intelligence and Investigation Inland Revenue for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs STYLO SHOES through Managing Partner and another \nVs\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 426 = 2013 SLD 426 = (2013) 108 TAX 240 = 2013 PTD 1953", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Recovery of erroneously refunded tax without proper notice.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDepartment acted to recover refunded tax without issuing a proper show-cause notice.\no\nTribunal held that such recovery was invalid under Section 36 due to procedural lapses.\no\nDelays in appellate proceedings were criticized as indicative of mala fides.\n•\nOutcome: Recovery demands annulled; department’s actions deemed void ab initio.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=36", + "Case #": "S.T.As. Nos.702/LB and 703/LB of 2012, decision dated: 8-04-2013, hearing DATE : 7-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN \nMUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ali Imran Rizvi for Appellant.\nMs. Sadia Sadaf, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs JARIT INTERNATIONAL, SIALKOT \nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 427 = 2013 SLD 427 = 2013 PDS 1798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Unlawful blacklisting of taxpayer.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer was blacklisted without prior notice or evidence.\no\nTribunal observed procedural deficiencies, including lack of confrontation with evidence.\no\nDirected the department to proceed afresh with proper inquiry and adherence to legal requirements.\n•\nOutcome: Blacklisting set aside; department allowed to reinitiate lawful proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=21", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 513/LB/2012, hearing DATE 07.06.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SHAHID, JAMIL KHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMR. MUHAMMAD ZAHIR-UD-DIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \nA.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mr. Zulfiqar Ashraf, M/s. Smith & Co., 48-A, Dil Muhammad Road, Lahore. \nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, ZonEVI, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 92 = 1975 SLD 92 = (1976) 33 TAX 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Exemption eligibility of Brass Water Fittings despite alternate use.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAppellant’s products, originally exempt as Brass Water Fittings, were also used as gas fittings.\no\nTribunal ruled that alternate use does not change the nature of the product, and exemption remains valid.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal allowed; exemption upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=7,7(1)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. Nos. 422 to 427(KB) of 1973-74 (Assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72), decision dated: 27-1-1976", + "Judge Name:": "M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT, A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.N. Pasha, Advocate, for the Appellant. \nG.R. Ghayyur, D.R., for the respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 93 = 1975 SLD 93 = (1976) 33 TAX 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Assessment without invoking Section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessment was made under Section 10(3) without issuing a notice under Section 28.\no\nTribunal held that initiating proceedings without invoking Section 28 rendered the assessments void.\n•\nOutcome: Assessments declared ab initio void and unsustainable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28,10(3),28", + "Case #": "S.T.A. Nos. 84(KB) and 85(KB) of 1972-73, (Assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70), decision dated: 5-6-1974", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMAD MAZHAR ALI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.\nK. SALAUDDIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Shaban, Advocate, for the Appellant.\nAhmad Niaz, D.R., for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 428 = 2013 SLD 428 = 2013 PDS 1801", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Rejection of input tax adjustment due to supplier's suspension.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer’s purchases were made before suppliers were suspended/blacklisted.\no\nTribunal ruled that claims predating suspension could not be denied.\no\nDenying the claim would result in double taxation, which is impermissible.\n•\nOutcome: Orders annulled, and the taxpayer’s appeal succeeded.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),36(1),33,34", + "Case #": "STA No. 33/LB/2012, DATE of order 15.03.2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nMR. SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Rimtaj Industries M.G. (Pvt.) Ltd., Link McLeod Road, Lahore.\nVs\nCIR, RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 429 = 2013 SLD 429 = 2013 PDS 1802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Dispute over zero-rated purchase entitlements of tetra packs.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Collector issued provisional certificates, reducing the taxpayer’s entitlements without substantial basis.\no\nTribunal noted misinterpretation of the relevant SRO and procedural lapses.\no\nTaxpayer's input/output declarations were in accordance with industry standards.\n•\nOutcome: Tribunal canceled the show-cause notice and subsequent orders as legally untenable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46,3,4,6,7,8A,26,11(2),36(1),34,33(5)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 141/LB/2012, DATE of order 27/03/2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, CHAIRPERSON\nTABANA SAJJAD NASEER, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Shakarganj Food Products Ltd., Lahore, 65/1, Garden Block, New Garden, Lahore. \nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-II), Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 430 = 2013 SLD 430 = 2013 PDS 1803", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Failure to withhold and deposit withholding sales tax.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer was accused of not withholding 1% sales tax for certain suppliers.\no\nTribunal found sufficient evidence supporting the taxpayer's claim and ordered reevaluation.\n•\nOutcome: Orders were set aside, and the case was remanded for fresh examination.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(2),3(6),3(7),3(3),3(3A),6(2),7,26(1),26(5),33,34", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 213/IB/2013 Tax Periods July, 2009 to October, 2012, DATE of order 19.08.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMR. MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Hub Power Co. Ltd.\nVs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Appeals-I), 20-Mauve Area, G9/1, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 431 = 2013 SLD 431 = 2013 PDS 1804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Discrepancy between income and sales tax returns.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAuthorities observed undeclared gross receipts in sales tax returns.\no\nTaxpayer claimed exemption as a service provider, not engaged in taxable supplies.\no\nTribunal remanded the case for reassessment to determine the nature of the taxpayer’s business.\n•\nOutcome: Orders set aside and remanded for de novo assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,14", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 281/IB/2011, DATE of order 10.09.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMR. MUHAMMAD MAJID QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Italtec Energy (Pvt.) Ltd.\nVs\nCIR (Appeals-I), LTU, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 432 = 2013 SLD 432 = (2013) 108 TAX 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Levy of sales tax on services under the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPetitioner contested the levy of sales tax on services under PCT Code 9815.\no\nTribunal ruled no adverse inference could be drawn during the pendency of proceedings.\n•\nOutcome: Stay granted against adverse action.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011=2,2(63),3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-3392 of 2013, decision dated: 28-8-2013. dates of hearing: 27-8-2013 & 28-8-2013", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nFAROOQ ALI CHANNA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmed Khan and Anwar Mansoor Khan, Advocates, for the Petitioners. \nNaveed Khalid, in house counsel, for the Respondent No. 2. M. Rajiq Rajori, A.A.G.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARACHI TAX BAR ASSOCIATION and others\nVs\nPROVINCE OF SINDH, through its Finance Secretary, Sindh Assembly Building, Karachi, and Another\nM/s. Haq Bahu Suger Mills, Lahore. \nVs\nThe CIR (Legal Division) RTO, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 433 = 2013 SLD 433 = 2013 PDS 1806", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Monitoring of production and sales due to non-filing of returns.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer failed to file returns for seven consecutive months.\no\nTribunal upheld the monitoring order, finding no legal infirmity.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal dismissed for lack of merit.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40,40BFederal Excise Act, 2005=45(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.152/LB/2013, DATE of order 05.03.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON\nMR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Hasham Ahmad Khan, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 434 = 2013 SLD 434 = 2013 PDS 1807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Repetition of the monitoring issue in SLD #: 11023.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nIdentical to SLD #: 11023.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40,40BFederal Excise Act, 2005=45(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.153/LB/2013, DATE of order 05.03.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON\nMR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Hasham Ahmad Khan, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Macca Sugar Mills, Lahore. \nVS\nThe CIR (Legal Division) LTU, Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 435 = 2013 SLD 435 = 2013 PDS 1808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Recovery of tax for transactions beyond the statutory time limit.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nShow-cause notice was issued 12 years after the alleged default, violating the 5-year statutory limit.\no\nTribunal held that condonation by the FBR was unauthorized and invalid.\n•\nOutcome: Adjudicatory proceedings annulled due to time-barred notice.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,11(4),74,2(46),3,6,26", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 192/IB/2013 1999 to June 2008, DATE of order 16.08.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMR. IKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mian Nazir Azhar, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Oil & Gas Development Co. Ltd., OGDCL House, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, Islamabad. \nVs\n1. Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Zone-I), LTU Isd.2. Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-II), Isd 3. Assistant Commissioner Inland Revenue (Audit-III) Zone-I, LTU, Isd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 436 = 2013 SLD 436 = 2013 PDS 1809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Refund of input tax on local zero-rated supplies.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer’s refund claim was denied on the ground of inadmissibility under the SRO.\no\nTribunal upheld the authorities' orders, finding no merit in the taxpayer’s appeal.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(1)(b)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 2305/LB/2009, hearing DATE 04-08-2011. DATE of order 16-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MR. M.A. , JAVED SHAHEEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nMR. SOHAIL AFZAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Diamond Fabrics Limited, GulberGII, Lahore.\nVs\nCollector of Customs, Sales Tax, & Federal Excise (Appeals), Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 437 = 2013 SLD 437 = 2013 PDS 1810", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Allegation of tax fraud by the appellant in connivance with a fraudulent gang.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe department failed to provide evidence of the taxpayer knowingly committing tax fraud as per Section 2(37) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\no\nPayments were made under Section 73, and the taxpayer's clean tax history supported the lack of fraudulent intent.\no\nProper show-cause notice as required under Section 36 was not issued.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal accepted, and orders of the authorities below were declared null and void.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(37),7,23,36,46,73", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1103/LB/2013, DATE of order 21.05.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN \nMR. FAHEEM UL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Muhammad Farooq Sheikh, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Indus Coatings Ltd., Lahore.\nVS\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Appeals-II), Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 438 = 2013 SLD 438 = 2013 PDS 1811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Withdrawal of appeal under the amnesty scheme (S.R.O. No. 774(I)/2012).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe appellant filed for withdrawal of the appeal after the deadline of 31/12/2012, citing procedural delays.\no\nTribunal found no convincing justification for the delay, as the Bench was functional during the relevant period.\no\nThe application for withdrawal was accepted only from the date it was filed (03/05/2013), not retroactively.\n•\nOutcome: Withdrawal applications accepted as of 03/05/2013.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,19(2)(c),19(3)(d)", + "Case #": "M.A. (A.G.) No. 71/LB/2012, M.A. (A.G.) No. 72/LB/2012, hearing DATE 27.05.2013. DATE of order 20.06.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. NAZIR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nMR. MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Applicant by Mr. M. Akram Sheikh, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Malik & Sons, Lahore. \nVs\nC.I.R. (Appeals-III), Lahore." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 439 = 2013 SLD 439 = 2013 PDS 1812", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Discrepancy in declared sales revenue and tax records; exemption under S.R.O. No. 648(I)/2011.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer claimed loss of records due to fire, affecting reconciliation.\no\nTribunal directed verification of the taxpayer’s export data through third parties and granted benefit under the S.R.O. for principal tax paid.\no\nCase remanded for further inquiry and adjustment under the amnesty scheme.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal partially succeeded; orders vacated for re-adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=34,34A", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 85/IB/2013 (Assessment Year 2007-08 & 2008-09), hearing DATE 10.09.2013. DATE of order 18.09.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMR. FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Wateen Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore. \nVs\nThe CIR, LTU, Islamabad." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 440 = 2013 SLD 440 = 2013 PTD 2022 = (2014) 110 TAX 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Legality of raids conducted by tax authorities without warrants.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRaid conducted under Section 40A without a warrant or explanation of emergency violated legal provisions.\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if such actions aligned with established precedents and whether seized documents could be used against the taxpayer.\n•\nOutcome: Leave granted to examine compliance with legal parameters and admissibility of seized documents.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40,40A,38Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 33-L to 35-L of 2011, decision dated: 19-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mian Yousaf Omer, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs Z&J HYGIENIC PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, SALES TAX GUJRANWALA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 441 = 2013 SLD 441 = 2013 PTD 2048", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Provincial sales tax on services and inter-governmental immunity.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCivil Aviation Authority argued immunity under Articles 165 and 165-A of the Constitution.\no\nTribunal held that provincial sales tax could not apply to the Authority under Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011.\n•\nOutcome: Petition allowed, and all related tax demands and notices were quashed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=165,165A,199", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-2643 of 2012, decision dated: 10-07-2013. dates of hearing: 21st March and 3rd April, 2008 and 23rd May, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Talib-ud-Din for Petitioner. \nFaisal Siddiqui along with Mohmed Vawda for Respondent No. 1. and Hamid Munir, A.A.G", + "Petitioner Name:": "CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN through Airport Manager\nVs\nSINDH REVENUE BOARD through Chairman and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 442 = 2013 SLD 442 = 2013 PTD 2077 = 2014 PTCL 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: High Court's jurisdiction in tax references.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nHigh Court’s jurisdiction under Section 47 is advisory and limited to questions of law.\no\nFindings of fact upheld by the Tribunal cannot be re-examined unless they exhibit perversity.\n•\nOutcome: High Court declined to entertain questions of fact in reference jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.5 of 2009, heard on 23rd May, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nABID AZIZ SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Khalid Javed Bukhari for Petitioner. \nSh. Zafar-ul-Islam and Niaz Ahmad Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nVs\nMessrs MULTAN FABRICS (PVT.) LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 443 = 2013 SLD 443 = 2013 PTD 2130 = 2014 PTCL 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Raising additional legal grounds and validity of adjudication proceedings.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTribunal allowed raising of additional grounds even if not included initially.\no\nDCIR lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate cases exceeding the monetary limit under S.R.O. 594(I)/2012.\no\nUsing income tax data to assess sales tax liability was found impermissible.\no\nShow-cause notices must contain specific charges and evidence to be valid.\n•\nOutcome: Orders based on defective notices were annulled, and adjudication proceedings declared illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46", + "Case #": "M.A. (A.G.) 50/LB of 2013 and S.TA No.861/LB of 2012, decision dated: 29-08-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRPERSON \nSABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad (Taunsvi) for Appellant. \nMuhammad Jarnil Bhatti, D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SIDDIQUE ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD \nVs\nC.I.R. (APPEALS), R.T.O. FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 444 = 2013 SLD 444 = 2013 PTD 2148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal with the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer filed an appeal to the wrong forum and delayed filing with the Appellate Tribunal despite being informed of the correct procedure.\no\nThe Appellate Tribunal held that mere error in approaching the wrong forum does not constitute a justifiable cause for condoning the delay.\no\nEach day of delay must be adequately explained, which the taxpayer failed to do.\n•\nOutcome: Application for condonation of delay was rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=45,45B", + "Case #": "M.A. (Cond.) Nos.10/LB of 2013 and 66/LB of 2012, decision dated: 5-07-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD WASEEM CH., JUDICIAL MEMBER \nMUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, FCA for Applicant. \nMs. Sadia Sadaf Gillanif D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAK ARAB FERTILIZERS LTD. LAHORE \nVs\nC.I.R. Zone-II, R.T.O., MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 11 = 2015 SLD 11 = 2015 PTD 1 = 2014 PTCL 710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Interpretation of Section 11A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSection 11A is a recovery provision, applicable only to tax due as self-assessed in a taxpayer’s sales tax return.\no\nAny dispute over the correctness of the return requires adjudication under Section 11, not action under Section 11A.\no\nThe case involved disputed tax amounts requiring adjudication, making Section 11A inapplicable.\n•\nOutcome: Intra-court appeal allowed; Section 11A was held inapplicable in disputed tax recovery cases.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11A,11,48Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.79 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.29138 of 2013, heard on 22-05-2014", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nATIR MAHMOOD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt and Khurram Shahbaz Butt for Appellant. \nCh. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal assisted by Abdul Latif Tariq and Muhammad Yahya Johar for Respondents. Raja Ashfaq, Deputy Commissioner, RTO-I, Zone-I, Lahore", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD. through Director Legal\nVs\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 12 = 2015 SLD 12 = 2015 PTD 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Deductions for obsolete stock and classification of interest income.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer’s claim for deduction of obsolete stock was upheld as it complied with Section 35 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, recognizing stock at lower cost or net realizable value.\no\nProfit on bank deposits was treated as income from other sources under Section 39, not business income. \no\nProvisions ensured recovery of deductions through future realizations.\n•\nOutcome: Appeals for deductions were allowed, while appeals on interest income classification were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21&32", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.371/LB and 300/LB of 2008, decision dated: 6-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Viqar A. Khan, FCA for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 371/LB of 2008). Zulqarnain Trimzi, D.R. for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 371/LB of 2008).\nZulqarnain Trimzi, D.R. for Appellant (in I.T.A. No. 300/LB of 2008). Viqar A. Khan, FCA for Respondent (in I.T.A. No. 300/LB of 2008)", + "Petitioner Name:": "KOHAT CEMENT COMPANY LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (LEGAL) LTU, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 445 = 2013 SLD 445 = (2013) 108 TAX 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Special Excise Duty (SED) on sugar—value basis.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDispute arose over whether SED should be calculated based on actual sale price or the fixed value notified by SRO 564(I)/2006.\no\nTribunal noted precedent supporting the fixed notified price as the correct basis for SED.\no\nDiffering views by authorities were addressed, aligning with established decisions in similar cases.\n•\nOutcome: Impugned orders were set aside, and appeal by the taxpayer was allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2,2(1),2(46),10(a)", + "Case #": "F.E.D. No.72/KB of 2012, decision dated: 14-2-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN \nFARZANA, JABEEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Fahim Bhaio, Advocate, for the Appellant. \nTariq Hussain, DCIR/DR, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "F.E.D. No.72/KB of 2012, decided on 14-2-2013\nJAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN \nFARZANA JABEEN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 446 = 2013 SLD 446 = (2013) 108 TAX 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Classification of manufacturing vs. service activities and associated tax liability.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer contested liability, asserting services were provided (exempt from sales tax) rather than manufacturing.\no\nTribunal noted errors and lack of inquiry by adjudicating officers.\no\nThe case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for proper inquiry and verification of taxpayer’s claims.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded for re-examination and determination of the nature of taxpayer activities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(16),3,6,22,26,33,34,36(1)Federal Excise Act, 2005=3A,4,5,8,14(1),19,33(1),33(5)", + "Case #": "S.T.A. Nos. 92 & 93/IB/2011, decision dated: 30-6-2013, hearing DATE : 12-3-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, CHAIRMAN \nFAHIM-UL-HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamidullah Shah, DR.\nRespondent(s) by: Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 447 = 2013 SLD 447 = (2013) 108 TAX 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Alleged evasion of excise duty and tax on clinker production.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nShow cause notice and subsequent orders were found time-barred under Section 33(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.\no\nErrors in accounting and reconciliation revealed no suppression or evasion of clinker production.\no\nReports and allegations were deemed mala fide, and the case lacked substantive evidence.\n•\nOutcome: Orders were annulled; allegations of evasion were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=33,33(3)Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=10(1),10(2)", + "Case #": "F. E. APPEAL No.24/H/2009, decision dated: 16-3-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Shuban, Advocate, for the Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 350 = 1991 SLD 350 = (1991) 63 TAX 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Applicability of retrospective notification in Gift Tax Act assessments.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nGift made on 28-4-1971 was subject to assessment year 1971-72 (1-7-1971 to 30-6-1972).\no\nNotification No. S.R.O. 292(I)/71 dated 29-7-1971 was applicable as it became effective on 1-7-1971.\no\nDetermination of value for the gifted land under the new notification was valid.\no\nHigh Court erred by considering Section 6 instead of Section 3 as the charging section.\n•\nOutcome: Orders of Gift Tax Authorities and the High Court were declared unsustainable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Gift Tax Act, 1958=15(5),6(1),6(3)Gift Tax Rules, 1963=9(3B)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 350 of 1985, decision dated: 30-1-1991(On appeal from the judgment dated 20-9-1977 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in P.T.R. No. 23-Com-1977)", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HASAN SHAH, JUSTICE \nABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD RAFIQUE TARAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record, for the Appellant. \nNemo for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAJOR GENERAL (RETD.) SHER ALI KHAN\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/GIFT TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1082 = 2002 SLD 1082 = (2002) 258 ITR 529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Deduction under Section 35CCA for donations to rural development programs.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessee fulfilled all conditions for claiming deductions under Section 35CCA at the time of donation.\no\nSubsequent withdrawal of approval for the society did not affect the assessee's eligibility for deduction.\no\nThe assessee was not obligated to ensure the donation’s use for approved purposes after compliance with Section 35CCA.\n•\nOutcome: Deduction was allowed; Tribunal’s decision was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=35CCA,256(2)Income Tax Rules, 1962=6AAA", + "Case #": "CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2365 TO 2367 OF 2000 OCTOBER 29, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. RUMA PAL, JUSTICE \nB.N. SRIKRISHNA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Rajappa, K.C. Kaushik and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellant.\nSunil Kumar Jain for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nVS\nChotatingrai Tea" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1083 = 2002 SLD 1083 = (2002) 258 ITR 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Legal expenses incurred in challenging reopening of assessments under Section 147.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nExpenses incurred to challenge reopening of assessments were not related to the determination of tax liability under the Act.\no\nSection 80VV restricts deduction to expenses directly connected to determining liability.\n•\nOutcome: Legal expenses were held as outside the scope of Section 80VV; Tribunal’s decision was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),80VV,147,148", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 230 AND 231 OF 1983 OCTOBER 10, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "D.K., JAIN, JUSTICE\nSHARDA AGGARWAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.C. Pandey and Ajay Jha for the Applicant. \nAshok Chhabra for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner of IncomE tax\nVS\nCapt. K.C. Saigal" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1084 = 2002 SLD 1084 = (2002) 258 ITR 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Income escaping assessment based on director’s statement.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessing Officer’s belief of escaped income must have tangible material.\no\nDirector’s statement did not specifically implicate the assessee, making the belief baseless.\no\nApproval for reassessment was given mechanically without application of mind.\n•\nOutcome: Notice under Section 147 was quashed.", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=148,143(2),139(1),147,131,149,150,151,152,153,132", + "Case #": "CWP NO. 5746 OF 2002 AND CM NO. 9769 OF 2002 OCTOBER 10, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "D.K., JAIN, JUSTICE\nMS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S. Syali, Satyen Sethi and Manu K. Giri for the Petitioner.\nR.D. Jolly and Ajay Jha for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "United Electrical Co. (P.) Ltd\nVS\nCommissioner of IncomE tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 123 = 2009 SLD 123 = (2009) 100 TAX 24 = 2009 PTD 1112 = 2009 PTCL 662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Maintainability of sales tax appeals filed by Law Officers.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAppeals filed by Law Officers under Section 47 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, were deemed incompetently instituted.\no\nSales Tax Act, 1990, was prospective and did not apply to periods prior to its enforcement.\n•\nOutcome: Appeals were dismissed for procedural defects and lack of jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,47(11)", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No. 106 of 2002, decision dated: 7-4-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, JUSTICE\nLMTIAZ RASHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Farhet Zafar, Advocate for the Appellant.\nMalik Qamar Afzal, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX\nVS\nFAZAL VEGETABLE GHEE MILLS ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 124 = 2009 SLD 124 = (2009) 100 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Refund claims under SRO 992(I)/2005 for zero-rated local supplies.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSRO 992(I)/2005 did not apply to input tax adjustment for zero-rated local supplies.\no\nDenial of refund claims violated Sections 8(i)(b) and 10 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nOutcome: Petition was accepted; authorities directed to process refund claims.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8,8(i)(b),10(2),67Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4956 of 2009, decision dated: 10-4-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN QADIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M Qadir Chughtai, Advocate for the Petitioner. \nMiss Kausar Parveen, Advocate Muhammad Afzal, Senior Auditor, Haroon Malik, Auditor Sales Tax, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "YOUSAF WEAVING MILLS LIMITED\nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE AND OTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 448 = 2013 SLD 448 = 2013 PDS 1826 = (2013) 11 TAXFORUM 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Input tax disallowance based on blacklisted units.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTaxpayer was not informed about blacklisted suppliers.\no\nShow cause notice lacked specificity; information from STARR system was unreliable.\no\nDepartment failed to establish evidence of fraudulent dealings.\n•\nOutcome: Disallowance of input tax adjustment was declared unjustifiable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=8", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 797/LB/2005, hearing DATE 19.06.2007. DATE of order 21.06.2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Mudassar Shuja, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Niagra Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Kashmir Road, Faisalabad. --Appellant\nVS\nCollector of Sales Tax, Faisalabad and another --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 69 = 1977 SLD 69 = (1978) 37 TAX 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Taxability of electric meters under Sales Tax Act, 1951.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nElectric meters fell under electrical goods and were liable to sales tax at enhanced rates from 1-7-1963.\no\nCirculars issued under Section 39(4) lacked legislative authority.\n•\nOutcome: Electric meters were deemed taxable at enhanced rates.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=3,3(2)", + "Case #": "S.T.A Nos. 24 of 1974-75 and 36 of 1975-76 (Assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70) decided on 24.12.1976", + "Judge Name:": "A.A DARESHANI, PRESIDENT \nMIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nA.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,", + "Lawyer Name:": "Main Nisar Ahmad, Advocate and Afzal Hussain, ITP for the Appellant. \nAftab Ahmad and Khalid Mahmood, D.Rs., for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 449 = 2013 SLD 449 = 2013 PTD 2341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Suspension of sales tax registration and implementation of appellate orders.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDepartment delayed restoring taxpayer’s registration despite no stay from higher forums.\no\nFiling an appeal does not automatically suspend Tribunal orders.\no\nDelay constituted maladministration.\n•\nOutcome: Federal Tax Ombudsman directed authorities to restore registration within 21 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=47,46,21", + "Case #": "Complaint No.303/LHR/ST/(67)/505 of 2013, decision dated: 12-07-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUR RAUF CHAUDHRY, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Ahmad, Advisor Dealing Officer. \nDr. Rizwan Siddique, DCIR for Departmental Representative.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NASEEM PLASTIC HOUSE \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 94 = 1975 SLD 94 = (1976) 33 TAX 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Assessment and penalty under Sales Tax Act, 1951.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessment made beyond the four-year limitation period was not barred due to applicable provisions.\no\nPenalty imposed contemporaneously with assessment did not require separate notice.\n•\nOutcome: Assessment and penalty orders upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2(20)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 176 of 1962, decision dated: 27-2-1975, hearing DATE : 30/31-1-1975 & 6-2-1975", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HASAN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Hashmi, for the Petitioner. \nSh. Abdul Haq and Muhammad Afzal Lone (absent on 3-2-1975) for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD AND COMPANY\nVS\nSALES TAX OFFICER (INVESTIGATION), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 95 = 1975 SLD 95 = (1976) 33 TAX 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Limitation for assessments under Sales Tax Act, 1951.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAssessment made beyond the prescribed four-year limitation was barred.\no\nEarlier decisions dissenting from this view were overruled.\n•\nOutcome: Assessment was declared time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=2,2(20)", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No. 15 of 1965, decision dated: 12-7-1973. dates of hearing: 15-12-1971 and 12-7-1973", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Petitioner.\nJaved Hashmi, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, LAHORE\nVS\nHILAL TANNERIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 18 = 2014 SLD 18 = 2014 PTD 501 = 2014 PTCL 28 = (2014) 109 TAX 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Recovery of short-paid sales tax under Section 11-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCase involved discrepancies in the units of electricity consumed and the corresponding tax reported.\no\nPetitioner argued that proper assessment under Section 11 was required before recovery.\no\nHigh Court dismissed the petition, holding that:\n\nNo assessment dispute existed; discrepancies were due to incorrect disclosures by the petitioner.\n\nTax was recoverable based on the returns filed and documents submitted.\no\nEarlier decisions (STR Nos. 105 and 106 of 2011) provided precedence.\n•\nOutcome: Writ petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11A,48(1)(b),26Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Sales Tax Special Procedure (Withholding) Rules, 2007=ChapterXI", + "Case #": "W. P.No.29138 of 2013, DATE of Decision 16-01-2014, hearing DATE 5.12.2013", + "Judge Name:": "AYESHA A. MALIK., JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioners by: Mr. Shahbaz Butt, Advocate\nMr. Shahbaz Butt, Adv., Ch. M. Zafar Iqbal, Advc. Mr. M. Yahya Johar, Adv. Shafqat Mehmood Chief Comm. RTO, Asim Majeed, Comm. Zone IV, RTO, Lhr. Nadeem Rizvi, Comm., Zone-I, RTO, Lhr. and Raza Ashfaq Sheikh, Dy. Comm., Zone-I, RTO, Lhr.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Lahore Electric Supply Company Ltd\nVS\nFederal Board of Revenue etc" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 271 = 2011 SLD 271 = 2011 CLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Defamation claim based on comments in Annual Confidential Report (ACR).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPlaintiff alleged defamation by remarks in his ACR.\no\nCourt held that defamation requires communication to at least one third party.\no\nACR is a confidential document used internally for performance evaluations.\no\nPlaintiff failed to provide specifics of communication to third parties.\n•\nOutcome: High Court upheld rejection of plaint for non-disclosure of cause of action.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)=5,5(h),6Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.11", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 68 of 2008, decision dated: 10-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Akhtar Ali Chaudhry for the Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "AKHTAR ALI\nVS\nMUHAMMAD SHOIAB AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 272 = 2011 SLD 272 = 2011 CLD 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up of a company for regulatory violations.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCompany failed to comply with regulatory requirements (e.g., registration under Rule 38, holding AGM).\no\nInvestigation revealed financial insolvency and mismanagement.\no\nSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) filed for winding up in the High Court.\n•\nOutcome: High Court approved the winding-up petition.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309(c),158,233,245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause-Notice No.SCD/NBFC/MF-IMFL/533/2010, decision dated: 6-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ASIF, JALAL BHATTI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SCD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 273 = 2011 SLD 273 = 2011 CLD 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Objections to the merger of companies under Sections 284 and 287 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSecured creditor objected to the merger due to default on loan payments by one merging entity.\no\nCourt held:\n\nScheme of merger must not be mala fide, fraudulent, or against public interest.\n\nObjections lacked relevance as the merger aimed to enhance profitability.\n\nCreditors' claims should be addressed separately.\no\nNecessary procedures for the merger were followed.\n•\nOutcome: High Court sanctioned the merger.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,287", + "Case #": "C.O.No.42 of 2008, decision dated: 29-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Anum Alvi with Asif-ur-Rehman for the Petitioners.\nTariq Kamal Qazi for the Objector (NBP).Muhammad Saqlain Arshad, Assistant Director Legal, SECP", + "Petitioner Name:": "JUBILEE SPINNINGS WEAVING MILLS LTD.\nVS\nJUBILEE ENERGY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 274 = 2011 SLD 274 = 2011 CLD 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Scholarship allocation and procedural fairness.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPetitioner met eligibility criteria and followed instructions for university preference.\no\nAuthorities alleged that the petitioner’s transfer to the third-preference university lacked approval.\no\nCourt held:\n\nPetitioner acted per instructions and fulfilled scholarship criteria.\n\nState's obligation under Articles 29 and 37 of the Constitution to provide equal access to education.\n•\nOutcome: Petition allowed; authorities directed to resolve the petitioner’s grievance.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=15Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.P.No.709 of 2009, decision dated: 1st March, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "QAZI FAEZ ISA, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Shakil Ahmed for the Petitioner. \nMuezzin Qureshi for Respondent No. 1. Qahir Shah for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHOAIB \nVS \nPROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ICT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 275 = 2011 SLD 275 = 2011 CLD 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Anti-competitive practices by a poultry association.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCompetition Commission found the association engaged in collusive price-fixing and production reduction.\no\nCollusion violated Section 4 of the Competition Ordinance, 2010.\no\nEvidence of price-fixing mechanisms and collective decisions on production reduction.\no\nPenalty of PKR 10 million imposed for each violation across five markets (total PKR 50 million).\n•\nOutcome: Penalty upheld; collusion declared anti-competitive.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=3,4,30,37,38", + "Case #": "File No. CCP / CARTELS / 04 / 2010, decision dated: 16-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON,\nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER (C&M) AND DR., JOSEPH WILSON, MEMBER (PRI)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Bashir Mahmood Bhatti, Secretary General, Dr. Muhammad Aslam, Faqir Muhammad Sabir, Khalil Sabir, Raza Mahmoqd Khursand, Abdul Basit, Ch. Azmat Ali, Dr. Muhammad Sadiq and Ch. Khurshid Ahmed for Messrs Pakistan Poultry Association. Saifullah Khan, Javed Qaiser and Ms. Khizran for S.U. Khan Associates", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 276 = 2011 SLD 276 = 2011 CLD 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Collusive bidding and penalties under the Competition Ordinance, 2010.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThree undertakings formed a consortium agreement for joint bidding in dredging projects.\no\nEvidence of collusion to restrict competition, including cover bidding and pre-arranged agreements.\no\nCourt held that consortium agreements between competitors were prohibited if they reduced competition.\no\nPenalty of PKR 50 million imposed on each undertaking for violating Section 4 of the Competition Ordinance.\n•\nOutcome: Agreements declared void; penalties upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=4,4(1),(2)(a)(b)(e),(3),30,37,38", + "Case #": "File Nos.3(17)/L.O/CCP/2009, decision dated: 23rd July, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA, CHAIRMAN\nMS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL AND OFT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar-ud-Din Fateh Ali Vellani, Imran Ahmed and Jan-Mark Van Mastwijk, Area Manager for Dredging International.\nMuhammad Arshad Warsi for Jan De Null N.V.\nBarrister Khaliq-uz-Zaman Khan and Yan Xinde ( General Manager) for China International Water and Electric Corporation.\nAbdullah Leghari, Director (Technical) and Munawer Ali Essani, Legal Advisor for Port Qasim Authority", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 277 = 2011 SLD 277 = 2011 CLD 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Directive by SECP requiring an insurance company to cease business without prior notice or hearing.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSECP issued a directive under Section 63(1) of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, without compliance with Section 63(2), requiring a show-cause notice and hearing.\no\nHigh Court held that Section 63(1) cannot be read in isolation from Section 63(2).\no\nDirective issued without adhering to due process was declared void.\no\nSECP was directed to re-initiate proceedings with proper notice and hearing.\n•\nOutcome: Suit decreed in favor of the insurance company.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=63Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54", + "Case #": "Suit No.857 of 2009, decision dated: 15h October, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amel Kansi for Plaintiff. \nIjaz Ahmed for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "CRESCENT STAR INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 278 = 2011 SLD 278 = 2011 CLD 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Interpretation of provisions under Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 and protection of trade names.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nOrdinance enacted to align Pakistan’s intellectual property laws with international agreements (TRIPS, Paris Convention).\no\nSections 40 and 92 relate to infringement of trademarks and trade names, respectively.\no\nHigh Court clarified that use of a trade name does not always equate to infringement unless linked to specific goods/services.\no\nInfringement requires likelihood of confusion, unfair advantage, or detriment to reputation.\n•\nOutcome: Plaintiff's interim injunction for infringement of a registered trademark/trade name declined.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=40,92", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.141 of 2010, decision dated: 28-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munir Ahmed Khan for Appellant. \nKhurram Ghori and Ms. Shazia Tasleem for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SONERI TRAVEL AND TOURS LTD. Through Chief Executive/Director/Secretary \nVS\nSONERI BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 279 = 2011 SLD 279 = 2011 CLD 238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Suit for recovery of an amount based on a promissory note with part-payment.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPlaintiff admitted part-payment on the promissory note, altering the nature of the original agreement.\no\nHigh Court ruled that a suit on the promissory note could no longer proceed under the special summary jurisdiction (Order XXXVII CPC).\no\nPlaint was returned for filing under ordinary civil jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome: Plaint returned for filing in competent court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=4,13Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,R.2", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.243 of 2002, decision dated: 15-09-2010, hearing DATE : 28-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Inayat Ullah Ch. for Appellant.\nKomal Malik Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALID MAHMOOD \nVS\nTANDALIANWALA SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Manager Personnel and Administration, Faisalabad" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 280 = 2011 SLD 280 = 2011 CLD 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Violation of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nA brokerage company moved securities improperly and provided misleading information to SECP.\no\nViolations included contraventions of clauses under the Code of Conduct and Rules 8(iv) and 8(viii).\no\nSECP imposed a fine of PKR 25,000, emphasizing compliance with laws and directives in the future.\n•\nOutcome: Fine imposed, and a warning issued.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=R-8,12,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-cause Notice No.1(13)SMS/MSW/SMD/2010//01, dated 6-10-2010, decision dated: 3rd November, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALMAN MAJEED SECURITIES (S. M. C. PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 281 = 2011 SLD 281 = 2011 CLD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Grant of interim injunction for export-related operations.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPlaintiff was restrained by authorities from exporting poly-bags despite environmental clearance.\no\nHigh Court ruled that plaintiff complied with eco-friendly standards, and authorities had no grounds to interfere.\n•\nOutcome: Interim injunction granted; authorities restrained from interference.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980=2Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Suit No.1057 and C.M.A. No.10957 of 2010, decision dated: 10-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umer Soomro for Plaintiff. \nKhawaja Naveed Ahmed for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.A.H. ENTERPRISES Inc. \nVS\nEXPORT PROCESSING ZONES AUTHORITY through Secretary" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 282 = 2011 SLD 282 = 2011 CLD 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Infringement of registered design and grant of interim relief.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPlaintiff alleged infringement of its registered canopy design.\no\nHigh Court ruled the defendant's design was not substantially different, constituting infringement.\no\nInterim injunction was granted to protect the registered design.\n•\nOutcome: Interim relief granted to the plaintiff.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000=8,2(a),(e)", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.297 and C.M.A. No.1340 of 2006, decision dated: 4-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Waheed for Appellant.\nAsim Iqbal for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TEAM NAYYER (PVT.) LIMITED through Authorized Attorney\nVS\nSUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 283 = 2011 SLD 283 = 2011 CLD 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Insider trading and imposition of penalties under Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nInsider, a director’s brother, purchased shares at significantly low prices using non-public financial information.\no\nSECP imposed a fine of PKR 1 million and ordered compensation of PKR 11,541,140 to Cotton Mills for the loss caused.\n•\nOutcome: Penalty upheld, compensation ordered.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15,15A", + "Case #": "Show-cause Notice, dated 12-3-2010, decision dated: 23rd July, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 284 = 2011 SLD 284 = 2011 CLD 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Suit for dissolution of partnership and allegations of fraud.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDefendants requested arbitration per the partnership deed.\no\nHigh Court ruled that substantial allegations of fraud warranted trial in court rather than arbitration.\n•\nOutcome: Allegations to be decided in court; arbitration request rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=39,48Specific Relief Act, 1877=44,54", + "Case #": "Suit No.918 of 2008, C.MA. No.8982 of 2008 and C.M.A. No.8860 of 2009, decision dated: 19-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Muhammad Khan Lodhi for Plaintiff. \nWajid Wyne for Defendant No. 2. Zahid Marghoob for Defendant No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "NELOFAR SAQIB \nVS \nSAIBAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 285 = 2011 SLD 285 = 2011 CLD 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Violation of Code of Conduct in stock trading practices.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nBrokerage company failed to correctly enter client codes in stock trading and violated regulatory requirements.\no\nSECP imposed a lenient fine of PKR 50,000 while warning the company to ensure future compliance.\n•\nOutcome: Fine imposed; compliance emphasized.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=5,5A,22Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=12,ThirdSchedule", + "Case #": "No.SMD-South/MSI/INV/2010, decision dated: 26-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 286 = 2011 SLD 286 = 2011 CLD 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Relevance of prior convictions, insurance claims, and expert evidence in Pakistan law.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nQanun-e-Shahadat (Art. 57): Previous convictions are irrelevant unless directly related to the fact in issue.\no\nSuicide Investigation: Inquiry under CrPC Sections 174 and 176 is limited to ensuring no offense occurred, not establishing suicide conclusively.\no\nInsurance Claim: Defendant's reliance on inadmissible Magistrate reports failed; insurer liable under the original terms of the contract.\no\nExpert Evidence: Courts in Pakistan are deemed the ultimate legal experts; foreign law experts can testify.\n•\nOutcome: Defendant's appeal dismissed; insurer held liable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=57Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=174,176", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.192 of 2007, decision dated: 25-11-2010, hearing DATE : 4-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Rahman for Appellant. \nHabibur Rahman and A. Qadir Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD \nVS\nMaster AGHA JAN AHMED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 287 = 2011 SLD 287 = 2011 CLD 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Misleading information by brokers about securities movement.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nSECP identified non-compliance regarding securities movement and submission of incorrect information.\no\nThe company failed to respond satisfactorily but requested leniency.\no\nSECP imposed a fine of PKR 25,000 and strongly advised future compliance.\n•\nOutcome: Fine imposed; compliance mandated.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=R-8,12,Third Schedule", + "Case #": "No.1(13)SMS/MSW/SMD/2010/01, decision dated: 3rd November, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umair Zahid, Assistant Director (SMD). Salman Majeed Sheikh, Chief Executive Officer and Fazal Mahmood, Consultant for Respondent. Syed Asad Haider, Joint Director", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO SALMAN MAJEED SECURITIES (SMC-PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 288 = 2011 SLD 288 = 2011 CLD 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: False financial statements in audited accounts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCompany disclosed a receivable that was not substantiated by supporting evidence.\no\nSECP determined violations under Companies Ordinance, 1984, Section 492.\no\nLeniency granted due to directors’ financial contributions; penalties totaling PKR 1.75 million imposed.\n•\nOutcome: Penalty upheld; directors warned.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=492,472,476", + "Case #": "No.EMD/233/209/2002/1710-1717, decision dated: 1st October, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAHIDJEE TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 289 = 2011 SLD 289 = 2011 CLD 430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Short delivery of auctioned goods.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAuction-purchaser received fewer sugar bags than paid for.\no\nOfficial Assignee argued remaining bags were unfit for human consumption.\no\nHigh Court directed the refund of payment for the undelivered goods.\n•\nOutcome: Refund ordered.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=151", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-34 of 2008, decision dated: 2-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Lakhani for Plaintiffs. \nMansoor-ul-Arfin for Defendant along with Muhammad Ali Haider, Bank Representative. Ms. Sofia Saeed Shah, for A/P", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALID JAWAID AND BROTHER (\"\"KJB\"\") and another \nVS\nSONERI BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 290 = 2011 SLD 290 = 2011 CLD 436", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Maintainability of recovery suits and defense mechanisms.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nBank's recovery suit validly filed with a power of attorney.\no\nDefendant failed to raise substantial questions of fact or law.\no\nLeave to defend was denied; suit decreed in the bank's favor.\n•\nOutcome: Suit decreed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9,9(1)", + "Case #": "Suit No.56 of 2010 and C.M.As. Nos.7887, 11741 and 12085 of 2010, decision dated: 14-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayebally and Abdul Sattar Lakhani for Plaintiff. \nSaalim Salam Ansari for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "SILKBANK LIMITED \nVS\nMessrs DEWAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 291 = 2011 SLD 291 = 2011 CLD 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Promissory note in money suits.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPromissory note signed by witnesses and compliant with the Negotiable Instruments Act deemed valid.\no\nSpecial Court under Order XXXVII CPC had jurisdiction to hear the case.\n•\nOutcome: Suit was maintainable under special jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 27 of 2009, decision dated: 17-09-2010, hearing DATE : 23rd July, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Ali Khan for Appellant. \nMalik Muhammad Asad for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAZAL ELLAHI \nVS \nAKHTAR ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 292 = 2011 SLD 292 = 2011 CLD 496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Right to information under Article 19-A.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nArticle 19-A applies only to matters of public importance.\no\nShareholder disputes regarding private companies are not of public interest.\no\nPetition dismissed for lack of maintainability.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=19A", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-197 of 2010, decision dated: 24-12-2010, hearing DATE : 10-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE\nTUFAIL H. IBRAHIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rasheed A. Akhund and Rasheed A. Akhund for Petitioners.\nKashif Paracha for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Zubair Hashmi for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD MASOOD BUTT and 3 others\nVS\nS.M. CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 293 = 2011 SLD 293 = 2011 CLD 504", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Forgery of promissory notes.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDefendant successfully rebutted statutory presumption of the promissory note's validity.\no\nHandwriting expert confirmed forgery of defendant's signature.\n•\nOutcome: Suit dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=118Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=59Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 7 of 2008, decision dated: 20-09-2010, hearing DATE : 14-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rustam Khan Kundi for Appellant. \nS. Mastan Ali Zaidi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALIL KHAN\nVS \nSALAHUDDIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 294 = 2011 SLD 294 = 2011 CLD 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Placement of name on Exit Control List (ECL).\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRight to travel abroad is a fundamental liberty.\no\nECL placement without notice violates due process.\no\nPetitioner's name was removed from the ECL.\n•\nOutcome: Petition allowed; ECL order set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Exits From Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981=2Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.908 of 2009, decision dated: 8-01-2011, hearing DATE : 13-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE \nTUFAIL H. IBRAHIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Petitioners. \nShahab Serki along with S. Israr Ali, Dy. Director, F.I.A. for Respondent No. 1. \nHassan Akbar for Respondent No. 2. \nMalik Khushhal for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZURASH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Director and 4 others\nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 295 = 2011 SLD 295 = 2011 CLD 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Validity of promissory notes as security instruments.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPromissory note upheld as valid despite defendant's claim of it being a security.\no\nDefendants admitted partial payments, supporting validity of the note.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=4Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,R.2", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.325 of 2005, heard on 30-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Nazir Ahmad Kamboh for Appellants. \nSajid Latif Hanjra for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "NADEEM KAMRAN and another\nVS\nWASEEM AKHTAR TAREEN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 296 = 2011 SLD 296 = 2011 CLD 537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Non-compliance with substantial acquisition regulations.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAcquirers exceeded the 25% voting shares threshold without disclosure or a public offer.\no\nSECP imposed fines on acquirers for regulatory violations.\n•\nOutcome: Fines imposed; compliance emphasized.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. EMD/TO/26/2009-2415-2418, decision dated: 15-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUE TO ELAHI COTTON MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 297 = 2011 SLD 297 = 2011 CLD 550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Interim injunction and proximity restrictions.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCourt restrained construction near a refinery classified as Key Point Installation A-1.\no\nIssues of compliance with Key Point Intelligence Division rules referred for further deliberation.\n•\nOutcome: Interim relief granted; legal questions framed for resolution.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=189Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Suit No.1094 and C.M.As. Nos. 7860, 11551 of 2008, decision dated: 7-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid Anwer for Plaintiff.\nMessrs Muneer A. Malik and Haider Waheed for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN REFINERY LIMITED \nVS \nMASKATIYA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 298 = 2011 SLD 298 = 2011 CLD 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Insider trading and fiduciary duties.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRespondent, as Chief Executive of two companies, misused insider information from Company A to benefit Company B. \no\nBreach of fiduciary duty under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.\no\nSECP imposed a penalty of PKR 1,000,000 and directed future compliance.\n•\nOutcome: Penalty imposed; compliance emphasized.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15,15A&15-E(3)", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated July, 28th, 2010, decision dated: 29-12-2010, hearing DATE : 4-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BAWANY AIR PRODUCTS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 299 = 2011 SLD 299 = 2011 CLD 580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Lack of prudent management in an insurance company.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCompany lacked policies, internal controls, and effective audit systems, leading to discrepancies and regulatory violations.\no\nPenalty of PKR 50,000 imposed under Insurance Ordinance, 2000, Section 156, considering management's proactive rectifications.\no\nDirectors reminded of their fiduciary duties and heightened accountability standards.\n•\nOutcome: Penalty upheld; warning issued for future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=11,11(1)(F),12,59A(1),156", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated 15-11-2010, decision dated: 20-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. NASREEN RASHID, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EAST WEST INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 647 = 2002 SLD 647 = 2002 CLD 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Privatization of a bank and mala fides in constitutional petition.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nFederal Government’s sale of bank shares to the public was challenged by a petitioner who failed to meet contractual obligations.\no\nHigh Court dismissed the petition citing mala fide intent by the petitioner.\no\nSupreme Court upheld dismissal; leave to appeal refused.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; privatization upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=82Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.818 L of 1999, decision dated: 21st September, 2001, hearing DATE : 28-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMED, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JUSTICE\nQAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Akam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. gureshi, Advocate on-Record, M. Saleern Sehgal, Advocate Supreme Court and Aslarn Ch., Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALLIED MANAGEMENT GROUP \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 648 = 2002 SLD 648 = 2002 CLD 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Allocation and retrospective operation of textile export quotas.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nGovernment revised quota allocation procedures via superseding notification, overriding previous entitlements.\no\nSupreme Court upheld the government's authority under Section 13 of the initial notification.\no\nRetrospective application of new policy deemed valid; doctrine of promissory estoppel not applicable.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal dismissed; notification upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.44 to 46 of 2001 and 1205 of 1997, decision dated: 29-08-2001, hearing DATE : 14-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nMIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate on-Record for Appellants. \nSheikh Abdul Manan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate on-Record for Respondents.\nHaider Ali Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Abdul Aziz Khan, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1205 of 1997).\nM. Nawaz Bhatti, Deputy A. G., Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record and Ahmed Ullah Farooqi, Advocate -on-Record (absent) for Respondents (in C.A. No. 1205 of 1997).", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others --Appellants\nVs \nAMMAR TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED and others --Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 649 = 2002 SLD 649 = 2002 CLD 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Registration of trade marks and discretionary powers of the registrar.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRegistrar rejected a logo’s registration, citing non-compliance with Trade Marks Act, 1940.\no\nHigh Court ruled the logo met the statutory definition and criteria for registration.\no\nRegistrar's discretion must align with principles of fairness and legality.\n•\nOutcome: Registrar’s decision overturned; logo deemed registrable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=2,2(1)(f)", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeal No. 45 of 1998, decision dated: 13-08-2001, hearing DATE : 6-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Faez Issa for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SOCIETE GENERALE \nVs \nREGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 650 = 2002 SLD 650 = 2002 CLD 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Misconduct and interpretation of arbitration awards.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nArbitrator misconstrued contractual terms regarding time as the essence of a supply contract.\no\nAward included unwarranted declaratory directions beyond the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.\no\nCourt set aside the award, citing legal misconduct and impracticality for implementation.\no\nPrinciples clarified for setting aside awards under Arbitration Act, 1940, Sections 17 and 30.\n•\nOutcome: Award set aside; arbitrator's overreach corrected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=13", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.5 of 1991, decision dated: 10-08-2001. dates of hearing; 9th, 10th and 16-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aurangzeb Mirza for Appellants. \nMalik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways and another \nVs \nMessrs RAJASTAN ALLOY AND STEEL (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 651 = 2002 SLD 651 = 2002 CLD 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Contractual relationships and enforceability of agency/franchise agreements.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe court is responsible for interpreting documents to determine legal rights and obligations.\no\nThe respondent was not an agent of the appellant since there was no intermediary role or liability for accounts.\no\nFranchise agreements are revocable unless otherwise specified, and perpetual injunctions cannot enforce such agreements.\no\nSpecific performance of a supply contract is not permissible under Specific Relief Act, 1877, Section 56(f), and damages are the appropriate remedy for breaches.\n•\nOutcome: Injunction denied; agency relationship not established.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order 82 of 2001, decision dated: 2-08-2001, hearing DATE : 3rd July, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Ata Bandial for Appellant.\nKh. Saeed uz Zafar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "CONCENTRATE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF IRELAND and 3 others --Appellants\nVs \nSEVEN UP BOTTLING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED and 3 others Proforma --Respondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 652 = 2002 SLD 652 = 2002 CLD 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Recovery of dishonored cheques and obligations under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPlaintiff is not obligated to present dishonored cheques repeatedly if the intent to default is evident.\no\nPresumption of consideration exists under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\no\nSummary suit decreed for principal and interest under Section 79 of the Act, with additional markup for delays.\n•\nOutcome: Suit decreed for PKR 537,660 with additional markup; obligations of defendant upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,R.2Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=64,76,92", + "Case #": "Suit No. 79 of 1997; decided on 13-09-2001, hearing DATE : 30-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A.M. Namazie for Plaintiffs.\nChowdhary M. Jamil for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD.\nVs \nMessrs SECURITY AND MANAGEMENT. SERVICES (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 653 = 2002 SLD 653 = 2002 CLD 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Grant of injunction in patent and public interest disputes.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nInjunctions are discretionary and must consider prima facie case, irreparable loss, balance of convenience, and public interest.\no\nOverpricing and monopolistic exploitation of patents may weigh against granting injunctions.\no\nDefendants failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds to suspend registration of the patent.\n•\nOutcome: Injunction denied; patent exploitation mitigated.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-1,O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Applications No.3609 in Judicial Miscellaneous No.24 of 1999, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 7184 in Suit No. 1024 of 1998, Civil Miscellaneous Application No.7186 in Suit No. 1025 of 1998, decision dated: 23rd August, 2001. dates of hearing: 18th, 25th, 31st January; 26th February: 18th, 19th, 26th April and 6-08-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muneeb Akhtar for Plaintiffs.\nMunawar Ghani Khan for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "ATCO LAB. (PVT.) LIMITED \nVs\nPFIZER LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 654 = 2002 SLD 654 = 2002 CLD 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Liquidation process and stamp duty on auctioned assets.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nOfficial liquidators have authority to sell assets with court sanction under Section 333(f) of Companies Ordinance, 1984.\no\nMachinery embedded in land and sold with immovable property is classified as immovable for stamp duty purposes.\no\nAuction purchaser liable for stamp duty on the total purchase price, including machinery.\n•\nOutcome: Purchaser required to pay stamp duty on total value; classification upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=333(f),402", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No. 72 of 1989 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1885 of 2001, decision dated: 27-06-2001, hearing DATE : 18-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siddiq Mirza for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, N.A. \nVs\nMessrs FIRDOUS SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 655 = 2002 SLD 655 = 2002 CLD 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Separation of liabilities under Electricity Act, 1910, and Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPartnership and company entities are distinct under law; liabilities cannot be conflated.\no\nElectricity meters in distinct legal names cannot be clubbed under Section 24 of Electricity Act, 1910.\no\nConstitutional petition challenging the clubbing of meters upheld due to illegality.\n•\nOutcome: Petition allowed; separate legal identities affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Electricity Act, 1910=24,24(1)Partnership Act, 1932=59", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6836 of 2001, heard on 9-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Irfan Whyne for Petitioner. \nMalik Haider Jamal Maitla for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "TANVIR RASOOL ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Director\nVs\nMAPCO through Chief Executive and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 656 = 2002 SLD 656 = 2002 CLD 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up petitions based on non-payment of debts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nWinding-up petitions are maintainable when liability is undisputed, but not if the debt is contested.\no\nAlternate remedies or barred limitation do not preclude such petitions if statutory requirements are met.\no\nPetition dismissed as the claimed debt was disputed and not valid under Section 305(e) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; no coercive relief granted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,305(e)", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.75 of 1995, decision dated: 16-10-2001, hearing DATE ; 5-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Taffaz ul Haider Rizvi for Petitioner.\nMiss Iram Ahsan and Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CONSTRUCT (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive \nVs\nHABIB JUTE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 657 = 2002 SLD 657 = 2002 CLD 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Conversion of a foreign insurance branch into a public limited company.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nScheme of Arrangement sanctioned as per Sections 284-287 of Companies Ordinance, 1984.\no\nNo objections from employees, creditors, or insured, and financial disclosures met statutory requirements.\n•\nOutcome: Scheme approved; conversion allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=5,5(3)Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,285,286,287", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No 19 of 2001, decision dated: 11-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "ACE INSURANCE LIMITED, in the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 658 = 2002 SLD 658 = 2002 CLD 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Recovery of arrears of land revenue against guarantors.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCoercive recovery measures without determination by a competent court are illegal.\no\nJoint liabilities of guarantors should be proportionate and limited to their guarantees.\no\nHigh Court restrained recovery until determination by a court of competent jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome: Petition allowed; recovery action restrained.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1967)=80Contract Act, 1872=42,146Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.11501 of 2001, decision dated: 11-09-2001, hearing DATE : 2-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saeed Ansari for Petitioner.\nSardar Muhammad Tariq Khan Dareshik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM \nVs \nSMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION through Managing Director, Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 659 = 2002 SLD 659 = 2002 CLD 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Estoppel, contract acceptance, specific performance, and discretionary injunctions.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nEstoppel requires proof of detrimental reliance on a belief or expectation created by the other party.\no\nAcceptance of a proposal must be absolute and unqualified to form a contract; qualified acceptance constitutes no contract.\no\nSpecific performance of agreements is discretionary and rests on clear, unequivocal terms; contracts subject to contract are not enforceable unless the condition is explicitly lifted.\no\nMandatory injunctions cannot be granted as interim relief, as this equates to final relief.\n•\nOutcome: Specific performance and injunction denied due to lack of binding agreement.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114Specific Relief Act, 1877=12,21Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=OXXXIX,Rr.1,2Contract Act, 1872=7,2(h),3,10", + "Case #": "Suit No.711 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.3731 of 2000, decision dated: 6-11-2000, hearing DATE : 26-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khahd Anwar for Plaintiff. \nSalman Talib-ud-Din for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "AL HUDA. HOTELS AND TOURISM CO. and others\nVs \nPAKTEL LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 660 = 2002 SLD 660 = 2002 CLD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Classification of promissory notes and bonds for recovery suits.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nA document satisfying the conditions of a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is not rendered a bond merely because it is attested.\no\nHigh Court determined the document was a negotiable instrument and granted leave to defend upon furnishing security.\n•\nOutcome: High Court reversed the lower court's classification, granting conditional leave to defend.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=4,13Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XJOCVH,Rr.2,3,S.115Stamp Act, of 1899=2(2),(5)(b)", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 1240 of 2001, heard on 11-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan for Petitioner. \nMuhammad Yaqub Khan and Waqar Mushtaq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Sheikh MUHAMMAD ZAFAR \nVs \nDr. JEHAN ARA AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 661 = 2002 SLD 661 = 2002 CLD 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Murabahah financing in Islamic jurisprudence.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nMurabahah involves the sale of goods at a profit margin disclosed to the buyer; the price is fixed and cannot be adjusted for late payment or early settlement.\no\nRollovers or additional charges for rescheduling are not permissible under Shariah principles.\no\nFinancial institutions cannot claim amounts beyond the fixed sale price in case of default.\n•\nOutcome: Suit decreed in favor of the borrower, disallowing additional charges beyond the Murabahah price.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1659 of 1999, decision dated: 25-04-2001, hearing DATE : 11-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Farooqui for Plaintiff. \nNadeem Akhtar for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "TEXTILE MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LIMITED \nVs \nN.I.T." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 663 = 2002 SLD 663 = 2002 CLD 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Settlement of liabilities through installment plans in corporate disputes.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCourt-approved installment plans for repayment were binding, with default on two consecutive payments triggering lump-sum recovery.\no\nThe petitioner retained the right to approach the court in case of default by the respondents.\n•\nOutcome: Petition disposed of with enforceable installment terms.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290,291,292", + "Case #": "Civil Original No. 119 of 1996, heard on 8-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Fazal i Hussain for Petitioner. \nImtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Respondents Nos. 1and 2. \nHaq Nawaz Chattha for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "CAPITAL ASSETS LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Chief Operating Officer\nVs \nHALA ENTERPRISES LTD. through Chief Executive and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 664 = 2002 SLD 664 = 2002 CLD 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up of a company with no significant assets or prospects.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe company was insolvent, with minimal assets and no operational activities.\no\nOfficial Liquidator recommended dissolution due to hopeless financial prospects.\n•\nOutcome: High Court dissolved the company, relieving creditors of further burden.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.34 of 1993, heard on 2-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.Naeem Sahgal for Petitioner. \nAhmad Fazal Sheikh, Official Liquidator for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BASF (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Branch Manager and duly constituted Attorney\nVs \nSPECTRUM (PRIVATE) LIMITED and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 665 = 2002 SLD 665 = 2002 CLD 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Shari Nizam-e-Adl Regulation and retrospective application.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nRegulation operates prospectively, affecting rights and liabilities determined after its enactment.\no\nDecrees issued before the regulation's enforcement remain enforceable despite objections based on Islamic injunctions.\n•\nOutcome: Objections dismissed; execution of decree upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Shari Nizam a Adl Regulation (I of 1999)=8,8(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=34", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1261 and 1820 to 1823 of 2001, decision dated: 17-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, JUSTICE\nMUNIR A. SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Imtiaz Ali, Additional Advocate General (N.W.F.P.) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SWAT CORN PRODUCTS \nVs\nGRAIN DEALERS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 666 = 2002 SLD 666 = 2002 CLD 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQ1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Minority oppression and shareholding disputes in companies.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nPetitioners with significant minority shares were excluded from management and board positions.\no\nRespondents’ inconsistent defenses indicated an attempt to evade liabilities.\no\nHigh Court directed respondents to buy petitioners’ shares at par value but denied regulating company affairs.\n•\nOutcome: Relief granted for share purchase; company affairs regulation denied.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290,86,156,158,205:,252", + "Case #": "Civil Original No. 27 of 1992, heard on 26-04-2000. dates of hearing: 24th February; 6th and 26-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muzaffar Hussain and Syed Khalid Saleem for Petitioners. \nM.R. Sheikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ISRARUL HAQ and 3 others \nVs \nAL TAHIR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 667 = 2002 SLD 667 = 2002 CLD 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up of a company and labor interests.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe company was insolvent, with debts exceeding assets and no production.\no\nTo protect labor interests, the court ordered republication of notices and appointed a Provisional Manager.\n•\nOutcome: Proceedings adjourned for further actions, with labor interests prioritized.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.37 of 2000, decision dated: 28-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saalim Salam Ansari for Petitioner.\nA.H. Mirza for Respondent. \nS. Saleem-ud-Din Nasir for the State", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs QUAIDABAD WOOLLEN MILLS LIMITED \nVs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 668 = 2002 SLD 668 = 2002 CLD 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Rejection of surety bond in recovery suits.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTrial Court’s rejection of the surety bond was overly technical and lacked legal justification.\no\nHigh Court emphasized deciding disputes on merit rather than procedural technicalities.\n•\nOutcome: Judgment reversed; defendant allowed to furnish a fresh surety bond.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-3,0.3QCXVII,R.3,S.96", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.577 of 2001, heard on 16-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Waqar Saleem for Appellant.\nMuhammad Ashraf Khan Niazi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAZIR\nVs \nHaji ZAKA ULLAH KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 669 = 2002 SLD 669 = 2002 CLD 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Judicial interference in administrative and tribunal decisions.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nHigh Court cannot replace findings of administrative or tribunal bodies in constitutional jurisdiction unless there is clear illegality or jurisdictional error.\no\nPolicies regarding industrial regulations are outside the court’s jurisdiction for reinterpretation.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; tribunal findings upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Industries (Control on Establishment and Enlargement) Ordinance (IV of 1963)=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.21114 of 2001, decision dated: 29-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli and Tariq Kamal Qazi for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs JDW SUGAR MILLS LTD.\nVs \nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Ministry of Industries and Development, Lahore and 2 others\nGHULAM SHABBIR SHAH\nVs \nPAKISTAN through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 670 = 2002 SLD 670 = 2002 CLD 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Interest in financial contracts under Islamic law and constitutional jurisdiction.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nA petitioner who enters a financial agreement with a bank, including an interest clause, is bound by Islamic principles of fulfilling contractual obligations.\no\nHigh Courts lack jurisdiction under Article 203G of the Constitution to declare interest un-Islamic.\no\nAlternate remedies under the Banking Companies Act, 1997, must be pursued before constitutional petitions.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; charging interest upheld under contractual obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,203G", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 14267 of 1994, heard on 27-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar Munir for Petitioner. \nNemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 671 = 2002 SLD 671 = 2002 CLD 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Interpretation of coastal shipping under Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCoastal shipping refers exclusively to shipping between Pakistani ports, not international shipping.\no\nInternational liner agreements are not regulated unless operators engage in coastal shipping.\no\nSection headings cannot override statutory provisions.\n•\nOutcome: Applicability limited to coastal shipping; international agreements excluded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance (LII of 2001)=81,76,77,82,83", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 20903 of 2001, heard on 12-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja and Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui for Petitioners. \nMakhdoom Ali Khan Attorney General for Pakistan assisted by Kh. Saeed uz Zafar, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 1.\nAli Zafar Syed and Haider Zaman Qureshi for Respondents Nos. 2, 7, 8, 15 and 18. \nSajjad Zahid and Asad Munir for Respondent No. 4. Moeen Qureshi for Respondents Nos; 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 17 and 19.\nMuhammad Naeem and M.R. Shaikh for Respondents Nos. 11, 13 and 16.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NISHAT (CHUNIAN) LIMITED through its Assistant Manager Commercial and others \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 672 = 2002 SLD 672 = 2002 CLD 524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Liability under a disputed bank guarantee.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nA guarantee is enforceable only if its execution by the alleged guarantor is proven.\no\nIn the absence of a valid guarantee, the alleged guarantor cannot be held liable.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal allowed; decree against the alleged guarantor set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6,9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 75 of 1996, heard on 28th November 2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Khalid Mahmood Khan for Appellant.\nMalik M. Rashid Awan for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB CREDIT & EXCHANGE BANK LIMITED, L.D.A. PLAZA, LAHORE\nVs \nEMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED through Attorney and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 673 = 2002 SLD 673 = 2002 CLD 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Territorial jurisdiction and sale of shares under contract law.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nJurisdiction lies where the cause of action arises, including the place of contract formation.\no\nContract concluded through offer and acceptance is binding despite subsequent disputes.\n•\nOutcome: Contract upheld; specific performance directed for the issuance of shares.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=20Specific Relief Act, 1877=42", + "Case #": "Suit No 49 of 1979, decision dated: 3-10-1998, hearing DATE : 23rd September, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Akhtar for Plaintiffs. \nFazal-e-Ghani Khan and Yawar Farooqi for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD. \nVs \nLAWRENCEPUR WOOLLEN AND TEXTILE MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 674 = 2002 SLD 674 = 2002 CLD 575", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up petitions and jurisdiction of courts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nA winding-up petition must be filed in the High Court where the company's registered office is located.\no\nMatters cannot be bifurcated between courts of equal jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome: Petition returned for filing before the Sindh High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=7,7(1)(2),305,307", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 16 of 1999, decision dated: 30-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Javaid Iqbal Jaffari for Petitioners.\nJawwad Hassan for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN and others\nVs\nDADEX ENTERNIT and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 675 = 2002 SLD 675 = 2002 CLD 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Interim injunctions in commercial contracts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTime is of the essence in commercial contracts unless stated otherwise.\no\nDamages are an adequate remedy for non-unique goods in commercial disputes.\n•\nOutcome: Interim injunction denied; damages deemed sufficient remedy.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIXRr.1,2Contract Act, 1872=55", + "Case #": "Suit No.765 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4467 of 2001, decision dated: 22-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Altaf Hussain for Plaintiff. Zia-ud-Din Nasir.\nStanding Counsel for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs WARRAICH BROTHERS DAHRANWALA through Proprietor Muhammad Aslam having its Head Office at Fortabbas Road, Dharanwalla Bhawalnagar. \nVS \nTHE DIRECTOR (I & S) FERTILIZER IMPORT DEPARTMENT, KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 676 = 2002 SLD 676 = 2002 CLD 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up of a company due to financial insolvency.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nWinding up is not justified where motives of petitioners are suspect and company liabilities are being contested in other forums.\no\nLifting the corporate veil revealed mismanagement and misuse of funds.\n•\nOutcome: Petition rejected; winding-up deemed inequitable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.65 of 1993, heard on 14-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioners.\nAsad Javed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mian KHURSHID ALAM and another\nVs \nSHAH ZAIG UR REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 677 = 2002 SLD 677 = 2002 CLD 624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Arbitration and summary suits.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nArbitration cannot stay summary suits when the suit is based on promissory notes or similar instruments.\no\nSummary suits proceed only against the drawer of the negotiable instrument.\n•\nOutcome: Application for arbitration dismissed; summary suit allowed to proceed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,R.2,23Arbitration Act, 1940=23,34", + "Case #": "Suit No.519 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.3101, 3109, 8112 and 8113 of 1997, decision dated: 1st October, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Masood Ahmed Khan for Plaintiffs. \nM.L. Shahani and Mohsin Tayabaly for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mst. SURIYA WASEEM USMANI and 9 others\nVs \nL & M INIERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 678 = 2002 SLD 678 = 2002 CLD 643", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Discharge of sureties in financial contracts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nA surety is discharged if contract terms are varied or principal debtor is released without the surety's consent.\no\nWithdrawal of a suit based on a compromise extinguishes claims against sureties.\n•\nOutcome: Sureties discharged; fresh suit against them dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=133,134,135Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXIII,R.I", + "Case #": "Suit No.B 49 of 2000, decision dated: 7-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR MANSOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Mirza for Plaintiff.\nMs. Sadaf Yousaf for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "N.D. LEASING CORPORATION\nVs \nNATIONAL FIBERS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 679 = 2002 SLD 679 = 2002 CLD 652", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Auction of property under execution.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nApplications to set aside auctions are non-maintainable without compliance with procedural requirements, including deposit of requisite amounts.\n•\nOutcome: Application dismissed; appeal rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19,22Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXI,Rr.66,89,90", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No.793 of 2001, decision dated: 6-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aamir Tauseef for Appellants. \nShahid Ikram Siddiqui for Respondents. Asher Elahi for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAROON ZAHEER and another\nVs \nCITI BANK N.A. 14, KASHMIR EGERTON ROAD, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 680 = 2002 SLD 680 = 2002 CLD 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Reference of disputes to arbitration.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCourts retain discretion to stay proceedings or entertain suits despite arbitration agreements, considering evidence location and convenience.\no\nArbitration clauses involving foreign jurisdictions require careful balancing of inconvenience and denial of justice.\n•\nOutcome: Arbitration stay denied; suit allowed to proceed in Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "Suit No.470 and Civil Miscellaneous No.6221 of 1999, decision dated: 10-12-2001, hearing DATE : 25-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWEZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Sayeed and Yawar Farooqui for Plaintiff. \nHabib ur Rehman for Defendant No. 1.\nZubir gureshi for Defendant No. 2.\nArshad Taebaly for Defendant No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMIN AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR LTD.\nVs \nPAS + R and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 681 = 2002 SLD 681 = 2002 CLD 696", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Priorities in disbursement of auction proceeds and taxation liabilities.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCourt orders regarding sale agreements bind property purchasers but disbursement of auction proceeds follows statutory priorities.\no\nUtilities like electricity and water dues are not categorized as taxes and are subordinate to mortgage claims.\n•\nOutcome: Payment of taxes allowed; mortgagee given next priority over utility claims.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-13,0.XIO.V,R.13Transfer of Property Act, 1882=57", + "Case #": "Ex. 123 of 1999, decision dated: 29-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWEZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aijaz Ahmed for the Decree Holder.Jafer Sial for the C.I.R.C. Suhail H.K. Rana, Advocate. Shakoor Dehalvi, Advocate. Bashir Memon, Official Assignee", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LTD.\nVs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 682 = 2002 SLD 682 = 2002 CLD 702", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Review and correction of decrees by Banking Courts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nBanking Courts lack review powers under Section 28 of the Banking Companies Act, 1997, except for correcting clerical errors under Section 152, CPC.\no\nRecklessness in granting unsecured loans by banks may lead to disciplinary actions against officials.\n•\nOutcome: High Court upheld the correction of decree but dismissed the appeal on grounds of mortgagor liability.\nsc", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=28,9Transfer of Property Act, 1882=58Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=114,O.XLVII", + "Case #": "I. A. No.98 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.1883 of 1999 and 152 of 2001, decision dated: 17-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rizwan Ahmad Siddiqui for Appellant.\nSyed Jamil Ahmad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BOLAN BANK LIMITED through Attorney\nVs \nMessrs AL ASLAM INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 683 = 2002 SLD 683 = 2002 CLD 706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Passing off in trademark disputes.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nUse of a franchisor's name post-termination constitutes passing off, misleading the public about association.\no\nCourts can grant interim injunctions to prevent misrepresentation.\n•\nOutcome: Interim injunction denied to the plaintiff for continued use of the name; passing-off claim upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=20Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Civil Revisions Nos.2409 and 2410 of 2001, decision dated: 23rd January, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmer Bilal Soofi for Petitioner. \nSyed Ijaz Ali Akbar Sabzwari for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mst. ZEESHAN NADEEM\nVs\nOMER AZIZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 684 = 2002 SLD 684 = 2002 CLD 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Registration and rectification of company names under Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe Commission has jurisdiction to address name registration disputes before company registration.\no\nApplications for rectification post-registration fall under Section 38, not Section 37.\no\nRectification claims are barred after three years unless public harm persists.\n•\nOutcome: Post-registration administrative orders by the Commission invalidated; rectification jurisdiction limited.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=37,37(4),37(1)(3)(4),484(2)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1990, decision dated: 17-09-2001. dates of hearing: 2nd and 3rd July, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMANSOOR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem Sehgal alongwith Naeem Sehgal for Appellant.\nKh. Abrar Majal for Respondent No. 2. \nSaeed ul Zafar Khawaja, D.A. G. for Respondent No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "PROGRESSIVE CONSULTANTS (PVT.) LTD. and others\nVs \nCORPORATE LAW AUTHORITY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 685 = 2002 SLD 685 = 2002 CLD 749", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Protection under Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nMortgaged property remains subject to the mortgage even if transferred to third parties.\no\nProtection under Section 53A requires the applicant to fulfill all contractual obligations, including settling mortgage liabilities.\n•\nOutcome: Applicant directed to clear the mortgage; claim of misrepresentation rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882=53,53ACivil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12(2)", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.59 of 1999, heard on 18-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Zuberi for Applicant. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqi for Plaintif. Noorullah A. Manji for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LIMITED and another\nVs\nMessrs WEST PAKISTAN TANK TERMINAL LIMITED and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 686 = 2002 SLD 686 = 2002 CLD 754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Limitation in rescinding contracts and continuous breach claims.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nLimitation for rescinding contracts starts from the last breach or acknowledgment of liability.\no\nContinuous breach claims must demonstrate ongoing violations; isolated breaches bar claims post-limitation period.\n•\nOutcome: Suit barred by limitation; decree overturned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Limitation Act, 1908=114,115,19Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=96", + "Case #": "Regular First Applications Nos. 186 of 1992 and 194 of 1994, heard on 11-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawwad Hassan for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DESCON MANUFACTURING\nVs \nM. TUFIAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 687 = 2002 SLD 687 = 2002 CLD 767", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up of companies due to debt non-payment.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nStatutory notice under Section 306 is a prerequisite for winding-up petitions.\no\nAlleged inability to pay debts must be substantiated with concrete evidence of neglect post-notice.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; statutory prerequisites unmet.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,306Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.20 of 1997, heard on 17-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz Khan for Appellants.\nRizwan Ahmed Siddiqui for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mst. ASEFA AFZAL and 3 others\nVs \nMessrs JOURNALIST PUBLICATIONS (PVT.) LIMITED and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 688 = 2002 SLD 688 = 2002 CLD 773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Validity of amendments under Trade Marks Act.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAmendments without public notice and publication violate procedural requirements under Section 84 of the Trade Marks Act.\n•\nOutcome: Notification deemed invalid; petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=84Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199General Clauses Act, 1897=23", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 110 and Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 340, 584 and 862 of 2001, decision dated: 22-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE\nWAHID BUX BROHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Navin Merchant for Petitioners. S. Zaki Muhammad, D.A. G", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ASSOCIATION \"\"PIPRA\"\" through Home Secretary and 2 others\nVS \nSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 689 = 2002 SLD 689 = 2002 CLD 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Claims against companies under liquidation and agent liability.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nLegal proceedings against liquidating companies require leave of the Company Judge under Section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\no\nAgents' liability under the Customs Act is contingent on the principal's established liability.\n•\nOutcome: Lower courts’ decrees overturned; case referred to the liquidator under liquidation proceedings..", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=316Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=316,115Customs Act, 1969=55(1)(c),55", + "Case #": "Civil Revision Applications Nos. 189 of 1997 and 85 of 1998 decided on 27-09-2000, hearing DATE : 5-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor A. Shaikh for Applicants.\nNaeem Ahmed for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MACKINNONS MACKENZAI & CO. OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED\nVs \nMessrs THE EASATERN FEDERAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 690 = 2002 SLD 690 = 2002 CLD 788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) in matters of company elections.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nNIRC does not have jurisdiction over disputes related to the election of office bearers of a company.\no\nSuch matters fall under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and are within the jurisdiction of the High Court.\n•\nOutcome: Election disputes to be resolved as per the Companies Ordinance by the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=22,22A(8)(g)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7358 of 1996, decision dated: 19-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Akhtar for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Sh. AKHTAR ALI and 2 others\nVs \nKARAMAT ALI MIRZA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 691 = 2002 SLD 691 = 2002 CLD 790", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: International law doctrines, treaty interpretation, and ICSID arbitration.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nMonism vs. Dualism: Monism integrates international law into domestic law automatically, whereas dualism requires legislative action for applicability (norm in Pakistan).\no\nICSID Arbitration: Consent of parties is mandatory for jurisdiction. Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and proper law govern international contracts.\no\nArbitration clauses are treated independently within contracts and must adhere to procedural laws agreed upon by parties.\n•\nOutcome: In Pakistan, domestic laws prevail unless international treaties are incorporated legislatively.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=20", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order 9 of 2002, heard on 14-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Karim Qureshi for Petitioner.\nMakhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney General for Pakistan. Salman Talib-ud-Din, Uzair Karamat Bhandari and Raja Muhammad Bashir Prosecutor General, NAB for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SGS SOCIETE GENERALE\nVs\nPAKISTANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 692 = 2002 SLD 692 = 2002 CLD 813", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Contract cancellation, damages, and injunctions.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nGoods supplied according to specifications cannot justify contract cancellation without cogent reasons.\no\nCancellation of a contract and demand for damages must be based on valid grounds, especially when rectifiable defects exist.\no\nMisreading or non-reading of evidence leads to the setting aside of lower courts' judgments.\n•\nOutcome: Contract cancellation and damages demand were invalid; case decided in favor of the supplier.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=17,58,57Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54,56,56(d)", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 1033 of 1988, decision dated: 13-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Zia Ullah for Petitioner. Javed Sarfraz, Standing Counsel for Pakistan", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHIFA MEDICO \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 693 = 2002 SLD 693 = 2002 CLD 823", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Interpretation of documents under the Stamp Act and banking agreements.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nStamp Act must be interpreted liberally in favor of citizens; photocopies cannot replace original instruments for stamp duty purposes.\no\nBanking mark-up agreements are not conveyance deeds as they do not transfer property.\no\nDue process requires notice and an opportunity for hearing before action against individuals.\n•\nOutcome: Mark-up agreements deemed acknowledgments, not conveyance deeds; authorities’ demand for stamp duty on photocopies invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Stamp Act, of 1899=2,Preamble,2(14)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.318, 374, 539 and 351 of 1997, decision dated: 31st December, 2001. dates of hearing: 10th and 25-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MOOSA K LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed, for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D 318 of Abul Inam for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D 351 of 1997). Muhammad Naeem for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D 374 and C.P. No. 539 of 1997). Abbas Ali, Additional Advocate General for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BAYER PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. and others \nVs \nBOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 694 = 2002 SLD 694 = 2002 CLD 872", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Merger and amalgamation of companies.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nMerger/amalgamation requires approval by the majority of members, absence of objections from employees or creditors, and compliance with the Companies Ordinance.\no\nFinancial positions of companies and public interest are critical considerations.\n•\nOutcome: Merger/amalgamation approved in the interest of shareholders and in compliance with legal requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,287,288", + "Case #": "J.M. No.24 of 2000, heard on 28-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Zafar Ali for Petitioners", + "Petitioner Name:": "In re: R.R.P. LIMITED\nVS\nNIMIR RESINS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 695 = 2002 SLD 695 = 2002 CLD 890", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Liability of surety for mobilization advance and performance bond.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nInsurance company unconditionally guaranteed repayment of mobilization advance in case of contractor default.\no\nContractor's failure to repay mobilization advance was proven through arbitration and court award.\no\nSurety liable for repayment under the terms of the bond, independent of contractor disputes.\n•\nOutcome: Suit decreed against the surety for recovery of mobilization advance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=128Arbitration Act, 1940=17,20", + "Case #": "Suit No.202 of 1978, decision dated: 2-05-2000. dates of hearing: 4th, 11th and 14-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Aslam Butt for Plaintiff. \nAbdul Rauf for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUI SOUTHERN. GAS COMPANY LTD.\nVS\nSTANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 696 = 2002 SLD 696 = 2002 CLD 926", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Admiralty jurisdiction for claims in rem.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAdmiralty jurisdiction applies to ships if majority ownership is linked to a person against whom personal claims can be maintained.\no\nA Bill of Lading signed by the Master is presumed to represent the shipowner, but this can be rebutted if it is proven to represent the charterer.\no\nHigh Court determined vessel could not be attached in rem as plaintiffs failed to establish ownership linkage.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal dismissed; vessel attachment not permissible under Admiralty jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=4,3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Appeal No.6 of 2001, decision dated: 26-12-2001. dates of hearing: 20th and 21st December, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shaiq Usmani for Appellant. \nNaeem Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAFFER BROTHERS (PVT.) LIMITED\nVs \nM.V.EUROBULKER II PRESENTLY BERTHED AT MOORINGS IN KARACHI PORT TO BE SERVED through Master" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 697 = 2002 SLD 697 = 2002 CLD 936", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Maintainability of Admiralty suit for breach of agreement involving ship use.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAgreement pertained to use of a fishing license, not hire or use of ships.\no\nAdmiralty jurisdiction applies to claims directly arising from use, hire, or operation of ships, which was not the case here.\no\nHigh Court correctly transferred the suits to its original jurisdiction for ordinary civil adjudication.\n•\nOutcome: Supreme Court upheld transfer; petitions dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3,3(2)(h),4(4)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 92 and 93 of 2002, decision dated: 24-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHALIL UR REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Naseer Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MASOOMI ENTERPRISES PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED. and 2 others\nVS\nMessrs PING TAN FISHERY COMPANY and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 698 = 2002 SLD 698 = 2002 CLD 943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Cancellation of cheques under breach of agreement.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCheques issued under an agreement can be canceled if there is a material breach by the payee.\no\nTrial Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for lack of cause of action.\n•\nOutcome: Case remanded to Trial Court for proper adjudication after setting aside rejection order.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=39Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.11", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.306 of 2000, heard on 28-02-2002. dates of hearing: 26th, 27th and 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muneeb Akhtar for Appellant.\nSyed Ali Zafar, Haider Zaman Qureshi and Abid Aziz Sheikh for Respondents. Mian Qamar uz Zaman for M.C.B", + "Petitioner Name:": "IFTIKHAR AHMAD SHAFFI\nVs \nLAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LTD. and 31 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 699 = 2002 SLD 699 = 2002 CLD 978", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Filing of a suit by ex-management after a company's winding-up order.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nEx-management lacks authority to represent the company post-winding-up order unless permitted by the Court.\no\nSupreme Court’s interim suspension of winding-up order did not restore full powers to the ex-management.\n•\nOutcome: Suit dismissed as incompetent; official liquidators allowed to refile a valid suit.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=402", + "Case #": "Civil Original Suit No. 116 of 2000, decision dated: 27-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nauman Akram Raja for Plaintiff.\nPervaiz Akhtar Malik for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HALA SPINNING LIMITED\nVs \nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 700 = 2002 SLD 700 = 2002 CLD 1006 = 2002 PTCL 627 = 2002 SCMR 1777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Preferential claim by the Employees' Social Security Institution during company liquidation.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nClaims for contributions under the Provincial Employees’ Social Security Ordinance are treated as preferential under Section 405(1)(a) of the Companies Ordinance.\no\nThe provisions of both statutes are complementary, ensuring the priority of claims during liquidation.\n•\nOutcome: Appeal disposed of; preferential status for contributions upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=405,405(1)(a)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.207 and 208 of 1995, decision dated: 12-04-2002, hearing DATE : 24-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE \nJAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Zahoor Qureshi Azad, Advocate on-Record for Appellants. \nNoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate on-Record for Respondent No 1 (in C.A. No. 207 of 1995).", + "Petitioner Name:": "N.W.F.P. EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS through Director General and others\nVS\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Chairman, Peshawar and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 701 = 2002 SLD 701 = 2002 CLD 1012", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Encashment of bank guarantees during litigation.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nBank guarantees are independent contracts and cannot be declined due to litigation between original contracting parties.\no\nEncashment conditions depend on specific terms in the guarantee and require judicial scrutiny if breach allegations arise.\n•\nOutcome: Supreme Court granted leave to appeal; interim injunction issued against encashment pending final decision.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=126Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.382 K of 2002, decision dated: 17-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. G.M. Dastagir, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAK CONSULTING & ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nPAKISTAN STEEL MILLS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 702 = 2002 SLD 702 = 2002 CLD 1031", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Creation of agency through silence or conduct.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAgency cannot be implied solely from silence; it requires conduct, acceptance of benefits, or other corroborative actions.\no\nAbsence of evidence for such conduct means no agency relationship exists.\n•\nOutcome: No agency found; agency must be established through express or implied conduct.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 132 of 1989, decision dated: 15-01-2002. dates of hearing: 11th, 15th, 17th, 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 25-10-1st and 6-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Zafar for Appellant.\nDr. Pervez Hassan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD. Through Chief Executive\nVS\nCHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT, IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION, CHINA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 703 = 2002 SLD 703 = 2002 CLD 1048", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up of a company under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nBoth petitioner and respondent companies were independent legal entities.\no\nRespondent company failed to meet lease rental obligations under three aircraft leasing agreements.\no\nRespondent company’s existing assets were insufficient to meet liabilities.\no\nProvisions of Section 305 do not require creditors to wait indefinitely for potential improvements in the company’s financial condition.\n•\nOutcome: High Court ordered winding up of the respondent company.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Civil Original No. 9 of 1994, decision dated: 22-04-2002,hearing DATE : 12-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Petitioner.\nEjazul Hassan for Respondent. Qureshi Muhammad Hafeez, Airport Manager in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AEROFLOT RUSSIAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES\nVS\nHAJVAIRY AIRLINES (PVT, ) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 704 = 2002 SLD 704 = 2002 CLD 1054", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Recovery of dues by State Life Insurance Corporation under Art. 40-B of the Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order, 1972.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nArt. 40-B provides an alternative, summary method for recovering dues as arrears of land revenue, in addition to regular execution proceedings under the CPC.\no\nPreliminary decrees under Order 34, CPC, determine liability but do not authorize the sale of mortgaged property unless followed by a final decree.\no\nFailure to apply for a final decree within the limitation period under Art. 181 of the Limitation Act results in the loss of enforcement rights.\no\nRevenue Authorities cannot enforce preliminary decrees without a valid final decree.\n•\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; Revenue Authorities acted within the law by declining to proceed without a valid final decree.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order (10 of 1972)=40,40BCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIV,R.4", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-472 of 1992, heard on 13-03-2002, hearing DATE : 7-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irtiza Hussain Zaidi for Petitioner. \nA. Latif Shamoor for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION \nVS \nHaji IRTIZA HUSSAIN ZAIDI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 705 = 2002 SLD 705 = 2002 CLD 1067", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Constitutional petition by insurance companies against delisting by a bank.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nDispute arose over claims payment, leading the bank to delist insurance companies from its panel.\no\nHigh Court intervened and set aside the bank's delisting order.\no\nSupreme Court granted leave to examine:\n1.\nWhether the petition was barred by laches.\n2.\nIf the High Court exceeded its constitutional jurisdiction in resolving disputed facts.\n3.\nImpact of pending civil suits filed earlier by the bank.\n•\nOutcome: Supreme Court to address the interplay of constitutional jurisdiction, laches, and concurrent civil proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=199,185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.717 of 2001, decision dated: 24-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shamim Iqbal Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nM. S. Khattak, Advocate on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN\nVS\nCRESCENT STAR INSURANCE CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 706 = 2002 SLD 706 = 2002 CLD 1071", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Execution of decrees, sale of property, and claims under equitable titles.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nAuction Sale: Payment of bid money via cheques, accepted and realized by the Court, was valid despite objections to non-cash payment.\no\nEquitable Title: Objectors claiming rights under agreements to sell could assert equitable titles and seek possession under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC.\no\nLimitation: Objection petitions governed by Art. 181 of the Limitation Act (three years from when the right accrued).\no\nAttachment and Sale: Validity of attachment affects subsequent sales, and auction purchasers are bound by pre-existing agreements if they had notice.\no\nMultiplicity of Suits: Separate suits for title claims are discouraged; objections should be resolved in execution proceedings.\n•\nOutcome: High Court directed the Executing Court to investigate claims afresh, allowing parties to present evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18,21Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=82Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXI,Rr.84,85,89,90,91", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No. 149 of 2000, heard on 14-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "M. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE\nSYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Najam ul Hassan Kazmi and Atif Amin for Appellant.\nAbdul Hamid Chowhan for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI MIAN \nVS\nTRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Chief Executive, and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 707 = 2002 SLD 707 = 2002 CLD 1105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Jurisdiction and limitation of Wafaqi Mohtasib in handling complaints.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nComplaints must be filed within three months under Art. 10(3) of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983.\no\nThe complaint was filed after three years and lacked justification for delay, making it time-barred.\no\nWafaqi Mohtasib cannot investigate matters sub judice or make recommendations outside the scope of Art. 11(1).\n•\nOutcome: High Court set aside the Wafaqi Mohtasib's order, citing lack of jurisdiction and limitation violations.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983)=9,10(3)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13515 of 1996, heard on 18-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. A. Zafar for Petitioner. \nMuzammil Akhtar Shabbir for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED\nVS\nWAFAQI MOHTASIB (OMBUDSMAN) REGIONAL OFFICE, LAHORE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 708 = 2002 SLD 708 = 2002 CLD 1112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Winding up of a company for inability to pay debts.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nThe company had ceased operations for over a year and lacked liquid assets to pay creditors.\no\nHigh Court justified winding up under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\no\nBank's decree was prioritized during the distribution of assets; creditors were instructed to file claims with the Official Liquidator.\n•\nOutcome: Winding-up petition granted; Official Assignee appointed as Liquidator.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.37 of 2000, decision dated: 14-03-2002, hearing DATE : 25-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saalim Salim Ansari for Petitioner.\nS. Salim-ud-Din Nasir for H.B.L. and A.B.L", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of Messrs QUAIDABAD WOOLLEN MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 709 = 2002 SLD 709 = 2002 CLD 1113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Temporary injunctions in trade mark infringement cases.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nCourts assess the similarity between trademarks to determine potential deception.\no\nPlaintiff demonstrated prima facie similarity between Mezban Super Dust and Merjan Premier Dust. \no\nThe defendant's label was deceptively similar, likely causing confusion and losses to the plaintiff.\no\nNon-disclosure of pending rectification applications does not bar seeking equitable relief.\n•\nOutcome: Temporary injunction granted to the plaintiff.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Civil Suit No. 1160 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.6370 of 2001, decision dated: 10-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Ahmad Shaikh for Plaintiff. \nKhawaja Manzoor Ahmad for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAPAL TEA (PRIVATE) LIMITED\nVS\nSHAHI TEA COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 710 = 2002 SLD 710 = 2002 CLD 1121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nForeign awards must meet conditions under Sections 7 and 8 of the Arbitration Act, such as validity under governing law and compliance with public policy.\no\nFiling additional documents relied upon in arbitration is not mandatory.\no\nHigh Court acts like an executing court, with limited scope to question foreign awards.\n•\nOutcome: Defendant’s objections dismissed; enforcement proceedings allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937=5,7,8", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1584 of 1998, decision dated: 14-01-2002, hearing DATE : 19-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Khan (Qamar Abbas & Co.) for Plaintiff. Naraindas C. Motiani for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "A. MEREDITH JONES & CO. through Attorney --Plaintiff\nVs \nUSMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. --Defendant" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 711 = 2002 SLD 711 = 2002 CLD 1130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Equal treatment in government policy decisions.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nGovernment policies must be applied equally without discrimination under Arts. 25 and 2A of the Constitution.\no\nWaiver of interest and surcharge under the War Risk Insurance Ordinance, 1971, was offered as an act of grace but must be applied uniformly.\no\nAssessee paid dues based on this waiver offer and could not be denied its benefits.\n•\nOutcome: High Court declared the denial of waiver invalid and upheld the petitioner’s rights.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "War Risks Insurance Ordinance, 1971=20Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,2A", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 19484 and 19485 of 2001, heard on 13-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ahmad Dar for Petitioner. \nSher Zaman Khan, Dy. A. G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BUREWALA TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nVS \nENQUIRY OFFICER, WAR RISKS INSURANCE, PUNJAB, N. W.F.P. AND FEDERAL TERRITORY and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 712 = 2002 SLD 712 = 2002 CLD 1150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Investments by companies in associated undertakings under Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nInvestments exceeding paid-up capital and free reserves require approval from the Corporate Law Authority.\no\nThe company failed to justify excessive investments or obtain necessary approvals, violating Section 208.\no\nDirectors were fined, and consequential losses were to be reimbursed to the company.\n•\nOutcome: Appeals dismissed; directors held liable for statutory violations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2(1)(15A),208Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 8-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "M. ZAFAR UL HAQ HIJAZI, COMMISSIONER (CL) \nSHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Athar Minallah for Appellants. \nMs. Irum Wahid Butt, Director (Leasing) alongwith Ms. Farrah Qamar Faiz, Joint Director for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NATIONAL ASSET LEASING CORPORATION LTD.\nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES DIVISION)." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 713 = 2002 SLD 713 = 2002 CLD 1158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssue: Legal enforceability of tender notices and auction proceedings under the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nTender notices are invitations to offer, not binding contracts.\no\nThe highest bid does not guarantee acceptance by the Privatization Commission.\no\nIn this case, the property was neither re-auctioned nor sold, and no legal rights accrued to the petitioner.\n•\nOutcome: Leave to appeal refused; no binding contract was formed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Privatisation Commission Ordinance, 2000=23,25,5Contract Act, 1872=2(h),10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.240 of 2002. decided on 27th March 2002", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nJAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan. Advocate on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CITY SCHOOLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE CANTT.\nVS\nPRIVATIZATION COMMISSION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 714 = 2002 SLD 714 = 2002 CLD 1164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)\nPowers of Executive Director (E & M)\nConclusion: Through S.R.O. No.230(1)/2001, the SECP empowered its Executive Director of Enforcement and Monitoring Division to adjudicate offences and contraventions under specified provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nCitations: S.20(4)(o), Sched., Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.157, 255, 257, 260(1), 476; S.R.O. No.230(1)/2001.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nSigning of Auditor’s Report\nConclusion: An auditor’s report must be signed by the appointed auditor or a partner of the firm. Pleas of verbal partnerships are invalid. Legal frameworks ensure that unauthorized persons cannot sign such reports. Penalties were upheld under S.260(1) and S.476.\nCitations: Ss.256, 257, 260(1)(b), 205, 476; Chartered Accountants Ordinance (X of 1961), S.24.\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nProfessional Misconduct and Referral to ICAP\nConclusion: The Executive Director of SECP found professional misconduct in auditors signing unauthorized reports. The matter was referred to ICAP, and fines were imposed. The Appellate Bench upheld the referral.\nCitations: Ss.257, 260, 476(1)(b); Chartered Accountants Ordinance (X of 1961), S.24.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20,20(4)(o),SchedCompanies Ordinance, 1984=256,257,260(1)(b),205,476", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 13-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "M. ZAFAR UL HAQ HIJAZI. COMMISSIONER (CL) \nSHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. \nMubashar Saeed Saddozai, Deputy Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "In re: MEHMOOD ALI KHAN. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND NASIM AKHTER, A.C.A" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 715 = 2002 SLD 715 = 2002 CLD 1183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) West Pakistan Sugar Factories Control Act (XXII of 1950)\nExcise Duty Exemption\nConclusion: Retroactive conditions for exemption were considered withdrawal of benefit, effectively penalizing mills for past actions.\nCitations: S.2(h), S.8; S.R.O. No.545(I)/94.\n________________________________________\n(b) West Pakistan Sugar Factories Control Act (XXII of 1950)\nCrushing Season Determination\nConclusion: The crushing season is fixed by statute between October 1 and June 30, with a maximum duration of 9 months.\nCitations: S.8.\n________________________________________\n(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)\nConstitutional Petition on Exemption and Crushing Periods\nConclusion: The High Court allowed constitutional petitions for exemptions, addressing the unfair treatment of mill owners regarding excess stock clearance.\nCitations: S.R.O. No.505(I)/90, S.R.O. No.545(I)/94; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1950=2,2(h),8", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 12519 of 1996, 14750 of 1995, 5019 of 1996, 18715 of 1995, 16999 decided on 19-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Khan for Petitioner. \nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FECTO SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Director \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 716 = 2002 SLD 716 = 2002 CLD 1191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act (VI of 1937)\nForeign Award Grounds\nConclusion: Grounds to set aside a foreign award under S.7 differ from S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, with narrower limits under the former.\nCitations: S.7; Arbitration Act, 1940, S.30.\n________________________________________\n(b) Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act (VI of 1937)\nArbitration Agreement Validity\nConclusion: An arbitration agreement must be in writing, though acceptance can be oral or through conduct.\nCitations: S.2, S.5, S.7; Guardian Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thakur Shiva Mengal Singh AIR 1937 All.208.\n________________________________________\n(c) Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act (VI of 1937)\nJurisdiction Objection\nConclusion: Objections to jurisdiction can be maintained during arbitration without constituting a waiver of rights.\nCitations: Himalya v. Bellerly (1880) 68 BD 63.\n________________________________________\n(d) Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act (VI of 1937)\nHigh Court Jurisdiction\nConclusion: Questions of the agreement’s existence, validity, and enforceability are subject to High Court examination before enforcement.\nCitations: Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. AIR 1985 SC 1156.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937=7,2,5", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.26 of 1997, decision dated: 10-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Arif Khan for Plaintiff. \nKhalid Javed Khan for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEREDITH JONES & CO. LTD.\nVS\nQUETTA TEXTILE MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 717 = 2002 SLD 717 = 2002 CLD 1309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Investigation of Company Affairs\nConclusion: The SECP’s Executive Director’s investigation into violations such as improper elections and mismanagement was upheld. Violations caused prejudice to minority shareholders.\nCitations: Ss.263, 158, 180, 199, 200, 232, 252; Service Industries Textile Ltd. v. SECP 2000 MLD 1880.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=263,158,180,199,200,000,000", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 8 of 2001, decision dated: 3rd January, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "N.K. SHAHANI, COMMISSIONER INSURANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Kamran Sheikh, Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Shami and Umer Mujib Shami for Appellants. Munawwar Bhatti. Dy. Registrar, SEC for Respondent No. 1.\nSardar Khan Niazi for Respondent No. 2. Ahmad Muzammal, Joint Registrar SEC", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHIEF EXECUTIVE, BAREX LIMITED and another\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW DIVISION), and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 718 = 2002 SLD 718 = 2002 CLD 1314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Amalgamation/Merger of Companies\nConclusion: Court jurisdiction in approving mergers emphasizes safeguarding minority shareholders from unfair treatment. Schemes must account for fairness in share valuation and prevent coercion.\nCitations: Ss.284, 287, 288; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.23, 24.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=287,284", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 4 of 2002, heard on 18-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Saeed and Kh. Saeed uz Zafar for Appellant.\nTariq Saleem Sheikh for U.B.L. Azhar Hussain Sheikh for H.B.L. Kh. Amer Farooq for N.B.P. Aamir Zareef Khan, Vice President and Muhammad Younus. Asstt. Registrar Companies for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KOHINOOR RAIWIND MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive er\nVS\nKOHINOOR GUJAR KHAN MILLS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 719 = 2002 SLD 719 = 2002 CLD 1334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Compliance with Paid-Up Capital Requirements for Leasing Companies\nConclusion: The company failed to enhance its paid-up capital to Rs. 200 million as required under Rule 5(b) of the Leasing Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2000. The SECP imposed fines on the directors and canceled the company’s license. Despite extensions, the company failed to comply. The Appellate Bench dismissed the appeal, noting that the company could reapply for a license upon meeting the requirements.\nCitations: Leasing Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2000, Rr. 5(b) & 20; SECP Act (XLII of 1997), S.33.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Leasing Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2000=R-5,5(b),20", + "Case #": "Messrs. Asian Leasing Corporation Ltd.: In re, heard on 8-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "M. ZAFAR UL HAQ HIJAZI, COMMISSIONER (CL)\nSHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Najaf Hussain Shah, Barrister and Ms. Sadia Khan, Executive Director (SC) for Appellants. \nMs. Iram Wahid Butt, Director (Leasing) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ASIAN LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Chief Executive and 9 others.\nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES DIVISION) ." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 720 = 2002 SLD 720 = 2002 CLD 1338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Amalgamation Filing Requirements\nFiling Petitions for Amalgamation\nConclusion: There is no bar on filing a petition for amalgamation alongside a petition for an extraordinary general meeting. If the petition substantially meets the requirements of Form 19 under the Companies (Court) Rules, it is valid.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.284 & 287; Companies (Court) Rules, 1997, R.60, Form 19.\n(b) Approval of Amalgamation Scheme\nScheme of Amalgamation\nConclusion: The petition was approved as the amalgamation was aligned with public policy and creditor/shareholder interests. The companies had common management, and no investigation or proceedings were pending against them.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.284 & 287; Companies (Court) Rules, 1997, R.60.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,287", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.34 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2092 of 2001, decision dated: 6-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Mirza for Petitioners", + "Petitioner Name:": "In re: THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1984\nVS \nIn re: YUSUF TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 721 = 2002 SLD 721 = 2002 CLD 1346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading by Chief Executive and Tenderable Gains\nConclusion: The Chief Executive’s claim that the purchase of shares was made in good faith and to settle debt was found contradictory. The manner of trading clearly indicated profit motives. The Appellate Bench upheld the SECP’s decision and penalties.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.224, 222; SECP Act (XLII of 1997), S.33.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224,222Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal, decision dated: 25-04-2002, hearing DATE : 11-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "N.K. SHAHANI, ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI. COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Mahmud Kasuri alongwith Mujahid Eshai, FAC for Appellant.\nMuhammad Ayub Qureshi, Director and Muhammad Farooq, Deputy Director on behalf of Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TARIQ BAIG, MANAGING DIRECTOR, TARIQ GLASS INDUSTRIES LTD.\nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SM), , ISLAMABAD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 722 = 2002 SLD 722 = 2002 CLD 1352", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Approval of Debt Repayment Scheme\nConclusion: The scheme, which provided creditors additional securities and better supervision, was sanctioned. With over 97% of creditors supporting it and no objections from others, the High Court approved the petition.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.284, 285, 286, 287, 288.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284.285,286,287,288", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No. 36 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.2329 and 2572 of 2001, heard on 22-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWEZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan alongwith Farogh Nasim and Sardar Aijaz for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "In re: Messrs SAADI CEMENT LIMITED through Director, Shamim Mushtaq Siddiqui er." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 723 = 2002 SLD 723 = 2002 CLD 1355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Dispute Resolution via Joint Committee\nConclusion: The appellant was bound by the Joint Committee’s decision to pay an amount for share transaction losses, as agreed upon in an undertaking. The Appellate Bench upheld the decision, finding no reason to interfere.\nCitations: SECP Act (XLII of 1997), Ss.20 & 33; Hub Power Co. v. WAPDA 1999 CLC 1320; West Pakistan v. Messrs Azhar PLD 1977 Lah. 1013.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20,33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 25 of 2001, decision dated: 14-02-2002, hearing DATE : 22-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "N.K. SHAHANI, COMMISSIONER, (SECURITIES MARKET AND INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Talat Farooq Sheikh and Khawaja Muhammad Inam for Appellant. \nAsif Baig Mirza for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AQEEL MEHMOOD KHAWAJA, MEMBER, ISLAMABAD\nVS\nISLAMABAD STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 724 = 2002 SLD 724 = 2002 CLD 1366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Investigation of Company’s Affairs\nSECP Jurisdiction for Investigation\nConclusion: The SECP could act on the inspector’s report even after the complaint’s withdrawal, as the report held evidentiary value.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.263; SECP Act (XLII of 1997), Ss.29 & 33.\n(b) Hearing Rights for Investigation Orders\nOpportunity of Hearing\nConclusion: The Appellate Bench found that the Executive Director should have provided a hearing before ordering an investigation. The appeal was accepted, granting relief.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.263; SECP Act (XLII of 1997), S.33.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=263Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=29,33", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 17 and 23 of 2001, decision dated: 25-04-2002, hearing DATE : 18-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET) \nN.K. SHAHANI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munir A. Malik and Yawar Farooqi for Appellants Nos.2 and 3. \nMubashir Saeed Saddozai, Deputy Director (E&M) for Commission. Abid Aziz Shaikh for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED and 2 others\nVS \nBIBOJEE SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 725 = 2002 SLD 725 = 2002 CLD 1375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Relief and Stock Exchange Membership\nConclusion: The Appellate Bench declined the appellants' request for interim relief. However, the Stock Exchange was directed to maintain the status quo, ensuring no sale of frozen shares or membership until the appeal's resolution.\nCitations: SECP Act (XLII of 1997), Ss.20(4) & 33.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20,20(4),33", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 19, 27 and 28 of 2001, heard on 24-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "M. ZAFAR UL HAQ HIJAZI,N.K. SHAHANI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Hussain Naqvi for Appellant (in Appeal No. 19 of 2001)\nAppellant in person (in Appeal No. 27 of 2001)\nFaisal Hussain Naqvi for Appellant (in Appeal No. 27 of 2001)\nAppellant in person (in Appeal No. 28 of 2001)\n Arif Saeed of Hassan & Hassan of Lahore Stock Exchange (LSE). For Respondent No. 3 (in Appeal No. 28 of 2001)", + "Petitioner Name:": "VS \nMUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAWAJA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 726 = 2002 SLD 726 = 2002 CLD 1388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "SECP Jurisdiction on Non-Securities Issues\nConclusion: The SECP lacked jurisdiction over disputes unrelated to securities transactions. The appellant was advised to seek redress through an appropriate forum.\nCitations: SECP Act (XLII of 1997), Ss.20 & 33.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20,33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 31 of 2001, decision dated: 18-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "N.K. SHAHANI, ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asad Ullah Javed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Appeal No. 31 of 2001, decided on 18th February, 2002\nDr. SAMI ULLAH KHAN\nVS\nWASI ULLAH KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 727 = 2002 SLD 727 = 2002 CLD 1390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Use of (Pvt.) Limited \nConclusion: The Appellate Bench exonerated appellants from penalties for improper use of Private Limited, as there was no evidence linking them to the violation.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.497; SECP Act (XLII of 1997), S.33.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=497Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal, decision dated: 22-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONER (E&M) \nSHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (S.M.)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAFEES A. NAJMI, AIR VICE MARSHAL (RETD.) EX NOMINEE DIRECTOR OF SHAHEEN FOUNDATION and another\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 728 = 2002 SLD 728 = 2002 CLD 1392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sanction of Scheme of Arrangement\nCourt’s Supervisory Role in Arrangements\nConclusion: The High Court upheld that schemes of arrangement could be sanctioned even during execution proceedings, respecting third-party rights.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.284.\n(b) Banking Laws and Scheme of Arrangements\nCompatibility with Financial Institution Recovery Laws\nConclusion: The scheme did not conflict with banking laws or reduce the decretal amounts owed to creditors, allowing the High Court to approve it.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.284-288; Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss.4, 7(4), 27.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,285,286,287,288", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.35 of 2001, decision dated: 24-12-2001, hearing DATE : 5-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWEZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem and Sardar M. Aijaz Khan for Petitioners. \nArshad Tayabally and Mehmood Y. Mandviwala and Ch. Ejaz Ahmed for Creditors", + "Petitioner Name:": "In re: Messrs PAKLAND CEMENT LIMITED through Director Shamim Musheq Siddiqui" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 729 = 2002 SLD 729 = 2002 CLD 1407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interlocutory Orders in Constitutional Petitions\nMaintainability of Petitions\nConclusion: Interlocutory orders are not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. High Court petitions against such orders are not maintainable.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10,9Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16514 of 2001, heard on 21st November, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muhammad Waheed Akhtar for Petitioner.\nHassan Nawaz for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AL SHAMAS APPAREL (PVT.) LTD. Through Chief Executive and 3 others\nVS\nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. Through Chief Manager/Manager Shadman Colony Branch, Lahore and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 730 = 2002 SLD 730 = 2002 CLD 1411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Court’s Authority on Rendition of Accounts\nConclusion: Banking Courts cannot impose conditions, such as deposits, for entertaining suits for rendition of accounts. The judgment imposing such a condition was set aside, and the case was remanded.\nCitations: Banking Companies Act (XV of 1997), S.9.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 785 of 2001, heard on 3rd June, 2002, hearing DATE : 3rd June, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Khalid Abid for Appellant. Pervez Ahmed Barki for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "RIAZ AHMED\nVS \nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, HEAD OFFICE AT ISLAMABAD through Manager, Nankana Sahib Branch, District Sheikhupura and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 731 = 2002 SLD 731 = 2002 CLD 1429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decree in Banking Suits\nConclusion: Permission under S.316 of the Companies Ordinance was granted to proceed with the case, subject to additional permissions for decree execution.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.316.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=316", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 2450 of 2000 in Judicial Miscellaneous No. 20 of 1999, decision dated: 28-03-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Saalam Ansari for Petitioner. \nHaji Bashir Ahmed Memon, O.A. in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAK LIBYA HOLDING CO. (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS \nDADABHOY LEASING COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 732 = 2002 SLD 732 = 2002 CLD 1430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Instalments of Decretal Amount\nConclusion: The High Court allowed the payment of the decretal amount in instalments as both parties mutually agreed to this arrangement.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.11(2).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-11,O.XX,R.11(2)", + "Case #": "Suits Nos. 1119 and 1181 of 1991 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.4111 and 8717 of 2002, decision dated: 31st May. 2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Khan for Plaintiff. \nSalim Saalam Ansari for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nMessrs RUPALI COTTON INDUSTRIES and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 733 = 2002 SLD 733 = 2002 CLD 1431", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders\nEx Parte Proceedings and Delay in Filing Applications\nConclusion: An application to set aside an ex parte order was dismissed due to the defendant's failure to demonstrate valid reasons for delay or non-appearance. The defendant's affidavits were doubtful, and the application lacked sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.\nCitations: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits, and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss.12, 9(4), 10; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, Rr.6, 12; Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5, 14.\n(b) Application of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in Banking Cases\nProcedural Conflicts Between Banking Laws and CPC\nConclusion: Where provisions of the Banking Companies Act conflicted with the CPC, the former prevailed. If silent, the CPC would apply to fill the gap.\nCitations: Banking Companies Act (XV of 1997), Ss.3, 7; CPC (V of 1908), Preamble; Hudaiba Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1987 SC 512.\n(c) Leave to Defend in Banking Cases\nRequirements for Leave to Defend\nConclusion: Applications for leave to defend must comply with strict provisions under the Financial Institutions Ordinance. Non-compliance with mandatory requirements led to dismissal of the defendants' application.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.10.\n(d) Interpretation of Statutes\nMandatory vs. Directory Provisions\nConclusion: Provisions entailing penal consequences are mandatory; others are considered directory.\nCitations: Financial Institutions Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.10.\n(e) Corporate Proceedings Without Board Resolutions\nAuthorization for Defending Suits\nConclusion: Applications filed without a Board resolution were deemed unauthorized, and no valid application for leave to defend was found pending.\nCitations: CPC (V of 1908), O.XXIX, R.1; Banking Companies Act (XV of 1997), Ss.9, 10.\n(f) Pre-Circular Agreements and Rescheduling of Loans\nPleas Against Pre-Circular Agreements\nConclusion: Credit agreements executed before State Bank Circular No.13 (1984) remained valid. Rescheduling loans upon request did not violate the circular or negate prior agreements.\nCitations: Financial Institutions Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.10; State Bank Circular No.13 (1984).\n(g) Burden of Proof in Loan Repayment\nEvidence of Repayment\nConclusion: Defendants’ failure to provide evidence of loan repayment rendered their claims invalid. Bank statements were presumed correct and accepted as proof of liabilities.\nCitations: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.117, 119; Bankers Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4.\n(h) Surety’s Liability\nExtent of Guarantor’s Liability\nConclusion: Guarantors are jointly and severally liable with principal debtors to settle outstanding amounts.\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.128.\n(i) Resignation and Guarantor’s Liability\nPersonal Guarantees Post-Resignation\nConclusion: Defendants’ personal guarantees executed before resignation remained enforceable despite subsequent departure from directorship.\nCitations: Financial Institutions Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.10.\n(j) Variance in Loan Terms and Guarantor’s Discharge\nImpact of Contractual Variances\nConclusion: Guarantors could not claim discharge under Section 133 of the Contract Act, as alleged variances were not part of a concluded contract.\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.133.\n(k) Non-Compliance with Amended Leave Applications\nProcedural Non-Compliance\nConclusion: Failure to file amended leave applications under S.10(12) of the Ordinance led to dismissal of pending leave-to-defend applications.\nCitations: Financial Institutions Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.10.\n(l) Denial of Guarantee Without Evidence\nLack of Evidence in Guarantee Claims\nConclusion: Mere denial of a guarantee’s execution, unsupported by proof, was insufficient for granting leave to defend.\nCitations: Ghazala Arif v. Union Bank Ltd. 2000 CLC 1201.\n(m) Liquidated Damages in Loan Recovery\nRecovery of Liquidated Damages\nConclusion: Banks are not entitled to recover liquidated damages under financial agreements.\nCitations: Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Aisha Garments 2001 MLD 1955.\n(n) Effect of Dismissal of Leave Applications\nLegal Presumptions Post-Dismissal\nConclusion: Allegations in the plaint, after dismissal of leave-to-defend applications, are deemed admitted. Statements of accounts were upheld as valid.\nCitations: Bankers Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=12.9(4),10Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.IX,Rr.6,12", + "Case #": "Civil Original Suit No. 121 of 1999 and P.L.As. Nos. 4-B, 7-B. 8-B and Civil Miscellaneous Nos.457-B and 458-B of 2000, heard on 27-02-2002. dates of hearing: 21st and 27-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Shabbir for Plaintiff.\nGhulam Murtaza Bhatti for Defendants Nos. 1, 5 and 6 (in P.L.A. No. 4-B of 2000).\nMiss Aisha Malik on behalf of counsel for Defendants Nos. 2, 7 and 8 (in P.L.A. No. 8-B of 2000).\nKhalid Mahmood Ansari for Defendant No. 3 (in C.M. No. 457-B of 2000). Pervaiz Ahmad Burki for defendant No. 9 (in P.L.A. No. 7-B of 2000).\nNemo for Defendants Nos. 10 and 11. Defendants Nos. 4 and 12. Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through VicEPresident, Zonal Chief, Multan\nVS \nEFFEF INDSUTRIES LIMITED and 11 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 734 = 2002 SLD 734 = 2002 CLD 1485", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal on Winding Up of Company\nConclusion: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether an appeal against a Company Judge’s order should lie with the Division Bench of the High Court or the Supreme Court.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.10(1); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3); Muhammad Bakhsh v. Pakistan Industrial Credit Investment Corporation Ltd. 1999 SCMR 25.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10,10(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 17 K of 2000, decision dated: 24-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE \nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.I. Chundrigar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbar, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Afsar Abidi, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN\nVS \nMessrs VALIBHAI KAMARUDDIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 735 = 2002 SLD 735 = 2002 CLD 1487 = 2002 PTCL 515 = 2002 SCMR 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Winding Up of a Company in Running Condition\nWinding up of running companies\nConclusion: The Company Judge must adopt a different approach for a company that is still operating, focusing on methods that allow the company to continue operations and reduce liabilities. The goal is to sell the assets as part of a running concern, which fetches a higher price.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.305 & 306.\n(b) Foreign Companies and Legal Proceedings\nForeign companies and their right to institute legal proceedings\nConclusion: A foreign company must comply with Sections 451 and 452 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, before initiating legal proceedings in Pakistan.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.451, 452 & 456.\n(c) Winding Up by Statutory Corporation\nWinding up proceedings initiated by statutory corporations\nConclusion: A creditor corporation can initiate winding up proceedings if it is owed more than Rs. 50,000, after fulfilling necessary formalities.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.306(1)(a); International Finance Corporation Act (XXVII of 1956), S.5.\n(d) Bona Fide Disputes and Winding Up\nBona fide disputes in winding up proceedings\nConclusion: A company must prove that there is a bona fide dispute over its debts to avoid a winding up order.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305.\n(e) Applicability of Usurious Loans Ordinance\nApplicability of the Usurious Loans Ordinance in winding up proceedings\nConclusion: The provisions of the West Pakistan Usurious Loans Ordinance, 1959, cannot be applied in winding up proceedings.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305; West Pakistan Usurious Loans Ordinance (XVIII of 1959).\n(f) Company’s Financial Solvency and Winding Up\nFinancial solvency and winding up decision\nConclusion: The Company Judge considers audited financial statements to decide whether to wind up a company. If the company is running at a loss and its liabilities are growing, it is justifiable to order winding up.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.305, 230, 233.\n(g) Winding Up Due to Loss\nWinding up due to loss-making business\nConclusion: If a company cannot carry on business without incurring a loss and has no reasonable hope of profitability, winding up becomes inevitable.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305.\n(h) Winding Up for Honest Disputes\nWinding up for bona fide disputes\nConclusion: If a company fails to prove that a dispute is bona fide, the interest of creditors takes precedence, and the company should be wound up.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305.\n(i) Winding Up by Single Creditor\nWinding up application by a single creditor\nConclusion: A creditor with a debt exceeding Rs. 50,000 does not need other creditors to join in the winding up petition.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.305 & 306(1)(a).\n(j) Impact of State Bank Circular on Winding Up\nImpact of State Bank Circular No. 19 on winding up proceedings\nConclusion: The issuance of a scheme under the State Bank Circular cannot postpone winding up proceedings under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305; State Bank of Pakistan Circular No. 19.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,306,451,452,456306(1)(a)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1528 of 1999, decision dated: 6-06-2001. dates of hearing: 2nd to 4-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nQAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Atta Bandial, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak. Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Dr. Pervez Hassan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. Bilal. Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "HALA SPINNING MILLS LTD.\nVS\nINTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 736 = 2002 SLD 736 = 2002 CLD 1519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Winding Up Petition and Burden of Proof\nWinding up petition and evidence of insolvency\nConclusion: The petitioner must provide material evidence to substantiate claims of insolvency. A company’s balance sheet showing assets exceeding liabilities and opposition from major creditors undermines the winding up petition.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.305(e), (f)(iii)(iv)(v), 320, 248.\n(b) Inability to Pay Debt and Winding Up\nInability to pay debt and winding up decision\nConclusion: An allegation of a company’s inability to pay debt cannot be accepted without material evidence or creditor support.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305(e).\n(c) Declaration of Dividends\nDiscretion of the Board of Directors in declaring dividends\nConclusion: The decision to declare dividends is at the discretion of the Board of Directors, and no evidence was provided to suggest that this discretion was not properly exercised.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.248.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,305(e),(f)(iii)(iv)(v),320,248", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.226 of 1996, decision dated: 6-04-1999, hearing DATE : 4-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioner. \nM. A. Rehman for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMINUDDIN\nVS\nAZAD FRIENDS & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 737 = 2002 SLD 737 = 2002 CLD 1528", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Bill of Lading as a Binding Contract\nBill of Lading as a contract between shipper and carrier\nConclusion: A Bill of Lading is a binding contract between the shipper and carrier.\nCitations: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXXI of 1925), S.3.\n(b) Jurisdiction Clause in Bill of Lading\nJurisdiction clause in Bill of Lading\nConclusion: The Court should uphold the jurisdiction clause in the Bill of Lading, but if the agreed forum fails or cannot proceed, the local court retains jurisdiction to continue the proceedings.\nCitations: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXXI of 1925), S.3; Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.28 & 73; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.34.\n(c) Arbitration Clause and Foreign Jurisdiction\nArbitration clause in a contract\nConclusion: The burden lies on the party seeking to stay proceedings to justify the use of a foreign forum for dispute resolution.\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.28 & 73; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.34.\n(d) Stay of Proceedings Based on Jurisdiction Clause\nStay of proceedings based on jurisdiction clause in Bill of Lading\nConclusion: The Court refused to stay proceedings as the defendants failed to justify the request, and there was sufficient evidence to proceed with the case in Pakistan.\nCitations: Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXXI of 1925), S.3; Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.28 & 73; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XII, R.10.\n(e) Limitation for Condonation of Delay\nCondonation of delay in filing applications\nConclusion: The Court can consider oral applications for condonation of delay without the need for formal written requests.\nCitations: Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5; Sh. Ghulam Muhammad v. Bank of Bahawalpur 1971 SCMR 148.\n(f) Jurisdiction and Administration of Justice\nOmission or incorrect mention of legal provisions\nConclusion: The omission or incorrect mention of a provision does not invalidate an application if the relief is otherwise available under the law.\nCitations: Imtiaz Ahmed v. Ghulam Ali 1994 SCMR 1555.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Carriage of Goods By Sea Act, 1925=3Arbitration Act, 1940=34Contract Act, 1872=28,73", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 107 of 1992, decision dated: 28-08-1998, hearing DATE : 12-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nS. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. H. Kazmi for Appellant. \nMuhammad Naeem for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "CGM (COMPAGNIE GENERAL MARITIME)\nVS\nHUSSAIN AKBAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 728 = 2002 SLD 728 = 2002 CLD 1565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Privatization and Injunctions\nTemporary injunction for privatization of a company\nConclusion: The application for an injunction was dismissed, as the plaintiffs failed to meet the necessary qualifications to participate in the privatization process, and the balance of convenience favored the authorities.\nCitations: Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000), Ss.23, 24, 25, 28, 29; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Privatisation Commission Ordinance, 2000=23,24,25,28,29Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=153,154", + "Case #": "Suit No. 480 of 2002, decision dated: 24-05-2002, hearing DATE : 16-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada and Syed Khalid Shah for Petitioners.\nSyed Zaki Muhammad, D.A. G., Sajid Zahid and Munir A. Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "EMPLOYEES MANAGEMENT GROUP PAK SAUDI FERTILIZERS and others\nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 729 = 2002 SLD 729 = 2002 CLD 1583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Stay of Proceedings in Securities Cases\nStay of proceedings in securities cases\nConclusion: A stay of proceedings is not justified if the issues involved in different proceedings are substantially different and the parties are distinct.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33.\n(b) Administration of Justice\nAdministration of justice and technical objections\nConclusion: Trivial and technical objections should not hinder the administration of substantial justice.\nCitations: N/A.\n(c) Adjournment\nGrant of adjournments\nConclusion: Adjournments cannot be granted as a right; they are granted at the discretion of the Court.\nCitations: N/A.\n(d) Investigation by the Commission\nCommission’s discretion to investigate\nConclusion: The Securities and Exchange Commission has discretion to decide when an investigation is necessary, based on the facts and circumstances of each case.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), Ss.29 & 30.\n(e) Discretion and Reasonable Exercise\nReasonable exercise of discretion\nConclusion: Discretion should be exercised reasonably and judiciously, considering the facts of each case.\nCitations: N/A.\n(f) Appellate Bench and Jurisdiction\nAppellate Bench's exercise of jurisdiction\nConclusion: The Appellate Bench must exercise its jurisdiction with minimal procedural requirements while ensuring no prejudice to the parties.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 2 of 2002, decision dated: 27-06-2002, hearing DATE : 26 April, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "N.K. SHAHANI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY) \nABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT ANDMONITORING)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aamir Zareef Khan, Deputy Secretary (Legal) and Faisal Islam for Appellant.\nAslam Motiwala in person.\nSalim Chamdia for Respondent No. 2.\nM. Aamer Riaz in person.\nEjaz Ahmed Bodla and Riaz Chaudhry for Respondent No. 3.\nTanveer Malik in person.\nA. Rafay Alam for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE\nVS\nSHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 730 = 2002 SLD 730 = 2002 CLD 1621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Decree Amendment and Calculation of Debt\nAmendment of decree for miscalculation\nConclusion: The Banking Court amended its original decree for miscalculation, including the correct principal amount in the decree.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss.17 & 22; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=17,22Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891=4Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=152", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.713 of 2001, heard on 18-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE \nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Rashid I for Appellants. \nBurhan Sabir Mirza for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MALIK & COMPANY through Sole Proprietor and others\nVS \nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK through Salah ud Din, Branch Manager and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 731 = 2002 SLD 731 = 2002 CLD 1623", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Mark Infringement and Unregistered Marks\nInjunction against unauthorized use of unregistered trade mark\nConclusion: The plaintiff could not claim infringement of an unregistered trade mark, but could seek a passing off action.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.20(2), 21; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=20,20(2),21,22,25,26Specific Relief Act, 1877=54", + "Case #": "Suits Nos.1109 and 369 of 2001, Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.4885, 26363 and 6092, decision dated: 25-04-2002. dates of hearing: 12-11-2001; 14th and 21st January, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Navin Merchant for Plaintiff. Raja M. Iqbal for Defendant No. 1.\nMuhammad Aslam for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL WASIM\nVS\nMessrs HAICO through Sole Proprietor/Partner and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 732 = 2002 SLD 732 = 2002 CLD 1653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Stay of Proceedings Under Section 10, C.P.C.\nConditions for stay of proceedings in a subsequent suit\nConclusion: For a stay of proceedings under Section 10, C.P.C., three conditions must be met: the matter in dispute must be the same, the parties must be the same, and the Court in the first suit must be competent to grant the relief in the second suit. This is to avoid conflicting judicial decisions.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.10; Jannana De Malucho Textile Mills Limited v. Waqar A. Chaudhry PLD 1972 SC 34.\n(b) Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) and Civil Procedure Code\nStay of suit related to patent infringement\nConclusion: The two suits, one for declaring the defendant a lawful importer and the other for restraining patent infringement, are different in nature with different parties, so the stay of proceedings was rejected.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.10; Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), S.36; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54.\n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20\nDefinition of cause of action \nConclusion: The cause of action refers to the facts necessary for the plaintiff to prove their right to sue and, if not proved, gives the defendant the right to a defense.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20.\n(d) Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), S.36\nSuit for patent infringement and jurisdiction\nConclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case because the cause of action arose in Karachi, even though the defendant denied infringement and claimed the process was different.\nCitations: Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), S.36; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20(c) & O.XII, R.10.\n(e) High Court Jurisdiction for Patent Infringement Suit\nJurisdiction for patent infringement suit in Karachi\nConclusion: The High Court was the proper forum for suits valued over Rs.5 lacs, and as the suit exceeded this amount, it was rightly filed in the High Court, not the District Court.\nCitations: Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), S.36; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20(c); Sindh Courts Act (VII of 1926), S.8.\n(f) Patent Infringement and Temporary Injunction\nInfringement of a patented process and injunction\nConclusion: The plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for the infringement of a patented drug process, and the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff due to substantial investment in research. The defendant was restrained from manufacturing the drug Sofvasc. \nCitations: Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), Ss.29, 31 & 36; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XII, R.10.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=10Patents and Designs Act, (II of 1911)=29,31,36", + "Case #": "Suit No.316 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.2038, 2667 and 2668 of 1999, decision dated: 22-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muneeb Akhter for Plaintiff. \nFazl i Husain for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "PFIZER LIMITED and another\nVS\nWILSONS PHARMACEUTICALS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 733 = 2002 SLD 733 = 2002 CLD 1714", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Opportunity of Hearing and Prejudicial Action\nRight to be heard before action is taken\nConclusion: A person should be informed of the charges and potential actions against them to make an effective representation.\nCitations: Raziuddin v. Chairman, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 1992 SC 531.\n(b) Public Orders and Their Interpretation\nPublic orders and subsequent explanations\nConclusion: Public orders made under statutory authority cannot be interpreted based on subsequent explanations by the issuing officer.\nCitations: N/A.\n(c) Appeal Rights Under the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997)\nScope of appeal before High Court\nConclusion: Appeals under Sections 33 and 34 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act are not limited to specific questions, and the entire case can be re-examined.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), Ss.33 & 34.\n(d) Cross Objections in Civil Appeals\nCross objections in appeals\nConclusion: Cross objections can only be filed if part of the decree is against a person.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.22.\n(e) Scope of Appeal\nScope of appeal in civil cases\nConclusion: In the absence of limitations in the law, the entire case becomes open for discussion in the appellate forum.\nCitations: Allah Yar v. General Manager, Railways Headquarters 2001 SCMR 256.\n(f) Malice in Law\nMalice in law\nConclusion: Malice cannot be attributed if the action is within the authority’s competence and legal framework.\nCitations: PLD 1997 Lah. 38.\n(g) Investigation into Company Affairs\nGrounds for investigation under the Companies Ordinance\nConclusion: Investigations can be ordered under Sections 263 and 264 if there is sufficient evidence, but under Section 265(b), the Commission has discretion based on the circumstances.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.263, 264 & 265(b); Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.20(4)(i).\n(h) Object of Investigation under the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act\nNature of investigation under SEC Act\nConclusion: Investigations are aimed at uncovering the truth and not for punishment, and actions may be taken only after the investigation’s conclusion.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), Preamble, S.20(4)(i) & Sched., para.21; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.265, 265B & 271.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=263Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.22Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33,34", + "Case #": "Company Case No. 13 of 2000, decision dated: 8-05-2001. dates of hearing: 7th and 8-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uzair Karamat Bhandari for Petitioner.\nHamid Farooq Qurrani for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LIMITED \nVS \nAPPELLATE BENCH OF THE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 734 = 2002 SLD 734 = 2002 CLD 1747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Merger of Companies and Swap Ratio Objections\nObjections to the swap ratio in a company merger\nConclusion: The Court rejected the appeal based on a revised swap ratio, finding no compelling reason to reverse the Company Judge's findings.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.284, 287 & 10.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,287,10", + "Case #": "Intra Court Appeal No. 14/L of 2002, decision dated: 1st August, 2002, hearing DATE : 1st July,. 2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram and Khurram Saeed for Appellant. \nKhawaja Saeed uz Zafar and Nasrullah Khan Babar for SECP. Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "In re: KOHINOOR RAIWIND MILLS LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 735 = 2002 SLD 735 = 2002 CLD 1753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Promissory Notes and Attestation\nValidity of promissory notes without witness attestation\nConclusion: A promissory note does not require witness attestation under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the Banking Court erred in dismissing the suit on that basis. The case was remanded to the Banking Court for a decision based on the law.\nCitations: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), Ss.6 & 12; Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.17(2); Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.4.\n(b) Execution of Writing and Court’s Duty\nCourt’s duty to avoid doubt when execution is not denied\nConclusion: The Court should not create doubt about a writing’s authenticity if the execution is not denied.\nCitations: Qanun-e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=6,12Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=4Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=17(2)", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos.272 to 274 of 1994, decision dated: 29-04-2002, hearing DATE : 15-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULUI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nPARVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzur ul Haque and Sami Hayat for Appellant. \nRaja Muhammad Anwar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANK OF OMAN LTD. \nVS\nMUHAMMAD ALI & BROTHERS through Partners and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 736 = 2002 SLD 736 = 2002 CLD 1781", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Bank Guarantee and Encashment in Liquidation\nEncashment of bank guarantee in liquidation proceedings\nConclusion: The Company Judge can direct the encashment of a bank guarantee even if no separate suit is filed, as it falls within the liquidation process under the Companies Ordinance.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.305, 309, 333 & 10(2); Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126.\n(b) Liability of Guarantor in Liquidation\nLiability of a guarantor in liquidation\nConclusion: The liability of the guarantor is determined by the terms of the guarantee and cannot be avoided on technicalities.\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.305, 309, 333.\n(c) Powers of Company Judge and Official Liquidator\nPowers of the Company Judge and official liquidator in winding up proceedings\nConclusion: The Company Judge has wide powers to ensure the effective liquidation of the company, including directing the encashment of guarantees and preventing technicalities from thwarting the liquidation process.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.316 & 333; Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126.\n(d) Bank Guarantee in Liquidation\nBank guarantee and liquidation proceedings\nConclusion: The official liquidator can encash the bank guarantee to ensure the liquidation process is completed efficiently. The guarantee cannot be avoided on technicalities.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.316 & 333; Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,305,309,333,10(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Contract Act, 1872=126", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 517 of 1993, decision dated: 21st March, 2002. dates of hearing: 20th and 21st March, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE\nTANVIR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abubakr I. Chundrigar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nMuhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2. Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED\nVS\nPAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 737 = 2002 SLD 737 = 2002 CLD 1794", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10\nScope and Power of Transposition in Civil Cases\nConclusion: The power to transpose parties under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. is wide and should be interpreted liberally, especially to ensure complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court should generously exercise this power to achieve effective adjudication and inexpensive access to justice.\nCitations: Said Alam v. Raja Sohrab Khan 1970 SCMR 639; Central Government of Pakistan v. Suleman Khan PLD 1992 SC 590.\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305\nAppeal to Supreme Court in Winding Up of a Company\nConclusion: The Supreme Court favored adjudication on the merits in winding-up cases and held that winding-up appeals should be decided promptly within 90 days as per the spirit of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(2).\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305\nAppeal on Behalf of Ex-Chairman in Company Winding Up\nConclusion: The appeal by a former Chairman, who was legally superseded and convicted, was dismissed, as he had no authorization from the company to challenge the winding-up order.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.305; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(2).\n(d) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.306\nWinding Up of a Financial Institution and Notice Requirements\nConclusion: The transposition of the State Bank of Pakistan into the proceedings was valid and did not require the issuance of fresh notices under S.306, as the provision was directory and not fatal to the petition.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.306; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10.\n(e) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.306\nInability of a Company to Pay Its Debts\nConclusion: Section 306 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 provides multiple disjunctive conditions to determine a company's inability to pay its debts, and the company would be deemed unable to pay its debts if any of those conditions are met.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.306.\n(f) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.306; Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), Ss.41 A & 41 B\nRole of State Bank of Pakistan in Winding Up Proceedings\nConclusion: The State Bank of Pakistan has supervisory powers over financial institutions and can intervene to safeguard creditors, and the Court can allow its substitution in winding-up proceedings.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.306; Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), Ss.41 A & 41 B; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10.\n(g) Administration of Justice\nProcedures and the Cause of Justice\nConclusion: Legal procedures should regulate and promote justice, not hinder it.\nCitations: Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property v. Khuda Yar PLD 1975 SC 678; Imtiaz Ali v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382.\n(h) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), Ss. 41 A & 41 B\nPowers of State Bank of Pakistan to Remove Directors\nConclusion: The State Bank can remove directors and supersede the board of directors under the Banking Companies Ordinance without taking control of the company’s assets, which remain managed by the new board.\nCitations: Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), Ss.41 A & 41 B.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=41A,41BCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.I,R.10", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1213 of 2001, decision dated: 25-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nJAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nSARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. G.H. Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Respondent No. 1. \nNemo for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAUF B. KADRI\nVs \nSTATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 738 = 2002 SLD 738 = 2002 CLD 1819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.6(1)(d)\nScope of S.6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act\nConclusion: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the scope of S.6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.6(1)(d); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3).\n(b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.6(1)(d) & 2(1)\nDistinctive Character of a Trade Mark\nConclusion: To be registrable, a trade mark must be distinctive and fulfill the conditions set out in the definition under S.2(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.6(1)(d) & 2(1).\n(c) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.6(d)\nInterpretation of Foreign Words as Trade Marks\nConclusion: Foreign words used as trade marks are treated similarly to ordinary descriptive words, and they are registrable unless they describe the character or quality of goods.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.6(1)(d).\n(d) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.6(1)(d)\nSurname as a Trade Mark\nConclusion: A surname not commonly understood in Pakistan but recognized outside the country can be registered as a trade mark under S.6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.6(1)(d).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=6,6(1)(d),2(l)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1238 of 1995, decision dated: 21st May, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZAAND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzad Shoukat, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nSardar Muhammad Aslam, Deputy Advocate General (on Courts Notice) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "TIVI B. V. (A DUTCH CORPORATION) THE NETHERLAND\nVS \nDEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 739 = 2002 SLD 739 = 2002 CLD 1827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Payment of Loans) Order, 1972\nAuction of Mortgaged Property and Collusion\nConclusion: The auction of mortgaged property, conducted irregularly with the participation of a bank employee on behalf of minors, was canceled. The Courts upheld the cancellation due to collusion and irregularities in the auction.\nCitations: Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Payment of Loans) Order, 1972 (Martial Law Order No. 241), Para. 6; Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance (XIV of 1966), S.8; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Re payment of Loans) Ordinance (XIV of 1966)=8", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.1291 D of 1998, decision dated: 2-07-2002, hearing DATE : 28-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. FAKHAR UN NISA KHOKHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riaz Ahmad Qasuri for Petitioners. \nSadiq Hayat Lodhi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Syed ABDULLAH SHAH and another\nVS\nLAHORE CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK through Manager and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 740 = 2002 SLD 740 = 2002 CLD 1835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Chartered Accountants Ordinance (X of 1961), Sched. II, Part 1, Cl. (1)\nProfessional Misconduct by Chartered Accountants\nConclusion: Chartered Accountants cannot be required to disclose information obtained in the course of their professional engagement without client consent, as such disclosure would constitute professional misconduct.\nCitations: Chartered Accountants Ordinance (X of 1961), Sched. II, Part 1, Cl. (1).\n(b) Chartered Accountants Ordinance (X of 1961)\nCoercive Directive for Disclosure of Information\nConclusion: The directive requiring Chartered Accountants to disclose audited company lists was coercive and would lead to professional misconduct. It could not be enforced without suitable amendments to the Chartered Accountants Ordinance.\nCitations: Chartered Accountants Ordinance (X of 1961), Sched. II, Part 1, Cl. (1); Chartered Accountants Bye Laws, 1983, Bye Law 8(3); Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.254, 255 & 257; Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.34(4); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961=SecondSched", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.8987 of 2001, heard on 4-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Akbar Majid for Petitioner. \nAnwar Kamal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Chaudhri NAZIR AHMED ASAD, F. C.A.\nVs \nINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 741 = 2002 SLD 741 = 2002 CLD 1844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970)\nUndue Concentration of Economic Power in Mill Revival\nConclusion: The appellant’s decision to subordinate its debt to help revive an insolvent mill was valid, and no undue concentration of economic power occurred. The High Court set aside the impugned order.\nCitations: Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970), Ss.3, 4(b), 11, 12(1)(a)(iii), & 20.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=3,4(b),11,12(1)(a)(iii),20", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 156 of 2002, heard on 5-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Appellant.\nKh. Saeed uz Zafar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Through Company Secretary\nVS \nMONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY through Chairman, Government of Pakistan\nSHIPYARD K. DAMEN INTERNATIONAL\nVS\nKARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 742 = 2003 SLD 742 = 2003 CLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.126, 127, 10, 17 & 18; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2\nBank Guarantee and Letter of Credit\nConclusion: Bank guarantees, like irrevocable letters of credit, must be honored according to their terms, irrespective of any disputes between the parties. Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases of fraud.\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.126, 10, 17 & 18; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2.\n(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126\nDefinition of Guarantee\nConclusion: A guarantee is a secondary contract, where the promisor guarantees the primary liability of another person.\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126.\n(c) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126\nNature and Effect of Bank Guarantee\nConclusion: Bank guarantees are autonomous contracts that impose absolute obligations on the bank, independent of the underlying contract.\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126.\n(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.20\nRefusal of Court to Restrain Bank Guarantee Encashment\nConclusion: The Court upheld the principle that bank guarantees should be honored unless there is a clear case of fraud or exceptional circumstances, and refused to issue an injunction to restrain encashment.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.20; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=126,127,10,17,18Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 1120 and 1121 of 2002, decision dated: 11-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. S. Baqir, Bar at Law, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 743 = 2003 SLD 743 = 2003 CLD 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.10 & 21\nDistinctive Trade Mark\nConclusion: Words with a common suffix but distinct prefixes do not conflict, and they remain distinctive if there is no direct conflict between them.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 10, 21 & 73; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2\nSuit Against Infringement of Registered Trade Mark\nConclusion: To determine a prima facie case in an infringement suit, it must be shown that the plaintiff's case is primarily based on the infringement of a registered trade mark.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.10 & 21\nInfringement of Registered Trade Mark\nConclusion: A registered trade mark provides exclusive rights for its use. Infringement occurs when a mark identical or nearly resembling the registered trade mark is used, causing confusion or deception in trade.\nCitations: Insaf Soap Factory v. Lever Brothers Port Sunlight Ltd. PLD 1959 (W.P.) Lah. 381; Ram Kumar Jalan v. R.J. Wood & Co. AIR 1941 Lah. 262.\n(d) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.10, 21 & 73\nConsiderations for Infringement of Registered Trade Mark\nConclusion: In assessing whether a trade mark is infringed, the key consideration is whether a member of the public is likely to be deceived into believing they are buying the plaintiff's goods.\nCitations: Bandenawaz Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi and another PLD 1967 Kar. 492.\n(e) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.7, 10, 21 & 73\nColourable Imitation of Trade Mark\nConclusion: The trade mark AALI SHAN was a colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark SHAN , and such imitation constitutes infringement due to identical design and color scheme.\nCitations: None provided.\n(f) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.10, 21 & 73; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2\nInterim Injunction in Trade Mark Infringement Case\nConclusion: Given the striking resemblance between the trade marks SHAN and AALI SHAN , a strong prima facie case was made out, justifying the grant of an interim injunction.\nCitations: None provided.\n(g) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss.10 & 21\nObjective of Trade Mark Registration\nConclusion: The primary purpose of registering a trade mark is to protect both the manufacturer’s rights and the public from confusion by ensuring that no one other than the rightful owner uses the trade mark.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10,21,73Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Application No.9449 of 1999 in Suit No. 1538 of 1999, decision dated: 16-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Ahmed Shaikh for Plaintiff. \nAdnan Ahmed for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "M. SIKANDAR SULTAN\nVS \nMASIH AHMED SHAIKH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 744 = 2003 SLD 744 = 2003 CLD 80", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.2; Qanun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.30\nSuit for Recovery of Amount and Proof of Execution\nConclusion: The defendant's implied admission of executing the pronote and affidavit was proven through signatures on other documents, supporting the plaintiff's case. The suit was rightly decreed.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=30", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.200 of 1994, heard on 9-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.M. Latif Rawan for Appellant. \nShaukat Ali Javaid for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mian SAJIDUR RAHMAN \nVs \nMessrs GRANULARS (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Manager Commercial, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 745 = 2003 SLD 745 = 2003 CLD 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96 & O.XXXVII, Rr.2, 3; Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 & Art.159\nLimitation and Condonation of Delay in Defending Suit\nConclusion: The defendant's failure to apply for leave to defend within ten days of being served resulted in the suit being decreed, and the application for leave to defend filed after three months was dismissed.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5\nCondonation of Delay in Appeal\nConclusion: Delay in filing an application for leave to appeal cannot be condoned unless sufficient cause is shown, in line with S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=96,O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3Limitation Act, 1908=5,l59", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.908 of 2001, heard on 5-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Arshad Mahmood for Appellant.\nKh. Muhammad Asif for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "WAQAS TRADERS through Sale Proprietor \nVS\nM. NAWAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 746 = 2003 SLD 746 = 2003 CLD 201 = 2003 PTCL 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.152 & 290\nRectification of Register of Shares\nConclusion: Disputes over the genuineness of documents for share transfer require resolution in a Civil Court, and the case was disposed of accordingly in the High Court.\nCitations: Zakir Latif Ansari and others v. Pakistan Industrial Promoters Limited and others 1988 CLC 1541.\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.152\nDisputed Genuineness of Share Transfer Documents\nConclusion: Disputed factual issues regarding the genuineness of share transfer documents cannot be resolved in summary jurisdiction and must be adjudicated in a Civil Court.\nCitations: Zakir Latif Ansari and others v. Pakistan Industrial Promoters Limited and others 1988 CLC 1541.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=152,290", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 10 of 2000, decision dated: 17-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Ali Mirza for Petitioners. \nTariq Mahmood Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ROHAIL HASHMI and others\nVS\nNABEEL HASHMI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 747 = 2003 SLD 747 = 2003 CLD 211 = 2003 PTCL 442", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.10, 305, 451 & 456; Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3\nWinding Up Petition by Foreign Company\nConclusion: The petition for winding up was dismissed due to failure to comply with S.451 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and the appeal was maintained.\nCitations: China Annang Construction Corporation through Project Manager v. K.A. Construction Company 2002 NLR 209.\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.10(2), 305, 451, 452 & 459; Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3\nNon-compliance with S.451 in Winding Up Proceedings\nConclusion: The High Court allowed an appeal due to the appellant’s claimed compliance with S.451, remanding the case for further consideration, while clarifying the necessity of complying with the statutory requirements in future.\nCitations: Abdul Jameel v. Registrar of Trade Unions, West Pakistan 1971 PLC 507.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10,305,451,456,10(2),305,451,452&459Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 151 of 2000, decision dated: 6-08-2002, hearing DATE : 13-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE \nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Appellant.\nJaved Siddiqui for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AEROFLOT RUSSIAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES through Manager\nVS\nMessrs GERRYS INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 748 = 2003 SLD 748 = 2003 CLD 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIX, R.1\nValidity of Suit Signed by Directors of Corporation\nConclusion: A suit signed and verified by the directors of a private company, registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, was validly instituted.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.4; Stamp Act (II of 1899), Ss.12 & 36\nValidity of Pronote with Uncancelled Stamps\nConclusion: The court held that the stamps affixed on the pronote had been cancelled properly, and the defendant's argument regarding the non-cancellation of stamps was dismissed. The suit was rightly decreed based on the pronote.\nCitations: Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Memdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. PLD 1971 SC 550; National Bank of Pakistan v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 1999 Kar. 260.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-1,O.XXIX,R.1Stamp Act, of 1899=12,36Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=4", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.79 of 1990, heard on 6-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Appellant. \nCh. Imdad Ali Khan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD HANIF \nVS\nKISSAN DOST (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 749 = 2003 SLD 749 = 2003 CLD 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Judgment\nConditions for a Judgment to be Final and Conclusive\nConclusion: A judgment must meet specific conditions to be considered final, including termination of proceedings, determination of rights, and finality on merits.\nCitations: AIR 1963 Andh. Pra. 9; AIR 1961 All. 245; 1960 All WR (High Court) 5.\n(b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.22(2); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)\nAppeal in Financial Institutions Recovery of Finances\nConclusion: The Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal as the matter was still pending adjudication in the High Court and deemed the petition premature.\nCitations: Said Khan v. Aya Khan 1979 SCMR 577; Zafarullah Khan v. Abdul Rehman 1971 SCMR 702.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22,22(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No 1271 of 2002, decision dated: 18-09-2002, hearing DATE : 10-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nSARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE \nFALAK SHER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Iqbal Haider, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Afzal Siddiqui and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners.\nCh. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs UNION BANK LIMITED\nVS\nMessrs SILVER OIL MILLS LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 750 = 2003 SLD 750 = 2003 CLD 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3; Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118\nSuit for Recovery of Money Based on Promissory Note\nConclusion: The defendant's illusory claims regarding the promissory note were rejected as the plaintiff successfully proved the authenticity of the documents. The suit was decreed.\nCitations: Haji Abdul Wahid v. Hoechst Pakistan Ltd. and others 1993 CLC 1291.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=118", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1439 of 2001, decision dated: 20-09-2002. dates of hearing: 6th and 13-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Mir Muhammad Khan for Plaintiff. \nBhajandas Tejani for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mst. KAUSAR SAEED\nVS\nSyed WAJAHAT HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 751 = 2003 SLD 751 = 2003 CLD 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.20; Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.278(1)\nMaintainability of Arbitration Application\nConclusion: The Court has the power to make orders on matters within the Second Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the application to restrain encashment was maintainable.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940); Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3\nEncashment of Bank Guarantees in Arbitration\nConclusion: The High Court refused to interfere with the order to restrain the encashment of unconditional bank guarantees and dismissed the appeal.\nCitations: Messrs Jamia Industries Ltd. v. Messrs Pakistan Refinery Ltd., Karachi PLD 1976 Kar.644.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=20,SecondSched", + "Case #": "High Court Appeals Nos.16 and 17 in Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.86, 89, 143 and 144 of 2002, decision dated: 9-05-2002, hearing DATE : 6-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Khan for Appellant.\nAziz A. Shaikh for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHIPYARD K. DAMEN INTERNATIONAL\nVS\nKARACHI SHIPYARD AND ENGINEERING WORKS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 752 = 2003 SLD 752 = 2003 CLD 316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199 Constitutional petition Maintainability Interim order Scope Such order cannot be interfered with in Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court, particularly when the same also relates to an interim matter i.e. temporary injunction which too has yet not been disposed of finally.\n \n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) \n \n Art. 199 Constitutional petition Maintainability-Interim order Objection was filed in execution proceedings of decree passed by Banking Court Grievance of the objection petitioner was that he had neither acquired loan from the Bank nor he was a guarantor and the property owned by him was also not mortgaged with the Bank, therefore, his property could not be attached in execution of the decree Executing Court passed interim injunction against execution of the decree subject to deposit of decretal amount by way of security plea raised by the objection petitioner was that the Executing Court could not impose condition for grant of temporary injunction Validity Matter of grant of temporary injunction was still before the Executing Court at initial stage and the Court was Justified to pass an injunctive order subject to the condition of depositing the decretal amount by way of security--Condition was imposed by the Executing Court in the peculiar circumstances of the case by exercising its Jurisdiction judiciously Awarding a relief under Art 199 of the Constitution was discretionary High Court declined to interfere with the condition imposed by the Executing Court Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.\n \nAbbasia Cooperative Bank (now Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd.) through Manager and another v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus and 5 others PLD 1997 SC 3 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4024 of 2002, decision dated: 3rd October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saleem Iqbal for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM RASOOL\nVS\nTHE JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.III, MULTAN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 753 = 2003 SLD 753 = 2003 CLD 382", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 11, 12(2), O.II, R.2 & O. XXI, R.90\nSetting Aside Order and Res Judicata\nConclusion: The judgment debtors' application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed as it was barred by res judicata, as they had failed to raise specific allegations of fraud in previous proceedings.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2) & O.XXI, R.90\nNecessary Parties in Auction Sale Objection\nConclusion: The auction purchaser, whose rights were confirmed, was a necessary party to the objection petition. The application was dismissed due to failure to include the necessary party.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11,12(2),O.II,R.2,O.XXI,R.90", + "Case #": "Execution First Appeal No.534 of .2001, decision dated: 28-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed uz Zafar for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NEW RAHAT ENGINEERING WORKS through Proprietor and 4 others\nVS\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 754 = 2003 SLD 754 = 2003 CLD 386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.18; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11 & O.XXI, R.90\nSale of Property in Execution of Decree\nConclusion: The objection petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and became final under the principle of res judicata, as no further challenge was made by the objectors.\nCitations: Punjab Province (now Province of West Pakistan) v. Kh. Feroze Din Butt. PLD 1960 Lah. 791; Brig. (Retd.) Mazhar ul Haq and another v. M/s. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. PLD 1993 Lah. 706.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11,O.XXI,R.90", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No. 143 of 2001, decision dated: 14-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nSYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Asghar Ali for Appellant. \nMuhammad Saleem Sehgal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MASOOM INDUSTRIES through --Appellants Nos. 2 to 5\nVS\nHABIB BANK LIMITED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 755 = 2003 SLD 755 = 2003 CLD 392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3\nGrant of Conditional or Unconditional Leave to Defend\nConclusion: Leave to defend the suit can be granted unconditionally if serious triable issues arise, or conditionally if the defense is deemed patently dishonest or unreasonable.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3\nPrinciples for Granting Leave to Defend\nConclusion: The court may grant leave to defend where the defendant raises triable issues, including issues related to fraud, coercion, or the need for further proof, and when there are grounds to shift the burden of proof to the plaintiff.\nCitations: Fine Textile Mills' case PLD 1969 SC 163.\n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3\nSerious Questions of Law and Fact\nConclusion: The defendants raised serious issues, including alleged fraud and coercion in signing the contract, which warranted leave to defend unconditionally.\nCitations: Messrs National Security Insurance v. Messrs Hoechst Pakistan Ltd. 1992 SCMR 718; Abdul Karim Jaffarani v. United Bank Ltd. and 2 others 1984 SCMR 568.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-3,O.XXXVII,R.3", + "Case #": "Suit No.21 of 1997, decision dated: 4-10-2002, hearing DATE : 24-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar Alam for Plaintiff. \nMumtaz Ahmad Shaikh for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA)\nVS\nMessrs SEA GOLD TRADERS through Partners and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 756 = 2003 SLD 756 = 2003 CLD 407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), Ss. 29; Patents Ordinance (LXI of 2000), S.60; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2; Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.122\nAction for Infringement of Registered Process Patents of a Drug\nConclusion: The defendant's failure to disclose the manufacturing process for the disputed drug led the court to make an adverse presumption, as the defendant had failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the legitimacy of their process. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case for an interim injunction.\nCitations: Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited v. Pakistan Pharmaceutical Products Limited 1991 CLC Note 69.\n(b) Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), S.29; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2\nThreatened Infringement of Patent Rights\nConclusion: The court may grant interim relief even in cases of threatened infringement to protect the patentee's rights and avoid further harm.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2\nGrant of Temporary Injunction\nConclusion: The court at this stage makes a tentative assessment of the case and may grant an injunction if three prerequisites are met: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Patents and Designs Act, (II of 1911)=29,60Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=122Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Suit No. 855 of 2000, decision dated: 5-08-2002. dates of hearing: 13th February; 7th, 13th, 22nd, 27th March; 14th and 28-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moin Qamar and Hassan Irfan for Plaintiffs.\nMakhdoom Ali Khan and Zain Sheikh for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "MERC & CO. ING. and others\nVS\nHILTON PHARMA (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 757 = 2003 SLD 757 = 2003 CLD 420", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss.9, Expln. & 58\nExplanation to S.9 of Negotiable Instruments Act\nConclusion: The explanation was enacted to clarify and define the legal position in situations involving defects in the title of negotiable instruments. It explains the nature of defects, including fraud or unlawful consideration.\nCitations: Bhola Nath Aggarwal and another v. The Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1948 Lah. 56.\n(b) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss.9 & 58\nHolder in Due Course Conditions\nConclusion: To be a holder in due course, the endorsee must acquire the instrument for consideration, without knowing about any defect in the title of the previous holder.\nCitations: Braja Kishore Dikshit v. Purna Chandra Panda AIR 1957 Orissa 153.\n(c) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss.9 & 58\nPost-Dated Cheque and Third Party\nConclusion: A third party who accepts a post-dated cheque with knowledge of the circumstances must exercise greater diligence to investigate further and cannot claim to be a holder in due course if they neglect such duties.\nCitations: Sunderdas Sobhraj v. Liberty Pictures AIR 1956 Bom. 618.\n(d) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss.5, 9 & 58; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, R.A\nPayment Due Under Bill of Exchange\nConclusion: Payment under a bill of exchange can only be restrained in exceptional cases, such as fraud or material concealment, not due to mere disagreement with the terms.\nCitations: Haral Textiles Limited v. Banque Indosuez Belgium, S.A. 1999 SCMR 591.\n(e) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss.5 & 9; Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126\nBank Guarantee and Letter of Credit\nConclusion: A bank guarantee is an independent, unconditional commitment by the bank to abide by the terms, and the court should not interfere with its enforcement unless there is fraud or a clear injustice.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=9,58", + "Case #": "Suits Nos. 106 and 107 of 2002, decision dated: 14-06-2002, hearing DATE : 28-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muneer A.Malik for Plaintiff. \nKhalid Rehman for Defendants Nos. 1 and 3. \nArshad Tayebally for Defendant No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHEMI VISCOFIBRE LTD.\nVS\nING. A. MAURER S.A. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 758 = 2003 SLD 758 = 2003 CLD 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Practice and procedure --Any party approaching Court has to succeed on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the opponent's case.\n \n(b) Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1981)--S.39 Recovery of written off loan Attachment of property Trial Court passed ad interim order regarding attachment of the property and without asking the borrower to file written statement, they were called upon by means of notice regarding confirmation of ad interim order of attachment Validity Borrowers ought to have been allowed to file written statement as no one should be condemned unheard unless and until barred by law Before passing any order under S.39(3) or S.39(4) of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961, the Trial Court might have examined the person making the application Trial Court, in the present case, did not comply with provisions of law and had not thoroughly studied the record so as to reach the correct conclusion rather the Court had dealt with the matter in a cursory manner Claim of the Bank was not investigated by the Trial Court in accordance with the provisions of S.39(8) of Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1961, which should have passed a proper order as per such provisions Ad interim order passed by the Trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for adjudication in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties Appeal was allowed accordingly.\n \n(c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) -\n \n S.3 Limitation Duty of Court Scope Even any party had not raised the plea of limitation, it was incumbent upon the Court to consider as to whether the suit was within time Court which was seized of the matter was to exercise jurisdiction keeping in view S.3 of Limitation Act 1908, notwithstanding the fact whether the defendant had sought dismissal of the suit by setting the plea of limitation.\n \n(d) Limitation \n \n Question of Issue of limitation being mixed question of law and fact cannot be resolved without giving opportunity to the parties to produce their respective evidence.\n \n1998 CLC 353; 1999 YLR 123 and PLD 1985 SC 153 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1981)=39Limitation Act, 1908=3", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 15 of 2000, decision dated: 29-07-2002, hearing DATE : 15-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAZAL UR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellants.\nMuhammad Riaz Ahmed for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "EHSAN ALI ALIBHOY and 2 others\nVS\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 759 = 2003 SLD 759 = 2003 CLD 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXII, Rr. 2 & 3\nSuit for Recovery on Pronote\nConclusion: The defendant's contention that the pronote was under-stamped was not valid. The court found the document admissible and decreed the suit.\nCitations: Union Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. v. Hafiz Muhammad Siddique PLD 1978 SC 279.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.227 of 2001, heard on 14-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad, Nawaz for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAZHAR HUSSAIN\nVS\nMian MUHAMMAD EJAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 760 = 2003 SLD 760 = 2003 CLD 453", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss. 9 & 10\nAppeal Against Decree Passed by Banking Tribunal\nConclusion: Appeals against Banking Tribunal decrees must be filed in accordance with S.9 of the Ordinance, and failure to adhere to this process makes the appeal non-maintainable.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Appeal (Civil)\nLimitation in Appeals\nConclusion: The right to appeal under a special law must be exercised according to that law’s specific provisions, including the prescribed limitation periods.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=9,10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.209 of 1994, heard on 17th July. 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellants.\nSajid Mehmood Sheikh and Khalifa Shujaat Amin for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUHAEL AHMED and others\nVS\nMICRO ELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 761 = 2003 SLD 761 = 2003 CLD 457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr. 10, 58 & S.47\nObjection to Execution of Decree\nConclusion: The decree holder can proceed against any property of the debtor to satisfy the decree, irrespective of whether the property was mortgaged.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-10,O.XXI,Rr.10,58,S.47", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No.493 of 2000, decision dated: 22-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "M. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE\nSYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Abbas Mirza for Appellants. \nUmar Mehmood Kasuri for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "AL SAEED RESIN (PVT.) LIMITED and 6 others\nVS\nTRUST MODARABA through Trust Management Services Pvt., Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 762 = 2003 SLD 762 = 2003 CLD 460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3; Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5\nLeave to Appear and Defend Suit\nConclusion: The defendant’s application for leave to appear and defend was dismissed as it was time-barred. The Trial Court’s decree was upheld.\nCitations: Mushtaq Ahmed Qureshi v. The State PLD 1984 Lah. 283.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3Limitation Act, 1908=5", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.926 of 2001, heard on 21st May, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ata ul Mohsin Lak for Appellant. \nAbdul Latif Khan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALID NAWAZ\nVS\nChaudhry AHMED ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 763 = 2003 SLD 763 = 2003 CLD 463 = 2003 PTCL 739", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.279; Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.20\nRestriction on Transfer of Shares\nConclusion: The court should not impose restrictions on share transfers unless the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating and has deemed such transactions prejudicial to public interest.\nCitations: Golden Oraphies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Director of Vigilance 1993 SCMR 1635.\n(b) Company Law\nMemorandum of Association\nConclusion: A company’s object clause should specify the main object, with all other activities being ancillary to that primary purpose.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income tax (Central), Karachi v. Messrs Habib Insurance Company Ltd., Karachi PLD 1969 Kar. 278.\n(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 54 & 55\nAcquisition of Majority Shares by Banking Company\nConclusion: A banking company acquiring majority shares in an insurance company in violation of the law and public policy must be restrained from voting or seeking elections at the shareholder's meeting.\nCitations: Muhammad Sharif v. Government of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 2645.\n(d) Words and Phrases\n Amalgamation and Merger \nConclusion: Definitions of amalgamation and merger as provided by Black's Law Dictionary.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edn.\n(e) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.284\nAmalgamation of Banking Company\nConclusion: A banking company cannot merge with a non-banking company due to the distinct nature of their objects.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=279Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20(i)", + "Case #": "Suit No.347 of 2002, decision dated: 22-08-2002. dates of hearing: 29th, 30-04-2nd and 3rd May, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwer Mansoor Ahmed Khan for Plaintiffs.\nKhalid Anwer alongwith Mehmood Mandviwala for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Raja Quireshi for MCB Employees Pension Fund", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED and 3 others\nVS\nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, ISLAMABAD and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 764 = 2003 SLD 764 = 2003 CLD 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Import Policy Order, 1993--Para. 3.1 S. R. O. 594 (I)/93 S. R. O. 568(I)/ 93 Import fee, charging of Validity Entire Import Policy Order did not reveal as to why such fee was to be paid by the registered importer Bank was paid charges for opening of letter of credit, whereas for purposes of registration, a fee was separately levied Import fee being charged without rendering any corresponding, services whatsoever in lieu thereof was void.\n \nAyaz Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Commerce and another PLD 1993 Lah.194 and Sri Gadadhar Ramanuj Das and others v. The Province of Orissa and another AIR 1950 Orissa 47 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Import Policy Order, 1993=3,594(I)/93", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.363 of 1994, heard on 6-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Javed for Petitioner. \nCh. Sultan Mansoor for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEWAN SALMAN FIBRES LIMITED \nVS\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 765 = 2003 SLD 765 = 2003 CLD 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305 & 309\nWinding Up Petition by Investment Corporation\nConclusion: The winding-up petition filed by the Investment Corporation was valid, as the company had failed to commence its business and could not pay its debts. The agreements and documents clearly showed that the facility availed by the company was a secured loan, not an investment. The appeal based on the lack of competence of the Investment Corporation was dismissed.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1307 of 1995, decision dated: 2-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE \nFALAK SHER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nRai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMERICAN MARBLES PRODUCTS LTD.\nVS\nI.C.P. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 766 = 2003 SLD 766 = 2003 CLD 521", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2; Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118(a); Stamp Act (II of 1899), S.2(22)\nSuit for Recovery Based on Pronote\nConclusion: The statutory presumption of consideration arises once the negotiable instrument is executed. The defendant’s admission of signing the promissory note established this presumption, and no further evidence was required from the plaintiff. The defendant’s plea was rejected.\nCitations: PLD 1987 Kar. 76.\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2; Stamp Act (II of 1899), S.2(22); Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.4\nLiability to Pay on Executed Promissory Note\nConclusion: A promissory note executed as a surety falls under the definition of a negotiable instrument. The defendant, despite acting as a surety, was still liable to pay the debt under the executed promissory note.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-1,O.XXXVII,Rr.1&2Stamp Act, of 1899=2(22)Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=118(a)", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 19 of 1990, heard on 15-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Jahangir Arshad for Appellant.\nMirza Muhammad Saleem Baig for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZHAR HUSSAIN\nVS\nMUHAMMAD IQBAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 767 = 2003 SLD 767 = 2003 CLD 535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S.11\nStipulation as to Time\nConclusion: A stipulation as to time of payment is not essential unless it is explicitly stated as such in the contract of sale.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S.54(2)\nFailure to Give Notice on Goods Already Passed to Buyer\nConclusion: If property in goods has passed to the buyer, the seller is not liable for damages for failure to give notice. The buyer may also profit from resale, depending on circumstances.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), Ss. 46, 47 & 54; Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.182\nUnpaid Seller's Rights\nConclusion: An importer acting as an agent has the right to lien on goods for unpaid debts incurred during the importation.\nCitations: Purushotham Haridas and others v. Messrs Amruth Ghee Co. Ltd. AIR 1961 Andh. Pra. 143.\n(d) Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), Ss. 20, 46, 47 & 54; Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 73 & 74; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96\nDamages for Unpaid Goods\nConclusion: The buyer is entitled to compensation for the difference between the sale price and the market price for goods that were resold at the seller’s risk and cost. The trial court's decree was modified by the High Court.\nCitations: Purushotham Haridas and others v. Messrs Ghee Co. Ltd. AIR 1961 Andh. Pra. 143; Gopaldas v. Thakurdas AIR 1957 Madh. Bha. 20; Chand Shib Dhan v. Sheo Mal. Sheo Parshad Lah. 666.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=11,54(2),.20,46,47,54", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 16 of 1995, heard on 5-06-2002. dates of hearing: 3rd, 4th and 5-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Tariq Sultan for Appellant.\nZahid Hamid for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED through Secretary\nVS\nPUNJAB OIL MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 768 = 2003 SLD 768 = 2003 CLD 547", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3\nApplication for Leave to Defend in Loan Recovery Case\nConclusion: The defendant’s claim that the loan had been adjusted was found to be untrue. The trial court correctly dismissed the application for leave to defend, and the suit was decreed.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 107 of 1994, heard on 25-05-2002, hearing DATE : 24-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sadiq Ch. for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SULEMAN\nVS\nSIKANDAR HAYAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 769 = 2003 SLD 769 = 2003 CLD 550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--O.XXI, Rr. 84, 89, 90 & 91 Provisions of O.XXI, Rr. 89, 90 & 91, C.P.C. Applicability Such provisions would come into play after acceptance of an offer of sale of property by Court Expression may apply to have the sale set aside as used in O.XXI, R.89, C.P.C. clearly showed that there must be an order of Court, which was required to be set aside on certain grounds In absence of an order accepting bid of a person, no right could be deemed to have arisen in his favour.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-84,O.XXI,Rr.84,89,90,91", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.2348 of 2001, decision dated: 14-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE \nSYED ALI ASLAM DAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Arshad Iqbal for Petitioner.\nArshad Mobin for Respondents Nos.3 and 4. \nAftab Hussain Soomro for Respondent No. 5", + "Petitioner Name:": "Dr. Mrs. ZULAIKHA MAHMOOD\nVS\nPRESIDING OFFICER, BANKING COURT. NO. 1, KARACHI and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 770 = 2003 SLD 770 = 2003 CLD 614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--Ss. 8, 14 & 73 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23 & 24 Qanun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114 Registration of trade mark Bhains Soap Respondent filed opposition to appellant's such application and also sought registration of trade mark Bhains Soap Appellant's plea was that in a suit filed earlier by respondent for infringement of its registered trade mark Gaey Soap and Gaey Super Stroke and of passing off action, 'respondent through a compromise made therein had conceded to appellant's claim seeking, registration of Trade Mark Bhains Soap , thus, respondent. was estopped by its conduct to file opposition ¬Validity Registered trade mark of respondent contained picture of a Cow Cow, buffalo, Bhains were the species of same genies and not only difficult but impossible for an' ordinary person to differentiate from picture, whether same was a Gaey or a Bhains Registration of Bhains Soap in favour of appellant was likely to deceive and cause confusion in the mind of consumer public, which Registrar could not register Compromise between the parties in previous suit would not tantamount to overriding legal provisions Such agreement was unenforceable, thus, rule of estoppel would come into play Principle of res judicata' was not applicable to the present case as no conclusive determination of any issue between parties had been mad q in earlier litigation- Registrar of Trade Marks had factually found on the basis of evidence on record that Trade Mark Bhains Soap had been in use of, respondent much before appellant started use the same Registrar had validly refused to grant registration of Bhains Soap in favour of appellant and had allowed same to respondent No error or illegality in impugned order was found High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.\n \n(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872) \n \n Ss.23 & 24 Qanun e Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114 ¬Illegal contract Effect Parties by contract could not agree to something, which was prohibited by law and would tantamount to overriding legal provisions Such an agreement would be unenforceable and rule of estoppel would not come into play.\n \n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) \n \n S.11 Res, judicata, principle of Where earlier, litigation ended on the basis of statements of parties, which at best was in the nature of compromise, and no conclusive determination of any of the issues between parties had been made, then principle of res judicata would have no application in subsequent litigation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=8,14,73Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114Contract Act, 1872=23,24", + "Case #": "First Appeals from Order Nos. 302 to 305 of 2000, heard on 30-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ayub Sheikh for Appellant.\nKhalid Qazalbash and Sheikh Shahid Waheed for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "YOUSAF SOAP FACTORY\nVS\nDEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, , BRANCH TRADE MARKS REGISTRY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 771 = 2003 SLD 771 = 2003 CLD 621 = 2003 PTCL 434", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 265 & 10; Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33; Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980), S.15\nInvestigation of Company's Affairs\nConclusion: The appeal regarding the appointment of an inspector to investigate the company’s affairs was not maintainable, as it was an interlocutory order. Intra-Court appeal was the appropriate remedy.\nCitations: Brother Steel Mills Ltd. and others v. Mian Ilyas Miraj and 14 others PLD 1996 SC 543.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=265,10Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 2813 of 2001, decision dated: 18-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Qadir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. \nM. Hamid Farooq Durrani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nVS\nM. ZAFAR UL HAQ HIJAZI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 772 = 2003 SLD 772 = 2003 CLD 623", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) \n \n Preamble & S.10 Trade mark, registration of Purpose stated.\n \nThe very purpose of enactment of Trade Marks Act, 1940, as it appears from its preamble, is to provide effective protection to trade marks and that an unwary purchaser should not be deceived and a confusion should not arise in the mind of a common man so as to mislead him to purchase product of one manufacturer for the other considering it to be same, which he actually wanted to purchase. A plain reading of section 10 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 clearly shows that no trade mark shall be registered in respect of same goods or description of goods, which is identical with a trade mark belonging to a different proprietor and/or already stands registered .in respect of same goods or description of goods or which so nearly resembles such trade mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.\n \n(b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)--S. 10 Trade mark, registration of Difference in dictionary meanings, spelling of pronunciation of two identical trade marks Effect An unwary customer was never expected to go through dictionary meaning of two identical, resembling and confusing trade marks of an item before purchasing same, if it had a similar type of name or packing Mere difference in spelling or pronunciation was immaterial.\n \nEkhlas Ahmad v. D.A.E., Health Laboratories Ltd., London and another 1980 SCMR 625 rel.\n \n(c) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) --\n \n S. 73 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2 Suit for infringement of trade mark etc. Temporary injunction, grant of Plaintiff was manufacturer and seller of soap under Trade Mark Pears , while defendant's product under Mark Peal's had close resembling both visually and phonetically with that of plaintiffs trade mark Man of ordinary prudence and particularly unwary purchaser was likely to be deceived in view of common phonetic and visual name, get up and wrapper/carton of two soaps bearing Trade Mark Pears and . Peal's No distinction appeared at a first glance that two products could be found distinguishable from each other Difference in dictionary meaning of such two marks would not make any difference so far a common man and unwary purchaser was concerned Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case and balance of convenience was in its favour Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss, if injunction prayed was not granted High Court granted interim injunction as prayed till disposal of suit.\n \nA & F Pears Ltd. v. Ghulam Haider and another PLD 1959 (W.P.) Kar. 154; Bandenawaz Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi and another PLD 1967 Kar. 492; American Cynamide Company v. Arrow Trading Company Ltd. and another RLD 1992 Kar. 395; Messrs Chas A. Mendoza v. Syed Tausif Ahmed Zaidi and 2 others PLD 1993 Kar. 790; Ekhlas Ahmad v. D.A.E., Health Laboratories Ltd., London and another 1980 SCMR 625; A & F Pears Limited v. The Pearson Soap Company Limited 37 CLR 341; Lallubhai Amichand v. The Punjab Aluminium Factory, Gujranwala PLD 1960 (W.P.) Kar. 545; Aktiesolaget Jonkoping Valcan, Sweden v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi and another PLD 1975 Kar. 478; Solosusice Narodni Podnik v. Sindh Match Works (Pvt.) Limited and another 1991 CLC 37; Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited v. West End Tobacco Company 1992 CLC 1728; Fisons Limited v. E.J. Godwin (Peat.) Industries Limited 1976 RPC 653; Hawkins & Tipson Ltd. (Proprietors of Green Brothers) v. Fludes Carpets Ltd. and British Floorchoth Coy. Ltd. RPC 57 at p.8; Johnson. & Son (Loughborough) Ltd. v. W. Puffer & Company Ltd. 1930 RPC 47 and The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged) ref.\n \n(d) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) \n \n S. 73 Suit for infringement of trade mark Plea of defendant was that product of plaintiff was not being imported or sold in Pakistan Validity Such plea had no force as in presence of a registered trade mark of certain goods, import or sale thereof in market was neither necessary nor same would entitle defendant to copy plaintiff's trade mark, because by doing so, defendant was deceiving public into thinking that its products were the products of plaintiff.\n \nCooper's Incorporated v. Pakistan General Stores and another 1981 SCMR 1039 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 105 of 1997, decision dated: 13-03-2002. dates of hearing: 21st February; 12th and 13-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Mansoor for Appellant.\nNadeem Qureshi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNILEVER PLC \nVS\nAL ALAMEEN INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 773 = 2003 SLD 773 = 2003 CLD 637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 133, 134, 135 & 141; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, R.3\nComposition by Creditor with Debtor Without Guarantor’s Consent\nConclusion: A composition agreement made between the creditor and debtor without the guarantor's consent discharges the guarantor from liability for the debt.\nCitations: Federation of Pakistan v. National Bank of Pakistan 1981 CLC 847.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=133,134,135,141Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXIII,R.3", + "Case #": "Suit No.641 of 2000 (New No.B-49 of 2000), decision dated: 7-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR MANSOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Mirza for Plaintiff.\nMs. Sadaf Yousaf for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED \nVS\nMessrs NATIONAL FIBRES LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 774 = 2003 SLD 774 = 2003 CLD 646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58\nObjection Petition Regarding Disputed Property\nConclusion: The Banking Court’s dismissal of the objection petition, based solely on the lack of a registered gift deed, was flawed. Islamic law recognizes oral gifts, and the court failed to consider the evidence before dismissing the petition. The case was remanded for further consideration.\nCitations: Mst. Syrraya Begum v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and 4 others PLD 1990 Lah. 4.\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58\nInquiry in Objection Petition\nConclusion: The executing court must decide whether to record evidence based on the case's facts. The court is not obligated to record evidence in every case.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Islamic Law\nValid Gift under Islamic Law\nConclusion: A valid gift in Islamic law requires an offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession. No written instrument is necessary for a valid gift under Islamic law.\nCitations: Abdul Sattar Dadabhoy and another v. The Honorary Secretary, Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi PLD 1998 Kar. 291.\n(d) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 123 & 129\nGift under Islamic Law and Registration\nConclusion: Gifts made under Islamic law are not subject to the Transfer of Property Act's provisions requiring writing or registration.\nCitations: Mst. Umar Bibi and 3 others v. Bashir Ahmad and 3 others 1977 SCMR 154.\n(e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.65 & O.XXI, R.58\nClaim of Auction Purchaser\nConclusion: The rights of an auction purchaser are contingent on the outcome of the objection petition.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-58,O.XXI,R.58", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.149 of 1999, heard on 21st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPARVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Raja for Appellant.\nNaseem Mahmood for Respondent No. 1. Nemo for Respondent No. 2. Hamid Ali Shah for the Auction-Purchaser", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mian MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SAIGOL\nVS\nTRUST MODARBA through Trust Management Services (Pvt.) Ltd." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 775 = 2003 SLD 775 = 2003 CLD 653", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order (10 of 1972), Art. 14(2)(e); Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S.7-A\nState Life Insurance Corporation as a Banking Company\nConclusion: The State Life Insurance Corporation is not a banking company as defined under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.9(1)(2); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10; Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891)\nLocus Standi of State Life Insurance Corporation in Banking Court\nConclusion: The State Life Insurance Corporation lacked the locus standi to file a suit in the Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, as its statement of account was not certified under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.2-A(i)(ii)(iii); Life Insurance (Nationalization) Order (10 of 1972), Art. 14(2)(e)\nState Life Insurance Corporation Not a Financial Institution\nConclusion: The State Life Insurance Corporation is not considered a financial institution under the relevant laws and cannot claim to engage in banking or financial business.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order (10 of 1972)=14,14(2)(e)Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=7A", + "Case #": "Civil Original Suit No.41 of 2000, decision dated: 24-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Raza Farooq for Plaintiffs. \nAhmad Awais, for Defendant No. 1. \nMuhammad Asif Bhatti for Defendants Nos.2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (N.B.P.) and 5 others\nVS\nPUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD through Managing Director and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 776 = 2003 SLD 776 = 2003 CLD 686", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R. 2, O. XXI, R. 37 & S. 51\nExecution of Decree and Arrest of Judgment-Debtor\nConclusion: The executing court's order for arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison was not sustainable due to the lack of proper notice being served as required by law. The order was set aside by the High Court.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 51, O. XXI, R. 37 & OXII, R. 2\nArrest and Detention of Judgment-Debtor\nConclusion: The judgment-debtor could not be arrested and sent to civil prison as the necessary show-cause notice was not served. The court set aside the order for arrest and detention.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.VII,R.2,O.XXI,R.37,S.51", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.400 of 2002, heard on 26-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAFAR YASIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Arshad Latif for Petitioner. \nRao Aman Ullah Khan for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL \nVS\nHaji SHAUKAT ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 777 = 2003 SLD 777 = 2003 CLD 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Lease financing---Leasing company had leased a motor car to the lessee company for a period of 336 days on payment of monthly rent---Period of lease had expired but two instalments of rental remained due with the lessee company when the lessee company went into liquidation---Leasing company being the owner of the car and period of lease having expired, lessee was required to hand over the car to the lessor which was his property. \n \n1st Appeal No.44 of 1998 applied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.15 of 1999, heard on 14-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad Khan Official Liquidator.\nBashir Ahmad Khan for Applicant. Ismail Merchant, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB BANK LIMITED\nVS \nDOMESTIC APPLIANCES (PVT.) LTD. and another ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 778 = 2003 SLD 778 = 2003 CLD 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr. 89 & 90\nObjection Petition Regarding Auction and Preferential Right of Debtor\nConclusion: If the debtor failed to deposit the auction price within the prescribed time or did not request an extension, the objection petition would be dismissed, and the sale would be confirmed in favor of the auction purchasers.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-89,O.XXI,Rr.89,90", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No. 162 of 2002, heard on 21st November, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Almas Haider Kazmi for Petitioner.\nUzma Naheed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Syed MARGOOB ALAM \nVS\nMUHAMMAD SHOAIB ANSARI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 779 = 2003 SLD 779 = 2003 CLD 780", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order [P.O. No.3 of 1982], Art. 3\nApplicability of Rate of Exchange for Foreign Currency Loans\nConclusion: The provisions of the Foreign Currency Loans Order, 1982 do not apply to past transactions that are closed, unless there is an outstanding amount against the loan.\nCitations: PLD 1984 Kar. 82 ref.\n(b) Company\nWinding-Up of Company Due to Bona Fide Debt Dispute\nConclusion: A debt that is subject to a bona fide dispute is not grounds for the winding-up of a company.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order [P.O. No.3 of 1982], Art. 4(2)\nBar of Jurisdiction\nConclusion: Even a validly pronounced judgment by a competent court does not take the matter outside the purview of the Foreign Currency Loans Order.\nCitations: None provided.\n(d) Judgment\nEnforceability of Compromise in Different Proceedings\nConclusion: A compromise reached in a separate proceeding on the same issue is not enforceable unless the terms resolve the controversy definitively.\nCitations: PLD 1984 Kar. 82 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order [P.O. No.3 of 1982)=3,4(2)", + "Case #": "High Court Appeals Nos. 215 and 216 of 1990, decision dated: 29-03-2002. dates of hearing 21st February; 27th and 29-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Kazi for Appellants. \nIjaz Ahmed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BURJOR ARDESHIR INDUSTRIES LTD. and others\nVS\nPAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 780 = 2003 SLD 780 = 2003 CLD 789", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss. 6 & 11\nExecution of Decree and Dismissal of Objection Petition\nConclusion: The Banking Court erred in dismissing the objection petition without recording evidence. The case was remanded to allow the objector an opportunity to present evidence on whether the property was mortgaged.\nCitations: Mst. Surayya Begum v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and 4 others PLD 1990 Lah. 4 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6,11Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXI,R.52", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No.11 of 2002, heard on 3rd October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPARVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Abdul Qayyum for Appellant.\nMukhtar Muhammad Rana for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondents Nos.2 to 5", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN\nVS\nHABIB BANK LTD. and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 781 = 2003 SLD 781 = 2003 CLD 794", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 2(c), 8(a), 10(1) & 21\nInfringement of Pharmaceutical Trade Mark\nConclusion: The generic name Cipro used by the plaintiff for its pharmaceutical product could not function as a trade mark. The defendant's use of the similar mark did not cause deception or confusion, and the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction.\nCitations: Various cases, including McCathy and Kerly's Law of Trade Marks.\n(b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S.8(1); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2\nInfringement and Injunction for Pharmaceutical Trade Mark\nConclusion: The plaintiffs could not seek a temporary injunction to prevent the encashment of a bank guarantee because the defendant's actions were within contractual obligations.\nCitations: Messrs Hatta Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Faisalabad Development Authority 1995 CLC 1877.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=2,2(c),8(a),10(1)&21", + "Case #": "Suits Nos.884 and 885 of 1996, decision dated: 19-11-1999. dates of hearing: 2nd, 8th and 23rd September, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hasan Irfan for Plaintiffs.\nKhalil Kazilbash for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "BAYER A.G. and another \nVS\nMACTER INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 782 = 2003 SLD 782 = 2003 CLD 815", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 290 & 291\nJurisdiction and Limitations for Company Court Intervention\nConclusion: The court’s jurisdiction to intervene in the affairs of a company under Sections 290 and 291 of the Companies Ordinance requires specific conditions such as oppression, fraud, or mismanagement, but does not extend to interfering with past transactions.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.309; Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S.44\nWinding-Up of Private Limited Company\nConclusion: The grounds available for dissolving a partnership under Section 44 of the Partnership Act are applicable to winding-up proceedings for a private limited company.\nCitations: Ladli Prasad Jaiswal v. The Karmal Distillery Co. Ltd. PLD 1965 SC 221.\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.290\nOppressive Acts in a Private Limited Company\nConclusion: A series of acts of oppression by a management group, including unfair share purchase offers, may justify a winding-up order under the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nCitations: Various cases, including Shahbazud Din Chaudhry and others v. Messrs Services Industries Textiles Limited PLD 1988 Lah. 1.\n(d) Bias in a Judge\nBias in Judicial Decisions\nConclusion: A series of illegal orders against a party can create a reasonable apprehension of bias, but an isolated order does not necessarily support such an inference.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290,291", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.2 of 2000, decision dated: 10-02-2003. dates of hearing: 8th, 16th, 24th May and 16th 2002", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid F. Ibraim for Petitioner. \nShaiq Usmani for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSOCIATED BISCUITS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED\nVS\nENGLISH BISCUITS MANUFACTURERS (PVT.) LTD. (EBM) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 783 = 2003 SLD 783 = 2003 CLD 876", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 & S.11\nRes Judicata and Temporary Injunction\nConclusion: A second application for a temporary injunction on the same issue is not maintainable if it does not present new circumstances and is barred by the principle of res judicata.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2 & S.11; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.20; Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126\nBank Guarantee and Temporary Injunction\nConclusion: The bank guarantee is an independent contract, and the court rightly refused to grant an injunction to prevent its encashment, as the defendant was contractually obligated to fulfill its commitment.\nCitations: Messrs Hatta Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Faisalabad Development Authority 1995 CLC 1877.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-1,O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2,S.11", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 93 of 2000, heard on 11-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rashid Awan for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Munir Paracha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs K.K.P. (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nMANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, QUAIDEAZAM UNIVERSITY STAFF HOUSING SCHEME through Vice Chancellor/ Chairman and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 784 = 2003 SLD 784 = 2003 CLD 882", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126\nDemand Guarantee and Limitation Period\nConclusion: The period of limitation for a demand guarantee starts from the date the guarantor is demanded. The plaintiff’s failure to disclose the dates of demand resulted in the suit being beyond the limitation period.\nCitations: National Bank of Pakistan v. General Tractor and Machinery Co. Ltd. 1996 CLC 79.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=126", + "Case #": "Civil Original Suit No.48 of 2000, P.L.As. No. 103-B of 2000 and 110-B of 2001, decision dated: 31st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nauman Akram Raja for Plaintiff. \nSalman Aslam Butt for Defendant No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED\nVS\nARIF NOOR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 785 = 2003 SLD 785 = 2003 CLD 888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41\nTransfer by Ostensible Owner\nConclusion: Under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a person who allows another to hold himself out as the owner cannot later assert his real title if a third party purchases it in good faith. This is based on the principle of estoppel.\nCitations: Khair Din and another v. Mst. Zenab Bibi and 2 others PLD 1973 Lah. 586.\n(b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41\nProtection under Section 41 of Transfer of Property Act\nConclusion: The necessary ingredients for protection under Section 41 include the transferor being an ostensible owner, acting with the consent of the real owner, and the transfer being for consideration while the transferee acting in good faith.\nCitations: Khair Din and another v. Mst. Zenab Bibi and 2 others PLD 1973 Lah. 586.\n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58; Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41\nExecution of Decree and Transfer by Ostensible Owner\nConclusion: In an ex parte decree case, an objection was filed claiming bona fide purchase. However, the objection petition was dismissed because the objector did not meet the necessary requirements under S. 41 and did not act in good faith.\nCitations: Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan through Deputy Chief Manager v. Saadi Asmatullah and others 1999 SCMR 2874.\n(d) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 41; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58\nProtection Under S. 41 in Execution of Decree\nConclusion: The objector failed to take reasonable care in ensuring the property's title was valid before the purchase, thus was not entitled to protection under Section 41. The Banking Court's order was set aside.\nCitations: Rahim Dad and 3 others v. Abdul Kareem and 3 others 1992 MLD 2111.\n(e) Mortgage\nMortgage Follows Property\nConclusion: A transferee of previously encumbered property steps into the shoes of the debtor and is bound by the existing mortgage.\nCitations: Chief Land Commissioner v. Maula Dad and others 1978 SCMR 264.\n________________________________________", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 133 of 1988, heard on 21st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPARVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nPER PARVEZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aniqua Mughis for Appellant. \nJehangir A. Jojha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED\nVS\nSyed ATAULLAH SHAH and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 786 = 2003 SLD 786 = 2003 CLD 898", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9 & 10\nDismissal of Suit for Non-Prosecution\nConclusion: The Banking Court dismissed the suit for non-prosecution due to the absence of the plaintiff and his counsel. The dismissal was not justified, as the suit was not fixed for hearing, and the plaintiff's absence was explained. The case was remanded for a decision on merits.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10,9Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.IX,Rr.8,9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.25 of 2002, decision dated: November, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPARVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Javed Kasuri for Appellant.\nSardar Muhammad Hayat for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASLAM\nVS \nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager, A.D.B.P., Kasur Branch and 14 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 787 = 2003 SLD 787 = 2003 CLD 902", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 15(6) & 19; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58\nExecution of Decree and Possession of Mortgaged Property\nConclusion: The objector, a bona fide purchaser, was allowed to restore possession of mortgaged property pending the sale of other mortgaged properties to satisfy the decree. Transparency in the sale was ensured by keeping the objector informed.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15,15(6),19Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXI,R.58", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 194 of 2002, heard on 9-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi for Appellant.\nKh. Aamir Farooq for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHID SIDDIQUE BHATTI\nVS\nUNION BANK LIMITED and 14 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 668 = 2002 SLD 668 = 2002 CLD 905", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 10\nLeave to Defend the Suit and Illegal Mark-up Charges\nConclusion: The Banking Court did not address the issue of illegal mark-up charges raised by the defendants, which was a valid plea under State Bank guidelines. The case was remanded for a decision on the mark-up issue.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.534 of 2002, heard on 9-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPARVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawad Mahmood Pasha for Appellant.\nMuhammad Afzal Sandhu and Mehmood for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs YUSSRA TEXTILE CORPORATION and 2 others\nVS\nPICIC COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 788 = 2003 SLD 788 = 2003 CLD 917", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss. 12(1), 23-B(4) & 24(2); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199\nNon-Payment for Exported Goods and Penalty Under Foreign Exchange Regulations\nConclusion: The petitioners failed to fulfill their obligation to repatriate foreign exchange for exported goods, resulting in the imposition of a penalty under S.23-B. The petitioners did not make adequate efforts to recover the payment and were penalized.\nCitations: Various cases including 1994 SCMR 2123, 1998 SCMR 1404, 2001 MLD 1554.\n(b) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss. 23 & 23-B\nPunishment and Procedure for Foreign Exchange Violations\nConclusion: Section 23-B specifically deals with penalties for contravening the provisions related to export proceeds, while Section 23 deals with general punishments for violations under the Act.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947=12,12(1),23B(4),24(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1051, D-2069, D-2070, D-2680, D-2681, D-2682, D-2683, D-2684,D-2085, D-2975, 541, D-1736 and D-1745 of 2000, decision dated: 30-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.R. Akhtar for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D-2293 of 1997). \nKhalid Farooqui for Petitioner (in C.ps. Nos.D-1051.of 1992, 1132 to 1140, 1175 to 1182 of 1995, 1736 and 1745 of 2000).\nAbdul Qadir Khan for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D-1241 of 1997). \nH.A. Rehmant, I.H. Zaidi and Abrar Hasan for Respondents.\nNadeem Azhar Siddiqui, D.A.G. (on Courts Notice)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and another \nVS\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR ADJUDICATION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 789 = 2003 SLD 789 = 2003 CLD 975", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 203-G\nRepayment of Loan and Interest Demanded by Bank\nConclusion: The High Court cannot enforce or review loan agreements under Constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner should pursue alternative remedies, including filing a suit in the Banking Court.\nCitations: Mumtaz Masood's case 1994 SCMR 2287; Ch. Muhammad Ismail's case PLD 1996 SC 246.\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.2A\nChallenge to Law Contravening Islamic Principles\nConclusion: The High Court does not have jurisdiction under Art. 2A of the Constitution to declare laws contravening Islamic principles.\nCitations: 2000 SCMR 567.\n(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199\nConstitutional Petition on Subsequent Events\nConclusion: The High Court has the jurisdiction to consider subsequent events in deciding a case under Constitutional petition provisions.\nCitations: Nasir Jamal v. Zubaida Begum 1990 CLC 1069.\n(d) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.15\nLoan Repayment Dispute Under Banking Companies Act\nConclusion: As the Banking Companies Act, 1997 was repealed, the High Court dismissed the constitutional petition as the issue had become infructuous, and the matter was pending in the Banking Court.\nCitations: Muhammad Hassan Mosa v. Sardar M. Javed Moosa 1997 SCMR 1982.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=15Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,203-G", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1581 of 2000/BWP, decision dated: 30-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.M. Farani for Petitioner. Sh. Masood Ashraf for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EJAZ BROTHERS COTTON GINNERS, GRAIN MARKET, SADIQABAD through Managing DirectoR\nVs \nFEDERATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 790 = 2003 SLD 790 = 2003 CLD 981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 7 & 476(4)\nJurisdiction of Courts Under the Companies Ordinance\nConclusion: The High Court exercises civil jurisdiction under S.7 of the Companies Ordinance, while criminal offences under the same Ordinance are within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under S.476(4).\nCitations: Abdul Rahim Khan v. The State 1991 MLD 2448 affirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=7,476(4)", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.336 of 1992, decision dated: 17-06-1998", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH ABBASI, JUSTICE\nDR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azizullah K. Shaikh for Petitioner.\nFareed Ahmed Dayo and Abdul Hakeem A. Bijarani for Respondent.\nS.M. Aamir Naqvi for Respondent No. 2.\nI.A. Hashmi & Co. for Appellant (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1176 of 1992).\nFareed Ahmad Dayo and Abdul Hakeem A. Bijarani for Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1176 of 1992).\nS.M. Aamir Naqvi for Respondent No. 2 (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1176 of 1992).\nRaja Qureshi & Co. for Applicant (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1193 of 1992).\nFareed Ahmed Dayo and Abdul Hakeem A. Bijarani for Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1193 of 1992).\nS.M. Aamir Naqvi for Respondent No. 2 (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1193 of 1992).", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULZAR AHMED\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 791 = 2003 SLD 791 = 2003 CLD 1037", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S. 76; Trade Marks Rules, 1963, R. 38; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI\nAppeal to High Court Against Registrar's Order\nConclusion: Appeals under the Trade Marks Act do not require the filing of a certified copy of the impugned order, and the appeal can proceed on technical grounds if the order is provided.\nCitations: Arshad Naseem v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and another 1988 CLC 262.\n(b) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), S. 70; Trade Marks Rules, 1963, R. 78\nPowers and Duties of the Registrar of Trade Marks\nConclusion: The Registrar must ensure that proper service is made before passing ex parte orders. If service is incomplete, the case should be remanded for a fair hearing.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=76,38Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.234 of 2002, decision dated: 15-04-2003. dates of hearing: 31st March; 1st, 4th and 15-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Abdul Basit assisted by Mian Mahmood Rashid for Appellant. \nCh. Imdad Ali and Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNAS\nVS\nSHAUKAT ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 792 = 2003 SLD 792 = 2003 CLD 1050", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XXV of 1997), Ss. 7, 9 & 16\nLiability of Guarantor After Resignation\nConclusion: The defendant’s resignation from the directorship of the company did not absolve him from the guarantee executed in his individual capacity. The guarantee was enforceable as no revocation or cancellation was shown.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7,9,16", + "Case #": "F.A.B. No.71 of 2002 and Civil Miscellaneous No.481 of 2002, decision dated: 27-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE\nTALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asif for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Malik IFTIKHAR AHMAD\nVS\nR.D.F.C." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 793 = 2003 SLD 793 = 2003 CLD 1052", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Ss. 39 & 42\nRegistration of Copyright\nConclusion: Failure to register a copyright does not invalidate the copyright or destroy the right to sue for infringement. Registration is optional, and the absence of it only affects the presumption of authorship.\nCitations: Messrs Mishra Bandhu Karvalayua and others v. Shivratanlal Koshal AIR 1970 Madh. Pra. 261; S. Sibtain Fazli v. Star Film Distributors and another PLD 1964 SC 337.\n(b) Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Ss. 56 & 60\nInfringement of Copyright and Damages\nConclusion: The defendant's lack of knowledge and non-wilful infringement limited the damages awarded to nominal amounts. The plaintiff's claim of suffering Rs.25,00,000 in losses lacked supporting evidence and was dismissed.\nCitations: 18 Corpus Juris Secundum, para. 135; Exchange Telegraph Co. v. Gregory & Co. (1896) 1 QB 147.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.20 of 1995, decision dated: 10-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Saeed-uz-Zafar and Nasrullah Khan Babar for Appellant.\nSaleem Saigal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FEROZESONS PVT. LTD.\nVS\nDr. Col. Retd. K.U. KURESHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 794 = 2003 SLD 794 = 2003 CLD 1070", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "National Insurance Corporation Act (XXIII of 1976), S. 14\nInsurance Claim for Armed Robbery Loss\nConclusion: The Insurance Corporation could not avoid liability on the grounds of an employee's involvement in the robbery. The insurance policy was valid, and the claim for the cash loss was enforceable.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "National Insurance Corporation Act, 1976=14", + "Case #": "Suit No. 136 of 1993, decision dated: 29-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ikram Siddiqui for Plaintiff. \nAbdul Rauf for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD.\nVS\nNATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 795 = 2003 SLD 795 = 2003 CLD 1075", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 305\nGrounds for Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: A creditor may file a petition for winding-up based on multiple grounds, including inability of the company to pay its debts as detailed in S. 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nCitations: None provided.\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 306\nDeeming a Company Unable to Pay Its Debts\nConclusion: A company is deemed unable to pay its debts once it neglects to settle a creditor's demand within 30 days after a proper notice is given, as per S. 306 of the Companies Ordinance.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 314\nCourt’s Power in Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: The court may issue various orders upon hearing a winding-up petition, including winding-up orders even if the company has assets exceeding its liabilities.\nCitations: None provided.\n(d) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 305 & 306\nInability vs. Unwillingness to Pay Debts\nConclusion: A company’s inability to pay its debts, as opposed to unwillingness, can lead to a winding-up petition. The former is defined under S. 306 of the Companies Ordinance.\nCitations: None provided.\n(e) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306(a) & 305\nPetition for Winding-up Based on Decretal Debt\nConclusion: A decree against the company confirms that the debt is due, and once a creditor satisfies the requirements of S. 306, the company is deemed unable to pay its debts.\nCitations: None provided.\n(f) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, & 314\nCourt’s Discretion in Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: The court’s discretion to grant a winding-up order is not restricted by the company’s financial standing or whether it is a going concern.\nCitations: None provided.\n(g) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, & 314\nDefence of Alternate Remedies in Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: The availability of alternate remedies does not bar a winding-up petition based on inability to pay debts. The creditor has the discretion to choose the most suitable remedy.\nCitations: None provided.\n(h) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, & 314\nBona Fide Dispute in Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: A company cannot claim a bona fide dispute as a defence when the debt has been determined through legal proceedings and a decree has been issued.\nCitations: None provided.\n(i) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, & 314\nCompany’s Conduct and Ability to Pay Debts\nConclusion: A company that neglects to pay its debts or secure a reasonable settlement may be subject to winding-up, even if it claims to be solvent or has assets exceeding liabilities.\nCitations: None provided.\n(j) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, & 314\nPending Appeal and Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: Filing an appeal does not automatically suspend the winding-up petition. The debt’s determination is final unless stayed by the appellate court.\nCitations: None provided.\n(k) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, & 314\nAvailability of Execution Remedy in Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: Availability of an execution remedy does not preclude a winding-up petition based on inability to pay debts.\nCitations: None provided.\n(l) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, & 314\nBona Fide Dispute in Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: A company that raises a dispute merely to avoid payment, without a bona fide reason, is not protected from winding-up.\nCitations: None provided.\n(m) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, & 314\nCompany’s Abuse of Legal Process in Winding-up Petition\nConclusion: A company’s attempt to withhold a legitimate debt by engaging in protracted litigation is an abuse of process, and it may face winding-up under the Companies Ordinance.\nCitations: None provided.\n(n) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 306, 305, 314 & 452\nCompliance with S. 452 of the Companies Ordinance\nConclusion: The company could not raise compliance issues under S. 452 at the winding-up stage as it had not raised the objection in prior proceedings.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,306", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application No.22-A of decided on 19-03-2003, hearing DATE : 26-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Petitioner. \nKazim Hassan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AEROFLOT RUSSIAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES through Manager\nVS\nMessrs GERRYS INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 796 = 2003 SLD 796 = 2003 CLD 1178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Non-Performing Assets and Rehabilitation of Industrial Undertakings (Legal Proceedings) Ordinance (LVIII of 2000), Ss. 10, 5 & 6(1)\nExecution of Decree and Sale of Property\nConclusion: The confirmation of the sale of property before the expiration of 30 days violated the debtor’s statutory right to file objections, and the High Court set aside the order.\nCitations: Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. and others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and others PLD 1987 SC 512.\n(b) Non-Performing Assets and Rehabilitation of Industrial Undertakings (Legal Proceedings) Ordinance (LVIII of 2000), S.5\nApplicability of C.P.C. in Special Law Cases\nConclusion: The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply where the special enactment, such as the Non-Performing Assets Ordinance, does not provide a procedure.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Non-Performing Assets and Rehabilitation of Industrial Undertakings (Legal Proceedings) Ordinance (LVIII of 2000), Ss. 5 & 10(5)\nProcedure for Execution and Sale of Property\nConclusion: The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code related to execution and sale of property apply when the special law lacks specific provisions.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Non-Performing Assets and Rehabilitation of Industrial Undertakings (Legal Proceedings) Ordinance, 2000=10,5,6(1)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXI,Rr.89,90,92", + "Case #": "Execution First Appeal No.55 of 2002, heard on 10-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azmat Saeed for Appellants. \nHassan Tariq and Tariq Kamal Qazi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALI PAPER AND BOARD INDUSTRIES LTD. and another \nVS\nBANKERS EQUITY LTD. and 12 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 797 = 2003 SLD 797 = 2003 CLD 1185", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 30, 32, 33 & 46; Trade Organizations Ordinance (XLV of 1961), S.12\nSuit Challenging Election of Trade Body\nConclusion: The suit challenging the election and arbitration award was rejected as such disputes must be resolved under the Trade Organizations Ordinance and Arbitration Act, not through a civil suit.\nCitations: Badrinarain Otherwala v. Pak Jute Balers Limited PLD 1970 SC 43.\n(b) Trade Organizations Ordinance (XLV of 1961), Ss. 12 & 9(2)(e)\nElection Disputes under Trade Organizations Ordinance\nConclusion: The word election in S.12 of the Trade Organizations Ordinance covers all election-related disputes, and such disputes must be resolved in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Ordinance.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11\nRejection of Part of the Plaint\nConclusion: A plaint cannot be partially rejected if the reliefs sought are interconnected and dependent on each other.\nCitations: None provided.\n(d) Arbitration\nLitigation vs. Arbitration in Trade Organizations\nConclusion: Registered associations should resolve disputes according to their Articles of Association, rather than resorting to litigation, to uphold the purpose of these organizations.\nCitations: Abdul Razzak Rajwani v. Messrs M.Y. Industries Civil Appeal No. 13-K of 1986.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=42,54,30,32,33&46Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.11", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1346 of 1999, decision dated: 7-01-2000, hearing DATE : 4-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ATA-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muneer A. Malik and Ziaul Haq Makhdoom for Plaintiff.\nMakhdoom Ali Khan and Khalid Jawed Khan for Defendant No. 1.\nKhalid Jawed for Defendant No. 2. \nNemo for Defendant No. 3.\nRehmani for Defendant No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "M. WAQAR MONNOO, MEMBER, CENTRAL MANAGING COMMITTEE\nVS\nALL PAKISTAN TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION through C. E.O. and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 798 = 2003 SLD 798 = 2003 CLD 1195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3; Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.118; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199\nSuit for Recovery of Money Based on Pronote and Forged Signatures\nConclusion: The trial court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s application for a second expert opinion was upheld, as the handwriting expert’s opinion, being court-appointed, was not subject to rebuttal. The plaintiff’s failure to disclose key material facts led to the court refusing to intervene.\nCitations: Sirbaland v. Allah Loki 1996 SCMR 575; Zulfiqar Ali v. Ch. Munir Ahmad 1999 CLC 731; Ghulam Muhammad v. Munir Ahmad Shah 1994 CLC 14; Messrs Ilamuddin & Sons v. Asghar Ali and others 1970 SCMR 233.\n(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 59\nEvidentiary Value of Expert Opinion\nConclusion: Expert opinions, while admissible, are not binding and are meant to assist the court in arriving at a conclusion.\nCitations: Muhammad Naeem's case PLD 1950 Lah. 507; Muhammad Din's case 1991 MLD 1070.\n(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 59\nHandwriting Expert’s Opinion\nConclusion: The opinion of a handwriting expert is not conclusive proof but can be considered along with other evidence to either accept or reject it.\nCitations: Abdul Majeed's case PLD 1976 Kar. 762; Naseem Ahmad's case 1992 MLD 620; Ghulam Nabi's case PLD 1957 Lah. 109.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=118Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,R.3", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.21696 of 2002, decision dated: 26-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Farid Sanotra for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "Rana MUHAMMAD AKBAR ALI\nVS\nADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BHAKKAR and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 799 = 2003 SLD 799 = 2003 CLD 1200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)\nQuota Allocation and Exporter’s Past Performance\nConclusion: An exporter is entitled to the quota based on past performance, and although the unlawful denial of quota should be corrected, it should be done over a reasonable period, allowing the exporter time to procure goods.\nCitations: 1994 SCMR 859.\n(b) Practice and Procedure\nPremium Over Wrongful Acts\nConclusion: A person is not entitled to any premium for wrongful acts.\nCitations: None provided.\n(c) Administration of Justice\nFair and Honest Exercise of Public Powers\nConclusion: Public powers must be exercised fairly and honestly, ensuring no one is prejudiced by the actions of the court or authorities.\nCitations: None provided.\n(d) Administration of Justice\nAct of Court Should Not Prejudice Anyone\nConclusion: Legal actions taken by the court should not harm or disadvantage any party.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3,3(1)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1322 of 2000, heard on 13-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoukat Hayat for Petitioner.\nAfsar Abidi for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\nKhalid Jawaid for Respondent No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "KAISAR SHAFIULLAH \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 800 = 2003 SLD 800 = 2003 CLD 1209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 284, 285, 286 & 287\nCompromise, Arrangement, and Court’s Role in Sanctioning Mergers\nConclusion: The Company Court must ensure that all statutory procedures are followed before sanctioning a merger or amalgamation. The court must ensure the fairness, reasonableness, and legality of the proposed scheme, considering both majority and dissenting shareholders.\nCitations: In re: Lipton (Pakistan) Ltd. 1989 CLC 818; Mehmood Textile Mills v. Registrar, Joint Stock Companies NLR 1993 U.C. Civil 49.\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 284(1)\nMeeting of Shareholders and Court’s Discretion\nConclusion: The Court has discretion in ordering a meeting of shareholders or creditors to consider a scheme. If the objectors fail to show that separate meetings for dissenting minority shareholders are necessary, the court can refuse to order such meetings.\nCitations: Amin Fabric's case 1989 MLD 1861; ACE Insurance Limited's case 2002 CLD 171.\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 284 & S. 6\nJurisdiction of Company Court in Sanctioning Mergers\nConclusion: A scheme of amalgamation can be sanctioned by the Company Court even if the memorandum of association does not explicitly include provisions for amalgamation, as the court’s power remains statutory.\nCitations: In re: Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. (1939) 9 Comp. Cas. 229.\n(d) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 203\nRestrictions on Chief Executive Holding Multiple Positions\nConclusion: A Chief Executive of a public company is not prohibited from holding a similar position in another company unless the business of both companies directly competes with each other.\nCitations: Bhola Nath Aggarwal and another v. Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1948 Lah. 56.\n(e) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 124\nContract of Indemnity and Guarantee\nConclusion: A contract of indemnity involves saving the indemnified party from loss, while a contract of guarantee involves three parties. The indemnifier's promise regarding tax liability, despite non-disclosure in the balance sheet, fulfilled legal requirements for indemnity.\nCitations: Gujanan Moreshwar v. Moreshwar Madan AIR 1942 Bom. 302; Habib Bank Ltd. v. Waheed Textile Mills PLD 1989 Kar. 371.\n(f) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 284\nFairness of Valuation Report in Scheme of Arrangement\nConclusion: If the valuation report is unfair or unreasonable, the court may reject it, as estoppel cannot be claimed against unfair valuations.\nCitations: None provided.\n(g) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 284\nMethodology of Share Valuation in Scheme of Arrangement\nConclusion: The valuation of shares should account for factors like capital cover, yield, earning capacity, and marketability, using methods like profit-based, net worth, or market value approaches.\nCitations: Take-Overs by Weinberg and Blank and Dean v. Prince (1954) Ch. D. 749.\n(h) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 284\nArm's Length Transaction in Scheme of Arrangement\nConclusion: The valuation and the terms of the scheme must be made in an arm’s length manner, ensuring fairness and transparency for all parties involved.\nCitations: Habib Bank Ltd. v. Waheed Textile Mills PLD 1989 Kar. 371.\n(i) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 284\nNon-disclosure of Share Valuation in Scheme of Arrangement\nConclusion: If the valuation of shares was done to favor majority shareholders and not disclosed properly, it may be grounds for rejecting the scheme.\nCitations: None provided.\n(j) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 284\nCourt’s Role in Sanctioning Scheme of Arrangement\nConclusion: The Court does not act as an appellate body but has a supervisory role to ensure fairness in the scheme. It can refuse to approve a scheme even if it is supported by the majority if it is not just and reasonable.\nCitations: None provided.\n(k) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 284\nRevaluation and Court's Refusal to Approve Scheme\nConclusion: The Company Court rejected the proposed scheme due to flawed valuation, ordering a fresh valuation considering all assets and factors, with a new independent auditor.\nCitations: In re: Lipton Pakistan Ltd. 1989 CLC 818; Atlas Autos Ltd. v. Registrar, Joint Stock Companies 1991 CLC 523.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,285,286,287", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No. 29 of 2001, decision dated: 26-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Faez Isa. Kazim Hasan and Shahanshah Hussain for Objectors", + "Petitioner Name:": "Qazi Faez Isa. Kazim Hasan and Shahanshah Hussain for Objectors\nVS\nInure: PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 801 = 2003 SLD 801 = 2003 CLD 1321", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 94, 151 & O. XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2; Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 9\nBank's Unilateral Action in Withholding Finance Facility\nConclusion: The court found that the bank acted unjustly and arbitrarily by withholding the sanctioned finance facility, which prejudiced the plaintiffs. The bank was ordered to release the finance facility or issue a No Objection Certificate for another bank to extend the facility.\nCitations: Eman Textile Mills Ltd. v. I.D.B.P. 1999 CLC 1630; Rehman Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.D.B.P. 2001 YLR 2240.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=94,151,O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-23 of 2002, decision dated: 4-02-2003, hearing DATE : 13-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umer Bandial for Plaintiff. \nSalman Hamid for Defendant No 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "A.M. FABRIC (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nI.D.B.P. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 300 = 2011 SLD 300 = 2011 CLD 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 9; State Bank of Pakistan Foreign Exchange Circular No.77\nBank's Negligence in Opening Letter of Credit\nConclusion: The bank's negligence in not obtaining prior permission for establishing a Letter of Credit was deemed its fault. The bank was ordered to bear the costs of the mistake and was not allowed to transfer the burden to the plaintiff.\nCitations: 1986 CLC 222; Ch. Muhammad Yousuf v. United Bank Ltd. 2004 CLC 1507.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit Nos.B-88 and B-97 of 2001, decision dated: 23rd October, 2010, hearing DATE : 1st October, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abul Inam for Plaintiffs (in Suit No. B-88 of 2001). \nMs. Huma Sadiq for Defendant No. 1 (in Suit No. B-88 of 2001).\nNone for Defendant No. 2 (in Suit No. B-88 of 2001).\nMs. Huma Sadiq for Plaintiff (in Suit No. B-97 of 2001).\nAbul Inam for Defendants (in Suit No. B-97 of 2001)", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARIM KAROBAR COMPANY and 2 others \nVS\nBANK OF KHYBER and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 301 = 2011 SLD 301 = 2011 CLD 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9 & 22; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11 & O.VII, R.11\nRes Judicata and Dismissal of Suit\nConclusion: The Bank's suit was dismissed due to the earlier decree being conditional. The case was barred by the principle of res judicata as it had already been settled by a consent decree.\nCitations: Sher Muhammad and 2 others v. Aroora 1984 CLC 3292; PLD 1963 Dacca 816.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22,9", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 143 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd October, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nSHAUKAT UMAR PIRZADA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Aziz Naseem for Appellant. \nIshfaq Ahmad Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager, Principal Officer\nVS\nMUHAMMAD SULEMAN KHAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 302 = 2011 SLD 302 = 2011 CLD 529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 9(1); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10; Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S.122\nInsurance Company’s Role in Banking Jurisdiction\nConclusion: The insurance company was not a necessary party in the banking suit, as the appropriate forum for insurance-related claims was the Insurance Tribunal under the Insurance Ordinance.\nCitations: Messrs Bengal Wool House and others v. The Standard Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 1989 CLC 839.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9,9(1)Insurance Ordinance, 2000=122Limitation Act, 1908=14Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.I,R.10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-31 of 2006 and C.M.A. No. 9414 of 2007, decision dated: 1st December, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Rafiq Kamboh for Plaintiff. \nMuhammad Rehan Quraishy for Defendant No. 1. \nSultan A. Allana for Defendant No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AS ENTERPRISES and another \nVS \nMessrs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 303 = 2011 SLD 303 = 2011 CLD 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 15-A & 15-B\nInsider Trading and Penalty\nConclusion: The company’s insider trading violated the Securities and Exchange Ordinance. A penalty of Rs.200,000 was imposed on the company for the unfair trading practices that damaged market integrity.\nCitations: Akbar v. Muhammad Aslam 2005 YLR 221.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15,15A,15B", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated August 10th, 2010, decision dated: 23rd December, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hammad Raza Zaidi, Consultant.\nUmair Zahid, Assistant Director assisting the Director (SMD)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 304 = 2011 SLD 304 = 2011 CLD 599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 173, 476 & 492\nFalse Resolution and Imposition of Penalty\nConclusion: The company failed to hold a valid meeting to pass a resolution and presented a false resolution before the Supreme Court. Penalties were imposed on the Acting Chairman and Secretary General for violations.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=173,476,492", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. CLD/RD/Co.476/56/2009/1956 dated 18 October, 2010, decision dated: 30-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD SHAHEEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (REGISTRATION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 305 = 2011 SLD 305 = 2011 CLD 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance (XVI of 2010), S. 11\nMerger Approval\nConclusion: The Competition Commission allowed the merger, imposing conditions to ensure no substantial lessening of competition, aiming for efficiency improvements and lower consumer prices.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=11", + "Case #": "File No. 324/MERGER/CCP/2010, decision dated: 26-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON AND VADIYYA S. KHALIL, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahir Riaz, Orr Dignam & Co., Khalid Rohail Ansari, Syed Iqtidar Saeed, Zia ud Din, Brig.\nSalman Akram Raja, ASC and Waqqas Ahmad Mir for Raja Muhammad Akram & Co. Burhan Nasir and Shauzab Ali for NIB Bank and Standard Chartered Bank.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 306 = 2011 SLD 306 = 2011 CLD 614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208, 473 & 476\nInvestment Without Shareholder Approval\nConclusion: The company directors invested funds into an associated company without shareholder approval, violating Section 208. Penalties were imposed on the directors for breaching their fiduciary duties.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208,473,476", + "Case #": "Show Cause No. EMD/233/ 141 /2002/2227-2233 dated August 10, 2010, decision dated: 10-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "2011 CLD 614\nJ.K. SPINNING MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 307 = 2011 SLD 307 = 2011 CLD 624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 158 & 476\nFailure to Hold Annual General Meeting\nConclusion: The company failed to hold its Annual General Meeting within the prescribed period, violating Section 158. A fine was imposed on the company and its directors.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158,476", + "Case #": "Show-cause Notice No. EMD/233/568/2002 dated November, 22, 2010, decision dated: 30-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs INDUS FRUIT PRODUCTS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 308 = 2011 SLD 308 = 2011 CLD 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 11(1)(d), 41(1), 59-A(i) & 156\nNon-Compliance with Reinsurance Arrangement\nConclusion: The company violated its reinsurance treaty, leading to a fine for non-compliance with the terms. The company was warned that future non-compliance would lead to stricter penalties.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=11,11(1)(d),41(1),59A(i),156", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated November 15, 2010, decision dated: 20-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. NASREEN RASHID, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EAST WEST INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 309 = 2011 SLD 309 = 2011 CLD 634", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 76, 77, 78 & 78-A\nRefusal of Share Transfer\nConclusion: The company wrongfully refused to transfer shares without valid reason, and the directors were ordered to process the transfer within 15 days.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=76,77,78,78A", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated 29-12-2010, decision dated: 7-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED SHAHEEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (REGISTRATION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid Sadiq, FCA for Appellant. \nZahid Latif GM (Finance) for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAK PANTHER SPINNING MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 310 = 2011 SLD 310 = 2011 CLD 640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 2(cd), 3(1), 20 & 22\nIllegal Commodity Futures Trading\nConclusion: The partners of the firm were involved in illegal futures trading and were penalized for violating the Securities and Exchange Ordinance. A fine of Rs. 5 million was imposed on each partner.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=2,2(cd),3(1),20&22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. SMD/SE/2(207)2009 dated 26-4-2010, decision dated: 5-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ SOOMRO, JOINT DIRECTOR (SROD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD LATIF AND MUHAMMAD INAM: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 311 = 2011 SLD 311 = 2011 CLD 645", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 158, 170, 171 & 476\nFailure to Hold Annual General Meeting\nConclusion: The company failed to hold its Annual General Meeting as required by law, and a fine was imposed on the Chief Executive.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158,170,171,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/568/2002 dated August 11, 2010, decision dated: 30-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant. \nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs INDUS FRUIT PRODUCTS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 312 = 2011 SLD 312 = 2011 CLD 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 22\nDoctrine of Estoppel by Convention\nConclusion: The parties were bound by a convention based on a mistaken assumption, and neither could deny the assumed facts due to the doctrine of estoppel by convention. The court held that the bank’s obligations under the guarantee were enforceable.\nCitations: Amalgamated Investment and Property Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd. [1981] 3 All ER 577.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.701 and C.M.As.4358, 4359 of 2008, decision dated: 12-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bilal A. Khawaja for Plaintiff.\nArshad Tayabally and Azizur Rehmabn for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "GUANGDONG OVERSEAS CONSTRUCTION GROUP COMPANY LTD. through GeneraLManager \nVS\nCREEK MARINA PRIVATE LIMITED and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 313 = 2011 SLD 313 = 2011 CLD 709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980), Ss. 3 & 4\nAdmiralty Suit in Rem and Personam\nConclusion: The suit was maintainable as it combined actions in rem and personam.\nCitations: Messrs MSC Textiles (Private) Limited v. Asian Pollux and others 2007 CLD 1465; Bangladesh Shipping Corporation v. M. V. Nedon and another PLD 1981 Kar. 246.\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980), Ss. 3 & 4(4)\nPleadings to Invoke Admiralty Jurisdiction\nConclusion: The plaintiff must plead facts essential for invoking jurisdiction, including ship ownership and control, cause of action, and arrest conditions.\nCitations: None provided.\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980), Ss. 3 & 4\nArrest of Sister Ship for Damages\nConclusion: Action in rem to arrest a sister ship is valid if the person liable for the claim owns majority shares in the sister ship at the time of the cause of action.\nCitations: Yukong Ltd. v. M.T. Eastern Navigator PLD 2001 SC 57; Union Council v. Associated Cement (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 SCMR 468.\nCompany Law\nLegal Status of Subsidiary and Parent Companies\nConclusion: A subsidiary is a separate legal entity, and its assets do not belong to the parent company unless specifically stated.\nCitations: None provided.\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980), Ss. 3 & 4\nInsufficient Pleadings for Arrest of Sister Ship\nConclusion: A bald statement or unsupported inference that a ship is a sister ship is insufficient to establish a cause of action for arrest.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3,4", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suits Nos. 3, 4 and C.M.As. Nos. 22 and 24 of 2011, decision dated: 18-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KHADIJA EDIBLE OIL REFINERY (PVT.) LTD.\nVS \nM.T. \"\"GALAXY\"\" and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 314 = 2011 SLD 314 = 2011 CLD 727", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, R. 2\nLoan Recovery Suit Based on Pro Note and Agreement\nConclusion: The court rejected the plea that execution of both documents created doubt about the genuineness of the pro note. The documents were lawful and enforceable.\nCitations: PLD 2007 Lah. 114.\nNegotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 4; Stamp Act (II of 1899), S. 2(5)(b) & (22); Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17(2)(x)\nAttestation of Pro Note\nConclusion: A pro note does not require marginal witnesses for validity. However, if attested, the marginal witnesses are treated as indorsees.\nCitations: PLD 2007 Lah. 114.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,R.2", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.45 of 2007, decision dated: 4-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ATTAULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rustam Khan Kundi for Appellant. \nSaleemullah Khan Ranazai and Anwarul Haq for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Haji MUHAMMAD AYAZ KHAN\nVS \nMalik KHAN AYAZ KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 315 = 2011 SLD 315 = 2011 CLD 746", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 118 & 121\nInsurance Claim and Liquidated Damages\nConclusion: The insurance company was held liable for liquidated damages from the date of the insured's death. The tribunal’s jurisdiction was valid, and the claimant was entitled to damages.\nCitations: State Life Insurance Corporation v. Mst. Sadaqat Bano PLD 2008 Lah. 461; Mst. Nusrat Malik Saleem v. Federation Of Pakistan 2006 CLD 874.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118,121", + "Case #": "E.F.As. Nos. 724 to 729 of 2010, decision dated: 13-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jahanzeb Khan Bharwana for Appellant.\nLiaqat Ali Butt for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION \nVS \nRAZIUR-REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 316 = 2011 SLD 316 = 2011 CLD 755", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 7; Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4\nBank Statement Validity\nConclusion: The bank’s statement, though using withdrawal and deposit instead of debit and credit, was valid under the law.\nCitations: None provided.\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9 & 10\nApplication for Leave to Defend Suit\nConclusion: The defendant failed to comply with the requirements to contest the suit. The High Court dismissed the leave application and decreed the suit as prayed for.\nCitations: The Central Bank of India, Ltd., Lahore v. Messrs Taj-ud-Din Abdur Rauf and others 1992 SCMR 846.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=7,9,10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-9 of 2010, decision dated: 12-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz-ud-Din Khan for Plaintiff.\nMs. Saman Rafat Imtiaz for Defendants Nos. 1 to 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SONERI BANK LIMITED through Attorneys \nVS \nMessrs ELITE PUBLISHERS LIMITED and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 317 = 2011 SLD 317 = 2011 CLD 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 16, 17 & 21(2)\nShifting Poultry Farms and Environmental Violation\nConclusion: The Environmental Tribunal's failure to follow prescribed procedures for hearing and evidence led to remanding the case for a fresh trial.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=16,17,21(2)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=265A,265,133", + "Case #": "F.A.Os. Nos. 3 to 11 of 2011, heard on 23rd February, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nIJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Masood Ahmad Khan for Appellants.\nKhurshid Ahmad Satti, AAG and Shaukat Hayat District Officer, Environment, Rawalpindi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ABDUL GHAFFAR and others \nVS \nD.G. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 318 = 2011 SLD 318 = 2011 CLD 811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Ss. 21, 43 & 74; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2\nInfringement of Registered Trademark\nConclusion: The defendant’s use of a similar design on product boxes was deemed likely to mislead customers, and the plaintiff was granted an interim injunction.\nCitations: Telephone Soap v. Messrs Lever Brothers 1994 CLC 2135; Seven-up Company v. Kohinoor Thread Ball Factory and 3 others PLD 1990 SC 313.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=21,43,74Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1283 and C.M.As. Nos. 8445, 9055 of 2007, decision dated: 12-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Monawwer Ghani-for Plaintiffs.\nKhaleeq Ahmed for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "J & P COATS LIMITED and another \nVS \nMessrs GOLDEN THREAD INDUSTRIES, through Proprietor" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 319 = 2011 SLD 319 = 2011 CLD 825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9, 15 & 22; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.47, O.XXIII, R.3\nLoan Recovery Suit Post-Settlement\nConclusion: The trial court properly dismissed the suit based on the withdrawal of a prior suit under a compromise agreement.\nCitations: Official Liquidator v. Sri Krishna Deo and others AIR 1959 Allahabad 247.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9,15,22Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=103Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=47,O.XXIII,R.3", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 515 of 2002, heard on 1st December, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, JUSTICE\nRAUF AHMAD SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Israr Ahmad Qureshi and Aftab Umar Sheikh for Appellant.\nMuhammad Naeem Sahgal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MANGORA TEXTILES INDUSTRIES through Partner \nVS\nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 320 = 2011 SLD 320 = 2011 CLD 833", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Ss. 73 & 116; Trade Mark Rules, 2004, R.68\nDirect Application for Trademark Revocation\nConclusion: The application for revocation of a trademark directly to the High Court was dismissed as improper. The correct procedure involved filing with the Registrar or relevant courts.\nCitations: Messrs Feroze Sons Private Limited v. Dr. Col. (Retd.) K.U. Qureshi 2003 CLD 1052.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=116,73", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 27 of 2009, C.M.As. Nos. 2926 of 2010 and 10499 of 2009, decision dated: 29-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shazia Tasleem for Petitioner.\nSaleem Ghulam Hussain for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "ROYAL PVC (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Officer \nVS\nREGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 321 = 2011 SLD 321 = 2011 CLD 847", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), S. 40; Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000), S.30\nInfringement of Registered Design\nConclusion: The plaintiff was granted an injunction based on the similarity between the plaintiff's and defendant’s designs, which created confusion.\nCitations: Tajuddin v. Haji Mushtaq and another 1985 CLC 2182.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=40Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000=30", + "Case #": "Civil Suit No. 134 and C.M.As. Nos. 495, 496 and 1572 of 2011, decision dated: 18-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abbadul Hussnain for Plaintiffs.\nMuhammad Asghar for Defendant No. 1. \nSaira Shaikh for Defendants Nos. 2, 7 and 8", + "Petitioner Name:": "DOLLAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Abdullah Feroz and another \nVS \nNISAR TRADERS through Proprietor and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 322 = 2011 SLD 322 = 2011 CLD 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), S. 16\nNegligent Environmental Compliance Post-Management Change\nConclusion: Due to the failure to notify the new management and provide them the opportunity for a hearing, the case was remanded for fresh proceedings.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=16", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 7 of 2010, decision dated: 31st May, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, CHAIRPERSON, \nDR. SAMI-UZ-ZAMAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL AND ABDUL KARIM MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Maroof, D.D.P.P. for E.P.A. Sindh. Muhammad Rafi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHIComplainant \nVS \nKhawaja ANWAR MAJEED, CW3HIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANSARI SUGAR MILLS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 323 = 2011 SLD 323 = 2011 CLD 860", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S. 118; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 14, O. XIII, Rr. 1, 3 & 4\nLife Insurance Policy and Liquidated Damages\nConclusion: The insurance company’s plea regarding concealment of illness was not upheld due to improper evidence. The suit for recovery was decreed.\nCitations: None provided.\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XII, Rr. 3 & 4\nDocument Not Produced as Legal Evidence\nConclusion: A document merely marked for identification, not properly admitted in evidence, could not be considered as legal evidence.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.14,O.XIII,Rr.1,3,4", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 2519 of 2010, decision dated: 14-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saria Ullah Zahid, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. \nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another \nVS \nJAVAID IQBAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 324 = 2011 SLD 324 = 2011 CLD 863", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.2; Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2(d), 126, 127, 128 & 145\nSuit for Recovery of Amount Based on Loan Guarantee\nConclusion: The plaintiff, as a surety, had a legal right to recover the amount paid to the bank on behalf of the borrower, and the lower appellate court’s decree was maintained.\nCitations: UBL v. Shahryar Textile Mills and others 1996 CLC 106.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.VII,R.2Contract Act, 1872=2(d),126,127,128,145", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.474 of 2001, decision dated: 20-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazullah Barkandi for Petitioner.\nAbdul Sattar Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Haji SIKANDAR WALI \nVS\nShahzada MOHIYUDDIN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 325 = 2011 SLD 325 = 2011 CLD 872", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 224; Companies (General Provisions and Forms) Rules, 1985, R.16\nDirector’s Failure to Tender Gain from Share Transactions\nConclusion: The Director of the company was required to tender the gain from share transactions as per S.224 of the Companies Ordinance, and failure to do so led to the imposition of the full amount.\nCitations: Smolowe v. Delendo Corp. (1943, Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. S.M.(B.O)C.O.222/4(3947)95, decision dated: 18-03-2011, hearing DATE : 13-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "AKIF SAEED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (S.D.)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondent in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "RECOVERY OF TENDERABLE GAIN: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 326 = 2011 SLD 326 = 2011 CLD 907", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 224\nDirector’s Obligation to Tender Share Trading Gains\nConclusion: The SECP's interpretation that it acquires absolute ownership of gains was rejected. The intention behind the provision was to prevent insider trading and restore unjust profits.\nCitations: 1987 SCMR 1197; New Oxford Dictionary (1998 Edition), page 2056.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 946 of 2005, decision dated: 2-05-2011, hearing DATE : 29-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE\nMIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aftab Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. \nImtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "through Commissioner \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 327 = 2011 SLD 327 = 2011 CLD 927", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005), Ss. 2(c)(k), 25 & 28\nDefinition of Consumer in Educational Context\nConclusion: The university was not considered a service provider, and the student was not a consumer under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act. The consumer court's ruling was set aside.\nCitations: University of Jammu and others v. Brinder Nath and others AIR 2000 J & K 93.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)=2,2(c)(k),25,28", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.439 of 2008, decision dated: 9-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Zia Abdul Rehman for Appellants", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY through Vice Chancellor and 4 others\nVS \nIRFAN BOOTA and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 328 = 2011 SLD 328 = 2011 CLD 944", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "ment was sanctioned.Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 284 & 287\nCourt Sanction for Company Merger\nConclusion: The merger was approved as there was no opposition, and no violation of public interest or law was found.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,287", + "Case #": "J.M. Application No. 30 of 2010, decision dated: 8-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Latif for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LIBERTY MILLS LIMITED AND LIBERTY ENERGY (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 329 = 2011 SLD 329 = 2011 CLD 948", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S. 80; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVI, R.1\nRecovery of Policy Proceeds and Denial of Fraud\nConclusion: The insurance company could not prove fraudulent concealment, and the tribunal’s decision to award the policy proceeds with liquidated damages was upheld.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=80Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XVI,R.1", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 447 of 2008, heard on 16-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE\nMAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Naseer Ahmed for Appellants.\nLiaqat Ali Butt for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and another \nVS\nJAVED IQBAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 330 = 2011 SLD 330 = 2011 CLD 952", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 4; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2 & S. 9\nRecovery Suit Based on Promissory Note\nConclusion: The instrument was not a valid promissory note due to the lack of a specified amount, and the case was treated as a long cause suit rather than a summary proceeding.\nCitations: PLD 1965 SC 634; AIR 1926 Nag. 194.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=4Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,Rr.1,2,S.9", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 62 of 2008, decision dated: 24-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "QASIM IQBAL, JUSTICE\nSYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Minhaj Farooqui for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAJJAD ASLAM GONDAL\nVS \nMUHAMMAD ASHRAF GONDAL and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 331 = 2011 SLD 331 = 2011 CLD 988", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 16, 17, 18, 20 & 21; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 205, 353 & 540-A\nDispensation of Personal Attendance for Environmental Violation\nConclusion: The foreign CEO was granted exemption from personal appearance due to security concerns, and the order was issued accordingly.\nCitations: Haji Auranzeb v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 2004 SC 160.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=18Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1250 of 2010, decision dated: 2-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nSALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jam Asif Mehmood for Petitioner.\nUmer Hayat Sandhu, D.A.G. M. Sarwar Khan, Additional A.G. Sindh. \nHussain Bux Saryo for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "SIKANDER DADA \nVS\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TRIBUNAL, SINDH and 2 other" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 332 = 2011 SLD 332 = 2011 CLD 1008", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 39\nSuit for Cancellation of Document and Damages\nConclusion: The trial court's award of damages was found to be vague, and the High Court set aside the decree for damages due to lack of proper quantification.\nCitations: Abdul Wahab Abbasi v. Gui Muhammad Hajano 2008 CLD 1230; Sufi Muhammad Ishaq v. The Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore PLD 1996 SC 737.\nTort Law\nDamages Determination\nConclusion: Compensation must be quantified, and a clear nexus established between the claim and the defendant. Vague claims for damages are not permissible.\nCitations: Sufi Muhammad Ishaq v. The Metropolitan Corporation Lahore PLD 1996 SC 737.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 44 of 2010, decision dated: 28-02-2011, hearing DATE : 25-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehmood Habibullah for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAEED QURESHI \nVS \nMrs. SURRIYA AFZAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 333 = 2011 SLD 333 = 2011 CLD 1029", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 7, 9 & 162\nRectification of Share Register Due to Fraud\nConclusion: The petitioner’s claim of fraudulent removal from the share register was upheld, as the respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence.\nCitations: Lahore Race Club v. Raja Khushbakht-ur-Rehman PLD 2008 SC 707.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=7,9,162", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No. 27 of 2009, decision dated: 17-03-2011, hearing DATE : 7-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tasawar Ali Hashmi for Petitioner.\nHabibullah Jatoi for Respondent. \nSyed Imran Shamsi, Assistant Director Law SECP. Osama Ahmed Osmani, Assistant Registrar Companies SECP", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALEH MUNAWAR \nVS \nSHAHNAWAZ MUNAWAR and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 334 = 2011 SLD 334 = 2011 CLD 1043", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 5-A & 22\nWash Trades and Insider Trading\nConclusion: The director was penalized for insider trading in violation of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, and required to repay profits gained from illegal transactions.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=5,5A,22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. Wash/SMD-South/MSW/INV/ 126, decision dated: 15-04-2011, hearing DATE : 5-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ADAM SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 335 = 2011 SLD 335 = 2011 CLD 1056", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 7 & 22\nCondonation of Delay in Time-Barred Appeals\nConclusion: The delay in filing appeals was condoned due to valid reasons, and all appeals were disposed of accordingly.\nCitations: Commissioner of Income Tax v. Media Network and others PLD 2006 SC 787.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22,7", + "Case #": "Ist Appeals Nos. 80 to 91 of 2010, decision dated: 29-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. through Manager Law \nVS\nVTH BANKING COURT AT KARACHI and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 336 = 2011 SLD 336 = 2011 CLD 1058", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3\nRecovery Suit Based on Dishonored Cheque\nConclusion: The trial court’s decision to impose a bank guarantee was modified, allowing a personal surety bond as an alternative.\nCitations: Agha Jee Cotton Factory v. Hakim Trading Company Rahim Yar Khan 1995 CLC 302.\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3\nSuit for Negotiable Instruments\nConclusion: The court’s discretion in imposing conditions for leave to defend the suit should not be unduly harsh.\nCitations: Abdul Rauf Ghauri v. Mrs. Kishwar Sultana and 3 others 1995 SCMR 925.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.471 of 2008, decision dated: 18-02-2011, hearing DATE : 17-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Safdar Ramay for Petitioner.\nMian Mushtaq Ahmed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MERAJ AGRO, CHEMICAL (PVT.) LIMITED, MULTAN through Chief Executive \nVS \nMUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 337 = 2011 SLD 337 = 2011 CLD 1067", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 16, 17, 18, 20 & 21; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 205, 353 & 540-A\nEnvironmental Violation and Exemption from Personal Appearance\nConclusion: The exemption from personal attendance for the CEO due to security concerns was granted.\nCitations: Haji Auranzeb v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 2004 SC 160.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=16,17,18,20,21Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=205,353,540A", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 7 of 2010, decision dated: 28-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON), \nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.) AND MS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ADPP with Khalid Mehmood, Inspector EPA, Punjab for the Complainant.\nQamar Ali Rizwi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPAComplainant \nVS\nTELENOR COMPANY, GHARIB SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 338 = 2011 SLD 338 = 2011 CLD 1082", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 15 & 76\nRegistration of Trademark and Limitation\nConclusion: The registrar's order for registration was set aside regarding the disclaimer, and the deputy registrar’s original order was restored.\nCitations: B.S. Industries v. The Deputy Registrar, Trademarks and another PLD 1969 Dacca 451.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=15,76", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 303 of 2003, decision dated: 24-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salim G. Merchant for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "PETROMARK (PRIVATE) LIMITED \nVS \nREGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 339 = 2011 SLD 339 = 2011 CLD 1085", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 15-A & 15-E\nInsider Trading by Director\nConclusion: The director was penalized for illegal trading based on insider information and required to repay profits.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15,15A,15-E", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. 1(6) PIL/MSW/SMD/2011/03, decision dated: 19-05-2011, hearing DATE : 21st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM MUHAMMAD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF EXCEL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 340 = 2011 SLD 340 = 2011 CLD 1095", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 305\nWinding Up of Company\nConclusion: A company under winding-up proceedings is not considered a dead unit and should be treated as active during the process.\nCitations: Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Muree Brewery Co. Ltd. PLD 1954 Lah. 745.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 37 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd January, 2011, hearing DATE : 13-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed for Petitioner. \nSalimuzzaman for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES \nVS\nKARIM SILK MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 341 = 2011 SLD 341 = 2011 CLD 1103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 11, 16 & 21\nPoultry Farm Environmental Violation\nConclusion: The incomplete site inspection report led to the remanding of the case for a detailed inspection.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=11,16,21", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 232 of 2010, decision dated: 17-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON),\nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.) AND MS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "DG EPA--Complainant\nIjaz Majeed, AD (L. & E), EPA, Lahore with Inam-ul-Haq Inspector EPA, Rawalpindi for the Complainant. Abdul Hameed along with Azhar Rehman Abbasi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPAComplainant\nVS\nABDUL HAMEED POULTRY FARM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 342 = 2011 SLD 342 = 2011 CLD 1105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Statutes\nInterpretation of Statutory Words\nConclusion: Words in statutes should be interpreted based on their statutory definitions or, if none is provided, their dictionary meanings.\nCitations: Chamber 21st Century Dictionary; Concise Oxford Thesaurus, Third Edn.; Halsbury's Law of England, 4th Edn. Vol.2, para. 201.\nPunjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005), Ss. 2(j), 25 & 28; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\n Animal Definition in Consumer Protection Act\nConclusion: A claim regarding the supply of chicks was found to be non-maintainable under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, as the term animal was used in a general sense, not including birds.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)=2,2(0,25,28Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.12194 of 2010, decision dated: 4-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhar Raza Malana for Petitioner.\nMian Babar Saleem for Respondent No. 2. \nSardar Farooq Ahmad Khan for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "Sayyed HANAN KHALID GILLANI \nVS\nDISTRICT JUDGE/PRESIDING OFFICER, DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT, MULTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 343 = 2011 SLD 343 = 2011 CLD 1111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNDND0", + "Key Words:": "xSecurities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S. 22; Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001\nPenalty for Selling Shares Without Pre-Existing Interest\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed on a company that engaged in selling shares without pre-existing interest, violating short-selling regulations.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. 1(07) BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2009/decided on 26-05-2011, hearing DATE : 12-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PEARL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 344 = 2011 SLD 344 = 2011 CLD 1119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 21 & 24\nJurisdiction of Environmental Tribunal and Environmental Magistrate\nConclusion: The substance of the allegations determines jurisdiction, and misquoting provisions does not affect the merits if the matter is cognizable under other provisions.\nCitations: Nasir Abdul Qadir v. The State and others 2003 SCMR 472; Allah Din and others v. The State and another 1994 SCMR 717.\nPakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 11 to 14, 16, 17 & 23\nComplaint and Environmental Audit\nConclusion: The Environmental Tribunal ordered the formation of a commission for an environmental audit of a factory emitting hazardous pollutants. The case was not appealable at this stage.\nCitations: Anjum Irfan v. LDA and others PLD 2002 Lah. 555.\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\nConstitutional Petition for Interlocutory Orders\nConclusion: The High Court does not have the jurisdiction to set aside interlocutory orders that do not provide an appeal, especially in matters of public interest.\nCitations: Muhammad Iftikhar Mohmand v. Javed Muhammad and others 1998 SCMR 328; Syed Ali Azhar Naqvi v. The Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1994 Kar. 67.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=21,24,11,14,16,17,23Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-2059 of 2010, decision dated: 9-03-2011. dates of hearings: 29-07-2010 and 21st February, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Jamshed Malik for Petitioner.\nQazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui and Hussain Bakhsh Saryo for Respondent No. 1. \nMian Khan Malik and Nazar Akbar, D.A.G. Abdul Maroof, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 2.\nAdnan Karim. Additional Advocate-General, Sindh", + "Petitioner Name:": "DADEX ETERNIT LIMITED\nVS\nSyed HAROON AHMED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 345 = 2011 SLD 345 = 2011 CLD 1138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17 & 21; Environmental Tribunal Rules, 1999, R.13\nProhibition of Discharges or Emissions\nConclusion: An application to implead a party in an environmental violation case was dismissed, as the Criminal Procedure Code did not support such inclusion during trial.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=11,12,13,16,17,21", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 54 of 2009, decision dated: 9-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON), \nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.) \nMS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ADPP with Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (Legal) EPA, Lahore for the Complainant.\nGhulam Rasool for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPAComplainant \nVS\nWITRIBE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 346 = 2011 SLD 346 = 2011 CLD 1141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 227 & 472; Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33\nFailure to Deposit Provident Fund Contributions\nConclusion: A company that failed to deposit provident fund liabilities was required to sell property to settle the fund's liabilities, as per the court’s order.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227,472Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 39 of 2005, decision dated: 26-05-2011. dates of hearing: 28th and 29-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN\nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Idrees for Appellant.\nBilal Rasul, Additional Registrar/Director (Enforcement) for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASHMI CAN COMPANY LIMITED \nVS \nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 347 = 2011 SLD 347 = 2011 CLD 1149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 160, 208, 476 & 506; Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33\nViolation of Laws Regarding Investment in Associated Companies\nConclusion: The company violated laws by purchasing shares and advancing funds to an associated company without shareholder approval, resulting in a fine.\nCitations: Messrs Gharibwal Cement Limited and others v. Executive Director (Enforcement and Monitoring), Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan 2003 CLD 131.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208,476,160(I)(b)", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 37 of 2011, decision dated: 26-05-2011, hearing DATE : 28-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN\nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.D. Rajani for Appellants. \nBilal Rasul, Additional Registrar/Director (Enforcement) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "YOUNUS DAWOOD (CHIEF EXECUTIVE) and 6 others \nVS\nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT) /ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES," + }, + { + "Case No.": "5795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 348 = 2011 SLD 348 = 2011 CLD 1155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 11, 16 & 21\nViolation of Environmental Protection Order\nConclusion: The poultry farm's environmental violations, including waste contamination, led to an order for further site inspections to verify compliance with regulations.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=11,16,21", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 219 of 2010, decision dated: 17-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON), \nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.) \nMS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Majeed, AD (L. & E.), EPA, Lahore with Inam-ul-Haq, Inspector EPA, Rawalpindi for the Complainant. Azhar Rehmand Abbasi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPA \nVS \nSyed MAQSOOD ALI SHAH POULTRY FARM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 349 = 2011 SLD 349 = 2011 CLD 1157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 121 & 122; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42\nJurisdiction of Insurance Tribunal\nConclusion: The Senior Civil Judge and Additional District Judge correctly dismissed a suit for insurance claims, as the Insurance Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction.\nCitations: None provided.\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115\nApplicability of Revision under S. 115\nConclusion: Section 115 does not apply when court decisions do not affect jurisdiction but relate to the legal or factual conclusions within that jurisdiction.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=121,122Specific Relief Act, 1877=42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 16 of 2010, decision dated: 31st January, 2011, hearing DATE : 21st January, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noshad Ali Tagar for Applicant.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL QAYOOM\nVS \nSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 350 = 2011 SLD 350 = 2011 CLD 1163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rr. 8, 12 & Third Schedule; Code of Conduct of Brokers Rules, 2001, Cls. A-2 & A-5\nPenalty for Blank Sale of Shares\nConclusion: The company was penalized for executing transactions without pre-existing interest, violating the Broker Code of Conduct.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=R-12,Third Schedule", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. 1(07) BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2009, decision dated: 6-05-2011, hearing DATE : 12-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Shazia Baig, Deputy Director assisting the Director (SMD)", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERMARKET SECURITIES LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 351 = 2011 SLD 351 = 2011 CLD 1168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), Ss. 11, 16, 21 & 22\nEnvironmental Violation and Penalty for Past Offenses\nConclusion: The closure of the respondent unit did not absolve it of past violations, leading to an order for the unit's prosecution.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=11,16,21,22", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 122 of 2009, decision dated: 7-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON),\nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.)\nMS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "DG EPA\nADPP with Khalid Mehmood, Inspector (Legal) EPA, Punjab for the Complainant.\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPA\nVS \nWALID JUNAID STEEL MILLS, SHEIKHUPURA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 352 = 2011 SLD 352 = 2011 CLD 1171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 111; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2); Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3\nLiability of Company Director for Ex Parte Decree\nConclusion: The Director was not liable for the company's debts due to the legal distinction between a company and its shareholders, reversing the decree against the Director.\nCitations: 2001 YLR 526; 2006 CLD 191; PLD 2000 Lah. 414.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=111Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972=3Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12(2)", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No. 178 of 2008, decision dated: 18-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naseer Hussain Jafri for Appellant.\nSanaullah Qamar for Respondent No. 1. \nNemo for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARSHAD SALEEM \nVS \nCIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY through Airport Manager and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 125 = 2009 SLD 125 = 2009 CLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQVNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Company Development and Islamic Jurisprudence\nIslamic Jurisprudence and Company Law\nConclusion: The Federal Shariat Court found the concept of limited liability in company law not repugnant to Islam, and called for amendments to regulate short-selling practices to align with Islamic principles.\nCitations: Multiple references to Islamic texts and scholars.\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Preamble; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-D\nShort-Selling and Islamic Law\nConclusion: Short-selling and Blank Sale were declared repugnant to Islamic law, and the government was required to amend the law to ensure it complied with Islamic principles.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edn. p. 1366.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Shariat Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=203D", + "Case #": "Shariat Suo Motu No.73 of 1987 (Suo Motu Examination of Companies Ordinance, 1984); decided on 24-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "HAZIQUL KHAIRI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nALLAMA DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE\nSALAHUDDINMIRZA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ZAFAR YASIN, JUSTICE\nSYED AFZAL HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farooq Bedar, A.A.G., Punjab, Mir Rehman Khalil, A.A.G, N.W.F.P., Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Yosufzai, A.G., Baluchistan, Syed Sarfraz Ahmed, A.A.G., Sindh, Syed Muhammal Jalal-ud-Din Khuld, A.A.G., Punjab, Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, A.A.G., Punjab with Muhammad Aslam Uns, Advocate, Sohail Akhtar, Law Officer, N.W.F.P., Ruh-ul-Amin, Advocate for A.G., N.W.F.P., Shafqat Munir Malik, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Pir Liaqat Ali Shah, A.G., N.W.F.P., Muhammad Shoaib Abbasi, Advocate for A.G., Baluchistan and Sindh, Mehmood Raza, Addl. A.G., Baluchistan, Qari Abdul Rasheed, Advocate for A.G., N.W.F.P., Arshad H. Lodhi, A.A.G, Sindh, Muhammad Saeed, Addl. A.G., N.W.F.P., Amanat Pervez Bhatti, Deputy Superintendent Home Department, Government of Punjab, Qasim Meer Jat, A.A.G., Sindh, Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Advocate for A.G., N.W.F.P., Rashid A. Rizvi, President, Sindh H.C. Bar Association for Provincial Government.\nKhalid M. Ishaque, Advocate, Maulana Riaz-ul-Hassan Noori, Maulana Muhammad Taseen, Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki, Dr. Bashir Ahmed Siddique, Abdul Waheed Siddique, Advocate, Muhammad Sharif, Iqbal-ur-Raheem, Amicus Curiae and Dr. Riaz-ul-Hassan Gillani, Advocate Juris-consults", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT \nVS \nPROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 126 = 2009 SLD 126 = 2009 CLD 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 160, 208, 476 & 506\nViolation of Regulations Regarding Investment in Associated Companies\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on directors for purchasing shares in an associated company without shareholder approval.\nCitations: Gharibwal Cement's case SECP 2003 CLD 131.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160,208,476,506", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/368/2002-3506-12, dated 2-04-2008, decision dated: 9-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "BESTWAY CEMENT LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 127 = 2009 SLD 127 = 2009 CLD 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 227, 229, 476 & 495\nFailure to Transfer Provident Fund Contributions\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on the company's ex-CEO for failure to transfer provident fund contributions within the prescribed time.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227,229,476,495", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/373/2002-3846, dated 30-04-2008, decision dated: 9-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "EX-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DANDOT CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 128 = 2009 SLD 128 = 2009 CLD 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 196, 208, 473 & 476\nUnauthorized Investment in Associated Company\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.3,200,000 was imposed on the directors of the company for unauthorized investment and transfer of machinery to an associated private company, violating legal provisions.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196,208,473,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/299/2002-3984-92, dated 15-05-2008, decision dated: 7-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALABID SILK MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 129 = 2009 SLD 129 = 2009 CLD 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 226, 227, 229 & 476\nMisuse of Provident Fund Trust Funds\nConclusion: The company was fined Rs.5,000 for misusing the provident fund and not adhering to mandatory regulations under Ss. 226 & 227. Directors were reprimanded.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=226,227,229,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice Nc.EMD/233/432/2002/2435-2442, dated 18-12-2007, decision dated: 21st July, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ BAKHTAWAR, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TRANSMISSION ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 130 = 2009 SLD 130 = 2009 CLD 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 284, 285, 286, 287 & 288\nAmalgamation of Companies\nConclusion: The High Court approved the merger of two companies as all formalities were completed, with no objections raised.\nCitations: 2002 CLD 872; 2005 CLD 93; 2007 CLD 900.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,285,286,287,288", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Petition No.4 of 2008, decided 13-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafiq Ahmed for Petitioners", + "Petitioner Name:": "USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and another: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 131 = 2009 SLD 131 = 2009 CLD 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, (XXXI of 1980), Ss. 23, 24 & 42; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 305\nWinding-up of Modaraba Company\nConclusion: The company was wound up due to recurring losses, and the directors failed to demonstrate bona fides.\nCitations: Additional Registrar of Companies v. Messrs Norrie Textile Mills Ltd. 2004 CLD 1109 (Karachi).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "1st Appeal No.37 of 2008, decided 2nd September 2008", + "Judge Name:": "ALI SAIN DINO METLO, JUSTICE\nKHAWAJA NAVEED AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafiq Ahmad for Appellant.\nNaveed Ahmed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITY MODARABA MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD \nVS \nREGISTRAR, MODARABA COMPANIES AND MODARABAS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 132 = 2009 SLD 132 = 2009 CLD 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 258, 259 & 476; Companies (Audit of Cost Accounts) Rules, 1998\nDelay in Appointment of Cost Auditor\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on company directors for delays in appointing a cost auditor and submitting reports. The fine was reduced due to the company's new listing.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=258,259,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/C.O.258/ 119/2007, dated 10-07-2008, decision dated: 21st July, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ BAKHTAWAR, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Bakhtawar, Director (Enforcement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FLYING CEMENT COMPANY LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 133 = 2009 SLD 133 = 2009 CLD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 284, 285, 286, 287 & 288\nAmalgamation of Two Companies with Government as Main Shareholder\nConclusion: The merger was approved as the Government of Pakistan, being the sole shareholder, granted approval and no objections were received.\nCitations: 2002 CLD 1338; PLD 2001 Karachi 5; 78 Company Cases 430; J.M. No.36 of 1999.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284,285,286,287,288", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Petition No.23 of 2007, decided 10-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.H. Mirza for Petitioners", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN and another: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 134 = 2009 SLD 134 = 2009 CLD 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305 & 309\nWinding-Up Petition\nConclusion: The company was wound up due to its non-functionality and failure to maintain accounts. The petition was allowed, and an official liquidator was appointed.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No.37 of 2007, decision dated: 10-10-2008, hearing DATE : 28-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KARACHI \nVS \nKARIM SILK MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 135 = 2009 SLD 135 = 2009 CLD 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Organizations Ordinance (XXXI of 2007), Ss. 16 & 14\nSupersession of Executive Committee and Appointment of Administrator\nConclusion: The High Court set aside the supersession order, finding that the required notice and representation were not provided in accordance with the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007.\nCitations: Messrs Eastern Leather Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Raja Qamar Sultan, Section Officer, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 4 others PLD 2004 Lah. 83.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007=14,16,14", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.222 of 2008, decision dated: 17-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maulvi M. Sultan Alam Ansari and Malik Maqbool Ellahi for Appellant.\nAamar Rehman, Deputy Attorney General along with Rao Arif Raza, Deputy Director", + "Petitioner Name:": "GUJRAT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE through President \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 136 = 2009 SLD 136 = 2009 CLD 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 25\nEquality of Citizens and Loan Relief Package\nConclusion: The High Court directed the bank to extend the relief package to the petitioner, as they were regular in their loan repayments, which aligned with the relief package's purpose.\nCitations: 2001 CLC 385; 2001 CLC 347.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199,25", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1469 of 2007, decision dated: 10-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nBIN YAMIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ismail Memon for Petitioner.\nSanaullah Noor Ghori for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mst. ANWAR BEGUM through Attorney\nVS \nZARAI TARQIATI BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 137 = 2009 SLD 137 = 2009 CLD 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 23, 73, 187 & 237; Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3\nCompensation for Breach of Contract\nConclusion: The High Court declined to interfere in the intra-court appeal and upheld the decision, as the plaintiff could not prove the market rate for goods at the time of breach.\nCitations: Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Aziz Qureshi PLD 1965 (W.P) Kar. 202; 1968 SCMR 539.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=23,73,187,237", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.152 of 1995, decision dated: 20-10-2008, hearing DATE : 4-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE\nSYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qadir Khan for Appellant.\nSaif Malik for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADAM LIMITED \nVS \nMessrs MITSUI & COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 138 = 2009 SLD 138 = 2009 CLD 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Ordinance (LVIII of 2007), S.4; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.34\nReferral to Arbitration and Stay of Proceedings\nConclusion: The High Court stayed proceedings and referred the dispute to arbitration as per the terms of the agreement, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.\nCitations: Messrs Neincke Food Processing Equipment v. Messrs Danish Butter Cookies (Pvt.) 1992 CLC 1132.\nContract Act (IX of 1872), S.202\nInterest of Agent in Property\nConclusion: The agent’s interest in the agency, if created, cannot be terminated to the prejudice of the agent unless expressly stated in the contract.\nCitations: Bolan Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pepsico. Inc. and 4 others PLD 2004 SC 860.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Ordinance (LVIII of 2007)=4", + "Case #": "Suit No.494, C.M.As. Nos.2805, 4494, 6021, 6440 and 7145 of 2008, decision dated: 4-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qayyum Abbasi for Plaintiff.\nKhawaja Mansoor for Defendants Nos. 1 to 5.\nNazar Akbar for Defendant No. 6. Iqra Saleem and S.M. Ghani for Defendant No. 7", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAR EASTERN IMPEX (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nQUEST INTERNATIONAL NEDERLAND BV and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 139 = 2009 SLD 139 = 2009 CLD 163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S.69(2); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 & O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2\nRejection of Suit by Unregistered Partnership Firm\nConclusion: The High Court rejected the suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm as it was incompetent under S.69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932.\nCitations: Usman v. Haji Omer and Haji Razzak, PLD 1966 SC 328.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=69,69(2)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.11,O.XXXVII,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "C.R. of 2008, heard on 15-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram for Petitioner.\nRespondent proceeded ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAJMA SUGAR MILLS LTD. Through Company Secretary \nVS \nMessrs MEGA TRADING COMPANY through Chief Executive" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 140 = 2009 SLD 140 = 2009 CLD 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.202; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.12, 42 & 54\nTermination of Shipping Agency and Injunction\nConclusion: The court dismissed the agent's application for an injunction against termination of the agency, finding that compensation was a sufficient remedy.\nCitations: Abdul Habib Rajwani v. Messrs Brothers Industries Ltd. 2007 YLR 590.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=202Specific Relief Act, 1877=12,42,54", + "Case #": "Suits Nos.127 and 128 of 2008, decision dated: 12-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farogh Naseem for Plaintiff.\nRehman Aziz Malik for Defendant No. 1.\nShakeel Pervez Bhatti for Defendant No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "COOPER & CO. (PVT.) LTD. Through duly Authorized \nVS \nLAUREL NAVIGATION (MAURITIUS) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 141 = 2009 SLD 141 = 2009 CLD 194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.34\nGrant of Temporary Injunction and Rejection of Suit\nConclusion: The High Court found the injunction claim invalid, as the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction was barred by the Arbitration Act and lacked necessary representation from the firm.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-1,O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Suit No.205 and C.M.As. Nos.995, 1851, 2682, 6992 and 7411 of 2008, decision dated: 3rd November, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bilal A. Khawaja for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Yousaf Leghari, Advocate-General Sindh for Defendant No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AYUB & BROTHERS through Partner \nVS \nPROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Karachi, and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 142 = 2009 SLD 142 = 2009 CLD 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.34; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.254\nQuality Control Review Programme for Auditors\nConclusion: The High Court upheld the validity of the Quality Control Review Programme as a directive for appointing external auditors for listed companies, finding no conflict with constitutional provisions.\nCitations: Jibendra Kishore Achharya Chowdhury v. The Province of East Pakistan, PLD 1957 SC (Pak) 9.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=34,Preamble", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2557-L of 2003, decision dated: 23rd October, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nSYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BUKHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Abrar Majal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nKh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court along with M. Asif Iqbal, ACA, Director ICAP", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD KALEEM RATHORE\nVS\nINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 143 = 2009 SLD 143 = 2009 CLD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980), S.7; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11 & O.XXIX, R.1\nRejection of Admiralty Suit for Lack of Board Resolution\nConclusion: The High Court allowed the plaint to proceed, ruling that no mandatory provision required the resolution to be filed with the plaint.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=7Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VII,R.11,O.XXIX,R.1", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suit No.8 of 2006, decision dated: 31st October, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Adeel Abid for Plaintiff.\nS. Ali Haider for Defendants Nos. 1 to 4. S.\nTariq Ali, Standing Counsel for Defendant No. 5", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION \nVS \nM.V. LE CONG through Agents and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 144 = 2009 SLD 144 = 2009 CLD 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A; Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, S.20(4)\nQuashing of FIR for Dishonoring Cheques\nConclusion: The High Court quashed the FIR as no intention to defraud was established, finding that the accused had made significant repayments.\nCitations: Capt. (Retd.) Nayyar Islam v. Senior Superintendent of Police and others PLD 2001 Lah. 533.\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199\nConstitutional Jurisdiction in Quashing Proceedings\nConclusion: The High Court held that it cannot quash proceedings at the initial stage when the ingredients of the offence were prima facie present.\nCitations: Seema Fareed and others v. The State and another 2008 SCMR 839.\nAdministration of Justice\nCoexistence of Criminal and Civil Proceedings\nConclusion: The High Court affirmed that criminal and civil proceedings relating to the same transaction can coexist and proceed without legal bar.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=489,489-FCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=561A", + "Case #": "Crl. Miscellaneous No.76 of 2008, decision dated: 7-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE\nSYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Tauqeer Hassan for Applicants.\nAmir Mansoob Qureshi for Responden No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NIZAR ALI FAZWANI and another \nVS \nMessrs PAK GOLF LEASING COMPANY LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 145 = 2009 SLD 145 = 2009 CLD 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S.43\nDissolution of Partnership\nConclusion: The partnership stands dissolved as both parties desired dissolution.\nCitations: Mr. B. A. Sheikh v. The Custodian Evacuee Property West Pakistan and others PLD 1960 SC 330.\nPartnership Act (IX of 1932), Ss. 46, 48 & 49\nEffect of Dissolution of Partnership\nConclusion: During the dissolution period and before winding up, the assets, properties, and goodwill of the partnership are held jointly by all partners.\nCitations: Mr. B. A. Sheikh v. The Custodian Evacuee Property West Pakistan and others PLD 1960 SC 330; Bruchell v. Wilde 1900-3 All. ER Ext. 1744.\nPartnership Act (IX of 1932), S.53; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2\nTemporary Injunction During Dissolution\nConclusion: A temporary injunction to restrain use of the firm's assets can be granted to preserve the property and balance rights among partners until the winding-up process is complete.\nCitations: Kasuma Gupta v. Sarla Devi AIR 1988 All 154; Rajindra Kumar Sharma v. Brinjendra Kumar Sharma AIR 1994 All 62.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=43,46,48,49Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.176 of 2008, decision dated: 30-10-2008, hearing DATE : 14-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raza Kazim and Usman Raza Jamil for Appellant. \nAli Sibtain Fazli and Nasar Ahmed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MANZAR LATIF MIAN \nVS \nMs. MASARRAT MISBAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 146 = 2009 SLD 146 = 2009 CLD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.15\nSale of Mortgaged Property\nConclusion: S.15 allows Financial Institutions to sell mortgaged property after issuing three notices to the mortgagor and following certain procedures without court intervention.\nCitations: Messrs Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar v. The Australasia Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 684; Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Masood Ahmad Khan 1994 MLD 1557; Citi Bank N.A. A Banking Company through Attorney v. Riaz Ahmad 2000 CLC 847.\nTransfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.69(1)(b); Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.15\nSale of Mortgaged Property by Banking Company\nConclusion: A banking company can proceed to sell mortgaged property without court intervention when prescribed conditions are met.\nCitations: None provided.\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.15; Interpretation of Statutes\nInterpretation of Banking Laws\nConclusion: Laws should be interpreted according to modern banking practices rather than the outdated framework of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.\nCitations: None provided.\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.15\nConstitutional Challenge to S.15\nConclusion: S.15 of the Ordinance, which grants wide powers to Financial Institutions, is found to conflict with the Constitution, violating the principles of equity, fairness, and due process.\nCitations: Waris Meah v. State Bank of Pakistan PLD 1957 SC 157; Inamur Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 563.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.18196 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd December, 2008. dates of hearing: 23rd, 26th, 27-05-9th June and 12-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nSYED HAMED ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nSYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD UMER RATHORE \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 147 = 2009 SLD 147 = 2009 CLD 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 8 & 20\nReference to Arbitration\nConclusion: The High Court directed arbitration for the dispute as the parties had an arbitration agreement, a dispute existed, and no formal proceedings had commenced.\nCitations: None provided.\nArbitration Act (X of 1940), S.8\nEssential Conditions for Arbitration\nConclusion: Arbitration can only be referred if three conditions are met: existence of an arbitration agreement, existence of a dispute, and no proceedings under Chapter-II of the Arbitration Act, 1940.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=8,20", + "Case #": "Suit No.898 of 1997, decision dated: 1st December, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Bilal Sherwani for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD UMAR \nVS\nYAR MUHAMMAD through Legal Heirs and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 148 = 2009 SLD 148 = 2009 CLD 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305, 306, 328 & 329\nWinding-Up Petition of Company\nConclusion: The company was ordered to be wound up as it could not pay its debts, and the directors were directed to submit a statement of the company's affairs.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,306,328,329", + "Case #": "J.M. No.35 of 2007, decision dated: 11-11-2008, hearing DATE : 21st October, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondents. None for Objectors", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NASIR GHAZI \nVS\nG.M. PRINTO PACK (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 149 = 2009 SLD 149 = 2009 CLD 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Ss. 73, 80, 96 & 117; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 10, 11 & 20(c)\nStay of Subsequent Suit in Trade Mark Dispute\nConclusion: The High Court stayed the plaintiff's suit in K until the decision of the earlier suit in P regarding the same trade mark, as the cause of action had partly arisen there.\nCitations: Muhammad Younus v. Shaukat Ali, 2003 CLD 1037; Standard Finis Oil Co. Ltd. v. National Detergent Ltd. and others 1984 CLC 781; National Distribution Company v. National Detergent Ltd. PLD 1983 Kar. 402.\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.10 & 11\nStay of Subsequent Suit\nConclusion: A subsequent suit can be stayed under S.10, C.P.C. if the matter in both suits is the same, and the previously instituted suit is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction.\nCitations: Salim Industries Limited v. Messrs. Burhani Trading Company and another 1982 CLC 973.\nTrade Marks Act (XIX of 2001), Preamble\nAvoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings\nConclusion: The Trade Marks Act aims to avoid multiple proceedings and allows a suit to be filed where related proceedings are already pending.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=73,80,96,117Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=10,11,20(c)", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 14 and 18 of 2008, Suits Nos.571, 572 of 2008 and C.M.As. Nos.3251, 6180, 6181 of 2008, decision dated: 20-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Qureshi and Ahmed Hasan Rana for Petitioner. \nAmir Javed for Respondent No. 1. \nSaleem Merchant for Respondent No. 3. \nNemo for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs H & B GENERAL TRADING COMPANY through Director \nVS \nMessrs INTERNATIONAL MARKETING COMPANY through Proprietor and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 150 = 2009 SLD 150 = 2009 CLD 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Rules, 1963, Rr. 25(3) & 84; Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.29(2)\nAppeal to High Court - Limitation\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed as it was filed three days after the limitation period, and the appellant did not apply for condonation of delay.\nCitations: PLD 1992 SC 417.\nLimitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3\nDuty of Court Regarding Limitation\nConclusion: The Court must consider the limitation issue even if not raised by a party, and the matter must be decided on priority.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Rules, 1963=R-25,25(3),84Limitation Act, 1908=29(2)", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeal No.35 of 2002, decision dated: 3rd December, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Aetna Salman for Appellant.\nSultan Ahmed Sheikh for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "CLIFFORD CHANCE \nVS \nASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 151 = 2009 SLD 151 = 2009 CLD 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 196, 212 & 283; Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.10; Arbitration Act (X of 1940)\nArbitration Agreement on Behalf of Company\nConclusion: An arbitration agreement signed by someone not authorized by a resolution of the Board is invalid, and any arbitration award is not enforceable.\nCitations: Province of West Pakistan v. Mian Abdul Hamid & Co. 1985 CLC 1170; Mst. Ghafooran Bi v. Abdul Hafeez and others PLD 1993 Kar. 668; etc.\nArbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 2(a), 4 & 20\nUnsigned Arbitration Agreement\nConclusion: A dispute cannot be resolved via arbitration unless there is proof of the parties' intention to resolve the dispute through arbitration.\nCitations: None provided.\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 196, 212 & 283; Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.10; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 2(a), 4 & 20\nExecution of Arbitration Agreement by Company\nConclusion: Only a director or general manager empowered through a board resolution can execute such an agreement on behalf of the company.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196,212,283Arbitration Act, 1940=2(a),4,17,20Contract Act, 1872=10", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.284 of 2004, decision dated: 11-11-2008, hearing DATE : 18-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nHAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Hafeez-ur-Rehman for Appellant.\nSh. Naseer Ahmad and Aleem Baig Chughtai for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Sh. MUHAMMAD SALEEM \nVS \nSAADAT ENTERPRISES\nJAVED PAREKH \nVS \nMUHAMMAD SAFDAR MALIK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 152 = 2009 SLD 152 = 2009 CLD 398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, R.2\nSuit for Recovery of Amount\nConclusion: The appellant's property was not accepted as security despite its assessed value, but the Supreme Court directed the acceptance of the security previously provided.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,R.2", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1712 of 2008, decision dated: 2-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nGhulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 153 = 2009 SLD 153 = 2009 CLD 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss. 4 & 13; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3\nSuit for Recovery of Amount Based on Call Deposit Receipts\nConclusion: The bank's fraud allegations regarding the receipt were not trivial and warranted a full trial; the defendant was granted leave to defend.\nCitations: Fine Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Haji Umar PLD 1963 SC 163; National Bank of Pakistan v. Messrs Elegzender and Company and others PLD 1987 Lah. 290; etc.\nNegotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss. 4 & 13; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2\nGrant of Leave to Defend Suit\nConclusion: Leave to defend is granted when there are triable issues, especially in cases of fraud or forgery, requiring evidence.\nCitations: Fine Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Haji Umar PLD 1963 SC 163; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.122-C of 2008, heard on 30-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Tariq Mahmood Gill for Appellant.\nMuhammad Ali Qureshi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "A.B.L. \nVs \nKHALID MAHMOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 154 = 2009 SLD 154 = 2009 CLD 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--Ss. 19(1) & 22---Contention of the appellants was that their application under S.19(1) of the Financial Institutions) Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, along with other applications was disposed of by Banking Court without assigning any reason whatsoever---High Court disposed of the appeal by partially modifying the impugned order to the extent that the application under S.19(1) of the Ordinance read with S.151, C.P.C. moved by the appellants before the Banking Court, shall be heard afresh and be positively disposed of within thirty days from the date of communication of present order of the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19,19(1),22", + "Case #": "Ist Appeal No.54 of 2008, decision dated: 26-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM DASTAGIR A. SHAHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saalim Salam Ansari for Appellants.\nIjaz Ahmed for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AAMER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. and 3 another \nVS\nUNITED BANK LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 155 = 2009 SLD 155 = 2009 CLD 422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 305\nPetition for Winding Up of Company\nConclusion: The company was ordered to be wound up as the respondents failed to provide satisfactory proof of shareholding transfers and allegations were substantiated by the Registrar.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No.17 of 2006, decision dated: 12-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Mushtaq Qadri for Petitioners.\nRehman Aziz Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL and another\nVS \nMessrs RAZAK (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 156 = 2009 SLD 156 = 2009 CLD 425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 118 & 124\nPayment of Death Claim\nConclusion: The High Court set aside the decree and instructed the Tribunal to decide the application and petition expeditiously, with all parties' actions deemed pending.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118,124", + "Case #": "R.F.A No.347 of 2008, decision dated: 16-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nHAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Naseer Ahmad icy. Appellants.\nLiaqat Ali Butt for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and another\nVS \nMst. ANWAR GULZAR through her son" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 157 = 2009 SLD 157 = 2009 CLD 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Tort Law - Defamation\nSuit for Defamation by Doctor\nConclusion: The trial court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff could not prove ill-will or malice; the defense was based on fair comments and factual reporting.\nCitations: Abdul Ghafoor v. Syed Jawed Hussain Jaffrey PLD 2006 Kar. 691; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act (IX of 1988)=", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.7 of 2004, decision dated: 14th February 2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILLANI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Illa-ud-Din Attorney for Appellant.\nFazlur Rehman Clerk of Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Dr. QAMAR ZAMAN KHAN \nVS\nMUJEEB-UR-REHMAN SHAMI, CHIEF EDITOR DAILY PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD and 18 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 158 = 2009 SLD 158 = 2009 CLD 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act (IX of 1988), S.22\nDamages for Airline's Wrongdoing\nConclusion: The court awarded US$1 million in damages to each plaintiff for mishandling by the airline after the defendants admitted liability.\nCitations: PLD 2004 Kar. 439; 1996 CLC 627; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act, 1988=22", + "Case #": "Suit No.777 of 2005, decision dated: 22-12-2008, hearing DATE : 5-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED PIR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Sheraz Iqbal Chaudhry for Plaintiffs.\nNazim Ali Khan for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "Major (R) ABDUL RAUF KHAN and another \nVS \nGULF AIR LINE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN through Country Manager and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 159 = 2009 SLD 159 = 2009 CLD 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), Ss. 33 & 34; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 263, 265, 484(1), 485\nAppeal Against Appointment of Inspector by Commission\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the order to appoint an inspector to investigate the company's affairs was upheld.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33,34Companies Ordinance, 1984=263,265,484(1),", + "Case #": "Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2006, decision dated: 13-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Najm-ul-Hassan Kazmi and Amjad Hameed Ghauri for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NORTHERN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW) SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 160 = 2009 SLD 160 = 2009 CLD 497", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 290\nMaintainability of Petition for Winding Up\nConclusion: A member must hold at least 20% of the issued share capital to file a winding-up petition based on oppression and mismanagement.\nCitations: Shaukat Ali v. Amin Fabrics Ltd. 2008 CLD 837.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No.12 of 2007, decision dated: 5-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in Person.\nNaveed-ul-Haq for Respondents Nos.1, 4 and 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI\nVS \nMessrs BAWANY SUGAR MILLS LTD. 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 161 = 2009 SLD 161 = 2009 CLD 503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.2; Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120\nRecovery of Money - Proof of Claims\nConclusion: The plaintiff successfully proved its case with documentary evidence, and the suit for recovery was decreed.\nCitations: None provided.\nNegotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S.6\nScope of Cheque as a Negotiable Instrument\nConclusion: A cheque is a negotiable instrument, and there is a rebuttable presumption that it was issued for consideration.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.VII,R.2Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=117,120", + "Case #": "Suit No.373 of 2006, decision dated: 5-01-2009, hearing DATE : 23rd December, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farooq for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAK SUZUKI MOTOR CO. LTD. \nVS \nMUHAMMAD JUMSHAD SAEED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 162 = 2009 SLD 162 = 2009 CLD 525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 234-A; Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33\nSpecial Audit by Appointment of Auditors\nConclusion: The Executive Director's order to appoint auditors for a special audit was upheld, with no prejudice to the appellants.\nCitations: PLD 1984 Lhr. 69; PLD 1994 Kar. 358; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=234,234ASecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.34 of 2008, decision dated: 19-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN \nS. TARIQ A. HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (L.D)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar and Asjad Saeed for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs UNITED INDUSTRIES LTD. and another\nVS \nMian WAQAR-UDDIN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 163 = 2009 SLD 163 = 2009 CLD 541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 160 & 476\nFailure to Provide Information for Special Business\nConclusion: The violation was condoned with a warning as the company assured to provide all necessary information at a future meeting.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/92/2002-1305, dated 25-11-2008, decision dated: 31st December, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "BABRI COTTON MILLS LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 164 = 2009 SLD 164 = 2009 CLD 548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 196 & 476\nUnauthorized Disposal of Fixed Assets\nConclusion: The directors were fined for disposing of the company’s fixed assets without shareholder approval, violating the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/ 106/2002-4122, dated 22-05-2008, EMD/233/106/2002-179, dated 6-08-2008, decision dated: 2-12-2008.", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DATA TEXTILES LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 165 = 2009 SLD 165 = 2009 CLD 564", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 255, 258, 260 & 476\nAudit of Cost Account of the Company\nConclusion: The cost auditors failed to properly audit and report the company's cost accounts, allowing fraudulent transactions to go undetected. They were reprimanded and directed to modify their reports.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255,258,260,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.CLD/EMD/FIU/32/2006-3408-9, dated 3rd March, 2008, decision dated: 25-07-2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SIDDIQI & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 166 = 2009 SLD 166 = 2009 CLD 581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), S.3-AA; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199\nCancellation of License for Exchange Company\nConclusion: The State Bank's cancellation of the exchange company's license without providing a hearing to petitioners was found unlawful. The High Court directed the State Bank to pass a fresh order.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947=3,3AAConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2114 of 2005, decision dated: 28-11-2008, hearing DATE : 20-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Imtiaz Ahmad for Petitioners. \nRaja Muhammad Rizwan Ibrahim Satti for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAVED KHAN and 2 others \nVS \nSTATE BANK OF PAKISTAN through Governor, State Bank and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 167 = 2009 SLD 167 = 2009 CLD 588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9 & 18\nSuit for Recovery of Loan by Bank\nConclusion: The defendant failed to comply with the decision of the State Bank's committee, and their application for enforcement was rejected. Fraud allegations about inchoate documents were also dismissed.\nCitations: 2004 CLD 257; PLD 1997 SC 315; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9,18", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-38, C.M.A. No.6788 of 2002 and C.M. No.9630 of 2005, decision dated: 14-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayabaly for Plaintiff. \nRaja Qasit Nawaz for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASKARI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. \nVS \nHILAL CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 168 = 2009 SLD 168 = 2009 CLD 594", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.18 (2)\nChange of Mode of Recovery in Banking Court\nConclusion: The Banking Court had the discretion to change the recovery mode as per the statute; the sale approved was justified due to previous failed auctions.\nCitations: Mst. Asma Zafarul Hassan v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. 1981 SCMR 108; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18,18(2)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXI,R.66", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.782 of 2008, decision dated: 15-12-2008, hearing DATE : 8-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nIJAZ-UL-HASSAN, JUSTICE\nCH. EJAZ YOUSAF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Tariq Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6. Raja Muhammad Akram, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and Salman Akrarn Raja, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 7", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUMTAZUDDIN FEROZE \nVS \nSheikh IFTIKHAR ADIL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 169 = 2009 SLD 169 = 2009 CLD 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Act (IV of 1938), Ss. 47-B(2) & 110; Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.86(b)\nInsurance Claim Limitation\nConclusion: The limitation period for the claim was correctly calculated from the date the insurance company denied the 20% claim, and the case was allowed for payment of the remaining amount.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Act, (IV of 1938)=110,47B(2),110Limitation Act, 1877=86(b)", + "Case #": "M.A. No.1 of 2002, decision dated: 7-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNEEB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE\nSYED PIR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem Thepdawala for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALI TEXTILE MILLS LTD. (JHANG) \nVS \nBUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 170 = 2009 SLD 170 = 2009 CLD 609", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 316(2); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII\nCivil Claims Against Liquidating Company\nConclusion: A civil claim against a company under liquidation should be established in a competent court, and the Trial Court's return of the plaint was incorrect.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=316,316(2)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.280 of 2003, heard on 5-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Masood and Rai Sajid Ali for Appellant.\nMs. Sidra Fatima Sheikh for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. \nRana Waqas Latif for Respondent No. 7", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL\nVS \nN. K. RICE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH JOINT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 171 = 2009 SLD 171 = 2009 CLD 610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199\nConstitutional Jurisdiction of High Court\nConclusion: The High Court cannot substitute its own decision for that of an authority unless the authority's decision is unreasonable or based on misreading of evidence.\nCitations: Independent Newspaper Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Chairman, Fourth Wage Board 1993 SCMR 1533.\nInsurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S. 118\nNon-Payment of Life Insurance Claim\nConclusion: The repudiation of a claim for not paying a small late fee was deemed unjustified, and the insurance company was ordered to pay the full claim.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.528-L of 2004, decision dated: 2-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sher Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A.\nQureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nLiaquat Ali Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS \nVS \nJAFFAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 172 = 2009 SLD 172 = 2009 CLD 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.73\nBreach of Obligation by Export Promotion Bureau\nConclusion: The Export Promotion Bureau failed to authenticate the transfer of a quota in time, leading to the plaintiff's loss, and the suit for damages was decreed.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=73", + "Case #": "Suit No.1714 of 1997, decision dated: 27-01-2009, hearing DATE : 14-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salah-ud-Din Ahmed for Plaintiff. \nS. Afsar Ali Abidi for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "M. AYUB \nVS \nFEDERATION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 173 = 2009 SLD 173 = 2009 CLD 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9, 10 & 22\nApplication for Leave to Defend Suit\nConclusion: The defendant's application for leave to defend was rejected as the allegations of fraud were found to be baseless, and the suit was rightfully decreed.\nCitations: Mst. Riffat Jehan v. Habib Bank Limited 2005 PLD 941.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9,10,22", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.630 of 2002, heard on 22-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Ikram Siddiqui for Appellant. \nMiss Fatima Najeeb and Akhtar Javed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. HAROON IFTIKHAR \nVS \nN. D. F. C." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 174 = 2009 SLD 174 = 2009 CLD 624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3\nSuit for Recovery of Amount on Basis of Negotiable Instrument\nConclusion: The decision to grant leave to defend is based on the defendant’s ability to present a plausible defense; the Court granted leave when a triable issue was raised.\nCitations: Fine Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Haji Umar PLD 1963 SC 163.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.496 of 2006, decision dated: 17-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barrister Qasim Ali Chowhan for Petitioner.\nMujeeb-ur-Rehman Kiani for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARSHAD ALI KHAN \nVS \nS. M. ISMAIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 175 = 2009 SLD 175 = 2009 CLD 632", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 7 & 9\nConstitutional Petition Regarding Loan Recovery\nConclusion: The High Court found no merit in the guarantor's request to block the loan recovery process, as the loan agreement made both the borrower and guarantor jointly responsible for repayment.\nCitations: National Bank of Pakistan v. F.S. Aitzazuddin and 2 others PLD 1982 Kar. 577.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=7,9Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Contract Act, 1872=178", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11630 of 2007, decision dated: 2-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ali Raza Gillani for Petitioner. \nSh. Nadeem Anwaar and Rana Ameer Ahmad Khan, Assistant A.G. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ\nVS \nMUHAMMAD SAFDAR AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 176 = 2009 SLD 176 = 2009 CLD 634", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss.2 (d)(f) & 9\nFraudulent Recovery of Amount\nConclusion: The High Court upheld the Banking Court's dismissal of the bank's suit for fraudulent withdrawal of money by a bank employee, as the alleged amount was not a loan.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=2,2(d)(f),9", + "Case #": "I. A. No. 107 of 2001, decision dated: 6-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE \nBIN YAMIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hyder Raza Naqvi for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LTD. \nVS \nMUHAMMAD SADIQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 177 = 2009 SLD 177 = 2009 CLD 638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance (LII of 2007), S. 4\nInterim Relief in Appeal\nConclusion: The High Court granted interim relief to the Chartered Accountants’ institution to prevent a daily penalty until the final decision on the appeal.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=4", + "Case #": "Appeal No.11 of 2008, decision dated: 18-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA, CHAIRMAN \nMS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 178 = 2009 SLD 178 = 2009 CLD 645", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.10\nDenial of Leave to Defend Suit\nConclusion: The defendant's defense was evasive and lacked substantial merit, leading the Court to refuse leave to defend the suit.\nCitations: Muhammad Arshad v. Citibank N.A. 2005 CLD 1237.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2592-L of 2004, decision dated: 6-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, JUSTICE\nSABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Saeed Hassan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Shahid Hamid, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALMADAN COAL COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS \nVS \nREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 179 = 2009 SLD 179 = 2009 CLD 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9(5), 10(2) & 12\nEx Parte Decree and Setting Aside\nConclusion: The ex parte decree was maintained because the defendant was properly served notice, and the statutory time limits were followed.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10,9(5),10(2),12", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.17 of 2008, decision dated: 23rd October, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, JUSTICE\nSYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaleeq Ahmed for Appellants.\nSumeera Usto for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMEEN RIAZ AND ANOTHER \nVS \nALZAMIN LEASING MODARBA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 180 = 2009 SLD 180 = 2009 CLD 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.23\nSuit for Malicious Prosecution\nConclusion: The plaintiff’s suit for damages due to malicious prosecution was found not barred by limitation, as the relevant period began after the appeal court’s decision.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Limitation Act, 1908=23Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=78Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XIII,R.4", + "Case #": "Suit No.190 of 2004, decision dated: 3rd December, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer H. Minhas for Plaintiff.\nMansoorul Arfin for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.A. KAREEM IQBAL \nVS \nHABIB BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 181 = 2009 SLD 181 = 2009 CLD 682", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997), S.12(1)\nEnvironmental Impact Assessment for Flyover Construction\nConclusion: The construction of a flyover project required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act due to its potential environmental impact.\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition; Sumaira Awan, Secretary General v. Government of Pakistan 2008 CLD 1185.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=12,12(1)Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and IEA) Regulations, 2000=3,4,5", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos.D-756 and D-2168 of 2008, decision dated: 27-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JUSTICE\nABDUR REHMAN FAROOQ PIRZADA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omer Soomro along with Muhammad Adnan for Petitioners (in C.P. No. D-756 of 2008)\nChaudhry Abdul Rasheed along with Arshad Lodhi for Petitioners (in C.P. No. D-2168 of 2008)\nAshraf Ali Butt for Respondent No. 4 (in C.P. No. D-756 of 2008) and Respondent No. 5 (in C.P. No. D-2168 of 2008)\nKhalid Javed for Respondent No. 5 (in C.P. No. D-756 of 2008) and Respondent No. 2 (in C.P. No. D-2168 of 2008)\nManzoor Ahmed for Respondent No. 7 (in C.P. No. D-756 of 2008) and Respondent No. 3 (in C.P. No. D-2168 of 2008)\nMs. Afshan Aman for Respondent No. 6 (in C.P. No. D-756 of 2008) and Respondent.No. 4 (in C.P. No. D-2168 of 2008)\nSalman Talib-ud-Din for Respondent No. 8 (in C.P. No. D-756 of 2008) and Respondent No. 6 (in C.P. No. D-2168 of 2008)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MS. SALMA IQBAL CHUNDRIGAR AND OTHERS\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 182 = 2009 SLD 182 = 2009 CLD 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.10\nLeave to Defend Suit by Foreign Bank\nConclusion: The defendant's objections regarding the foreign bank's suit were found insufficient, and the High Court allowed leave to defend the suit.\nCitations: 2001 CLC 1172.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suits Nos.B-21 and B-22 of 2003, decision dated: 9-07-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED PIR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfar for Plaintiffs. \nAziz-ur-Rehman for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZMAT TEXTILE MILLS\nVS\nNDLC IFIC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 183 = 2009 SLD 183 = 2009 CLD 710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Oil and Gas Regulatory Ordinance (XVII of 2002), S.6\nCNG Station in Residential Area\nConclusion: The High Court directed the petitioner to approach the relevant authorities for a decision on the safety and legal implications of the CNG station in a residential area.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002=6Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1259, 1443, 1126, 1255 of 2007 and 1906 of 2006, decision dated: 7-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE\nDR. RANA M. SHAMIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1255 of 2007)\nNaveed Ahmed Khan for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1259 of 2007)\nNisar A. Mujahid and Ms. Saify Ali Khan for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 1906 of 2006)\nZafar Hadi Shah for Respondent No. 7 (in C.P. No. 1443 of 2007)\nFida Muhammad Khan, Masroor Alvi holding brief for Abrar Hassan for Respondents Nos.5 to 7\nMuhammad Shall Siddiqui for Respondent No. 10 (in C.P. No. 1255 of 2007) and for Respondent No. 5 (in C.P. No. 1906 of 2006)\nIqbal Ahmed and Fazal-ur-Rehman for Respondents Nos.2 and 9 (in C.P. No. 1255 of 2007)\nNeel Keshov along with Zulfiqar Ali Mirajt for Respondent No. 4 (in C.P. No. 1259 of 2007)\nAgha Zafir, A.A.G. for Province of Sindh\nManzoor Ahmed along with Zafar Ahmed Khan for City District Government Karachi", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. GHAZALA HASSAN AND ANOTHER \nVS \nCITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI THROUGH CITY NAZIM AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 184 = 2009 SLD 184 = 2009 CLD 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970), S.7-B(b), Second Proviso\nAcquisition of Shares in Associated Company\nConclusion: The government was obligated to issue compensation certificates to ex-owners of an associated company as per the legal framework.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=7,7B(b)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.2274 of 1992, decision dated: 9-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem Mangrio for Petitioners.\nAsalm Butt for Respondent No. 1.\nKhalid Javed for Respondent No. 2. \nNadeem Azhar Siddiqi, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAJID AND OTHERS\nVS \nQUALITY STEEL WORKS LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 185 = 2009 SLD 185 = 2009 CLD 716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.54; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2\nTemporary Injunction to Restrain Employee from Joining Competitor\nConclusion: Plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was dismissed due to lack of a prima facie case and laches. The defendant had denied consent to the restrictive covenant, and the balance of convenience did not favor the plaintiff.\nCitations: Hafeezullah Khan and two others v. Al-Haj Chaudhri Barkat Ali and 2 others PLD 1998 Kar. 274; Shri Gopal Paper Mills Ltd. v. Sunder K. Ghansham AIR 1962 Cal. 61; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=54Contract Act, 1872=16(3)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr,1,2", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.272 and C.M.A. No.1662 of 2008, decision dated: 20-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Sana Akram Minhas for Appellant.\nAbdul Qayyum Abbasi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "EXIDE PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH FINANCE DIRECTOR AND COMPANY SECRETARY \nVS\nMALIK ABDUL WADOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 186 = 2009 SLD 186 = 2009 CLD 735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Chartered Accountants Ordinance (X of 1961), Ss. 3 & 20\nComplaint Against Chartered Accountant for Professional Misconduct\nConclusion: The High Court found the investigation by the Chartered Accountants’ Committee to be biased due to involvement of a member who had a personal lawsuit with the respondent, and thus, the reference was dismissed.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961=3,20,SchedCompanies Ordinance, 1984=255,260", + "Case #": "C.R. No.1 of 2006, heard on 6-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.H. Zaidi for Applicant. Respondent in Person", + "Petitioner Name:": "INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY \nVS \nABU BAKER BILWANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 187 = 2009 SLD 187 = 2009 CLD 740", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, R.1 & O.XLI, R.23\nReview Application in Constitutional Petition\nConclusion: The High Court disposed of the review application by clarifying that the observations made during remand would not affect the rights of the parties.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-1,O.XLVII,R.1,O.XLI,R.23", + "Case #": "Constitutional Writ Petition No.D-1195 of 2007, decision dated: 22-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JUSTICE\nARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saalim Salam Ansari for Petitioner.\nNaveed-ul-Haq for Respondent No 1.\nNaveed Ahmed Khan for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED WASEEM HUSSAIN \nVS \nPAKISTAN EXPORT FINANCE GUARANTEE LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 188 = 2009 SLD 188 = 2009 CLD 741", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.405\nSettlement of Claims in Company Liquidation\nConclusion: The distribution of sale proceeds from a company’s liquidation was done in compliance with legal provisions, and the ex-employees' claims were satisfied without requiring a detailed order.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=405Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.538-L of 2004, decision dated: 16-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Amin Javed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. \nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS \nVS \nMESSRS SAMPAK PAPER AND BOARD MILLS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 189 = 2009 SLD 189 = 2009 CLD 761", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.10\nLeave to Defend Suit for Loan Recovery\nConclusion: The defendants' petition for leave to defend was dismissed as they failed to raise a substantial defense. The banking court's jurisdiction and the applicability of relevant statutes were confirmed.\nCitations: Ziauddin Siddiqui v. Mrs. Rana Sultana and another, 1990 CLC 645; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10,27Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=20", + "Case #": "Civil Original Suit No.49 of 2006, decision dated: 2-02-2009, hearing DATE : 8-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ali Zafar along with Muhammad Suleman for Plaintiff.\nShahid Ikram Siddiqui for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION \nVS \nSARAH TEXTILES LTD. AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 190 = 2009 SLD 190 = 2009 CLD 784", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.10(2)(1)\nAppeal Against Company Judge's Order\nConclusion: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of maintainability of appeals against orders under S.10(2)(1) of the Companies Ordinance.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10,10(2)(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1045, 1221 of 1999 and 378 of 2003, 320 of 2004 and Civil Petition No.2450 of 2001, decision dated: 10-02-2009, hearing DATE : 24-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE\nZIA PERWEZ, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Hussain Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.1045 and 1221 of 1999)\nHaq Nawaz Chatta, Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. No. 378 of 2003)\nAppellants in Person (in C.A. No. 320 of 2004)\nRai Muhammad Nawaz Kharral, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1045 of 1999)\nSalaman Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 1045 of 1999)\nNemo for Respondents (in C.As. No. 1221 of 1999 and 378 of 2003)\nRizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, D.A.G. (for only MCB in C.A. No. 320 of 2004)\nAltaf Elahi Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.P. No. 2450 of 2001)", + "Petitioner Name:": "KAMALUDDIN QURESHI\nVS\nALI INTERNATIONAL CO.\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.1221 OF 1999\nMESSRS ATARA TARPAULIN AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES\nVS\nHABIB BANK LTD. AND OTHERS\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.378 OF 2003\nFIRST ELITE CAPITAL MODARABA\nVS\nRAVI ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.320 OF 2004\nZAKAUDDIN \nVS\nDASTAGIR INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT LTD. AND OTHERS\nCIVIL NO.2450 OF 2001\nMESSRS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN \nVS\nMESSRS TANVIR WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 191 = 2009 SLD 191 = 2009 CLD 798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Mala Fide Allegations\nAllegation of Mala Fide in Contract Awarding Process\nConclusion: The High Court found no evidence to support the claim that public functionaries acted mala fide in awarding a contract, and dismissed the allegations as vague and unsubstantiated.\nCitations: Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmed PLD 1974 SC 151; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1232 of 2008, decision dated: 17-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN MIAN, JUSTICE, HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz M. Khan Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AFZAL MOTORS COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.\nVS \nPROVINCE OF SINDH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 192 = 2009 SLD 192 = 2009 CLD 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.9\nTerritorial Jurisdiction of Banking Court\nConclusion: The High Court reversed a ruling that dismissed a banking court's suit based on territorial jurisdiction. The court found that the banking court had jurisdiction as per the relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=20,21", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1859 of 2000, decision dated: 26-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE \nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE\nSHEIKH HAKIM ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nHidayatullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.\nTariq Jehangiri, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. M. Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION \nVS \nHAJI GUL HASSAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 193 = 2009 SLD 193 = 2009 CLD 805", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 8(a), 10(1) & 14(1)\nOpposition to Trade Mark Registration\nConclusion: The applicant's mark was found to be deceptively similar to the existing mark, and the application for registration was rejected due to dishonesty in adopting the mark.\nCitations: PLD 1970 SC 460; Cooper's Incorporated v. Pakistan General Store 1981 SCMR 1039.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10,8(a),10(1),14(1)", + "Case #": "M.A. No.3 of 2007, decision dated: 2-03-2009, hearing DATE : 24-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Saira Shaikh for Appellant.\nSaleem Ghulam Hussain for Respondent No. 1.\nQamar-ud-Din for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "ESSA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \nREGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 194 = 2009 SLD 194 = 2009 CLD 814", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance (IV of 1980), S.24\nStay of Proceedings and Arbitration\nConclusion: The High Court stayed the proceedings under the Arbitration Act, finding that the intention to arbitrate was clear from the parties' documents, despite no formal arbitration agreement.\nCitations: Tribal Friends Co. v. Province of Balochistan 2002 SCMR 1903; etc.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance, 1980=24Specific Relief Act, 1877=42Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "Suits Nos. 482 to 489 of 2008, decision dated: 16-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sana Minhas for Plaintiff.\nAli Mumtaz Shaikh for Defendant No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "RETEX GLOBAL (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\nJEXPORT PROCESSING ZONES AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 195 = 2009 SLD 195 = 2009 CLD 825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJpND0", + "Key Words:": "National Environmental Quality Standards (Self-Monitoring and Reporting by Industry) Rules, 2001\nEffluent Treatment and Environmental Compliance\nConclusion: The factory installed an effluent treatment plant after being notified by the High Court. The Environmental Protection Authority certified the plant as compliant with standards, and no further action was taken.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7750 of 2007, decision dated: 23rd February, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faysal Ali Qazi, A.A.G. Zubair Khalid, Standing Counsel.\nRassal Hassan Syed for Respondent.\nAkhtar H. Awan, Local Commissioner. \nJawad Hassan, Amicus Curiae. Umar Sharif for SNGPL", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALLAH DITTA \nVS \nD.C.O. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 196 = 2009 SLD 196 = 2009 CLD 830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20, O.VII, R.10 & O.XXXVII, Rr. 2 & 3\nTerritorial Jurisdiction of Court in Suit for Recovery of Money\nConclusion: The court ruled that the banking court had territorial jurisdiction, as the cause of action and relevant documents were linked to the plaintiff’s location.\nCitations: Messrs Brady and Company Pakistan Limited v. Syed Saigol Industries Limited 1981 SCMR 494.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=20,O.VII,R.10,O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.280 of 2004, decision dated: 13-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHIJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Erum Yaqoob for Appellant.\nSardar Muhammad Yousaf for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASLAM MOTIWALA \nVS \nMESSRS (DICE FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 197 = 2009 SLD 197 = 2009 CLD 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXV, R.1 & S.151\nSecurity for Costs in Copyright Infringement Case\nConclusion: The plaintiff, a foreign company, was directed to furnish a bank guarantee for costs, as it did not have assets in Pakistan.\nCitations: Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Arif Muhammad Gondal and 2 others 1997 CLC 227.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-20,O.V,R.20(1)(e)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,185(3)Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9,12(2)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.19-K of 2009, decision dated: 10-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AXLE PRODUCTS LIMITED \nVS \nMESSRS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 198 = 2009 SLD 198 = 2009 CLD 839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 39 & 40\nChange of Company Name and Transfer of Property\nConclusion: The High Court ruled that a company was not required to register new transfer deeds after changing its name, as the identity remained the same, and the Registration Act’s exceptions applied.\nCitations: Mazhar Iqbal v. Falak Naz and 2 others PLD 2001 Lah. 495.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=39,40Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Registration Act, 1908=17", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.739 of 2008, heard on 19-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Petitioner.\nShujat Ali Khan, A.A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "HIRA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), KASUR AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 199 = 2009 SLD 199 = 2009 CLD 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 6(1)(e) & 76\nOpposition to Trade Mark Registration Cheeta \nConclusion: The opposition was dismissed, as the marks “Bubber Sher” and “Cheeta” were not similar enough to cause confusion, and no deceptive intent was found.\nCitations: Crescent Pencils Limited v. Indus Pencil Industries Limited 1989 CLC 2005.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=6,6(1)(e),76", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeal No.299 of 2003, heard on 9-10-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Amna Ahmad for Appellant.\nTanveer Ashraf for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "DAWOOD HERCULES CHEMICAL LTD. \nVS \nREGISTRATION OF TRADE MARKS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 200 = 2009 SLD 200 = 2009 CLD 874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Ss. 56/66/66-A, B, E/67 & 70 A\nQuashing of Copyright Infringement Proceedings\nConclusion: The High Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the police, as they lacked jurisdiction, and allowed the applicants to pursue civil claims for damages.\nCitations: Re. Mian Hamza Shehbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others P.Cr.LJ 1584.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Copyrights Ordinance, 1962=56/66/66A,B,E/67,70ACriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=561A", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.84 of 2007, decision dated: 2-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ibad-ul-Hussain for Petitioners.\nMs. Shaheen Holding Brief for Nadeem Qureshi for the Complainant.\nSofia Saeed Shah, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD TARIQ QAZI AND OTHERS \nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 201 = 2009 SLD 201 = 2009 CLD 883", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance (CIII of 2002), Ss. 30 & 21\nFailure to Hold Annual General Meeting\nConclusion: The company’s failure to hold two consecutive AGM meetings was found unlawful, and the imposition of penalties by the SECP was upheld.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares And Take-Overs) Ordinance, 2002=30,21Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=24Companies Ordinance, 1984=158,170,171,178", + "Case #": "Commercial Appeal No.1 of 2007 decided on 24-02-2009. dates of hearing: 17th, 18th and 20-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Appellants. Imtiaz Rashid Siddique and Jawad Hassan for Respondents Nos.5 to 7.\nTaffazal H. Rizvi along with Saqlain Arshad, Assistant Director (Legal) SECP for Respondents Nos.2 to 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD ILYAS MEHRAJ AND 17 OTHERS \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 202 = 2009 SLD 202 = 2009 CLD 905", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), S.29\nSecurity for Costs in Copyright Case\nConclusion: The foreign plaintiff was required to furnish security for costs due to the lack of assets in Pakistan, as per the court’s discretion.\nCitations: Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Arif Muhammad Gondal and 2 others 1997 CLC 227.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Copyrights Ordinance, 1962=29Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXV,R.1,S.151", + "Case #": "Suit No.1079 of 2002 and C.M.A. No.1135 of 2004, decision dated: 31st May, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan for Plaintiff.\nMs. Shazia Tasnim for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "MICROSOFT CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC THROUGH SUB-ATTORNEY S. SAEED MIAN \nVS \nALKARAM TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 203 = 2009 SLD 203 = 2009 CLD 908", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Ss. 28, 29 & 114 | Trade Marks Rules, 1963, R.76\nAppeal Against Delay in Filing Objections to Trade Mark\nConclusion: The Registrar's discretion to condone the delay was properly exercised. The delay was minor (seven days) and occurred only once. The objection was filed within the allowable period once extended. The appeal was dismissed.\nReasoning:\n•\nRule 76 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1963 allows the Registrar to grant an extension of one month at a time, and this can be extended up to six months.\n•\nThe delay in filing objections was a procedural delay, which did not materially affect the substantive issues in the case.\n•\nThe explanation for the delay was satisfactory, and there was no malintent on part of the appellant.\n•\nGiven the Registrar's power to extend deadlines, the decision to allow the delay was within the discretion granted by the rules.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1992 SC 417: This case supports the principle that procedural delays, when minor and justified, do not invalidate the registration process.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=28,29,114Trade Marks Rules, 1963=76", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeal No.28 of 2006, decision dated: 24-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amna Salman for Appellant.\nSalim Ghulam Hussain for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS IRFAN WORLD OF SPORTS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS\nREGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 204 = 2009 SLD 204 = 2009 CLD 910", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S.118 | Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 86(a)\nSettlement of Claim and Delay in Filing\nConclusion: The court ruled that the insurance claim was not time-barred, and the insurance company's repudiation was unjustified due to lack of concrete evidence supporting the denial. The appellant (husband of the insured) was entitled to recover the insurance benefits.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe appellant demonstrated continuous vigilance in pursuing his claim, and the delay in the settlement was attributed to the insurance company’s reluctance to pay.\n•\nThe insurance company’s refusal to honor the claim based on the insured’s pregnancy was not valid, as the condition of pregnancy could not have been known or disclosed at the time of policy revival.\n•\nThe Tribunal’s findings were set aside because they failed to establish the alleged concealment of pregnancy, and the appellant had provided all the required documents to support his claim.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118Limitation Act, 1877=86(a)", + "Case #": "R.F. A. No.191 of 2008, decision dated: 8-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE\nNASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Butt for Appellant.\nMian Naseer Ahmed for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZHAR IQBAL \nVS \nSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 205 = 2009 SLD 205 = 2009 CLD 915", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.53 | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss.9, 19(7), 23\nFraudulent Transfer and Liability of Guarantor\nConclusion: The transfer of property was not fraudulent but was scrutinized under S.53 of the Transfer of Property Act, which protects bona fide transferees. The objection filed by the transferee (the objector) was rejected, and the Banking Court’s ruling was upheld.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe onus of proving that the deed of transfer was fraudulent lies with the person alleging the fraud. The creditor must file a suit to declare the transaction voidable.\n•\nThe guarantor’s liability in this case was co-extensive with the principal borrower, and the bank was within its rights to pursue the guarantor for repayment.\n•\nThe objector failed to provide evidence that the transfer was made to defraud the creditor or delay the repayment.\n•\nThe transfer of the property by the guarantor to the objector did not violate any legal restrictions imposed by S.23 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.\nCitations:\n•\nChogmal Bhandarl and others v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer AIR 1976 SC 652.\n•\nTextile Management (Pvt.) Limited v. N.I.T. 2002 CLD 490; Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. AOKI (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2008 OLD 158; Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. Karachi and others v. Ghulam Haider and others PLD 1975 Lah. 489.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Transfer of Property Act, 1882=53Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=117,120", + "Case #": "Spl. High Court Appeal No.288 of 2007, decision dated: 18-03-2009, hearing DATE : 3rd March, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayebaly for Appellant.\nAhmed Hassan Rana for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZOHAIR ZAKARIA\nVS\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 206 = 2009 SLD 206 = 2009 CLD 931", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 231, 473, 476 & 495\nNon-Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commission Inspection\nConclusion: Directors of the company were fined for obstructing the Securities and Exchange Commission's inspection of the company's books of accounts and papers. This was considered an obstruction of justice and an act of bad faith.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company’s refusal to allow inspection of its records was seen as an attempt to hide fraudulent activities, potentially involving the securities market.\n•\nDespite multiple requests, the company continued to provide evasive justifications and refused to comply with the inspection order.\n•\nAs a result, the directors were held liable for this non-compliance, and a fine was imposed under the relevant sections of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nThe fine imposed was intended to act as a deterrent to similar actions by other companies.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=231,473,476,495", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/348/2002/720-737 dated 17-11-2008, decision dated: 12-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NORRIE TEXTILE MILLS LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 207 = 2009 SLD 207 = 2009 CLD 937", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002)\nPublic Procurement and Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court\nConclusion: The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the bidding process as it was deemed to be personal interest litigation. The petitioner did not demonstrate a public interest concern and was more focused on its own economic benefit.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe petitioner, although presenting the case as one of public interest, was primarily motivated by personal economic interests (to obtain another chance at bidding).\n•\nThe bidding process was not arbitrary or discriminatory, and the company involved was government-controlled, but the litigation was focused on personal gain.\n•\nThe concept of aggrieved person in constitutional cases requires more than just a personal interest; the matter should concern broader public welfare.\n•\nThe appeal was dismissed because it did not fulfill the criteria for public interest litigation as set forth in Art. 199 of the Constitution.\nCitations:\n•\nSalahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd PLD 1975 SC 244.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002)=PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1297 of 2006, decided 20-03-2009. dates of Hearing: 16th and 17-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAIH, JAN, JUSTICE\nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court along with Arshad Ali Ch. Advocate-on-Record for Appellant\nAlamgir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 4\nBarrister Ijaz-ul-Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 5", + "Petitioner Name:": "ECHO WEST INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. LAHORE \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 208 = 2009 SLD 208 = 2009 CLD 951", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 227, 229, 473, 476 & 495\nMismanagement of Provident Fund and Violations of Law\nConclusion: The company was penalized for failing to manage its employees' provident fund in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s directions and mandatory legal provisions.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company had failed to disburse the provident fund within the stipulated time and had violated the mandatory provisions of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nThe provisions of the Ordinance aim to protect employee benefits, and the company's actions were seen as neglecting this responsibility.\n•\nDespite being under the management for a long time, no serious efforts were made to resolve the issue, leading to the imposition of a fine.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227,229,473,476,495", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/480/2003-1336-37 dated 26-11-2008, decision dated: 4-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "BAWANVAIR PRODUCTS LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 209 = 2009 SLD 209 = 2009 CLD 960", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Court's Duty\nJurisdiction of Courts and Consent of Parties\nConclusion: Courts cannot assume jurisdiction by consent if they lack inherent jurisdiction. The court must assess jurisdiction at the outset of proceedings, and any decision outside of this jurisdiction is a nullity.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe issue of jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived by the consent of the parties. If a court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot proceed based on the parties' agreement.\n•\nThe court must decide jurisdiction even if it’s not raised by the parties, and any action beyond jurisdiction is invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nExecutive District Officer Schools v. Qamar Dost Khan 2006 SCMR 1630.\n•\nMuhammad and others v. Muhammad Shaft and another PLD 1996 SC 292.\n•\nHaji Abdullah Khan and another v. Nisar Ahmad Khan PLD 1965 SC 690.\n•\nSalah-ud-Din Tirimzi v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 2008 SC 735.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=Preamble", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.403 of 2007, heard on 1st April, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nRAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Hafeez-ur-Rehman for Appellants.\nCh. Inayat Ullah for Respondent No. 1.\nMuhammad Qamar-uz-Zaman for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EAST-WEST INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER \nVS \nMESSRS MUHAMMAD SHAFI & COMPANY THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 210 = 2009 SLD 210 = 2009 CLD 970", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance (CIII of 2002), Ss. 4, 5, 25 & 26\nViolation of Takeover Rules and Penalties for Non-Compliance\nConclusion: The acquirer was penalized for failing to comply with the mandatory public offer requirements under the Listed Companies Ordinance due to non-disclosure of acquisition details.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe acquirer breached the 25% threshold, which required a public offer for acquiring voting shares, but failed to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance.\n•\nThe acquirer’s failure to disclose the true nature of the acquisition resulted in a penalty, though a token fine was imposed due to the eventual merger of the target company with a bank.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. SMD/TO/15/2006 dated 14-09-2007, decision dated: 20-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL HOUSING FINANCE LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 211 = 2009 SLD 211 = 2009 CLD 979", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54\nTemporary Injunction in Agency Agreement Dispute\nConclusion: The application for a temporary injunction was dismissed, as the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case, nor did he show that he would suffer irreparable loss from the termination of the agreement.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe agreement was a standard principal-agent contract without provisions for the plaintiff’s interest in the agency itself.\n•\nNo evidence was provided to suggest that the plaintiff had made significant personal investments in the business to justify his claim for an injunction.\n•\nThe termination of the agency could potentially be considered illegal, but this alone was not sufficient for granting an injunction.\nCitations:\n•\nJamal Ahmed v. Zakaria 1987 MLD 295.\n•\nMolasses Export Co. Ltd v. Consolidated Sugar Mills Ltd. 1990 CLC 609.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-1,O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "H.C.As. Nos.304 and 305 of 2008, decision dated: 6-03-2009, hearing DATE : 28-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Farogh Naseem for Appellant.\nA. Rehman Malik and Syed Ali Haider for Respondent No. 1. \nShakeel Pervez Bhatti for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "COOPER & CO. (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN\nVS \nLAUREL NAVIGATION (MAURITIUS) LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 208 = 2010 SLD 208 = 2010 CLD 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 | Contract Law and Promissory Estoppel\nConstitutional Petition and Contractual Rights\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed as the principle of promissory estoppel did not apply, and the letter of intent did not constitute a binding contract.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe contract was still in the process of being finalized, and no enforceable contract existed at the time the respondent decided to call for fresh tenders.\n•\nThe principle of promissory estoppel could not be applied, as there was no clear and completed agreement that could be enforced.\n•\nNo vested rights were infringed, and no unfairness or denial of due process occurred.\nCitations:\n•\nRamna Engineering Pipelines v. Sui Gas Pipelines Limited 2004 SCMR 1274.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1241, and 1242 of 2007, decision dated: 24-09-2008. dates of hearing: 9th 10th, 12th, 17th, 23rd and 24-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE\nM. JAWED BUTTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court, Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in both cases).\nWaseem Sajjad, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhter Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in both cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "PETROSIN CORPORATION LTD. \nVS \nOIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 19 = 2014 SLD 19 = 2014 SCMR 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.497(2) | Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 452, 109 & 34\nBail in Murder Case with Further Inquiry\nConclusion: The accused was granted bail as the case involved further inquiry into their involvement, and there was insufficient evidence directly linking them to the crime.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe accused was not directly involved in the motive, nor were they identified as the one who fired at the deceased.\n•\nThe case warranted further investigation to determine the accused's precise role, which led to the grant of bail.\nCitations:\n•\nMuhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique PLD 1989 SC 585.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497,497(2)", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No.765-L of 2013, decision dated: 12-08-2013", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Walayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nM. Zubair Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NISAR AHMED \nVS\nTHE STATE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 209 = 2010 SLD 209 = 2010 CLD 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss.287 & 284(1) | Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.17\nSanction of Merger/Amalgamation Scheme\nConclusion: The High Court sanctioned the Scheme of Merger/Amalgamation, stating that no conveyance or instrument was necessary to transfer assets or immovable property.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe companies provided sufficient evidence that the merger was compliant with S.287 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nThe order of the High Court made the merger effective from the date specified in the scheme, thus bypassing the requirement for registration under S.17 of the Registration Act.\nCitations:\n•\nUjala Cotton Mills Limited v. Income Tax Officer 1985 PTD 510.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=287,284(1)Registration Act, 1908=17", + "Case #": "C.O. No.52 of 2009, decision dated: 12-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Petitioners.\nMalik Muhammad Nasir Ayyaz for PEMRA.\nKh. Aamer Farooq for Atlas Bank.\nAli Masood Hayat for Telenor (Creditor).\nSalman Kazmi for Bestow Interiors (Creditor).\nNaeem Sultan for Wateen Telecom \nShahzad Ata Elahi for Emirates Global Islamic Bank, Silk Bank and Bank of the Punjab.\nMuhammad Saqlain Arshad, Deputy Director (Legal), SECP.\nMuhammad Rizwan for Bank Alfalah.\nMuhammad Rizwan, Manager (Credits) and Harts Yameen Khan, Relationship Manager, Bank Alfalah.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABLE DIVERSIFIED LTD. and 2 others: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 210 = 2010 SLD 210 = 2010 CLD 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 244, 245 & 476\nImproper Issuance and Publication of Financial Documents\nConclusion: A lenient view was taken due to the default being inadvertent. Instead of imposing the maximum penalty, the Chief Executive was issued a warning.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to annex certain reports and statements, including the Directors' Report, with the annual and quarterly accounts.\n•\nThe Chief Executive admitted the oversight, which was not intentional, and requested condonation.\n•\nGiven the absence of malicious intent, a lenient approach was taken, and the Chief Executive was warned to comply with the legal requirements in the future.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=244,245,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/262/2002-2534, dated 30-03-2009, decision dated: 2-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 211 = 2010 SLD 211 = 2010 CLD 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208 & 476\nUnauthorized Investment in Associated Companies\nConclusion: A fine of Rs.500,000 was imposed on each Director for breaching fiduciary duties related to unauthorized loans extended to associated companies.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company provided trade credits to its associated companies that did not constitute normal trade credit, violating S.208 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nThe Directors failed to get shareholder approval for the loans and did not charge interest, which was against the statutory requirements.\n•\nThe company admitted the breach and undertook corrective measures, including recovering the outstanding debts.\n•\nDespite the severity of the violation, a fine of Rs.500,000 was imposed on each Director as a lenient measure.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/250/2002-63-69, dated 9-07-2008, decision dated: 2-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FATEH TEXTILE MILLS LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 212 = 2010 SLD 212 = 2010 CLD 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.158\nFailure to Hold Annual General Meeting\nConclusion: A fine of Rs.100,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive for failing to hold the Annual General Meeting within the prescribed period.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to hold the Annual General Meeting as mandated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nThe failure was noted as harmful to shareholder interests, as the meeting is a platform for discussing key company matters.\n•\nTaking into account the company's past track record and the fact that the meeting was held, albeit with delay, a lenient fine was imposed on the Chief Executive.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/255/2002-2378, dated 13-03-2009, decision dated: 17-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAMID TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 213 = 2010 SLD 213 = 2010 CLD 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.245\nFailure to Prepare and Submit Quarterly Accounts\nConclusion: A fine of Rs.100,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive for failing to submit quarterly accounts to the shareholders, Registrar, and Commission in a timely manner.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to submit its quarterly accounts due to management changes and delays in the annual audit.\n•\nThe Chief Executive admitted the delay but argued that the management changes were the primary cause.\n•\nGiven that shareholders depend on timely financial information, a fine was imposed, but the maximum fine was avoided.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/End II/255/2004-2379, dated 13-03-2009, EMD/Enf-II/255/2004-3500, dated 9-06-2009, decision dated: 17-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAMID TEXTILE MILLS LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 214 = 2010 SLD 214 = 2010 CLD 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208 & 476\nUnauthorized Investment in Associated Companies\nConclusion: A token fine of Rs.200,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive for extending unauthorized credit to an associated company.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company provided advances to an associated company without shareholder approval and without charging any interest, violating S.208 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nThe violation was admitted, and the relevant amount was recovered.\n•\nA lenient penalty was imposed considering the company’s efforts to rectify the breach.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/446/2006-3800, dated 25th June; 2009, decision dated: 24-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASIM TEXTILE MILLS LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 215 = 2010 SLD 215 = 2010 CLD 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 204-A & 498\nFailure to Appoint a Company Secretary\nConclusion: A fine of Rs.15,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive for failing to appoint a company secretary, which is mandatory for listed companies.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to appoint a Company Secretary, violating S.204-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nThe law requires a full-time Company Secretary to ensure corporate governance standards.\n•\nA small fine was imposed on the Chief Executive, recognizing that the failure was not in line with the intent of the law.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=204,204A,498", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/84/2002-534, dated 11-09-2008, decision dated: 18-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ANNOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 20 = 2014 SLD 20 = 2014 SCMR 75", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss. 23\nDetermination of Compensation for Acquired Land\nConclusion: The compensation rate was increased to Rs.700,000 per kanal, considering the escalation in property value over time.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe compensation for acquired land was set at Rs.77,720 per kanal, but this was increased to Rs.700,000 per kanal by the High Court, reflecting the escalation in prices during the four years it took to finalize the acquisition.\n•\nThe compensation was assessed based on market value, taking into account both the location and potential value of the property.\nCitations:\n•\nProvince of Sindh v. Ramzan PLD 2004 SC 512.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Land Acquisition Act, 1894=23", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.2031 and 2032 of 2001, decision dated: 23rd July, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nEJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, DAG and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.\nZaheer Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER \nVS \nBEGUM AZIZA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 21 = 2014 SLD 21 = 2014 SCMR 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "xTransfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 52, 41 & 53\nFraudulent Transfer and Lis Pendens\nConclusion: The High Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit was overturned, as the consent decree was deemed collusive and fraudulent.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe plaintiffs had purchased the land before the defendant’s consent decree, and the principle of lis pendens (pending litigation) did not apply as the transaction was fraudulent.\n•\nThe defendant's consent decree was obtained in collusion with the vendor, and the plaintiffs were unaware of the earlier agreement.\n•\nThe High Court’s decision was reversed, and the Trial Court’s decree was restored in favor of the plaintiffs.\nCitations:\n•\nMuhammad Ashraf Butt v. Muhammad Asif Bhatti PLD 2011 SC 905.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.682 of 2002, decision dated: 1st July, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tahir Ch., Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.\nAbdul Qadoos Rawal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS \nVS\nKHAIR DIN THROUGH L.RS. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 216 = 2010 SLD 216 = 2010 CLD 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.22\nFailure to Abide by Brokers Rules\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.400,000 was imposed on the brokerage company for generating false market conditions.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company engaged in artificial trading to inflate share prices and create a false market, which misled innocent investors.\n•\nDespite being a reputable brokerage, the company failed to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and contributed to disrupting market fairness.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,12", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.1(06)PM/KSE/MSW/SMD/2009, dated 19-06-2009, decision dated: 3rd August, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FOUNDATION SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 217 = 2010 SLD 217 = 2010 CLD 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.224\nDirector's Trading Violations\nConclusion: The Director was required to tender the gain of Rs.15,584,690 made from trading in company shares to the Securities and Exchange Commission.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe Director violated S.224 by making a gain from trading shares within six months, without reporting the transaction as required.\n•\nThe Director’s request to exclude certain transactions was rejected, and the gain had to be returned to the Commission.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.S.M.(B.O.)C.O.222/13(365)2005, dated 25-05-2009, decision dated: 18-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "AKIF SAEED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "RECOVERY OF TENDERABLE GAIN.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 218 = 2010 SLD 218 = 2010 CLD 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUQlNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.224\nViolation of Trading Provisions by Company\nConclusion: The company was ordered to tender the gain made from trading shares within six months to the Securities and Exchange Commission.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to report gains from share trading, violating S.224 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nThe penalty was imposed as the company had not followed statutory requirements, despite the gain being legally tenderable.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.S.M.(B.O.)C.O.222/11(34)81, dated 9-07-2009, decision dated: 1st September, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "AKIF SAEED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "RECOVERY OF TENDERABLE GAIN: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 219 = 2010 SLD 219 = 2010 CLD 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.492\nMisrepresentation in Financial Statements\nConclusion: The Chief Executive was fined Rs.300,000 for misrepresenting facts in the Directors’ report.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company’s directors misrepresented facts in their report, which was found to be inaccurate by the auditors.\n•\nA lenient penalty was imposed, acknowledging the non-deliberate nature of the violation.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=492", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/410/2002-4018-24, dated 19-05-2008, decision dated: 3rd July, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.G. POWER LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 220 = 2010 SLD 220 = 2010 CLD 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.22\nBlank Selling of Shares\nConclusion: The company was fined Rs.150,000 for violating regulations by engaging in blank selling of shares.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company facilitated transactions where shares were sold without pre-existing interest, contravening the Securities and Exchange Ordinance.\n•\nThe fine was imposed to ensure compliance with regulations and to deter future violations.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH /OSS-01/(1216)/2009, dated 3rd April, 2009, decision dated: 1st July, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MATEENULLAH KHAN, JOINT DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHANI OSMAN SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 221 = 2010 SLD 221 = 2010 CLD 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.18-A\nMultiple Applications for Public Share Subscription\nConclusion: The appellant was ordered to return the application money for one application, with the second application’s money confiscated.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe appellant submitted multiple applications for share subscription under different identities, violating regulations.\n•\nThe appellant’s act was considered willful and an attempt to circumvent the law.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18,18A", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2 of 2008, decision dated: 27-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN, S. TARIQ A. HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Akbar Jamani for Appellant. \nAmir Khan Afridi, Director (C.I) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALI AKBAR JAMANI\nVS\nJOINT DIRECTOR (SMD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 222 = 2010 SLD 222 = 2010 CLD 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305 & 309\nPetition for Reduction of Paid-up Capital\nConclusion: The High Court accepted the petition for reducing the company's paid-up capital, as the financial position was sound.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company provided evidence that the reduction would not harm shareholders or creditors.\n•\nThe financial stability of the company remained intact after the reduction, leading to the acceptance of the petition.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=97", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2009, decision dated: 4-11-2009, hearing DATE : 28-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar-ud-Din F. Vellani for Petitioner. Imran Shamsi, Law Officer, SECP for Objector", + "Petitioner Name:": "RECKITT BENCKISER PAKISTAN LTD. \nVS \nADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIESOBJECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 223 = 2010 SLD 223 = 2010 CLD 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305 & 309\nPetition for Winding Up Due to Fraud\nConclusion: The High Court ordered the winding-up of the company due to fraudulent conduct and suspension of business.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company’s business had been suspended for several years, and it was used for fraudulent purposes.\n•\nThe petition for winding-up was accepted due to the company’s unlawful activities.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Petition No.16 and C.M. As Nos.685 and 686 of 2006, decision dated: 2-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Raghib Baqi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES \nVS \nMESSRS NOORIE TEXTILE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 224 = 2010 SLD 224 = 2010 CLD 147", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.22\nFailure to Register an Agent and Code of Conduct Violations\nConclusion: A fine of Rs.300,000 was imposed for failing to monitor client activities properly and violating the stock exchange regulations.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to ensure that its agents abided by the stock exchange rules, leading to misleading transactions.\n•\nThe fine was imposed to ensure that such violations would not occur again.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22,8,12,Sched", + "Case #": "Appeal No.17 of 2009, decision dated: 12-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN, S. TARIQ A. HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Qasim Raza for Appellant. \nMuhammad Atif Hameed, Deputy Director and Muhammad Ali, Deputy Director for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZEE SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nDIRECTOR (SMD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 225 = 2010 SLD 225 = 2010 CLD 152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.18-A\nMultiple Applications for Shares\nConclusion: The company was directed to return the application money for one of the applications while confiscating the second.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe appellant knowingly violated the provisions by submitting multiple applications using different accounts.\n•\nThe act was considered intentional, and the company was penalized accordingly.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18,33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.19 of 2008, decision dated: 27-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN, S. TARIQ A. HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suriyya Rafiq, Appellant in Person. Amir M. Khan, Director (SMD) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MS. SURRIYA RAFIQ \nVS\nDIRECTOR (S.M.D.), SECP" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 226 = 2010 SLD 226 = 2010 CLD 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305 & 309\nWinding-Up Petition Due to Business Suspension\nConclusion: The winding-up petition was upheld due to the company’s failure to file required documents and its suspension of business.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company had suspended its operations for years and failed to comply with mandatory requirements.\n•\nGiven its poor track record, the petition for winding-up was accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309", + "Case #": "Appeal No.15 of 2005, decision dated: 8-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD) \nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umer Lakhani for Appellant. \nAli Azeem Ikram, Director and Haris Bin Tipoo, Deputy Director for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRI STAR POWER LTD. \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (C.L) AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 227 = 2010 SLD 227 = 2010 CLD 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 196 & 208\nIllegal Investment in Associated Companies\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.1,500,000 was imposed for failure to obtain shareholder approval before investing in associated companies.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company violated the provisions of S.208 by investing in associated companies without shareholder approval.\n•\nA significant penalty was imposed for the violation, despite the company's defense.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196,208", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of 2008, decision dated: 30-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD) \nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSION (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Afzal Muniff, Farrukh Junaidy and Moin Khan for Appellants. \nAbid Hussain, Director (Enforcement) and Alshah Ali Raza, Deputy Directory (Enforcement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAZI KULI KHAN KHATTAK AND 4 OTHERS \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 228 = 2010 SLD 228 = 2010 CLD 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 5-A, 20 & 22\nFailure to Register Branch Heads as Agents\nConclusion: Penalty imposed on the company for failing to register branch heads as agents, despite admission of violation.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to register its branch heads as agents with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), a requirement under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance.\n•\nAlthough the company claimed that it had acted in good faith based on Karachi Stock Exchange's permission, no such letter was provided.\n•\nThe failure to comply with registration requirements, despite the Commission's clear directive, led to the imposition of a penalty.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=5,5A,20,22", + "Case #": "Appeal No.5 of 2006, decision dated: 31st December, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Ahmed for Appellant.\nNajia Ubaid, Assistant Director for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "EASTERN CAPITAL LTD. \nVS \nDIRECTOR (SMD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 229 = 2010 SLD 229 = 2010 CLD 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305 & 350\nWinding Up and Resale of Assets\nConclusion: Re-auction of company assets failed, and the initial buyer's bid was accepted.\nReasoning:\n•\nDespite two attempts to re-auction the assets of the dissolved company, no viable buyer emerged.\n•\nThe High Court accepted the bid from the original buyer who offered above the reserve price.\n•\nThe company was ordered to be dissolved after the final sale of assets.\nCitations:\n•\n2005 SCMR 1237; Hudaybia Textile Mils Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1987 SC 512.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,350", + "Case #": "C.O. No.100 of 1998, C.M.No. 12 of 2007 and C.M.No.508-L of 2009 decided on 22-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ SHAMIM, JUSTICE\nM. SHAHID SHAFI, JOINT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar-uz-Zaman for NBP.\nSalman Akram Raja for Ex-Management on 5-9-2008.\nHamid Shabbir Azar, for BEL.\nMalik Muhammad Hussain Ex-Joint Official Liquidator. \nSyed Ali Zafar.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVS \nMOHIB TEXTILE MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 230 = 2010 SLD 230 = 2010 CLD 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 158 & 476\nFailure to Hold Annual General Meetings\nConclusion: A penalty was imposed on the company for not holding its Annual General Meeting.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to hold the AGM on time due to management issues and litigation, despite a clear legal obligation to do so.\n•\nThe penalty was minimal, reflecting the company’s difficult circumstances, but the violation was deemed willful.\nCitations:\n•\nAIR 1938 Mad. 640.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158,476Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.59 of 2006, decision dated: 31st December, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN, CHAIRMAN \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafiq Ahmed for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NOOR A. QADIR AND OTHERS \nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 231 = 2010 SLD 231 = 2010 CLD 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 282-B, 282-D, 282-I, 282-J, 282-M & 196(2)(e)\nUnauthorized Investment in Unquoted Shares\nConclusion: Penalty imposed for violation of investment rules, despite an attempt to seek ex post facto approval.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company made investments in unquoted shares without prior approval, violating regulatory requirements.\n•\nDespite admitting the breach and seeking approval after the fact, a penalty was imposed, but the penalty was reduced for certain Directors who were not on the board at the time of the investment.\nCitations:\n•\n2005 SCMR 1785; 2003 SCMR 1017; PLD 1969 SC 599.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282,282B,282D,282-I,282-J,282-M&196(2)(e)General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=6(c),13(2)Non banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2003=7(2)(h)", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 of 2008, decision dated: 31st August, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD) \nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Babar Sattar and Ehsan Ali Qazi for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAFIQUE DAWOOD AND OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES DIVISION)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 232 = 2010 SLD 232 = 2010 CLD 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act (VI of 1996), Ss. 2(i)(s), 4, 8, 14, 22 & 37\nViolation of Legislative Authority\nConclusion: The Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act was upheld as valid, and the powers of Parliament to legislate in the matter were affirmed.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe petitioner argued that the Act was unconstitutional, but the court affirmed that Parliament had the power to legislate on matters impacting socio-economic dynamics.\nCitations:\n•\nNishat Tek Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1994 Lah.347; Messrs Nafees Dry Cleaners v. The Government of Punjab 2001 PTD 2018.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Standards and Quality Control Authority Act, 1996=4,2(i)(s),4,8,14,22,37Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=142,199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.1643, 1633 of 1997, 49, 1540 of 1999, 481 of 2001 and 765 of 2003, decision dated: 24-12-2009, hearing DATE : 23rd December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nMAZHAR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi along with Arif Raza for Petitioner. Iqbal Mahmood, D.A.G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Abdul Latif Afridi for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHERAT CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 233 = 2010 SLD 233 = 2010 CLD 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 2(24) & 48\nLegal Proceedings on Behalf of Juristic Persons\nConclusion: The High Court directed the Tribunal to accept the appeal on merit after correcting the procedural error regarding the address and representation.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company was acting through its authorized Secretary with a General Power of Attorney, and the address of the registered office was sufficient for filing the appeal.\n•\nThe High Court reversed the Tribunal’s decision and allowed the appeal to proceed.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=263,152Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 27 of 2008, decision dated: 21st October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD) \nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad A. Jamal, Yasien A Jamal and Mustafa Pyarali, Appellants in person. \nSyed Irshad-ur-Rehman for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD A. JAMAL AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\nRIZWAN ALI SHERALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 234 = 2010 SLD 234 = 2010 CLD 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 29, 36, 63, 156 & 157\nFailure to Maintain Statutory Deposit\nConclusion: The company was penalized for failing to meet statutory deposit requirements but was given time to remedy the shortfall.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company did not meet the statutory deposit requirement, leading to a fine of Rs.3.4 million.\n•\nAfter providing a written undertaking to remedy the shortfall, the penalty was modified, and a new deadline was set for compliance.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 2004 SC 441.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=11,63Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 2 of 2009, decision dated: 8-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawar Salam for Appellant.\nAli Azeem, Director and Iftikhar Hussain, Assistant Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CREDIT INSURANCE COMPANY \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 235 = 2010 SLD 235 = 2010 CLD 254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 196(4) & 208\nInvestment in Associated Companies at a Lower Price\nConclusion: Penalty imposed for selling shares to an associated company at a lower price than market value without proper authorization.\nReasoning:\n•\nDirectors acted in their personal interests and caused a loss to shareholders by selling shares below market value.\n•\nDespite the subsequent rectification, the violation was deemed willful, and a significant penalty was imposed.\nCitations:\n•\nPakistan Industrial Promotors Limited v. Monopoly Control Authority 1990 CLC 1008.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2,2(24),48Pakistan Environment Protection Act, 1997=22Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.III,Rr.1,2,3,O.XXIX,R.1,O.XLI,R.1", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.22311 of 2009, decision dated: 17-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ-UL-AHSAN, JUSTICE\nCHAIRMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL TRIBUNAL, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ijaz Ali Sabzwari for Petitioner.\nAamer Rehman, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNILEVER PAKISTAN FOODS LIMITED THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY\nVS\nCHAIRMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL TRIBUNAL, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 236 = 2010 SLD 236 = 2010 CLD 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 6(10) & 157(1)\nProviding False Information at the Time of Registration\nConclusion: The case was remanded for further examination due to procedural errors in imposing the penalty.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company provided false information about its parent company, leading to a penalty.\n•\nThe authority had failed to follow proper procedures in exercising its powers, which led to the case being remanded for correction.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=29,36,63,156,157Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.51 of 2009, decision dated: 17-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD) \nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Nasreen Rashid, Executive Director (Insurance) and Iftikhar Hussain, Assistant Director (Insurance) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TPL DIRECT INSURANCE LTD. \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 237 = 2010 SLD 237 = 2010 CLD 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance (CIII of 2002), Ss. 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 25 & 26\nViolation of Takeover Law\nConclusion: A minimal fine was imposed on the appellants for failing to meet the requirements of the Takeover Ordinance.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe appellants exceeded the 25% threshold for acquiring shares without following the proper procedures.\n•\nDespite the violations, a lenient penalty of Rs.200,000 was imposed.\nCitations:\n•\nJalaluddin F.C.A. v. Commissioner SEC 2005 CLD 333.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares And Take-Overs) Ordinance, 2002=4,5,7,9,13,25,26(1)(3)", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 5 of 2007, decision dated: 15-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER L.D/C.L.D)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Haider for Appellants.\nRashid Paracha, Sajid Imran and Sumaira Siddique for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED YAWAR ALI AND OTHERS\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER, SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION," + }, + { + "Case No.": "5920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 238 = 2010 SLD 238 = 2010 CLD 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33\nUnauthorized Insider Trading\nConclusion: The case was remanded after an ex parte order was passed due to the company not being properly represented.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to respond to a show-cause notice, leading to an ex parte decision.\n•\nThe case was remanded to provide the company with a fair opportunity to respond.\nCitations:\n•\nDewan Salman Fibre Limited v. Government of N.-W.F.P PLD 2004 SC 441.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15A,15B(3)", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.61, 62 and 63 cf. 2006, decision dated: 7-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN,\nSECP AND RASHID I. MALIK, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ARIF MIAN\nAhmed Bilal Kahlon for Appellants. \nImran Hayat Butt, Director, SECP for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEHMOOD AHMED, EX-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CRESCENT STANDARD BUSINESS MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD. AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\nARIF MIAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 239 = 2010 SLD 239 = 2010 CLD 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Act (IV of 1938), S.47(c)\nClaim Under Insurance Policy\nConclusion: The claimant was entitled to claim only up to the insured limit, and the claim above that amount was rejected.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe claimant’s policy covered up to Rs.500,000, but the claim exceeded this amount.\n•\nThe insurer was only liable to pay up to the covered limit.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Act, (IV of 1938)=47,47(c)", + "Case #": "M.A.No.26 of 1993, decision dated: 4-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ismail Memon for Appellants.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER \nVS \nMESSRS CAR CHASE THROUGH PARTNER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 240 = 2010 SLD 240 = 2010 CLD 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 196(4) & 208\nViolation in Share Transactions with Associated Companies\nConclusion: Directors were penalized for selling shares below market price without proper shareholder approval.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company sold shares to an associated company at a lower price than the market rate.\n•\nDirectors acted in their own interest, causing financial harm to the shareholders.\nCitations:", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196,196(4),208Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 10, 11,12,13 and 14 of 2008, decision dated: 30-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD) \nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Afzal Muniff, Farrukh Junaidy and Moin Khan for Appellants. \nAbid Hussain, Director (Enforcement) and Alshah Ali Raza, Deputy Director (Enforcement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAZI KULI KHAN KHATTAK AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMEN)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 241 = 2010 SLD 241 = 2010 CLD 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Ss. 36, 40 & 67\nTrademark Infringement\nConclusion: An interim injunction was granted to the plaintiff based on the similarity of trade marks.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant used a trademark similar to the plaintiff’s, leading to confusion in the market.\n•\nThe plaintiff was granted an injunction to prevent further infringement.\nCitations:\n•\nGhulam Nabi v. Khuda Bux PLD 1984 Kar. 245.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=36,40,67Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "Suit No.359 and C.M.A. No. 2100 of 2006, decision dated: 11-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Shazia Tasleem for Plaintiff. \nMunawar Ghani for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM MUJTABA PARACHA\nVS\nMUHAMMAD SALEEM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 242 = 2010 SLD 242 = 2010 CLD 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), S.3\nDelivery of Goods in Unsealed Condition\nConclusion: The shipping company was liable to prove that it delivered the correct goods.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe shipping company failed to provide proof that the goods delivered matched what was received in an unsealed condition.\nCitations:\n•\nTrans Ocean Asia v. Alpha Insurance Company Ltd. 1981 CLC 1028.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Carriage of Goods By Sea Act, 1925=3", + "Case #": "Revision Application No.92 of 2006 decided on 4-12-2009, hearing DATE : 6-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Ahmed for Applicants. \nJamil Ahmad for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GMS LINES CO. LTD. THROUGH --Applicant NO.2 ANOTHER \nVS \nMESSRS ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 243 = 2010 SLD 243 = 2010 CLD 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 196(4) & 208(3)\nUnauthorized Share Transaction\nConclusion: Penalty imposed for violation of share transaction regulations, despite subsequent attempts to rectify the action.\nReasoning:\n•\nDirectors sold shares below market price, and while the violation was later rectified, the initial breach was still penalized.\nCitations:\n•\nPakistan Industrial Promotors Limited v. Monopoly Control Authority 1990 CLC 1008.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196,196(4),208(3)Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=34", + "Case #": "Commercial Appeal No.8 of 2009 decided on 31st December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jewed Hassan for the Appellants", + "Petitioner Name:": "LT. GEN.(RETD.) ALI KULI KHAN KHATTAK, CHAIRMAN, GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD. KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS\nVS \nAPPELLATE BENCH NO.II, , ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 244 = 2010 SLD 244 = 2010 CLD 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 18 & 22\nFailure to Properly Disclose Financial Information\nConclusion: A penalty was imposed on the bank for mishandling the release of financial information.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe bank released price-sensitive information, causing market volatility before notifying the Karachi Stock Exchange.\n•\nDespite a lenient fine, the bank’s actions were deemed improper.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18,22Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.47 of 2009, decision dated: 24-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (ID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmed Nasir; Muhammad Ejaz-ud-Din, Kumail Dehradunwala and Abdul Sattar Vaid for Appellant. Imran Inayat Butt in Demon and Muhammad Atif Hameed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LTD. \nVS \nDIRECTOR (SKID)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 245 = 2010 SLD 245 = 2010 CLD 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 11(1) (c), 36, 63 & 156\nFailure to Meet Solvency Requirements\nConclusion: Penalty imposed for failing to maintain the minimum solvency requirement.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to meet the required solvency level but eventually took corrective measures.\n•\nThe penalty was waived in light of the company’s efforts to comply.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 2004 SC 441.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=11(1)(c),36,63,156Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.50 of 2009, decision dated: 23rd December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (ID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED INSURERS LTD. KARACHI\nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 246 = 2010 SLD 246 = 2010 CLD 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 6(10) & 157(1)\nProviding False Information\nConclusion: The case was remanded due to procedural irregularities in the penalty imposition.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company provided false information about its parent company during registration, leading to the penalty.\n•\nThe penalty was reviewed due to jurisdictional issues, and the case was sent back for further examination.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=6,6(10),157(1)Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.58 of 2009, decision dated: 23rd December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD) \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad for the Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASIA CARE HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY \nVS \nDIRECTOR (INSURANCE)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 247 = 2010 SLD 247 = 2010 CLD 386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 158 & 245\nFailure to Hold AGM and Submit Quarterly Reports\nConclusion: Penalties imposed for failing to meet statutory requirements regarding AGM and quarterly reports.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to hold its AGM and submit quarterly reports.\n•\nThe penalties were upheld despite the company's explanation of staffing issues.\nCitations:\n•\n1999 SCMR 1326.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158,245Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.76 and 77 of 2006, decision dated: 23rd December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD) \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafiq Ahmed for the Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHEERUDDIN AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nDIRECTOR (NBFC DEPARTMENT) AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 248 = 2010 SLD 248 = 2010 CLD 390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rr. 8 & 12\nFraudulent Share Transactions\nConclusion: The company’s membership was suspended for failure to respond to show-cause notices.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to address allegations of fraudulent share transactions and did not respond to multiple hearing opportunities.\n•\nThe company’s membership was suspended for its failure to comply with regulatory requirements.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=R-12,8,12", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.LSE/SMD/84/2008 dated April 28, 2009 decided on 11-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SHAUKAT HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ICW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE NO.LSE/SMD/84/2008, DATED APRIL 28, 2009" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 249 = 2010 SLD 249 = 2010 CLD 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.22\nExecution of Blank Sales\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed on the company for executing blank sales.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company executed trades on behalf of clients without pre-existing interest in violation of regulations.\n•\nThe company failed to monitor these activities and inform the Karachi Stock Exchange of the errors.\n•\nDespite the serious violation, the penalty imposed was Rs.100,000, and the company was directed to comply with all future regulations.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. 1(07)BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2009/62 dated November 19, 2009, decision dated: 31st December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE NO.1 (07)BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2009/62dated November 19, 2009" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 250 = 2010 SLD 250 = 2010 CLD 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.15(A)(E)\nInsider Trading by Company Associate\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.357,592 was imposed on the individual for insider trading.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe individual used inside information from their official position to trade in shares at an advantage.\n•\nThe individual was penalized for violating insider trading regulations.\n•\nThe penalty was equivalent to the gains made from the illicit trading activity.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15,15(A)(E)", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.1(4)/INV/MSW/SMD/2009/05 dated September 25, 2009, decision dated: 9-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE NO.1(4)/INV/ MSW/SMD/2009/05 DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2009" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 323 = 2008 SLD 323 = 2008 CLD 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.21 & Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rr.8 & 12\nViolation of Regulations on Blank Sales\nConclusion: No punitive action was taken, and the company was advised to comply with regulations.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company was found to have executed several blank sales due to errors, but no market manipulation was evident.\n•\nThe company showed willingness to cooperate, and no penalty was imposed, but caution was issued to ensure future compliance.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=21Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=29(2)", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/100/07, dated 1st August, 2007, decision dated: 12-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: MUNAF SATTAR, SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 324 = 2008 SLD 324 = 2008 CLD 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 5-A, 18 & 22\nContravention of the Code of Conduct\nConclusion: A penalty was imposed on the company for contravening regulations and providing false information.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company allowed an unauthorized person to engage in trading on behalf of clients, violating regulations.\n•\nThe company and its CEO were found to have made false statements to the Commission.\n•\nA penalty of Rs.5,000,000 was imposed, and the company was required to settle complaints.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18,5A,18,22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/IU-KHI(619)/2007 dated 20-08-2007, decision dated: 5-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: ZAFAR MOTI CAPITAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. (\"\"ZMCS\"\") and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 325 = 2008 SLD 325 = 2008 CLD 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208, 254, 473 & 476\nInvestment in Associated Companies\nConclusion: Penalties imposed on the company’s management for violating the Companies Ordinance.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company's management made transactions with associated companies without complying with mandatory provisions.\n•\nThe violation was considered deliberate, and a penalty of Rs.1.4 million was imposed on the directors.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208,254,473,476Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20(6)", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/596/2002/7456-7463, dated 15-07-2007, decision dated: 24-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: SEARLE PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 326 = 2008 SLD 326 = 2008 CLD 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.55 & Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.15\nContract for Supply of Machine\nConclusion: Plaintiff was entitled to a reasonable amount of damages due to defective machinery.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe plaintiff failed to prove the full extent of loss caused by the defective machine, but a reasonable damage amount was awarded.\n•\nThe suit for specific performance was not maintainable, and damages of Rs.5,00,000 were awarded.\nCitations:\n•\nSandoz Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 SCMR 1431; Ghulam Nabi v. Seth Muhammad Yaqub PLD 1983 SC 344.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=55", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.167 of 2007, decision dated: 12-10-2007, hearing DATE : 24-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nSYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Sarfraz-ul-Hassan for Appellants.\nShahid Karim for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIR MUHAMMAD ASLAM THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nBILQEES BEGUM THROUGH GENERAL ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 327 = 2008 SLD 327 = 2008 CLD 48", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.40(3) & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)\nSetting Aside a Decree Due to Misrepresentation\nConclusion: The decree was not set aside as the company failed to prove that summons were not properly served.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to show evidence that the summons were not served correctly.\n•\nNo fraud or misrepresentation was established, so the decree was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=40,40(3)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12(2),O.V,Rr.10,12,13", + "Case #": "J. M. No.20 of 2004, decision dated: 18-10-2007, hearing DATE : 24th September; 2007", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. A. Rasheed for Applicant.\nAmjad Ali Sahito for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NAJMA SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nSALEEM KHAN AND others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 328 = 2008 SLD 328 = 2008 CLD 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Ss. 79 & 80\nDishonoured Cheque\nConclusion: The plaintiff was granted a decree for the dishonoured cheque, including interest.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant did not contest the dishonouring of the cheque, leading to the presumption that the cheque was issued against consideration.\n•\nThe suit was decreed with interest as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881=79,80Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXVII,Rr.2,3,S.34", + "Case #": "Suit No.942 of 2005, decision dated: 24-10-2007, hearing DATE : 11-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wajahat Abbas for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED AIJAZ HUSSAIN\nVS \nSYED ABDUL AZEEM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 329 = 2008 SLD 329 = 2008 CLD 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), Ss. 39 & 40\nTrademark Infringement\nConclusion: The plaintiff was granted an injunction due to infringement of their registered trademark.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant used the plaintiff's registered trademark without consent, leading to confusion in the marketplace.\n•\nThe court granted the plaintiff an interim injunction.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Select Sports A.S. Co. v. Messrs Tempo Enterprises PLD 1998 Lah. 69.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=39,40", + "Case #": "Suit No.772 of 2004, decision dated: 1st October, 2007, hearing DATE : 18-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Amna Salman for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "WRANGLER APPAREL CORPORATION THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \nAXFOR GARMENTS THROUGH PROPRIETOR/MANAGER/PARTNERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 330 = 2008 SLD 330 = 2008 CLD 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.III, R.1 & O.XXIX, R.1\nCompetence of Suit Filed by Company\nConclusion: The suit was dismissed as the Chairman did not have clear authorization to file it on behalf of the company.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe Chairman’s authority to file the suit was not properly evidenced, leading to the dismissal of the case.\nCitations:\n•\nKhan Iftikhar Hussain Khan v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Limited PLD 1971 S.C. 550.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-1,O.III,R.1,O.XXIX,R.1", + "Case #": "Suit No.510 of 1999, decision dated: 17-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bilal A. Khawaja for Plaintiff. \nDr. Farogh Naseem along with Sardar M Ajaz Khan for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ECHO WEST INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nPAKLAND CEMENT LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 331 = 2008 SLD 331 = 2008 CLD 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000), Ss. 7 & 8\nInfringement of Registered Design\nConclusion: The plaintiff was granted an interim injunction for infringement of their registered design.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant copied the plaintiff’s registered design, which was likely to confuse customers.\n•\nThe plaintiff proved a prima facie case for the injunction.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Select Sports A.S. Co. v. Messrs Tempo Enterprises PLD 1998 Lah. 69.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.983 and C.M.A. No.6910 of 2007, decision dated: 2-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Waheed for Plaintiffs.\nNemo for Defendant", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TEAM NAYYER (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER \nVS \nTARIQ AHMED SULTANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 332 = 2008 SLD 332 = 2008 CLD 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.498 & Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962), Ss. 66 & 67\nPre-arrest Bail Refusal in Trademark Infringement\nConclusion: Pre-arrest bail was recalled as the accused was found prima facie guilty of infringing a registered trademark.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe accused was directly involved in producing ink under a trademark similar to the complainant’s, leading to the rejection of bail.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=498Copyrights Ordinance, 1962=6667", + "Case #": "Crl. Miscellaneous No.8511-B of 2007, decision dated: 26-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Saeed-ud-Din Ahmad for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Shakil Abid for the Complainant.\nMuhammad Sharif, S.-I., with Record", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM MUSTAFA \nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 333 = 2008 SLD 333 = 2008 CLD 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000), Ss. 2, 10 & 25\nCancellation of Registered Design\nConclusion: The case was remanded for further evidence to resolve the ownership dispute of the design.\nReasoning:\n•\nBoth parties failed to provide clear evidence of ownership, and the case was remanded for a full hearing and evidence submission.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Registered LayoutDesigns of Integrated Circuits Ordinance, 2000=2,10,25", + "Case #": "J.M. No.36 of 2003, decision dated: 10-08-2006, hearing DATE : 5-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid Anwar for Applicant.\nAbdul Rehman for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THAL JUTE MILLS LTD.\nVS \nNAJEEB NAWER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 334 = 2008 SLD 334 = 2008 CLD 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 2(viii)(a) & 25-A\nClosure of Mills and Worker Claims\nConclusion: The new company owner was not responsible for the workers' claims from the previous owners.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company that bought the mills was not liable for the workers' claims as the acquisition was free from liabilities.\n•\nThe grievance petition was dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=2,2(viii)(a),25A", + "Case #": "hearing DATE : 4-09-2007Constitutional Petitions Nos. 236-K to 289-K of 2007, decision dated: 4-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rafique Ahmed. Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Mazher Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. \nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AZHAR AND OTHERS \nVS \nMESSRS UNITED TEXTILE MILLS THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 335 = 2008 SLD 335 = 2008 CLD 120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002, Regln. 4 & Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R.8\nBlank Sales and Missing Account Forms\nConclusion: Caution was issued to the company, and no punitive action was taken.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company was found to have made blank sales and failed to maintain proper records, but a lenient view was taken.\n•\nThe company was instructed to comply fully with regulations moving forward.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/95/07, dated 31st July; 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZIZ FIDA HUSSAIN & COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 336 = 2008 SLD 336 = 2008 CLD 126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 246 & 476\nFailure to Transmit Notices of Extraordinary General Meetings\nConclusion: A minimal penalty was imposed for failure to transmit notices to the SECP.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to transmit notices for Extraordinary General Meetings, but the shareholders received the notices on time.\n•\nA fine of Rs.5,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive and Company Secretary.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=246,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/340/2006, dated 13-09-2007, decision dated: 24-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 337 = 2008 SLD 337 = 2008 CLD 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002, Regln. 4 & Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rr. 8, 12 & Third Schedule\nBlank Sales and Regulatory Violations\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed for violations, including blank sales and improper record-keeping.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company committed several violations, including making blank sales, not maintaining order registers, and failing to send balance statements.\n•\nPenalties were imposed for each violation, but a lenient view was taken due to practical difficulties.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/1019/07, dated 3rd August, 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Baharutullah Khan M.D. and Asadullah Khan, Director", + "Petitioner Name:": "ORIENTAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 338 = 2008 SLD 338 = 2008 CLD 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 125 & 128\nBreach of Contract for Machine Supply\nConclusion: Plaintiff was awarded damages for non-functioning machine, despite lacking full evidence.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe machine provided did not meet specifications, and while the plaintiff failed to provide full evidence of losses, a reasonable amount was awarded.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=125,128", + "Case #": "Suit No.672 of 1991, decision dated: 27-04-2007. dates of hearing: 21st November, 2006 and 10-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.I. H. Zaidi for Plaintiff. \nUsman Sheikh for Defendant No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nVS \nMESSRS LONGCLOSE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 339 = 2008 SLD 339 = 2008 CLD 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Principles\nJurisdiction and Court Orders\nConclusion: The court must decide its jurisdiction at the start of proceedings.\nReasoning:\n•\nCourts cannot assume jurisdiction with the consent of the parties; any defect in jurisdiction makes the proceedings illegal.\n•\nJurisdictional defects cannot be cured by the conclusion of the trial.\nCitations:\n•\nRashid Ahmed v. State PLD 1972 SC 271.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=2", + "Case #": "C.P.L.As. Nos.488-K and 489-K of 2006, decision dated: 17-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in Person (in C.P. No. 488 of 2006).\nIzhar Alam Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 489 of 2006). Wasim Sajjad, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "IZHAR ALAM FAROOQI, ADVOCATE AND ANOTHER \nVS\nSHEIKH ABDUL SATTAR LASI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 340 = 2008 SLD 340 = 2008 CLD 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1981), S.39\nOwnership and Mortgaged Property\nConclusion: The attached property was released as it was not part of the mortgage.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe bank failed to prove that the attached property was part of the secured loan, so the objector’s claim was accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nMian M. Rafiq Saigol v. Trust Modaraba 2003 CLD 646.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1981)=39Transfer of Property Act, 1882=100", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 193 of 1996 and C.M.A. No.252 of 2007, decision dated: 30-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Hamid for Petitioner.\nAbid Akram for Objector", + "Petitioner Name:": "I. D. B. P.\nVS\nAOKI (PVT.) LTD, AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 341 = 2008 SLD 341 = 2008 CLD 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002, Regln. 4 & Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rr. 8, 12 & Third Schedule\nBlank Sales and Regulatory Violations\nConclusion: Penalty imposed for blank sales and violations of order-keeping requirements.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company violated regulations regarding blank sales and failed to maintain proper records.\n•\nPenalties were imposed, but a lenient view was taken on the record-keeping violations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depositories Act, 1997=2Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,12,ThirdSchedule", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/ 103/07, dated 3rd August, 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHORYS SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 352 = 2008 SLD 352 = 2008 CLD 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002--Regln. 4---Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001,\nRr. 8, 12 & Third Schedule---Making blank sales in violation of Regulations---Imposition of penalty---Regln. 4 of Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002, prohibited blank sales, whereas findings of the Enquiry Officer had revealed 750 instances of blank sales during the review period---Brokerage house was obliged to ensure compliance with all applicable rules and regulations and appropriate internal control should prevent a customer from making a sale without holding pre-existing interest---Contention raised on part of the company that blank sales were made due to the negligence of the employees or that a customer undertook to deliver securities at the time of sale and later squared up his position, could not be accepted---Brokerage House had been established to have made blank sales on 750 occasions in violation of Regln.4 of Central . Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002---Rule 8 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 mandated that where Securities and Exchange Commission was of the opinion that a broker had failed to comply with any requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 or Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 or any rules and directions or had failed to follow any requirements of the Code of Conduct laid down in the Third Schedule of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, it could, in the public interest take action under Rule 8(a) or (b) of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001---Company having violated Rules and Regulations--by making blank sales, penalty of Rs.75,000 was imposed on the company, in circumstances. \n \n(b) Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971---\n \n----R.4(1)---Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R.8---Failure to maintain order register---Rule 4(1) of Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971, provided that all orders to buy or sell securities which a member could receive, would be entered in the chronological order, in a register to be maintained by him in a form showing the name and address of the person who placed the order---Findings of the Enquiry Officer had revealed that said register was not maintained by the company during the review period-Order book as mentioned by the company was not a substitute for the order register as required under R.4(1) of Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971---Commission, however was cognizant of the practical difficulties associated with the maintenance of said order register manually----Taking lenient view of the matter, no punitive action was taken against the company under R.8 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 and a caution was considered sufficient---Company was directed to ensure that full compliance was made of all the regulations in future for avoiding any punitive action under the law. \n \n(c) Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971---\n \n---R.8(1)(g)---Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R.8--- Failure to maintain books of account etc.---Imposition of penalty---Rule 8(1)(g) of Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971, provided that every member would prepare and maintain books of account and other documents in a manner that would disclose a true, accurate and up-to-date position of the business, namely duplicate or counterfoils of memos of confirmation issued to customers---Findings of the Enquiry Officer had revealed that duplicates or counterfoils of memos of confirmation issued to customers were not maintained by the broker---Company having violated the requirements of R.8(1)(g) of Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971 attracting R.8(1) of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, penalty of Rs.1000 was imposed on the company. \n \n(d) Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002---\n \n----Regnl. 6.2A-1---Central Depositories Act (XIX of 1997), S.28---Failure to send C.D.C. balance statements---Regulation 6.2.A-1 of Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002, provided that every participant would send by the 10th day of event' month to all sub-account holders balance statements showing the number of every book entry, securities entered in every such sub-account as of the end of the preceding month---Findings of the Enquiry Officer had revealed that the company did not have a practice to send said C.D.C. balance statements to all of its customers by the 10th of each month---C.D.C. 'position as offering in the back office record of the company, could not be a substitute of C.D.C. balance statement---Considering the practical difficulties in sending the C.D.C. balance statements to all the clients of the company, lenient view of the matter was taken---Instead of taking any punitive action under S.28 of Central Depositories Act, 1997, a direction was issued to the company to ensure that full compliance would be made of all the rules and regulations in future for avoiding punitive action under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,12,ThirdSchedule", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/116/07, dated 16-08-2007, decision dated: 30-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIRST PAKISTAN SECURITIES LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 353 = 2008 SLD 353 = 2008 CLD 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 25-C & 155-H & Freedom of Information Ordinance (XCVI of 2002)\nDisclosure of Information Related to Under-Invoicing\nConclusion: The court held that Customs Authorities must disclose certain import-related information to an interested person.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe objective of S.25-C of the Customs Act is to detect under-invoicing, and withholding such information would undermine this goal.\n•\nInformation such as description, quantity, quality, and value of imported goods should be accessible to parties interested in making offers under S.25-C.\n•\nThe Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002 supports the disclosure of public information, except where exceptions under Ss. 8 & 15 apply, which do not apply here.\n•\nThe Customs Authorities were bound to disclose the relevant information as it aids in preventing under-invoicing.\nCitations:\n•\nKashif Naseem v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2007 PTD 2250.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25C,155-HFreedom of Information Ordinance, 2002=3,8,15", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2326 of 2006, heard on 11-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haseeb Jamali for Petitioner.\nRizwan Ahmed Siddiqi, D.A.G., Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi and Ghulam Ahmed Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUS BATTERY INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 354 = 2008 SLD 354 = 2008 CLD 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) & Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)\nLegal Notice for Disparaging Advertisement\nConclusion: Plaintiff's injunction application was dismissed, and the defendant's legal notice was upheld.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant's advertisement was deemed to disparage the plaintiff's product by suggesting it was harmful to health.\n•\nThe legal notice issued by the defendant was valid, and the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction since it had not demonstrated irreparable harm.\n•\nThe defendant's actions were in line with the law to protect its trademark rights.\nCitations:\n•\nPrince PLC v. Prince Sports Group Inc. (1998) FSR Volume 25; Muhammad v. Bism Nath AIR 1928 All. 316.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=52,52(2)(b),2(6),68Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)=8,4Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2Copyrights Ordinance, 1962=56", + "Case #": "C.M.As. Nos.9084, 8633, 9946, 10085, 10086, 10087, 10088, 10089, 10090, 10091 and 10157 of 2007 in Suit No.1339 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd January, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Saeed for Plaintiff.\nZahid Jamil for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HUB PAK SALT REFINERY THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED PARTNER \nVS\nNATIONAL FOODS (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 355 = 2008 SLD 355 = 2008 CLD 214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 305 & 314(2)\nPetition for Winding Up of Company\nConclusion: The petition for winding up was dismissed, and the company was not considered insolvent.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe dispute arose from a share purchase agreement where the petitioner claimed non-payment by the company.\n•\nThe company disputed its liability to pay and was financially sound, as evidenced by its issuance of rights shares.\n•\nArbitration was seen as an available remedy for the petitioner, thus making the winding-up petition inappropriate.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Glorex Textile Ltd. v. Messrs Investment Corporation of Pakistan 1999 SCMR 1850.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,314(2)", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No.15 of 2007, decision dated: 24-10-2007, hearing DATE : 3rd October, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Petitioner.\nShaiq Usmani for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HUMERA ABDUL AZIZ ESSA \nVS \nALABBAS CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 356 = 2008 SLD 356 = 2008 CLD 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) & Brokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001)\nBlank Sales and Regulatory Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed on the company for violations related to blank sales.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company made 16 blank sales in violation of regulations.\n•\nHowever, the company showed pre-existing interest for most of the instances, and a lenient view was taken.\n•\nThe company was also found to have violated regulations related to opening sub-accounts and sending balance statements, but no punitive action was taken beyond a caution.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,12,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/101/07, dated 1st August, 2007, decision dated: 26-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Thaplawala, Finance Manager", + "Petitioner Name:": "STANDARD CAPITAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 357 = 2008 SLD 357 = 2008 CLD 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Patents Ordinance (LXI of 2000) - Ss. 62, 61 & 60\nPermanent Injunction and Damages for Copying Design\nConclusion: The defendant was restrained from copying the plaintiff’s registered design.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant’s design closely resembled the plaintiff’s registered design.\n•\nAlthough minor differences were pointed out, they were not sufficient to eliminate the risk of public confusion.\n•\nThe plaintiff’s request for an injunction was granted due to the strong resemblance and the potential harm to the plaintiff’s business.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.495 and C.M.A. No.4185 of 2007, decision dated: 2-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Waheed for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TEAM NAWER (PVT.) LTD. \nVS\nKAMRAN JAMAL KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 358 = 2008 SLD 358 = 2008 CLD 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance (CIII of 2002)\nViolation of Takeover Regulations and Penalties\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed on the appellant and its directors for failing to comply with disclosure requirements under takeover laws.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe directors of the company acquired more than 25% shares in another company without making the necessary public disclosures.\n•\nThe penalty under S.5 was upheld, but the penalty under S.6 was set aside due to the lack of sufficient legal grounds.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares And Take-Overs) Ordinance, 2002=3,4,5,6,25Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20(4)(g),(6),(b),(g),33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.85 of 2006, decision dated: 31st May, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER \nSALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayebaly for Appellants. \nSyed Ahmad Hassan Shah, Advocate, Mr. Tariq Bakhtawar, Director SECP and Tariq Ahmed, Deputy Director SECP for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAIKH ABDUL WAHID, CHAIRMAN, AHMED SPINNING MILLS LTD. AND 7 OTHERS\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER (SMD AND CLD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 359 = 2008 SLD 359 = 2008 CLD 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.VII, R.11 & XXIX, R.1\nRejection of Plaint for Unauthorized Filing\nConclusion: The suit was rejected as it was not filed by an authorized person.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to provide evidence of a Board resolution or Articles of Association to prove that the suit was filed by someone authorized.\n•\nWithout this documentation, the suit was deemed invalid, and the plaint was rejected.\nCitations:\n•\nKhan Iftikhar Hussain Khan v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore PLD 1971 SC 550.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-11,O.VII,R.11&XXIX,R.1", + "Case #": "Suit No.353 of 2003 and C.M.A. No.2881 of 2007, decided 10-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ali Abbas Zaidi for Plaintiff.\nAbdul Karim Siddiqui for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "QAMRAN CONSTRUCTION (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nSALEEMULLAH AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 360 = 2008 SLD 360 = 2008 CLD 242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Reglns. 4 & 5\nBlank Sales and Regulatory Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed for violations involving short sales.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company made 18 instances of sales without marking them as short sales, violating regulations.\n•\nThe penalty was imposed for failing to identify trades as short sales, which violated the regulatory requirements.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4,5Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/110/07, dated 3rd August, 2007, decision dated: 30-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FDM CAPITAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 361 = 2008 SLD 361 = 2008 CLD 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4 & Brokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001)\nBlank Sales and Other Regulatory Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.75,000 was imposed on the company for violations of blank sales regulations and other record-keeping failures.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company was found to have made 616 blank sales in violation of regulations, and also failed to maintain proper order registers.\n•\nAdditionally, the company violated regulations by failing to send balance statements and keep appropriate sub-account records.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/96/07, dated 31st July, 2007, decision dated: 30-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MARS SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 362 = 2008 SLD 362 = 2008 CLD 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 208 & 476\nUnauthorized Investments and Guarantees\nConclusion: The company’s directors were fined Rs.4,50,000 for unauthorized investments and guarantees.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company violated S.208 of the Companies Ordinance by making an unauthorized investment and guarantee to a commercial bank.\n•\nThe directors admitted the violation but were granted leniency due to the company’s good track record.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/36/02, dated 10-10-2007, decision dated: 17-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 363 = 2008 SLD 363 = 2008 CLD 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4 & Brokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001)\nBlank Sales and Other Regulatory Violations\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed for blank sales, failure to maintain order registers, and violations related to sub-account entries.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company made 164 blank sales, and violations were found related to maintaining order registers and sub-account entries.\n•\nA Rs.75,000 penalty was imposed for blank sales violations, while leniency was granted for the other regulatory violations.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,Third,Sched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/118/07, dated 24-08-2007, decision dated: 30-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Munir M. Khanani, CEO", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR MUHAMMAD AHMAD KHANANI SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 364 = 2008 SLD 364 = 2008 CLD 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 227, 229 & 476\nFailure to Pay Provident Fund Contributions\nConclusion: Directors were fined Rs.15,000 for failing to make timely payments to the Provident Fund.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company’s directors failed to pay Provident Fund contributions within the required timeframe.\n•\nThe defense of liquidity issues was not accepted, and the directors were fined for not complying with statutory obligations.\nCitations:\n•\nNone provided in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227,229,476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/480/2003-1194-1201, dated 12-09-2007, decision dated: 8-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Petitioner Name:": "BAWANYAIR PRODUCTS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 365 = 2008 SLD 365 = 2008 CLD 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 10, 305 & 309\nWinding Up Application and Ex Parte Orders\nConclusion: The ex parte order for winding up was set aside and the petition was allowed to proceed on merits.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe ex parte order was set aside as the company’s counsel had a valid reason for arriving late.\n•\nNo prejudice was caused to the petitioners, and the case was directed to proceed on its merits.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1984 Kar. 541; 2005 SCMR 450.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10,305,309", + "Case #": "J.M. Application No.16 and C.M. A. No.1027 of 2006, decided 22-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "QAMMER-UD-DIN BHORA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Naqvi for Petitioner.\nRaghib Baqi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES \nVS \nMESSRS NOORIE TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 366 = 2008 SLD 366 = 2008 CLD 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4 & Brokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001)\nBlank Sales and Regulatory Violations\nConclusion: The company was fined Rs.75,000 for violating regulations related to blank sales and failure to maintain proper records.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company committed several violations, including making blank sales without marking them properly and failing to maintain accurate order records.\n•\nA Rs.75,000 penalty was imposed for the violations, but leniency was shown regarding other issues.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/97/07, dated 1st August, 2007, decision dated: 7-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES. MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "A.H.K.D. SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 367 = 2008 SLD 367 = 2008 CLD 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 305 & 309\nWinding Up of a Company Due to Suspension of Business\nConclusion: The company was authorized for winding up due to suspension of its business since 1995.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company had suspended its business for more than a year, and management showed no intention of reviving operations, with auditors issuing qualified reports for several years.\n•\nWinding up was necessary to distribute assets before the company became a shell under inefficient management.\n•\nThe Additional Registrar was authorized to file a petition for winding up in the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/359/2002/1297, dated 8-08-2003, decision dated: 15-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALEEM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 368 = 2008 SLD 368 = 2008 CLD 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nViolations of Blank Sales, Account Opening Forms, and Balance Statements\nConclusion: Several penalties were imposed for violations, including Rs.75,000 for blank sales.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe broker was found to have violated several regulations, including making 194 blank sales, failing to maintain an order register, and not sending balance statements by the 10th of each month.\n•\nPenalties were imposed for these violations, but some issues were resolved through caution, with the company required to comply with all regulations in the future.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,12,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/113/07, dated 27-09-2007, decision dated: 2-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "None on behalf of the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAIRTRADE CAPITAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. (FORMERLY MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADM): In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 369 = 2008 SLD 369 = 2008 CLD 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales and Account Record Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed for blank sales violations.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company made blank sales, but explanations were provided, some of which were not substantiated.\n•\nFailure to comply with regulations such as the maintenance of account records and sending balance statements led to penalties.\n•\nA lenient view was taken on some issues, with the company instructed to correct practices for future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,12,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/98/07, dated 1st August, 2007, decision dated: 2-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHERMAN SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 370 = 2008 SLD 370 = 2008 CLD 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 255, 260\nPenalty for Non-Compliance by Auditors\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.25,000 was imposed on the auditing company for failing to meet auditing standards.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe auditor failed to comply with International Accounting Standards and International Standards on Auditing in their audit of the company’s accounts.\n•\nThe auditor's report was deemed inadequate, and a penalty was imposed under S.260 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255,260,476,492", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/217/2002, dated 5-07-2007, decision dated: 15-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)\nMAHBOOB SHEIKH & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. In the matter of", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAHBOOB SHEIKH & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 371 = 2008 SLD 371 = 2008 CLD 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)\nExecution of Decree and Auction Sale\nConclusion: The court found the auction sale illegal as it was concluded below the reserve price.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe auction of property was finalized at a price lower than the reserve price set by the executing court, which lacked proper approval.\n•\nThe sale was deemed illegal, and the property was ordered to be re-auctioned in accordance with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9,19,22Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXI,Rr.66,90", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No.1 of 2003, decided 27-06-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SH., JAVAID SARFRAZ, JUSTICE\nUMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Sona and M. Shamsher Iqbal Chughtai for Appellant.\nCh. Muhammad Shafi Maye for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN \nVS \nMUHAMMAD BILAL AHMAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 372 = 2008 SLD 372 = 2008 CLD 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales, Order Register, and Compliance Violations\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed for several violations, including Rs.75,000 for blank sales and Rs.25,000 for failure to maintain order registers.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe broker made 446 blank sales and failed to maintain the required order register.\n•\nAdditional violations included failure to send timely balance statements and improper handling of securities.\n•\nPenalties were imposed, and a caution was given for some violations, with future compliance expected.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,12,Sched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/108/07, dated August 3, 2007, decision dated: 2-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "AL ASAR SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 373 = 2008 SLD 373 = 2008 CLD 331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 226, 473, 476\nNon-Compliance of Mandatory Directions by Company\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed for non-compliance with statutory directions.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to comply with certain directions given by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan regarding the handling of security deposits and submission of statutory auditor certificates.\n•\nA lenient penalty was imposed after the company assured future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=226,473,476,495", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Co.233/388/2002, dated March 1, 2007, decision dated: 20-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 374 = 2008 SLD 374 = 2008 CLD 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001) - R.8\nBlank Sales and Trade Modifications Violations\nConclusion: Penalties of Rs.25,000 and Rs.1,000 were imposed for blank sales and trade modifications violations.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company was found to have made blank sales and modified trades without proper documentation or justification.\n•\nPenalties were imposed for these violations, and a caution was issued for other issues like maintaining order registers.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=R-8,8,12,ThirdSchedCentral Depositories Act, 1997=28Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=21", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/93/07; dated 30-07-2007, decision dated: 7-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMZ SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 375 = 2008 SLD 375 = 2008 CLD 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Ss. 151, 152, 176\nSuit for Recovery of Shortage in Bailed Rice Stock\nConclusion: The plaintiff’s case was proved, and no further proof was required.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant admitted the shortage in rice during cross-examination.\n•\nThe bailee was found liable for the shortage, and the plaintiff’s suit for recovery was granted.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=132,133", + "Case #": "Suit No.572 of 1997, decision dated: 7-02-2008, hearing DATE : 27-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mamnoon Hassan for Plaintiff. \nAgha Faquir Muhammad and Agha Zafar for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nMESSRS ALI NOOR (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 376 = 2008 SLD 376 = 2008 CLD 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S.305\nPetition for Winding Up of Company Due to Insolvency\nConclusion: The petition for winding up was allowed as the company was unable to liquidate its liabilities.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to respond to notices or contest its financial insolvency.\n•\nThe petition for winding up was allowed based on the evidence of insolvency.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "C.O. No.55 of 2006, decision dated: 29-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muqtedir Akhtar Shabbir for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs IHSAN PROCESSING MILLS (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 377 = 2008 SLD 377 = 2008 CLD 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Ss. 2 & 148\nContract for Bailment of Rice and Loss of Stock\nConclusion: The bailee was liable for the loss due to failure to discharge the duty of care.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe bailee failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the risk of loss, making them liable for the missing rice.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Contract Act, 1872=2,148,151,152,176", + "Case #": "Suit No.563 of 1997, decision dated: 7-02-2008, hearing DATE : 27-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mamnoon Hassan for Plaintiff.\nAgha Faquir Muhammad and Agha Zafar for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nMESSRS S.R. INTERNATIONAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 378 = 2008 SLD 378 = 2008 CLD 429", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962) - S.41\nAppeal Against Copyright Board’s Decision\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed as no cause for interference was shown.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe appellant failed to provide sufficient grounds for revisiting the Copyright Board's decision.\n•\nThe appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was advised to approach the competent forum for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Copyrights Ordinance, 1962=41Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=104", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.34 of 1997, decision dated: 23rd August, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWEZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed Iqbal for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERGRA TRADE AND MARKETING \nVS \nINTERNATIONAL TRADE AND MARKETING" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 379 = 2008 SLD 379 = 2008 CLD 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.VII, R.2\nRecovery of Misappropriated Rice by Defendant\nConclusion: The plaintiff’s suit was decreed for Rs.7,52,57,276.51.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant failed to contest the allegations of misappropriating rice from the plaintiff’s godown.\n•\nThe court accepted the plaintiff’s version and awarded the claimed amount along with interest.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=R-2,O.VII,R.2", + "Case #": "Suit No.495 of 2007, decision dated: 24-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "NAVEED HUSSAIN SHAH\nAshfaq Hussain for Plaintiff", + "Petitioner Name:": "RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN \nVS\nNAVEED HUSSAIN SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 380 = 2008 SLD 380 = 2008 CLD 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales and Violations of Customer Securities Management\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed for blank sales, failure to maintain order registers, and mishandling customer securities.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company was penalized for blank sales, failing to maintain order registers, and mishandling customers' securities by violating regulations.\n•\nPenalties were imposed with leniency on some violations, and corrective actions were mandated for future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/106/07, dated 3rd August, 2007, decision dated: 31st October, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Furqan Hanif, Director and Shoaib Chamdia, Internal Auditor", + "Petitioner Name:": "ISMAIL ABDUL SHAKOOR SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 381 = 2008 SLD 381 = 2008 CLD 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S.305(c)\nSuspension of Company’s Business\nConclusion: Mere losses would not justify winding up; the company must show no hope for recovery.\nReasoning:\n•\nA company making investments and attempting recovery is not considered suspended despite losses.\n•\nA winding-up order would only be justified if there is no prospect of business recovery.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,305(c)", + "Case #": "C.O. No.3/L of 2006, decision dated: 26-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Safdar Imam Bokhri and Riaz Hussain Sial for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JOINT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES \nVS \nSH. FAZAL REHMAN & SONS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 382 = 2008 SLD 382 = 2008 CLD 469", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Import Policy Order, 2005 - Item. 19\nImport of Banned Items and Interim Injunction\nConclusion: The plaintiff was granted a No Objection Certificate to import empty shotgun cases.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe authorities’ refusal to grant import permission was deemed unreasonable, as the exception for importing ammunition could apply to the empty cases.\n•\nThe plaintiff’s case for interim injunction was granted.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Import Policy Order, 2005=19Specific Relief Act, 1877=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2", + "Case #": "C.M.A. No.8947 of 2008 in Suit No.1386 of 2007, decision dated: 20-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Applicant. \nMrs. Sofia Saeed Shah, Standing Counsel for Defendant No. 1, along with Umardad Afridi, Section Officer (Import) of Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "GENERAL TRADERS AND AMMUNITION MANUFACTURERS LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 383 = 2008 SLD 383 = 2008 CLD 475", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S.319\nSuspension of Winding Up Order\nConclusion: The winding up order was suspended, with conditions for company revival.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company had assets and could revive its business.\n•\nA suspension of the winding-up order was granted with conditions to safeguard creditor interests.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=319", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous Application No.54 of 2003 and C.M.A. No.209 of 2007, decision dated: 20-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Aamir Naqvi for Petitioner and Applicant.\nMushtaq A. Memon along with Shahid Ali Ansari for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, \nVS \nMESSRS SCHON TEXTILE LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 384 = 2008 SLD 384 = 2008 CLD 492", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925) - S.6\nCarrier's Responsibility for Goods Delivery\nConclusion: The carrier must ensure goods are delivered properly even if the consignee fails to collect.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe carrier must notify the consignee and follow local regulations if goods are not collected.\n•\nThe carrier remains responsible for ensuring the goods are properly delivered.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Carriage of Goods By Sea Act, 1925=6,Sched3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Appeal No. 4 of 2007, decision dated: 7-03-2008, hearing DATE : 5-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nSYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem for Appellant.\nNisar A. Mujahid for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA (NYK) LINES \nVS \nMESSRS MSC TEXTILES (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 385 = 2008 SLD 385 = 2008 CLD 509", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Reglns. 2, 4 & 5\nViolations of Short Sales and Client Account Management\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed for making illegal short sales and violating customer account handling rules.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to meet the prescribed criteria for short sales and mishandled customer securities.\n•\nPenalties were imposed for non-compliance with regulations, with caution on certain violations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=2,4,5Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/104/07, dated 3rd August, 2007, decision dated: 2-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Y.H. SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 386 = 2008 SLD 386 = 2008 CLD 522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S.205\nWinding Up of Leasing Company\nConclusion: Winding up of the leasing company was accepted due to its insolvency.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to raise equity, had minimal leasing income, and was unable to merge due to negative equity.\n•\nThe High Court accepted the winding-up petition based on the company’s financial situation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=205", + "Case #": "J.M. No.3 of 2006, decision dated: 15-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Afsheen Aman for Petitioner.\nKhalid Mehmood Siddiqui for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERASIA LEASING COMPANY LIMITED \nVS \nBANKERS EQUITY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 387 = 2008 SLD 387 = 2008 CLD 526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Reglns. 2, 4 & 5\nViolations of Blank Sales and Account Handling Regulations\nConclusion: Significant penalties were imposed for multiple violations, including blank sales and improper handling of accounts.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company violated several regulations related to blank sales, client account handling, and reporting.\n•\nPenalties were imposed with caution for some issues, and future compliance was mandated.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=R-8,8,12,Sched.Third", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/120/07, dated 31st August, 2007, decision dated: 16-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ISMAIL IQBAL SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 388 = 2008 SLD 388 = 2008 CLD 539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.75,000 was imposed on the company for blank sales violations.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company made 387 instances of blank sales despite claiming they were due to customer purchases.\n•\nThe company failed to meet the pre-requisites for a valid sale, and the violations were deemed serious.\n•\nA penalty was imposed in line with the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules.\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001) - R.8\nTrade Modifications and Account Opening Issues\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed for trade modifications, and no action was taken for minor account opening errors.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company was penalized for incorrect trade assignments to clients.\n•\nWhile errors involving minor accounts were corrected, the company was cautioned to comply with regulations.\nSecurities and Exchange Rules (1971) - R.4(1)\nFailure to Maintain Order Register\nConclusion: A caution was issued instead of a penalty.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to maintain the required order register but presented a reasonable explanation, leading to leniency.\nCentral Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 2.11.1\nCustomer Securities Held in House Account\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.25,000 was imposed.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company kept customer securities in a house account, violating the Central Depository Regulations.\n•\nThis practice was not acceptable as it resulted in a change in ownership.\nCentral Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 6.2-A.1\nFailure to Send Balance Statements\nConclusion: No punitive action was taken; the company was cautioned.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to meet the requirement of sending balance statements but had a regular practice of providing them through courier.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8,ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/124/07, dated 22nd, October 2007, decision dated: 14-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERMARKET SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 389 = 2008 SLD 389 = 2008 CLD 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales Violations\nConclusion: No penalty was imposed due to satisfactory evidence.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company provided evidence that the 41 instances were not blank sales, and the issue was resolved without further action.\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001) - R.8\nNon-Availability of Account Opening Forms\nConclusion: A caution was issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company had missing account opening forms for some clients but showed corrective actions.\nCentral Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 2.11.1\nFailure to Open Sub-Accounts\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.25,000 was imposed.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to open sub-accounts for customers, violating regulations and resulting in the penalty.\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001) - R.8\nChange in Trades Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.1,000 was imposed.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to ensure accurate trade assignments, resulting in a small penalty.\nSecurities and Exchange Rules (1971) - R.4(1)\nFailure to Maintain Order Register\nConclusion: A caution was issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company did not maintain an order register but explained the practical difficulties and was cautioned.\nCentral Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 6.2-A.1\nFailure to Send C.D.C. Balance Statements\nConclusion: A caution was issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to meet the regulation but took corrective measures, and no penalty was imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/122/07, dated 31st August 2007, decision dated: 14-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "EASTERN CAPITAL LIMITED: In the matter of Show-Cause Notice" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 390 = 2008 SLD 390 = 2008 CLD 563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 88, 305 & 309\nViolation of Deposit Collection Regulations\nConclusion: The company was ordered to be wound up due to its illegal activities.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company violated regulations by collecting deposits from the public in violation of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nNo defense was presented, and the court ordered winding up.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,88,305,309Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=27A", + "Case #": "J.M. No.41 of 2003, decision dated: 21st January, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Rasheed for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES \nVS\nWHITE HOUSE SECURITY (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "5991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 391 = 2008 SLD 391 = 2008 CLD 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) - Ss. 9 & 15\nRecovery of Amount\nConclusion: The decree was adjusted to reflect the maximum liability paid.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe decree was ordered to be adjusted to the maximum liability of the defendant, as the outstanding amounts were paid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "Suit No.694 of 2001, heard on 11-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rauf, Nasir Maqsood and Mukhtair Ahmed Kober for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH COMMANDER \nVS \nNATIONAL INSURANCE CORP. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTORS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 392 = 2008 SLD 392 = 2008 CLD 572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S.309\nPetition for Winding Up with Compromise\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed as the parties had reached a compromise.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe dispute was amicably resolved with a payment made to the petitioner, and no further claim was made.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=309", + "Case #": "J.M.No.27 of 2004, decision dated: 6-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawar Hussain for Petitioner.\nZiaul Haq Makhdoom for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZMEEN SHAFI \nVS \nSINDH TRAVEL SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 393 = 2008 SLD 393 = 2008 CLD 573", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Travel Agencies Act (XXX of 1976) - S.4\nRefusal of License Due to Name Similarity\nConclusion: The refusal was discriminatory, and the license was ordered to be issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe authorities’ refusal to grant a license due to name similarity violated the equality principle of the Constitution, and the petition was allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9107 of 2007, decision dated: 7-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nisar Ahmad for Petitioner. \nSyed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, Deputy Attorney General for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAHMOOD ALI MALIK \nVS \nDEPUTY CONTROLLER, DEPARTMENT OF TOURIST SERVICES AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 394 = 2008 SLD 394 = 2008 CLD 614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to meet the prerequisites for valid sales, and 2,060 instances were deemed blank sales.\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001) - R.8\nNon-Compliance with Account Opening Forms\nConclusion: A caution was issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to maintain complete account opening forms but showed corrective action.\nSecurities and Exchange Rules (1971) - R.4(1)\nFailure to Maintain Order Register\nConclusion: A caution was issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company did not maintain the required order register but explained the challenges involved.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/115/07 dated August 16th, 2007, decision dated: 17-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIRST NATIONAL EQUITIES LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 395 = 2008 SLD 395 = 2008 CLD 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 233, 244, 245 & 476\nImproper Issuance of Balance Sheet\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.5,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive of the company.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to comply with statutory requirements for submitting complete balance sheets.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=233", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/384/2002-2586, dated January 18, 2008, decision dated: 25-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSTEHKAM CEMENT LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 396 = 2008 SLD 396 = 2008 CLD 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company made 6,013 blank sales, and while some claims were made, insufficient evidence was provided for the rest.\nSecurities and Exchange Rules (1971) - R.4(1)\nFailure to Maintain Order Register\nConclusion: A caution was issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to maintain an order register but provided explanations, leading to leniency.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/119/07/ dated August 24th, 2007, decision dated: 26-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "BAWA SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 397 = 2008 SLD 397 = 2008 CLD 639", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company violated regulations by making 2,010 blank sales without providing adequate evidence for correction.\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001) - R.8\nNon-Compliance with Order Register and Trade Records\nConclusion: A caution was issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nDespite failures to maintain order registers and trade records, the company took corrective actions.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/123/07, dated 10th, October 2007, decision dated: 22-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MOTIWALA SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 398 = 2008 SLD 398 = 2008 CLD 648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.50,000 was imposed.\nReasoning:\n•\n126 blank sales were found, and despite claims, no evidence was provided to justify them.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/,SCN/102/07, dated 1st August, 2007, decision dated: 11-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.M. IDREES H. ADAM. In the matter of", + "Petitioner Name:": "H.M. IDREES H. ADAM: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "5999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 399 = 2008 SLD 399 = 2008 CLD 651", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001) - R.8\nNon-Compliance and Errors\nConclusion: No action was taken.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company successfully defended itself from violations based on the errors of another brokerage house.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/112/07/ dated August 3rd, 2007, decision dated: 8-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AYUB YOUNUS SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 400 = 2008 SLD 400 = 2008 CLD 654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUR1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules (2001) - R.8\nBlank Sales and Account Violations\nConclusion: A caution was issued.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company made a few blank sales and failed to comply with account opening and order rules, but corrective actions were taken.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.MSW/SMD/LSE/1(5)2006, dated October 31st, 2007, decision dated: 27-12-2007", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.R. SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 401 = 2008 SLD 401 = 2008 CLD 662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.XXIX, R.1\nAuthorized Signing of Plaint\nConclusion: The suit was valid as it was filed by an authorized person.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe power of attorney was correctly executed, and the plaintiff was authorized to sign and verify the plaint.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=15", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.264 of 2008, decision dated: 10-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nIJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE \nCH. EJAZ YOUSAF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "SQN. LDR. (R.) KHURRAM ZAMAN \nKhawaja Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Respondents in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 402 = 2008 SLD 402 = 2008 CLD 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed for making 4,584 blank sales.\nReasoning:\n•\nDespite claims of rectifying positions, the company failed to meet requirements for valid sales.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/122/07, dated 10th, October 2007, decision dated: 22-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "SIDDIQ MOTI. In the matter of", + "Petitioner Name:": "SIDDIQ MOTI: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 403 = 2008 SLD 403 = 2008 CLD 676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations (2002) - Regln. 4\nBlank Sales Violations\nConclusion: A penalty of Rs.25,000 was imposed for 41 blank sales.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to meet prerequisites for blank sales, and penalties were imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depository Company of Pakistan Regulations, 2002=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.MSW/SMD/LSE/1(5)2006/3, dated October 8th, 2007, decision dated: 17-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR, (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAXIMUS SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 404 = 2008 SLD 404 = 2008 CLD 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 152\nRectification of Share Register\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe matter required arbitration, and the court found no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=152", + "Case #": "C.O. No.34 of 2007, decision dated: 7-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner.\nAhmad Shehzad Farooq for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AURANGZEB KHAN \nVS \nDABAGH (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 405 = 2008 SLD 405 = 2008 CLD 712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.XXIX, R.1\nValidity of Suit Filed by Corporation\nConclusion: The suit was valid as it was signed by an authorized person.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe power of attorney validated the suit filed by the manager on behalf of the corporation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.102 of 2000, decision dated: 10-04-2008, hearing DATE : 12th February. 2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manawer Ghani for Plaintiff. \nNemo for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION \nVS\nMESSRS BOND ADVERTISING (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 406 = 2008 SLD 406 = 2008 CLD 727", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.XXIX, R.1\nSigning and Verification of Pleadings\nConclusion: No fatal defect was found in the signing and verification of the plaint.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe error was an irregularity and could be rectified without dismissing the suit.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Suit No. Nil of 2007, C.M. As. Nos. 7753 of 2007 and 391 of 2008, decision dated: 5-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID ALI Z. QAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nisar A. Mujahid for Plaintiff.\nAhmed Pirzada, A.A.G. Sindh for Defendants Nos. 1 to 7.\nKhalil-ur-Rehman for Defendants Nos. 11 and 12.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAVEDAN CEMENT LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER \nVS \nPROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH MEMBER, FUND UTILIZATION DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 407 = 2008 SLD 407 = 2008 CLD 731", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 227, 229 & 476\nFailure to Make Payment to Provident Fund\nConclusion: Directors were cautioned instead of facing penalties.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to comply with provident fund provisions but assured future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/616/2002/2822-2828, dated February 13th, 2008, decision dated: 28-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BRANDS LIMITED: In the matter Of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 408 = 2008 SLD 408 = 2008 CLD 738", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) - S.171 & S.59\nApplicability of Section 171 and Payment to Specific Account\nConclusion: Section 171 applies only when no specific instructions are given by the depositor, and the bank cannot alter instructions without consent.\nReasoning:\n•\nIf a customer deposits money with instructions to credit it to a specific account, the bank must follow those instructions and cannot change the account without the customer's consent.\n•\nSection 59 applies when a bank fails to adhere to specific instructions and adjusts funds arbitrarily.\nMunshi Emamuddin Ahmed v. Province of East Bengal and others (PLD 1952 Dacca 279) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1214 of 2001, decision dated: 12-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE\nSYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUSTICE\nSHEIKH HAKIM ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nRay Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1-5", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVS \nMUBARAK DAIRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 409 = 2008 SLD 409 = 2008 CLD 742", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) - Ss. 42 & 54 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - S.12(2)\nChallenge of Mortgage Deed and Fraud\nConclusion: The plaintiffs cannot challenge a mortgage deed in a separate suit; only a Banking Court can address this under S.12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe plaintiffs indirectly challenged a mortgage deed but were directed to pursue the matter in the Banking Court, as jurisdiction lies with the Banking Court under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No. Nil of 2006, decision dated: 10-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaid Qureshi for Plaintiffs", + "Petitioner Name:": "IBRAHEEM KHAN AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nABUL MOHSIN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 410 = 2008 SLD 410 = 2008 CLD 746", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 196, 208 & 476\nPenalty for Investment in Associated Company\nConclusion: Penalty imposed for violating laws on investments in an associated company without shareholder approval.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company subscribed to shares without passing the necessary shareholder resolution, resulting in a penalty for directors and a loss to the company.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/430/2001-2963-68, dated February 26th, 2008, decision dated: 23rd April, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 411 = 2008 SLD 411 = 2008 CLD 756", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) - S.15(10) & Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art.199\nSale of Mortgaged Property\nConclusion: High Court allowed a constitutional petition, setting aside an order and remanding the case to the Trial Court for re-hearing.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe sale of the mortgaged property was not handled correctly, and the matter was to be re-heard by the Trial Court.\nBank of Khyber v. Messrs Spencer Distribution Limited and others (2003 CLD 1406) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1195 and C.M.A. No.4156 of 2007, decision dated: 18-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JUSTICE\nARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saalim Salam Ansari and Mukhtar Ahmed for Petitioner.\nNaveed-ul-Haq for Respondent No. 1.\nIirran Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED WASEEM HUSSAIN \nVS \nPAKISTAN EXPORT FINANCE GUARANTEE LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 412 = 2008 SLD 412 = 2008 CLD 758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) - S.12 & Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art.199\nConstitutional Petition and Intra-Court Appeal\nConclusion: The constitutional petition was dismissed as it did not show a significant public interest over individual gains.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe petitioner's actions were not in the broader public interest, and allegations were found to be unsubstantiated, leading to the dismissal of the petition.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.181 arising from W.P. No.3344 of 2006, decision dated: 3rd May, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE \nSYED HUMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "AHMED REHAN ASIF \nAgha Abul Hassan Arif for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMED REHAN ASIF \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 11 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 413 = 2008 SLD 413 = 2008 CLD 786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 208 & 476\nUnauthorized Investment in Associated Companies\nConclusion: Directors were penalized for making unauthorized investments in associated companies.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe directors failed to seek shareholder approval for investments, violating their fiduciary duties.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/638/2002-2342-2349, dated 12-12-2007, decision dated: 5-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 414 = 2008 SLD 414 = 2008 CLD 796", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 246 & 476\nFailure to Submit Required Reports\nConclusion: A warning was issued to the company's officers for non-compliance with regulations.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to inform shareholders about investments, but since corrective measures were taken, the officers were warned rather than fined.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=246", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/644/2002-3104-05, dated 4-03-2008, decision dated: 25-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Ali Sayeed of Sayeed", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAHANGIR SIDDIQUI & COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 415 = 2008 SLD 415 = 2008 CLD 803", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 227, 229 & 476\nFailure to Deposit Provident Fund Contributions\nConclusion: Directors were reprimanded and instructed to verify the amount due to the Provident Fund Trust.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to deposit the required provident fund contributions but was allowed to rectify the issue under the supervision of an appointed auditor.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/506/2002-2870-2879, dated 15-02-2008, decision dated: 28-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN PVC LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 416 = 2008 SLD 416 = 2008 CLD 809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 208, 476 & 492\nUnauthorized Advances to Subsidiary\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on the Chief Executive, and directors were reprimanded for violating shareholder approval requirements.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company advanced funds to its subsidiary without shareholder approval, violating mandatory provisions of the Companies Ordinance.\nBurton v. Bevan (1908) 2 Ch. 240 & City Equitable Fire Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case 1925 Ch 407 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/34812002-3394-3401, dated 3rd March, 2008, decision dated: 6-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs JDW SUGAR MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 417 = 2008 SLD 417 = 2008 CLD 825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 208 & 476\nUnauthorized Investment in Subsidiary\nConclusion: A lenient penalty was imposed after determining that the investment was made in a wholly owned subsidiary.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to follow approval procedures for investments in its subsidiary but was granted leniency due to the exemption in the regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/261/2002-3008-14, dated 26-02-2008, decision dated: 19-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAPPHIRE TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 418 = 2008 SLD 418 = 2008 CLD 830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art.199 & Trade Organizations Ordinance (XXXI of 2007) - Ss. 5 & 21\nDenial of Trade Certificate and Constitutional Petition\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed as the applicant failed to seek proper remedies.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe applicant did not exhaust the appeal process before filing a constitutional petition, and the petition was thus dismissed.\nFriendship Textile Mills v. Government of Pakistan (1998 CLC 1767) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 175 of 2008, heard on 9-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Qamar Afzal for Petitioner.\nKhalid Abbas, Deputy Attorney General with Khalid Deputy Director for Respondent No. 1. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh for Respondents Nos.4 and 5", + "Petitioner Name:": "POEPA \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 419 = 2008 SLD 419 = 2008 CLD 837", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 290\nPetition for Winding Up of Company\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed due to the petitioner’s lack of qualified shares.\nReasoning:\n•\nSince the petitioner held less than 20% of the company’s shares, they were ineligible to maintain the petition under S.290.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No. 22 of 2006, decision dated: 6-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in Person. Atif Awan for Respondent No. 1.\nMuhammad Aslam Butt for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI \nVS \nAMIN FABRICS LTD. AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 320 = 2007 SLD 320 = 2007 CLD 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 255, 260 & 476\nNon-Compliance by Auditors\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on auditors for failing to comply with auditing standards.\nReasoning:\n•\nAuditors failed to fulfill their professional duties, and their negligence led to penalties being imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/75/2004-179-180, July 7, 2005, decision dated: 22-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMED KHAN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Walid Khalid, Advocate Cornelius, Lane and Mufti, Legal Advisor", + "Petitioner Name:": "GARDEZI AND COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 321 = 2007 SLD 321 = 2007 CLD 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881) - Ss. 6, 29-C & 35 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.XXXVII\nSuit for Recovery of Money on Promissory Note\nConclusion: The trial court’s condition for bank guarantee was deemed inappropriate, and the case was modified.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe defendant’s denial of execution of the promissory note shifted the burden of proof, and the condition imposed by the trial court was unfairly stringent.\nMian Rafique Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. (PLD 1996 SC 749) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.209 of 2006, decision dated: 2-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nFAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Masud for Appellant.\nMian Muhammad Aslam Arain for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RAUF \nVS \nFAROOQ AHMED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 322 = 2007 SLD 322 = 2007 CLD 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) - S. 33\nAppeal to Appellate Bench of the Commission\nConclusion: The case was remanded for further investigation.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe dispute regarding missing shares was not fully resolved, and further investigation was ordered to clear doubts.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.41 of 2006, decision dated: 2-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MALIK AND SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant for himself. Abdul Jabbar Lodhi for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. \nMunir Ahmed Khanani for himself.\nMurtaza Abbas, Deputy Director SECP for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR \nVS \nKARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE(G) LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 323 = 2007 SLD 323 = 2007 CLD 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Ss. 10 & 37 & Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art.199\nJudicial Review of Tender Process\nConclusion: The court intervened due to apparent corruption in the tender process, allowing the petitioner to take delivery of goods.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe rejection of the petitioner’s highest bid was deemed unjust, and the court directed the tender process to be revisited.\nRehmat Ali and 2 others v. The Revenue Board, West Pakistan, Lahore and others (1973 SCMR 342) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.D-1437 of 2005 and C.M. As. Nos.6030, 5807, 5366 of 2005, and C.M.A. No.2005 of 2006, decision dated: 27-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nSYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Muhammad Yousuf for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Aslam for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nRehman Aziz holding brief for Muhammad Aziz Malik for Respondent No. 3.\nMuhammad Sher Awan holding brief for Mr. A. Rauf Kasuri for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAMS AND BROTHERS \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 324 = 2007 SLD 324 = 2007 CLD 143", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980) - Ss.3(2) & 4(4)\nPort Authority's Preferential Claim\nConclusion: The Port Authority's claim was given priority over other claims.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe Port Authority’s claim for dues had preferential status, and despite procedural issues, the claim was upheld.\nYukong Ltd. v. M.T. Eastern Navigator (PLD 2001 SC 57) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suits Nos. 7 of 2000, 1254, 1292, 1293 of 1997, 14 of 1998 and 35 of 1999, decision dated: 16-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Rehman for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 1254 of 1997).\nMansoor A. Shaikh for Plaintiffs (in Suits Nos.1292 and 1293 of 1997). \nAgha Faquir Muhammad for Plaintiffs (in Suit No. 14 of 1998).\nArif Khan for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 7 of 2000). Munir-ur-Rehman for Defendant.\nMuhammad Naeem for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, A STATUTORY BODY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT BIN QASIM, KARACHI AND OTHERS \nVS\nOFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF KARACHI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 325 = 2007 SLD 325 = 2007 CLD 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) - S. 12 & Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S.187\nDisqualification of Directors\nConclusion: The suit for disqualification was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of misconduct.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe mere fact that the directors were involved with companies that defaulted on loans was insufficient to disqualify them without a legal ruling.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=187", + "Case #": "Suit No. 522 and C.M.A. No.2503 of 2005, decision dated: 20-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bilal Shaukat for Plaintiffs.\nQutub-ud-Din Sain for Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. \nMuhammad Shahid for Defendants Nos. 4 and 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. THROUGH SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nABDUL HAMID ADAMJEE AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 326 = 2007 SLD 326 = 2007 CLD 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) - Ss. 73 & 74 A & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2\nInjunction Against Use of Trade Mark\nConclusion: A restraining order was issued against defendants for using the plaintiffs' trade marks.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe plaintiffs owned the trademarks, and the defendant’s use of them without authorization led to the issuance of a restraining order.\nMuhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umer v. Australaisa Bank Ltd. (PLD 1966 SC 684) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=73", + "Case #": "Suit No. 88 and C.M.A. No.496 of 2005, decision dated: 8-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hasan Irfan Khan and Moin Qamar for Plaintiff. \nAgha Faqir Muhammad for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DAYS INN WORLDWIDE INC. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \nHOTEL GALAXY (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR/SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 327 = 2007 SLD 327 = 2007 CLD 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962) - Ss. 2, 3, 10, 39 & 41\nRectification of Registration of Trade Mark\nConclusion: The board's decision to expunge Hitachi from the trademark registration was upheld.\nReasoning:\n•\n Hitachi was a household name, and the board rightly rectified the registry.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 39 of 1996, heard on 2-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Abdul Rehman Ansari for Appellant.\nHassan Irfan Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MUHAMMAD AFZAL & MUHAMMAD YOUSAF, TRADING AS ZAFAR AUTO & FILTER HOUSE \nVS\nMESSRS HITACHI LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 328 = 2007 SLD 328 = 2007 CLD 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) - Ss. 10 & 76\nRegistration of Trade Mark\nConclusion: The applicant’s trade mark Lotus was allowed registration.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe respondent’s objection was rejected, as the goods in question were distinctly categorized, making the Lotus mark eligible for registration.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 23 of 2004 decided on 2-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salim Ghulam Hussain for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRITEX COTTON MILLS LIMITED\nVS \nCRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 329 = 2007 SLD 329 = 2007 CLD 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 456, 451 & 452 & Partnership Act (IX of 1932) - S.69\nSuit Filed by Consortium Without Board Resolution\nConclusion: The suit was allowed to proceed despite objections regarding the authority of the individuals filing the suit.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe management committee had authority to file the suit on behalf of the consortium.\nAbdul Rahim and 2 others v. Messrs United Bank Limited of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Kar. 62) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=456", + "Case #": "Suit No. 119 of 2004, decision dated: 12-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bilal A. Khawaja for Plaintiffs.\nSalman Talib-ud-Din for Defendant No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. AIRSYS ATM LIMITED LONDON AND ANOTHER \nVS \nCIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 330 = 2007 SLD 330 = 2007 CLD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930) - Ss. 41, 42, 24 & 63\nRejection of Goods After Inspection\nConclusion: Rejection of goods after a significant delay was not valid.\nReasoning:\n•\nGoods, once accepted, cannot be rejected after a prolonged period without any defects being communicated promptly.\nRahim Bakhsh Piracha v. Muhammad Ibrahim (1978 SCMR 220) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=41", + "Case #": "R.S.A. No.30 of 1996, heard on 13-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, D.A.G. for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondents proceeded Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH DIRECTORATE GENERAL (PROCUREMENT) ARMY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ANOTHER \nVS\nMESSRS SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SADIQ MUHAMMAD AFZAL THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 331 = 2007 SLD 331 = 2007 CLD 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art. 199\nAuction of Public Goods\nConclusion: The petitioner's bid was accepted, and they were allowed to take delivery of the goods at their offered price.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe lower bid was deemed unfair, and the court allowed the petitioner to take delivery based on their original offer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1909 of 2006, decision dated: 7-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Amin Lakhani for Petitioner. \nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 1 along with Ali Zaman Gardezi, A.C.C. and Irfan Jawaid, D.C.C. Muhammad Sarfaraz Sulehri for Respondent No. 2.\nAbid Feroze for Intervenor/Auction-Purchaser Abdul Latif", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD UMER \nVS \nCOLLECTOR OF COUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 332 = 2007 SLD 332 = 2007 CLD 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments Act (XXXVI of 1881) - S. 118 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.XXXVII\nSuit for Recovery on Promissory Note\nConclusion: The trial court's conditional order was modified, and the defendant was instructed to provide solvent security.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe trial court had overstepped by placing unreasonable conditions, and the case was remanded for fairness.\nMian Rafique Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. (PLD 1996 SC 749) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.763 of 2006, decision dated: 6-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Haider Ali Shah for Petitioner. \nCh. Muhammad Amin for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF \nVS\nAKHLAQ SHEEDA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 333 = 2007 SLD 333 = 2007 CLD 277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance (CIII of 2002) - Ss. 2(1)(a), 4, 25 & 26\nAcquisition of Shares in Violation of Law\nConclusion: Penalty imposed on the directors for violating disclosure requirements regarding the acquisition of shares.\nReasoning:\n•\nFailure to make the necessary disclosures led to penalties being imposed on directors.\nSecurities and Exchange Board of India v. Alka Synthetics Ltd. (AIR 1999 Gujarat 221) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.CLD/EMD/FIU/17/2006/89-96, dated July 14, 2006, decision dated: 13-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MALIK, COMMISSIONER COMPANY LAW (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: ACQUISITIONS OF SHARES OF UNITED SUGAR MILLS LIMITED and 12 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 334 = 2007 SLD 334 = 2007 CLD 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 158, 170, 171 & 477\nRectification of Share Register\nConclusion: The application for rectification was dismissed as it involved complicated factual issues.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe matter required a full trial, and summary jurisdiction was not applicable.\nKhurshid Ahmad Khan and another v. Pak Cycle Manufacturing Company Limited (PLD 1987 Lah. 1) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Revisions Nos.6, 47 and 81 of 2006, decision dated: 30-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-RAHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER \nSALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Petitioners. \nTariq Bakhtawar, (Director Enforcement) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD ILYAS MEHRAJ AND OTHERS \nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (COMPANY LAW DIVISION) AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 335 = 2007 SLD 335 = 2007 CLD 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance (CIII of 2002) - Ss. 3(e), 4, 5, 25 & 26\nIncrease in Acquirer’s Shareholding Without Proper Disclosure\nConclusion: A penalty was imposed for failure to comply with the Ordinance’s provisions on share acquisition.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe acquisition violated the regulations, and a penalty was imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD/TO/22/2005 dated August 16, 2006, decided 10-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MALIK, COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Inayat Butt, Director (MSW) and Sajid Imran, Deputy Director (CI) for Assisting the Commissioner (SMD)", + "Petitioner Name:": "ACQUISITION OF SHARES OF MUBARAK TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 336 = 2007 SLD 336 = 2007 CLD 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) - S. 33\nAppeal to the Commission\nConclusion: The appeal was remanded for a decision on the complaint regarding the erroneous transfer of shares.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe issue was remanded for further investigation to resolve the dispute.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.44 of 2006, decision dated: 8-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MALIK, SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. M. Shaghil and Tahir Abbas for Appellant. \nNasir J. R. Sheikh for Respondent No. 1. \nMurtaza Abbas, Deputy Director (SMD) for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAHIR ABBAS \nVS \nAMZ SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 337 = 2007 SLD 337 = 2007 CLD 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 9(3), 152, 73 & 263\nRectification of Register of Members\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed as the case required a regular trial and could not be resolved in summary jurisdiction.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe case involved complex factual issues that required further investigation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=9", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 1 of 2002, decision dated: 31st August, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ahmad Sheikh for Petitioner.\nTariq Kamal Qazi and Muhammad Kamran Sheikh for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INAYATULLAH KHAN NIAZI \nVS \nADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 338 = 2007 SLD 338 = 2007 CLD 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 208\nUnauthorized Investment in Associated Companies\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed on the directors for violating shareholder approval requirements.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe company failed to follow legal procedures for investments, leading to penalties being imposed on directors.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/368/2002-2989-95, dated November 3, 2006, decision dated: 28-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRARN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Javed Panni, Counsel for the Directors", + "Petitioner Name:": "BESTWAY CEMENT LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 339 = 2007 SLD 339 = 2007 CLD 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Central Depositories Act (XIX of 1997) - Ss. 11 & 12\nIllegal Sale of Pledged Shares\nConclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to damages for the unlawful sale of pledged shares.\nReasoning:\n•\nThe central depository and stock exchange acted negligently, and the plaintiff was awarded compensation for the unlawful sale of shares.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depositories Act, 1997=11", + "Case #": "Civil Original Suit No.1 of 2004, decision dated: 18-12-2006. dates of hearing; 20th to 28-11-2006, 1st, 4th to 8th, 11th and 12-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Hussain Naqvi and Mian Muhammad Kashif for Plaintiff. \nSyed Ali Zafar, Tariq Bashir, Abid Aziz Sh. for Defendants Nos.1 and 3. \nRaza Qureshi for Defendant No. 4. \nM. Saqlain Arshad and Salman Akron Raja for Defendant No. 2 (SECP). \nAbid Khan Minhas for Defendant No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN NISAR ELAHI \nVS \nLAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE(G) LIMITED AND 4 OTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 340 = 2007 SLD 340 = 2007 CLD 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) - Registration of Trade Mark 'Union'\nThe appellant's application to register the trade mark Union for its matchboxes was opposed by a tobacco company that had been using the mark since 1980. The appellant failed to prove prior use since 1995, and since the tobacco company had established prior rights, the Registrar's dismissal of the application was upheld.\n1989 MLD 1598; KLR 1987 Civil Cases 322; PLD 1987 Kar.119; PLD 1986 Kar. 482 and PLD 1978 Kar. 161 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10", + "Case #": "M.A. No.227 of 2003, decision dated: 14-02-2006, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Ch. Tanveer Amjad for Appellant. \nSalim Ghulam Hussain for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNION MATCH (PVT, ) LTD. \nVS \nREGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 341 = 2007 SLD 341 = 2007 CLD 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) - Jurisdiction of Civil Court\nA suit was filed for recovery of a death claim under an insurance policy. The civil court's jurisdiction was challenged, with reference to Section 122(3) of the Insurance Ordinance, which mandates that such matters be handled by a Tribunal. The Tribunal had already been constituted, so the jurisdiction vested with it. The civil court lacked jurisdiction, and the suit was deemed inadmissible.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=121", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No, 382 of 2006, decision dated: 20-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Israr-ul-Haq for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MUHAMMAD HANIF \nVS\nSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 342 = 2007 SLD 342 = 2007 CLD 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Protection and Nuisance from Vehicular Emissions\nThe petitioners filed a constitutional petition addressing air pollution caused by vehicle emissions, asserting that state functionaries were not adhering to international obligations to prevent pollution. The court acknowledged this as a public nuisance under Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution. It emphasized that air pollution directly impacts citizens' right to life, and thus, ordered measures for curbing vehicular pollution, supported by international treaties and constitutional guarantees.\n1996 SCMR 543 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 6927 of 1997 and 8491 of 2001, heard on 21st September, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Ms. Saima Amin Khawaja for Petitioners.\nMalik Pervaiz Akhtar, D.A.G. for Federal Government.\nShujaat Ali Khan, A.A.G. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\nKaran Shuja for Transport Department, Government of the Punjab.\nMalik Muhammad Naeem for Applicant (in C.M. 1949 of 2006).\nIjaz-ul-Hassan for Respondents Nos.5 to 7. \nJavad Hassan on Court Call", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH AND 4 OTHERS \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, THROUGH HOUSING, PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 343 = 2007 SLD 343 = 2007 CLD 557", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Unauthorized Investments\nThe company's directors were penalized for unauthorized investments in associated undertakings. They attempted to justify these actions by citing advice from legal counsel; however, the investments were made before obtaining advice, and the failure to adhere to mandatory provisions resulted in a penalty, though no financial loss was evident.\nAIR 1968 SC 554 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/448/2002, dated July 25, 2006, decision dated: 22-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMAD KHAN, DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HONDA ATLAS CARS (PAKISTAN) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 344 = 2007 SLD 344 = 2007 CLD 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Failure to Prepare Accounts and Hold AGM\nThe company's directors were penalized for failure to file quarterly accounts and hold an annual general meeting (AGM). They claimed preoccupation with management and a NAB inquiry, but the court held that the board was responsible for meeting the legal requirements, and the penalty was imposed accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 of 2005 and 48, 49, 68, 72, 79 and 80 of 2006, decision dated: 2-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER\nRASHID I. MALIK, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants in person. \nShoaib A. Qureshi, Director NBFC and Imran Hussein Minhas for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARSHAD WADUD KHAN AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (NBFC DEPARTMENT) SEC AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 345 = 2007 SLD 345 = 2007 CLD 574", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Failure to Hold Election of Directors\nThe company failed to hold director elections within the prescribed period, violating mandatory provisions. Directors admitted the lapse but attributed it to external factors. The court imposed a nominal penalty, considering the elections were eventually held.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=177", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/289/2002-445-451, dated July 19, 2006, decision dated: 20-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 346 = 2007 SLD 346 = 2007 CLD 578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court\nA petition challenging the actions of a person not performing functions related to the affairs of the Federation or Province was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It clarified that the High Court could not entertain petitions against entities outside its territorial or functional jurisdiction.\nDeputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan v. Ataul Haq PLD 1965 SC 201 and Salahuddin PLD 1975 SC 244 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.2055 and 2056 of 2006, decision dated: 27-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez Pirzada with Mian Gul Hassan Aurangzeb for Petitioners.\nKhaliq-uz-Zaman and Shah Khawar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PETROSIN CORPORATION PVT. LTD. AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nOIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR\nABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)\nShafiq Ahmed and Nurruddin Sarki & Co. Present\nUMSAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 347 = 2007 SLD 347 = 2007 CLD 599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Failure to Submit Quarterly Accounts\nThe company failed to submit quarterly accounts on time, with the excuse of the chief executive being detained by NAB. The directors, including the CEO, were penalized for not meeting statutory requirements, despite no operational activity during the detention period.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/289/2003, dated June 21, 2006 and August 11, 2006, decision dated: 19-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 348 = 2007 SLD 348 = 2007 CLD 605", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Failure to Hold AGM\nThe company failed to hold its AGM on time, citing delays in finalizing accounts due to the resignation of the accountant. The court ruled that the directors were responsible for holding the AGM, and imposed a token penalty, given that the AGM was eventually held.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/312/2006, dated December 6, 2006, decision dated: 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NOOR SILK MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 349 = 2007 SLD 349 = 2007 CLD 613", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission - Violation of Takeovers Law\nThe company's failure to hold an AGM due to shareholder activities violated the Listed-Companies Takeover Ordinance. The commission appointed an inquiry committee, which found no violations but the appellants requested a hearing, which was denied. The case was remanded for further proceedings and hearings.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.87 of 2006, decision dated: 22-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER \nSALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Appellants. \nImran Inayat Butt, Director (SMD) for Respondent No. 1. \nAfzal Siddiqui and Iqbal Bawani for Respondents Nos.5, 7, 21, 22, 23 and 25. \nNaveed Alam for Respondent No. 3. \nM Waseem for Respondent No. 26. \nAdnan Alam for Respondent No. 35.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD ILYAS MEHRAJ AND 16 OTHERS \nVS\nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION) AND 35 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 350 = 2007 SLD 350 = 2007 CLD 621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Quarterly Accounts Filing\nThe company failed to submit quarterly accounts multiple times, citing closure of its mill. The court imposed a nominal fine, acknowledging the company's previous defaults but considering its eventual compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-III/584/2006, dated May 3, and May 16, 2006, decision dated: 6-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Ali, C.F.O. and Muhammad Noor Khan, Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "FRONTIER CERAMICS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 351 = 2007 SLD 351 = 2007 CLD 630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Failure to Submit Quarterly Accounts\nThe company repeatedly failed to file quarterly accounts, citing closure and lack of staff. The court, while acknowledging the company's efforts to comply, imposed a lenient penalty.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-H/217/2005, dated June 21, 2006, decision dated: 28-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAKKIM TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 352 = 2007 SLD 352 = 2007 CLD 637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Petition for Rectification of Shareholders Register\nA legal heir petitioned to rectify a shareholders' register, arguing the deceased's shares were wrongly transferred. The court ruled that no limitation applied to inheritance claims, and the petition was allowed for rectification.\nJuma Khan v. Mst. Bibi Zenaba PLD 2003 SC 823 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=152", + "Case #": "C.O. No.43 of 2005 decided on 12-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mubashar Latif for Petitioners. \nKashif Nawaz Bajwa for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. SAEEDA MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER \nVS \nANAS MUNIR (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE, AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 353 = 2007 SLD 353 = 2007 CLD 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Act (VI of 1937) - Enforcement of Foreign Award\nThe enforcement of a foreign award was examined in relation to clauses in a Charter Party. Issues like the applicability of a final award, allegations of bias, and documentation were addressed, with the court ruling in favor of enforcing the award based on the fulfillment of necessary conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.139 and C.M.As. Nos.292, 871 of 2005, decision dated: 14-02-2007, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousuf Moulvi for Plaintiff.\nShaiq Usmani for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PACIFIC LLOYDS LTD. THROUGH DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY \nVS \nMESSRS BLESSED ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 354 = 2007 SLD 354 = 2007 CLD 762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Agency Coupled with Interest\nThe agency agreement was analyzed in terms of irrevocability under Section 202, where the agent’s pre-existing interest in the subject matter of the agency protected their authority. A substantial investment did not make the agency irrevocable unless it directly secured the agent's interest.\nBusiness Computing International v. IBM World Trade Corporation 1997 CLC 1903 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.862 of 2006, decision dated: 30-08-2006. dates of hearing: 24th and 30-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Hasaam-ud-Din and Abdul Sattar Pirzada for Plaintiff.\nRasheed A. Razvi and Mahmood Mandviwala for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TIME N VISIONS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nDUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 355 = 2007 SLD 355 = 2007 CLD 783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Protection Act (XXXIV of 1997) - Desalination Plant Classification\nA desalination plant's classification was contested under environmental law. The court ruled that such plants fall within the category of treatment plants under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, and emphasized the need for proper environmental assessment and mitigation measures.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-455 of 2005, decision dated: 25-10-2006, hearing DATE : 25-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nMAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rehman and Rizwana Ismail for Petitioner.\nMakhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney-General and Dr. M. Usman for Respondents Nos. 1 and 5. \nAbbas Ali, A.A.G. for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. \nSohail H.K. Rana for Respondent No. 6. \nMahmood Mandviwala for Respondent No. 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEHRI C.B.E. \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 356 = 2007 SLD 356 = 2007 CLD 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) – Ss. 46 & 15\nCase Summary:\nThis case dealt with an action for passing off, where the plaintiff argued that the defendant's ballpoint pen was misleadingly similar to their own product, potentially deceiving the public. The court considered whether the defendant’s goods created a likelihood of confusion with the plaintiff’s products, based on the similarity of the marks and designs. The two pens were found to have some similarities, such as barrel-shaped design, round-topped caps, and transparent bodies. However, the pens also had distinct differences. The plaintiff's PIANO CRYSTAL pen featured a yellow/golden cap and a colored ball to indicate the ink color, while the defendant's IMAGE pen had a cap matching the ink color, and the term CRYSTAL was absent from the defendant’s pen. The design of both pens was also considered common, as barrel-shaped pens were widely available in the market. Moreover, the packaging of the pens was distinguishable, further diminishing the chance of confusion. The term CRYSTAL was a descriptive word, and the court ruled that it could not be monopolized by the plaintiff. The appeal was allowed, and the order against the defendant was set aside.\nConclusion: Appeal allowed; order against defendant set aside.\nReferences:\n•\nZakauddin v. Muhammad Zahid and 2 others PLD 1993 Kar.766\n•\nThe Sanitas Company Ltd. v. Condy RPC 4 1987 530\n•\nMessrs K.S. Sulemanji Esmailji and Sons v. Messrs M. Sulemanji and Company Ltd. 1986 CLC 775\n•\nJamia Industries Ltd. v. Caltex Oil (Pak.) Ltd. and another PLD 1984 SC 8", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=46", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.1190 of 2001, decision dated: 28th-February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAWWAR HUSAIN, JAFFERY, JUSTICE\nMAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi for Appellant.\nKhawaja Mansoor Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRISTAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS \nSAYYED ENGINEERS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 357 = 2007 SLD 357 = 2007 CLD 826 = 2007 PLJ 767", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments Act (XXXVI of 1881) – S. 87 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.2\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved a pro note where the amount was altered from two to twelve by the plaintiff. The defendant denied executing the pro note and claimed it was forged. The trial court dismissed the suit, noting that the alteration was material and done without the defendant’s consent. Although the plaintiff referred to a margin note on the pro note, it was not sufficient to validate the alteration since the note did not have the defendant’s signature or an explanation for the change. The alteration was deemed to discharge the defendant from liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the absence of evidence that the alteration was made with mutual consent. The trial court’s findings were upheld by the appellate court.\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; trial court's findings upheld.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.215 of 2004, heard on 1st February, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khadim Nadim Malik for Appellant. \nMuhammad Shahid Tassar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAEEM FAROOQ \nVS \nMUHAMMAD ASLAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 358 = 2007 SLD 358 = 2007 CLD 830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) – Ss. 32 & 34\nCase Summary:\nThis case dealt with a broker who was accused of manipulating shares on behalf of a client. The broker allegedly transferred shares to another account instead of crediting them to the customer's account. The customer provided supporting documents, including evidence that the broker had failed to maintain proper records and issue receipts for the shares, which made the customer's allegations plausible. The court ruled in favor of the customer, holding that the broker's failure to maintain proper documentation and the absence of receipts violated the standard practices expected of brokers.\nConclusion: Court ruled in favor of the customer due to the broker's lack of proper documentation and record-keeping.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=32", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeal No.8 of 2006, decision dated: 20-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir J.R. Shaikh for Appellant. \nMuhammad Aqil and Abdul Majeed Shaghil for Respondent No. 1. \nUmar Sial for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMZ SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD \nVS \nTAHIR ABBAS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 359 = 2007 SLD 359 = 2007 CLD 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930) – Ss. 15, 16 & 36\nCase Summary:\nIn this case, the term as is where is was used in a contract of sale of goods. The term was applied to exclude the seller’s responsibility for putting the goods into a deliverable state but did not absolve the seller from delivering goods that met the description in the contract. The buyer was not at fault for refusing to accept goods that did not meet the agreed description. The seller had failed to supply goods that met the contract description, and the buyer could not be penalized for not accepting goods that were not as per the contract. The court ruled that the buyer was entitled to damages resulting from the breach of contract.\nConclusion: Buyer entitled to damages for breach of contract.\nReferences:\n•\nThornett and Fehr v. Beers and Son [1919] 1 KB 486\n•\nParamount Corporation, Karachi v. Haji Moosa Haji Oomar, Karachi PLD 1954 Sind 32", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=15", + "Case #": "R.S.A No.94 of 2006, decision dated: 26-02-2007, hearing DATE : 14th/15-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uzair Karamat Bhindhri and Mian Muhammad Kashif for Appellant. \nMuhammad Akram Khawaja for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BARI RICE MILLS LTD.\nVS\nPASSCO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 360 = 2007 SLD 360 = 2007 CLD 882", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 265(a) & (b)\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved the Securities and Exchange Commission appointing an inspector to investigate the sale of a company’s assets. The company had failed to meet the legal requirements for settling its debts. The court ruled that the company’s management had circumvented the legal framework for creditor payments, as the company was no longer a going concern and had closed its business. An inspector was appointed to investigate the situation, and a decision regarding the company’s winding-up was awaited.\nConclusion: Inspector appointed to investigate the company's affairs; winding-up to be decided.\nReferences: 2002 CLD 1714 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=265", + "Case #": "Appeal No.9 of 2005, decision dated: 21st March, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER\nSALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER\nA.S. Pinger and M. Tariq Bawany for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LATIF JUTE MILLS LTD. \nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW), SEC AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 361 = 2007 SLD 361 = 2007 CLD 983", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970) – Ss. 3, 4(b), 11 & 12\nCase Summary:\nThe court examined whether the provisions of Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance restricted the Monopoly Control Authority's jurisdiction. The court concluded that the law on monopolies and restrictive trade practices had precedence over the provisions of the Companies Ordinance when there was undue concentration of economic power. In cases where a monopoly or undue economic power was involved, the Monopoly Control Authority could take action irrespective of Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance.\nConclusion: Monopoly Control Authority's jurisdiction not barred by Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance.\nReferences:\n•\nRafhan Maize Products Company Ltd. v. Monopoly Control Authority and 9 others PLD 1986 Lah. 346\n•\nHabib Bank Ltd. v. Monopoly Control Authority 1986 CLC 2489", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.358 of 2000, decision dated: 2-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nMONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmer Bilal Soofi for Appellant. \nAsad Munir, D.A.G for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LTD. THROUGH SECRETARY DULY AUTHORIZED \nVS \nMONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 362 = 2007 SLD 362 = 2007 CLD 888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 10(1)\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved the scope of appeal against orders made by the Company Judge under the Companies Ordinance. The court ruled that appeals regarding company winding-up orders must be made to the Supreme Court, except in cases where the company has a paid-up capital of less than one million rupees, in which case leave to appeal must be granted by the Supreme Court. The court emphasized that the use of the word any in the Companies Ordinance broadened the scope of appeals to include all orders and decisions made by the Company Judge after the winding-up order.\nConclusion: Appeals against winding-up orders to be made to the Supreme Court.\nReferences:\n•\nIbrahim Shamsi and 21 others v. Bashir Ahmad Memon/Official Liquidator and another PLD 2006 SC 584\n•\nS. Muhammad Din & Sons and another v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and 5 others 1992 SCMR 1795", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.5-L of 2003, decision dated: 20-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "ASGHAR ALI \nTalat Farooq Sheikh for Appellant. \nSardar Roshan Ali Sindhu, Advocate/Official Liquidator.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASGHAR ALI \nVS \nOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 363 = 2007 SLD 363 = 2007 CLD 893", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Regulation Rules, 2001 – Rr. 8 & 12\nCase Summary:\nThe company was found to have violated the Regulations Governing Future Contracts of Karachi Exchange (Guarantee) Limited by exceeding the prescribed limits for net sale positions in future contracts. However, due to extenuating circumstances, such as the company's previous compliance practices, the court chose to impose a lenient view and issued a caution instead of a penalty. The company was directed to comply fully with the regulations in the future to avoid punitive action.\nConclusion: No penalty imposed, but company cautioned and directed to ensure future compliance.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show Cause No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/22/07, dated March 16th, 2007 decided on 3rd April, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASIAN SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 364 = 2007 SLD 364 = 2007 CLD 900", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 284, 285, 286, 287 & 288\nCase Summary:\nThis case concerned a merger between two companies. The court examined whether the scheme of arrangement for the merger met the requirements under the Companies Ordinance. The petition for approval of the merger was filed, and all necessary formalities, including notifications and the payment of dues, were completed. No objections were raised, and the High Court approved the scheme of arrangement for the proposed merger.\nConclusion: High Court approved the scheme for the merger.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=287", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous No.01 of 2005, decision dated: 15-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahab Sarki for Petitioners", + "Petitioner Name:": "W & P CO. (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 365 = 2007 SLD 365 = 2007 CLD 903", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969) – S. 22(1)\nCase Summary:\nThe company violated the prescribed limits for future contracts by exceeding the limit of Rs. 50 million. The court found that the company failed to comply with the documentation requirements under the regulations but considered the company’s previous practices and circumstances. Given the absence of evidence of short selling, the court took a lenient view and issued a caution to the company, instructing it to comply with the regulations in the future.\nConclusion: Company issued a caution and directed to comply with future regulations.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause No.SMD-SOUTH/SCN/04/07, dated January 26, 2007 and SMD-SOUHT/SCN/09/07, dated March 15, 2007, decision dated: 3rd April 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAURUS SECURITIES LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 366 = 2007 SLD 366 = 2007 CLD 916", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Act (IX of 1932) – Ss. 32, 33, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 & 44\nCase Summary:\nThis case focused on the retirement of a partner and the modes, conditions, and effects of such retirement. The Partnership Act lays out three ways for a partner to retire: by dissolution, by mutual agreement in the partnership deed, or by notice in a partnership at will. The court emphasized that when a partnership deed specifies a mode of retirement, that mode must be followed. It also examined the rules of evidence regarding the retirement and the application of the principle of estoppel.\nConclusion: Partner's retirement must follow the specified procedure in the partnership deed; evidence of retirement must be clear.\nReferences:\n•\nS.W.F. Product (Pvt.) Limited v. Sohanlal Bagla AIR 1964 Cal. 209\n•\nMoss v. Elphick 102 LT 639", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=32", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.30 of 2007, decision dated: 25-04-2007, hearing DATE : 28-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, JUSTICE\nRAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfar for Appellants. \nSalah-ud-Din Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M. YOUSUF ADIL SALEEM & CO. AND 7 OTHERS \nVS \nHAMID MASOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 367 = 2007 SLD 367 = 2007 CLD 940", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) – S. 73\nCase Summary:\nIn this case, a contractor failed to complete the work on time and used a subcontractor. The principal withheld a portion of the payments due to the contractor and adjusted it towards risk and cost. The plaintiff argued that the mobilization advance was not repayable, as it had already been adjusted against work completed. The court found that the contract did not authorize such adjustments, and thus, the principal's withholding of the amount was unjustified. The mobilization advance payment bond could not be invoked, and the plaintiff was not required to refund the mobilization advance.\nConclusion: The adjustment of the mobilization advance by the principal was unjustified, and the contractor was not obligated to repay the advance.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.269 of 2002, decision dated: 14-11-2006, hearing DATE : 1st February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JUSTICE\nMAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Talmiz S. Burney for Appellant. \nSami-ud-Din Sami for Respondent No. 1. \nEjaz Ahmed for Respondent No. 2. \nMuhammad Shahid for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY \nVS \nMESSRS SHAUKAT & RAZA (PVT.) LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1351 = 2007 SLD 1351 = 2007 PLJ 863", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 – S. 124\nCase Summary:\nThis case dealt with the process for granting leases of immovable properties owned by the local government. The court held that local government properties must be leased through competitive bidding as prescribed in Rule 9(2) of the Punjab Local Government Property Rules, 2003. Additionally, even though the lease granted earlier could be extended under S. 196(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, the process must comply with the competitive bidding process.\nConclusion: The local government must lease property through competitive bidding, and any prior lease agreement can be extended in compliance with relevant rules.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Control of Goondas Rules, 1951=124", + "Case #": "ICA No. 372 of 2006 in W.P. No. 9031 of 2006, decision dated: 21.2.2007, hearing DATE : 21.2.2007.", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nSYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate for Appellant.\nCh. Naeem Masood, AAG, Punjab (on Court Call).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN JAVED IBRAR-ULHAQ\nVS\nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY LOCAL GOVT. AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1352 = 2007 SLD 1352 = 2007 PLJ 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 199\nCase Summary:\nThis case discussed the writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction could only be exercised if the order of a statutory authority was without jurisdiction, illegal, or against facts admitted on record. Furthermore, if a litigant files a civil suit on the same cause of action, they cannot switch to a constitutional petition mid-way.\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed as the petitioner had already filed a civil suit on the same issue, and could not seek a remedy through writ jurisdiction.\nReferences: PLD 1972 SC 279, 1982 SCMR 173, PLD 1992 SC 847", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 14990 of 2004, decision dated: 8.3.2007, hearing DATE : 8.3.2007.", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Kazim Bokhari, Advocate for Petitioners.\nMr. Muhammad Ghani, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Respondent-LDA.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SOHAIL SARWAR BUTT AND ANOTHER\nVS\nLAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, EGERTON ROAD, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1353 = 2007 SLD 1353 = 2007 PLJ 831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.XXIII, R. 1\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in judicial proceedings. The court noted that mere allegations of fraud or misrepresentation were insufficient to rescind judicial proceedings. Presumption of correctness is attached to judicial proceedings, and the application of Section 12(2) CPC could not be entertained without solid proof.\nConclusion: The court dismissed the application for rescinding the judicial proceedings due to lack of proof of fraud or misrepresentation.\nReferences: 2004 SCMR 964", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12(2),O.XXIII,R.1Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=129(e)", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 6401 of 2000, heard on 13.2.2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Mehdi Khan Chohan, Advocate for Petitioners.\nHafiz Khalil Ahmad and Ch. Ahmad Khan Gondal, Advocates for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. SAIFA BIBI AND 5 OTHERS\nVS\nHIDAYAT AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 369 = 2007 SLD 369 = 2007 CLD 949", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 282-L\nCase Summary:\nThis case dealt with the merger of two non-banking finance companies. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the interpretation of Section 282-L of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which pertains to schemes of arrangements and mergers. The court sought clarity on the effect of statutory majority, the validity of scrap ratios, and the effect of the statutory provisions under the Companies Ordinance on the merger process.\nConclusion: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the significance of statutory majority, scrap ratio, and other aspects of the merger process.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.3181 of 2003, decision dated: 11-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. \nKhawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.\nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL MULTI LEASING CORPORATION AND OTHERS \nVS \nCAPITAL ASSETS LEASING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 370 = 2007 SLD 370 = 2007 CLD 957", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) – S.46\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved a trademark dispute, where the plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from using a similar trade name. The court ruled that the plaintiff had no registered trademark and the defendant had prior use of the name. The balance of convenience favored the defendant as they had been using the trademark for a longer period, and the plaintiff's claim was based on a recent registration.\nConclusion: The interim injunction was denied to the plaintiff due to laches and the defendant’s prior use of the trade name.\nReferences:\n•\nMessrs Chas A. Mendoza v. Syed Tausif Ahmed and 2 others PLD 1993 Kar. 790\n•\nMessrs Tabak Restaurant v. Messrs Tabak Restaurant 1987 SCMR 1090", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=46", + "Case #": "Suit No. 916 of 2005, decision dated: 13-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed Iqbal for Plaintiff. \nDefendant No. 1 in Person. B. Amjad Hussain for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GETZ PHARMA (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER \nVS \nFAROOQ & SONS THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 371 = 2007 SLD 371 = 2007 CLD 966", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) – Ss. 21 & 46\nCase Summary:\nThe plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of a trademark after two decades of the defendant’s use. The court ruled that the plaintiff could not restrain the defendant from using the trademark since the defendant had used it for a longer period. Furthermore, the court noted that the registered proprietor could not stop the bona fide prior user.\nConclusion: The interim injunction was refused due to the defendant’s prior use of the trademark for 20 years.\nReferences:\n•\nAbdul Wasim v. Messrs Haico through Sole Proprietor/Partner 2002 CLD 1623", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=21", + "Case #": "Suit No. 35 and C.M.As. Nos.4821, 1920 and 2142 of 2003, decision dated: 11-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Gul Ghoury for Plaintiff. \nMrs. Navin Merchant for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALKARAM TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER \nVS \nMEHTAB CHAWALA AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 372 = 2007 SLD 372 = 2007 CLD 978", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) – Ss. 10(2) & 46\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved parallel use of a trademark by both parties. The court noted that delay in initiating legal action would adversely affect the grant of an injunction. As a result, the plaintiff’s claim was not supported by urgency or the requisite evidence to support an interim injunction.\nConclusion: The interim injunction was declined due to the plaintiff’s delay in initiating legal action.\nReferences: Shahid Mirza v. Merloniziara S.P.A. PLD 1991 Kar. 425", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No.460 and C.M.A. No.2848 of 2004, decision dated: 3rd April, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Shazia Tasleem for Plaintiff. \nMrs. Naveen Merchant for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MACTER INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER \nVS \nMESSRS SANTE (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DIRECTORS, SECRETARY MANUFACTURERS AND MERCHANTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 373 = 2007 SLD 373 = 2007 CLD 991", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) – Ss. 17 & 46\nCase Summary:\nThe court held that a trade mark becomes publici juris if it is commonly used by multiple traders in a specific field. In this case, the trade mark Master was deemed to have become a common term and thus, a public property. The plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over the term.\nConclusion: The trademark Master was deemed publici juris and could not be exclusively claimed.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=17", + "Case #": "Suit No.1161 and C.M.A. No.7175 of 2004, decision dated: 16-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Shazia Taslim for Plaintiff. \nMuhammad Iqbal Chaudhry for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MASTER TEXTILE MILLS LTD. THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \nMASTER FABRICS THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 374 = 2007 SLD 374 = 2007 CLD 1009", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 305 & 309\nCase Summary:\nThe court authorized the filing of a winding-up petition for a company that had been inactive since 1993 and had failed to file proper accounts. The company had not made any efforts to revive its business, and the management showed no intention of carrying on operations. Under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, the court determined it was appropriate to proceed with the winding-up petition.\nConclusion: Winding-up petition authorized due to the company’s failure to commence business or maintain operations.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/306/2002-5890-91, dated March 29th, 2007 decided on 7-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KARIM SILK MILLS LIMITED; in the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 375 = 2007 SLD 375 = 2007 CLD 1019", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 156, 205 & 477\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to file mandatory statutory returns (Form A and Form 29) for the years 1988 to 2006. Despite explanations related to financial constraints and litigation, the court held that the company's management failed to comply with the filing requirements. Penalties were imposed on the company for the delay in filing the returns.\nConclusion: The company was penalized for failing to file statutory returns on time.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=156", + "Case #": "Appeal under section 477 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, decision dated: 18-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD SHAHEEN, REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALI TAMIM AGRO DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: in the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 376 = 2007 SLD 376 = 2007 CLD 1044", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 21, 22, 25 & 26\nCase Summary:\nThe applicant sought to restrain the defendants from using a similar trade mark. The court found that the defendant had prior use of the trade mark and had been operating under it before the plaintiff filed the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim based on the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 was rejected.\nConclusion: The injunction was denied due to the defendant’s prior use of the trade mark.\nReferences: 1987 MCR 1090; PLD 1991 SC 921", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.236 of 2006, decision dated: 5-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khuram Gul Ghory for Appellant.\nSaleem Ghulam Hussain for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALKARAM TEXTILE MILLS LTD. THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER \nVS \nMEHTAB CHAWALA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 377 = 2007 SLD 377 = 2007 CLD 1047", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 284, 285, 286, 287 & 288\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved the merger of two companies. The minority shareholders objected to the merger valuation, claiming the auditors did not follow the court’s order. The court directed a fresh valuation of the companies, considering the factors specified in the court’s order, including tangible and intangible assets.\nConclusion: A fresh valuation was ordered to ensure fair treatment of minority shareholders.\nReferences: Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd. v. Meyer and another (1959) AC 324", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous Petition No.29 of 2001 and C.M.A. No.1725 of 2003, decision dated: 21st May, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Faez Issa for Petitioner. \nMuhammad Ali Sayeed and Shehnshah Hussain for Objectors.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PFIZER LABORATORIES LIMITED \nVS\nPARKE DAVIS & COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 378 = 2007 SLD 378 = 2007 CLD 1060", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 208 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe company made unauthorized investments in its associated company without the approval of shareholders. The court found that the directors had violated their fiduciary duties and breached statutory obligations. A penalty was imposed on the company’s directors for failing to comply with Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance.\nConclusion: Directors penalized for violating Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.233/420/2002-930-939, dated August 7th 2006, decision dated: 23rd May, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CRESCENT STEEL AND ALLIED PRODUCT LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 379 = 2007 SLD 379 = 2007 CLD 1080", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 245\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to file quarterly accounts, arguing that its operations were suspended due to financial constraints. The court rejected this defense and imposed a penalty on the directors for the non-compliance with Section 245 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nConclusion: The company was penalized for failing to file quarterly accounts on time.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/307/2005, dated March 30, 2007, decision dated: 16-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASHMIR POLYTEX LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 380 = 2007 SLD 380 = 2007 CLD 1084", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XXXVII, R. 3\nCase Summary:\nThe plaintiff sought to recover money based on negotiable instruments but failed to produce two marginal witnesses for the promissory note. The court directed the trial court to decide the application for referring the disputed signatures to a handwriting expert before proceeding further.\nConclusion: The case was remanded for decision after the handwriting expert's opinion.\nReferences: M/s Waheed Corporation and another v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2003 CLD 245", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=3", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.436 of 2005, heard on 8-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ras Tariq Chaudhry for Appellant. \nBaleegh-uz-Zaman Chaudhry for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALI MUHAMMAD SHAH \nVS \nIJAZ HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 381 = 2007 SLD 381 = 2007 CLD 1088", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 245\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to prepare and file quarterly accounts. The court held that the defense of financial constraints or suspension of operations was insufficient to justify the failure. A penalty was imposed on the company’s directors for non-compliance.\nConclusion: Directors were penalized for failing to file quarterly accounts on time.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/492/2005, dated May 3 and May 18, 2006, decision dated: 18-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "QUALITY STEEL WORKS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 382 = 2007 SLD 382 = 2007 CLD 1092", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Karachi Port Trust Act (VI of 1886) – Ss. 87 & 43\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved the imposition of charges for vessels using anchorage at outer limits of the Karachi Port. The court found that the charges lacked statutory authority and were not valid under the Karachi Port Trust Act.\nConclusion: The charges were invalid due to lack of statutory authorization.\nReferences: Zafar Enterprises v. KPT 2003 YLR 205", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886=87", + "Case #": "Suits Nos.693 to 695 of 1997, decision dated: 7-03-2005, hearing DATE : 26-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Sana Minhas for Plaintiffs. \nSalman Hamid for Defendants. \nName of Defendant No. 2 called absent", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED MARINE AGENCIES (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS \nVS \nTRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 383 = 2007 SLD 383 = 2007 CLD 1116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 158 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) within the prescribed time, citing the suspension of its operations and financial constraints. The court found these reasons insufficient, emphasizing that the AGM was essential for protecting investors and shareholders by providing timely information. The directors were penalized, though a reduced penalty of Rs.30,000 was imposed due to the company’s efforts to revive its business.\nConclusion: The directors were penalized for the delay in holding the AGM, but the penalty was reduced due to the company’s ongoing revival efforts.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/492/2005, dated December 15, 2006, decision dated: 18-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "QUALITY STEEL WORKS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 384 = 2007 SLD 384 = 2007 CLD 1125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 158 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved a company that failed to hold its AGM within the required time, with the company claiming financial constraints as the reason. The court rejected the justification and imposed a penalty, emphasizing the protection of shareholders' interests. The penalty was reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.30,000 for each director, and the company was reprimanded for not fulfilling its legal obligations.\nConclusion: The company and directors were penalized for failing to hold the AGM on time, with the penalty reduced.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/307/2005, dated March 30, 2007, decision dated: 22-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASHMIR POLYTEX LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 385 = 2007 SLD 385 = 2007 CLD 1129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) – Ss. 11, 42 & 55\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved a dispute over the ownership of shares, with one party claiming the shares had been entrusted to them for arbitration. The court ruled that no period of limitation applied when a trust was created under Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The ownership dispute required further examination, and the case also addressed whether the shares could be treated as a deposit.\nConclusion: The court determined that no limitation applied due to the trust created for the shares. Further hearings were required to settle the ownership dispute.\nReferences: Deputy Custodian of Enemy Property v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation PLD 1975 Kar.21", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.572 of 1978 and Suit No.472 of 1993, decision dated: 7-08-2003, hearing DATE : 28-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.H. Zaidi for Plaintiff. Anjum Ghani for Defendant No. 1. \nArshad Tayebaly for Defendant No. 6. \nLiaquat Merchant for Defendant No. 7. \nFaisal Arab for Defendant No. 10. \nQadir H. Saeed for Defendant No. 14.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAUSHAD SHAMSUDDIN FANCY AND ANOTHER \nVS \nNEW JUBILEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 386 = 2007 SLD 386 = 2007 CLD 1181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 6, 13 & 73\nCase Summary:\nThis case revolved around the trademarks Asia and Super Asia. The court ruled that an earlier ruling between the parties had found the trademarks to be distinguishable. Given the delay of 11 years in filing the infringement case, the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the defendant, and the application for an injunction was dismissed.\nConclusion: The injunction was denied due to the delay in filing the case and the prior ruling that the trademarks were distinguishable.\nReferences: Anwar Industries Limited v. Muhammad Ishaque Gondal and others 1988 CLC 489", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=6", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 158 of 2005, decision dated: 28-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azeem for Appellant.\nMushtaq Mehdi Akhtar for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SUPER ASIA M.D. (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS \nMESSRS ANWAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 387 = 2007 SLD 387 = 2007 CLD 1189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 20 & 73\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved an interim injunction regarding the registration of a trade mark. The defendant had filed for registration, and the plaintiff contested it. The court ruled that the trial court should decide the matter promptly, considering all objections raised by the defendant.\nConclusion: The appeal was disposed of with directions to the trial court to resolve the issue of the injunction swiftly.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=20", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.84 of 2007, heard on 25-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shakil Abid for Appellant.\nM. Traiq Malik for Respondent No. 1. \nM Shakil Ahmad Mian for Respondent No. 2. \nGulsher Khan, Examiner for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAWAZ HUSSAIN \nVS \nMUHAMMAD JAMIL CHAUDHARY AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 388 = 2007 SLD 388 = 2007 CLD 1198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) – S. 70\nCase Summary:\nIn this case, a company was found to have made an advance to an associated company without shareholder approval. The directors violated provisions of the Companies Ordinance by failing to obtain proper authorization. The company was penalized for these violations.\nConclusion: Directors were penalized for violating the Companies Ordinance by making unauthorized advances.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.16354 of 2005, decision dated: 8-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shehzad Rabbani for Petitioner. \nAsad Munir, Deputy Attorney General.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SARAH JEWELLERY (PVT.) LTD THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 389 = 2007 SLD 389 = 2007 CLD 1210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XXI, Rr. 84, 85, 90 & S.12(2)\nCase Summary:\nThe court dealt with the sale of property under an ex parte money decree. The sale was set aside under Section 12(2) of the CPC, but the court found that the sale would not be nullified automatically as a result.\nConclusion: The sale was set aside, but the sale itself was not rendered null and void.\nReferences: Al-Hassan Feeds and another v. United Bank Ltd. and 6 others 2004 CLD 275", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=84", + "Case #": "H.C.As. Nos.67, 68, 69, 70, 71 and 670 of 2002, decision dated: 28-06-2006. dates of hearing: 12th, 19th, 25th, 27th, August, 2004, 22nd, 30-09-2004, 1st, 4th, 18th, October, 2004, 6th, 13th, 20th, 28th, December,2004 and 7-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoorul Arfin for Appellants. \nMushtaq A. Memon for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ANJUM RASHID AND OTHERS \nVS \nSHEHZAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 390 = 2007 SLD 390 = 2007 CLD 1234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 439\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved a company that was removed from the register due to failure to submit statutory returns. However, since the company possessed substantial immovable assets, the court ruled that the removal provisions did not apply and directed the company's name to be restored.\nConclusion: The company’s name was restored to the register due to its possession of substantial immovable assets.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=439", + "Case #": "C.O. No.66 of 2006, decision dated: 11-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Khaleel Qureshi for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMBINED GINNERS (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS \nREGISTRAR, , LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 391 = 2007 SLD 391 = 2007 CLD 1243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – S. 76\nCase Summary:\nThe case dealt with the limitation period for appeals under the Trade Marks Act. The court ruled that the provisions of the Limitation Act were not applicable to the special limitation period under the Trade Marks Act. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed.\nConclusion: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed.\nReferences: Arshad Nasim v. Registrar of Trade Marks and another 1986 CLC 2622", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=76", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.178 and C.M. No.2-C of 2004, decision dated: 28-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.D. Naseem for Appellant. \nSyed Moazzam Ali Shah for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR UD DIN \nVS \nREGISTRAR, TRADE MARK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 392 = 2007 SLD 392 = 2007 CLD 1247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980) – Ss. 3, 4(4) & 6\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved a dispute over cargo misappropriation. The court found that the plaintiffs' allegations were not substantiated, as the cargo was shipped under a bill of lading and the misappropriation claim did not hold.\nConclusion: The claim for misappropriation of cargo was dismissed.\nReferences: Hong Leong Finance Limited v. MV Asian Queen through Nazir High Court PLD 1991 SC 120", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=77", + "Case #": "Admiralty Appeal No. 5 of 2007, decision dated: 9th June 2007", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abul Inam for Appellant.\nSami-ud-Din Sami for Respondent No. 1.\nKhurram Rasheed and Siddique Shehzad for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NOOR ELLAHI \nVS \nMESSRS TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 393 = 2007 SLD 393 = 2007 CLD 1251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980) – Ss. 4 & 77\nCase Summary:\nThis case dealt with the claim for damages related to cargo that was not shipped according to the contract. The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims lacked merit, as the cargo was not available for shipment at the designated port.\nConclusion: The claim for damages was dismissed as the cargo was not available for shipment.\nReferences: Sui Gas Transmission Co. v. M.V. Good Herald 1983 CLC 886", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/255/2002-8014-20, dated 10-2-2006, decision dated: 21st June, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HAMID TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 394 = 2007 SLD 394 = 2007 CLD 1256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 255, 260 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved auditors failing to comply with the requirements of the Companies Ordinance regarding the audit report. The court imposed a fine on the auditors for not following the prescribed procedures.\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on the auditors for failing to adhere to the Companies Ordinance.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/253/2002-9484-85, dated March 30, 2006, decision dated: 25-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GANGAT & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 395 = 2007 SLD 395 = 2007 CLD 1271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 160, 246 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe company held an AGM but failed to submit the required notices to the Commission and members. The court imposed a penalty for non-compliance with the Companies Ordinance but reduced the penalty due to the company’s assurance of future compliance.\nConclusion: The company was penalized for failing to submit required notices.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/290/02, dated January 19, 2007, decision dated: 6-06-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZAHUR COTTON MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 396 = 2007 SLD 396 = 2007 CLD 1277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 245\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to prepare and transmit quarterly accounts on time, and the court found the delay to be wilful. A token penalty was imposed on the directors for non-compliance with the law.\nConclusion: Directors were penalized for the failure to prepare and file quarterly accounts.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/571/2003, dated May 5, 2006 and May 16, 2006, decision dated: 13-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "No one appeared", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUBARIK DAIRIES LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 397 = 2007 SLD 397 = 2007 CLD 1281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) – Ss. 20(4)(g), 20(6)(b)(g) & 33\nCase Summary:\nThe appellant company was involved in the sale of shares and was penalized under the Takeover law for violations. The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant company’s directors were penalized for their involvement in the violation.\nConclusion: Penalty was imposed on the directors of the appellant company for violation of the Takeover law.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20", + "Case #": "Appeal No.85 of 2006, decision dated: 31st May, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UL-RAHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER\nSALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayebaly for Appellants. \nSyed Ahmad Hassan Shah, Tariq Bakhtawar, Director SECP and Tariq Ahmed, Deputy Director SECP for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAIKH ABDUL WAHID AND 7 OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SMD & CLD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 398 = 2007 SLD 398 = 2007 CLD 1291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUSFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 208 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe company made an investment in an associated company without shareholder approval, violating the Companies Ordinance. The directors were penalized for this violation, but the penalties were reduced due to the company’s financial situation.\nConclusion: Directors were penalized for making an unauthorized investment.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/363/2002, dated September 15, 2006, decision dated: 14-06-2007", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAKARGANJ MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 399 = 2007 SLD 399 = 2007 CLD 1301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Documents – Sale Deed\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that the sale deed should be interpreted according to the clear words in the document, and no modification or addition was allowed unless explicitly stated.\nConclusion: The sale deed was interpreted based on its clear terms.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Revisions Nos.2528, 2565 and Writ Petition No.18370 of 2005, decision dated: 28-06-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SH. HAKIM ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioners. \nCh. Irshad Ullah Chatta for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SALEEM AND OTHERS \nVS \nMARRYAM BIBI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 400 = 2007 SLD 400 = 2007 CLD 1324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract – Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a contract should be respected, and in this case, the defendant’s request for the case to be heard in a foreign jurisdiction was granted.\nConclusion: The case was stayed and would be heard in the German court as per the contract’s jurisdiction clause.\nReferences: M.A. Chowdhury v. Messrs. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. and 3 others PLD 1970 SC", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No.146, C. M.As. Nos.5848 and 2448 of 2006, decision dated: 23rd January, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Zafar Ahmed for Plaintiff. \nJawwad Sarwana for Defendant No. 1. \nFarhatullah for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LIGHT INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS \nMESSRS ZSK STICKMASCHINEN GMBH AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 401 = 2007 SLD 401 = 2007 CLD 1336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sindh Privatization Commission Ordinance (XXV of 2001)\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that the submission of a bid does not constitute an enforceable contract unless accepted unconditionally by the competent authority. The petitioner’s claim was rejected as no binding contract was formed.\nConclusion: The court dismissed the petition as no enforceable contract existed.\nReferences: Balochistan Construction Company v. Port Qasim Authority 2001 YLR 2716", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Privatization Commission Ordinance (XXV of 2001)=2", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos. D-609 and D-902 of 2006, decision dated: 13-10-2006, hearing DATE : 13-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nMAQBOOL BAGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Hassan for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D-609 of 2006). \nAbid S. Zuberi for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D-902 of 2006). \nSarwar Khan, A.A.G. for Respondent (in C.Ps. Nos.D-609 and 902 of 2006). Zafar Ahmed Khan for the Commission (in C.Ps. Nos.D-609 and 902 of 2006)", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. TARIQ MEHMOOD MEMON \nVS \nPROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 402 = 2007 SLD 402 = 2007 CLD 1377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved a claim for a maritime lien over a vessel. The court ruled that the plaintiff did not have the right to enforce the claim as they were neither the crew nor the master of the vessel.\nConclusion: The admiralty claim was dismissed due to the plaintiff's lack of standing.\nReferences: Hong Leong Finance Limited v. MV Asian Queen through Nazir High Court PLD 1991 SC 120", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suit No.01 of 2006, decision dated: 5-01-2007. Dare of hearing: 28-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Faqir Muhammad for Plaintiff. \nMuhammad Naeem Ishrat Alvi and H. Shakil Ahmed for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRANSWAYS ENTERPRISES S.A. \nVS \nM.V. ALDONA THROUGH MASTER/CHIEF OFFICER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 403 = 2007 SLD 403 = 2007 CLD 1392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that the claim for misappropriation and conversion of cargo could not be established, as the goods had been shipped under a bill of lading and no act of conversion was proven.\nConclusion: The claim for cargo conversion was dismissed.\nReferences: Sui Gas Transmission Co. v. M.V. Good Herald 1983 CLC 886", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=4", + "Case #": "A.D.M. Suit No.13, C.M.As. Nos. 739, 740, 718 and 729 of 2007, decision dated: 27-07-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWEZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaiq Usmani for Plaintiff. \nMazhar Lari for Defendants", + "Petitioner Name:": "BULK INTERNATIONAL TRADERS INC, EGYPT \nVS \nMV. \"\"AFAMIIA\"\" THROUGH MASTER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 404 = 2007 SLD 404 = 2007 CLD 1439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 260(1), 255 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan issued a notice to the auditor for non-compliance with the Companies Ordinance provisions regarding the preparation of the audited account statement. The Commission failed to provide specific facts or legal provisions to justify the imposition of penalties. The court emphasized that a clear, factual basis and legal grounding for penalties must be provided. The case was remanded for further action after granting the affected party an opportunity for a proper hearing.\nConclusion: The case was remanded for a new decision due to insufficient legal grounds and factual context in the original order.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=260", + "Case #": "Commercial Appeal No.3 of 2005 decided on 12-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE\nUMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzad Rabbani for Appellant. \nAhmed Bashir for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAN MUHAMMAD, F.C.A. \nVS \nSECURITY EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 405 = 2007 SLD 405 = 2007 CLD 1568", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 305, 309 & 318\nCase Summary:\nA creditor sought to intervene in the winding-up proceedings of a company, claiming to be a necessary party. The court found that since the winding-up order was already operating in favor of creditors by law, there was no need for a formal application. The creditor's intervention was allowed for the purpose of assisting the court.\nConclusion: The creditor was allowed to intervene and present their case before the court.\nReferences: Investment Corporation of Pakistan v. Messrs Noor Silk Mills Ltd. 1998 CLC 543", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J-Miscellaneous No.63 of 2003, decision dated: 21st December; 2005", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Aamir Naqvi for Petitioner. \nAbul Inam for Defendants. Sofia Screed Shah for Auction-Purchaser Aziz-ur-Rehman for CIRC. \nKadir Bux Umarani, Official Assignee", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, \nVS \nMESSRS BAHAWALPUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nENGLISH PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES THROUGH PARTNER/PROPRIETOR/MANAGER AND ANOTHER \nVS\nSHIRE BIOCHEM INC. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 406 = 2007 SLD 406 = 2007 CLD 1570", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Patents Ordinance (LXI of 2000) – Ss. 60 & 61\nCase Summary:\nThe plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from infringing on its patent. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case for an injunction, as the validity of the patent was still in question. The balance of convenience favored the defendant, but a partial injunction was granted, allowing the defendant to supply the drug to the government under certain conditions.\nConclusion: The interim injunction was partially granted, subject to conditions, but the plaintiff failed to meet the standard for a full injunction.\nReferences: Acto Lab. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pfizer Ltd. and others 2002 CLD 120", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 388 and 389 of 2006, decision dated: 20-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE \nM. JAVED BUTTER, JUSTICE\nCH. IJAZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. Basit, Advocate Supreme Court Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (In both cases). Moeen Qamar, Advocate. \nSupreme Court and Syed Zafar Abbas Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.1 to 4. (In both cases", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 407 = 2007 SLD 407 = 2007 CLD 1590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.III, R.1, O.XXIX, R.1\nCase Summary:\nThe court addressed the issue of whether a plaint, signed by an assistant manager instead of an authorized officer, was valid. The court ruled that under the Civil Procedure Code, a principal officer such as a secretary or director must sign the plaint, and an assistant manager does not qualify. The suit was dismissed for lack of proper authorization.\nConclusion: The suit was dismissed as it lacked proper authorization to be filed.\nReferences: Muhammad Siddique Umer v. Australasia Bank Limited PLD 1966 SC 684", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.83 of 2005 and C.M.As. Nos.557, 558 of 2005 and 1264 of 2006, decision dated: 2-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Faquir Muhammad for Appellants.\nMoin Qamar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HOTEL GALAXY (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 2OTHERS \nVS \nMESSRS DAYS INN WORLDWIDE INC. THROUGH SIGNATORY/CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 408 = 2007 SLD 408 = 2007 CLD 1598", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) – S. 498\nCase Summary:\nThe accused, a managing director of a company in liquidation, was granted ad interim pre-arrest bail. The case involved disputed cheques issued by the company. The court took into account the company's liquidation status and the accused's age and health, concluding that his arrest was unnecessary for evidence recovery. The bail was confirmed.\nConclusion: The pre-arrest bail was confirmed, as there was no need for the accused’s arrest to recover evidence.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=498", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.4743/B of 2007, decision dated: 20-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Safdar for Petitioner. \nMs. Azra Parveen, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab, with Khalid Javed S.-I", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALID AZIZ KHAN \nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 409 = 2007 SLD 409 = 2007 CLD 1600", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – S.12(2) & O.I, R.10\nCase Summary:\nA plaintiff sought to join a suit after its decision. The court found that once a suit is decided, the court becomes functus officio, and a person cannot join the proceedings unless they were a necessary party. The application was not allowed, and the suit was dismissed.\nConclusion: The application to join the suit after its decision was dismissed.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.333 of 2005 and C.M.A. No.382 of 2006, decision dated: 27-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fiaz H. Shah for Appellant. \nKazim Hasan for Respondent No. 1. G.M. Bhutto for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASSAMUDDIN \nVS \nALZAMIN LEASING MODARBA AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 410 = 2007 SLD 410 = 2007 CLD 1610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001) – Ss. 40(4) & 17\nCase Summary:\nThe plaintiff sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from using a similar trade mark. The court held that once a trade mark is registered, others cannot use it, especially if it could lead to confusion. The injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff.\nConclusion: The injunction was granted to prevent the defendant from using the trade mark.\nReferences: Alpha Sewing Machine v. Registrar of Trade Marks PLD 1990 SC 1074", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=40", + "Case #": "Suit No.640 of 2006, decision dated: 9-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Shazia Tasleem for Plaintiff. \nRizwan H. Nadeem for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DEWAN SUGAR MILLS (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nM. B. ABBASI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 411 = 2007 SLD 411 = 2007 CLD 1614", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) – Ss. 39 & 42\nCase Summary:\nThe case involved the rejection of a plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., with the defendant asserting that the suit was barred under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance. The court remanded the case for further hearing, ruling that objections should be raised during trial.\nConclusion: The case was remanded for fresh decision, allowing further examination of objections.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.191 of 2006, decision dated: 4-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE\nUMAR ATTA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Abdul Wahid for Appellant. \nMuhammad Saleem Chaudhry and Malik Abdul Sattar Awan for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL \nVS \nITTEFAQ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE/MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 412 = 2007 SLD 412 = 2007 CLD 1616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2\nCase Summary:\nThe defendant sought leave to defend a suit based on post-dated cheques. The court ruled that the suit was governed by the Limitation Act and could not determine the limitation without further evidence. Leave to defend was granted, subject to a deposit of funds.\nConclusion: Leave to defend the suit was granted with conditions.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.173 of 2003; heard on 30-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nNASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram for Appellant.\nMujeeb-ur-Rehman Kiani for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAJMA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED \nVS \nMESSRS MEGA TRADING COMPANY THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 413 = 2007 SLD 413 = 2007 CLD 1633", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XXXVII, Rr. 2, 3, 4\nCase Summary:\nThis case involved the setting aside of an ex parte decree passed due to improper service of summons. The court found that the summons were not properly issued according to the rules, so the decree was set aside, allowing the defendant to defend the suit.\nConclusion: The ex parte decree was set aside, and the defendant was allowed to defend the suit.\nReferences: Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others PLD 1958 SC 104", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.39 of 2005, decided an 13-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Khalil Ahmed for Appellant. \nCh. Ijaz Akbar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM MUHAMMAD \nVS \nABDUL GHAFFAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 414 = 2007 SLD 414 = 2007 CLD 1637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – S.12(2)\nCase Summary:\nThe defendants filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., claiming they were not properly served. The court found that no issues had been framed or evidence recorded, and remanded the case for further proceedings.\nConclusion: The case was remanded for further proceedings to address the service issue.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.171 of 2006, heard on 5-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSH. HAKIM ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Waheed Khan for Appellants.\nJari Ullah Khan for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI SHAH NAWAZ RANJHA AND ANOTHER \nVS \nPUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, THROUGH REGIONAL DIRECTOR SARGODHA AND 4OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 415 = 2007 SLD 415 = 2007 CLD 868", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970)\nCase Summary:\nThe Monopoly Control Authority imposed a penalty on an undertaking for non-compliance. The court ruled that the penalty could not be imposed in the absence of a general or special order to furnish information. The case was remanded for a fresh decision.\nConclusion: The penalty was set aside, and the case was remanded for reconsideration.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=2", + "Case #": "Monopoly Appeal No.2 of 2004, heard on 22-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Muhammad Nawaz for Appellant. \nMuhammad Aslam Zar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IRZA PHARMA (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR \nVS \nMONOPLY CONTROL AUTHORITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 308 = 2006 SLD 308 = 2006 CLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Privatization Commission Ordinance (LII of 2000) – Ss. 28 & 29\nCase Summary:\nThe plaintiffs, former owners of a privatized company, failed to act on a bid for purchasing shares. The court rejected their claim, ruling that they had no stake in the purchase and had missed their opportunity. The suit was dismissed.\nConclusion: The suit was dismissed, as the plaintiffs had no valid claim.\nReferences: Javedan Cement Mehnat Kash Union and another v. The Federation of Pakistan and others 1998 SCMR 2182", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.O.S. No.2 of 2005, decision dated: 28-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Siddiqui and Qasim Ali Chohan for Plaintiff. \nRaja Muhammad Akram for Defendant No. 1. \nAbid Aziz for Defendants Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN FAROOQ AHMAD SH. AND OTHERS \nVS \nPRIVATIZATION COMMISSION AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 309 = 2006 SLD 309 = 2006 CLD 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 8, 10, 12, 21, 22, 25, 26 & 76\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that a trademark used in relation to the same goods, even if the user’s intention was honest, would not be protected if it caused confusion or deception. The defendant’s use of a similar trademark was prohibited.\nConclusion: The defendant was prohibited from using the similar trademark due to the potential for deception.\nReferences: Toshiba Corporation's case PLD 1991 SC 27", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=8", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.36 of 1997, decision dated: 15-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Jamil for Appellant. \nSultan Ahmed Shaikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING COMPANY\nVS \nMESSRS HUSSAIN STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 310 = 2006 SLD 310 = 2006 CLD 76 = (2006) 93 TAX 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S.235\nCase Summary:\nThe court addressed the valuation of shares in a company undergoing liquidation. It ruled that the shares of a dissolved company had no value in relation to paid-up capital, as the company no longer existed.\nConclusion: The shares of the dissolved company had no value, and the case was decided based on liquidation principles.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=235Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8(2)(c)(i),8(2)(c)(ii)", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeal No. 284 of 2002, decision dated: 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirdar Ahmed Jamal Sukhera for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES Zone-I, LAHORE \nVS \n MUHAMMAD MUGHFOOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 311 = 2006 SLD 311 = 2006 CLD 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XXIX, R.1\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that an assistant manager of a corporation could not file a suit on behalf of the company, as they did not qualify as a principal officer under the Civil Procedure Code. The suit was dismissed for lack of proper authorization.\nConclusion: The suit was dismissed due to improper authorization.\nReferences: Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Limited PLD 1971 SC 550", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Suit No.221 of 1990, decision dated: 17-09-2005, hearing DATE : 31st August , 2005", + "Judge Name:": "RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wali Dad Khan and Shoeb Ali Khan for Plaintiffs. \nImtiaz Agha for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS \nVS \nPAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 312 = 2006 SLD 312 = 2006 CLD 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2\nCase Summary:\nThe trial court dismissed a suit based on a promissory note due to non-attestation of witnesses. The court found that a promissory note did not require attestation to be valid and remanded the case for further proceedings.\nConclusion: The suit was remanded for further decision, as the promissory note did not require attestation.\nReferences: Zaheer-ud-Din Sheikh v. Shatab Khan Nasim NLR 1994 AC 661", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 57 of 1992, heard on 11-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Iqbal Abid for Appellant.\nCh. Ghulam Muhammad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AAMAR TUFAIL\nVS \nMUHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 313 = 2006 SLD 313 = 2006 CLD 97", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962) – Ss. 3(1)(a) & 56\nCase Summary:\nThe plaintiff filed for an interim injunction to prevent the defendants from infringing on its copyright for a television programme idea. The court ruled that ideas themselves cannot be protected under copyright law; only the expression of the idea is protected. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of ownership over the idea, and the injunction was refused due to lack of proof of irreparable harm.\nConclusion: The application for an interim injunction was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to fulfill the required conditions for its grant.\nReferences: Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.956 of 2005, decision dated: 15-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Gul Ghori along with Ms. Shazia Tasleem for Plaintiffs Sajjad Ali Shah for Defendant No. 1. \nAbid S. Zuberi for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDEPENDENT MEDIA \nVS \nALI SALEEM AND ANOTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 314 = 2006 SLD 314 = 2006 CLD 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2\nCase Summary:\nThe plaintiff sought to recover money from the defendant based on a promissory note. The defendant denied borrowing the money and claimed the note was executed under misrepresentation. The court found the execution of the promissory note to be valid and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, rejecting the defendant's claims.\nConclusion: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff as the execution of the promissory note was proven valid.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos.244 and 360 of 1999, heard on 22-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE\nFARRUKH LATIF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbir Ahmad Khan for Appellant. \nCh. Muhammad Ikram Zahid for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEIKH MUHAMMAD JAVED ANWAR\nVS \nMUHAMMAD ASHRAF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 315 = 2006 SLD 315 = 2006 CLD 149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Act (IV of 1938) – S. 3-C(4)\nCase Summary:\nThe insurance company issued a policy based on a guarantee provided through cheques. The appellant contended that the insurance policy should not have been enforced as the conditions were not met. The court ruled that the cheques served as sufficient guarantee for the payment of premium.\nConclusion: The insurance company was entitled to proceed with the policy as the guarantee was validly provided.\nReferences: Trans Ocean Asia v. Alpha Insurance Company Ltd. 1981 CLC 1028", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Act, (IV of 1938)=3", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.51 of 1991, decision dated: 24-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant in person I.H. Zaidi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS N.A. INDUSTRIES \nVS\nMESSRS ALPHA INSURANCE CO. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 316 = 2006 SLD 316 = 2006 CLD 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act (VI of 1937) – S. 2(2)\nCase Summary:\nThe court examined the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award. The defendant objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and the validity of the award, but the court found that the defendant failed to challenge the award within the proper channels. The award was upheld and enforced.\nConclusion: The foreign award was enforced as the objections raised were insufficient to invalidate the award.\nReferences: Nan Fung Textiles Ltd. v. H. Pir Muhammad Shamsuddin PLD 1979 Kar. 762", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.889 of 2000, decision dated: 14-11-2005, hearing DATE : 7-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Rehman for Plaintiff. \nAnjum Ghani for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN SHIPPING LINES THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS \nHASSAN ALI & CO. COTTON (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 317 = 2006 SLD 317 = 2006 CLD 191 = 2006 PTCL 583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 2(8)\nCase Summary:\nThe managing director of a company was not personally liable for the debts of the company under the Companies Ordinance. The court ruled that liability could only be pursued against the company itself, not the managing director.\nConclusion: The suit against the managing director was dismissed.\nReferences: AIR 1994 Orissa 98; Surinder Nath Khosla v. Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab (1995) 4 Comp LJ 343", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2", + "Case #": "Suits Nos.1002, 1003 and 1004 of 2000, decision dated: 22-12-2005. dates of hearing: 6th and 7-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Faruqui for Plaintiff. \nMuhammad Ali Saeed for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAKHI DATTAR COTTON INDUSTRIES AND OIL MILLS THROUGH AUTHORIZED PARTNER \nVS \nMESSRS MAHMOOD PVT. LTD. AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 22 = 2014 SLD 22 = 2014 SCMR 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) – Ss. 67(1A) & 67(1)\nCase Summary:\nThe court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 67(1A) for the timely adjudication of election petitions. Delays caused by the Election Tribunal and respondents were criticized, and the court highlighted the need for expeditious decisions to uphold the democratic process.\nConclusion: The court affirmed the mandatory nature of the requirement for the Election Tribunal to dispose of election petitions within four months.\nReferences: Muhammad Usman Achakzai v. Election Tribunal Balochistan PLD 2010 SC 943", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Representation of the People Act, 1976=67", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.669-L of 2013, decision dated: 28-10-2013, hearing DATE : 9-10-2013", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nSyed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Mobeen ud Din Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Barrister Saad Buttar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK UMAR ASLAM \nVS\nMRS. SUMAIRA MALIK AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 318 = 2006 SLD 318 = 2006 CLD 210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) – Ss. 27 & 182\nCase Summary:\nA franchise agreement imposed conditions on both the principal and the agent, restricting dealings with competing goods. The court ruled that such conditions were not in restraint of trade as long as they were reasonable and applied during the contract’s term.\nConclusion: The franchise agreement’s restrictive conditions were valid and enforceable.\nReferences: Sultan Textile Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Yousaf Shami PLD 1972 Kar. 226", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.Os. Nos. 169 and 184 of 2005, decision dated: 2-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Sultan Tanvir Ahmad for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAK CHINA CHEMICALS THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR \nVS \nDEPARTMENT OF PLANT PROTECTION AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 319 = 2006 SLD 319 = 2006 CLD 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 127, 305 & 306\nCase Summary:\nThe court ordered the winding up of a company that was commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts. The company had failed to produce sufficient evidence of solvency and was found to be unable to meet its obligations.\nConclusion: The company was ordered to be wound up due to its inability to pay its debts.\nReferences: Trade and Industry Publication Limited v. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1990 SC 768", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=127", + "Case #": "C.O. No.2 of 2001, decision dated: 15-12-2005, hearing DATE : 8-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Sehgal for Petitioner.\nKh. Asif Mahmood for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAYSAL BANK LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEY\nVS\nIRAM GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 320 = 2006 SLD 320 = 2006 CLD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 15 & 76\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that a trademark could become publici juris (common to the trade) through extensive use by one party, rejecting the second party's claim of prior use due to insufficient evidence.\nConclusion: The court upheld the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks that the trademark was distinct and had gained recognition due to long and continuous use.\nReferences: Multani Sohan Halva v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi 1987 CLC 1448", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=15", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.205 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd December, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Ahmed Sheikh and Kh. Aamir Farooq for Appellants.\nHassan Irfan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NADEEM IJAZ AND OTHERS \nVS\nMALIK EHSAN ULLAH AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 321 = 2006 SLD 321 = 2006 CLD 265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930) – S. 2(7)\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that the title to shares passed from the sponsors to the transferee when the share certificates and blank transfer deeds were delivered. The suit for declaration of title was dismissed as time-barred.\nConclusion: The plaintiff’s suit for declaration of title to shares was dismissed as time-barred under the Limitation Act.\nReferences: Muhammad Buta v. Habib Ahmed PLD 1985 SC 153", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=2", + "Case #": "Suit No.68 and C.M.A. No.219 of 2004, decision dated: 6-01-2006, hearing DATE : 23rd December, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Talib-ud-Din for Plaintiff. \nMunib Akhtar for Defendant No. 1. \nNemo for Defendants Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BOSICOR CORPORATION LIMITED \nVS \nAMANUR-RAHMAN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 322 = 2006 SLD 322 = 2006 CLD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 255 & 260\nCase Summary:\nThe court upheld a penalty imposed on an auditing company for failing to comply with the Companies Ordinance in its audit report, which lacked necessary disclosures.\nConclusion: The penalty imposed on the auditing company was upheld.\nReferences: London and General Bank Ltd.' case (1895) 2 Ch. 166", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Appeal No.4 of 2005, decision dated: 27-07-2005, hearing DATE : 17-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZUI AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS\nUZMA HAYAT, JOINT DIRECTOR AND AYESHA RIAZ, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawar Salam and S.M. Tanveer and Syed Aftab Hameed for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HYDER ALI BHIMJI, F.C.A. AND 3 OTHERS \nVS \nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT-II)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 323 = 2006 SLD 323 = 2006 CLD 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 160(1)(b) & 265\nCase Summary:\nThe Securities and Exchange Commission appointed inspectors to investigate the financial and operational affairs of a company facing severe liquidity issues. The investigation was warranted due to concerns over potential insolvency.\nConclusion: The order appointing inspectors was upheld as necessary to investigate the company’s deteriorating financial condition.\nReferences: PLD 1995 Kar. 132", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2 of 2005, decision dated: 30-05-2005, hearing DATE : 9-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS\nKHALID AHMED TANWARI FOR APPELLANT. MUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR (EMD) FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DAWOOD FIBRE MILLS LIMITED \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (COMPANY LAW DIVISION), SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 324 = 2006 SLD 324 = 2006 CLD 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Appellate Bench Procedure) Rules, 2003 – R. 13(1)\nCase Summary:\nThe court dismissed an application for the restoration of an appeal, citing the appellant’s failure to provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in filing.\nConclusion: The application for the restoration of the appeal was dismissed due to the appellant’s non-serious conduct.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Appellate Bench Procedure) Rules, 2003=13", + "Case #": "Application for restoration of Appeal No.2 of 2003, heard on 27-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MALIK AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS\nIKRAM-UL-HAQ, JOINT DIRECTOR AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL, JOINT DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umer Lakhan for Applicants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AHMED ISMAIL AND OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SCD), SECT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 325 = 2006 SLD 325 = 2006 CLD 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 74, 472(1), 484 & 495\nCase Summary:\nThe court directed the company to register the transfer of shares lodged by bona fide purchasers, rejecting the company's refusal based on doubts over the legitimacy of the transfer.\nConclusion: The company was ordered to register all valid share transfers.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=74", + "Case #": "Revision No.3 of 2004, decision dated: 30-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS\nBARRISTER MUHAMMAD AHMED SAEED FOR PETITIONERS. MUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR (EMD) SEC FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MOONIS ABDULLAH ALVI AND 7 OTHERS \nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING), SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 326 = 2006 SLD 326 = 2006 CLD 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) – Ss. 20 & 33\nCase Summary:\nThe broker’s actions of selling shares without authorization were upheld, as the appellant failed to prove that the shares were sold prematurely or wrongfully.\nConclusion: The broker’s actions were found to be justified based on the authorization in the account opening form.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20", + "Case #": "Appeal No.5 of 2005, decision dated: 6-07-2005, hearing DATE : 29-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH AND ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONERS\nALY OSMAN, JOINT DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION) SEC AND ANOTHER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant in person. Murtaza Abbas Deputy Director for Respondent No. 1. \nRespondent No. 2 in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "HONORARY CAPT. (RETD.) NOOR AHMED \nVS \nALY OSMAN, JOINT DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION) SEC AND ANOTHER\nINTER ASIA LEASING COMPANY LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\nCOMMISSIONER (SPECIALISED COMPANIES DIVISION), SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 327 = 2006 SLD 327 = 2006 CLD 308", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 282 & 282-M\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that the appellant company’s failure to comply with financial reporting standards and their auditor’s qualifications led to the imposition of a fine.\nConclusion: The imposition of the fine was upheld, with the case remanded for further consideration of the appellant's defense.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Appeal No.6 of 2005, decision dated: 1st July, 2005, hearing DATE : 17-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MALIK AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omar Sial and M. Younas Khan for Appellants. \nShoaib Qureshi, Director. (SCD) and Rubab Mehdi AD (SCD) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 328 = 2006 SLD 328 = 2006 CLD 311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 282, 282-A & 282-M\nCase Summary:\nThe court remanded the case for further consideration of the appellant company's fine, emphasizing that the order lacked sufficient reasoning and did not address the appellant's defense.\nConclusion: The case was remanded for a new decision with proper reasoning.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7 of 2005, heard on 24th May; 2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MALIK AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayebaly and M. Younas Khan for Appellants Nos.1 and 3 to 6.\nFirasat Ali for Appellants Nos.2 and 7. Shoaib Qureshi, Director (SCD) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGLISH LEASING (COMPANY) LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER (SPECIALISED COMPANIES DIVISION), SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 329 = 2006 SLD 329 = 2006 CLD 314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969) – Ss. 5-A & 20\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that the appellant could continue his brokerage activities after settlement of claims against him.\nConclusion: The appellant was directed to settle the claims against him in a fair and transparent manner.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=20", + "Case #": "Appeal No.8 of 2004, decision dated: 24-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tahir Ismail and Afnan Karim Kundi for Appellants. \nNiaz Muhammad Bhatti and Hafiz Abdul Sattar for Respondent No. 1.\nImtiaz Haider, Director (SM) for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FRIEND STOCK LINKER (REGD.) THROUGH MUHAMMAD TAHIR ISMAIL AND ANOTHER \nVS \nNIAZ MUHAMMAD BHATTI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 330 = 2006 SLD 330 = 2006 CLD 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 160(1)(b) & 265\nCase Summary:\nThe court overturned the order to investigate the company’s sale of land, stating that there was no legal basis for the investigation based solely on suspicion.\nConclusion: The order for an investigation was set aside.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160", + "Case #": "Appeal No.11 of 2005, decision dated: 6-07-2005, hearing DATE : 8-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS\nMUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hammad Raza, F.C.M.A. for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CLIMAX ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD. \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW), SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 331 = 2006 SLD 331 = 2006 CLD 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 245\nCase Summary:\nThe court set aside the penalty imposed on a company for failing to submit its quarterly accounts to the Commission, ruling that the failure was due to oversight.\nConclusion: The penalty was set aside, and the company was directed to be more diligent in the future.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeal No.17 of 2005, heard on 25-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS\nMIAN FAROOQ AHMED SHEIKH IN PERSON MUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR AND ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN FAROOQ AHMED SHEIKH \nVS \nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT), SECP" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 332 = 2006 SLD 332 = 2006 CLD 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 178, 179, 184, 186\nCase Summary:\nThe appellants, shareholders of a company, complained that they were denied the right to vote in an election. The court ruled that the election process was valid and the appellants should seek relief from the High Court.\nConclusion: The appeal was dismissed as the issue of the election’s validity should be taken to the High Court.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=178", + "Case #": "Appeal No.18 of 2004, decision dated: 1st February, 2005. dates of hearing: 15-10-2004, 25th January and 1st February, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR AND ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONERS\nMUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR AND WAJIHA FAROOQI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR SEC FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi, Muhammad Umer Lakhani and Khurram M. Hashmi for Appellants. \nDr. Khalid Ranjha and Fakhar Mehmood Chanda for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LT. GENERAL (RETD.) ALI KULI KHAN KHATTAK AND 3 OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (CLD) SEC AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 333 = 2006 SLD 333 = 2006 CLD 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 158, 476 & 477\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) as required under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The company filed a revision against the imposition of a fine, opting for a longer limitation period than an appeal. The court ruled that the revision was appropriately handled by the Director, who had the jurisdiction to impose the fine under delegated authority.\nConclusion: The company’s revision was correctly handled, and the fine was upheld.\nReferences: 1995 CLC 1578", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Revision No.18 of 2005, decision dated: 17-10-2005, hearing DATE : 27-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TARIQ HASSAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER\nMUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR AND ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Ahmad for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HALA ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANOTHER \nVS\nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT) SECP" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 334 = 2006 SLD 334 = 2006 CLD 339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 309\nCase Summary:\nThe Executive Director granted sanction for the filing of a winding-up petition against the appellant company. The company, with a history of goodwill, was given time to revive its operations before facing winding up. If revival failed, voluntary winding up would be initiated.\nConclusion: The company was granted an extension to attempt revival before winding up was initiated.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=309", + "Case #": "Appeal No.20 of 2004, heard on 27-08-2005, hearing DATE : 27-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Idrees Haji Ebrahim, CEO for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARIM COTTON MILLS LIMITED \nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING) SEC AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 335 = 2006 SLD 335 = 2006 CLD 342", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) – S. 33\nCase Summary:\nThe company was directed to join the Central Depository Company (CDC), but it had refused without valid reasons. The court ruled that as a listed company, the appellant was required to comply with the listing regulations and join the CDC.\nConclusion: The company’s appeal was rejected, and it was directed to comply with the Commission’s order.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.23 of 2004, decision dated: 14-03-2005, hearing DATE : 8-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH AND ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONERS\nS.M. ALY OSMAN, JOINT DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asif A. Mufti and Shafqat Raza for Appellant. \nRasool Hooda for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASHIMI CAN COMPANY LTD.\nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET) SEC ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 336 = 2006 SLD 336 = 2006 CLD 344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001\nCase Summary:\nThe company was fined for neglecting prudence in business and mishandling customer accounts. The case was remanded for re-investigation due to insufficient inquiry into the agent's conduct and its relation to the company.\nConclusion: The case was remanded for further investigation.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.25, 26, 27 and 30 of 2004, heard on 14-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALID AHMED KHAN AND OTHERS \nVS\nMALIK RAFI PRIVATE LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 337 = 2006 SLD 337 = 2006 CLD 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 177, 180, 186\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to hold elections for new directors after their term ended, and the directors were penalized for the delay. The court upheld the fine, stating that the directors had no valid excuse for not holding the election on time.\nConclusion: The penalty imposed on the directors was upheld.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=177", + "Case #": "Appeal No.29 of 2004, heard on 5-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR AND ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS\nUMAR HAYAT KHAN, DIRECTOR AND MS. FARAH QAMAR, JOINT DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Farooq Akhtar for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNUS AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES DIVISION) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 338 = 2006 SLD 338 = 2006 CLD 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 74, 473 & 476\nCase Summary:\nA complaint was filed against a company for failing to transfer shares. The company’s argument that the shares were disputed was rejected as the dispute was sub judice in another forum, and the company was directed to comply with the transfer of shares.\nConclusion: The case was set aside due to the pending dispute in the Modarba Tribunal.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=74", + "Case #": "Appeal No.35 of 2004, decision dated: 12-05-2004, hearing DATE : 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS\nMUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR AND SALEEM DAREDIA, JOINT DIRECTOR FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Anjum All for Appellant. \nKhurram Raza for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PUNJAB OIL MILLS LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS \nVS \nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT), SECP AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 339 = 2006 SLD 339 = 2006 CLD 356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) – S. 33\nCase Summary:\nThe complainant alleged misappropriation of her account and unauthorized transfers of shares. The director of the Commission dismissed the complaint. The court directed an inquiry into the missing shares and ordered reimbursement by the bank.\nConclusion: The case was directed for further investigation and resolution of the missing shares.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 19 of 2004, heard on 7-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shezada Mazhar for Appellant. \nImtiaz Haider for Respondent No. 1. \nJawad Akhtar for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAUREEN AHSAN \nVS \nDIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION) SEC AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 340 = 2006 SLD 340 = 2006 CLD 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997) – S. 33\nCase Summary:\nThe appellant failed to deliver sale proceeds for shares that were sold on behalf of the complainant. The appellant’s excuse that his agents absconded with the records was rejected, and the appellant was directed to return the proceeds or equivalent value.\nConclusion: The appellant was ordered to return the shares or the equivalent value to the complainant.\nReferences: 2003 CLC 293", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20", + "Case #": "Appeal No.17 of 2004, heard on 10-09-2004. dates of hearing: 7th and 10-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asad Ullah Javed for Appellant.\nImtiaz Haider, Director (SEC) for himself. Aamir Zareef Khan for Respondent No. 2.\nImtiaz Ahmed for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN KHALID BASHIR \nVS \nIMTIAZ HAIDER, DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISON) SEC AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 341 = 2006 SLD 341 = 2006 CLD 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 224(2)\nCase Summary:\nA corporation failed to tender gains from share transactions as required by the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The Commission imposed a penalty, ruling that the corporation could not transfer the gain to the issuer after the prescribed period.\nConclusion: The Commission's penalty was upheld as the gain belonged to the Commission.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Appeal No.21 of 2004, heard on 19-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI AND ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Appellant.\nImran Inayat Butt, Director and Muhammad Farooq, Deputy Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES CORPORATION LTD. \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET) SEC, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 342 = 2006 SLD 342 = 2006 CLD 378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 158(1)(4)\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to hold its AGM within the prescribed time. The court imposed a fine on the CEO and reprimanded other directors. A lenient view was taken due to the company’s financial difficulties.\nConclusion: The penalty was imposed, but reduced in light of the company’s financial status.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/215/2004, dated February 21, 2005, decision dated: 26-04-2005, hearing DATE : 18-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMED KHAN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar Hussain, Accounts Officer in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs AYAZ TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 343 = 2006 SLD 343 = 2006 CLD 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 234, 252, 255\nCase Summary:\nThe auditor failed to comply with auditing standards, resulting in errors in the company’s audit report. The company was fined, and the auditor was held responsible for lapses in reporting.\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on the auditor for failing to follow legal requirements in the audit process.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=234", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/499/2002, dated January 18, 2005, decision dated: 18-03-2005, hearing DATE : 22-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMED KHAN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saud Ansari, F.C.A. in person\nIn the matter of. SAUD ANSARI, F.C.A.", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: SAUD ANSARI, F.C.A." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 344 = 2006 SLD 344 = 2006 CLD 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 252, 255, 260\nCase Summary:\nThe auditors failed to properly prepare the audit report, violating the statutory provisions. The company was penalized for the deficiencies in the report and non-compliance with auditing standards.\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on the auditor for failing to meet statutory requirements.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=252", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/214 of 2002, decision dated: 18-02-2005, hearing DATE : 16-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khan Muhammad, F.C.A. in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: MANSHA MOHSIN DOSSANI KHAN & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 345 = 2006 SLD 345 = 2006 CLD 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Listed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance (CIII of 2002)\nCase Summary:\nThe acquirers failed to comply with the requirements of the ordinance regarding a public announcement for shares. They were penalized for wilfully violating the provisions and ordered to correct the disclosures.\nConclusion: The acquirers were fined and instructed to make a corrected public announcement.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD/TO/02/2005 dated February 11, 2005, decision dated: 23rd February, 2005, hearing DATE : 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: ARIF HABIB SECURITIES LTD. through Chief Executive" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 346 = 2006 SLD 346 = 2006 CLD 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate and Industrial Restructuring Corporation Ordinance (L of 2000) – Ss. 10(1) & 19\nCase Summary:\nThe borrower made a payment to settle liabilities under a State Bank of Pakistan scheme. The court ruled that the procedure followed by the borrower was correct, and the liability was settled in accordance with the law.\nConclusion: The borrower’s actions were upheld, and the process followed was legitimate.\nReferences: Tanya Knitwear (Pvt.) Ltd. v. United Bank Ltd. 2005 CLD 114", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.683 of 2005 and C.O. No.9 of 1999, decision dated: 30-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Muzammil for CIRC.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GADOON SYNTHETIC MILLS LIMITED \nVS \nCORPORATE AND INDUSTRIAL RESTRUCTURING CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 347 = 2006 SLD 347 = 2006 CLD 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 245 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to submit its quarterly accounts on time. The court imposed a fine on the company and its directors, taking into account their poor track record of compliance with statutory provisions.\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on the company for its non-compliance with the statutory requirement.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/506/2003, dated 9th April and 6-07-2004, decision dated: 16-06-2005, hearing DATE : 9-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED K. SIDDIQUI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs PAKISTAN PVC LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 348 = 2006 SLD 348 = 2006 CLD 431", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 252, 255, 260\nCase Summary:\nThe auditor was penalized for failing to properly report on the company’s accounts. The deficiencies in the audit report and the violation of auditing standards led to the imposition of the fine.\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on the auditor for failing to comply with auditing standards.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=252", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/571/2002, dated 6-01-2005, decision dated: 3rd March, 2005, hearing DATE : 15-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "IN THE MATTER OF: MESSRS SARWAR AWAN & CO\nVS \nCHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 349 = 2006 SLD 349 = 2006 CLD 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 306 & 305\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that a petition for winding up filed by a banking company was incompetent as the person filing the petition lacked the necessary authorization. The petition was dismissed.\nConclusion: The petition for winding up was dismissed due to lack of proper authorization.\nReferences: Banque Indosuez v. Jet Travels Limited 1991 CLC 446", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous Petition No.21 of 2004, decision dated: 17-01-2006, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayebaly for Petitioner.\nAhmed Hussain Rana for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PICIC COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED \nVS \nSPECTRUM FISHERIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 350 = 2006 SLD 350 = 2006 CLD 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 227 & 472\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to make timely payments to the Employees’ Provident Fund, but it expressed willingness to pay in installments due to its liquidity issues. The court allowed the payment in installments.\nConclusion: The company was directed to pay the outstanding amount in installments.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/20/2002, dated 11-02-2005, decision dated: 10-03-2005, hearing DATE : 7-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMED KHAN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shariful Muzaffer, C.F.O. and Company Secretary", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 351 = 2006 SLD 351 = 2006 CLD 458", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – S. 208\nCase Summary:\nThe company was penalized for making business transactions without special resolution, violating statutory requirements for investments. The penalty was imposed for the deliberate violation of the law.\nConclusion: The company was fined for making transactions without proper resolution.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/595/2002-6612-6618, dated 4-03-2005, decision dated: 25-05-2005, hearing DATE : 6-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED K. SIDDIQUI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 352 = 2006 SLD 352 = 2006 CLD 466", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 6, 7, 10, 14 & 76\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that the applicant could not register a similar trademark M as it resembled the opponent's logo, which had gained distinctiveness. The opponent’s objection to the registration was upheld.\nConclusion: The application for registration of the trademark was rejected.\nReferences: Jamia Industries Ltd. v. Caltex Oil (Pak) Ltd. PLD 1984 SC 8", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10", + "Case #": "M.As. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002, heard on 19-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Mansoor Ahmed for Appellant. \nMuhammad Aslam and Sofia Sultana for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MCDONALDS CORPORATION \nVS \nMAXFOOD (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 353 = 2006 SLD 353 = 2006 CLD 476", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 131 & 132\nCase Summary:\nThe company’s application for rectification of the mortgage register was rejected because it failed to prove its authority to make the request. The clearance certificate issued by the bank was valid, and the rectification was denied.\nConclusion: The application for rectification was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=131", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 11 of 2004, decision dated: 20-07-2004, hearing DATE : 6-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR, SECURITIES MARKET AND ETRAT H. RIZVI, SPECIALIZED COMPANIES, COMMISSIONERS\nMUNAWAR ALI BHATTI, JOINT REGISTRAR, SEC FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah and Tahir Latif for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER \nVS \nSHAF INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 354 = 2006 SLD 354 = 2006 CLD 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 245 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to submit its quarterly accounts on time as required by the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The directors’ failure to comply with statutory obligations and the company’s poor track record led to the imposition of a fine, albeit reduced due to the company’s prior issues.\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on each director for the non-compliance with statutory requirements.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/215/2004, dated November 18, 2005, decision dated: 6-01-2006, hearing DATE : 5-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "None appeared", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs AYAZ TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 355 = 2006 SLD 355 = 2006 CLD 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Chartered Accountants Ordinance (X of 1961) – Ss. 20-D, 20-A(2), 20-K & 9\nCase Summary:\nThe High Court declined to intervene in a case where the petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The petitioner's claims were premature as the Institute had issued a show-cause notice, and the matter was still under consideration by the Council.\nConclusion: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the Institute's process should continue before any intervention.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961=20", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.17765 of 2005, decision dated: 22-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Karim for Petitioner. \nSyed Mansoor Ali Shah and M. Naeem Sehgal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SULEMAN ZAHID JAMIL \nVS \nINSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 356 = 2006 SLD 356 = 2006 CLD 497", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Recognition and Enforcement of (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Ordinance (XX of 2005)\nCase Summary:\nThe court considered the implications of arbitration agreements, where a party sought to avoid arbitration. The ruling emphasized that the court must stay proceedings unless the arbitration agreement is deemed void or incapable of being performed.\nConclusion: The court found no valid reason to refuse staying the proceedings under the arbitration agreement.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Recognition and Enforcement of (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Ordinance (XX of 2005)=3", + "Case #": "Suit No.1318 of 2004, decision dated: 14-02-2006. dates of hearing: 23rd December, 2005, 18th, 24th January and 1st February. 2006", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawed Ahmed Siddiqui and Abid Shirazi for Plaintiff. \nSajid Zahid along with Taha Alizai for Defendants Nos.1 and 3. \nMuhammad Tasneem for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TRAVEL AUTOMATION (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR \nVS \nABACUS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 357 = 2006 SLD 357 = 2006 CLD 522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O.XXIX, R.1\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled that a suit filed by the Chief Executive of a company was competent since the Articles of Association allowed the Chief Executive to initiate legal action with Board supervision.\nConclusion: The suit filed by the Chief Executive was deemed competent under the company’s Articles of Association.\nReferences: Abdul Rahim and 2 Others v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar.62", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "H.C.A.No.265 of 2004, decision dated: 7-02-2006, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Tabib-ud-Din for Appellant. \nMuhammad Akram Zuberi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SABAH SHIPYARD (PAKISTAN) LTD\nVS \nRIAZ AHMED, SAQIB, GOHAR & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 358 = 2006 SLD 358 = 2006 CLD 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 158, 233, 234, 245, 472 & 495\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to meet the required standards for annual and interim accounts. Despite notices to remedy the defaults, the company did not comply. The court emphasized the importance of accurate financial disclosures to protect shareholders.\nConclusion: The company was directed to correct the defaults, with potential penalties for non-compliance.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Showe-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/571/2002- 5015, dated November 30, 2005, decision dated: 24-02-2006, hearing DATE : 22-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QUERSHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs MUBARAK DAIRIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 359 = 2006 SLD 359 = 2006 CLD 542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 158, 170, 233, 234, 472 & 495\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to hold annual general meetings and submit accurate financial accounts. The court ordered corrective actions and warned the directors of potential penalties under the Companies Ordinance.\nConclusion: The directors were instructed to comply with the statutory obligations regarding annual and interim accounts.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/578/2002-7191-7197, dated January 3, 2006, decision dated: 1st March, 2006, hearing DATE : 22-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: M/s. QUICE FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 360 = 2006 SLD 360 = 2006 CLD 546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000)--Ss. 3(2), 2(e) & 10---Registration of design---Scope---Law of designs is based upon the elementary rule that a design, which is unique in its character, should be protected and not allowed to be infringed by anyone to the disadvantage and detriment of the owner of the design---Where, however, the design is not novel or original, then in such eventuality permitting registration of such design would create ownership in person or entity which is not its lawful owner---Section 10 of the Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000 entitles any interested person to get a registered design cancelled, inter alia, on the ground that the person in whose name the design is registered has no right to it.\n \n(b) Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000)-\n \n----Ss. 2(e) & 3(2)---Design---Definition---New or original design---Determination---Design' means such finished article, which appeals to the eye to be new and original---Law makes the eye to be the judge.\n \n(c) Registered Designs Ordinance (XLV of 2000)-\n \n----S. 3(2)---Registration of design---Scope---Only novel and original design should be protected and the monopoly of the trade in respect of a common design be discouraged---Principles---Novelty or originality of design---Slight variation in the placement of design of an article cannot constitute novelty of design---Provision of S.3(2), Registered Designs Ordinance, 2000 clearly provides that where a design of an article differs only in immaterial details or in features or shape which are variants commonly used in trade that too cannot be registered---If the design in question is already known to the world and already exists prior to the registration, claim of owner of novelty of design is not established.\n \nMessrs Western Brand Tea, Karachi v. Messrs Tapal Tea (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2001 SC 14; Western Engineering Co. v. Paul Engineering Co. AIR 1968 Calcutta 109; Messrs Chas A. Mendoza v. Syed Tausif Ahmed Zaidi and another PLD 1993 Kara 790; White Hudson & Co. Limited v. Asian Organization Ltd. (1964) 1 WLR 1466; Whitworths Foods Limited v. Hunni Foods (International) Ltd. and Reckitt & Colman Products Limited v. Borden Inc. Except for the Calcutta AIR 1968 Cal 109 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No. 17 and Suit No.959 of 2004, decision dated: 24th February. 2006, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed Iqbal for Petitioner Liaquat Merchant for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MEHRAN PLASTIC INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nREGISTRAR OF DESIGNS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 361 = 2006 SLD 361 = 2006 CLD 556", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 83(3), 476 & 492\nCase Summary:\nThe company was penalized for false statements regarding its share issue. The directors were found to have violated the rules by providing incorrect information.\nConclusion: A reduced fine was imposed on the Chief Executive and Directors, with a reprimand for future compliance.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=83", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/CO.233/73/2002 dated January 3, 2006, decision dated: 3rd March, 2006, hearing DATE : 1st March, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Hameed Chaudhry, Consultant and Saadat A. Chaudhry, Director", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: M/s. HAJARA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 362 = 2006 SLD 362 = 2006 CLD 580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) – Ss. 42 & 55\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled on the maintainability of a suit for trade mark infringement and granted an injunction against the defendant for unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s trade mark.\nConclusion: The court granted an injunction to prevent further infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.1163 of 2005, decision dated: 27-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid F. Ibrahim for Plaintiff. \nAamir Abdullah Ansari for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TELEBRANDS CORPORATION THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS\nTELEBRANDS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 363 = 2006 SLD 363 = 2006 CLD 588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 252, 255 & 260\nCase Summary:\nThe auditors failed to meet their statutory obligations, leading to a penalty. The court emphasized the responsibility of auditors to report any irregularities and ensure compliance with legal requirements.\nConclusion: A penalty was imposed on the auditors for failing to fulfill their duties properly.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=252", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/249/2002-11411-13 dated June 16, 2005, decided 2-03-2006, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tanwir Arif F.C.A., Partner", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: M/s. HAFIZULLAH & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 364 = 2006 SLD 364 = 2006 CLD 615", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) – Ss. 16, 21, 26, 57, 73 & 76\nCase Summary:\nThe court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a trade mark infringement case, where the defendant used a similar design and name for its product. The court found the defendant’s actions likely to confuse consumers.\nConclusion: The defendant was restrained from using the infringing trade mark.\nReferences: The National Electric Fans Manufacturers (Regd.), Gujrat v. S. Muhammad Din and Sons Ltd., Lahore 1980 SCMR 97", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=16", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.169 of 2005, heard on 14-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Rahim for Appellants. \nHaassan Bakhsh Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAFIZ MUHAMMAD RAMZAN THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS \nVS \nHAFIZ HABIB-UR-REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 365 = 2006 SLD 365 = 2006 CLD 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969) – S. 22(1)(b)\nCase Summary:\nThe company was penalized for failing to comply with the rules regarding the underwriters to its share issue. A penalty was imposed for misrepresentation of the financial position and mismanagement.\nConclusion: A fine was imposed on the Chief Executive and Directors for failing to comply with regulations.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/CO.233/123/2002, October 21, 2005, decision dated: 17-01-2006, hearing DATE : 3rd January, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs MUKHTAR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 366 = 2006 SLD 366 = 2006 CLD 635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 86(3), 472 & 492\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to properly use the proceeds of a rights issue, and the Directors were penalized for not adhering to financial projections and for mismanagement of funds.\nConclusion: The Directors were fined, and corrective actions were mandated.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/CO.233/ 194/2002 dated July 11, 2005, decision dated: 18-01-2006, hearing DATE : 15-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MALIK, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Majeed, Consultant and Nasir Ali Khan, C.F.O", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: SHAHPUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 367 = 2006 SLD 367 = 2006 CLD 646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970) – Ss. 3, 11 & 14\nCase Summary:\nThe Monopoly Control Authority withdrew its show-cause notices and dropped the proceedings against the accused, deeming the complaint frivolous. The court upheld the Authority’s discretion under the law.\nConclusion: The High Court upheld the Authority's decision to drop the proceedings.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=3", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.1191 of 2004, decision dated: 16-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaiq Usmani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Aziz A. Munshi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Salman Aslam Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nM. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.\nFakhr-ud-Din G. Ehrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.\nMunir A. Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGLISH BISCUIT MANUFACTURES (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER \nVS \nMONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 368 = 2006 SLD 368 = 2006 CLD 660", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 158 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to hold its annual general meeting and submit required accounts. The directors were penalized for wilfully failing to comply with the law.\nConclusion: The directors were fined for their failure to hold the AGM and comply with reporting requirements.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/578/2004, dated December 26, 2005, decision dated: 14-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "No one appeared", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: M/s. QUICE FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 369 = 2006 SLD 369 = 2006 CLD 663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969) – S. 18-A\nCase Summary:\nA fictitious application for shares was detected, and the court ruled that only the legitimate application should be accepted while confiscating the subscription money for the false application.\nConclusion: The false application was rejected, and the money deposited for it was confiscated.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD/Co.62/2/2004-S, 6-12-2005, decision dated: 30-01-2006, hearing DATE : 13-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ARIF MIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioners in person. Respondents in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: AAMIR SHEZAD AWAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 370 = 2006 SLD 370 = 2006 CLD 667", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 233, 237, 472 & 495\nCase Summary:\nThe company failed to comply with mandatory provisions regarding financial reporting. The directors were ordered to submit the required accounts and comply with the statutory requirements.\nConclusion: The company and directors were directed to provide the required financial information.\nReferences: None", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=233", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/571/2002-5457-5464, dated 12-12-2005, decision dated: 17-02-2006, hearing DATE : 13-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: M/s. MACDONALD LAYTON COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 371 = 2006 SLD 371 = 2006 CLD 674", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973) – Art.199\nCase Summary:\nThe court declined to issue a writ of mandamus to invalidate the award of a contract on procedural grounds, ruling that the authorities had acted within their discretion.\nConclusion: The court upheld the contract award despite procedural issues in the bidding process.\nReferences: Pacific Multinational {Pvt.) Limited v. I.-G. Police PLD 1992 Kar. 283", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-1149 of 2005, decision dated: 22-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaeq Usmani for Petitioner.\nAbrar Hassan for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALABBAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED \nVS \nMANAGING DIRECTOR, KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 372 = 2006 SLD 372 = 2006 CLD 684", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) – Ss. 195, 473 & 476\nCase Summary:\nThe company was penalized for failing to file details of loans given to directors. A lenient view was taken due to the company being newly listed.\nConclusion: The company was instructed to file the required information with the registrar.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=195", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/669/2005-7868 dated February 3, 2006, decision dated: 9-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 373 = 2006 SLD 373 = 2006 CLD 697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Award and Misconduct by Arbitrator\nDetails: The dispute was referred to arbitration per the parties' agreement. Despite notices, the defendants did not participate, leading to an ex parte award. The defendants argued misconduct by the arbitrator and claimed the interest awarded was against Islamic injunctions. The court examined the validity of the award and the arbitrator’s actions.\nHeld: The arbitrator conducted proceedings properly; ample evidence showed due service to the defendants. The award was final in England under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, and could not be nullified on factual grounds. However, enforcing interest in Pakistan was deemed against Islamic injunctions. The objections were rejected, and the award was made the rule of the court without interest.\nCitations: Nan Fung Textiles Ltd. v. Nichimen & Co. (Pakistan) Limited 1999 YLR 2232; M. Aslam Khaki v. Muhammad Hashim PLD 2000 SC 225.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.272 of 2000, decision dated: 23rd January, 2006, hearing DATE : 13-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Rehman for Plaintiff.\nYousaf Moulvi for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FLAME MARITIME LIMITED\nVS \nMESSRS HASSAN ALI RICE EXPORT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 374 = 2006 SLD 374 = 2006 CLD 711", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Violation of Rules and Regulations in Short Selling\nDetails: Investigations into stock market volatility revealed a client sold shares without pre-existing interest or contractual borrowing arrangements, constituting a blank sale. This violated the Regulations for Short Selling Under Ready Market, 2002, and the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001.\nHeld: The Member of the Stock Exchange acted in violation of the rules. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000, emphasizing the seriousness of such violations while opting against suspension.\nCitations: Regulations for Short Selling Under Ready Market, 2002; Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.1(8) OCT 18/MSW/SMD/2005/38 dated December 26, 2005, decision dated: 16-03-2006, hearing DATE : 20-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: ISMAIL ABDUL SHAKOOR, MEMBER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 375 = 2006 SLD 375 = 2006 CLD 716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Injunction in Patent Infringement\nDetails: The plaintiff claimed exclusive marketing rights under a Black Box Patent and sought to restrain the defendant from infringing on those rights. The defendant failed to disclose its manufacturing process, leading to a presumption favoring the plaintiff.\nHeld: The plaintiff demonstrated novelty and incurred significant investment, meriting the injunction. Balance of convenience and irreparable loss supported the plaintiff’s case.\nCitations: Smith Kline v. Pakistan Pharmaceutical Products Limited 1991 CLC 69; MERC & Co. Ing. v. Hilton Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. 2003 CLD 416.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.1288 of 2005, decision dated: 16-02-2006, hearing DATE : 19-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moeen Qamar for Plaintiffs. \nAbdul Hameed Iqbal for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SMITH KLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION AND OTHERS \nVS \nPHARMA EVO (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 376 = 2006 SLD 376 = 2006 CLD 729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Hold Annual General Meeting\nDetails: The company failed to hold its Annual General Meeting, violating the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Notices were served, but the company's repeated defaults highlighted a disregard for statutory obligations.\nHeld: Penalties of Rs. 20,000 were imposed on the company, Chief Executive, and Directors. A lenient view was taken considering the financial position of the company.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/231/2003 dated December 13, 2005, decision dated: 24-03-2006, hearing DATE : 27-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ralph Nazirullah, Company Secretary for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs SERVICE FABRICS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 377 = 2006 SLD 377 = 2006 CLD 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Suit on Basis of Promissory Note\nDetails: The defendant admitted signing the promissory note but claimed it was executed as surety. The trial court decreed the suit for the plaintiff due to the defendant’s failure to prove the claim.\nHeld: The trial court’s decision was upheld as no infirmity or illegality was found in the decree. The presumption under S. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, favored the plaintiff.\nCitations: Farid Akhtar Hadi’s case 1993 CLC 2015; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.56 of 2004, decision dated: 18-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed Babar Butt for Appellant.\nCh. Javed Rasool for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR \nVS \nZAHAR KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 378 = 2006 SLD 378 = 2006 CLD 741", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Inquiry into Share Acquisition\nDetails: Appellants complained about improper inquiry into share acquisitions. The High Court directed the Securities Commission to provide a hearing and resolve the matter.\nHeld: The High Court’s directions addressed the appellants’ concerns, leaving no further issue for appeal.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.64 of 2005, decision dated: 21st March, 2006, hearing DATE : 16-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH AND RASHID I. MALIK, COMMISSIONERS\nARIF MIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SM) AND MS., JAHANARA SAJJAD, JOINT DIRECTOR (SM) FOR RESPONDENTS NOS. 1 AND 2.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahir Shah for Appellants. \nMuhammad Waseem F.C.A. for Respondents Nos.26 to 29.\nIqbal Bawany for Respondents Nos.5, 7, 21, 23 and 25.\nS.M. Nasim for Respondents Nos.33 and 34.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD ILYAS MEHRAJ AND 16 OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION) AND 35 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 379 = 2006 SLD 379 = 2006 CLD 756", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Compliance with Quarterly Reporting\nDetails: The company failed to furnish quarterly accounts for two consecutive quarters. The Commission penalized the Chief Executive and Directors for repeated statutory violations.\nHeld: The penalties were justified due to the management’s disregard for compliance. Pleas for leniency were dismissed considering past violations.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.40 and 43 to 47 of 2005, decision dated: 4-04-2006, hearing DATE : 7-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ-UR-RAHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER AND SALMAN A. SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor A. Sheikh for Appellants.\nTariq Bakhtawar, Mubashir Saeed, Abdul Ghafoor Khan and Shahzad Afzal Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW DIVISION) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 380 = 2006 SLD 380 = 2006 CLD 769", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Merger of Companies\nDetails: Two companies sought merger approval to enhance operations and profitability. Creditors and shareholders unanimously approved the merger in court-supervised meetings.\nHeld: The High Court sanctioned the merger, dissolving one company effective from the specified date.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984; Companies (Court) Rules, 1977.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "C.O. No.3 of 2006, heard on 16-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Rafique Rajwana for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "RELIANCE EXPORT (PVT.) LTD. and others: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 381 = 2006 SLD 381 = 2006 CLD 776", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Liquidation and Auction of Company Assets\nDetails: In post-remand proceedings, the High Court accepted a higher bid received after initial bidding. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh adjudication per earlier observations.\nHeld: The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s order was set aside.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1071 of 2005 along with Civil Appeal No.1325 of 2005, decision dated: 15-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE\nMIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005).\nNemo for Respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005).\nM. Ikram Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 1071 of 2005).\nFakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. No. 1325 of 2005).\nM. Jaffar Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 39 (in C.A. No. 1325 of 2005).\nM. Ikram Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 40 (in C.A. No. 1325 of 2005) \nNemo for Respondents (in C.A. No. 1325 of 2005).", + "Petitioner Name:": "IBRAHIM SHAMSI AND ANOTHER \nVS \nBASHIR AHMED MEMON AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 382 = 2006 SLD 382 = 2006 CLD 784", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Fictitious Applications for Shares\nDetails: Duplicate applications for shares were submitted using the same identity information. One application was deemed genuine, and the other fictitious.\nHeld: Shares were allotted to the genuine applicant. The subscription money from the fictitious application was confiscated.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notices No.SMD/Co.62/3/2004-S, dated January 23, 2006 and dated January 26, 2006, decision dated: 28-03-2006, hearing DATE : 31st January, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAHANARA SAJJAD AHMAD, JOINT DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Khaliq Applicant in person. Ms. Asma Tayyiba, Deputy Director, C.I", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: ABDUL KAHLIQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 383 = 2006 SLD 383 = 2006 CLD 793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Bank Guarantee and Interest Dispute\nDetails: A dispute arose over foreign exchange risk coverage. The Supreme Court directed the State Bank to recover amounts via a bank guarantee, excluding interest, as the guarantee terms did not include such a provision.\nHeld: The State Bank could not debit interest from the guarantee furnished by the company.\nCitations: State Bank of Pakistan v. Messrs Faisal Spinning Mills Limited 1997 SCMR 1244.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.380 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. \nM. Rafiq Rajwana, Advocate Supreme Court with M. S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1. \nRaja M. Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER \nVS\nMESSRS FATIMA ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 384 = 2006 SLD 384 = 2006 CLD 810", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Informing Registrar of Change in Office\nDetails: The company informed the Registrar 17 days late about a change in its registered office. The delay was not deemed willful.\nHeld: Penalty was waived with a warning to ensure future compliance.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=142", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice under section 142 read with section 476 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, decision dated: 18-04-2006, hearing DATE : 13-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED SHAHEEN, REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs SASTA PHONE (PRIVATE) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 385 = 2006 SLD 385 = 2006 CLD 852 = 2007 PTCL 102 = 2007 PLJ 373 = 2007 PTR 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings)\nDetails:\nExamined the High Court's powers under Section 319 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, regarding staying winding-up proceedings. The Court's discretion is guided by principles ensuring the proposal benefits creditors, promotes commercial morality, and does not enable malfeasance. The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings, citing property title issues. However, the application was deemed mala fide and outside the ambit of Section 319, which does not cover collateral issues but focuses on bona fide revival proposals.\nHeld: The Court dismissed the application, citing its mala fide nature and lack of relevance to Section 319's purpose. Bona fide claims will be dealt with in due course.\nCitations:\n•\nHalsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edn. 1996\n•\nMahabir Prasad Agarwalla v. Ashkaran Chattar Singh\n•\nMessrs Consolidated Exports Ltd. v. Messrs Dyer Textile and Printing Mills Ltd., PLD 1984 Kar. 541\n•\nEast India Cotton Mills Ltd., AIR (36) Calcutta 1949\n•\nNikanta Kolay v. The Official Liquidator, AIR 1996 Cal. 171", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305,309,319", + "Case #": "C.M. 379-L of 2006 in C.O. No. 53 of 2004, decision dated: 7-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE\nKH. AAMER FAROOQ, MALIK M. RASHID AWAN, AZHAR MAQBOOL AHMED KHAN AND TANVIR AHMED SHAMI, JOINT OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RASHEED MUGHAL THROUGH BOARD RESOLUTION \nVS \nMESSRS ECSA (PK) (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 386 = 2006 SLD 386 = 2006 CLD 865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Stamp Act and Negotiable Instruments Act (Admissibility of Unstamped Documents)\nDetails:\nUnstamped promissory notes admitted in evidence without objection cannot be subsequently challenged and remain valid evidence. Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a promissory note's validity is unaffected by witness attestation. The Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, does not invalidate the document due to lack of witness attestation if statutory conditions are met.\nHeld: An unstamped promissory note validly admitted is subject to challenge only under Section 61 of the Stamp Act. Witness attestation does not void the negotiable instrument.\nCitations:\n•\nRamdeo v. Gulabchand, AIR 1958 Rajasthan 183\n•\nFirm Sri Chan Sheo Parshad v. Lajja Ram, AIR 1939 Lah. 31\n•\nK.M. Munner v. Mirza Rasheed Ahmad, PLD 1963 Kar. 905", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Stamp Act, of 1899=35", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 123 of 2005, decision dated: 23rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Masud for Appellant.\nMuhammad Shahid Rana for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHIQ\nVS\nRANA TARIQ MAHMOOD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 387 = 2006 SLD 387 = 2006 CLD 874", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (Liquidated Damages for Delayed Claims)\nDetails:\nPetitioners claimed liquidated damages under Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, for delays in insurance claim payments. Insurers delayed payment despite Wafaqi Mohtasib’s directive, forcing petitioners into litigation. Insurers failed to justify delays as beyond their control.\nHeld: High Court directed insurers to pay liquidated damages within three months under Section 118(2) of the Insurance Ordinance.\nCitations: Notable principles from Section 118 of Insurance Ordinance applied.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118", + "Case #": "Writ. Petition No. 1374 of 2006, decision dated: 18-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Butt for the Petitioner. \nMian Naseer Ahmad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. NUSRAT MALIK SALEEM\nVS \nLiaqat Ali Butt for the er." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 388 = 2006 SLD 388 = 2006 CLD 892", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (Prior User and Registration)\nDetails:\nUnder the Trade Marks Act, 1940, an opposition application’s refusal prevents the registrar from proceeding with the same trade mark's registration. Certificates from Chambers of Commerce are invalid to establish prior user of a trade mark.\nHeld: The registrar cannot proceed with registration following a refused opposition petition, and Chambers of Commerce lack authority to determine prior user.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act, Sections 14(3), 46, and 37.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=14", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Orders Nos. 71, 72 and 241 of 2004, heard on 24-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shakeel Abid for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEHRAN ENGINEERING WORKS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS \nREGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 389 = 2006 SLD 389 = 2006 CLD 895", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURVNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Scheme of Arrangement and Creditor Rights under the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nDetails: The petitioner sought court approval under Section 284 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, for a scheme converting secured and unsecured creditors' dues into equity and waiving mark-up. Secured creditors, including banks with decrees and pending executions, objected to the scheme. The objections highlighted the classification of creditors and the jurisdiction to address conflicting interests.\nHeld: The court emphasized the necessity of complying with procedural requirements for sanctioning schemes, ensuring fairness, addressing all stakeholders' interests, and preventing violations of law or public policy. Ultimately, the scheme was refused approval, deemed unfair, unjust, and a mala fide attempt to deprive secured creditors.\nCitations: Cases cited include Guha v. Madhabendra Kumar Shakla, Re: Hunza Central Textile Mills, Re: Lipton Pakistan Ltd., and others exploring creditor rights, fair treatment, and procedural requirements under Section 284.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=Preamble", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 54 of 2002, decision dated: 25-04-2006. dates of hearing: 21st, 22nd and 28-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Mansoor for the Petitioner. \nArshad Tayebally for the Objectors.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CARAVAN EAST FABRICS LIMITED \nVS \nASKARI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., ALBARAKA ISLAMIC BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 390 = 2006 SLD 390 = 2006 CLD 960", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Register under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nDetails: The petition involved allegations of fraudulent transfer or omission of a name from a company register. The petitioner sought rectification of the register to address grievances regarding share transfers.\nHeld: The court underscored its obligation to decide intricate legal and factual questions in petitions under Section 152, allowing evidence collection via affidavits or otherwise. The legislature intended for such disputes to be addressed under summary company jurisdiction instead of protracted civil litigation. Where petitions were unduly delayed (11 years in this case), the court denied discretionary relief under Section 152.\nCitations: Relevant cases include Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. Shah Mulchand and Co., Syed Shafqat Hussain v. Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, and others addressing rectification and limitation principles.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=152", + "Case #": "J. Misc. No. 16 of 2004 and C.M.A. No.1254 of 2005, decision dated: 16-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aga Faquir Muhammad for Petitione. Riaz-ud-Din for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED AKBAR ALI\nvs\nMAMUN ALI BUMASUK (PVT.) LTD. and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 391 = 2006 SLD 391 = 2006 CLD 967", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment of a Receiver/Administrator in Financially Distressed Company\nDetails: Tremendous financial difficulties led creditors to file a petition under Section 292 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking the appointment of a receiver or administrator for a company. The petition also sought rescheduling and restructuring of liabilities and a moratorium on interest/markup.\nHeld: The High Court declined the relief, holding there was no justification for appointing an administrator and suggested approaching the Government's Restructuring and Re-Scheduling Committee.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 292, 290.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "J.M. Nos. 27 and 47 of 2000, heard on 13-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farooq H. Naek for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Farogh Nasim, Salim-ud-Din Nasir and Sajjad Ali Shah for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAHIM AND 28 OTHERS \nVS \nMESSRS THARPARKAR SUGAR MILLS LTD., THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 10 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 392 = 2006 SLD 392 = 2006 CLD 988", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary De-listing of Securities\nDetails: The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SECP) order for voluntary de-listing was challenged due to a lack of safeguards for investors' rights, which are central to the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.\nHeld: The High Court set aside SECP's de-listing order, emphasizing the need to protect investor interests as per regulations.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.9(6); SECP Act (XLII of 1997), S.34; Regulation for Voluntary De-listing, paras 32-A & 5.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=9", + "Case #": "Commercial Appeal No. 9 of 2004, heard on 18-05-2006. dates of hearing: 17th and 18-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawad Hassan and Arif Saeed for Appellants. \nKhawaja Saeed-ud-Zafar for Respondent. \nSohail Ahmad and Javed Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE \nVS\nLAHORE APPELLATE BENCH S&EC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 393 = 2006 SLD 393 = 2006 CLD 997", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Investments by Directors\nDetails: Company Directors made unauthorized investments in associated companies without shareholder approval, violating Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nHeld: A fine of Rs.100,000 was imposed on each Director, along with directions for compliance under Section 473.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208, 476.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/410/2002-6525-31 dated March 1, 2005, decision dated: 6-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs S.G. POWER LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 394 = 2006 SLD 394 = 2006 CLD 1016", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Violation of Listing Regulations for Preference Shares\nDetails: Stock Exchange listed preference shares in violation of Listing Regulations. Shares issued to institutional investors lacked sufficient public interest.\nHeld: The Executive Director of SECP imposed penalties and ordered the de-listing of shares.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 9(4), 22(c); Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.86(1).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "Decided on 26-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "M. ARIF MIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid M. Imtiazi, Managing Director (LSE) and Malik Zafar Javaid for Lahore Stock Exchange.", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: SHARES OF PAK ELECTRON LIMITED AND MASOOD TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED LISTED ON LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 395 = 2006 SLD 395 = 2006 CLD 1023", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Auditors\nDetails: Auditors provided misleading reports in violation of Sections 255 and 260(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, failing to fulfill statutory obligations.\nHeld: A fine of Rs.25,000 was imposed on the auditing company's proprietor.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 255, 260(1), 476.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/541/2003-6575 dated December 21, 2005, decision dated: 2-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ BAKHTAWAR, DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: KAMRAN & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 396 = 2006 SLD 396 = 2006 CLD 1034", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Default in Transmitting Quarterly Accounts\nDetails: A company delayed submitting quarterly accounts by over three months, failing to comply with Section 245 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nHeld: A fine of Rs.5,000 was imposed on each Director.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 245, 476.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/432/2005, dated February 24, 2006, decision dated: 12-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: TRANSMISSION ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 397 = 2006 SLD 397 = 2006 CLD 1038", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Patent Infringement and Public Interest\nDetails: A patent infringement dispute arose over a pharmaceutical product with identical manufacturing processes. Public interest in supplying Hepatitis-B medication influenced the case.\nHeld: Interim injunction denied; product testing ordered. The respondent was directed to provide a bank guarantee equal to contract value if found infringing.\nCitations: Patents Ordinance (LXI of 2000), Ss. 61(1)(b), 58(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.147 of 2006, decision dated: 18-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hasan Irfan Khan and Mueen Qamar for Appellants. \nDr. A. Basit and Ijaz Rahim for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHIRE BIOCHEM INC. AND OTHERS \nVS \nENGLISH PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 398 = 2006 SLD 398 = 2006 CLD 1055", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Loans to Associated Undertakings\nDetails: Directors provided interest-free loans to associated undertakings without shareholder approval, violating Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nHeld: Fine imposed; directors found acting against company interests.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208, 472.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/ 164/2002-7073-7079, dated December 30, 2005, decision dated: 15-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs NOON TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 399 = 2006 SLD 399 = 2006 CLD 1063", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to File Quarterly Accounts\nDetails: A company failed to file its quarterly accounts per Section 245 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The company argued that it was non-functional during the default period and lacked the staff to prepare the accounts.\nHeld: The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) deemed this an insufficient excuse and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000 on the Chief Executive and each Director, considering their wilful and deliberate default.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984 (Sections 245, 476).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/289/2003, dated July 25, 2005 and January 27, 2006, decision dated: 18-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs USMAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 400 = 2006 SLD 400 = 2006 CLD 1068", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Penalty under Securities Laws\nDetails: The appellant was fined Rs. 72,150 by the SECP for insider trading and violating the Code of Conduct. The fine for insider trading was contested as the SECP lacked authority to impose fines under Section 15-B.\nHeld: The fine of Rs. 72,150 was set aside, but a penalty of Rs. 100,000 for violating the Code of Conduct was upheld.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 (Sections 7(1)(d), 15-A, B & 22(1)(c)); Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 (Rules 8(ii), (iv), 8(a), 8(b)); SECP Act, 1997 (Section 33).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=7", + "Case #": "Appeal No.38 of 2005, decision dated: 9-08-2005, hearing DATE : 14-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID I. MLAIK, COMMISSIONER\nSALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed and Muhammad Shoaib for Appellant. \nImran Inayat Butt, Babar Sattar and Muhammad Hasan Zaidi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALFALAH SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 401 = 2006 SLD 401 = 2006 CLD 1075", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Multiple Applications for Share Subscription\nDetails: An applicant was accused of submitting two applications using the same NIC number but with altered details. Investigations revealed the second application was submitted by another person using tampered documents.\nHeld: The original application was accepted, shares were allotted to the applicant, and the subscription money for the fictitious application was confiscated.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 (Section 18-A).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Show-cause Notice No.SMD/Co.62/3/2004-S dated January 23, 2006 and January 26, 2006, decision dated: 26-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAHANARA SAJJAD AHMAD, JOINT DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasim Khan and Muhammad Bilal Khan in person. Ms. Asma Tayyiba, Deputy Director, C.I. for Joint Director (SM)", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: MUHAMMAD BILAL KHAN and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 402 = 2006 SLD 402 = 2006 CLD 1080", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Disclosure of Financial Status by Banks\nDetails: Banks shared customer financial details with other banks under a State Bank Circular for transparency and to prevent defaults.\nHeld: Such disclosures were deemed valid and not violative of fundamental rights, aiming to protect financial institutions.\nCitations: State Bank of Pakistan BCD Circular No. 6 of 1990 (Clause 5).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 348-K of 2005, decision dated: 29-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. \nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL AZIZ NAWAB KHAN\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 403 = 2006 SLD 403 = 2006 CLD 1082", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Auction of Company Assets\nDetails: A bid in an auction was deemed an offer that does not create a property right without sale confirmation.\nHeld: The bid did not entitle the successful bidder to claim confirmation as a right.\nCitations: Afzal Mahmood Butt v. Banking Court No. 2, Lahore PLD 2005 SC 470.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No. 37 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No.1071 of 2005, decision dated: 17-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmed Pirzada, Addl. A. G. for Respondent. \nKadir Bux Umrani, Official Assignee.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD LAEEQ AND OTHERS \nVS \nSINDH ALKALIS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 404 = 2006 SLD 404 = 2006 CLD 1092", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Default in Holding Meetings\nDetails: A company failed to hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) as required under Section 171 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The SECP directed the company to hold the AGM, which was not complied with.\nHeld: The Chief Executive was fined Rs. 33,200, and further defaults could lead to winding up under Section 305.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984 (Sections 170, 171, 305, 476).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=170", + "Case #": "Show-cause Notice No.EMD/233/345/2002, dated January 27, 2006, decision dated: 5-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 405 = 2006 SLD 405 = 2006 CLD 1109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Injunction in Trade Mark Dispute\nDetails: A plaintiff claimed prior use of the trademark Zaniflex and sought an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar trademark Zanaflex. \nHeld: The injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff, affirming their prior registration and entitlement to the trademark.\nCitations: Various case laws and the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=39", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.36 of 2005. decided on 17-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Fazil Bharucha for Appellant. \nFarooq Amjad Meer and M. Masood Khan for Respondents. \nNajmus Saqib, FID (K) for Respondent No. 3. Raj Kumar, Asst. I/C (DCA) K for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PLATINUM PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED \nVS \nSTAND PHARM PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 406 = 2006 SLD 406 = 2006 CLD 1127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Valid Authority to Institute Suit\nDetails: A suit for trade mark infringement and passing off raised questions about the authority to institute the suit.\nHeld: The trial court must determine the validity of the authority through evidence.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act, 1940 (Section 73).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=73", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.392 of 1999, heard on 16-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJGENERALE BISCUIT THROUGH", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassan Irfan Khan for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND ANOTHER\nVS\nMEHRAN BAKERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 407 = 2006 SLD 407 = 2006 CLD 1130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Privatization and Proprietary Rights\nDetails: Plaintiffs claimed rights to match the highest bid during privatization but failed to do so. Their suit was dismissed.\nHeld: The dismissal was upheld, as plaintiffs neither matched the bid nor demonstrated intent to do so.\nCitations: Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 (Sections 29, 33); Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Order VII, Rule 11).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.518 of 2005, decision dated: 26-05-2006, hearing DATE : 23rd, 25th and 26-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nPRIVATIZATION COMMMISSION THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 4 OTHERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Tariq Kamal Qazi for Appellants. \nRaja Muhammad Akram for Respondent No. 1.\nAbid Aziz Sheikh for Respondent No. 2. \nRaja M. Bashir for Respondents Nos.3 and 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN FAROOQ AHMED SHEIKH AND 8 OTHERS \nVS \nPRIVATIZATION COMMMISSION THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 408 = 2006 SLD 408 = 2006 CLD 1150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "False Statements Regarding Audit\nDetails: Directors of a company issued accounts falsely claiming they were audited. SECP found this to be a deliberate misstatement.\nHeld: A token fine of Rs. 15,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive and one Director, while others were reprimanded.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984 (Sections 492, 476).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=492", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/265/2002-8959-65 dated March 10, 2006, decision dated: 7-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: LIBAAS TEXTILE LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 409 = 2006 SLD 409 = 2006 CLD 1157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to prepare and transmit quarterly accounts.\nDetails:\nUnder Sections 245 and 476 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, a company is required to prepare and transmit quarterly accounts to its members, file them with the Registrar, and submit to the Commission. The company in question failed to meet these requirements. The Directors' representative could not justify the default, citing the company's inactivity, which was not deemed a valid excuse. Past records indicated repeated defaults since 2001, and prior penalties had been imposed. Protection of shareholders and timely dissemination of information are central objectives of the ordinance, which the Directors failed to uphold.\nHeld:\nThe default was established, and instead of the maximum fine, a penalty of Rs.10,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive and each Director.\nCitations:\nSections 245 & 476, Companies Ordinance, 1984.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/201/2003-8402-8408, dated February 23, 2006, decision dated: 14-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(COMPANY INTO DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs SUNSHINE COTTON MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 410 = 2006 SLD 410 = 2006 CLD 1167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Mismanagement of books and accounts and insider trading.\nDetails:\nOne company sold shares of another company to a listed public company at specified prices. During an inspection by the SECP, the seller company was found guilty of acting on unpublished price-sensitive information, causing losses to the buyer company while avoiding losses itself. The seller company violated insider trading provisions under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969. The Directors of the seller company received show-cause notices.\nHeld:\nThe SECP ordered the seller company to compensate Rs.182.435 million to the buyer company for the losses caused, without prejudice to further legal actions or prosecutions.\nCitations:\nSections 15-A & B, Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969; Section 10, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD/TO/04/2006, dated April 5, 2006, decision dated: 22-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "M. ARIF MIAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: MAHMOOD AHMED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 411 = 2006 SLD 411 = 2006 CLD 1204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment of an Inspector to investigate a company.\nDetails:\nShareholders holding 35% shares in a company alleged corporate, administrative, and financial mismanagement. The High Court directed the appointment of a Local Commission, which recommended a detailed investigation by an agency. The Executive Director (CLD) of the SECP appointed an Inspector under delegated powers. The appellants contested the delegation of powers and shareholder eligibility under the law but failed to substantiate their claims. The High Court's decision was supported as the case required an independent investigation for a fair resolution.\nHeld:\nThe appointment of an Inspector was upheld, and the Fraud Investigation Unit was directed to proceed with investigations and initiate proceedings regarding disputed shares under Section 279 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nCitations:\nSections 263, 264, 279 & 290, Companies Ordinance, 1984; Section 33, Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969. Cases cited: PLD 1990 Kar. 198; 2006 CLD 283; 2006 CLD 308; 2006 CLD 311; 2000 MLD 1880; 2006 CLD 85.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=263", + "Case #": "Appeal No.43 of 2006, decision dated: 28-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-RAHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Qamar Afzal for Appellant.\nFakhar Mahmud Chanda for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NORTHERN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (COMPANY LAW), SEC AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 412 = 2006 SLD 412 = 2006 CLD 1237 = 2007 PLJ 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices – Examination of Authority’s Orders and Scope of Key Provisions.\nDetails:\nThis case revolves around allegations of cartelization in the cement industry and the Authority's findings regarding low or very low capacity utilization among cement manufacturers, allegedly used to justify increased prices in May 2003. The appellants contested the methodology and reasoning of the Authority, highlighting inconsistencies in characterizing capacity utilization without proper basis or application of mind. The court found that the impugned orders were unsustainable in law and not supported by sufficient material evidence.\nThe scope and interpretation of key sections under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance, 1970, were examined:\n•\nSection 20: Appeals to the High Court under this section are limited to questions of law, similar to Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.\n•\nSection 3: Prohibits undue concentration of economic power, monopolies, and unreasonably restrictive trade practices.\n•\nSection 10: Defines the Authority’s functions, empowering it to prevent violations of Section 3.\n•\nSections 2, 3 & 6: Address the definitions and scope of trade practices, requiring the Authority to prove unreasonable prevention, restraint, or lessening of competition, except in situations where Section 6(1) applies as a deeming provision.\nHeld:\nThe High Court quashed the Authority's orders, finding that they lacked legal and evidentiary support. It emphasized that the Authority failed to adequately establish the ingredients of an unreasonably restrictive trade practice or justify its conclusions regarding cartelization and capacity utilization.\nCitations:\n•\nRelevant laws: Sections 2, 3, 6, 10, 20 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970; Section 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908.\n•\nCase law references:\no\nPLD 1998 SC 1445 (Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan)\no\nPLD 1985 FSC 193 (Islamization of Laws)\no\nPLD 1975 SC 397 (Mehreen Zaib-un-Nisa v. Land Commissioner, Multan)\no\nInternational cases, including Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Inc., United States v. New York Coffee and Sugar Exchange, and Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=20", + "Case #": "Monopoly Appeal No.2 of 2005, decision dated: 26-07-2006, hearing DATE : 3rd July, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munib Akhtar and Salman Akram Raja for Appellant. \nDr. Danishwar Malik, D.A.G. and Ms. Seema Munawar, A.A.G. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANIES LIMITED THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY/THROUGH CHAIRPERSON \nVS \nMONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 413 = 2006 SLD 413 = 2006 CLD 1295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to hold Annual General Meetings\nDetails: The company failed to hold Annual General Meetings (AGMs) within the prescribed period as per Section 158(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The company's directors, including the Chief Executive, were issued a show-cause notice for failure to comply with this requirement. The company explained it remained closed due to conflicts with previous owners and financial institutions, with no staff to maintain accounts.\nHeld: The court rejected the company's explanation, stating that the company should have still been able to prepare the accounts and hold the meetings. The failure to comply was found to be wilful and deliberate. Consequently, a penalty was imposed on the directors, though less than the maximum fine allowed.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Ss. 158, 476.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/217/2005-6576-6582, dated December 21, 2005, decided can 21st July, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs HAKKIM TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 414 = 2006 SLD 414 = 2006 CLD 1301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal and Limitation in Financial Recovery Cases\nDetails: The appellant's appeal in a financial recovery case was dismissed due to delay in filing. The appeal was governed by the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which set a 30-day limit for filing appeals, not the 90 days provided under the Limitation Act, 1908. The appellant had filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was deemed inapplicable.\nHeld: The High Court ruled the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not maintainable as the special law (the Financial Institutions Ordinance) prescribed its own limitation period. The appeal was dismissed as barred by time.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Ss. 22(1); Limitation Act, 1908, Ss. 5 & 29(2).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 473 of 2005, heard on 19-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Nasar Hussain Baig for Appellant.\nSyed Zaheer Saghir for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAUDHRY MUHAMMAD ASLAM \nVS \nSME BANK LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN/PRESIDENT AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 415 = 2006 SLD 415 = 2006 CLD 1307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Mismanagement of Company Accounts\nDetails: The company’s auditors had issued qualifications in the annual accounts, leading to the imposition of a fine of Rs. 1,000,000 on each director. The directors appealed, raising objections about the lack of explicit language regarding penalty imposition in the order. The company had been mismanaged and the accounts did not reflect a true and fair view of the company’s affairs.\nHeld: The appeal of one director, who was co-opted after the relevant period, was accepted, and the penalty against him was set aside. The other director, who had been on the board since 2002, had his fine reduced to Rs. 50,000.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Ss. 282-J, 282-K, 282-M; Non-Banking Finance Companies Rules, 2003, R. 5(6).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 23 and 24 of 2005, decision dated: 22-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RAZI-UR-REHMAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Farooq Akhtar for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHADAB HASSAN AND ANOTHER \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SPECIALISED COMPANIES DIVISION), SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 416 = 2006 SLD 416 = 2006 CLD 1314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Dishonestly Issued Cheques and Recovery of Finances\nDetails: The case involved an accused who allegedly issued a dishonestly drawn cheque under Section 489-F, P.P.C. The accused argued there was no dishonesty involved, as the cheque was issued from a joint account with a co-accused, and payment had been made to the complainant before the cheque could be stopped.\nHeld: The court found that no wrongful loss had been caused to the complainant as the payment was made from the joint account. The accused’s interim bail was confirmed, with the possibility of mala fide intentions on the part of the complainant.\nCitations: Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 24, 489-F; Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Ss. 2(d)(iv), 7, 20, 22.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=489", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3399-B of 2006, decision dated: 29-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MANOR (RETD.) JAVED INAYAT KHAN KIYANI \nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 417 = 2006 SLD 417 = 2006 CLD 1334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Prepare and Transmit Quarterly Accounts\nDetails: The company failed to prepare and transmit quarterly accounts for two consecutive quarters, violating Section 245 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The directors, including the Chief Executive, did not respond to the show-cause notices or appear at hearings.\nHeld: The company’s failure to file quarterly accounts was deemed wilful and deliberate. Penalties were imposed on the directors, with the fine reduced for one quarter to Rs. 50,000 for each director.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Ss. 245, 476.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/321/2004, dated May, 3 and 16, 2006, decision dated: 20-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs TRISTAR POLYESTER LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 418 = 2006 SLD 418 = 2006 CLD 1343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nImposition of Penalty for Failure to File Quarterly Accounts\n•\nDetails: The company filed its second-quarter accounts late and failed to file its third-quarter accounts altogether as per Section 245 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The directors and chief executive argued that the delay was accidental due to a staff mistake and assured future compliance, but this explanation was unsatisfactory. The company's track record for non-compliance was poor, and previous assurances had not been fulfilled.\n•\nHeld: The defaults were considered wilful and deliberate. A fine of Rs. 20,000 was imposed on each director and the chief executive instead of the maximum penalty.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Section 245", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/278/2006, dated May 4 and 23, 2006, decision dated: 12-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "No one appeared", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs REDCO TEXTILES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 419 = 2006 SLD 419 = 2006 CLD 1347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlFpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLiquidation Proceedings and Sale of Company Assets\n•\nDetails: In liquidation proceedings, assets of the company were being sold under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The decree-holder participated in the auction and was declared the successful bidder. The auction was conducted under terms approved by the Court, despite not adhering to certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) relating to court auctions.\n•\nHeld: The provisions of the CPC did not apply in liquidation sales governed by the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The auction sale was upheld, but a fresh sale with a reserve price was ordered due to the participation of the decree-holder, which could disadvantage the debtor.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 297, 309, 311, 321; Companies (Court) Rules, 1947, Rules 236 & 237; Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.XXI, Rr. 64-73 & 89-92\n•\nReferences: Mrs. Aziz Fatima v. Mrs. Rehana Chughtai, 2000 CLC 863; Brig. Mazhar-ul-Haq v. Muslim Commercial Bank, PLD 1993 Lah. 706", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=297", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 10 of 1995 and C.M. No.519 of 2004, decision dated: 28-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL LEASING CCRPORATION LTD. \nVS\nMESSRS SUNRISE TEXTILES LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 420 = 2006 SLD 420 = 2006 CLD 1357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFailure to Hold Annual General Meeting (AGM)\n•\nDetails: The company failed to hold its AGM within the prescribed period. The company claimed that the non-holding was due to factory closure, but the explanation was deemed unsatisfactory. The purpose of AGMs is to ensure shareholders are informed about the company’s affairs, and this non-compliance deprived shareholders of their statutory rights.\n•\nHeld: The failure was considered wilful. A fine of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the chief executive and each director, instead of the maximum fine.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 158 & 476", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/584/2006-7645-52, dated January 25, 2006 decided on 30-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ BAKHTAWAR, DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs FRONTIER CERAMICS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 421 = 2006 SLD 421 = 2006 CLD 1364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAmalgamation of Companies\n•\nDetails: A scheme to merge two companies was proposed, which aimed at saving administrative costs and improving operations. The registrar objected on the grounds that the merger of authorized capital would cause a loss to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The merger had received unanimous approval from both companies' shareholders.\n•\nHeld: The objection was overruled as the merger was in good faith, and the fee for authorized capital had already been paid. The merger was approved.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 287, 288, 92, 93\n•\nReferences: No specific case reference mentioned", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=287", + "Case #": "C.O. No.2 of 2006, decision dated: 19-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAHMOOD POWER GENERATION LIMITED AND MAHMOOD TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED \nVS\nJOINT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 422 = 2006 SLD 422 = 2006 CLD 1366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFailure to File Quarterly Accounts\n•\nDetails: The company failed to file its quarterly accounts as required by Section 245 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Despite receiving show-cause notices, no satisfactory explanation was provided, and there was a history of non-compliance.\n•\nHeld: The defaults were deliberate, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 20,000 for each director and chief executive instead of the maximum fine.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Section 245", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/416/2004, dated May 3, 2006 and May 16, 2006, decision dated: 20-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "No one appeared", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of : Messrs TRISTAR POWER LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 423 = 2006 SLD 423 = 2006 CLD 1376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFailure to Make Payments to Provident Fund\n•\nDetails: The company failed to deposit contributions to the Provident Fund Trust within the required 15-day period, breaching Section 227 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The company's failure to pay the contributions deprived employees of their rightful benefits.\n•\nHeld: The company was fined Rs. 5,000, and it was ordered to make good the loss to the Provident Fund.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 227, 229, 476", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=277", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/351 /2002-10672-10679, dated May 17, 2006, decision dated: 30-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ BAKHTAWAR, DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs MEHRAN SUGAR MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 424 = 2006 SLD 424 = 2006 CLD 1386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNon-Receipt of Allotted Shares\n•\nDetails: A complainant alleged that she was denied shares after winning the share balloting due to the company's failure to transfer them within the stipulated time.\n•\nHeld: The company was found to have violated Section 74 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. A token fine of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on each director and the chief executive, rather than a per-day fine.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Section 74", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=74", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.C-2103/EMD/166/2005, dated August 11, 2005 decided on 30-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ BAKHTAWAR, DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs DIN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 425 = 2006 SLD 425 = 2006 CLD 1414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNon-Use of Registered Trade Mark\n•\nDetails: The appellant registered the WELLAFORM trademark but failed to use it for many years due to import restrictions. The respondent applied for registration of the WELLA trademark. The appellant did not use the trademark for over five years.\n•\nHeld: The appellant's trademark was removed from the register under Section 37 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, due to non-use.\n•\nCitations: Trade Marks Act, 1940, Sections 8(a), 14, 19(1), 28, 37, 46(2)\n•\nReferences: 1988 CLC 252; 1969 SC 477", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=8", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeals Nos.2, 3 and 4 of 1989, decision dated: 19-04-2006, hearing DATE : 15-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalil Kizilbash for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WELLA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT\nVS \nSHAMIM AKHTAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 426 = 2006 SLD 426 = 2006 CLD 1440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nImposition of Penalty on Auditors for Non-Compliance\n•\nDetails: Auditors failed to report on the company’s accounts in accordance with the requirements of Section 255 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. They did not follow International Accounting Standards, and their audit reports were misleading.\n•\nHeld: The auditors were fined Rs. 50,000 each for failing to comply with their statutory obligations under Section 260 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 255, 260, 476", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/571/2002 dated March 22, 2006, decision dated: 10-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMAD KHAN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs TARIQ AYUB ANWAR & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 427 = 2006 SLD 427 = 2006 CLD 1455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFailure to Hold Annual General Meeting\n•\nDetails: The company failed to hold its AGM within the prescribed time, depriving shareholders of their right to exercise powers and vote on important matters.\n•\nHeld: The failure was wilful, and a fine of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on each director and the chief executive, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000 per day for continued default.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 74, 77, 158, 476", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/345/2002-152-159 dated July 6, 2006, decision dated: 16-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ BAKHTAWAR, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs HASEEB WAQAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 428 = 2006 SLD 428 = 2006 CLD 1470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Increasing Capital and Failure to Provide Information\nDetails: The company made an announcement regarding the issue of right shares but failed to provide necessary information to the Commission and Stock Exchange as required under the Companies (Issue of Capital) Rules, 1996. The company did not specify the purpose, benefits, and financial projections of the right issue, nor did it provide the required signed financial plan and projections.\nHeld: The company violated provisions of Rule 5 and Section 492 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Despite admitting the oversight, the directors were held responsible for the mismanagement. A penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on each director instead of the maximum fine of Rs. 100,000.\nCitations: Companies (Issue of Capital) Rules, 1996, Rule 5; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Section 492", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/390/02-11676-82 dated June 20, 2006, decision dated: 16-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: ALTERN ENERGY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 429 = 2006 SLD 429 = 2006 CLD 1477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Trademark and Notice of Opposition\nDetails: The respondent filed an opposition notice against the petitioner's trademark registration after the prescribed time limit had passed. The opposition was initially dismissed for being time-barred.\nHeld: The High Court allowed the opposition, remanding the matter for a decision on merits. It ruled that the opposition notice was timely filed under Rule 76 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1963, and the objection regarding the lack of a power of attorney was hypertechnical and did not affect the case’s merits.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act (V of 1940), Section 15(2); Trade Marks Rules, 1963, Rules 30 & 76; Rehmat Elahi v. Messrs Hoyo Kabushiki Kaisha PLD 1992 SC 417", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=15", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1044 of 2003, decision dated: 28-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "HAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Ahmad Sh., Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GAP INC. A DAWARE CORPORATION USA THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \nGAP DEPARTMENTAL STORE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 430 = 2006 SLD 430 = 2006 CLD 1482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Submit Quarterly Accounts\nDetails: The company failed to prepare and submit its quarterly accounts within the prescribed time under Section 245 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The directors were held responsible for the delay, although they offered assurances for timely submission in the future.\nHeld: The court imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 on the Chief Executive and each director, taking a lenient view despite the breach of the statutory requirement.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Section 245", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/Enf-II/231/2003 dated June 16, 2006, decision dated: 16-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs SERVICE FABRICS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 431 = 2006 SLD 431 = 2006 CLD 1491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Suit for Recovery and Arbitration Agreement\nDetails: The plaintiff filed a suit for damages due to non-delivery of goods. The defendant applied for a stay, citing an arbitration clause in the sales contract.\nHeld: The court ruled that an arbitration agreement existed, which could be inferred from the parties' correspondence, and stayed the suit, directing the parties to resolve the matter through arbitration as per the contract.\nCitations: 2002 SCMR 1903; 1977 SCMR 409; Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Section 34; Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act (VI of 1937), Section 3", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "Suit No.1369 of 2004 and C.M.A. No.1299 of 2005, decision dated: 7th March,. 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "METROPOLITAN STEEL CORPORATION LTD. \nVS \nMACSTEEL INTERNATIONAL U.K. LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 432 = 2006 SLD 432 = 2006 CLD 1511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Carrier’s Duty and Liability for Lost Consignment\nDetails: The plaintiffs, an exporter and an importer, filed a suit after a consignment entrusted to the defendant (shipping company) was not delivered. The defendant failed to provide evidence to support its defense.\nHeld: The defendant was liable for the lost consignment, and the plaintiffs were awarded the value of the goods and damages, as the defendant failed to prove that the consignment reached its destination.\nCitations: Muhammad Noor Alam v. Zair Hussain 1988 MLD 1122; East and West Steamship Company v. Hossain Brothers PLD 1968 SC 15", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.752 of 1987, decision dated: 21st August, 2006, hearing DATE : 9-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADAM HOLDING LIMITED AND ANOTHER \nVS \nGLOBAL CONTAINER LINES (BAHAMAS) LTD. THROUGH LOCAL AGENTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 433 = 2006 SLD 433 = 2006 CLD 1523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition, Business Restrictions, and Import Policy\nDetails: The petitioner's challenge against the imposition of a fee for opening a letter of credit under the Import Policy Order was dismissed, arguing that such fee was a valid regulation under the Constitution.\nHeld: The imposition of the fee was deemed reasonable under Article 18 of the Constitution as a regulatory measure to promote general welfare.\nCitations: Rasheed Mehmood v. Muhammad Riaz Akhtar 1997 SCMR 1406; Iftikhar Hussian Khan of Mamdot v. Ghulam Nabi Corporation Limited PLD 1971 SC 550", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.2659 of 1994 and 34 of 1995, decision dated: 10-08-2006. dates of hearing: 22nd March and 4-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nRAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anjum Ghani and Tariq Jawaid for Petitioners. \nFareed-du-Din and Sajjad Ali Shah, D.A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAPPHIRE TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED \nVS \nPAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 434 = 2006 SLD 434 = 2006 CLD 1539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Lease and Buy-back Arrangement Taxation\nDetails: The issue involved determining whether a lease and buy-back arrangement was taxable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and if it constituted a sale under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.\nHeld: The transaction was not considered a sale and thus not taxable under the relevant provisions of the law.\nCitations: Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance (XXXI of 1980), Sections 2(ab) & (c); Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Section 54; Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Section 50(4)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.479 of 2000, decision dated: 4-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX COMPANIES ZONE, FAISALABAD\nVS \nMESSRS RAFHAN MAIZ PRODUCT COMPANY LTD., FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 435 = 2006 SLD 435 = 2006 CLD 1548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Suit for Loan Recovery and Jurisdiction of Banking Court\nDetails: The Sindh Small Industries and Handicraft Development Corporation filed a suit for recovery of a loan, which was dismissed by the Banking Court for lack of jurisdiction, as the Corporation was not deemed a banking company.\nHeld: The Banking Court lacked jurisdiction but should have returned the plaint for re-filing under the Civil Procedure Code. The court’s judgment was set aside, and the plaint was returned to the plaintiff.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Section 7(2); Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, Section 5(b)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=2", + "Case #": "1st Civil Appeal No. D-03 of 2006, decision dated: 20-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JUSTICE\nSYED SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SINDH SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION \nVS \nSHAHZADO KHAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 436 = 2006 SLD 436 = 2006 CLD 1559", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition - Special US Dollar Bearer Bonds\nDetails: The case deals with the refusal of the authority to accept a purchaser's claim for a 5% redemption bonus on reinvested Special US Dollar Bearer Bonds after their maturity. The bonds, denominated in US Dollars, were redeemable either in Pak Rupees or US Dollars. The purchaser chose reinvestment in US Dollars, which provided a higher return.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, stating that reinvestment was a new contract and not a continuation of the original bond, and thus no bonus was owed.\nCitations: I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041; Tradex (Pvt.) Limited v. Governor, State Bank of Pakistan 2003 CLD 756; Messrs United Kashmir Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir 2003 YLR 2835.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Special US Dollar Bearer Bonds Rules, 1998=R-2", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1246 of 2003, decision dated: 14-09-2006, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia-ud-Din Nasir Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Abdul Aziz an and Abdul Qadir Khan for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. MIRZA IKHTIAR BAIG \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 437 = 2006 SLD 437 = 2006 CLD 1060", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance - Failure to Circulate Shareholder Information\nDetails: A company increased the remuneration of its Chief Executive without notifying shareholders, violating Section 218 of the Companies Ordinance. The company failed to provide documentary proof for the claimed increase.\nHeld: A penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the company, rather than the Rs. 10,000 fine on both the company and its Secretary as prescribed.\nCitations: None directly cited in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=218", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/430/2001-9906-07, dated April 17, 2006. decided on 19-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMAD KHAN, DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs GENERAL TYRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 438 = 2006 SLD 438 = 2006 CLD 1577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance - Misrepresentation in Right Issue Circular\nDetails: The company misrepresented its financial projections regarding the use of proceeds from a rights issue and the conversion of a Director’s loan into equity.\nHeld: A penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the Directors and the Chief Executive for the misrepresentation in financial projections, despite the maximum penalty being Rs. 1,00,000.\nCitations: None directly cited in the case.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.CO.233/123/2002, dated October 28, 2005, decision dated: 24-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "DR. SAJID QURESHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs WALI OIL MILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 212 = 2009 SLD 212 = 2009 CLD 1498", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition - Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts\nDetails: The case concerns the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court to entertain a petition, even though the respondents functioned in Islamabad and the action was initiated there.\nHeld: The Lahore High Court had concurrent jurisdiction as the action affected the petitioner in Lahore. The petitioner had the choice of forum.\nCitations: Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) v. CBR PLD 1997 SC 334; Messrs Al-Iblagh Limited Lahore v. The Copyright Board Karachi 1985 SCMR 758.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=30", + "Case #": "C.M. No.2202 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.9518, decision dated: 16-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aitzaz Ahsan, Uzair Karamat Bhandari and Shahid Saeed for Petitioner. \nBasharat Qadir for Respondent No. 4. \nDr. Parvez Hassan for Respondent No. 9.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LPG ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ISLAMABAD AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 213 = 2009 SLD 213 = 2009 CLD 1517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments - Promissory Note and Bond Distinction\nDetails: A case involving a promissory note and receipt promissory note that were not attested by two witnesses, leading to the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit. The trial court ruled the notes as bonds due to the lack of attestation and payment of consideration.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, noting the requirement for two witnesses to establish a promissory note, and the absence of consideration.\nCitations: Aamer Tufail v. Muhammad Sadiq 2006 CLD 91; Mst. Sughran Begum v. Haji Mir Qadir Bakhsh 1986 Quetta 232.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.15 of 2003, heard on 14-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI, JUSTICE\nS. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Shaukat Ali Saqib for Appellants.\nAllah Wasaya Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 6 OTHERS \nVS \nBAQIR HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 214 = 2009 SLD 214 = 2009 CLD 1523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInfringement of Trademark in Newspaper Name\n•\nDetails: The petitioner planned to use The Daily Hamdard for a newspaper, while the respondent held a registered trademark Hamdard for its Unani medicine business. The respondent already published journals under the names Hamdard-e-Sehat and Hamdard Naunehal. The High Court restrained the petitioner, citing potential confusion with the respondent's brand.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the name The Daily Hamdard could create confusion with the respondent's business, leading to deception. The Supreme Court declined to intervene and refused leave to appeal.\n•\nCitations: Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001), S.40(4); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=40", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1376 of 2008, decision dated: 8-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE\nJAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ishtiaq Ahmad Raja, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ROZNAMA HAMDARD THROUGH CHIEF EDITOR \nVS \nHAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 215 = 2009 SLD 215 = 2009 CLD 1524", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAward of Compensation in Breach of Contract\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the scope of awarding compensation under the Specific Relief Act (S.19) and Contract Act (S.73) in contract breach cases. It highlights that a court may award compensation in addition to, or instead of, specific performance if the contract cannot be executed.\n•\nHeld: Courts can grant compensation when specific performance is not feasible or when the defendant's breach causes hardship. The award of compensation considers the date of breach and actual loss caused.\n•\nCitations: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.19; Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.73.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.22 of 1985, decision dated: 27-07-2009, hearing DATE : 14-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE \nMS. SOOFIA LATIF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Appellant. \nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DADA STEEL MILLS \nVS \nMETALEXPORT AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 216 = 2009 SLD 216 = 2009 CLD 1537", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAllegations of Fraud by Bank and Role of NAB\n•\nDetails: The petitioner, a bank depositor, requested the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to investigate allegations of fraud by the bank’s management. The High Court ruled that NAB could not intervene in the matter of financial institutions without State Bank approval.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the foreign ownership of the bank and the absence of charges against the new purchaser. The petitioner could approach other authorities for resolution.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 282-E & 282-F; National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.19; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6005 of 2007, decision dated: 19-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhry Fawad Ahmed for Petitioner. \nMuhammad Saqlain Arshed for Respondents Nos.3 and 8.\nAhmer Bilal Sufi for Respondent No. 4. Jawad Hassan for Respondent No. 9.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FOUZIA BEGUM\nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 217 = 2009 SLD 217 = 2009 CLD 1577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInvestigation and Show-Cause Notice for Company Violations\n•\nDetails: The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a show-cause notice to an investment company for violating certain provisions of the Companies Ordinance. The company argued against the investigation, but the Commission's regulatory powers were upheld.\n•\nHeld: The Court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission had the authority to investigate the company’s affairs under S.265 of the Companies Ordinance. The investigation was permitted, with investigation costs to be covered by the company.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 160, 196, 484.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Appeal No.3 of 2007, decision dated: 20-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD) \nS. TARIQ A. HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nRASHID PARACHA, DIRECTOR (NBFC), SYED ASAD HAIDER, JOINT DIRECTOR (NBFC) AND VINOD SITANI, JOINT DIRECTOR (NBFC) FOR RESPONDENTS.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INVESTEE MUTUAL FUND LIMITED \nVS\nDIRECTOR (NBFC DEPARTMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 218 = 2009 SLD 218 = 2009 CLD 1582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPenalty for Failure to Comply with Corporate Requirements\n•\nDetails: A review petition was filed against a penalty imposed on the Chief Executive of a company for non-compliance with the Companies Ordinance, 1984, regarding asset disposal. The penalty was reconsidered based on the asset’s insignificant value.\n•\nHeld: The penalty was withdrawn after reviewing the value of the disposed assets and the company's compliance.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 160, 196 & 484.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/53/2002-1282, dated 24-11-2008, decision dated: 25-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "(COLONY) THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 219 = 2009 SLD 219 = 2009 CLD 1584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFalse Statements in Financial Statements\n•\nDetails: A company was penalized for submitting false statements regarding its commission in the profit and loss account, which overstated profits. A lenient approach was taken after the company’s assurance of future compliance.\n•\nHeld: Penalty was not imposed under S.492 of the Companies Ordinance, but a warning was issued to all relevant company officials.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.492.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=492", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/34/08-1375-1382, dated 14-01-2009, decision dated: 30-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 220 = 2009 SLD 220 = 2009 CLD 1589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFailure to Appoint a Whole-Time Secretary\n•\nDetails: A company was penalized for not having a whole-time secretary as required by the Companies Ordinance, 1984. A minimal fine was imposed after the company’s response regarding its non-compliance.\n•\nHeld: The penalty was imposed on the Chief Executive and Directors for failing to comply with S.204-A of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 204-A & 498.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=204", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/701/2008-1935-41, dated 27-01-2009, decision dated: 30-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 221 = 2009 SLD 221 = 2009 CLD 1593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRaising Capital Without Issuing Right Shares\n•\nDetails: A company was penalized for raising capital without issuing right shares and for consideration other than cash. The violation of provisions under the Companies Ordinance and related rules was established.\n•\nHeld: A fine was imposed on the Chief Executive and Directors for violations under S.85 & S.492 of the Companies Ordinance, and Rule 8 of the Companies (Issue of Capital) Rules, 1996.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 86, 492 & 498; Companies (Issue of Capital) Rules, 1996, R.8.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.EMD/233/701/2008-1948-54, dated 27-01-2009, decision dated: 30-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 222 = 2009 SLD 222 = 2009 CLD 1598", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)---S.22---Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rrs. 8, 12 & Sched.---Placing sale orders of shares without having pre-existing interest in Proprietary Account---Imposition of penalty---Company had placed the large sale orders and cancelled the same without having pre-existing interest in its Proprietary Account---Company vide its letter admitted its mistake and stated that all said sales were erroneously executed by one of its KATS operator and that same mistake would not be repeated in future---Company was responsible for each and every order placed or trade executed through its terminals---Prime responsibility of the company was to monitor all trading activities being carried out through its brokerage house in order to track any transaction being made with a view to create any misleading impression or fraudulent intention---Rule 12 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 required that company should abide by Code of Conduct set forth under said Rules; and made it mandatory on the company to execute its business with due care and skill and to put in place proper system and control to ensure that its business was conducted according to the applicable Rules and Regulations---Placing of sale orders and then cancelling the same without having pre-existing interest, had shown that the company had failed to conduct its business with due diligence and care and had interfered in smooth and fair functioning of the market---Company was bound to keep IEATS operators updated with the applicable rules and regulations to avoid any violation of the same and it was also the duty of the company to maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and fairness, in the conduct of its business and not to create false market or indulge in any act detrimental to the investor's interest---Company by placing the sale orders without having pre-existing interest, had violated A1, A2 and A4 of the Code of Conduct of the Brokers Rules, which, in turn, was a violation of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001---Securities and Exchange Commission was empowered to take action, in the public interest under R.8 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 and S.22 of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969---Violation of the Rules and Regulations, was a serious matter which entitled the Commission to suspend the membership of the company, but a penalty of Rs.200,000 was imposed on it instead.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.1(11)DEL/LSE/MSW/SMD/2008/04, dated 29-04-2009, decision dated: 9th June , 2009", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SM)\nM. FARHAN RAFIQ, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND KAMRAN, SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT WAQAR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, JOINT DIRECTOR, ADNAN AHMAD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AND FARHAN YAQOOB, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRA SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 223 = 2009 SLD 223 = 2009 CLD 1602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 305 & 309---Winding up of the an Insurance Company---Additional .Registrar of Companies sought sanction of the Commission to present a petition before the High Court for winding up of the company in public interest on the grounds; that the business of the company was suspended since year 2006; that no proper books of accounts were being maintained and kept by the company; and that company was conducting its business in a manner oppressive to its members and minority share¬holders---During the proceedings of inspection of the company, it was confirmed that no books of accounts including trial balances, accounting ledgers, cash book, Bank book, Bank statements, fixed assets register, members register, minutes book and other relevant statutory corporate and accounting record and documents were not being maintained and kept by the company---Under said circumstances, the operations of the company were being conducted in a manner which was not fair to minority share-holders---Such state of affairs called for winding up of the company by court under clauses (e) & (f) of S.305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---In addition to said facts, the company had also made defaults in complying with the various sections of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which included Ss.86, 193, 204-A, 492 and R.8 of the Companies (Issue of Capital) Rules, 1996 for which the Commission had initiated actions against the company---No reasonable prospects, in circumstances,- were available for restoration of operations of the company and to meet the statutory requirements of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 as well as those of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 which had rendered the company to be wound up by the court under S.305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Additional Registrar of the Companies in exercise of the powers conferred under S.309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was authorized to present a petition for winding up of the company in High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/701/2008-2066-72, dated 10-02-2009, decision dated: 30-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 224 = 2009 SLD 224 = 2009 CLD 1607", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 245 & 484(2)---Review application---Review application was filed by the company against order whereby a fine aggregating to Rs.120, 000 was imposed on the Chief Executive and five Directors of the company---Chief Executive and Directors of the company had requested in their application for waiving of amount of fine due to financial constraints faced by the company---In the review application, the Chief Executive and Directors of the company had not come with any new issue or new arguments in favour of their plea---All the arguments given in said application had been adequately addressed earlier---For review of an order it was imperative that applicant must bring out new facts or evidence, which could not have been produced at the time of passing of earlier order---No error or omission had been pointed out in impugned order which could have any significant impact on the order---Review application was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Review Application, dated 13-11-2008, decision dated: 30-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 225 = 2009 SLD 225 = 2009 CLD 1609", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 245 & 476---Failure of company to prepare and file its accounts within specified period---Imposition of penalty---Company which was required under clause (b) of subsection (1) of S.245 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to prepare and file its accounts for the relevant period with the Commission within specified period had failed to do so---One of the reasons advanced by the company for delay in filing said accounts was redesigning and revamping of its financial reporting system which needed to be improved subsequently---Validity---Company should not have dismantled the existing financial reporting system altogether before the successful implementation of redesigned/revamped system---Moreover back up data could have been used for preparation of 'accounts during the transitional from old to new reporting system---Redesigning and revamping of financial reporting system, in circumstances, could not be considered as a cogent reason for delay in filing of accounts---Limited resources could not be considered as a valid reason for not filing the subject accounts within due time as the company must fulfil its statutory obligations-Arguments advanced on part of the company did not justify late submission of quarterly accounts---Default under S.245(1)(b) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 having been established, the Chief Executive and Directors of the company had made themselves liable for fine under S.245(3) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Keeping in view the financial crunch being faced by the company, a lenient view was taken and instead of imposing a maximum fine of Rs.100,000 on each Director of the company, fine of Rs.20,000 on each Director and Chief Executive of the company was imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/245/701/2008-269-275, dated 20-06-2008, decided 10-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 226 = 2009 SLD 226 = 2009 CLD 1615", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 255 & 260---Failure of auditors to perform audit of the company as per standards and guidelines---Imposition of penalty---During the inspection of the company conducted under S.231 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, it was noticed that the company had not been maintaining proper books of the account as per requirement of the Ordinance---Neglecting said matters, the Auditors failed to bring out material facts about the affairs of the company in Auditors reports---Reply was received from the Auditors, however the issues raised in show-cause notice were not adequately and properly addressed by the Auditors---Auditors had failed to perform the audit of the financial statements of the company as per the standards and guidelines provided in auditing framework and had not discharged their duties of making a truthful report to the members of the company and had been grossly negligent in conducting their professional duties---Due to said facts the audit reports for the relevant year were misleading and were not in conformity with the requirements of S.255 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and were untrue and failed to bring out material facts about the affairs of the company---Auditors also failed to perform their duties diligently and/acted too indulgently to provide advantage to the management of the company---Said violations had attracted the penal provisions contained in subsections (1) & (2) of S.260 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Facts of the case warranted no sympathy for the Auditors and required a stern action against them---Penalty of rupees one thousand hundred Rs.100,000 was imposed on the Auditors.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.EMD/233/701/2008-1942, dated 27-01-2009, decided 6-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL MUQTADIR SIDDIQUI, PARTNER, MUQTADIR & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 227 = 2009 SLD 227 = 2009 CLD 1621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001--Rr. 4, 8 & 12---Unauthorized pledge/transfer of securities of the company---Suspension of registration of the company---Over the past six months, the Securities and Exchange Commission had received significant numbers of investors' complaints pertaining to the alleged non-transfer of shares -to/from the complainants' account and non-payment of funds---Company failed to file any response to the notice issued by the Commission and also remained absent on the date of hearing without any intimation to the Commission despite service of the notice---Effect---Company had defaulted in compliance with the provisions of. Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, and applicable laws by neglecting to submit requisite correspondence and documents as advised by the Commission---Conduct of the company was in clear violation of R.12 of the Rules which had made it mandatory upon the broker holding certificate of registration under the said Rules to abide by the Code of Conduct strictly and maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and fairness in the conduct of all its business---Company had also misused the securities of its clients by unauthorized pledges/transfers---Company had clearly neglected and failed to comply with requirements of Rr.4 & 12 of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 and various instructions issued by the Commission from time to time---Continuation of the company in securities business was not in the interest of investors---Violation of Rules and Regulations and non-compliance with instructions of the Commission was a serious matter which warranted stern action---In the public interest, for the protection of investors, to preserve capital market integrity, in exercise of powers contained in R.8 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, company's registration was suspended till claims against the company, in the light of the investors complaints were settled in accordance with law---Failure of the company to settle the claims, could result in cancellation of registration as provided in the said Rules.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SM/KSE-C/Mist,/2009, dated 19-06-2009, decision dated: 26-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "HIZBULLAH SIDDIQUI, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MKA SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD., MEMBER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE, (\"\"KSE\"\"): In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 228 = 2009 SLD 228 = 2009 CLD 1625", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001---Rr. 4, 8 & 12---Unauthorized pledge/transfer of securities of investors by the company---Effect---Securities and Exchange Commission received complaints against the company pertaining to the alleged non-transfer of shares to/from the complainants' CDA account and non-payment of funds which had been attributed to the unauthorized pledge/transfer of securities by the company---Company vide its letter had communicated admission of investors' complaints/claims filed against it---Company not only had misused the securities of its clients by-way of unauthorized pledges/transfers, but had also failed to resolve outstanding complaints/claims of investors, despite a lapse of over eight months---Such conduct of the company was in clear violation of R.12 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, which had made it mandatory upon broker holding certificate of registration under Rules, 2001 to abide by the Code of Conduct strictly and maintain high standards of integrity, Promptitude and fairness in the conduct of all its business as stipulated in the said Rules---Company had clearly neglected and failed to comply with the requirements of Rr. 4 & 12 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 and various instructions by the Commission from time to time---Violation of Rules and Regulations and non-compliance with the instructions of the Commission was a serious matter and warranted stern action---In the public interest for the protection of investors and to preserve capital market integrity, in exercise of powers conferred by R.8 of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001; Commission suspended registration of the company till claims against the company in the light of the investors' claims could be ascertained and settled according to law---Company's failure to settle said claims, could result in cancellation of registration as provided under the Rules.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SM/KSE-C/Misc./2009, dated 19-06-2009, decision dated: 26-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "HIZBULLAH SIDDIQUI, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "CLICK TRADE LIMITED, MEMBER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE (\"\"KSE\"\"): In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 229 = 2009 SLD 229 = 2009 CLD 1629", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001---Rr. 4, 8 & 12---Non-transfer of shares to/from the accounts of investors and non-payment of funds---Unauthorized pledge/transfer of securities of investors by the company---Suspension of the registration of the company---Over the last six months the Commission had received number of complainants of the investors pertaining to the alleged non-transfer of shares to complainants' C.D.C. account and non-payment of funds, which had been attributed to the unauthorized. pledge/transfer of securities by the company---Company was afforded an opportunity of hearing, but it failed to appear for filing any response to the notice issued by the Commission---Company had defaulted in compliance with provisions ,of Rules and applicable laws by neglecting to submit requisite correspondence---Such conduct of the company was in clear violation of R.12 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, which made it mandatory upon a broker holding certificate of registration under the Rules to abide strictly by the Code of Conduct and maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and fairness in the conduct of all its business---Company had misused the securities of its clients by way of unauthorized pledges/transfers and had neglected and failed to comply with the requirements of Rr. 4 & 12 of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 and various instructions issued by the Commission from time to time---Continuation of company in securities business was not in the interest of the investors---Violation of Rules and Regulations and non-compliance with-instructions of the Commission was a serious matter which warranted stern action---In public interest, for the protection of investors and to preserve capital market integrity; and taking into consideration that the company had neither verbally nor through any written submission, produced any evidence in its defence, Commission, in exercise of power conferred by R.8 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, ordered the suspension of registration of the company, till claims against the company in the light of investors could be ascertained and settled in accordance with law---Failure of the company to settle the claims, could result in cancellation of its registration.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SM/KSE-C/Misc./2009, dated 19-06-2009, decision dated: 26-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "HIZBULLAH SIDDIQUI, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "CAPITAL ONE EQUITIES LIMITED, MEMBER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE (\"\"KSE\"\"): In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 230 = 2009 SLD 230 = 2009 CLD 1633", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 158 & 245---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33---Failure of the company to hold Annual General Meetings and failure to prepare and transfer to its members etc. its quarterly profit and loss accounts and balance sheets---Imposition of penalty--Appeal---Company had failed to hold Annual General Meetings within the stipulated time as required under S.158(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984--Company which was also required under clause (a) of S.245(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to prepare and transmit to its members and the relevant Stock Exchange Registrar and the Commission its quarterly profit and loss accounts and balance sheet for relevant quarters, had failed to comply with said mandatory provisions of the Ordinance which necessitated action against the Directors of the company under S.245(3) of Companies Ordinance, 1984---Fine of Rs.50,000 on each Director of the company was imposed for not holding Annual General Meetings within time in violation of S.158(4) of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and fine of Rs.100,000 on each Director for each quarter in which the quarterly accounts were not submitted as required under clause (a) of S.245(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Validity---Penalties were imposed on the Directors of the company in their personal capacity, they were required to pay the penalties from their own resources---Plea that company's Bank account having been frozen, finances were not available to file appeal, was without merit as the appellants were required to bear the expenses of filing appeal from their own resources---No ground having been made out for condonation of delay in filing appeal, appeal filed by the appellants, was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation without going into the merits of the case. \n \n1999 SCMR 1326 and 2008 SCMR 54 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.65 and 66 of 2006, decision dated: 20-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SAD) \nS. TARIQ A. HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAROON SHIEKH AND OTHERS \nVS \nDIRECTOR (NBFC DEPARTMENT) AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 231 = 2009 SLD 231 = 2009 CLD 1636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 208 & 476---Investment in associated companies without obtaining a special resolution and without charging interest--Imposition of penalty---Examination of annual accounts of the company for the relevant year had revealed that huge amount was outstanding against advances extended by the company to its associated undertakings---Said advances were extended without obtaining the authority of a special resolution in terms of S.208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and no interest/mark¬up was being charged on said amount---Directors of the company had failed to comply with provisions of S.208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 in respect of advances extended by the company to its associated companies---Said advances were not normal trade credit---Due to the interest/mark-up free nature of those unauthorized advances, huge loss had been caused to the company---Intent and purpose of S,208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was to protect company against diversion of a company's funds, to pass an undue benefit to associated companies or undertakings of a company at the cost of the shareholders of such company---Due to that reason authority of special resolution of shareholders of a company was mandated by the law for making any investments, loans, advances etc. to associated companies or undertakings---Any leniency while deciding the cases involving such instances would defeat the whole purpose of a legislation---Circumstances of the case warranted no sympathy for the Directors of the company who had ruthlessly allowed misuse of company's funds for the benefit of associated companies causing huge loss to the company and its shareholders---Provisions of S.208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 having been violated, Directors of the company were liable for the penalties as prescribed by subsection (3) of S.208 of Ordinance---Fine of Rs.3,500,000 in. aggregate on Chief Executive and five Directors of the company, was imposed for contravening the provisions of subsection (1) .of S.208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD/233/339/2002-2899 dated 24-04-2009, decided 30-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEWAN SUGAR MILLS LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 232 = 2009 SLD 232 = 2009 CLD 1652", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001--R.8 & Sched.---Purchasing of shares by the company in its Proprietary Accounts in violation of rules and regulations--Imposition of penalty---Company had executed client's trades in its Proprietary Account through different Stock Exchange members---Execution of said trades had shown that company had failed to maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and fairness in conduct of its business---Company had further failed to comply with specific directives issued by the Commission and the stock exchange and it was the responsibility of the company to keep itself well-informed about applicable rules and regulations to avoid any violation of the same---Company, by executing the trades in question had violated clauses A1, A5 and D1 (2) of the Code of Conduct contained in the Third Schedule of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001---Violation of the rules and regulations was a very serious matter, however, in view of fact that representatives of the company had assured that in future they would be more careful, a fine of Rs.50,000 (Fifty Thousand) was imposed on the company in exercise of power under R.8(b) of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. 1(03)/Wash/LSE/MSW/SMD/2009/04 dated 8-05-2009, decided 22-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GUARDIAN SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD.: . In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 233 = 2009 SLD 233 = 2009 CLD 1658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001---Rr. 4, 8, 12 & Sched.---Non-transfer of shares---Security and Exchange Commission, over the past five months had received complaints against the company relating to the alleged non-transfer of shares to/from the complainants' CDA accounts and non-payment of funds, which had been attributed to the unauthorized pledge/transfer of the securities by the company--In addition to the complaints, Karachi Stock Exchange also reported a substantial number of investor complaints/claims filed against the company during said period---Company had admitted the non transfer of shares in the clients' respective CDA accounts and committed timelines for the transfer of those shares---No concrete steps were taken by the company for the resolution of pending investor's complaints/claims---Company had not only misused the securities of its clients by way of unauthorized pledge/transfer, but also had failed to resolve outstanding investor complaints/claims despite a lapse of oven five months---Such conduct of the company was a clear violation of R.12 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 Which made it mandatory upon a broker holding certificate of registration under the said Rules to abide by the Code of Conduct strictly and maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and fairness in the conduct of all his business as stipulated in said Rules, 2001---Company had clearly neglected and failed to comply with requirement of R.4 or 12 of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 and various instructions issued by the Commission from time to time---Violation of Rules and Regulations and non-compliance with the instructions of the Commission was a serious matter which warranted stern action---Continuation of the company in the securities business, was not in the interest of the investors---In public interest for the protection of the investors and to preserve capital market integrity, in exercise of powers conferred by R.8 of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, suspension of registration of the company was ordered till claims against the company in the light of the investor complaints could be ascertained and settled in accordance with law-Company's failure to settle the claims, could result in cancellation of the registration as provided in the Rules, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=4", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SM/KSE-C/Misc./2009, dated 19-06-2009, decided 26-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "HIZBULLAH SIDDIQUI, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PRUDENTIAL SECURITIES LIMITED, MEMBER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE (\"\"KSE\"\"): In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 234 = 2009 SLD 234 = 2009 CLD 1662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---Ss. 297, 316 & 318---Winding up of company---Object and consequences---Winding up, meaning of---\"\"Winding up\"\" was a term used for proceedings by which a company was dissolved---Such process was also called as \"\"liquidation proceedings\"\"---Assets of the company in winding up proceedings were disposed of, debt was realized and the liability of the company towards its creditors was paid up, out of realized assets---Surplus, if any, was distributed to the members and contributory proportionately---Winding up was a legal process by which an incorporated company was brought to an end---Consequences of winding up order were that all the assets of the company would come under the control of the court and management of the company would vest with liquidator instead of Directors and the Chief Executive of the company---Transfer and disposition of property of the company by anyone, except the liquidator, was prohibited and the law would render any such transaction as void---After the winding up order had been passed, no suit or proceedings could commence against the company, except with the leave of the court---Court (Company Judge) where the winding up proceedings were pending, had the jurisdiction,, within the contemplation of S.316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to entertain and dispose of any suit or proceedings, by and against the company---Even pending proceedings by and against the company would stand transferred to the company court---Object of S.316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was to accelerate disposal of winding up proceedings, cheap and summary remedy in respect of claims for and against the company; and to save unnecessary litigation---Provisions of Companies Ordinance, 1984 were special and would prevail over other laws---Company court would exercise a wide jurisdiction, over all matters relating to the company in the process of winding up---Matters relating to a company in winding up, were to be adjudicated before one court and the wisdom behind that provision was that company should be dissolved finally without complication. \n \n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---\n \n----Ss. 316, 319 & 320---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.25-A---Stay of winding up proceedings--Application for---Applicant had sought stay of winding up/proceedings till final decision of Reference under S.25-A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Such course was not legally permissible as same would offend the provisions of company law, especially S.316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Winding up proceedings being pending in the present case since 1995, any delay would unfairly prejudice the rights of creditors---Section 320 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 required that regards had to be given to wishes of the creditors.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=297", + "Case #": "C.O. No.10 of 1995 and C.M. No.488-L of 2008, decision dated: 10-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nisar Ahmad for Appellant. \nEjaz-ul-Ehsan for Advocate. \nKh. Muhammad Farooq for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL LEASING CORPORATION \nVS \nSUNRISE TEXTILE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 235 = 2009 SLD 235 = 2009 CLD 1666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)--Ss. 79, 80 & 118---Suit by legal heir (nominee) of insurer for recovery of policy proceeds and liquidated damages---Commencement of insurance policy on 16-11-1991 and its discontinuation on 25-11-1997 for non-payment of premium---Revival of policy on 20-2-2001 on payment of arrears by insurer---Death of insurer due to ailment on 18-5-2003 i.e. after two years and three months from revival of policy---Denial of plaintiffs claim by Insurance Company for having concealed ailment of insurer at the time of purchasing and revival of policy---Plea of Company that as per medical certificate produced by plaintiff insurer was patient of hypertension, diabetes and mellitus---Validity---Law did not permit for an inquiry after signing of insurance contract and its approval by Company---Subsequent actions like deposit of insurance premium and revival of policy were continuation of such contract---Company could challenge such contract within two years of its commencement in terms of S.80 of Insurance Ordinance, 2000---Death of insurer was beyond period of two years even after revival of policy---Such ailment of insurer could not be called as exceptional reasons---Majority of people having such ailments by remaining more careful in their life time lived either for decades or longer than people not having such diseases---Concealment of such diseases could not be termed as done fraudulently ---Company at the time of insurance must have satisfied itself and should have got insurer medically checked up to its satisfaction---If Company succeeded in establishing that insurer was unwell at the time of revival, then cut-of time of two years during which same could be challenged had already expired---Such plea of company was repelled in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=79", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.434 of 2008, heard on 5-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Naser Ahmed for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER \nVS \nRAZI -UR-REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 236 = 2009 SLD 236 = 2009 CLD 1685", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Succession Certificate and Revocation\nDetails:\nA succession certificate was granted by the High Court regarding the cash and securities left by the deceased. The schedule of properties included two disputed amounts payable under the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001. The High Court directed the Nazir to collect one undisputed amount of $57,000 while the second amount of $144,000, being contested, required adjudication by a civil court. A petition for revocation of the certificate was filed under the Succession Act, 1925.\nHeld:\nThe High Court modified its earlier order, directing the Nazir to collect the undisputed $57,000. The petitioner was advised to pursue recovery of the disputed $144,000 through appropriate civil proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nPakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001, S.127\n•\nSuccession Act, 1925, Ss. 373, 383", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance (LII of 2001)=127", + "Case #": "S.M.A. No.125 of 2007, decision dated: 12-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhry Waseem for Applicant. Agha Faquir Muhammad for Objector", + "Petitioner Name:": "In re: Mrs. KAUSAR NAZLI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 237 = 2009 SLD 237 = 2009 CLD 1713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Winding Up of a Company\nDetails:\nA resolution for the voluntary winding up of a private limited company was passed by shareholders holding 60% of shares. A charitable trust holding 40% shares contested the resolution, citing non-receipt of notice for the Extraordinary General Meeting. The resolution's validity and the required quorum for passing a special resolution were discussed in detail.\nHeld:\nThe petitioner failed to utilize the statutory remedy under S.160A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, to challenge non-service of notice. The resolution was validly passed with the required quorum, as the petitioner, though aware, chose to abstain.\nCitations:\n•\nCase References:\no\nMuhammad Sohail Butt v. Capital Insurance Company Ltd. and another (2007 CLD 1484)\no\nGower's Principles of Company Law, 5th edition (1992), Page 519\no\nBritish Water Gas Syndicate v. Notts Derby Water Gas Co. Ltd (1889) 6 TLR 44", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application No.7 of 2006, decision dated: 7-10-2009, hearing DATE : 2-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Muhammad Abbas Haider for Petitioner.\nAsim Mansoor for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KAZMIA TRUST (REGD.) THROUGH AUTHORIZED PERSON \nVS \nMESSRS KAZ INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 309 = 2005 SLD 309 = 2005 CLD 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Infringement and Interim Injunction\nDetails:\nThe plaintiff, a registered proprietor of the trademark E-4, sought a permanent injunction against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement. The defendant countered that the trademark E-4 was not distinctive and was commonly used in the lubricant trade. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate exclusivity and distinctiveness of the trademark.\nHeld:\nThe plaintiff’s application for confirmation of injunctive relief was dismissed as the mark lacked distinctiveness and exclusivity.\nCitations:\n•\nCase References:\no\nSayyed Engineering v. Tristar Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (2001 CLC 1368)\no\nPakistan Drug House (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Rio Chemical Company (2003 CLD 1531)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=6", + "Case #": "Suit No.250 of 2004, decision dated: 30-06-2004, hearing DATE : 1st April, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Ghulam Hussain for Plaintiff. \nKhurram Ghori for Defendant No 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PETROMARK (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nALI TRADERS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 310 = 2005 SLD 310 = 2005 CLD 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Membership Register\nDetails:\nThe petitioner sought rectification of the membership register of a club under S.42 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, after being removed for non-payment of dues. The petitioner contested the validity of the notice sent to him, alleging mala fides by the club management.\nHeld:\nThe court held that the petitioner failed to rebut the club's action or prove payment of dues. Resolution of the factual dispute required a civil court's intervention.\nCitations:\n•\nCase References:\no\nBajaj Auto Limited v. N.K. Firodia (AIR 1971 SC 321)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=152", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.36 of 2004, decision dated: 7-10-2004, hearing DATE : 27-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Iqbal for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAJ. RTD. SAEEDUZ ZAMAN \nVS\nLAHORE RACE CLUB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 311 = 2005 SLD 311 = 2005 CLD 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Merger and Amalgamation of Companies\nDetails:\nA scheme for the merger of two companies was approved by shareholders and the High Court. An objector holding 0.01% shares contested the merger, alleging procedural flaws and lack of fairness.\nHeld:\nThe High Court rejected the objections, emphasizing the majority shareholders' rights and benefits of the merger. The proposed scheme was sanctioned, with one company ceasing to exist as an independent entity.\nCitations:\n•\nCase References:\no\nMessrs Pakistan Cement Limited (2002 CLD 1392)\no\nKohinoor Raiwind Mills Limited v. Kohinoor Gujar Khan Mills (2002 CLD 1314)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "C.O. No.41 of 2004, decision dated: 1st October, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui with Imran Anjam Alvi for Petitioners.\nUmar Farooq and Muhammad Kaleem Khurshid, Advocates/Local Commissioners. \nM.H. Khan in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAKARGANJ MILLS LIMITED AND ANOTHER \nVS \nCRESCENT UJALA LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 312 = 2005 SLD 312 = 2005 CLD 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment of Provisional Manager in Winding Up\nDetails:\nAn application was filed for appointing a provisional manager for a company facing financial difficulties and alleged insolvency. The applicant argued that the substratum of the company had collapsed.\nHeld:\nThe court declined the application, stating that such issues should be addressed during final arguments in the winding-up proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nCase References:\no\nPICIC v. National Silk and Rayon Mills Limited (PLD 1976 Lah. 1538)\no\nUnited Bank Limited v. Pak Wheat Products Ltd. (PLD 1970 Lah. 235)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=306", + "Case #": "C.M. No.1-L of 2002 in C.O. No.11 of 2002, decision dated: 27-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SABIR AHMAD AND ANOTHER \nVS \nMESSRS NAJMA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 313 = 2005 SLD 313 = 2005 CLD 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Property of a Liquidated Company and Issuance of NOC\nConclusion:\nThe case pertained to the sale of property of a liquidated company, with the applicant demanding a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for further sale of the property. The NOC was initially refused based on violations of clauses in the lease-deed related to the intended purpose of erecting a fertilizer factory. The court held that enforcing such clauses was unjust, as the government had not redeemed the property within the stipulated timeframe. The application was allowed, subject to government permission.\nReferences: Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Yaqoob 1992 CLC 2065.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "J. Misc. No.24 of 1982, decision dated: 11-05-2004. dates of hearing: 10th, 16th, 19th, 20-02-2004, 9th, 16th, 19th, 24th and 25-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAK. FERTILIZER CO. \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF SINDH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 314 = 2005 SLD 314 = 2005 CLD 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Authorization for Legal Action by a Company\nConclusion:\nThe case clarified the principles of authorization for instituting suits by a company. If the Memorandum and Articles of Association already empower a director to manage affairs and institute legal proceedings, a separate resolution from the Board of Directors is unnecessary. Additionally, the Memorandum and Articles act as a constitution, but the Companies Ordinance overrides conflicting provisions. The plaintiff failed to prove damages in a related contract cancellation suit, rendering the claim for damages unsustainable.\nReferences: 2003 CLD 1497; PLD 1997 Kar.62; PLD 2003 Kar.156; PLD 1999 Kar. 260; PLD 1991 SC 550; PLD 1959 SC 258; PLD 1969 SC 684; 1987 CLC 367.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.203 of 1993, decision dated: 12-11-2003, hearing DATE : 30-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rizwan Ali Dodani for Plaintiff.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PEMCON INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTORS (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nHUBEI MACHINERY IMPORT/EXPORT COROPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 315 = 2005 SLD 315 = 2005 CLD 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Amalgamation of Companies\nConclusion:\nThe petition sought High Court approval for the merger/amalgamation of companies. Compliance with procedural directions, including public notifications, was confirmed, and no objections were raised. The High Court accepted the petition for amalgamation.\nReferences: No specific precedents cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No.67 of 2003, decision dated: 1st September 2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: A AND J APPAREL (PVT.) LIMITED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 316 = 2005 SLD 316 = 2005 CLD 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Damages in Banking Disputes\nConclusion:\nThe plaintiffs filed a suit for damages against a bank, alleging wrongful attachment of their property. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi as they were neither borrowers nor customers of the bank. The plaintiffs failed to establish malicious intent or conspiracy and did not provide sufficient evidence of damages. The suit was dismissed, emphasizing that plaintiffs must individually prove their losses in damages claims.\nReferences: PLD 1954 SC 38; PLD 1990 Lah. 330; PLD 2000 Kar. 214; PLD 1996 SC 737; PLD 1999 Lah. 31; PLD 1990 Pesh. 17; 1993 SCMR 1996; 1998 PLC 1718; 2000 MLD 1950; PLD 2004 Lah. 101; PLD 1959 Kar. 378; 1984 CLC 1280; 1995 CLC 246; 2003 SCMR 1156; PLD 1964 Dacca 111; PLD 1964 Dacca 618.\nSubtopics:\n•\nDamages: Plaintiffs must demonstrate individual losses in damages claims.\n•\nAttachment: Defined as the legal seizure of property to ensure its preservation for recovery of a decretal amount.\n•\nMalicious Prosecution: Defined and limited to cases where the plaintiff proves malicious intent, lack of probable cause, and resulting damages.\nReferences: Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi PLD 1990 SC 28; Mohiuddin Molla v. The Province of East Pakistan PLD 1962 SC 119.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=6", + "Case #": "C.O.S. No.38 of 1989, decision dated: 27-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "AALIA KHATTAK AND OTHERS \nVS \nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 317 = 2005 SLD 317 = 2005 CLD 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction and Actions in Rem\nConclusions:\n•\n(a) A plea of forum of convenience is unavailable at the appellate stage if not raised during trial.\n•\n(b) Admiralty jurisdiction can be invoked by an action in rem, regardless of where the cause of action arose, provided the claim is entertainable.\n•\n(c) Agreements relating to the carriage of goods fall within the scope of Admiralty jurisdiction.\n•\n(d) For claims against offending and sister ships, preconditions for invoking jurisdiction must be adequately pleaded.\n•\n(e) In the absence of a plea concerning sister ships, actions against offending ships cannot extend to sister ships.\nReferences: Global Shipping Co. v. M.V. Sea Elite 1985 CLC 1569; Compagnie Continentale v. Pakistan National Shipping PLD 1986 Kar. 447; Lord Dening in I Congreso del Partido (1981) 1 All ER 1092 rel.; The Atlantic Star 1973 Vol. 2 All ER 175.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Appeals Nos.8 and 9 of 2003, decision dated: 30-03-2004. dates of hearing: 4th and 9-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nAZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.V. LAMON BAY AND OTHERS \nVS \nSADRUDDIN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 318 = 2005 SLD 318 = 2005 CLD 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of a Company\nConclusion:\nThe court allowed the winding-up petition due to the company's inability to discharge liabilities, insolvency, and non-viability as a business. The pendency of a related civil suit was no bar to the winding-up order. Official liquidators were appointed with specific compliance directives.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "C.O. No.11 of 2002, decision dated: 21st October, 2004. dates of hearing:19th, 20th and 21st October, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SABIR AHAMAD AND OTHERS \nVS \nNAJMA SUGAR MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 319 = 2005 SLD 319 = 2005 CLD 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Currency Transactions under Protection of Economic Reforms Act\nConclusions:\n•\n(a) Possession of foreign currency purchased outside authorized channels is not penalized if the origin is presumed to be from the open market. The onus to prove infringement rests with the department.\n•\n(b) The High Court remitted a case to the tribunal, emphasizing the need for factual appraisal and fresh hearings.\nReferences: Irshad Ahmad Shaikh v. The State 2000 SCMR 814.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos.12 to 20 of 2004, heard on 28-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE\nRUSTAM ALI MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZIR MUHAMMAD \nVS \nCUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPELLATE) TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 320 = 2005 SLD 320 = 2005 CLD 183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Agricultural Loan Relief Packages\nConclusion:\nThe Agricultural Development Bank was barred from reneging on its advertised relief package after loanees had complied. Circular amendments applied retrospectively were invalid. The court directed the bank to honor the original relief package terms.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1961)=27", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2455 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SH. HAKIM ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Hashmi, Manager, Zarai Taraqiati Bank, Muzaffargarh", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN \nVS \nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 321 = 2005 SLD 321 = 2005 CLD 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Enforcement of Claims and Transferable Estate\nConclusion:\nThe guarantor's expectancy to inherit property did not qualify as a transferable estate under the Transfer of Property Act. The bank's enforcement actions were limited to actual property interests. The court upheld the guarantor's appeal.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1961)=39", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 166 of 1996", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, JUSTICE\nATA-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR A. MALIK THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS \nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 322 = 2005 SLD 322 = 2005 CLD 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Injunction in Corporate Governance Disputes\nConclusion:\nThe High Court vacated an interim injunction restraining the election of a company's board of directors. It ruled that shareholder rights, including elections, must prevail over expired tenures. The Supreme Court upheld this decision.\nReferences: Union Council Ali Wahan v. Associated Cement 1993 SCMR 468; American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. (1975) All ER 504.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=178", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.2437 and 2438 of 2002, decision dated: 24-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Anwar Mansoor Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nKhalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S, Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.2 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADAMJEE INUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS \nVS \nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 23 = 2014 SLD 23 = 2014 SCMR 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction in Matters of Foreign Policy and Security\nConclusion:\nThe High Court dismissed a constitutional petition addressing foreign policy and defense, stating such matters are non-justiciable and fall outside judicial purview, adhering to the trichotomy of powers.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance (V of 1970)=", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2408-L of 2009, decision dated: 4-09-2013", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person. \nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WUKALA MAHAZ BARAI TAHAFAZ DASTOOR \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 323 = 2005 SLD 323 = 2005 CLD 264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Proceedings under Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance\nConclusions:\n•\n(a) Proceedings aim to protect public interest, not individual grievances.\n•\n(d) Dropping of inquiries and recall of show-cause notices are non-appealable.\nReferences: Judicial Dictionary by K.J. Aiyar; Black's Law Dictionary.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=11", + "Case #": "M.A. No.7 of 2003, decision dated: 30-03-2004. dates of hearings: 12th and 25-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nAZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaiq Usmani for Appellants.\nZahid F. Ibrahim for Respondents.\nMuneer A. Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGLISH BISCUITS MANUFACTURERS (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER\nVS \nMONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 324 = 2005 SLD 324 = 2005 CLD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Delisting from Stock Exchanges\nConclusion:\nThe High Court directed Lahore Stock Exchange to delist the respondent corporation, citing no investor activity on the exchange. Protection of investors was deemed fulfilled as the corporation remained listed on another exchange.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=58", + "Case #": "Appeal No.9 of 2004, decision dated: 30-07-2004, hearing DATE : 24-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI \nABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LIMITED, KARACHI\nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET), , ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 325 = 2005 SLD 325 = 2005 CLD 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Disputes and Evidence of Transactions\nConclusion:\nThe Banking Court's judgment was upheld, emphasizing that visual comparison and documentary evidence confirmed payment completion and satisfaction of contractual terms.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=4", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.403 of 1999, heard on 31st May, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asghar Hameed Bhutta for Appellants.\nZia ud Din Kasuri for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AL MADAN COAL COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 326 = 2005 SLD 326 = 2005 CLD 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Submit Annual Audited Accounts\nConclusion:\nThe Authority imposed penalties for non-compliance, rejecting further extensions for submission. The penalty emphasized adherence to statutory obligations.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.2(277)ENO/(DD R&I)/MCA/99, decision dated: 25-11-2003, hearing DATE : 26-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs CHILTAN GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 327 = 2005 SLD 327 = 2005 CLD 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment in Securities and Badla Financing\nConclusion:\nThe court upheld penalties for procedural violations and rejected the investor’s claim for Badla financing due to lack of evidence. The investor's due diligence responsibilities were highlighted.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 1 and 4 of 2003, decision dated: 9-04-2003, hearing DATE : 24-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND SCD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND SCD) \nABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT)\nNazir Siddiqui, Mrs. Abida Salah ud Din and Salahud Din Khawaja for Appellants (in Appeal No. 1 of 2003).\nYounus Mohi-ud-Din for Respondent No. 1 (in Appeal No. 1 of 2003).\nYounus Mohi-ud-Din for Appellants (in Appeal No. 4 of 2003 \nNazir Siddiqui, Abida Salah ud Din and Salah-ud-Din Khawaja for Respondent No. 2 (in Appeal No. 4 of 2003).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. ABIDA SALAH UD DIN AND OTHERS\nVS \nSALIM CHAMDIA SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED, CORPORATE MEMBER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 328 = 2005 SLD 328 = 2005 CLD 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Election of Club President and Tenure Division\nConclusion:\nThe decision to divide the tenure equally between tied candidates was upheld as valid and non-mala fide. The general body exercised its prerogative to amend rules.\nReferences: Sultan Ali v. Mst. Khatija Bai 1995 CLC 1441.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Karachi Gymkhana Club Rules=12", + "Case #": "Suit No.451 of 2003, decision dated: 10-11-2003, hearing DATE : 29-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fais Arab for Plaintiffs.\nM. Zubair Qureshi for Defendants Nos and 2. \nMuhammad Saleem Mangrio for Defendant No. 3.\nMs. Sana Minhas for Defendant No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LT. COL. (RETD.) RIAZ MOHIUDDIN AND OTHERS\nVS \nKARACHI GYMKHANA CLUB AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 329 = 2005 SLD 329 = 2005 CLD 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-compliance and Penalty Imposition\nConclusion:\nThe Authority imposed penalties for failure to comply with information requests but showed leniency for partial compliance. Further review of the order was deemed legally barred.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "F. No.8(849)/INV/(CCAO R&I)/MCA/2002, decision dated: 25-11-2003. dates of hearing : 9th January and 23rd August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs KOHAT CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 330 = 2005 SLD 330 = 2005 CLD 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Fraudulent Transactions by Brokerage Firms\nConclusion:\nThe Securities Division validated penalties against the brokerage firm for regulatory violations and directed payment to the complainant. Claims for shares restoration were dismissed as unsubstantiated.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=ThirdSched", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.37 and 46 of 2003, decision dated: 22-03-2004. dates of hearing: 30-10-5-12-2003 and 10-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND SCD) \nABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND SCD) \nABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT)\nSalman Masud for Appellants (in Appeal No. 37 of 2003). \nTariq Dar for Appellants (in Appeal No. 46 of 2003). \nNemo for Respondent No. 2 (in Appeal No. 46 of 2003)", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALMAN SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SECURITIES MARKET) SEC, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 331 = 2005 SLD 331 = 2005 CLD 326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Failing to Supply Requisite Information\nConclusion:\nA lenient penalty was imposed on the undertaking for delayed compliance with reporting requirements. Regular compliance post-default was acknowledged.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.2 (287) /VII/ Enq/ (Chief R&I) / MCA/ 2003, decision dated: 25-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ \nMuhammad Zaheer for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs ESSA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 332 = 2005 SLD 332 = 2005 CLD 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVURlNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Statutory Auditors’ Fiduciary Duties and Penalties\nConclusion:\nAuditors were penalized for failing to meet statutory and professional disclosure standards. The appellate body upheld the penalties, emphasizing fiduciary accountability.\nReferences: London and General Bank Ltd.'s case (1895) 2 Ch. 166.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Appeal No.57 of 2003, heard on 13-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER \nDR. TARIQ HASSAN, CHAIRMAN/ COMMISSIONER\nMS. SUMAIRA SIDDIQUI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EMD) AND MUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR (EMD) FOR RESPONDENT.", + "Lawyer Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER \nSHAIKH JALAL-ud-Din F.C.A.\nCOMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING) SEC\nShaikh Jalal-ud-Din F.C.A. in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAIKH JALALUDDIN F.C.A.\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 333 = 2005 SLD 333 = 2005 CLD 341", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Supply Required Information and Imposition of Penalty\nConclusion:\nThe Authority imposed a penalty under Section 19(1)(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance, 1970, for the undertaking’s failure to provide complete and timely information regarding ex-factory prices, production, and dispatches. The reasons provided for non-compliance were deemed unconvincing.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.2(287)/V/Enq/(Chief R&I)/MCA/2003, decision dated: 24-09-2003, hearing DATE : 25-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ \nMuhammad Humayun Khan, General Manager (GR&A) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs LUCKY CEMENT LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 334 = 2005 SLD 334 = 2005 CLD 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decree and Non-Impleading of Necessary Parties\nConclusion:\nThe Banking Court's decree against the legal heirs of a deceased loanee was set aside for failing to implead all necessary parties. The decree violated principles of natural justice and could not be remedied during execution proceedings.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No.439 of 2003, decision dated: 21st January, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Imran Nazir Awan for Appellants. \nHaider Ali Shah for Respondent Bank.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHNAWAZ AND OTHERS\nVS \nZARI TARAKIATI BANK OF PAKISTAN (ADBP) THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 24 = 2014 SLD 24 = 2014 SCMR 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Discrimination in Voluntary Separation and Golden Handshake Schemes\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a constitutional petition challenging the benefits under a Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) compared to a Golden Handshake Scheme (GHSS). The two schemes were distinct and introduced under different circumstances, negating claims of discrimination.\nReferences: Muhammad Idrees v. Agricultural Development Bank PLD 2007 SC 681; Sikandar Aziz v. Secretary, Ministry of Industries 2001 PLC (C.S.) 205.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1874 and 1875 of 2005, decision dated: 10-10-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nIQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asmat Kamal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. \nMian Mehmood Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WAHID BAKHSH WATTOO AND OTHERS\nVS\nPAK AMERICAN FERTILIZERS LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 335 = 2005 SLD 335 = 2005 CLD 350", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Provident Fund Irregularities and Penalties\nConclusion:\nThe company, its directors, and trustees were penalized for irregularities in provident fund contributions. The encashment of Defence Savings Certificates before maturity violated the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Proper notice was required for certain directives, but penalties for breaches were upheld.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.7, 8 and 9 of 2003, decision dated: 9-04-2003, hearing DATE : 26-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND SCD) \nM. ZAFAR UL HAQ HIJAZI,COMMISSIONER (COMPANY LAW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Aftab A. Sheikh for Appellants (in Appeal No. 7 of 2003).\nNadeem Akhtar for Appellants (in Appeal No 8 of 2003)\nNadeem Akhtar for Appellants (in Appeal No. 9 of 2003)", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASSAN AFTAB, EX DIRECTOR, HASHIMI CAN COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS\nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (EMD) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 336 = 2005 SLD 336 = 2005 CLD 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Failure to Supply Requisite Information\nConclusion:\nA penalty was imposed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance, 1970, for failing to provide complete information on ex-factory prices and dispatches, despite repeated notices and partial compliance.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.2 (287)/IV/(Enq)/(Chief R&I)/MCA/2003, decision dated: 3rd November, 2003, hearing DATE : 25-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOQ, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 337 = 2005 SLD 337 = 2005 CLD 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Dismissed Appeal and Illness of Counsel\nConclusion:\nThe High Court declined to restore an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, citing insufficient evidence to support the claim of counsel's illness. Mere affidavits were deemed inadequate without corroborative medical documentation.\nReferences: Mst. Fatima v. Mst. Rehmat Mai 1989 SCMR 1202; Mst. Zubaida Mumtaz v. Mst. Ikram Jehan 1999 SCMR 1025.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=19", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.319 of 2000, decision dated: 6-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE \nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akhtar Rana for Applicant. \nSyed Najam ul Hassan Zaidi for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUMTAZ AHMAD\nVS \nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 338 = 2005 SLD 338 = 2005 CLD 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Partial Compliance with Reporting Requirements\nConclusion:\nThe Authority imposed a penalty on the undertaking under Section 19(1)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance, 1970, for supplying incomplete information despite repeated notices.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.2(287)/IX/(Enq)/(Chief R&I)/MCA/2003, decision dated: 3rd November, 2003, hearing DATE 25-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 339 = 2005 SLD 339 = 2005 CLD 387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Furnishing of Required Information and Penalty\nConclusion:\nA penalty was imposed under Sections 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance, 1970, for failure to supply required information/documents within the stipulated timeline.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No. 8(267)INV/(DD R&I)/MCA/84, decision dated: 6-09-2003. dates of hearing: 21st November, 2002, 13th, 15-01-19th June and 22-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barrister Qasim Ali Chowhan, General Manager of the Undertaking and Syed Nasik Ijaz Gilani for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs DEWAN KHALID TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 340 = 2005 SLD 340 = 2005 CLD 406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Injunction in Disputes over Shareholder Agreements\nConclusion:\nThe court denied an interim injunction in a shareholder dispute due to the absence of a binding agreement. The plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience.\nReferences: Hysons Steel Mills v. Trading Corporation PLD 1971 Kar. 492; Pakistan State Oil v. Burmah Oil 1987 CLC 272.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Depositories Act, 1997=4", + "Case #": "Suit No.886 and C.M. Nos.4424, 5284 of 2003, decision dated: 4-10-2004. dates of hearing: 15th, 18th, 22nd, 26th, 30th March and 2nd, 9th, 28th April and 31st May, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Saeed for Plaintiff No. 1. \nIqbal L. Bawany for Plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3. Sajid Zahid for Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. \nNadeem Azhar Siddiqui for Defendants Nos. 1 to 6. \nFarhatullah holding brief and Rasheed A. Rizvi for Defendant No. 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAHANGIR SIDDIQUI AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nDALLAH ALBARAKA (U.K., ) LIMITED AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 341 = 2005 SLD 341 = 2005 CLD 430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Shares and Minority Oppression\nConclusion:\nThe High Court ordered a fresh valuation of shares through an independent auditor. Penalties for contempt were set aside, emphasizing adherence to transparent valuation practices to address shareholder grievances.\nReferences: Muhammad Sadiq Leghari PLD 2002 SC 1033.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.59 of 2003, heard on 7-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shaiq Usmani for Appellants Nos. 1 and 7. \nAziz A. Munshi for Appellants Nos.2, 4 and 5. \nSyed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada for Appellants Nos. 3 and 6. \nZahid F. Ibrahim for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGLISH BISCUITS MANUFACTURERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (EBM) AND 6 OTHERS\nVS \nASSOCIATED BISCUITS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 342 = 2005 SLD 342 = 2005 CLD 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate Governance Code and Auditor Rotation\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded to the Single Judge to ensure adherence to procedural requirements. The absence of counter-affidavits and the undue focus on public interest rather than legal compliance warranted fresh proceedings.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=252", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.102 of 2004, heard on 29-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid F. Ibrahim for Appellant. \nAnwar Mansoor Khan and Asim Mansoor for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "A.F. FERGUSON & CO. THROUGH PARTNER\nVS \n THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 343 = 2005 SLD 343 = 2005 CLD 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement\nConclusion:\nThe High Court directed compliance with the rules for rectifying company affairs within 12 months. Repeated violations and unauthorized management changes justified intervention under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nReferences: Muhammad Fikree v. Fikree Development Corporation 1992 MLD 668; Shaheen Foundation v. Capital F.M. 2002 CLD 188.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "J. M. No. 52 of 2001, decision dated: 24-11-2003, hearing DATE : 26-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Faez Isa for Petitioner. \nArshad Tayebaly for Respondent No. 1. \nNadeem Akhtar for Respondents Nos.2 to 30. \nYawar Farooqui for Respondent No. 31.", + "Petitioner Name:": "REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES\nVS \nPAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LEASING LIMITED AND 30 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 344 = 2005 SLD 344 = 2005 CLD 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Distribution of Worker Benefits under the Companies Profits Act\nConclusion:\nThe court held that profits accrued on allocated funds must be distributed to workers, ensuring compliance with the Companies Profits (Workers’ Participation) Act, 1968. Relief was denied for non-compliance with procedural provisions.\nReferences: National Tanker Company v. Federal Government 1999 YLR 650.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Profit (Workers Participation) Act, 1968=2", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1340 of 1999, decision dated: 7-01-2005, hearing DATE ; 4-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "IFIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sadiq M. Warraich, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Appellants.\nNasir Saeed Sheikh, Dy. A. G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2. Ex parte.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DILSHAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER\nVS \nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR MANPOWER AND OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 345 = 2005 SLD 345 = 2005 CLD 500", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Inquiry under Securities and Exchange Ordinance\nConclusion:\nThe Appellate Bench remanded the matter for a proper inquiry under Section 21 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969, following non-compliance with High Court directions.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.31 of 2004, heard on 22-12-2004. dates of hearing: 30th November and 22-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Mahmood for Appellants. \nAmir Zareef Khan for Respondent No. 1. \nAbid Hussain for Respondent No. 2. \nMurtaza Abbas, Assistant Director SEC for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMIR RASHEED AND ANOTHER\nVS \nLAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 346 = 2005 SLD 346 = 2005 CLD 551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Documents and Applicability of Sale of Goods Act\nConclusion:\nDocuments must be read as a whole for true intent. Section 64A of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, was deemed inapplicable to building contracts lacking relevant criteria.\nReferences: State of Madras v. Messrs Gannon Dunkeley AIR 1958 SC 560.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=64", + "Case #": "I.C. A. No.915 of 1998, heard on 10-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nisar Ahmad for Appellant. \nMalik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WAHEED CORPORATION (REGD.) THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE\nVS \nCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD, THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 347 = 2005 SLD 347 = 2005 CLD 558", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of Company Based on Agreements and Disputes\nConclusion:\nThe court held that disputes involving settlements and agreements fell outside the jurisdiction of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, directing the petitioner to seek remedy under general law.\nReferences: Abdur Rasheed v. Messrs Nippon Robbin PLD 1982 Lah. 103; Hashmi & Co. v. K.K. & Co. 1992 SCMR 1006.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.85 of 2002, heard on 14-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Nazeer and Usman Aziz Mir for Petitioner. \nSulman Aslam Butt for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALAMGIR ELAHI\nVS \nMESSRS ELAHI ENTERPRISE (PRIVATE) LIMITED, THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 348 = 2005 SLD 348 = 2005 CLD 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes and Contractual Price Changes\nConclusion:\nFiscal statutes are prospective unless stated otherwise. Price changes after a transaction’s conclusion do not affect the rights or obligations of buyers and sellers.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=9", + "Case #": "Civil Revision Application No.238 of 2000, decision dated: 10-01-2005, hearing DATE : 28-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Yaqoob for Applicant. \nAamir Maqsood for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.M. YAQOOB\nVS \nPAK SUZUKI MOTOR CO. LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 349 = 2005 SLD 349 = 2005 CLD 619", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Buy-Back Agreement and Mark-Up Principles\nConclusion:\nThe Banking Court erred in not accounting for payments made by the debtor before the suit was filed. The claim for 15% mark-up was rejected as the buy-back agreement was akin to Bai-Muajjal. The debtor's liability was capped as per the agreement, and the bank could not claim beyond this amount. Cost of funds under Section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was deemed inapplicable as it was not retroactive.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.826 of 2002, heard on 14-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE\nUMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Mahmood Sheikh for Appellants. \nNaseer Ahmad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BUKHARI AGRITEK (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\nAGRICULTURAL BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 350 = 2005 SLD 350 = 2005 CLD 636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Petition for Winding Up – Oppression and Mismanagement\nConclusion:\nThe High Court emphasized ensuring harmonious functioning of the company. Instead of winding up, the court appointed an Ombudsman to oversee management and mediate disputes among directors. This solution aimed to curb mismanagement and foster a functional, democratic structure.\nReferences: Needle Industry (India) Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 1298; Daulat Makanmal Luthria v. Keshav S. Naik (1992) 3 Comp. LJ 119.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "C.Os. Nos.69 of 2000 and 67 of 2001, decision dated: 11-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Sarfraz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner. \nTariq Kamal Qazi for Petitioner in C.O. No. 67 of 2001. \nHaq Nawaz Chattha for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN\nVS\nKHIALI PAPER AND BOARD MILLS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 351 = 2005 SLD 351 = 2005 CLD 659", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "Contingent Creditor’s Petition for Winding Up\nConclusion:\nA contingent creditor’s petition for winding up under Section 305 required furnishing a security of Rs. 25,000 under Section 309(d). The court directed the petitioner to deposit the required security for proceeding.\nReferences: Ehsanullah Tarar v. Messrs Hafizabad Straw Board Mills Ltd. PLD 1994 Lah. 160.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.66 of 2003, decision dated: 11-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbir Ahmed Shaikh for Petitioner.\nSaalim Salam Ansari for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR MAHMOOD SHAIKH\nVS\nMESSRS AHMED FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 352 = 2005 SLD 352 = 2005 CLD 668", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Appearance and Legal Heirs’ Liabilities\nConclusion:\nNotices served upon respondents led to an ex-parte proceeding. Legal heirs were liable only to the extent of the deceased's estate and not personally. Coercive measures against heirs for recovery were illegal.\nReferences: Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v. Sanaullah Khan PLD 1988 SC 67.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=6", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.26478 of 1997, decision dated: 28-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person. \nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZEER AHMAD\nVS\nHOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 353 = 2005 SLD 353 = 2005 CLD 674", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decree and Auction Proceedings\nConclusion:\nThe High Court upheld dismissal of objections to the auction due to non-compliance with deposit requirements under Section 19(7). The Banking Tribunal confirmed the sale. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal, emphasizing the petitioner's conduct and absence of legal grounds.\nReferences: Dauran Khan v. Naseer Muhammad Khan PLD 1964 SC 136; Mst. Hassan Bano v. Mrs. Mumtaz Younus PLD 1989 SC 346.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "C.M.A. No.2 of 2005 in Civil Petition No.2883 of 2004, decision dated: 5-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nJAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Naeem Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Rashid Qamar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Muhammad Khan Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. \nSyed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BRITISH BISCUITS COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nMESSRS ATLAS INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 354 = 2005 SLD 354 = 2005 CLD 678", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Goods and Escalation in Costs\nConclusion:\nSection 64-A of the Sale of Goods Act allowed recovery of additional costs due to increased taxes or duties and reimbursement for reductions. Devaluation of currency justified escalation claims in contract-based pricing, benefiting both buyer and seller.\nReferences: Habib and Company v. Chief Controller of Purchases PLD 2001 Lah. 521.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=64", + "Case #": "Suit No.84 of 2003, decision dated: 18-08-2004, hearing DATE : 27-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Azher Siddiqui for Plaintiff. \nDefendant ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAHNAWAZ ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI THROUGH CHAIRMAN\nVS\nMESSRS NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (F&A), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 355 = 2005 SLD 355 = 2005 CLD 711", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Court Auctioneer’s Fees\nConclusion:\nCorporate and Industrial Restructuring Corporation was disallowed from claiming auctioneer’s fees when already compensated for recovery services. The High Court directed fees to be distributed to secured creditors proportionately.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Corporate and Industrial Restructuring Corporation Rules, 2001=32", + "Case #": "Ex. A. No.50-B of 1999, decision dated: 20-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzada Mazhar for Appellant.\nMuzammil Ashraf Qureshi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED\nVS\nQAND GHAR LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 356 = 2005 SLD 356 = 2005 CLD 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Recall of Winding Up Order\nConclusion:\nThe High Court recalled a winding-up order under Section 422, considering full payment of creditors under a settlement. The three-year limitation under Section 319 was deemed directory, not mandatory. Revival aimed to boost the economy and preserve employment.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=319", + "Case #": "C.M. No.83-L of 2005 in Civil Original No.33 of 1995, decision dated: 7-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad for Petitioners. \nTariq Kamal Qazi for CIR. Muzamil Ashraf Qureshi for Liquidator. \nSyed Mansoor Ali Shah for Respondent. \nShoaib Zafar for IDBP", + "Petitioner Name:": "INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS\nVS\nSUNSHINE JUTE MILLS LIMTIED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 357 = 2005 SLD 357 = 2005 CLD 737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Professional Misconduct of Chartered Accountant\nConclusion:\nProceedings against a Chartered Accountant for misconduct were set aside due to procedural violations under Sections 20A and 20B of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance. The Institute could reinitiate proceedings per the law.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961=20", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-906 of 2003, decision dated: 2-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sami Ahmed and M.A. Baig for Petitioner. \nSyed Zaki Muhammad, D.A.G. I.H. \nZaidi for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM HAIDER \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 358 = 2005 SLD 358 = 2005 CLD 747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Summary Proceedings under Companies Ordinance\nConclusion:\nSummary procedure under Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance did not exclude detailed inquiry or evidence collection for resolving complex disputes. The High Court emphasized addressing controversies within the Companies Ordinance framework instead of diverting to civil courts.\nReferences: Latif Ansari v. Pakistan Industrial Promoter Ltd. 1988 CLC 1541; Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Sarelo Cement Ltd. 1993 CLC 1540.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=9", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous Nos. 48 of 2000, 3 and 23 of 2001, 1 of 2002 and C.M. No.1587 of 2003, decision dated: 10-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ATA-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naraindas Motiani for Petitioner (in J. Miscellaneous No. 3 of 2001).\nNadeem Azher Siddiqui for Respondent (in J. Miscellaneous No. 3 of 2001).\nBadar-ud-Din Vellani Amicus Curaie (in J. Miscellaneous No. 3 of 2001).\nAnwar Mansoor Khan for Petitioner (in J. Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2002 and C.M.A. 1587 of 2003).\nNaraindas Motiani for Intervenor (in J. Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2002 and C.M.A. 1587 of 2003).\nRasheed A. Razvi for Respondent (in J. Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2002 and C.M.A. 1587 of 2003).\nBadar-ud-Din Vellani, Amicus Curaie (in J. Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2002 and C.M.A. 1587 of 2003).\nIqbal Bawany for Petitioner (in J. Miscellaneous No. 23 of 2001).\nMansoorul Arfeen for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to 12 (in J. Miscellaneous No. 23 of 2001).\nRauf Buksh Quadri the Respondent in person (in J. Miscellaneous No. 23 of 2001).\nBadar-ud-Din Vellahi Amicus Curate (in J. Miscellaneous No. 23 of 2001).\nRauf Buksh Quadri the Petitioner in person (in J. Miscellaneous No. 48 of 2000).\nMansoorul Arfeen for Respondents Nos.1 to 5 (in J, Miscellaneous No. 48 of 2000).\nIqbal Bawany for Intervenor (in J. Miscellaneous No. 48 of 2000).\nBadar-ud-Din Vellahi, Amicus Curaie (in Miscellaneous No. 48 of 2000).", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAUF BAKSH KADRI AND OTHERS \nVS\nM/S. NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 359 = 2005 SLD 359 = 2005 CLD 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act – Temporary Injunction\nConclusion:\nThe plaintiff established a prima facie case of infringement by the defendant using their trade marks, packaging design, and color schemes. The court granted a temporary injunction to the plaintiff, citing irreparable loss, potential customer deception, and balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.\nReferences: Toshiba Corporation's case PLD 1991 SC 27; Messrs Wagner Electric Corporation v. Paramount Oil and Chemical Co. PLD 1973 Kar. Note 68.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10", + "Case #": "C.M.As. Nos.2176 and 5565 of 2004 in Suit No.332 of 2004 heard on 31st January, 2005. dates of hearing: 6th, 18th, 25th and 31st January, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassan Irfan Khan and Moin Qamar for Plaintiff. \nKhurrum Gul Ghory for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERAL MOGUL PRODUCTS, INC. U.S.A. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \nTAHA INDUSTRIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 360 = 2005 SLD 360 = 2005 CLD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance – Similarity in Names\nConclusion:\nThe High Court determined that the name Darson was uncommon and could mislead the public about the origin of two companies. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, directing the respondent company to change its name to avoid deception.\nReferences: Lloyd's v. Lloyd's (Southampton) Ld. (1912) 29 RPC, 433; Jeep's case PLD 1969 Kar. 376.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=37", + "Case #": "Commercial Appeal No.16 of 2002, decision dated: 21st March, 2005. dates of hearing: 14th, 15th and 16-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Zafar Ali Shah for Appellant. \nMujtaba Jamal for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. \nNasrullah Khan for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DARSON INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 361 = 2005 SLD 361 = 2005 CLD 822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act – Injunction for Infringement\nConclusion:\nThe plaintiff, owner of the trade mark GRANITTO, was granted a temporary injunction against the defendant, who failed to prove prior use or ownership. The court protected the plaintiff's exclusive rights, ensuring no infringement occurred.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "Suit No. 178 of 2004, heard on 22-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Ghori for Plaintiff. \nAsghar N. Farooqui for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RIZWAN SHAHID \nVS \nTARIQ ABDULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 362 = 2005 SLD 362 = 2005 CLD 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Karachi Port Trust Act – Liability of Vessel Owners\nConclusion:\nThe master, agent, and owner of a defaulting vessel were held jointly and severally liable for damages under Section 89 of the Karachi Port Trust Act. The court emphasized that statutory obligations could not be avoided, regardless of contractual terms.\nReferences: Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (1990).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886=89", + "Case #": "C.M.As. Nos.534 and 5541 of 2004 in Suit No.1167 of 2003, decision dated: 8-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaiq Usmani for Plaintiff.\nKhursheed Jawaid, Advocate.\nNaeem Ahmed for Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.\nKamal Asfar and Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Deputy Attorney General for Defendant No. 4.\nAurangzaib Amin for Defendants Nos.6 and 7.\nYousuf Moulvi for Defendant No. 7.\nMuhammad Hassan Akbar for Defendant No. 9.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI \nVS \nMESSRS POLEMBROS SHIPPING LIMITED AND 9 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 363 = 2005 SLD 363 = 2005 CLD 840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Defamation – Civil Liability\nConclusion:\nThe plaintiff successfully proved defamation through a documentary aimed at their business. The court awarded general damages of Rs. 50,000, noting that the telecaster and author were jointly and severally liable. Claims against a dissolved company were abated.\nReferences: Tolley v. J.S. Fry and Sons Ltd. 1931 AC 333; Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=350", + "Case #": "Suit No. 91 of 1998, decision dated: 11-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor ul Arifin for Plaintiff. \nDefendant No. 1 (since dissolved). \nNemo for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MEHMOOD ALI\nVS \nNETWORK TELEVISION MARKETING (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 364 = 2005 SLD 364 = 2005 CLD 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Appeals\nConclusion:\nThe Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance prescribed a 30-day limitation for appeals, overriding the Limitation Act. The High Court dismissed an appeal filed after a 2.5-year delay, finding no sufficient cause for condonation.\nReferences: Allah Ditta v. Farooq Ahmad PLD 1979 Lah. 917.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.441 of 2004, decision dated: 24-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ahmad Saeed Kirmani for Appellants. \nAisha Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PROTEIN AND FATS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 2 OTHERS\nVS\nCAPITAL ASSETS LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 365 = 2005 SLD 365 = 2005 CLD 865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Court Decree Modification\nConclusion:\nThe High Court modified a decree against a borrowing company, dismissing claims against guarantors who were not legally customers. The decree was adjusted to reflect an agreed amount with applicable mark-up and costs.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=2", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 101 of 2002, heard on 11-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nisar Ahmad for Appellants. \nS.M. Baqar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RAINBOW PACKAGES LIMITED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 4 OTHERS \nVS \nCRESCENT INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 366 = 2005 SLD 366 = 2005 CLD 879", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of Unregistered Companies\nConclusion:\nThe High Court clarified that for foreign companies, business presence in Pakistan is required for winding-up petitions under Section 444(3). However, no such requirement exists for petitions under Section 444(1)(iii).\nReferences: Messrs James Finlay P.L.C. v. Messrs Hellenic Lines Limited 1986 CLC 2933.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=444", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 126 of 2003, heard on 26-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Wajid Wyne for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMERCIAL UNION GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLC\nVS \nEAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 367 = 2005 SLD 367 = 2005 CLD 907", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Award – Jurisdiction\nConclusion:\nThe court set aside an arbitration award, holding that the tribunal lacked legal authority. Resolutions delegating such powers violated the Trade Organization Ordinance, making the award a nullity.\nReferences: H.M. Saya and others v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd. PLD 1969 SC 65.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application Nos.21 and Suit No. 1232 of 2004, heard on 24-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Javed for Applicants. \nS. Abid Shirazi for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN CARPET MANUFACTURERS AND EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS\nVS \nMOHIUDDIN ANSARI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 368 = 2005 SLD 368 = 2005 CLD 976", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up – Intra-Court Appeal\nConclusion:\nThe High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal on winding-up proceedings, stating that the proper forum was the Supreme Court. Leave to appeal was granted to examine procedural correctness.\nReferences: Muhammad Bux v. Pakistan Industrial Credit Investment Corporation 1999 SCMR 25.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.569 K of 1999, decision dated: 15-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. \nNemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. \nRizwan Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAKAUDDIN\nVS \nDASTGIR INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), THROUGH THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE/LIQUIDATOR, AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 369 = 2005 SLD 369 = 2005 CLD 978", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments – Promissory Note\nConclusion:\nA document promising payment conditional on foregoing appeal rights was not deemed a valid promissory note. The agreement, found void for restraint on legal proceedings, could not support a recovery suit.\nReferences: Mrs. Doreen Barkat Ram v. Abdul Hakim Khan 1974 SCMR 84.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.204 of 1999, heard on 15-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE \nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mubasher Nisar Khan for Appellant. \nIftikhar Ullah Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RASHID UR REHMAN \nVS\nMIAN IQBAL HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 370 = 2005 SLD 370 = 2005 CLD 1026", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up – Notice Service\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court remanded a case where winding-up notices were not served at the updated registered office. Courts emphasized decisions on merits over procedural technicalities.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.650 of 1997, and Civil Petition No. 1371 of 1998, decision dated: 2-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali Advocate on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. 1371 of 1998). \nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. 650 of 1997). \nM.A. Zaidi, Advocate on-Record and Hamid Farooq Durrani, Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. 650 of 1997).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEHR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. \nVS \nINVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 371 = 2005 SLD 371 = 2005 CLD 1036", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities Transactions – Gains\nConclusion:\nA beneficial owner failed to deposit gains from securities transactions within the prescribed period. The SECP's order for recovery of the gain amount was upheld.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=221", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 14 of 2003, decision dated: 24-04-2003, hearing DATE : 15-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND SCD) \nABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Saifullah, F.C.A. and Kashif Aziz Jahangiri, A.C.A. for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET) SEC, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 372 = 2005 SLD 372 = 2005 CLD 1040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Execution – Void Orders\nConclusion:\nThe Supreme Court remanded an objection petition dismissed without a hearing date, deeming the dismissal void. The court reiterated that void orders invalidate subsequent actions.\nReferences: Manager, Jammu and Kashmir, State Property v. Khuda Yar PLD 1975 SC 678.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.468 of 1999, decision dated: 18-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taqi Ahmad Khan for Appellant.\nFarrukh Mehmood Salehria for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASHIF YOUNIS BUTT\nVS \nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 373 = 2005 SLD 373 = 2005 CLD 1042", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies – Failure to Provide Information\nConclusion:\nAn undertaking failed to furnish required information and respond to show-cause notices. The authority imposed penalties for willful default under the Monopolies Ordinance.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.47/INF/L.O./MCA/2003, decision dated: 28th August 2003, hearing DATE : 25-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, \nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, MEMBER\nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs RAJA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 374 = 2005 SLD 374 = 2005 CLD 1044", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "De-Listing from Stock Exchange\nConclusion:\nThe SECP directed de-listing of a Modarba from the Stock Exchange but set aside penalties imposed for non-compliance with listing regulations post-2000. The Modarba was required to provide approval documentation for de-listing.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 13 of 2003, decision dated: 24-04-2003, hearing DATE : 16-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE AND SCD)\nABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Altaf Hussain and Naseem Ahmed for Appellant. \nSyed Amir Masood, Director (SMD), Abbas Hassan Kizilbash, Director (SMD) and Mrs. Musarat Jabeen, Deputy Director (SMD) for Respondent No. 1. \nAhmed Hassan Khan for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BRR INTERNATIONAL MODARABA\nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET) SEC AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 375 = 2005 SLD 375 = 2005 CLD 1056", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies – Penalty for Non-Compliance\nConclusion:\nA penalty was imposed on an undertaking for failing to provide requested information and disregarding show-cause notices. The authority held the default was willful.\nReferences: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.2(277)/Enq/(DD-R&I)/MCA/98, decision dated: 28-08-2003. dates of hearing: 20-11-2002, 11-01-19th June (Adjourned) and 22-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, \nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, MEMBER\nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan A. Khan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs NUTRIPAK FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 376 = 2005 SLD 376 = 2005 CLD 1058", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment of Inspector for Company Affairs\nConclusion:\nThe SECP's appointment of an inspector was upheld due to discrepancies in financial records, non-compliance with corporate governance standards, and potential asset mismanagement by the company.\nReferences: Chanra Prabha (Smt) v. Hotel Shweta (P.) Ltd. (1995) 4 Comp. LJ 540.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=265", + "Case #": "Appeal No.60 of 2003, decision dated: 21st January, 2004, hearing DATE ; 12-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET)\nETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noman Akram Raja and Ralph Nazirullah, Company Secretary for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SERVICE INDUSTRIES TEXTILE LIMITED \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (COMPANY LAW) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 377 = 2005 SLD 377 = 2005 CLD 1071", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Penalties for Failure to Hold Meetings and Submit Accounts\nDetailed Summary:\nAppellants, Chief Executives of several companies, were penalized for statutory defaults under Sections 158, 245, and 246 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. These included failures to hold Annual General Meetings and to prepare and transmit quarterly accounts within the prescribed timelines. While appellants cited financial constraints as the primary reason for their defaults, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) rejected this explanation, asserting that financial constraints could not justify a breach of statutory obligations. The Executive Director took a lenient approach, penalizing only the Chief Executives in their individual capacities rather than the entire Boards of Directors. The penalties were considered token amounts. The appellate forum dismissed the appeals, emphasizing that listed companies and their managements bore added responsibilities to comply with the law, and no valid reason was presented to interfere with the imposed penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.30, 54 and 55 of 2003, heard on 9-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Brig. (Retd.) N. Humayune and Ali Raza Rizvi for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BRIG. (RETD.) N. HUMAYUNE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (EMD) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 378 = 2005 SLD 378 = 2005 CLD 1079", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies – Failure to Provide Complete Information\nDetailed Summary:\nAn undertaking partially complied with a request for information under Section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance, 1970 but failed to provide the remaining information despite repeated reminders and a show-cause notice. The Monopolies Authority decided the matter ex parte and imposed penalties under Section 19(1)(a), concluding that the undertaking’s non-compliance was willful. The case highlighted the Authority's strict enforcement of compliance requirements to ensure transparency and accountability in monopolistic practices.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.52/INF/L.O./MCA/2002, decision dated: 29-08-2003, hearing DATE : 26-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, MUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, MEMBER, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs INVESTEC SECURITIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 379 = 2005 SLD 379 = 2005 CLD 1086", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies – Delay in Providing Required Information\nDetailed Summary:\nAn undertaking delayed providing critical information requested by the Authority by eight days beyond the stipulated deadline. Although the undertaking responded to a show-cause notice and eventually supplied the information, the reasons given for the delay were deemed unconvincing. A penalty was imposed under Section 19(1)(a) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance, 1970. The case underscored the strict timelines enforced by regulatory authorities and the consequences of non-compliance, even for relatively short delays.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.2(291)Enq/(DD-R&I)/MCA/2002, decision dated: 2-09-2003, hearing DATE : 21st July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK, CHAIRMAN, \nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, MEMBER\nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs RUPALI POLYESTER LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 380 = 2005 SLD 380 = 2005 CLD 1090", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of a Company – Persistent Statutory Defaults\nDetailed Summary:\nA company was ordered to be wound up under Sections 305 and 309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for its persistent failure to comply with statutory requirements. The company had not held Annual General Meetings since 1997, had suspended its business activities in the same year, and failed to file statutory returns. Despite fines imposed for these violations, the company had not remedied its defaults. The SECP initiated winding-up proceedings, granting the Registrar the necessary sanction. The company’s contention that its management intended to revive operations was dismissed as no concrete revival plan was presented. The appellate forum upheld the winding-up order, emphasizing that statutory compliance is essential for corporate governance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Appeal No.32 of 2003, heard on 21st April, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET)\nETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES)\nMAQSOOD RAZA, F.C.A FOR APPELLANT. MUBASHER SAEED, JOINT DIRECTOR SEC FOR RESPONDENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SCHON TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 381 = 2005 SLD 381 = 2005 CLD 1096", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Monopolies – Penalty for Non-Submission of Price Data\nDetailed Summary:\nAn undertaking failed to provide the required data on ex-factory prices, daily production, and dispatches as directed by the Authority. Despite a show-cause notice, the undertaking delayed submitting the information by more than three months. The reasons provided for the delay were deemed insufficient, leading to the imposition of penalties under Section 19(1)(c) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance, 1970. The decision emphasized the need for timely reporting to monitor pricing and trade practices effectively.", + "Court Name:": "Monopoly Control Authority", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "File No.2(287)/I/Enq/(Chief R&I)/MCA/2003, decision dated: 12-09-2003, hearing DATE : 25-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ FAROOK CHAIRMAN, \nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD PARWAIZ, MEMBER \nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tanveer Ahmed Qureshi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 382 = 2005 SLD 382 = 2005 CLD 1101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of a Non-Compliant Company\nDetailed Summary:\nA company that had failed to hold Annual General Meetings since 1992 and suspended its business operations since 1993 was ordered to be wound up under Section 309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The SECP noted the company’s persistent non-compliance, including failure to file statutory returns and hold meetings. Although the company claimed it intended to revive operations, no revival plan was submitted. The appellate forum upheld the winding-up order, reasoning that the company existed only on paper and that its default was significant enough to warrant such a drastic measure.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Appeal No.1 of 2004, heard on 6-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER\nSHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farooq, Director for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARIM SILK MILLS LIMITED\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING) SEC AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 383 = 2005 SLD 383 = 2005 CLD 1137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalties for Statutory Defaults by New and Old Managements\nDetailed Summary:\nPenalties were imposed on a company’s management under Sections 158 and 246 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for failing to hold Annual General Meetings and submit quarterly accounts. The appellate forum set aside penalties for the failure to hold meetings, noting that this default occurred under the previous management. However, fines for the delayed submission of quarterly accounts were upheld, albeit reduced, given the new management’s assurance of future compliance and the less severe nature of this default. The case highlighted the principle of distinguishing responsibilities between successive managements while maintaining the accountability of the current directors.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Appeal No.50 of 2003, decision dated: 22-03-2003, hearing DATE : 23rd December, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES)\nSHAHID GHAFFAR,COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL MAJEED, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 7 OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (EMD) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 384 = 2005 SLD 384 = 2005 CLD 1153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Venue for SECP Hearings and Compliance with Regulatory Requirements\nDetailed Summary:\nThe appellants argued that hearings before the SECP should be conducted in Karachi, citing logistical constraints. However, the SECP clarified that such procedural matters fell within its discretion and were not governed by the Civil Procedure Code. Regarding statutory violations under Sections 158, 233, 245, and 246 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the appellate forum upheld penalties where defaults were evident. For unclear charges, such as alleged violations of meeting notice requirements, the penalties were set aside. The case reinforced the SECP's authority to enforce compliance while ensuring procedural fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=4", + "Case #": "Appeal No.41 of 2003, heard on 14-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER\nSHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asad Iqbal Siddiqui for Appellants", + "Petitioner Name:": "MANSUR KHALID BAGHPATEE AND 6 OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (EMD) SEC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 385 = 2005 SLD 385 = 2005 CLD 1177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Striking Off and Revival of Defunct Companies\nDetailed Summary:\n(a) The petitioner, a former sponsor shareholder and director of a defunct company, sought revival under Section 439(6) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. He alleged that the unanimous resolution for dissolution was fraudulent and invalid. However, the court dismissed the petition, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate ongoing business operations, company assets, audited accounts, or liabilities. The petitioner could not justify a nine-year delay in asserting his rights after his ouster. The court emphasized that revival under Section 439(6) required evidence of active business operations, which was absent in this case.\n(b) The Registrar struck off the company’s name under Section 439 due to the lack of business activities and assets. Notices were published in the official Gazette, but no objections were raised. Although the petitioner contested the resolution’s validity, the Registrar’s authority under Section 439(1) was upheld, as sufficient notice had been deemed served through publication. The petition lacked merit, and the court found no basis for restoration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=439", + "Case #": "Civil Original No. 15 of 2004, heard on 13-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "TAHIR UMAR \nArshad Nazir Mirza for Appellant. \nSheikh Zia Ullah for Respondents. \nMuhammad Yunus, Asst. Registrar SECP", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAHIR UMAR \nVS \nSUN COLOUR GARMENTS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 386 = 2005 SLD 386 = 2005 CLD 1191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Intra-Court Appeals and Violation of Natural Justice\nDetailed Summary:\n(a) In an intra-court appeal, the limitation period was computed from the date the appellant gained knowledge of the impugned order, aligning with principles under Article 164 of the Limitation Act.\n(b) The Company Judge expedited a case without ensuring representation of all creditors, including the appellant. The appellant was entitled to notice but was excluded, violating principles of natural justice. The High Court set aside the order, directing the Company Judge to provide the appellant an opportunity to be heard and to dispose of the case after considering all claims.\n(c) The court equated the violation of natural justice with a breach of law, rendering the order void ab initio.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "C.M.As. Nos.309 and 312 of 2005 in High Court Appeal No.58 of 2005, decision dated: 29-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Akhtar for Appellant.\nRespondents called absent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PRUDENTIAL DISCOUNT AND GUARANTEE HOUSE LTD. \nVS \nPAKLAND CEMENT LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 387 = 2005 SLD 387 = 2005 CLD 1208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "Authority and Ratification of Corporate Actions\nDetailed Summary:\n(a) The court examined the powers of a company director under Section 196 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and related provisions of the Contract Act. It ruled that authority conferred by the Board of Directors must be prospective and could not ratify past unauthorized actions. The relationship of principal and agent was absent, rendering retrospective ratification invalid.\n(b) The court emphasized that statutory procedures must be strictly followed, and any deviation rendered actions legally ineffective.\n(c) A constitutional petition filed without proper board authorization was deemed unsustainable. Retrospective board resolutions could not cure unauthorized filings, and such acts were declared invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-572 of 1990, decision dated: 21st October, 2003, hearing DATE : 15-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. L. Shahani for Petitioner. \nM.A.M. Namazie and Sajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RAZO (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS \nDIRECTOR, KARACHI CITY REGION EMPLOYEES OLD AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 388 = 2005 SLD 388 = 2005 CLD 1255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Fiduciary Responsibility in Trading Activities\nDetailed Summary:\nSection 224 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, sought to prevent exploitation in trading between beneficial owners and issuers. Gains from trades not remitted to the issuer within six months vested with the SECP. The court elaborated on the concurrent and consecutive timelines for remittance and demands by issuers. It clarified that delays beyond statutory periods resulted in forfeiture of claims, except where suppression of facts justified an extension. The SECP was tasked with safeguarding issuer interests while discouraging collusive practices. The court emphasized the need to prove fraud or collusion before the SECP could retain gains.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Commercial Appeal No.12 of 2004, decision dated: 2-06-2005. dates of hearing:29th and 30 May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui assisted by Imran Anjum Alvi for Appellant. \nSuleman Aslam Butt for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIRST CAPITAL SECURITIES CORPORATION LTD. \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION) S.E.C.P. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 389 = 2005 SLD 389 = 2005 CLD 1291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Investigation into Corporate Disputes\nDetailed Summary:\nDisputes regarding shareholder registers and corporate governance under Sections 305, 152, 265, and 76 of the Companies Ordinance required detailed inquiry. Allegations of shareholding manipulation and governance failures could not be resolved through summary procedures. The court referred the matter to the SECP, directing it to investigate and report whether a winding-up case existed or rectifications were needed. The SECP was also asked to suggest improvements to corporate operations and to determine if the case warranted further judicial intervention.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "C.O. No.3 of 2005, decision dated: 7-06-2005, hearing DATE : 3rd June, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uzair Karamat Bhindari for Petitioner. \nShahid Wahed, Mian Nisar, Umar Alvi for Respondents. \nMuhammad Younas, Assistant Registrar.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN JAVID AMIR AND OTHERS \nVS \nUNITED FOAM AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 390 = 2005 SLD 390 = 2005 CLD 1330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Legal Procedures in Evidence and Corporate Authority\n(a) Production of Additional Evidence:\nThe High Court, under Order XLI, Rule 27, and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), allowed applications to submit additional evidence. This was done in the interest of justice to ensure a just and equitable resolution of the controversy. The cited precedent emphasized the court's discretion to admit new evidence if it assists in a fair adjudication.\n•\nCited Cases:\no\nMessrs Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar v. Australasia Bank Limited (PLD 1966 SC 684).\no\nZar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 1778).\n(b) Authority to Sue by a Company:\nUnder Section 32 of the Companies Ordinance, a suit was filed on behalf of a company by its Assistant Manager Legal. The court held the suit as incompetent due to the absence of proper authorization via a board resolution. Authority conferred by the Managing Director was deemed invalid as it lacked support from the Articles of Association or board approval.\n•\nCited Case:\no\nKhan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Limited (PLD 1971 SC 550).\n(c) Mesne Profits and Damages:\nIn a suit for declaration, possession, and mesne profits, the plaintiff claimed damages for unauthorized occupation of their plot. The High Court, considering the locality and nature of the property, awarded Rs. 10,000 per month from the date of unauthorized possession until vacant possession was delivered. The plaintiff’s claim of Rs. 30,000 per month was unsupported by evidence, while Rs. 10,000 per month was deemed fair and equitable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=32", + "Case #": "High Court Appeals Nos.6 and 10 of 2001, decision dated: 24-02-2005. dates of hearing: 8-10-5th and 24-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS.AII ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abul Inam and Ain-ud-Din Khan for Appellant.\nArif Khan for Respondent No. 1.\nMuzaffar Imam for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. S.M. RAB \nVS\nNATIONAL REFINERY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 391 = 2005 SLD 391 = 2005 CLD 1372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Regulation and Restructuring of Cooperative Banks\nThe Punjab Provincial Co-operative Bank, under severe financial distress, faced restructuring measures directed by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). The petitioners, directors of the bank, contested the withdrawal of their tenure extension by the Registrar of Cooperatives.\n•\nCourt Findings:\no\nThe SBP, as the principal financial regulator, had mandated reforms to prevent de-scheduling of the bank, which would lead to its closure.\no\nThe Provincial Government, as a guarantor of the bank’s borrowings, had a legitimate interest in its financial health.\no\nThe petitioners, as transitional caretakers, had no vested right to their extended tenure, which was revocable.\no\nThe court declined to interfere, emphasizing that the restructuring must safeguard the interests of equity-holding cooperative societies while upholding criteria for competence and integrity in the selection of directors.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=5", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7573 of 2005, decision dated: 9-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Naqvi for Petitioners.\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BILAL YAMEEN AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\nSECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVES, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 392 = 2005 SLD 392 = 2005 CLD 1377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Voluntary Winding Up of Companies\nA company resolved to wind up voluntarily due to sustained losses. Under Sections 305 and 309 of the Companies Ordinance and Rule 55 of the Companies (Court) Rules, notices were advertised, and liabilities disclosed by the Registrar were clarified as settled.\n•\nOutcome:\no\nThe court allowed the petition for winding up, appointed a liquidator, and held the company responsible for any future claims related to its liabilities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No.9 of 2004, heard on 4-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aga Faqir Muhammad for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS QAYYUM SPINNING (PVT.) LTD. \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 393 = 2005 SLD 393 = 2005 CLD 1379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decrees and Detention of Judgment-Debtors\n(a) Pre-Requisites for Detention:\nUnder Section 51 of the CPC, detention of debtors requires evidence of absconding, property transfers to obstruct decrees, refusal to pay despite means, or a fiduciary obligation. The court emphasized strict adherence to these prerequisites.\n(b) Improper Arrest Warrants:\nA Banking Court’s order for the arrest of debtors, based solely on a bank affidavit, was invalidated. The court noted the lack of opportunity for the debtors to contradict the affidavit and ruled that mechanical orders of detention without satisfaction of Section 51’s conditions were unsustainable.\n(c) Admissibility of Affidavits:\nAffidavits, without cross-examination, cannot be treated as conclusive evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=51", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.294 of 2004, decision dated: 19-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Dogar for Appellants.\nSh. Ashiq Pervaiz and Ch. Muhammad Yasir Bhatti for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS 3-A TRADE IMPEX THROUGH PARTNER AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nASKARI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 394 = 2005 SLD 394 = 2005 CLD 1414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Temporary Injunction in Trademark Disputes\nIn a suit for trademark infringement, the trial court initially restrained the export of disputed goods but later rejected the plaint. The High Court remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that an interim injunctive relief would remain operative for one month to ensure justice.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.241 of 1998, heard on 17-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hassan Irfan Khan for Appellants.\nSyed All Zafar for Respondent No. 1. \nMian Muhammad Khalid for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADIDAS INTERNATIONAL B.V. THROUGH ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER \nVS \nPRIMA SPORTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE/MANAGER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 395 = 2005 SLD 395 = 2005 CLD 1517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Consent Decrees\n(a) Principles of Acquiescence and Estoppel:\nJudgment-debtors objected to a consent decree after seven years, citing jurisdictional defects and satisfaction of the decree via compromise. The court applied the principle of acquiescence, barring objections due to prolonged inaction and partial execution of the decree.\n(b) Obligations of Executing Court:\nThe court criticized the Executing Court for dismissing objections without addressing the satisfaction of the decree. The case was remanded for reconsideration of the compromise claim.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No.201 of 2004, heard on 7-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asghar Khan for Appellants. \nAbdul Hamid Cheema for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZEER SULIMAN STEEL CASTING (PVT.) LTD. AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nNETWORK LEASING CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 396 = 2005 SLD 396 = 2005 CLD 1523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Law – Industrial Emissions in Residential Areas\nLegal Framework:\n•\nPakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA), 1997, Sections 11 & 17\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Article 199\nCase Summary:\nPetitioners claimed that respondents were operating industrial units in a predominantly residential area, causing noise and emissions beyond permissible limits. Despite repeated complaints and initial surveys by the authorities, no corrective measures were taken, severely affecting the quality of life for residents.\nCourt Findings:\n•\nThe PEPA provides comprehensive mechanisms for regulating emissions and enforcing penalties for violations.\n•\nDischarges and emissions exceeding prescribed limits are unlawful.\n•\nAuthorities were directed to entertain the petitioners’ representation and address their grievances per the PEPA after giving all affected parties an opportunity to be heard.\n•\nA writ of mandamus was issued, ensuring corrective action.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4101 of 1995, decision dated: 6-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjad Mehmood Sheikh for Petitioners Nos 1 and 2. \nMuhammad Amin Lone, Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. \nKhurshid Ahmed Chaudhry for Respondents Nos.4, 6 and 8.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL QAYYUM AND OTHERS \nVS \nDIRECTOR-GENERAL (EPA) AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 397 = 2005 SLD 397 = 2005 CLD 1529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Registration and Opposition\nLegal Framework:\n•\nTrade Marks Act, 1940, Section 8(a)\n•\nTrade Marks Ordinance, 2001, Section 114\nCase Summary:\nAppellants opposed the registration of the trademark Zest, alleging it was phonetically and visually similar to their trademark West, leading to potential confusion. The Registrar of Trade Marks dismissed the opposition and approved the registration of Zest. \nCourt Findings:\n•\nThe words Zest and West were neither phonetically similar nor likely to cause confusion among the public.\n•\nBoth trademarks had coexisted in various countries without evidence of harm.\n•\nThe Registrar's decision was upheld, as it was neither perverse nor suffered from illegality.\nCourt Directives:\n•\nThe Registrar was criticized for delays in trademark registrations and directed to complete applications within three years. Disciplinary actions were recommended for future delays.\nCited Cases:\n•\nAspro v. Dispro (PLD 1973 Note 60)\n•\nGiorgio Beverly Hills Inc. v. Colgate Palmolive Pakistan Ltd. (1999 MLD 3173)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=8", + "Case #": "M.A. No.31 of 2004, decision dated: 28-04-2005, hearing DATE : 17-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Fazil Bharucha for Appellant.\nAmna Salman Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "REEMTSMA CIGARA HENFABRIKEN\nVS \nKOREA TOBACCO AND GINSENG CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 398 = 2005 SLD 398 = 2005 CLD 1546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate Names and Copyright Disputes\n(a) Prohibition of Deceptive Names:\n•\nUnder Companies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 37 & 38, and the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, the court restrained a defendant company from operating under a deceptively similar name to the plaintiff’s trademark.\n•\nThe court directed the defendant to rectify its name within one month, failing which the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) would enforce the rectification.\n(b) Copyright and Artistic Work:\n•\nCopyright does not require formal registration but must not be fraudulent or misappropriated.\n•\nThe court emphasized that defendants cannot exploit trade or service marks belonging to others.\n(c) Recommendations for Legal Amendments:\n•\nThe court suggested amendments to the Copyright Ordinance, 1962, to address overlaps between copyright and trademark protections.\n•\nDirections were issued to the SECP and Registrar Copyrights to enforce compliance with these principles.\nCited Cases:\n•\nProgressive Consultants (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Corporate Law Authority (2002 CLD 726)\n•\nPakistan Drug House (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Rio Chemical Co. (2003 CLD 1531)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=37", + "Case #": "Suit No.605 of 2004, decision dated: 24-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Qasit Nawaz for Plaintiffs. \nAkhtar Ali Mahmud and T. Sibtain Mahmud for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ADT SERVICES AG THROUGH ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER\nVS\nMESSRS ADT PAKISTAN (PTV.) LTD. THROUGH PROMOTER AND DIRECTOR AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 399 = 2005 SLD 399 = 2005 CLD 1577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Enforcement of Arbitration Awards\nLegal Framework:\n•\nArbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, Section 2\n•\nArbitration Act, 1940, Section 14\nCase Summary:\nA Chinese company sought enforcement of an arbitration award in Pakistan. The arbitration was conducted in China under a contractual agreement. The issue arose as the Federal Government of Pakistan had not issued the requisite notification under Section 2 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, for recognizing the award as a foreign award.\nCourt Findings:\n•\nThe award could not be enforced as a foreign award due to the absence of a notification.\n•\nHowever, the court treated the suit as a regular one under Section 151 of the CPC, exercising its discretion to ensure justice.\nCited Cases:\n•\nMessrs Yangtze (London) Ltd. v. Messrs Barlas Brothers (PLD 1961 SC 573)\nKey Observations:\n•\nThe court highlighted the procedural requirements for treating an award as a foreign award. \n•\nIt permitted amendments to the plaint to align the proceedings with regular suits.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.396 of 2001, decision dated: 1st April, 2005, hearing DATE : 9-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Jamil for Plaintiff.\nMunir A. Malik for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHINA NATIONAL MACHINERY IMPORT AND EXPORT CORPORATION \nVS \nTUFAIL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 400 = 2005 SLD 400 = 2005 CLD 1589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Execution of Decrees under the Banking Companies Act\nLegal Framework:\n•\nBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, Section 18(2)\n•\nCivil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, Order XXI\nCase Summary:\nThe provision under Section 18(2) empowers Banking Courts to execute decrees by selling pledged or mortgaged properties either by public auction or by inviting sealed tenders. Courts are allowed flexibility to deviate from CPC provisions if deemed necessary.\nKey Findings:\n•\nBanking Courts can adopt alternative execution procedures beyond CPC guidelines.\n•\nThe sale process for mortgaged properties can proceed without Court intervention, either through public auction or sealed tenders.\nCited Cases:\n•\nCh. Abdul Majeed v. Sadaqat Ali (2004 SCMR 1325)(a) Execution of Decrees under the Banking Companies Act\nLegal Framework:\n•\nBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, Section 18(2)\n•\nCivil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, Order XXI\nCase Summary:\nThe provision under Section 18(2) empowers Banking Courts to execute decrees by selling pledged or mortgaged properties either by public auction or by inviting sealed tenders. Courts are allowed flexibility to deviate from CPC provisions if deemed necessary.\nKey Findings:\n•\nBanking Courts can adopt alternative execution procedures beyond CPC guidelines.\n•\nThe sale process for mortgaged properties can proceed without Court intervention, either through public auction or sealed tenders.\nCited Cases:\n•\nCh. Abdul Majeed v. Sadaqat Ali (2004 SCMR 1325)\n•\nHudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (PLD 1987 SC 512)\n________________________________________\n(b) Legal Rights of Auction Purchasers\nLegal Framework:\n•\nBanking Companies Act, 1997, Section 18\n•\nCPC, 1908, Order XXI, Rules 84, 85, 92 & Section 65\nCase Summary:\nAn auction-purchaser was granted an extended period to deposit the remaining purchase money, which was challenged for being inconsistent with Rule 85, CPC. The Banking Court allowed the extension, and the purchaser fulfilled all conditions.\nCourt Observations:\n•\nBanking Courts have discretion to deviate from strict CPC provisions while executing decrees.\n•\nAuction-purchasers’ rights are protected upon fulfilling the terms of sale.\n•\nOnce full payment is made, the sale is considered confirmed, even if the Court fails to explicitly pass a confirmation order.\nCited Cases:\n•\nRashid Ehsan v. Bashir Ahmad (PLD 1989 SC 146)\n•\nMessrs Masoom Industries v. Habib Bank Ltd. (2005 SCMR 746)\n________________________________________\n(c) Estoppel Against Statutes\nPrinciple:\nA party’s concession on a legal issue does not preclude the Court from interpreting and applying the law correctly. Courts are bound to ensure adherence to statutory provisions.\nCited Cases:\n•\nImtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali (PLD 1963 SC 382)\n•\nIkram Bus Service v. Board of Revenue (PLD 1963 SC 564)\n•\nHudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (PLD 1987 SC 512)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.670 of 2002, decision dated: 27-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE\nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Rana Waqar Ahmed, Advocate, and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.\nMuhammad Akram Sh., Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 6. Muhammad Afzal Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IKHLAQ MEMON \nVS \nZAKARIA GHANI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 401 = 2005 SLD 401 = 2005 CLD 1608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Retrospective Effect of Statutes\nLegal Principle:\nStatutes are generally not given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated by the legislature. Rights already vested cannot be annulled by subsequent amendments.\n________________________________________\n(b) Securities and Exchange Rules and Dual Nationality\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSecurities and Exchange Commission Rules, 1971, Rule 3(c)(i)\n•\nPakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, Section 14\nCase Summary:\nThe plaintiff, whose dual nationality caused the termination of his membership in the Stock Exchange, challenged this decision following a retrospective notification permitting dual citizenship.\nCourt Decision:\n•\nThe resolution terminating the plaintiff’s membership was void, as the subsequent notification revived his rights retroactively.\n•\nThe plaintiff’s membership stood restored under the notification.\nCited Cases:\n•\nUmar Ahmad Ghumman v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2002 Lah. 521)\n•\nArmy Welfare's case (1992 SCMR 1652)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission Rules, 1971=3", + "Case #": "Suit No.941 of 1999, decision dated: 22-12-2004. dates of hearing: 19th August and 22-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Sana Minhas for Plaintiffs. \nMs. Lubna Aman for Defendant No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALCOLM M. DALAL AND ANOTHER\nVS \nKARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 402 = 2005 SLD 402 = 2005 CLD 1624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appeal Provisions under the Companies Ordinance\nLegal Framework:\n•\nCompanies Ordinance, 1984, Section 10\nCase Summary:\nThis case dealt with the interpretation of Section 10, which governs appeals against Court orders, particularly in winding-up proceedings.\nKey Findings:\n•\nOrders under Section 10(1) are appealable directly to the Supreme Court, including those passed after a winding-up order.\n•\nSection 10(2) orders are challengeable through intra-court appeals.\nCited Cases:\n•\nMehboob Industries v. P.I.C.I.C. (1988 CLC 866)\n•\nBrother Steel Mills Limited v. Mian Ilyas Meraj (PLD 1996 SC 543)\n(b) Sale of Company Assets During Winding-Up\nCase Summary:\nA dispute arose regarding the timing and fairness of asset sales during winding-up proceedings. The Company Judge was found to have bypassed due process, resulting in an unfair hearing.\nCourt Decision:\nThe Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Company Judge to resolve all pending references and objections within 15 days, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 319-K of 2005, decision dated: 28-06-2005, hearing DATE : 25-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court With Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record and Moulvi Syed Iqbal Haider for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondent No. 1. \nSyed Sami Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court with Suleman Habib Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IBRAHIM SHAMSI AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nBASHIR AHMED MEMON AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 403 = 2005 SLD 403 = 2005 CLD 1640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance\nLegal Framework:\n•\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, Section 3(2)(r)\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, Order III, Rule 4\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 175(2)\nCase Summary:\nAn application was filed by a law firm seeking its fee to be paid from the sale proceeds held by the Official Assignee. The High Court dismissed the application, ruling that claims for legal fees do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Ordinance or the specific claims listed under Section 3(2)(r).\nKey Findings:\n•\nClaims for legal services are outside the scope of Section 3(2)(r) and cannot be entertained as maritime claims.\n•\nThe Admiralty Ordinance does not recognize legal fees as charges on a ship or sale proceeds.\n•\nOrder III, Rule 4, CPC, primarily concerns the continuity or termination of an advocate's appointment and does not facilitate fee recovery.\nCited Principles:\n•\nCourts cannot expand jurisdiction beyond what is conferred by law or the Constitution (Article 175(2)).\n•\nLegal fees must be claimed through separate proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Fee Act, 1926.\n________________________________________\n(b) Administration of Justice\nCourt's Observations:\nThe appellate bench refrained from deciding on the maintainability of the application, leaving the matter to the single bench for final determination.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Adm. Suit No. 123 of 1996, decision dated: 17-03-2005. dates of hearing: 10, 15th and 16-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar Abbas and Muhammad Arif for Plaintiff. \nMuhammad Ali Sayeed for Defendant No. 1.\nMuhammad Safdar for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.T. GROUP/CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FINANCING INC. \nVS\nM.T. EASTERN NAVIGATOR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 404 = 2005 SLD 404 = 2005 CLD 1657", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Voluntary Winding Up of Companies\nLegal Framework:\n•\nCompanies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 387(5) & 359\nCase Summary:\nAn application was filed seeking an extension for completing winding-up proceedings nearly two years after the statutory period of one year had expired. The High Court dismissed the application, citing a clear violation of Section 387(5).\nKey Findings:\n•\nExtensions for winding-up proceedings can only be granted for one month at a time and for a maximum of six months in total.\n•\nApplications filed after the statutory period without prior extensions are invalid.\n•\nThe statutory language is mandatory, and non-compliance results in invalidity.\nCited Case:\n•\nCh. Muhammad Saleem v. Combined Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., PLD 1994 Lah. 125.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=359", + "Case #": "Civil Original Nos.35 to 38 of 2005, decision dated: 17-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Sadaat Khan for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the Matter of: AUTO OILS (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Liquidator" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 405 = 2005 SLD 405 = 2005 CLD 1670", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Investigation into Company Affairs\nLegal Framework:\n•\nCompanies Ordinance, 1984, Sections 290 & 265\nCase Summary:\nA petition alleged fraudulent management practices, including non-maintenance of statutory records, in a public limited company. The High Court directed the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) to appoint inspectors for investigation.\nCourt Directions:\n•\nInspectors must involve representatives from both parties and submit a report within three months.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 14 of 2004, decision dated: 28-06-2005, hearing DATE : 27-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ahmad Sh. for Petitioner.\nTariq Kamal Qazi and Iqbal Mehmood Awan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SARDAR KHAN NIAZI \nVS \nBAREX LAHORE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 406 = 2005 SLD 406 = 2005 CLD 1676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Recovery of Loans: Mark-up and Costs\nLegal Framework:\n•\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Sections 3, 9, 19, & 22\nCase Summary:\nThe Banking Court erroneously granted mark-up instead of limiting recovery to the cost of funds under Section 3. The High Court modified the decree, directing the Executing Court to calculate the cost of funds at the execution stage.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.214 of 2002, heard on 6-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellants.\nRana Imtinan Saeed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GREEN OIL MILLS THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 4 OTHERS \nVS \nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 407 = 2005 SLD 407 = 2005 CLD 1678", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Suit for Recovery of Loan\nLegal Framework:\n•\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Sections 3, 9, & 22\nCase Summary:\nThe Bank sought recovery with mark-up, but the claim was partially dismissed due to the absence of a buy-back agreement. The Banking Court awarded a reduced mark-up based on evidence.\nCourt Rulings:\n•\nThe Bank could not claim mark-up beyond what was contractually agreed.\n•\nNew grounds could not be introduced outside pleadings.\nCited Case:\n•\nMst. Murad Begum v. Muhammad Rafiq, PLD 1974 SC 322.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=3", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 645 of 2002, heard on 23rd November, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Pervaiz Khawaja for Appellant. \nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANK OF PUNJAB \nVS\nAMJAD LATIF RANA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 408 = 2005 SLD 408 = 2005 CLD 1680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Guarantor's Liability in Loan Recovery\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSpecific Relief Act, 1877, Section 42\n•\nContract Act, 1872, Section 128\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance, 2001, Sections 2(c) & 9\nCase Summary:\nA guarantor challenged their liability in recovering outstanding dues. The Court held the guarantor liable as their responsibility was co-extensive with that of the principal debtor.\nCited Case:\n•\nRafique Hazquel Masih v. Bank Alfalah Ltd., 2005 SCMR 72.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 196 of 2001, heard on 21st June, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Sarfraz Hussain for Appellant.\nSheikh Nadeem Anwar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD SADIQ\nVS \nSMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 409 = 2005 SLD 409 = 2005 CLD 1718", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Environmental Nuisance in Residential Areas\nLegal Framework:\n•\nPakistan Environmental Protection Ordinance, 1997, Sections 17 & 24\n•\nCriminal Procedure Code, 1898, Section 133\nCase Summary:\nThe High Court annulled a Magistrate's order sealing a factory in a residential area for lack of jurisdiction. However, the case was directed to the Environmental Magistrate for a decision on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3001 of 2004, decision dated: 1st June, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Farhan and M. Karim Joiya for Petitioner.\nTariq Watto for Respondents Nos.3 to 5.\nShaheen Masud Rizvi, A.A.G. Sadiq Mehmood Khuram as Amicus Curiae", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEHZAD MUJAHID \nVS \nADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 410 = 2005 SLD 410 = 2005 CLD 1710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Encashment of Performance Guarantees\nLegal Framework:\n•\nContract Act, 1872, Section 126\n•\nSpecific Relief Act, 1877, Section 54\nCase Summary:\nA trial Court restrained the encashment of a performance guarantee. The High Court overturned this decision, citing the independent nature of bank guarantees and the lack of allegations of fraud or special equities.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 94 of 2005, decision dated: 21st July, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asad Munir and Shahid Karim for Appellant.\nPervaiz Hussan for Respondent. Jawwad Hassan and Ali Hassan Sajjad, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED \nVS \nBBJ PIPE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 411 = 2005 SLD 411 = 2005 CLD 1768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Patent Registration and Opposition\nLegal Framework:\n•\nPatents and Designs Act, 1911, Sections 3, 5, 9, 10, & 12\nCase Summary:\nThe Court upheld a patent granted in 1993, finding that opposition was filed too late and did not sufficiently challenge the patent's novelty or statutory compliance.\nPrinciples:\n•\nPatents are territorial, and opposition must adhere to statutory grounds.\nCited Cases:\n•\nJamshed Aslam Khan v. Mrs. Azra Jawed, 1995 CLC 436.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Patents and Designs Act, (II of 1911)=3", + "Case #": "C.M. No.1 of 2005, decision dated: 25-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ghani for Applicant. \nSyed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAWAJA TAHIR JAMAL\nVS \nMESSRS A.R. REHMAN GLASS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 756 = 2005 SLD 756 = 2005 CLD 1802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 387(5) & 359\nCase Summary:\nThe liquidator filed an application for an extension of time for submitting the dissolution/liquidation report after nearly two years from the statutory period's expiry. The High Court dismissed the application, stating that Section 387(5) is mandatory, and its violation leads to the invalidity of the act.\nKey Findings:\n•\nExtensions for winding up can only be granted for one month at a time and a maximum of six months in total.\n•\nApplications must be timely and adhere to the provisions of Section 387(5).\n•\nFailure to comply with statutory requirements results in invalidity of the act.\nCited Case:\n•\nCh. Muhammad Saleem v. Combined Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., PLD 1994 Lah. 125.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=359", + "Case #": "C.Os. Nos.35 to 38 of 2005, decision dated: 17-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Sadaat Khan for Applicant", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of AUTO OILS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 757 = 2005 SLD 757 = 2005 CLD 1805", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Marks Act (V of 1940)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 39, 28, 33, & 76\nCase Summary:\nThe appellant claimed rights over a registered trademark through an agreement of user. The Court dismissed the claim, holding that only the proprietor has exclusive rights over a trademark. Agreements of user must comply with statutory requirements, including registration.\nKey Findings:\n•\nRegistered trademarks can only be assigned with or without goodwill, while unregistered trademarks require goodwill transfer.\n•\nAgreements of user not registered under Section 39 are invalid for asserting trademark rights.\n•\nUsing trademarks without the proprietor's consent after the agreement's expiry constitutes infringement or passing off.\nCited Cases:\n•\nBolan Beverages (Private) Limited v. Pepsicola, 2004 CLD 1530 = PLD 2004 SC 860.\n(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 202 & 205\nKey Findings:\n•\nAgencies creating interest in the subject matter are irrevocable only if explicitly stated in the agreement.\n•\nInvestments in agency business do not make the agency irrevocable unless there is a direct interest in the subject matter.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=39", + "Case #": "High Court Appeals Nos.242 and 243 of 2002, decision dated: 9-05-2005, hearing DATE : 2-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Siddiqui and Ms. Naveen S. Merchant for Appellant. \nQazi Faez Essa for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ROOMI ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nSTAFFORD MILLER LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 758 = 2005 SLD 758 = 2005 CLD 1818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (LXVII of 1984)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 284–287\nCase Summary:\nThe High Court rejected a scheme for re-arrangement of a company, citing unfair treatment of certain creditor classes. The appellate bench upheld this decision, affirming the fairness and reasonableness criteria for such schemes.\nKey Findings:\n•\nSchemes protecting one class of creditors at the expense of others are unfair.\n•\nCourts must ensure schemes are fair, reasonable, and in the interest of all parties.\nCited Cases:\n•\nEmpire Mining Company, (1890) 44 Ch.D 402.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.9-L of 2003 in C.O.No.9 of 1998, heard on 6-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Saeed for Appellant. \nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ANJUMAN BHAHBOODEMUTASSRIN TAJ COMPANY LIMITED (REGISTERED) THROUGH PRESIDENT \nVS \nREGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 759 = 2005 SLD 759 = 2005 CLD 1840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Negotiable Instruments and Evidence\nLegal Framework:\n•\nNegotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Section 118\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, O. XXXVII\nCase Summary:\nA suit based on a promissory note was upheld as the execution and consideration were satisfactorily proved. The Court reaffirmed the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 118.\nKey Findings:\n•\nPresumption of consideration applies unless rebutted.\n•\nCourts must consider promissory notes admitted into evidence, even if improperly stamped.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "First Regular Civil Appeal No.2 of 2004, decision dated: 15-09-2005, hearing DATE : 14-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zain-ul-Abidin for Appellant.\nSanaullah Shamim for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADIL JAMSHED \nVS\nMUHAMMAD UBAIDULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 589 = 2005 SLD 589 = 2005 CLD 1845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Director's Liability in Corporate Transactions\nLegal Framework:\n•\nModaraba Companies and Modarabas Ordinance (XXXI of 1980), Section 30\nCase Summary:\nA director was arrayed as a defendant in a recovery suit but was not held liable since the company was the actual borrower.\nKey Findings:\n•\nLiability of directors does not arise unless they are mortgagors, guarantors, or real beneficiaries.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.42 of 1999, heard on 13-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asghar Haider for Appellants.\nMuhammad Riaz Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IMTIAZ BEGUM AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nFIRST ELITE CAPITAL MODARBA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 590 = 2005 SLD 590 = 2005 CLD 1852", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Privatization Commission Ordinance\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 28 & 29\nCase Summary:\nA suit challenged the sale of a company’s shares through the Privatization Commission. The Court directed the plaintiffs to deposit earnest money as evidence of their bona fides and allowed the bidding process to continue.\nKey Findings:\n•\nPlaintiffs must show seriousness in their preemptive rights over shares.\n•\nBidding ensures market valuation of shares.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11", + "Case #": "C.O.S. No.2 and C.Ms. Nos.438-L and 1 of 2005, decision dated: 18-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram for Applicant/ Defendant No. 1 (in C.M. No. 438-L of 2005).\nImtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Respondent/ Plaintiff No. 1 (in C.O.S. No. 2 of 2005).\nAbid Aziz Sheikh for Defendants Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN FAROOQ AHMED SHEIKH AND 8 OTHERS \nVS\nPRIVATIZATION COMMISSION THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 591 = 2005 SLD 591 = 2005 CLD 1864", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Stamp Act (II of 1899)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 35 & 36\nCase Summary:\nA promissory note insufficiently stamped was admitted into evidence without objection. The Court upheld its admissibility under Section 36, barring any subsequent challenge.\nKey Findings:\n•\nInsufficiently stamped documents, once admitted, cannot be excluded from evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Stamp Act, of 1899=35", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.269 of 2002, decision dated: 5-09-2005, hearing DATE : 7-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atif Amin for Appellant. Ali Akbar Qureshi for Respondent.\nSyed Mansoor Ali Shah. Amicus Curiae", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAUDHRY KHALID MAHMOOD \nVS\nCHAUDHRY SAID MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 592 = 2005 SLD 592 = 2005 CLD 1875", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 2(21)\nCase Summary:\nThe legal heir of a deceased member of a company sought to exercise pre-emptive rights over share transfers. The Court held that such rights could only be exercised by registered members.\nKey Findings:\n•\nLegal heirs must be registered as members to exercise pre-emptive rights.\n•\nTime-bound rights cannot be resurrected post-registration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.63 of 2004, heard on 6-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haq Nawaz Chatha for Petitioner. \nHamid Khan and Salman Aslam Butt for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAGHIR AHMED SOOFI\nVS\nMESSRS SAGA SPORTS (PVT.) LIMITED AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 953 = 2012 SLD 953 = 2012 PTCL 653 = 2012 PTD 420 = (2012) 105 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 3\nCase Summary:\nA company delayed paying profits to the Workers' Participation Fund and was directed to pay interest from the date the profits became due.\nKey Findings:\n•\nInterest accrues from the first day of the financial year following the profits' allocation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Profit (Workers Participation) Act, 1968=3,3(2),Sched.", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2005, decision dated: 21st October, 2011, hearing DATE : 18-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Humayoon, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Respondents Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SANA INDUSTRIES LIMITED \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 272 = 2010 SLD 272 = 2010 PTD 1913", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 5(c)\n•\nCantonments Act, 1924 (Section 60)\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Articles 163, 199 & Fourth Schedule, Part I, Entry 48\nCase Summary:\nA constitutional petition challenged the levy of professional tax on a banking company branch located in a cantonment area. The petitioner argued that its head office in another province had already paid the tax and that the provincial government lacked jurisdiction over branches in cantonment areas. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the levy.\nKey Findings:\n•\nProfessional tax applies to corporate entities operating within a province regardless of their head office's location.\n•\nOperations in cantonment areas remain within the purview of provincial taxation unless explicitly exempted by law.\n•\nBanking companies cannot be classified as corporations under Entry 48 of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution.\nCited Cases:\n•\nProvince of Punjab v. Sargodha Textile Mills Ltd., PLD 2005 SC 988.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=5", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1982 of 2006, 742, 1107 of 2007 and 950 of 2008, decision dated: 17-06-2010, hearing DATE : 10-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nMAZHAR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sharif Ahmad Butt for Petitioners.\nFarman Ullah Khattak for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.\nWazar Ali A.A.G. for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BANK ALFALAH LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS \nEXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-IV, PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 273 = 2010 SLD 273 = 2010 PTD 2064", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 25\n•\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nCase Summary:\nThe Sales Tax Department conducted an audit based on annual audited accounts and income tax returns. The audit revealed that assets listed in the prior year’s balance sheet were missing in the subsequent year's records, indicating unaccounted asset disposal without paying sales tax. The company’s explanations were deemed insufficient.\nKey Findings:\n•\nSales Tax Officers can audit records maintained under other laws, such as the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nThe disappearance of assets from the balance sheet without evidence of sales tax payment constitutes a violation.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=25", + "Case #": "Appeal No.S.T. 434/PB of 2008, decision dated: 9-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) \nHUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din and Zulfiqar Hussain, G.M. for Appellants. Abdul Razzaq, DR/Additional Collector, Muhammad Haroon Khattak and Dost Muhammad Sr. Auditors for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 954 = 2012 SLD 954 = 2012 CLD 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 18-A & 22\nCase Summary:\nA company offered shares to the public, but post-ballot scrutiny revealed multiple fictitious applications. The Securities and Exchange Commission imposed a penalty for non-compliance with orders to resolve these discrepancies and ensure share issuance to restored applicants.\nKey Findings:\n•\nThe company’s failure to act promptly on SECP orders warranted penalties under Section 22.\n•\nThe lenient penalty of Rs. 300,000 reflected the seriousness of the offense while considering mitigating circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.SMD/Co.62/5/2007 dated 23rd August, 2011, decision dated: 6-10-2011, hearing DATE : 8-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR M. KHAN AFRIDI, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "AMIR M. KHAN AFRIDI, DIRECTOR (SMD)\nMuhammad Abdul Hannan, Assistant Director (SM) assisting the Director (SMD)", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 955 = 2012 SLD 955 = 2012 CLD 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan\nLegal Framework:\n•\nArticles 199, 158, 161, & 172\nCase Summary:\nAn industrial company sought constitutional relief, alleging the government failed to provide the guaranteed natural gas supply despite contractual assurances. The Court directed the authorities to fulfill their commitments.\nKey Findings:\n•\nThe state must honor guarantees and commitments to investors to maintain credibility and attract investments.\n•\nNatural resources are jointly owned by the province producing them and the federal government.\nCited Cases:\n•\nLucky Cement Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2011 Pesh. 57.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1282 of 2011, decision dated: 18-10-2011, hearing DATE : 15-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nIMAM BUX BALOCH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan for Petitioner.\nSarwar Khan A.A.G. on Court Notice.\nAsim Iqbal for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGRO FERTILIZERS LIMITED\nVS\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 956 = 2012 SLD 956 = 2012 CLD 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 246\nCase Summary:\nA public listed company failed to submit its annual return to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company provided evidence of timely filing with the Registration Office, which the SECP accepted, dropping proceedings.\nKey Findings:\n•\nSubmission to the relevant registration office satisfies statutory filing requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=246", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. S.M(B.O.)C.O.156(713)96 dated 17-10-2011, decision dated: 14-11-2011, hearing DATE : 26-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NEW JUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 957 = 2012 SLD 957 = 2012 CLD 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 222, 223, & 224\nCase Summary:\nA company delayed filing its return of beneficial ownership. While the SECP acknowledged the lapse, it accepted the explanation and issued a strict warning instead of imposing penalties.\nKey Findings:\n•\nNon-compliance, even if unintentional, attracts SECP warnings or penalties depending on the context.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=222", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. SM(BO)222/18(566-D)/96, dated 29-9-2011, decision dated: 31st October, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHARIQ IFTIKHAR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 958 = 2012 SLD 958 = 2012 CLD 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Lease Agreements\nLegal Framework:\n•\nTheater-related leases and bidding processes\nCase Summary:\nAn incumbent lessee claimed a preferential right to lease renewal for a cinema-cum-theater based on investments during the previous lease. The Court rejected this claim, noting that no such rights were stipulated in the lease.\nKey Findings:\n•\nPreferential rights must be explicitly stated in lease agreements to be enforceable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.228 of 2010, decision dated: 17-08-2011, hearing DATE : 9-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner.\nSyed Moazzam Ali Shah for Respondent No. 1.\nImran Aziz Khan and Ghulam Murtaza Chaudhry for Respondent No. 3.\nFaisal Zaman Khan, Additional Advocate-General", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAT ENTERPRISES THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER, LAHORE\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 959 = 2012 SLD 959 = 2012 CLD 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 118(a)\n•\nCivil Procedure Code, Order XXXVII\nCase Summary:\nA defendant contended that promissory notes presented as evidence lacked consideration. The Court allowed the petition for leave to defend, as the defendant's plausible defense warranted further scrutiny.\nKey Findings:\n•\nPresumptions under Section 118(a) are rebuttable if the maker can provide cogent evidence of a lack of consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.40 of 2004, heard on 20-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rao Jamshaid Ali Khan for Appellant.\nTariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Choudhary for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TALIB HUSSAIN\nVS\nABDUL SHAKOOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 960 = 2012 SLD 960 = 2012 CLD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 3, 4, 30, & 37\nCase Summaries:\nThe Competition Commission penalized entities for engaging in prohibited agreements, bid rigging, and discriminatory pricing. Investigations revealed collusive practices and abuse of dominant positions. Penalties were imposed to deter anti-competitive behavior.\nKey Findings:\n•\nCollusive agreements and bid rigging violate Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.\n•\nAssociations must avoid practices that restrict competition or facilitate collusion.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=3", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.04/2011 dated 27-04-2011, decision dated: 30-06-2011. dates of hearing: 21st and 22-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON AND ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Qamar Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court, Ms. Zainab Effandi, Nabeel Rehman and Ms. Rehana Zaman for Corporate Counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN VANASPATI MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (PVMA)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 961 = 2012 SLD 961 = 2012 CLD 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 3, 4, 30, & 37\nCase Summaries:\nThe Competition Commission penalized entities for engaging in prohibited agreements, bid rigging, and discriminatory pricing. Investigations revealed collusive practices and abuse of dominant positions. Penalties were imposed to deter anti-competitive behavior.\nKey Findings:\n•\nCollusive agreements and bid rigging violate Sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act.\n•\nAssociations must avoid practices that restrict competition or facilitate collusion.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=4", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notices Nos. 27 to 31 dated 2-08-2010, decision dated: 13-05-2011. dates of hearing: 3rd November 2010, 25-01-24th February and 9-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR AND, JOSEPH WILSON, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqqas Ahmed Mir of Muhammad Akram and Company for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMIN BROTHERS ENGINEERING (PVT.) LIMITED and 4 others: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 962 = 2012 SLD 962 = 2012 CLD 200", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUS1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Competition Act (XIX of 2010)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 11(11)(b), (13)\n•\nCompetition (Merger Control) Regulations, 2007\nCase Summary:\nA company sought approval to acquire 79% shares of another entity. The Competition Commission imposed conditions on the merger, which the acquiring company challenged. The Supreme Court remanded the case for review, leading to revised conditions. The Commission approved the merger subject to the updated terms.\nKey Findings:\n•\nImposed conditions must align with Sections 11(13) and Regulation 17.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=11", + "Case #": "File No. 324/MERGER/CCP/2010, decision dated: 23rd November, 2011. dates of hearing: 19-08-6-09-21-10-and 21st November, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON, \nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER\nMS. VADIYYA S. KHALIL, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 963 = 2012 SLD 963 = 2012 CLD 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 2(xii), 40, 67, & 86\nCase Summary:\nA French company alleged infringement of its LUMINARC trademark by a local entity using LUNIMARC with a similar logo. The Court found the marks deceptively similar, likely to cause consumer confusion. An interim injunction was granted.\nKey Findings:\n•\n Deceptively similar marks violate Section 2(xii).\n•\nProtection for well-known trademarks is enforceable globally under Section 86.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No. 166 and C.M.A. No. 1096 of 2011, decision dated: 17-06-2011, hearing DATE : 1st June, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moin Qamar and Ms. Amna Salman for Plaintiff.\nM. Husain Tabassum for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2.\nSibtain Mehmood for Defendant No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARC INTERNATIONAL THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY\nVS \nAHMER MANSOOR AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 964 = 2012 SLD 964 = 2012 CLD 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 25(3)\nCase Summary:\nA mere verbal promise to pay a time-barred debt was deemed invalid without a written agreement signed by both parties.\nKey Findings:\n•\nVerbal promises are insufficient for enforcing time-barred debts.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.48 of 2002, decision dated: 22-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAH, JEHAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nSYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Khan Orakzai for Appellant. \nBadiuz Zaman Khan, D.A.G., Zahid Yousaf Qureshi, A.A.G and Muhammad Ali Shah, DDOR Swabi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "NASEEM AHMED ANSARI\nVS\nHOUSING AND WORKS DEPARTMENT THROUGH SECRETARY AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 965 = 2012 SLD 965 = 2012 CLD 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSections 305 & 309\nCase Summary:\nA company facing continuous losses failed to respond to winding-up notices. The Court ordered its liquidation and appointed an official liquidator.\nKey Findings:\n•\nUnopposed winding-up petitions may result in liquidation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 50 of 2010, decision dated: 23rd May, 2011, hearing DATE : 13-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aijaz Ahmed for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZULFIQAR HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nBAMBINO (PVT) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 966 = 2012 SLD 966 = 2012 CLD 259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act (XII of 1968)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 3\nCase Summary:\nA company delayed payment to the Workers' Participation Fund, incurring interest. The Court held that interest accrued from the first day of the subsequent financial year.\nKey Findings:\n•\nDelayed payments to statutory funds attract interest.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Profit (Workers Participation) Act, 1968=3", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1106 of 2005, decision dated: 21st October, 2011, hearing DATE : 18-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Humayoon, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nRespondents Ex parte.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SANA INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 967 = 2012 SLD 967 = 2012 CLD 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 34\nCase Summary:\nA dispute under the Export Processing Zones Authority Ordinance was referred to arbitration despite the plaintiff’s claim that the arbitration clause did not cover the issue.\nKey Findings:\n•\nArbitration applies if disputes are covered by the agreement’s terms.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.46 of 2010, decision dated: 4-05-2011, hearing DATE : 26-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SADAAT KHAN, JUSTICE\nEXPORT PROCESSING ZONES AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.A. Rahmani for Appellants.\nAli Mumtaz Shaikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABID IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nEXPORT PROCESSING ZONES AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 968 = 2012 SLD 968 = 2012 CLD 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\nLegal Framework:\n•\nSection 196\nCase Summary:\nA company’s directors initiated legal proceedings without proper authorization. The petition was dismissed for failing to comply with procedural requirements.\nKey Findings:\n•\nDirectors must have explicit authority to file legal actions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 10703, 10823 and 10945 of 2011, decision dated: 7-07-2011. dates of hearing: 16th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 23rd and 24-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Asjad Saeed and Ch. Muhammad Naseer for Petitioner.\nShakil-ur-Rehman, Additional Advocate-General along with Shehryar Sultan DG, LG and CD Department and Ch. Abrar Ahmad, Director Legal, LG and CD Department.\nKhurram Mushtaq for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\nSyed Shadab H. Jafferi and Pervaiz Akhtar Tahir for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 969 = 2012 SLD 969 = 2012 CLD 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Words and Phrases\n•\n Same Offence Definition: As per Black's Law Dictionary, same offence refers to an act that involves identical elements, circumstances, and legal violations, requiring no distinction in proving the alleged crime.\n(b) Double Jeopardy and Companies Ordinance\n•\nLegal Framework:\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 10(2), 282-K, 230(7), 234(6)\nNational Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Ss. 9(a), 10(a)\nCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 403\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 13\n•\nCase Summary:\nA complaint against the appellant for violating company regulations was filed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The appellant argued that he had already been convicted by an Accountability Court for similar charges and could not face prosecution again due to double jeopardy. The court ruled that the offenses under the two statutes were distinct, as the charges under the National Accountability Ordinance pertained to fraudulent activities, while those under the Companies Ordinance related to non-compliance with statutory financial regulations.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDouble jeopardy does not apply where the elements and legal violations differ.\no\nCharges under different laws addressing separate offenses can coexist.\n•\nCited Cases:\nPLD 1990 FSC 62; PLD 1977 Kar. 145.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No.1 of 2010, decision dated: 30-11-2011, hearing DATE : 24-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ATTAULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE\nAZMATULLAH MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Jamila Aslam for Appellant. \nBarrister M. Zahoorul Haq and Ms. Zara Tajwar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM ANWAR\nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 970 = 2012 SLD 970 = 2012 CLD 364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Partnership and Interim Injunction\n•\nLegal Framework:\nPartnership Act (IX of 1932), S. 32\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2\n•\nCase Summary:\nPlaintiffs sought an injunction claiming defendants were suspended from the partnership firm's management through a Circular Resolution. The court found the resolution invalid as it did not meet the majority requirement specified in the partnership deed. The defendants' legal rights could not be overridden without compliance with procedural rules.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nPartnerships must follow agreed-upon procedures for retirement or suspension.\no\nInjunctions are discretionary and must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.\n•\nOutcome:\nInjunction denied due to procedural lapses and lack of a prima facie case.\n•\nCited Cases:\nInam Naqshband v. Haji Shaikh Ijaz Ahmad PLD 1995 SC 314.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=32", + "Case #": "Suit No.8 and C.M.As. Nos. 62 and 1048 of 2011, decision dated: 3rd October, 2011, hearing DATE : 11-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rasheed A. Rizvi, Ravi Pinjani and Laila Bhgatia for Plaintiffs Nos.3 and 5.\nMunir A. Malik and Chaudhry Atif for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M. YOUSUF ADIL SALEEM & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nMUHAMMAD SALEEM AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 971 = 2012 SLD 971 = 2012 CLD 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Demerger of Companies\n•\nLegal Framework:\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 284, 285, 286, 287, 288\n•\nCase Summary:\nTwo companies proposed a demerger scheme. A family dispute regarding the ownership of shares by a deceased member was raised as an objection. The court approved the demerger as the scheme had been overwhelmingly supported by shareholders and creditors, and the objection was deemed irrelevant to the proceedings.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nStatutory requirements for demergers must be met.\no\nFamily disputes unrelated to the scheme’s merits do not hinder approval.\n•\nOutcome:\nThe demerger scheme was sanctioned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "C.O. No.47 of 2010, decision dated: 27-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kazim Hassan and Khurram Shahzad Chughtai for Petitioners. \nMian Irfan Hassan and Amir Majeed Khan for Objector (Aziz Ahmad Dawood). \nMuhammad Asif Hashmi for FBR. \nMuhammad Saqlain Arshad, Deputy Director (Legal) SECP", + "Petitioner Name:": "DAWOOD HERCULES CHEMICALS and others: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 972 = 2012 SLD 972 = 2012 CLD 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Insider Trading Allegations\n•\nLegal Framework:\nSecurities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S. 15-A\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 282\n•\nCase Summary:\nA fund manager was accused of insider trading due to correlated trading by his wife. The court found no evidence of misuse of privileged information but issued a warning regarding the conflict of interest arising from his fiduciary responsibilities.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInsider trading requires proof of advantage gained through privileged information.\no\nFiduciary roles necessitate integrity and avoidance of conflicts of interest.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(3)/INS/MSW/SMD/2011/DCML-2 dated 5-10-2011, decision dated: 4-01-2012, hearing DATE : 15-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AHMED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 973 = 2012 SLD 973 = 2012 CLD 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Unauthorized Short Selling\n•\nLegal Framework:\nSecurities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S. 22\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R. 8, Third Schedule\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company engaged in unauthorized short selling, violating trading regulations. Despite prior warnings, the company continued such practices. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) imposed a penalty of Rs. 300,000 and directed compliance with regulations.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nRepeated violations indicate a disregard for regulatory compliance.\no\nPenalties aim to enforce fair and transparent market practices.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(07)BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2011 dated 4-11-2011, decision dated: 30-11-2011, hearing DATE : 17-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PEARL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (PVT) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 974 = 2012 SLD 974 = 2012 CLD 612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Unfair Trade Practices\n•\nLegal Framework:\nSecurities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 17, 22\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R. 8, 12\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company engaged in wash trades, creating a false market appearance. The SECP imposed a penalty of Rs. 100,000, emphasizing the harm caused by such practices and the importance of investor protection.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nWash trades disrupt market transparency and fairness.\no\nRegulatory penalties deter unethical trading practices.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 48 of 2005, decision dated: 12-01-2012, hearing DATE : 15-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD) \nMUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Lashari for Appellant.\nAtif Hameed, Deputy Director and Muhammad Ali, Deputy Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHERMAN SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS \nJOINT DIRECTOR (SMD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 975 = 2012 SLD 975 = 2012 CLD 626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Unauthorized Trading of Shares\n•\nLegal Framework:\nSecurities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 21, 22\n•\nCase Summary:\nUnauthorized trading by an agent led to significant complaints. The SECP imposed a penalty of Rs. 750,000 on the company for failing to exercise due diligence and for providing misleading statements during the investigation.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nBrokers are responsible for ensuring client interests are prioritized.\no\nMisleading regulatory bodies aggravates the offense.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=21", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.SM/BRK-138/3-4-5-6-7-10 dated 15-12-2010, decision dated: 23rd November, 2011, hearing DATE : 30-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "IGI FINEX SECURITIES LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 596 = 1998 SLD 596 = 1998 PLD 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K.)---S. 14 [as amended by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase (Amendment) Act, 1993]---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R.11--­Rejection of plaint in pre-emption suit on the ground that during pendency of suit, vendee had acquired his status equal to that of plaintiff- --Plaintiff's contention that rejection of plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. could have been sought through amendment of written statement and not by miscellaneous application was not warranted---No bar under provisions of C.P.C. existed for invoking powers of Court under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C. through miscellaneous application---Courts below had, thus, committed no error while rejecting plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. for the reason that during pendency of suit, vendee had improved his status---No interference was warranted in impugned order of rejection of plaint in circumstances.\n \n(b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K.)---\n \n---S. 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.17---Prayer for amendment of plaint after period of limitation for filing suit for pre-emption had expired---Court in pre-emption cases must decline prayer for amendment, if fresh suit on amended ground would be barred by limitation on the date when application for amendment was moved since vendee could not be deprived from legal right which had accrued to him through lapse of time---Plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint to include, therein, new ground as cause of action having been moved beyond period of limitation for filing suit for pre-emption, was rightly rejected by Courts below, warranting no cause for interference.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K)=14", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.44 of 1995, decision dated: 15-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Zahoor Ahmad Khan for Appellant.\nRaja Khaliq Dad Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAJA MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN \nVS \nRAJA SHAKEEL AHMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 976 = 2012 SLD 976 = 2012 CLD 645", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Merger of Companies\n•\nLegal Framework:\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 284, 286\n•\nCase Summary:\nTwo companies proposed a merger, addressing all liabilities and objections, including those related to leased assets. The court approved the merger as statutory requirements and creditor consents were satisfied.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nComprehensive planning and addressing creditor concerns are vital for merger approval.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "C.O. No.14 of 2011, decision dated: 17-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Asif-ur-Rehman and Qadir Bakhsh for Petitioner. \nIftikhar Ahmad for Standard Chartered Bank/Objector. M. Saqlain Arshad, Deputy Director (Legal) SECP", + "Petitioner Name:": "J.K. SPINNING MILLS LTD.\nVS \nJ.K. FIBER MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 977 = 2012 SLD 977 = 2012 CLD 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Unauthorized Investment in Associated Companies\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S. 33\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 160, 208, 236, 476\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company made an unauthorized investment of Rs. 8.516 million in an associated undertaking without obtaining the required special resolution under Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The company acknowledged the violation but failed to offer an explanation. The court ruled that post-facto approval of the investment would not absolve the company from the penalty for non-compliance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInvestments in associated undertakings require prior approval through a special resolution.\no\nPost-facto ratification does not exempt the company or its directors from penalties.\n•\nOutcome:\nPenalty imposed on the company and its directors was upheld.\n•\nCited Cases:\nShahbaz-ud-Din v. Service Industries Textiles Limited PLD 1988 Lah. 1.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160", + "Case #": "Appeal No.13 of 2006, decision dated: 12-01-2012, hearing DATE : 13-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE) \nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asif-ur-Rehman for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MONNOO INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND 7 OTHERS \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 978 = 2012 SLD 978 = 2012 CLD 710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Transfer of Shares and Refusal\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S. 33\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 77, 78-A, 152, 406(1)\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company refused to register the transfer of shares purchased by the appellant from a bank, despite submission of requisite documents. The court found the refusal unjustified and referred the matter to the liquidator since the company was under winding-up proceedings.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nRefusal to transfer shares without valid reasons violates Section 77 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\no\nMatters of share transfer during winding-up are referred to the liquidator.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.4 of 2007, decision dated: 12-01-2012, hearing DATE : 13-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE) \nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Immad I. Malik and Qasim Rasool for Appellant. Mubasher Saeed, Director (Enforcement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALEEM BAIG\nVS \nYASMEEN WEAVING MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 979 = 2012 SLD 979 = 2012 CLD 741", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Unauthorized Investment\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S. 33\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208, 472\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company admitted to making unauthorized investments without passing a special resolution as mandated under Section 208. Although the company returned the investments as directed, the SECP imposed a penalty on the directors. On appeal, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 300,000 to Rs. 100,000 per director.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCompliance with Section 208 is mandatory for investments in associated undertakings.\no\nVoluntary correction of default may result in a lenient penalty.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 20 of 2006, decision dated: 12-01-2012, hearing DATE : 13-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE) \nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Farooq Akhtar for Appellants. Haris Bin Tipu, Deputy Director and Anwar Hashmi, Deputy Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAZA ABDUL AZIZ ALRAEE, CHAIRMAN/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 6 OTHERS\nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 980 = 2012 SLD 980 = 2012 CLD 767", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Competition Act: Exemption from Prohibited Agreement\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompetition Act (XIX of 2010), Ss. 4, 5, 9\n•\nCase Summary:\nPTCL and LDI Operators sought exemption for an International Clearing House (ICH) Agreement under Section 5 of the Competition Act. Following objections from competitors and lack of industry consensus, PTCL withdrew its application. The Competition Commission noted that any future agreements of this nature would require clearance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAgreements with potential anti-competitive effects must seek prior exemption.\no\nWithdrawn applications do not negate future compliance requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=4", + "Case #": "File No.2(291)/AGR/EXMP REG/CCP/11, decision dated: 8-02-2012. dates of hearing: 13th December 2011 and 31st January, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN (CHAIRPERSON),\nABDUL GHAFFAR, (MEMBER)\nMS. VADIYYA S. KHALIL, (MEMBER)\nSHAHZAD ANSAR, (MEMBER)\nMUEEN BATLAY, (MEMBER)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL CLEARING HOUSE AGREEMENT AMONG LDI OPERATORS: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 981 = 2012 SLD 981 = 2012 CLD 783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Deceptive Marketing Practices\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompetition Act (XIX of 2010), Ss. 10, 37\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company marketed its product as No.1 in Pakistan without reasonable basis, misleading consumers. The Competition Commission reprimanded the company and directed it to refrain from such claims in the future.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nMarketing claims must have a reasonable basis.\no\nMisleading advertisements harm consumer trust and competitors' business interests.\n•\nCited Cases:\nIn the matter of Proctor and Gamble Pakistan 2010 CLD 1695.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=10", + "Case #": "File No.77/REG/RECKITT/OFT/2011, decision dated: 20-01-2012, hearing DATE : 3rd November, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN (CHAIRPERSON) \nSHEHZAD ANSAR (MEMBER)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "RECKITT BENCKISER PAKISTAN LTD\nVS\nMESSRS S.C. JOHNSON AND SON PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 982 = 2012 SLD 982 = 2012 CLD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Non-Disclosure in Marketing Practices\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompetition Act (XIX of 2010), S. 10\n•\nCase Summary:\nPaint manufacturers used redeemable tokens in their products without disclosing the token's presence or value. The Competition Commission found the practice deceptive and directed full disclosure but imposed no penalties due to voluntary compliance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNon-disclosure of material information is deceptive marketing.\no\nVoluntary compliance may mitigate punitive actions.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=10", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notices Nos. 8 to 23 of 2011, decision dated: 13-01-2012. dates of hearing: 25-08-14th September and 21st October, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN (CHAIRPERSON), \nMS. VADIYYA S. KHALIL (MEMBER)\nSHAHZAD ANSAR (MEMBER)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHOW CAUSE NOTICES NOS.8 TO 23 OF 2011 ISSUED TO PAINT MANUFACTURERS. In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 983 = 2012 SLD 983 = 2012 CLD 873", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nListed Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance (CIII of 2002), Ss. 3, 4, 5, 7\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company's shareholding increased through inter-family transfers, but the transactions did not fall under exempted categories. The SECP imposed a penalty of Rs. 100,000, which was upheld.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nExemptions under the Takeovers Ordinance are strictly construed.\no\nFamily transactions may still attract regulatory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.86 of 2006, decision dated: 12-01-2012, hearing DATE : 15-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSION (CLD) \nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Latif, Chartered Accountant for Appellant.\nAbid Hussain, Director and Aqeel A. Zeshan, Deputy Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "REHAN AHMED, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUBARAK TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (SMD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 984 = 2012 SLD 984 = 2012 CLD 879", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Legal Nature of Shares\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 2(35)\no\nSale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S. 2(3)\n•\nCase Summary:\nShares constitute a bundle of rights and are regarded as goods under the Sale of Goods Act. The state of shares includes the necessary documents for transfer.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nShares are goods with legal and evidentiary attributes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2", + "Case #": "Suit No.911 and C.M.A. No.7630 of 2011, decision dated: 24-02-2012. dates of hearing: 30-09-10-10-and 25-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi with Muhammad Haseeb Jamali and Ayan M. Memon for Plaintiff. \nArshad Tayebaly with Amel Khan Kansi for Defendants Nos.1 to 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMED KULI KHAN KHATTAK\nVS \nCREEK MARINA (SINGAPORE) PVT. LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 985 = 2012 SLD 985 = 2012 CLD 911", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Failure to Provide Information\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nSecurities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 21, 22\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company failed to provide information and comply with an Enquiry Committee's directions. The SECP imposed penalties on the company and its directors for deliberate non-compliance.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nNon-cooperation with regulatory inquiries attracts severe penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=21", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated 20-04-2011, decision dated: 5-03-2012, hearing DATE : 20-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (BR&ICW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS H.S.Z. SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD. EX- MEMBER OF THE LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (G) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 986 = 2012 SLD 986 = 2012 CLD 923", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Inspection of Books of Account\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 231, 476, 484\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company challenged the SECP’s inspection order, claiming no notice was issued. The court ruled that inspections under Section 231 are administrative and do not require prior notice.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInspections for compliance are administrative and do not violate due process.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=231", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-740 of 2011, decision dated: 5-01-2012, hearing DATE : 1st December, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Faisal for Petitioner.\nFaisal Kamal for Respondent No. 2.\nIjaz Ahmed for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "OFSPACE (PRIVATE) LIMITED\nVS \nFEDERATION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 987 = 2012 SLD 987 = 2012 CLD 944", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Insider Trading\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nSecurities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S. 15-A\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.282(I)\n•\nCase Summary:\nA Fund Manager of an investment company was found guilty of insider trading by using privileged information to trade through his brother’s account. Evidence showed a close correlation between the trading patterns of the brother and the funds managed by the respondent, resulting in significant profits. The court held that such transactions constituted insider trading under S.15-A(2)(a) of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nInsider trading includes both direct and indirect use of privileged information.\no\nThe respondent breached fiduciary duties by using inside information for personal gain.\n•\nOutcome:\nThe respondent was fined Rs. 2,500,000 for insider trading and Rs. 500,000 for violating S.15-A(1).", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(13)/INS/MSW/SMD/2010/JSIL/01 dated 19-10-2011, decision dated: 29-02-2012, hearing DATE : 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO MR. WASIM HYDER JALBANI: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 988 = 2012 SLD 988 = 2012 CLD 989", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Joint Venture Agreement\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompetition Act (XIX of 2010), Ss. 4, 5, 9, 11\no\nCompetition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Regln. 4\n•\nCase Summary:\nPTCL and other entities sought an exemption for a Joint Venture Agreement under S.5 of the Competition Act, 2010. The agreement involved restructuring subsidiaries and imposing non-compete restrictions. The Commission found that the agreement promoted economic efficiency and allowed the entities to combine resources for better market competition. Exemption was granted with the condition that non-compete obligations would remain valid only during the Joint Venture’s life.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAgreements promoting economic efficiency may qualify for exemption under S.5 of the Competition Act.\no\nNon-compete restrictions must be reasonable and time-bound.\n•\nOutcome:\nExemption was granted, subject to compliance with specified conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=4", + "Case #": "No.2(290)/AGR/EXM/REG/CCP/2011, decision dated: 9-01-2012, hearing DATE : 7-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "CHAIRPERSON, ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER (C&T.A), \nDR., JOSEPH WILSON, MEMBER (M&I.A), \nMS. VADDIYA S. KHALIL, MEMBER (A&I.T.), \nMUEEN BATLAY, MEMBER (CP&R) \nSHEHZAD ANSAR, MEMBER (B&OFT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS METRO CASH AND CARRY INTERNATIONAL HOLDING B.V. AND THAL LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 989 = 2012 SLD 989 = 2012 CLD 977", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Submission of Annual Returns\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.246\n•\nCase Summary:\nA company filed its annual return 312 days late due to an administrative error but had a history of timely compliance. The court considered the delay unintentional and accepted the company’s explanation, taking a lenient view.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nAdministrative errors in filing returns may be excused if the delay is unintentional and compliance history is positive.\n•\nOutcome:\nLeniency was granted, and no penalty was imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=246", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.S.M(B.O.)C.O.156(650)95 dated 21st December, 2011, decision dated: 30-01-2012, hearing DATE : 24-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIRST DAWOOD INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 256 = 1986 SLD 256 = 1986 CLC 2933", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of Foreign Company\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Act (VII of 1913), Ss. 162, 166\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 443-449\n•\nCase Summary:\nA foreign company was declared insolvent and unable to meet its liabilities in Pakistan. The court held that a winding-up petition under S.444 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, could be maintained if the company had assets in Pakistan and creditors seeking proper distribution.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nForeign companies can be wound up if they are insolvent and have assets in Pakistan.\no\nWinding-up orders benefit creditors and ensure equitable distribution of assets.\n•\nOutcome:\nThe foreign company was ordered to be wound up.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=162", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No. 16 of 1984, decision dated: 17-07-1986. dates of hearing: 6-11-1985; 10th and 11-02-1986", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfar and Umer Hayat Tiwana Advocate for Petitioner. \nJ.H. Rahmitoola for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS JAMES FINLAY P. L. C.\nVS \nMESSRS HELLENIC LINES LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 593 = 2005 SLD 593 = 2005 PLD 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Senate Election – Academic Qualification\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nConduct of General Elections Order (2002), Art. 8-A\no\nRepresentation of the People Act (1976), S.99\n•\nCase Summary:\nA petitioner challenged the candidacy of a Senate election nominee, alleging their academic qualification was not equivalent to a bachelor's degree as required. The court dismissed the petition since the petitioner was not a contesting candidate or elector and had not directly challenged the appellate authority’s order.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nOnly aggrieved parties or those with standing may challenge election-related decisions.\no\nThe court cannot grant relief beyond the scope of the petition.\n•\nOutcome:\nPetition dismissed for lack of standing.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.71 of 2003, heard on 20-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nAKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person. Respondents in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAJA RAB NAWAZ, ADVOCATE\nVS\nMAULVI AGHA MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 594 = 2005 SLD 594 = 2005 PLD 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Majlis-e-Shoora – Revisional Powers\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nBalochistan Civil Disputes (Shariat Application) Regulation, 1976, Arts. 3, 4(2)\no\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115\n•\nCase Summary:\nThe court held that the Majlis-e-Shoora, as an appellate court under the Shariat Application Regulation, also enjoys revisional powers akin to a district court under the CPC. An earlier dismissal of a revision by the Majlis-e-Shoora was reversed.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nThe Majlis-e-Shoora has revisional jurisdiction under S.115, CPC.\no\nCourts must consider revisional powers when dealing with interlocutory orders.\n•\nOutcome:\nThe case was remanded for revisional consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 188 of 1999, decision dated: 3rd May, 2000, hearing DATE : 4-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Kohli for Petitioners. \nKhushnood Ahmed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL SHAKOOR AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\nDAD KHAN AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1962 15 = 1962 SLD 15 = 1962 PLD 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Registered Office of a Company\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Act (VII of 1913), Ss. 3, 38, 72\no\nEvidence Act (I of 1872)\n•\nCase Summary:\nThe Companies Act, 1913 does not allow transferring a company's registered office from one sovereign state to another. A company's registered office in Pakistan remained unchanged before 15-08-1947, so the High Court in Pakistan retained jurisdiction under S.38 of the Companies Act, 1913. The court also clarified that changes in a registered office must be sanctioned by the High Court and cannot be made through collateral documents.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCourts retain jurisdiction over a company based on the location of its registered office.\no\nChanging the registered office requires explicit procedures and cannot be done informally.\n•\nOutcome:\nThe High Court in Pakistan maintained jurisdiction over the case.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=72", + "Case #": "Matter No. 10 of 1960, decision dated: 20th July 1961. dates of hearing : 22nd, 29th and 30th June 1961", + "Judge Name:": "B. A. SIDDIKY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asrarul Hossain and M. A. Rab for Petitioner.\nA. K. Brohi and Afzalul Huq for Respondents.\nK. M. Subhan and A. H. Mirza for Proforma", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAKHAWAT HOSSAIN\nVS \nCHITTAPANJAN COTTON MILLS, LTD. DACCA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 82 = 1977 SLD 82 = 1977 SCMR 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Temporary Injunctions and Prima Facie Case\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, R.1\n•\nCase Summary:\nThe court assessed whether a temporary injunction should be granted, focusing on three factors: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable harm. While the lower court considered the latter two factors, it erroneously concluded on the first, leading to the cancellation of the earlier granted injunction. The appellate court reinstated the injunction under specified terms pending trial.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nA prima facie case involves serious legal or factual questions raised in the plaint.\no\nCourts must assess all three criteria—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm—before granting or denying injunctions.\n•\nOutcome:\nTemporary injunction reinstated with specified conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-2 of 1973, decision dated: 5th October 1976. dates of hearing : 4th and 5th October 1976", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD GUL, JUSTICE\nDORAB PATEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sharifuddln Pirzada, Senior Advocate, Salim Akhtar, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.\nMuhammad Ali Sayeed and Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 1-20, 22, 36, 38-51 and 59 -81.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUI GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY\nVS \nSUI GAS EMPLOYEES UNION AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 257 = 1986 SLD 257 = 1986 MLD 1870", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Director’s Fiduciary Duties and Mismanagement\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 26, 140, 194, 196\no\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, R.1\n•\nCase Summary:\nDirectors of a company, as fiduciaries, must act in good faith and cannot profit from their positions. If mismanagement occurs, courts can appoint a receiver to safeguard company assets. The court also held that companies could be restrained from using a name similar to another registered company and granted injunctions to protect business interests.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nDirectors are trustees of company assets and liable for misuse.\no\nCourts have the authority to appoint receivers and grant injunctions in cases of mismanagement or fraud.\no\nCompanies must not use names that could confuse or mislead stakeholders.\n•\nOutcome:\nReceiver appointed, injunction granted, and company directed to comply with naming requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=194", + "Case #": "Suit No.419 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos 2053 and 4508 of 1985, decision dated: 9-02-1986. dates of hearing: 3rd and 23rd December, 1985", + "Judge Name:": "HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Plaintiffs.\nQadir H. Sayeed for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUHAMMAD BAKHSH & SONS LTD. AND ANOTHER\nVS\nAZHAR WALI MUHAMMAD AND 11 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 162 = 1987 SLD 162 = 1987 CLC 367", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Authority to File Suit and Corporate Governance\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIX, R.1, S.16\n•\nCase Summary:\nA suit filed by a company representative without proper authority was deemed a nullity. The court clarified that suits must be authorized per the company’s Articles of Association, and any irregularity at the time of filing cannot be cured retroactively.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCorporate suits must be filed by authorized representatives.\no\nUnauthorized suits are void and cannot be ratified post-filing.\n•\nOutcome:\nThe suit was declared null and void.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1980, decision dated: 1st September, 1986", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Kazi for Appellant.\nMuhammad Naeem for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABUBAKAR SALEM MAYET\nVS \nABBOT LABORATORIES AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 200 = 1999 SLD 200 = 1999 MLD 1145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Freezing Bank Accounts and Territorial Jurisdiction\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nPenal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 109\no\nPrevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)\no\nFederal Investigation Agency Act, 1975 (VIII of 1975), S.5(5)\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199, 247(3)\n•\nCase Summary:\nThe Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) froze bank accounts in a tribal area without territorial jurisdiction. The court ruled that FIA's actions were void as the investigation was based on an FIR filed in Karachi, which did not extend to the tribal areas.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nFIA lacked territorial jurisdiction in Provincially Administered Tribal Areas.\no\nInvestigations cannot proceed beyond their lawful scope.\n•\nOutcome:\nThe FIA’s notice to freeze accounts was declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=409", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.297 of 1998, decision dated: 20-07-1998, hearing DATE : 16-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE\nMIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi M. Jamil for Petitioner. Shahzad Akbar Khan, Dy. A.G. for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. \nQaisar Rashid for Respondents Nos.3 to 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IHSAN\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1956 10 = 1956 SLD 10 = 1956 PLD 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Retrospective Application and Substantive Rights\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.159\n•\nCase Summary:\nThe court held that Art.159(a) of the Constitution, which grants appeal rights, is not retrospective. Substantive rights, such as the right of appeal, cannot be applied retroactively unless explicitly stated.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nSubstantive rights are prospective unless stated otherwise.\no\nAppeals under Art.159(a) are not applicable to cases decided before the Constitution’s enforcement.\n•\nOutcome:\nThe appeal was treated as a petition for leave to appeal and dismissed accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=159", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 64 of 1956, decision dated: 19th April 1956, hearing DATE : 18th April 1956", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nM. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SHARIF, JUSTICE\nAMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Abbas Jafari, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISHAQ\nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 163 = 1987 SLD 163 = 1987 CLC 1943", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Annual General Meetings and Shareholder Disputes\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 152, 170, 290, 291\n•\nCase Summary:\nThe court ordered the holding of an Annual General Meeting (AGM) for a company while clarifying that disputes over share ownership are triable issues and cannot be resolved within AGM-related proceedings.\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nCourts can order AGMs to ensure compliance with statutory obligations.\no\nShareholder disputes must be resolved separately through appropriate legal channels.\n•\nOutcome:\nAGM ordered, with voting restricted to shareholders listed in the company register.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=152", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No. 25 of 1985; 15 and 18 of 1986, decision dated: 18-03-1987", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.\nKhalid Anwar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR MAN00 AND OTHERS\nVS\nMUHAMMAD WAQAR MONNOO AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 290 = 1993 SLD 290 = 1993 CLC 1915", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Management of Subsidiary Company\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 3\n•\nSummary:\nThe court held that when the board of directors of a subsidiary company is the same as that of its parent company, a Board of Administrators appointed to manage the parent company is also entitled to manage the subsidiary company. This is because the subsidiary's affairs are effectively controlled by the parent company's board.\n________________________________________\n(b) Breach of Contract and Remedies\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nContract Act (IX of 1872), S. 73\n•\nSummary:\nA suit seeking a declaration that a contract still subsisted was deemed incompetent. The court ruled that in cases of an alleged illegal termination of a contract, the appropriate remedy lies in claiming damages, not seeking declaratory relief.\n________________________________________\n(c) Equitable Jurisdiction and Trespassers\n•\nSummary:\nEquitable jurisdiction cannot be invoked by a party that is a trespasser or encroacher, as such parties lack the standing to seek equitable relief.\n•\nCited Cases:\no\nGhulam Rasul v. Muhammad Anwar (1969 SCMR 254)\no\nMushraf Ali v. Province of Punjab (1989 SCMR 1503)\n________________________________________\n(d) Prevention of Oppression and Mismanagement\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 290\n•\nSummary:\nSection 290 allows members holding at least 20% of the share capital, creditors with equivalent interest, or the Registrar to move the court for relief against oppression or mismanagement. However, parties with no vested or subsisting rights cannot claim a hearing under this provision.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2612 of 1991 and C.M. No. 1277-L of 1991 (in C.O. 45-90), decision dated: 19th January 1992, hearing DATE : 18-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": "KHALILUR-REHMAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Jamshed Ali for Petitioner.\nCh. Muhammad Farooq, Dy. A.G. for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nMuhammad Naazar Khan for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.T. TRADING\nVS \nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX SHEIKHUPURA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 351 = 1991 SLD 351 = 1991 PLD 441", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Temporary Injunctions\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2\n•\nSummary:\nThe court emphasized that applications for temporary injunctions must adhere to established principles:\no\nA prima facie case.\no\nRisk of irreparable loss.\no\nBalance of convenience.\nWithout satisfying these conditions, an injunction cannot be granted.\n________________________________________\n(b) Election of Directors in Companies\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 2(36) & 160\n•\nSummary:\nA company's decision to adjourn an election and invite fresh nominations was challenged. The court declined to grant an injunction restraining the election, as it would contravene the overwhelming majority of shareholders' will. The plaintiff had no valid grounds to block the election, and the application was dismissed.\n•\nCited Cases:\no\nMuhammad Arif Effendi v. Egypt (AIR 1980 SCMR 588)\no\nPLD 1989 SC 166", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2", + "Case #": "Suit No.457 of 1991, heard on 28-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": "HAZIQUL KHAIRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez Pirzada alongwith Ahsan Zaheer Rizvi for Plaintiff.\nSharif-ud-Din Pirzada alongwith Miss Sajida Pirzada, F.W. Vellani for Defendant No. 2.\nM.J. Jaffar, Mehmood Mandviwala for Defendants No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARRUKH K. CAPTAIN\nVS \nEXXON CHEMICAL PAKISTAN LTD. AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 235 = 1988 SLD 235 = 1988 CLC 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Winding Up Petition: Statutory Time Period\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 9\n•\nSummary:\nThe statutory 90-day period for the final disposal of winding-up petitions is directory, not mandatory. The legislature's intent was to ensure expeditious resolution but not to invalidate proceedings if the period was exceeded. If construed as mandatory, it could lead to unjust outcomes, undermining the purpose of the Ordinance.\n________________________________________\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nSummary:\nThe court clarified that the use of negative or affirmative language in a statute is not determinative of whether a provision is mandatory or directory. The key lies in understanding the legislative intent and the consequences of non-compliance.\n•\nCited Cases:\no\nCol. (Rtd.) Syed Mukhtar Hussain Shah v. Wasim Sajjad (PLD 1986 SC 178)\no\nGovernment of Pakistan v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (PLD 1965 SC 527)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=9", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.25 of 1986, decision dated: 24-10-1987, hearing DATE : 2-09-1987", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.A. Qadri and Sh. A. Aziz for Appellant (in J.M. 25/86).\nKhalid M. Ishaque for Appellant (in J.M. 28/86).\nMansoor Ahmad Khan for Appellant (in J.M. 30 to 36 of 1986).\nMansoorul Arifin for Respondent (in J.M. 25/86).\nIqbal Kazi for Respondent (in J.M. 28/86).\nMansoorul Arfin and Khalid Ishaque for Respondent (in J.M. 30/85).\nRaja Qureshi and Muhammad Ali Sayed for Respondent (in J.M. 31 to 36/85)", + "Petitioner Name:": "IN RE: MESSRS WELCOME AGENCIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 258 = 1990 SLD 258 = 1990 PLD 1092", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)---S. 5---Rules of Business (Federal Government) 1973, R.5(10)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine inter alia the questions of law namely whether compliance had taken place with S.5(3) of the Ordinance in the matter of refusing the applications for registration, if not so, its effect on the proceedings; whether in fact requirement of R.5(10), Rules of Business was infringed by the State Minister for Finance in according the approval to one of the applicants not recommended by the Member, Corporate Law Authority or the Secretary, Finance, if so, its effect and whether, a mala fide of fact as held in the Judgment of High Court, was made out on the facts found established.\n(b) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n----Ss. 5, 26, 27, 28 & 29---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971, R.2(a)---Corporate Law Authority ---Definition--¬Chairman Corporate Law Authority has been delegated under S.28 all powers and functions of the Federal Government under Ss.26, 27 & 29 of the Ordinance---Chairman or the Corporate Law Authority could not deal with the applications under S.5 of the Ordinance---Power under S.5 (all powers of Government excepting powers under Ss.26, 27 & 29 of the Ordinance) was delegated to the Member, Corporate Law Authority (Corporate Law Wing)--¬Intervention of Corporate Law Authority in the matter of entertaining and also of disposing of an application under S.5 of the Ordinance was wholly without jurisdiction finding no support from the statute and thus could be challanged by recourse to Constitutional jurisdiction without availing of or exhausting the departmental remedies.\nThe scheme of the Ordinance clearly shows that the Corporate Law Authority does not find a mention in it. 1t is mentioned and finds a place in the definition of Authority contained in Rule 2 (a) of the Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971. The Chairman, `Corporate Law Authority' has also been delegated under section 28 of the Ordinance, all powers and functions of the Federal Government under sections 26, 27 and 29 of the Ordinance (Notification dated 10th September, 1981 refers). The Chairman, as a delegate could, therefore, exercise the powers of the Government where an Order was passed by an authority subordinate to the Government (section 26). The Chairman, Corporate Law Authority has also under this delegation, power to constitute an advisory committee (section 27) and to grant by notification in the official Gazette exemption to person or class of persons or any security or class of securities or any transaction or class of transactions from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Ordinance (section 29). Therefore, the Chairman or the Corporate Law Authority could not deal with the applications under section 5 of the Ordinance. Power under section 5 (all powers of Government excepting the above enumerated) was delegated to the Member, Corporate Law Authority (Corporate Law Wing).\nThe intervention of Corporate Law Authority in the matter of entertaining and also of disposing of an application under section 5 of the Ordinance was wholly without jurisdiction finding no support from the statute. Such orders, therefore, could be challenged by recourse to constitutional jurisdiction without availing of or exhausting the departmental remedies.\nMessrs SA. Haroon and others v. The Collector of Customs, Karachi and Federation of Pakistan PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 177; Lt.-Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. The Controller of Estate Duty and others PLD 1961 SC 119; Nagina Silk Mill, Lyallpur v, The Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Lyallpur and another PLD 1963 SC 322 and Abdullah Muhammad Peer-mohamed v. Karachi Municipal Corporation and 3 others PLD 1971 SC 130 ref.\n(c) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 18 & 199---Freedom of profession and trade---Refusal to entertain application under S.5 of the Ordinance on ground not warranted by law---Ground that there existed one stock exchange, was no ground to refuse to entertain the application with regard to subsequent one; the applicant was not informed at all about the fate of his application and disclosure of the reason had taken place during the hearing of Constitutional Petition in the High Court.\n(D) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 2(m)--- Stock Exchange ---Definition, its history and its role in the economy of the country noted.\n73 Am. Jur., 2nd Edn.; McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Modern Economics 3rd Edn. p.440 and Madhubhai Amathalal Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 21 ref.\n(e) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 2(m)---Stock Exchange---Membership of a stock exchange, a seat on the stock exchange is property, a very valuable one for that matter, capable of being transferred or disposed of on certain conditions---Membership of stock exchange is not limited to promoters, sponsors or Directors.\nEdeard D. Page (Bankrupt) v. Charles W. Edmunds (47 US L ed 596); Citizens National Bank of Cincinnati v. Peter W. Durr (66 US L ed 107) and 73 Am. Jur. 2nd Edn., p. 574, para.12 ref.\n(f) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 2(m)---Stock exchange, is a company limited by guarantee---Characteristics of a company limited by guarantee.\nA company limited by guarantee is one whose memorandum of association contains an undertaking by its members to contribute a specified amount towards the payment of its debts and the expenses of winding it up if it is wound up while he is a member or within one year after he ceases to be a member. The rest of the company's memorandum is similar to that of a company limited by shares, and in particular it states that the liability of its members is limited---Companies limited by guarantee are mostly formed for charitable, social or, other non-trading purposes, and it is not uncommon for their articles to provide that certain persons shall be members of them ex officio. This does not make such persons members of the company for the purpose of company law, however, and so unless they have specifically requested that they should be treated as ordinary members and their names have been entered on the company's register of members, they are not liable to contribute toward payment of the company's debts, nor may they exercise the rights of members, such as attending general meetings and voting.\nCompany Law by Robert R. Pennington, 4th Edn., p.666 quoted.\n(g) Company---\n- Director , promoter , sponsor of the company and the company itself --¬Terms explained and distinction noted.\nAron Salomon v. A Salomon & Company Limited 1897 AC 22; Aveline Scott Ditcham v. James J. Miller AIR 1931 PC 203; E.B.M. Company Ltd. v.\nDominion Bank AIR 1937 PC 279 and Ikram Bus Service and others v. Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and others PLD 1963 SC 564 ref.\n(h) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---Ss. 4 & 5 (3)---Application for registration---Provision of S.4 providing that Stock Exchange which fulfilled such conditions or complied with such requirements as may be prescribed to ensure fair dealings and to protect investors shall be eligible for registration---Such requirements or eligibility conditions having not been prescribed, right of hearing provided in S.S(3) of the Ordinance acquired importance.\nSection 4 provides that a Stock Exchange which fulfils such conditions or complies with such requirements as may be prescribed to ensure fair dealings and to protect investors shall be eligible for registration under this Ordinance .\nThe Government has not prescribed the eligibility conditions so far by declaration of its Policy in the matter or by framing rules or regulations, under the Ordinance. Hence, any person desirous of embarking upon this business, profession or trade is at a loss to determine what are the requirements. The application form prescribed under the Securities and Exchange Rules for the purpose is an elaborate document directed at obtaining all the relevant information from an applicant for a registration of a Stock Exchange. In this background, the right of hearing prescribed in subsection (3) of section 5 of the Ordinance acquires importance.\n(i) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n----S. 5---Registration of Stock Exchange was purely an administrative function, it was neither quasi-judicial nor judicial; there was no lis between the parties; there was no adversary hearing and there was no adjudicatory exercise undertaken in determining the satisfaction of the conditions of eligibility which were yet to be prescribed or had to be determined and thereafter the element of public interest---If there was one Stock Exchange, there would be not another was not provided by law and to that extent view taken by the Corporate Law Authority that any application received had to be put in the cold storage without hearing the applicant, without examining his eligibility and merit was untenable and amounted to refusal to exercise jurisdiction and duties conferred by statute--¬Unless a policy decision was taken and was either entrenched in the Rules or the Regulations that such restriction would exist and apply, it could not be imported.\n(j) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 18---Application for registration of a Stock Exchange---Opportunity of hearing---Provisions of Ordinance regarding registration of stock exchange being regulatory in nature, concerning the fundamental right of freedom of trade, business or profession had to be construed strictly and beneficially---When a hearing had been provided it had to be meaningful---Wherever the competent authority had been given the power of refusing registration after hearing, the reason for it had to be recorded and communicated to the party adversely affected so that it could promptly and meaningfully secure its remedies of revision or review.\n(k) Judgment--\n---No adverse comments are to be made against a statutory functionary unless it is impleaded as a party in the proceedings or appears as a witness in the proceedings--[Statutory functionary---Disparaging remarks ---Expunction of remarks.---[Practice and procedure].\nNo adverse comments are to be made against a statutory functionary unless it is impleaded as a party in the proceedings or appears as a witness in the proceedings.\nThe insistence of the Courts to have the person against whom the remarks are made either as a party or as a witness is intelligible. In both the cases it offers the fullest opportunity to the person concerned as well as to the Court to take a full and a complete view of the conduct alleged before adjudging its correctness or incorrectness by imputing personal motives.\nC.S.Rowjee and others v. The State of Andh. Pra. and others AIR 1964 SC 962 distinguished.\nPLD 1950 Lah. 34; Sh. Inayatullah Butt v. Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi and another PLD 1957 Lah. 583 and Malik Firoz Khan Noon, Prime Minister's House, Karachi v. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 333 ref.\n(l) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n---Preamble---Constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice--¬Supremacy of Constitution in case of conflict---What the Constitution expressly prohibits could not be indirectly achieved by recourse to the principles of natural justice---Principles of natural justice yield to the Constitutional provisions and what the Constitution prohibits, directly and expressly, could not be accomplished indirectly and by implication.---[Natural justice, principles of].\n(m) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n---Art. 248---What the Art. 248 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) has prohibited directly and expressly could not be accomplished indirectly by implication through the principles of natural justice.\n(n) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n---Art. 248---Allegations of mala fides against a Minister--Expression Exercise of powers and performance of functions of their respective offices or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions appearing in Art.248(1) has to be given a very strict meaning.\nCh. Zahur Elahi v. Mr.Zulrikar Ali Bhutto and 2 other PLD 1975 SC 383; H.B.Gill and another v. The King AIR 1948 PC 128; The State v. Zia-ur-¬Rehman and others PLD 1973 SC 49 and Fouji Foundation and another v. Shamim-ur-Rehman PLD 1983 SC 457 ref.\n(o) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n---Art. 248---Allegation of mala fides against a Minister---If mala fide of fact was pleaded by a party then it had to decide for itself whether on the material with it, the Minister had to be impleaded in spite of the protecting provisions of the Constitution; because if his act did not fall within the purview of provision then he could be impleaded as a party and all the objections to such impleadment dealt with in the proceedings---In the absence of the party, no finding with regard to mala fide of fact (as distinguished from mala fide of law) could be recorded, should be recorded and should have been recorded---Recourse to the principles of natural justice to overcome the prohibition contained in Art. 248 of the Constitution was not permissible.---[ Mala fides--Natural justice, principles of].\n(p) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Registration of Stock Exchange---While refusing registration of Stock Exchange to applicants Minister of State did not grant them a hearing; did not record any reasons expressing satisfaction of two requirements contained in S.5(2), namely, the eligibility and the public interest and the interest of trade and such order was not communicated in proper form for enabling the applicants to seek appropriate relief against the refusal---Order of Minister of State thus had infirmities.\nCollector, Sahiwal and 2 others v. Muhammad Akhtar 1971.SCMR 681 ref.\n(q) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n--S. 5---Refusal of application of registration by Minister of State---Opportunity of hearing to the applicant---Minister had not authorised Member Corporate Law Authority nor had the Member conducting the hearing recorded under his signatures the result of the hearing as such the Member had not acted either as a functionary or as a delegate---Chairman Corporate Law Authority who could administer the law but enjoyed no statutory position as such in the matter had instead submitted the report about the hearing which was held by someone else (the Member)---Clear non-compliance, therefore had taken place with a statutory provision which was salutary and mandatory as the restrictions and the controls envisaged by the Ordinance impinged on the Fundamental Right of a citizen.\nTariq Transport Company's case PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 437 and Franklin and others v. Minister of Town and Country Planning (1948) AC 87 ref.\n(r) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n--Ss. 26 & 5(3)---Refusal of application for registration of Stock Exchange--¬Revision and review--Held, in order to make the exercise of remedies of revision and review meaningful and purposive, it was necessary that applicant was communicated in proper form and promptly the result of his application containing the reasons for refusal.\nSecurities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation 318 US 80-100, p.94) ref.\n(s) Discretion---\n--- Structuring the descretion---Wherever wide worded powers conferring discretion exist, there remains always the need to structure the discretion--¬Structuring the discretion, its meaning---Instruments most useful in structuring of discretionary powers enumerated---Courts when can interfere with the discretion.\nWherever wide worded powers conferring discretion exist, there remains always the need to structure the discretion. The structuring of discretion only means regularising it, organizing it, producing order in it so that decision will achieve the high quality of justice. The seven instruments that are most useful in the structuring of discretionary power are open plans, open policy statements, open rules, open findings, open reasons, open precedents and fair informal procedure. Somehow, the wide worded conferment of discretionary powers or reservation of discretion, without framing rules to regulate its exercise, has been taken to be an enhancement of the power and it gives that impression in the first instance but where the authorities fail to rationalise it and regulate it by Rules, or Policy statements or precedents, the Courts have to intervene more often than is necessary, apart from the exercise of such- power appearing arbitrary and capricious at times.\nAdministrative Law Text by Kenneth Culp Davis, p. 94 ref.\n(t) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---Ss. 28 & 5---Notification No.SRO 1024(1)/81 dated 10-9-1981---Delegation of power---Order delegating powers under Notification No.SRO 1024 (I)/81, dated 10-9-1981---Characteristics---Use of word also made both Federal Government and Member Corporate Law Authority concurrently empowered to exercise the power---Delegation did not have the effect of making the delegate the -sole repository of power nor could the delegate be said to have surrendered his own power by reserving the decision in a particular case for the delegator---Delegator did not by such delegation denude himself of such power nor the failure to exercise the power in a particular case by a delegate amounted to abdication or surrender, such as to vitiate the exercise of the power---Exercise of power by both the delegator and the delegate was not possible and exercise of it by either exhausted the power.\n(u) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Rules of Business (Federal Government) 1973, R. 5(10)---Security and Exchange Rules, 1971, R.2(a)---Application for registration of Stock Exchange--¬Duty of Secretary Finance, Federal Government---Secretary Finance while submitting a matter of importance or having policy or public interest over-tones to the minister, had to record his opinion and not to avoid it or pass on the responsibility to someone else.\nIf a matter of importance or having policy or public interest over-tones, had to be submitted to the Minister or Minister of State, it was in the schemes of Rules of Business obligatory for the Secretary to record his opinion and not to avoid it or pass on the responsibility to someone else. Between the Secretary and the Additional Secretary, there is a scheme of distribution of business and that has by and large to be observed except for the discretion to be exercised by the Secretary in handling himself the important cases and by Additional Secretary in routing through him. There is no question of Secretary, avoiding to come in the picture. It is his duty to remain in the picture and to discharge his duty in accordance with the law by recording his opinion on the subject.\n(v) Rules of Business (Federal Government) 1973--\n---R. 5(10)---Scope and application---Court cannot determine when a Secretary to the Government should submit to the decision of the Minister or when he should re-submit the case for reconsideration, or when he should take the controversy to the Prime Minister, it is Secretary's domain and exclusively his own and not for the Court's intervention.\nThe rule prescribes that the Secretary will normally defer to the decision of the Minister and implement it. It is only when the Secretary feels that the Minister's decision requires reconsideration that he is to resubmit the case. It is only in a resubmitted case that if the difference of opinion persists and still the Secretary feels that the matter is important enough, in the national interest, to require further consideration that the Secretary is required to request the Minister to refer the case to the Prime Minister for orders. It is not ordinarily for the Court to determine when a Secretary should submit to the decision of the Minister or when he should resubmit the case for reconsideration, or when he should take the controversy to the Prime Minister. It is his domain and exclusively his own, not for the Court's intervention.\n(w) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---Ss. 5 & 26---Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971, R. 26(1)---Rules of Business (Federal Government), 1973 Sched.III and R.4(4)---Refusal of application for registration of Stock Exchange by Minister for State---Revision and review--¬Secretary Finance proceeded to deal with revision under R.26(1) of the Rules as a revision against the order of the Corporate Law Authority when in fact it should have been a review against the order of the Minister of State, which he could not have competently disposed of but should have resubmitted to the Minister of State---Handling of the case by Secretary, thus, suffered with infirmity.\n(x) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Registration of Stock Exchange---Corporate Law Authority refused application for registration of Stock Exchange on the ground that another company had been granted the No---¬Objection Certificate ---Held, Corporate Law Authority had no such power under S.5, reason disclosed for rejection was also extraneous to the law and its action completely lacked in jurisdiction---Constitutional petition against such order was competent.\n(y) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Application for registration of Stock Exchange---Non-Statutory Authority (Corporate Law Authority) having intervened to consign the application for registration instead of passing same on to the statutory functionaries competent to deal with it after hearing the applicant, viz. Government or Member, Corporate Law Authority, action of Corporate Law Authority was completely lacking jurisdiction---Constitutional petition against such order was competent.\n(z) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Application for registration of Stock Exchange---Order of refusal was given out to have been passed by Corporate Law Authority and dealt with in revision by Federal Secretary Finance as that of Corporate .Law Authority---Corporate Law Authority possessing no such power under the law, action was completely without jurisdiction--¬Constitutional petition against such order was competent.\n(aa) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Application for registration of Stock Exchange---Departmental view that where there existed a Stock Exchange another could not be registered was unsupportable by law.\n(bb) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 18---Provisions of Ordinance being regulatory of Fundamental Right No.18, have to be interpreted strictly and beneficially.\n(cc) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Application for registration of Stock Exchange---Hearing of applicant, who was refused registration, prescribed in S. 5(3) was mandatory, had to be by an authority, competent to, and in fact, taking a decision unless for reasons recorded that power was delegated and the delegate recorded the minutes of the hearing to facilitate the decision-making Authority.\n(dd) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n---Art. 248---Designated functionaries---Protection under Art. 248 of the Constitution is not available to the designated functionaries if their actions suffer from mala fide of fact.\n(ee) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n---Art. 248---Constitutional bar to answerability of a Minister to a Court of law cannot be avoided by recourse to principles of natural justice--Where the allegation against protected functionary (Minister) was one of mala fide of fact, he has to be personally impleaded as a party to the proceedings; without which no finding on that issue could be recorded.\nPer Nasim Hasan Shah, J. contra--\nA party in general terms, means one having right to control proceedings, to make defence, to adduce and cross-examine witnesses and to appeal from the . In the present case all these ingredients were in essence contained in the order passed by the Judge of the High Court. The copy of the writ petition was sent to the Minister with a view to allowing him to explain his position both with regard to the allegations of personal nature made against him as also in the light of Article 248 of the Constitution; he was allowed to be heard personally if he so desired or through some attorney or counsel as he wished, that he had a right of appeal under the law laid down by Supreme Court (see H.M. Saya v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd. PLD 1969 SC 69) if he was affected by the . But he declined to avail all these facilities on the ground that whatever he did was done in his official capacity as a Minister of State for Finance of the Federal Government and since it was not his personal matter he had nothing to add to the defence already taken by or on behalf of the Federal Government.\nIn the present case the position taken by him clearly indicates the stance of the Minister in all its amplitude and, therefore, the fact that he was not formally impleaded as a party did not, as a matter of fact, make any difference.\nThe immunity provided by Article 248 must be construed strictly, as the immunity provided is in the nature of an exception to the general rule that no one is above the law. Accordingly, unless the person claiming the immunity comes strictly within the terms of the provisions granting the immunity, the immunity will not come into play.\nNow the immunity to a Minister extends only to the exercise of powers and performance of functions of his office or for any act done or purported to be done in the exercise of those powers and performance of those functions. A Minister can be said to be acting in exercise of the powers and functions of his office, if his acts are such which not only lie within the scope of the powers and functions conferred on him by law but are performed bona fide and for carrying into effect the intention and purposes of the statute under which he is acting. If on the other hand his acts are performed with mala fide intent or for a colourable purpose, such acts will not be deemed to have been performed in the lawful exercise of the powers and functions vested in him and will not, therefore, be covered by the immunity. Accordingly, where it transpires that a Minister has acted illegally and abused his discretion and the illegality committed was not in the bona fide exercise of his powers and functions but on account of mala fides the immunity contained in Article 248(1) would not extend to protect such an act.\nIn the facts and circumstances of the present case although the Minister was not formally impleadcd as a party to the proceedings but the course followed by the Judge of the High Court was sufficient to show that he was being treated as a party for all practical purposes; hence the finding that the Minister's order was vitiated by mala fides of fact could have been recorded in the facts and circumstances of the case.\nEach case will have to be examined on its merits for determining whether in the facts and circumstances of the given case a finding of mala fides of fact could or could not be recorded.\n(ff) Administrative decision--\n--- Trade Organisation---Relationship of administrative decision-maker with Directors promoters of Company etc.---Effect---Relationship, professional or personal, with promoters, Directors, Sponsors of a public company or Trade Organisation does not disqualify an administrative decision-maker in dealing with such Public Company or Trade Organisation.--[Company-Trade--organisation].\n(gg) Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--\n---S. 5---Refusal of application for registration of Stock Exchange by Minister of State---Denial of hearing to applicants; failure to record reasons as prescribed in S.5 for registration and failure to communicate the refusal and the reasons to the affected persons were infirmities in the order of Minister of State.\n(hh) Expungement of remarks---\n--- Judgment of High Court so far as it attributed personal motives to the Minister of State and held his conduct amounting to favouritism, nepotism and motivated by advancement of his political and economic interests to make him a Judge in his own cause, was set aside by Supreme Court--Said remarks were expunged from the of High Court with direction by the Supreme Court that no part of the said Judgment shall be published or republished in any official or non-official document and such prohibition was to exclude the of Supreme Court if published in its entirety, as it laid down the law for the country in its proper context.\nPer Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, J. agreeing with the main conclusion arrived at by Shafiur Rahman, J.--\n(ii) Party--\n--- Meaning---Party in general terms, means one having right to control proceedings, to make defence, to adduce and cross-examine witnesses and to appeal from the .--[Words and phrases].", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=5", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 677 to 682 and C.M.Ps. Nos. 182 and 183 of 1990, heard on 20-06-1990. dates of hearing: 19th and 20-06-1990", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HASAN SHAH, JUSTICE\nSHAFIUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nZAFAR HUSSAIN MINA, JUSTICE\nALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JUSTICE\nABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.677 and 679 of 1990).\nRaja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A.No. 678 of 1990).\nMr. K.M.A. Samadani, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Afzal Siddiqui, Dy. A.G. and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in CAs.Nos.660 to 682 of 1990).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3 (in C.As.Nos.677 and 678 of 1990; Respondent No. 1 (in C.As.Nos.680 and 681 of 1990).\nCh. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana M.A.Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent (in C.As. Nos.679 and 682 of 1990).", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMAN ULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS\nVS \nTHE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 293 = 1991 SLD 293 = 1991 PLD 368 = 1991 SCC 773", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-Tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 2(6-A): Definition of Dividend \n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nIncome-Tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 2(6-A)\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)\n•\nKey Question:\nWhether the return on capital paid by a company to an assessee qualifies as dividend under S. 2(6-A).\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe return on capital guaranteed under a mutual agreement was deemed dividend within the meaning of the Act, as it reflects profit on shares.\no\nThe High Court's judgment required reconsideration due to its interpretation of return as profit rather than interest or obligatory charge.\n________________________________________\n(b) Prohibition on Third-Party Intervention in Contracts\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nIslamic Jurisprudence\no\nHaji Nizam Khan’s Case PLD 1976 Lah. 930\n•\nSummary:\nThird parties, including income tax authorities, cannot interfere with valid mutual contracts, provided such agreements comply with Islamic principles. Contracts must be honored, and violations render the parties liable both here and in the hereafter.\n________________________________________\n(c) Islamic Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\n•\nKey Observations:\no\nCourts must interpret fiscal statutes in alignment with Islamic philosophy unless explicitly excluded.\no\nAuthorities cannot alter contractual obligations under the guise of different interpretative rules for fiscal laws.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(6A)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 87-P of 1983, decision dated: 21-01-1991 on appeal from the judgment dated 7-9-1982 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Tax Reference No.136 of 1972", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH,CHIEF, JUSTICE\nABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian M. Ajmal, Deputy Attorney-General and Mian Shakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record (absent)\nRespondent(s) by: S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent)", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR ZONE, PESHAWAR\nVS\nMESSRS SIEMEN A.G." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 258 = 1986 SLD 258 = 1986 PLD 346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ordinance (V of 1970)\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nSections 3, 4, 11 & 12\n•\nScope:\no\nDeclares undue concentration of economic power unlawful.\no\nDefines criteria for concentration based on asset values, ownership structure, and voting control.\n•\nKey Points:\no\nFirms exceeding asset thresholds must convert to public companies.\no\nThe authority's orders must serve the public interest and comply with procedural requirements.\n________________________________________\n(b) Disinvestment Powers Under Section 12\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nS. 12(1)(a)(i) & (ii)\n•\nFindings:\no\nThe authority cannot compel disinvestment during a firm's conversion to a public company.\no\nDisinvestment orders are limited to controlling shareholders holding 50% or more voting power.\n________________________________________\n(c) Procedural Limitations and Public Interest\n•\nSummary:\nThe authority's discretionary powers under S. 12 must align with public interest, ensuring procedural fairness and statutory compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=3", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Original Orders Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of 1983, decision dated: 28-06-1986. dates of hearing : 24th, 25th and 26-05-1986", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "E. A. Naumani for Appellant.\nFakharud Din G. Ibrahim and M. Afzal Siddiqui for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.\nKh. Habibullah for Respondent No. 4.\nBahadur Ali for Respondents Nos. 5 to 12.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD. \nVS \nMONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY AND 9 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 138 = 1980 SLD 138 = 1980 PLD 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Act (XI of 1922): Tax Liability of Thal Development Authority\n•\nLegal Framework:\no\nIncome-Tax Act (XI of 1922), Ss. 3, 4, 2(9)\no\nWest Pakistan Thal Development Act (XV of 1949), S. 45\n•\nKey Findings:\no\nThe Thal Development Authority qualifies as a local authority and is exempt from income tax.\no\nNotices of tax demand issued to the authority were declared illegal.\n•\nReference:\nDeputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan v. Ataul Haq PLD 1965 SC 201.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=3", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 258 to 274 of 1976, decision dated: 27th February 1980", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL, JUSTICE\nNASIM HASAN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Abdul Haque, Senior Advocate with Iftikhar-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LAHORE \nVS \nCHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 428 = 1979 SLD 428 = 1979 PLD 723", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 30\nMembership of a Company\nConclusion: The status of membership in a company is determined by its Articles of Association. Legal heirs of a deceased shareholder, who do not comply with the company's Articles of Association, are not considered members.\nCitation/Reference: Companies Act, 1913.\n________________________________________\nCase (b): Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, Rule 172(1)(c)\nInterpretation of the term Member \nConclusion: A term defined in one statute (e.g., member in the Companies Act, 1913) and used in another statute (Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971) is presumed to carry the same meaning unless the legislature expressly indicates otherwise.\nCitation/Reference: Abdul Bari and others v. West Pakistan Soil Reclamation Board, Lahore and others, P L D 1966 S C 458.\n________________________________________\nCase (c): Companies Act (VII of 1913), Sections 31 & 40\nMembership Evidence and Adverse Inference\nConclusion: A company's failure to produce its membership register to prove cessation of membership leads to an adverse inference against its claim.\nCitation/Reference: Sections 31 and 40 of Companies Act, 1913.\n________________________________________\nCase (d): Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, Rule 181\nMembership and Enemy Firms\nConclusion: A deceased member is deemed alive for membership purposes until another's name is entered in the register. Shares owned by enemy nationals led to a company being declared an enemy firm.\nCitation/Reference: People's International Bank Ltd. v. Ram Chander Shukal and others, A I R 1930 All. 50 (dissented from).\n________________________________________\nCase (e): Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, Rule 181\nEnemy Property and Policy Decisions\nConclusion: The government is entitled to change its policies concerning enemy property in light of changing political situations. Courts generally do not interfere with such policy decisions.\n________________________________________\nCase (f): Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971, Rule 185\nRight to Challenge Enemy Firm Notification\nConclusion: A company declared as an enemy firm without a hearing retains the right to challenge the notification before a special tribunal, remedying any procedural irregularity.\nCitation/Reference: Collector, Sahiwal, and 2 others v. Muhammad Akhtar, 1971 S C M R 681.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=30", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1977, decision dated: 21st December 1978. dates of hearing : 17th, 18th and 19th April 1978", + "Judge Name:": "ANWARUL HAQ, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AKRAM, JUSTICE\nDORAB PATEL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD HALEEM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. M. Tufail and Muhammad Afzal Lone, Advocate for Appellant.\nIftikhar Alf, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Noor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN\nVS \nMESSRS INDOPAKISTAN CORPORATION LTD. ETC." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1973 7 = 1973 SLD 7 = 1973 PLD 491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Companies Act (VII of 1913), Sections 31, 32 & 38\nShare Ownership and Membership Disputes\nConclusion: Shares held mean those undisputedly owned as per the company's register. Members failing to rectify discrepancies in the register cannot later claim election fraud.\nCitation/Reference: Clause 10(a), P. O. 2 of 1972.\n________________________________________\nCase (b): Companies (Managing Agency and Election of Directors) Order (P.O. 2 of 1972), Clause 16(2)\nBar on Judicial Review of Election Disputes\nConclusion: Courts are barred from investigating disputed facts related to company elections under clause 16(2).\nCitation/Reference: P. O. 2 of 1972.\n________________________________________\nCase (c): Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XL, Rule 1\nAppointment of Receiver in Firm Dissolution Cases\nConclusion: A court may appoint a receiver if there is apprehension of waste or malversation of joint assets. This rule extends to winding-up petitions but only in extraordinary circumstances.\nCitation/Reference: Omer v. Razzaq, P L D 1956 Sind 85.\n________________________________________\nCase (d): Private Company vs. Partnership Firm\nDistinctions between Firm and Private Company\nConclusion: A private company, unlike a partnership, does not grant all members the right to manage. Thus, rules applicable to partnerships do not extend to winding-up cases involving companies.\n________________________________________\nCase (e): Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 162\nWinding Up and Appointment of Interim Receiver\nConclusion: Interim receivers should not be appointed without substantial justification. Alternative measures, such as monthly financial disclosures, can protect parties’ interests.\nCitation/Reference: Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. V, 3rd Edn.\n________________________________________\nCase (f): Precedent\nLimits of Precedential Authority\nConclusion: A judgment is only authoritative on issues explicitly considered and decided.\n________________________________________\nCase (g): Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 175(2)\nProvisional Liquidator Petitions\nConclusion: Such petitions must be decided based on affidavits.\nCitation/Reference: National Bank of Pakistan v. Punjab National Silk Mills, P L D 1969 Lah. 194.\n________________________________________\nCase (h): Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XL, Rule 1\nReceiver Appointment and Substantial Shareholding\nConclusion: Substantial shareholding alone does not justify the appointment of a receiver.\n________________________________________\nCase (i): Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XIX, Rule 2\nCross-Examination in Interlocutory Matters\nConclusion: Cross-examination is permitted only if it advances justice. In interlocutory matters, it is allowed sparingly.\nCitation/Reference: Barlas Bros. v. Yangtze, P L D 1969 Kar. 423.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=31", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No. 69 of 1972, decision dated: 13th November 1972. dates of hearing: 2nd, 9th and 16th October 1972", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Ali Sated for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ALI CHARAN \nVS \nPAKPOR CERAMICS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1975 100 = 1975 SLD 100 = 1975 PLD 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Company Limited by Guarantee\nCharacteristics and Scope\nConclusion: Such companies are typically non-profit, with members guaranteeing a fixed liability in case of liquidation.\n________________________________________\nCase (b): Government of India Act, 1935, Section 155\nTaxation of Government-Owned Companies\nConclusion: A government-created company performing essential state functions is not subject to taxation under the Income-tax Act, 1922.\nCitation/Reference: Sind Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. case.\n________________________________________\nCase (c): Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Article 98\nWrit Jurisdiction for Lack of Jurisdiction\nConclusion: If an authority acts entirely outside its jurisdiction, writ petitions can be filed without exhausting other remedies.\nCitation/Reference: Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor, P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Government of India Act, 1935=155", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 240 of 1968, decision dated: 20th December 1973", + "Judge Name:": "NOORUL ARFIN, JUSTICE\nKHUDA BAKHSH MARRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Athar for Appellant.\nS. A. Nusrat for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\nJamal-ud-Din Ahmad, Addl. A. G. (Sind) for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SIND INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 56 = 1970 SLD 56 = 1970 PLD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Sections 40 & 43\nDissolution of Partnership\nConclusion: A partnership governed by a partnership deed specifying terms for its determination is not considered a partnership-at-will. Dissolution of such partnerships is governed by Section 40 and not Section 43 of the Partnership Act.\nCitation/Reference: Partnership Act, 1932.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 87-B(f)\nAppointment of Managing Agents\nConclusion: Upon dissolution of the managing agent firm and the creation of a new partnership, the reconstituted firm cannot continue as managing agents unless appointed by the company members per Section 87-B(f). Temporary appointments by the Board of Directors under Section 87(f) are valid only until the members make a formal appointment.\nCitation/Reference: Bhagwanji Gocul Das v. Alembic Chemical Co. Ltd, 52 C W N 681.\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Sections 30 & 31\nMembership Requirements\nConclusion: Only individuals whose shares are issued and recorded in the company's register are recognized as members under Section 30. Meetings influenced by participants not registered as members under Section 31 are invalid.\nCitation/Reference: Lane v. Norman, 66 L T R 83.\n________________________________________\n(d) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Sections 3 & 130\nTransfer of Partnership Share\nConclusion: A partner’s share in a firm is considered an actionable claim, transferable under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. If the partnership includes immovable property, the transfer requires a registered instrument under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908.\nCitation/Reference: Abdul Hakim v. Abdul Majid, P L D 1957 Kar. 379.\n________________________________________\n(e) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Sections 76(1) & 79(2)(a)\nCalling Annual General Meetings\nConclusion: Members are not authorized to call an Annual General Meeting unless there is a default under Section 76(1). Section 79(2)(a) does not allow interference with the Board's rights and duties.\nCitation/Reference: AIR 1959 Cal. 715.", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=87", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 9 and 128 of 1966, decision dated: 25th April 1968", + "Judge Name:": "A. S. CHOWDHURY, JUSTICE\nA. H. KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "D. C. Bhattacharjee with A. K. M. Nurul Islam and B. B. Roy Choudhury for Appellants. \nAsrarul Hossain, Advocate-General, Anil Chandra Sarkar and S. S. Halder for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE EASTEND AGENCIES AND OTHERS\nVS\nALHAJ MAFIZUDDIN AND OTHERS\nAND\nCivil Appeal No. 128 of 1966\nALI HAIDER AND OTHERS\nVS\nTHE DESHABANDHU SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1965 22 = 1965 SLD 22 = 1965 PLD 221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947, Articles 13(2)(b) & 13(6)\nAppeal to Supreme Court\nConclusion: The appeal in Article 13(6) refers to a further appeal to the Supreme Court, which is competent to hear such cases originating from the High Court at Lahore.\nCitation/Reference: Midnapore Zamindari Company Limited v. The Province of West Bengal, (1949-50) F C R 309.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 162\nWinding Up of Company by Shareholder\nConclusion: Shareholder’s rights for a winding-up petition are based on the legal position at the time of filing. Actions taken unilaterally by other shareholders during the pendency of the petition cannot affect the petitioner’s locus standi.\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 153-C\nAlternative Remedies\nConclusion: Courts cannot compel a petitioner seeking a company’s winding up under Sections 162 and 166 to pursue an alternative remedy under Section 153-C of the Act.\n________________________________________\n(d) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 162\nWinding Up of Private Limited Company on Just and Equitable Grounds\nConclusion: Courts tend to treat private limited companies like partnerships for winding-up purposes. Grounds for dissolution include deadlock, exclusion from management, or loss of confidence. In cases of irreparable embitterment, winding up is deemed just and equitable.\nCitation/Reference: In re: Yenidji Tobacco Company Limited (1916) 2 Ch. 426.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=162", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1963, decision dated: 16th June 1964. dates of hearing: 15th and 16th June 1964", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. CORNELIUS, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nS. A. RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nFAZLE-AKBAR, JUSTICE\nHAMOODUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Balraj Tulli Advocate (Iftikharul Haq Khan Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Nazir-ud-Din Senior Attorney for Appellant. A. N. Khanna Advocate (Fazle Ghani Khan Advocate Supreme Court on-Record absent) instructed by Munir Ahmad Attorney for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LADLI PRASAD JAISWAL\nVS \nTHE KARNAL DISTILLERY CO., LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1965 23 = 1965 SLD 23 = 1965 PLD 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Section 4\nFormation of Partnership\nConclusion: A partnership is formed when business activities commence, not necessarily upon the execution of a partnership deed.\nCitation/Reference: Lakshmishankar Devshankar v. Motiram Vishuram, 6 Bom. L R 1106.\n________________________________________\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XL, Rule 1\nAppointment of Receiver in Partnership Disputes\nConclusion: A receiver may be appointed if a defendant unsuccessfully denies the plaintiff's status as a partner. Defendant partners may also be appointed receivers if it benefits the firm.\nCitation/Reference: Lindlay on Partnership, 11th Edition, p. 650.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=4", + "Case #": "Suit No. 144 of 1953, application for appointment of receiver decided on 28th January 1955", + "Judge Name:": "INAMULLAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waheed-ud-Din for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "OMAR\nVS \nHAJI RAZZAK AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2020 427 = 2020 SLD 427 = 2020 CLC 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Articles 79, 17, 117 & 120\nProof of Document Execution\nConclusion: The onus to prove the execution of a document lies heavily on the claimant, requiring two attesting witnesses and forensic verification in cases involving thumb impressions.\nCitation/Reference: Wali Muhammad Khan v. Mst. Amina, 2018 SCMR 2080.\n________________________________________\n(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 12\nSpecific Performance of Agreement\nConclusion: Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the execution of agreements, earnest payments, and transaction details. Courts uphold lower courts' findings if evidence is deemed inadequate.\nCitation/Reference: Farzand Ali v. Khuda Baksh, P L D 2015 S C 187.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=17,79,117,120Specific Relief Act, 1877=12", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.390-D of 2019, decision dated: 06-08-2019.", + "Judge Name:": "RASAAL HASAN SYED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Samina Qureshi\nRespondent(s) by: Abdul Ghaffar Chughtai", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED AND OTHERS\nVS\nCHOLISTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 411 = 2003 SLD 411 = 2003 PTCL 511 = 2003 SCMR 132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Sections 26, 27 & 28\nArticles of Association\nConclusion: Articles of Association create binding contractual terms enforceable by law, provided they are not forbidden by law.\nCitation/Reference: Rayfield v. Hands, (1958) 2 WLR 851.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Section 2(28)\nShare Transfers\nConclusion: Share transfers made contrary to the Articles of Association are invalid, as the Articles constitute a binding agreement among members.\nCitation/Reference: Hickman v. Kent, (1915) 1 Ch. 881.\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Sections 2(28) & 89\nPreemptive Rights in Share Transfers\nConclusion: Articles of Association may legally impose preemptive rights for share transfers among existing shareholders.\nCitation/Reference: Ontario Jockey Club Ltd. v. Samuel McBride, AIR 1928 PC 291.\n________________________________________\n(d) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Sections 2(28) & 89\nPreemptive Rights Enforcement\nConclusion: Selling shares without offering them to existing shareholders in violation of Articles of Association is invalid, even if regulatory approvals like those from the State Bank exist.\nCitation/Reference: Lal Khan v. Ghulam Muhammad, 1973 SCMR 252.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=26", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.86-K of 2000, decision dated: 10-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE \nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nA. I. Chundrigar, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghaury. Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\nMISS MAHENAU AGHA AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 111 = 1983 SLD 111 = 1983 CLC 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 271\nWinding Up of Unregistered Foreign Companies\nConclusion: A foreign company carrying on business in Pakistan that ceases its business can be wound up irrespective of its member count. Such orders can be issued even if the company is dissolved under the laws of its incorporation.\nCitation/Reference: Palmer on Company Law, Vol. 1, 22nd Edn., p. 1020.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 83-A\nFiduciary Duties of Directors\nConclusion: Directors owe fiduciary duties to the company, not to its shareholders.\nCitation/Reference: Finn on Fiduciary Obligations, paras. 20, 23.\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 66-A\nRights of Shareholders\nConclusion: Shareholders are not in a fiduciary relationship with directors and cannot demand accounts from them. Shareholder rights are limited to individual rights conferred by articles of association or statutory law.\nCitation/Reference: Macaura v. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd., 1925 A C 619.\n________________________________________\n(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXXI, Rule 1\nExecutors and Beneficiaries\nConclusion: Beneficiaries cannot represent the estate until executors or administrators exhaust their powers and distribute the property as per the will.\n________________________________________\n(e) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), Section 213\nProbate of Muslim Wills\nConclusion: Muslims are not required to obtain probate for wills under Section 213 of the Succession Act.\nCitation/Reference: Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Habib & Co., P L D 1967 Kar. 755.\n________________________________________\n(f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXX, Rule 1\nLiability of Legal Representatives\nConclusion: Legal representatives cannot be called to render accounts but are liable to the extent of the deceased’s estate in their hands. Plaintiffs must prove the amounts received or spent by the deceased.\nCitation/Reference: Purshottam Vasudeo v. Ramkrishna Govind, A I R 1945 Bom. 21.\n________________________________________\n(g) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Section 2(13)\nShareholder Suit Against Private Company\nConclusion: A suit filed by a shareholder holding shares jointly with another person is not maintainable unless all co-owners are made parties.\nCitation/Reference: Maghanmal Vantonmal v. Pahloral, A I R 1928 Sind 16.\n________________________________________\n(h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 10\nJurisdiction in Shareholder Suits\nConclusion: Mere presence of the defendant within the court’s jurisdiction does not vest the court with authority to adjudicate matters concerning properties outside its jurisdiction, particularly when fiduciary relationships are absent.\nCitation/Reference: Bilasrai Joharmal v. Shivndravan Sarupchand, A I R 1944 P C 39.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=271", + "Case #": "Civil Suit No. 29 of 1964, decision dated: 20-05-1982. dates of hearing : 3rd, 11th, 15th and 16-02-1982", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Saeed for Plaintiff.\nIqbal Kazi for Defendant No. 1.\nHyder Ali Pirzada for Defendant No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAROON AYOOB ABDUL KARIM\nVS \nSULLEMAN AHMAD AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 412 = 2003 SLD 412 = 2003 PTD 1482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nIncome Tax Liability for Deceased Directors\n2.\nRecovery Procedures for Public Companies\n3.\nLegal Heirs and Tax Arrears\nConclusions:\n•\nTax liabilities arising from public companies cannot be recovered from deceased directors under Section 77 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nRecovery actions initiated against the assets of a deceased director were unlawful, arbitrary, and unjust.\n•\nLegal heirs must be duly notified before being treated as assessees in default regarding tax liabilities.\nCitations/References:\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Sections 74, 77\n•\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Definitions in Sections 2(28) & 2(30)\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) - Section 9\n•\nRelevant case laws: In re: Habib Bank Ltd. 1999 PTD 2940; In re: Begum Nusrat Bhutto 1981 SCMR 1192; Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah's case 1985 CLC 1582.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2", + "Case #": "Complaint No.918-L of 2002, decision dated: 28-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Parvez for the Complainant.\nAbdur Rehman Warraich for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN ASGHAR ALI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 110 = 1987 SLD 110 = 1987 CLC 2079", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Topics:\n1.\nLiability for Non-Issuance of Share Certificates\n2.\nJudicial Power in Corporate Matters\n3.\nRectification of Register of Members\nConclusions:\n•\nNon-issuance of share certificates must be substantiated with evidence; liability cannot be imposed on individuals who were neither directors nor officers.\n•\nThe proceedings for imposing penalties must align with the existing legal framework; fines cannot be imposed under the repealed Companies Act of 1913.\n•\nThe High Court's jurisdiction is limited in resolving complex disputes, which should instead be settled through a regular suit.\nCitations/References:\n•\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Sections 74, 152, 262, 272, 290\n•\nCompanies Act (VII of 1913) - Section 108", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=74", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.39 of 1985, decision dated: 6-04-1987, hearing DATE : 10-03-1987", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Manzoor Hussain Bokhari and Rashid Murtaza Qureshi for Appellant.\nMuhammad Ghani and Sh. Ghulam Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1, 9 to 25.\nMuhammad Akram Khawaja for Respondents Nos. 2 to 8.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD\nVS \nSHAUKAT SOAP FACTORY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 845 = 2015 SLD 845 = 2015 PTD 2072", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011=8,23,22,24B,43,44,47,57,63,68,76,First Schedule,Second ScheduleConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=62", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-4326 of 2012 and D-3035, 4090, 4091, 4118 and 4119 of 2014, decision dated: 11-03-2015", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hyder Ali Khan and Sami-ur-Rehman for Petitioners (in C.P. No. D-4326 of 2012).\nIjaz Ahmed Shirazi for the Petitioners (in C.P. No. D-3035 of 2014). \nTaimur Mirza for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.D-4090, 4118 and 4119 of 2014).\nFaisal Siddiqui and Muhammad Vawda for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 along with Zamir Khalid, Zain-ul-Abdin, Deputy Commissioners and Atif-ud-Din, Consultant, S.R.B. Saifuuah, A.A.G.\nDilawar Hussain, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD. THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY AND OTHERS \nVS\nPROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 441 = 2005 SLD 441 = 2005 PLD 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), Section 5, Schedule\nEx Parte Decree Against a Defendant in Jail\nConclusion: If a defendant is in jail during the passing of an ex parte decree, they must be informed through the Superintendent of Jail. Failure to do so renders the decree a nullity and void for lack of jurisdiction. Subsequent proceedings are without legal effect. The High Court declared the ex parte decree invalid and ordered the suit to be decided after a proper hearing. Interim maintenance for minors was set at Rs. 1200 per month until the final decision.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.74 and 196 of 2004, decision dated: 2-11-2004, hearing DATE : 27-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nAKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qahir Shah for Petitioner. \nIftikhar-ul-Haq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUJTABA\nVS\nRAZIA AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 257 = 1994 SLD 257 = 1994 PLD 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of Statutes\nIslamic Principles in Statutory Interpretation\nConclusion: When multiple interpretations of a statute are possible, the one consistent with Islamic principles and advancing the constitutional Principles of Policy should be adopted.\nCitation/Reference: Progress of Pakistan Co. Ltd. v. Registrar, PLD 1958 Lah. 887.\n________________________________________\n(b) Zakat and Ushr Ordinance (XVIII of 1980), Preamble & Section 2(xv)\nInterpretation in Line with Qur'an and Sunnah\nConclusion: Interpretation of the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance must follow Islamic injunctions and concepts from Qur'an, Sunnah, and Muslim jurists.\n________________________________________\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes\nUse of Means in Definitions\nConclusion: When means is used in definitions, it indicates an exhaustive definition, allowing no additional interpretations.\n________________________________________\n(d) Interpretation of Statutes\nUse of Include in Definitions\nConclusion: The term include expands the meaning of statutory words or phrases beyond their ordinary scope, making definitions enumerative rather than exhaustive.\n________________________________________\n(e) Zakat and Ushr Ordinance (XVIII of 1980), Section 2(xxiii)\nDefinition of Sahib-e-Nisab \nConclusion:\n•\nThe term Sahib-e-Nisab includes individuals or entities owning assets subject to Zakat.\n•\nOmission of a company, corporation, or association from the exclusion list in clauses (a) to (n) does not automatically place it within the term’s ambit.\n•\nEntities owned primarily by Muslim citizens are subject to Zakat unless explicitly exempted.\n•\nInvestments in NIT Units are exempt from compulsory Zakat deductions as their profit accrues to individual depositors liable for Zakat.\nCitation/Reference: Fiqh-uz-Zakat, Vol. I, pp. 529-531.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "ADMINISTRATION, ISLAMABAD and 3 others---Respondents Writ Petition No.3124 of 1990, decision dated: 21st December, 1993. dates of hearing: 2nd to 4th, 8th to 12th, 15th May and 8-12-1993", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL-UR-RELMAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Shaikh for Petitioner.\nAftab Iqbal Ch., Dy. Attorney-General for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nMuhammad Asif Jan for Respondent No. 3.\nDr. Riaz-ul-Hassan. Gillani Amicus curiae.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE BANK OF PUNJAB\nVS \nADMINISTRATOR GENERAL, CENTRAL ZAKAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 268 = 1992 SLD 268 = 1992 PLD 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Section 161(1), Proviso (a)\nVoting by Proxy in Non-Share Capital Companies\nConclusion: Proviso (a) of Section 161(1) only excludes the statutory right to vote by proxy in companies without share capital. However, if such voting rights are granted by the Articles of Association, they remain unaffected by the proviso.\n________________________________________\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\nProviso Interpretation\nConclusion: A proviso should be interpreted strictly and within the context of the main provision to which it relates.\n________________________________________\n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2\nTemporary Injunction\nConclusion: A temporary injunction cannot be granted unless the petitioner establishes a prima facie case. If such a case is not disclosed, considerations of balance of convenience or irreparable loss are unnecessary.\n________________________________________", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=161", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.3 of 1992, decision dated: 10-02-1992", + "Judge Name:": "G.H. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hyder Raza Naqvi for Petitioner. \nH.A. Rehmani for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUZAFFAR POULTRY FARM\nVS\nPAKISTAN POULTRY ASSOCIATION, SINDH ZONE, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 447 = 1995 SLD 447 = 1995 PLD 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 247(3)\nExtension of Laws to Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA)\nConclusion: Laws or acts of the Provincial Assembly can only be extended to PATA through an independent notification by the Governor under Article 247(3). In the absence of such notification, these laws do not apply.\n________________________________________\n(b) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), Section 17\nApplicability to Lunatics\nConclusion: Section 17 applies to minors and safeguards their welfare and property until they reach majority (21 years). It is not applicable to lunatics or individuals beyond the age of majority.\n________________________________________\n(c) Lunacy Act (IV of 1912), Section 71\nGuardian Appointment for Lunatics\nConclusion: The appointment of a guardian for a lunatic falls under the jurisdiction of the District Judge. Orders made by a Civil Court for such appointments are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.30 of 1993, decision dated: 29-09-1994, hearing DATE : 15-09-1994", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. KHALIDA RACHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaki-ud-Din for Appellant. \nSardar Nawaz Khan for Respondents No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "SADBAR KHAN\nVS \nAMIR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 442 = 2005 SLD 442 = 2005 SCMR 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Islamic Law\nInheritance of Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance\nConclusion: Amounts from the Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance are considered the deceased’s Tarka (inheritance) and must be distributed among legal heirs as per Shariah. A nominee cannot claim exclusive ownership beyond their share.\nCitation/Reference: Wafaqi Hakomat-e-Pakistan v. Awamunas, PLD 1991 SC 731.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2573-L of 2003, decision dated: 30-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nTASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Nabi Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. \nAbdul Rauf Farooqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. AMEERAN KHATOON\nVS \nMST. SHAMIM AKHTAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 36 = 1980 SLD 36 = 1980 CLC 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2\nTemporary Injunction in Property Management Disputes\nConclusion: Disturbing the petitioner, who had taken over as a property manager and was collecting rents from tenants, was deemed infeasible at the interim stage, and injunction relief was granted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 1151 of 1979, decision dated: 6-11-1979, hearing DATE : 4-11-1979", + "Judge Name:": "MUNAWWAR ELAHEE RANA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Phillip E. William for Petitioner. \nAsadullah Bajwa for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ELDER SARDAR FER.OZ KHAN\nVS \nTHE SYNOD OF THE UNITED PRESPHYTERIAN CHURCH OF PAKISTAN, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 269 = 1992 SLD 269 = (1992) 65 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income-Tax Act, 1961, Section 40A(7) & Section 256\nGratuity Payments and Disallowances\nConclusion: The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the disallowance of excess gratuity payments made by the assessee. The question of law on this issue was validly raised for reference.\n(b) Income-Tax Act, 1961, Section 143\nAdditions Due to Fall in Gross Profit Rate\nConclusion: Without rejecting the books of account, the claim of inflated expenses could not be sustained. The issue of inflated expenditure was deemed a factual matter and not a question of law.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2),40A(7)(b)(ii),37", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference Application No. 157 of 1982, decision dated: 28-5-1991", + "Judge Name:": "S N. BHARGAVA, JUSTICE\nMRS. MOHINI KAPUR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "V.K. Singhal for the Applicant. \nRajesh Balia for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nMAHARAJA SHREE UMED MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 292 = 1992 SLD 292 = (1992) 65 TAX 205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Act, 1922, Section 28(I-A)\nPenalty and Annulment of Assessment\nConclusion: The Tribunal annulled the penalty imposed after ex-parte assessment was set aside. Since the original assessment order ceased to exist upon annulment, the penalty order was also invalid.\nCitation/Reference: CIT Rawalpindi v. Begum Mumtaz Jamal (1976) 33 Tax 288.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),145Income Tax Act, 1922=28(1A),22(4),23(4),66(1),46(1),29", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 20 of 1980, decision dated: 24-2-1991", + "Judge Name:": "M. MAHBOOB AHMAD. CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMALIK MUHAMMAD QAYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Ishaq, Advocate, for the Petitioner.\nNemo for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD\nVS\nCHIEF GLASS HOUSE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 293 = 1992 SLD 293 = (1992) 65 TAX 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Ordinance, 1979, Section 136\nReference to High Court Post Remand\nConclusion: As the Tribunal remanded the case to the Income-Tax Officer without deciding on legal or factual questions, no valid question of law arose for reference to the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=136(2),65,13(i)(aa),136(1)", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 33 of 1988, decision dated: 12-3-1991", + "Judge Name:": "M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nMALIK MOHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar Bhatti, Advocate, Faisalabad, for the Petitioner. \nCh. Huhammad Ishaq, Advocate, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. ABDUR RAUF HAMID\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 294 = 1992 SLD 294 = (1992) 65 TAX 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act, 1951, Section 7\nExemption for Conduit Pipes\nConclusion: Conduit pipes were not entitled to exemption from sales tax as no evidence was provided to show they were specifically adapted for use with machinery.\nCitation/Reference: CST Rawalpindi v. Ejaz Oil and Conduit Pipe Mills, (1980) 42 Tax 88.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=17(1)", + "Case #": "Tax Reference No; 27 of 1977, decision dated: 6-5-1991", + "Judge Name:": "M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Advocate, for the petitioner, Malik Rehmat Khan Awan, Advocate, for the respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, RAWALPINDI\nVS\nEJAZ -OIL & CONDUIT PIPE MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 295 = 1992 SLD 295 = (1992) 65 TAX 352 = (1991) 190 ITR 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Income-Tax Act, 1961, Section 11 & Section 10(1)\nAllocation of Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Income in Trusts\nConclusion: In the absence of separate accounts, the ITO was justified in proportionally allocating expenditures between agricultural and non-agricultural income for determining charitable applications. Agricultural income could not be excluded outright.\nCitation/Reference: Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust v. CIT, 163 ITR 832.", + "Court Name:": "Allahabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),11(1),10(1),60,61,62,63,139", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 747 of 1978, decision dated: 18-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": "B.P., JEEVAN REDDY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nV.N. MEHROTRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\nPANCHAYATI AKHARA NIRMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 145 = 1960 SLD 145 = 1960 PLD 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Contempt of Court\nActions Constituting Contempt\nConclusion: Contempt proceedings can only be initiated against individuals whose actions undermine the dignity of the judiciary or interfere with justice. If a commissioner appointed under Order XXVI of the CPC is unable to execute their commission due to valid reasons and without malicious intent, such conduct does not qualify as contempt. The judiciary recognizes that unintentional failures, without a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice, do not meet the threshold for contempt.\n________________________________________\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXVI, Rule 15\nFixation of Commission Fees\nConclusion: The court, when determining the fees for a commission, must assess the professional status and position of the person appointed. Setting an unreasonably low fee may result in the commissioner declining to perform the duties, which would not be their fault. Courts should ensure that the compensation offered reflects the complexity and responsibility of the task.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=15", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 40 of 1960, decision dated: 24-03-1960", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAFI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghias Muhammad for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MISS R. S. QARI \nVS \nNASIR SHAH, AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 202 = 2007 SLD 202 = 2007 PLJ 984", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, Section 10(4)\nReconciliation in Khula Cases\nConclusion: The Family Court’s failure to conduct reconciliation proceedings as mandated under Section 10(4) rendered the ex-parte decree unlawful. Despite granting the khula, the court should have attempted reconciliation between the spouses before passing the decree. The absence of reconciliation proceedings violated the procedural spirit of the law. Consequently, the suit was deemed pending and remanded for fresh pre-trial reconciliation. Proper adherence to legal procedure ensures fairness in matrimonial disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 228 of 2006, decided on 14.2.2007. DATE of hearing: 14.2.2007.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Abdul Ghafar Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.\nRespondent No. 1 already exparte.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. ALTAF AHMED\nVS\nMST. NEELOFAR NAZNEEN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 203 = 2007 SLD 203 = 2007 PLJ 990", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Section 115\nCompensation for Wrongful Incarceration\nConclusion: The petitioner’s liberty, a fundamental right, was unjustly curtailed due to wrongful imprisonment. Such deprivation entitles the petitioner to compensation. Courts recognize that incarceration without fault or due cause infringes on a person’s inherent right to freedom, which is a cornerstone of justice. The petitioner’s damages were acknowledged as a direct consequence of unwarranted legal action.\n(b) Words and Phrases: Malice \nDefinition: In legal terms, malice refers to an intentional act done with wrongful intent, devoid of any lawful justification. It involves a deliberate decision to harm or cause injury, either through direct action or negligence. This definition extends beyond ill-will to include deliberate violations of law without reasonable cause.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 52 of 2007, heard on 30.3.2007. DATE of hearing: 30.3.2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate for Petitioner.\nMr. Ijaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SANAULLAH\nVS\nMST. INAYAT BIBI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 204 = 2007 SLD 204 = 2007 PLJ 1040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Punjab Local Government Election Rules, 2005, Rules 67(3) & 72, CPC Order VI, Rule 15, and Order VII, Rule 11\nElection Petition Verification\nConclusion: The petitioners, returned as Nazim and Naib Nazim, challenged the respondent’s election petition, citing procedural lapses in verification. However, the respondent’s petition included an affidavit duly attested by an Oath Commissioner, verifying the claims. The court held that the petitioners’ challenge was an attempt to exploit technicalities, which contradicted the principles of substantive justice. The petition for rejection was dismissed as lacking merit.\n(b) Words and Phrases: Schedule and Annexure \nConclusion: Documents submitted with an election petition do not fall under the legal definitions of schedule or annexure unless explicitly categorized as such. This distinction is crucial for procedural compliance in election matters.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 1714 of 2006, decided on 18.1.2007. DATE of hearing: 2.11.2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Muhammad Khalid Sajjad Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.\nCh. Abdul Salam, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIRZA ILYAS BAIG AND ANOTHER\nVS\nDISTT. & SESSIONS JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH/ELECTION TRIBUNAL, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 205 = 2007 SLD 205 = 2007 PLJ 999", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, Section 3(38); Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, Section 2(f)\nDefinition of Rent and Rented Land \nConclusion: Rent refers to payments lawfully made for land leased for business or trade purposes. The petitioners’ occupancy was authorized under a lawful arrangement but did not involve the creation of a tenancy. Consequently, the payments made were not classified as rent but as fines or fees under Teh Bazari. The court upheld that the petitioners were licensees, not tenants, and their occupancy did not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 1065/D of 1992, heard on 12.7.2007. DATE of hearing: 12.2.2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Hamid-ud-Din Kasuri and Mr. M. Iqbal Cheema, Advocates for Petitioners.\nKhawaja Muhammad Afzal and Mr. Muhammad Usman Arif, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF ETC.\nVS\nMETROPOLITAN CORPORATION, LAHORE THROUGH ITS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 337 = 1979 SLD 337 = 1979 SCMR 62", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Act (VIII of 1913), Sections 137(1), (5), (6) & 138\nInvestigation into Company Affairs\nConclusion: Upon receiving complaints, the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies may request explanations and documents from a company. If unsatisfactory responses are received, the Registrar can report the matter to the Federal Government, which may appoint inspectors for further investigation. This process complies with Section 137(5), and no additional notices or hearings are required before proceeding.\n(b) Companies Act (VIII of 1913), Section 137(6)\nFraudulent Business Practices\nConclusion: Section 137(6) applies only to cases involving fraud against creditors or other parties. In its absence, actions under Section 137(5) are still permissible, allowing the Registrar to investigate non-fraudulent but concerning issues.\n(c) Companies Act (VIII of 1913)\nIndependence of Company Proceedings from Civil Litigation\nConclusion: Civil litigation does not bar proceedings under the Companies Act. The statutory mechanisms for company regulation operate independently of civil disputes", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=137", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 501 of 1978, decision dated: 28th September 1978", + "Judge Name:": "ANWARUL HAQ, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nNASIM HASSAN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Abdus Salam, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. \nZia Mahmood Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAQAN INDUSTRIES LTD.\nVS \nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN ETC." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 413 = 2003 SLD 413 = 2003 PTD 577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), Ss. 2(2), 2(9), 3, 17-B & 21\nCharge of Wealth Tax – Whether Trusts are Companies\nKey Conclusion: A trust is not classified as a company under the Wealth Tax Act, 1963. While Section 2(2) allows for undefined terms in the Wealth Tax Act to adopt definitions from the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, this does not extend to include trusts as companies under Section 2(9) of the Wealth Tax Act. A trust's inclusion under the Income Tax Ordinance is a separate legal construct and does not impose liability under the Wealth Tax Act. Consequently, a trust cannot be charged with wealth tax.\n________________________________________\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\nKey Principle: Definitions provided in one statute are applicable only within that statute's framework unless explicitly incorporated into another statute through legislative means. Definitions are not automatically transferable across laws.\n________________________________________\n(c) Taxing Statutes\nKey Principle: Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, based solely on their plain language. Courts cannot assume tax liability or introduce implied meanings to the provisions. Only the explicit terms of the statute are enforceable.\n________________________________________\n(d) Fiscal Statutes\nKey Principle: Taxes can only be levied through clear, unambiguous legislative language. Any interpretation that expands liability beyond the explicit words of the law is impermissible.\nCited Cases:\n1.\nGovernment of Pakistan v. Messrs Hashwani Ltd., PLD 1990 SC 68\n2.\nPakistan Textile Mills Owners Association v. Administrator of Karachi, PLD 1963 SC 137\n3.\nCape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioner, (1921) 1 KB 65", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=2(2),2(9),3,17B,21Companies Ordinance, 1984=2(7)Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=2(16)(bb)", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeals Nos. 80, 81, 82 and 172 of 2002, decision dated: 12-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi for Appellant. \nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANIESII, KARACHI \nVS \nMESSRS MUHAMMAD USMAN HAJRABAI TRUST IMPERIAL COURTS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 67 = 2008 SLD 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Section 158BFA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Block Assessment in Search Cases\nLevy of Interest and Penalty\nKey Conclusion: Section 158BFA(2) of the Income Tax Act, which governs penalties in block assessments, is directory rather than mandatory. The provision allows discretionary authority for imposing penalties, supported by the section's language and provisos. The decision to impose penalties is not automatic and must consider the facts and reasons stated in the assessment order.\nKey Case Law:\n1.\nCIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [1992] 196 ITR 149 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2008, JULY 2, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "K.U. CHANDIWAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX*\nVS\nDODSAL LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 512 = 1998 SLD 512 = 1998 PTD 2716 = (1998) 230 ITR 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Act, Section 10(20)\nDefinition of Local Authority \nKey Conclusion: A State Forest Corporation does not qualify as a local authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961. To meet the definition, the entity must (1) have a legal and corporate identity, (2) operate in a defined area, (3) be partially elected by local residents, (4) perform civic or governmental duties, and (5) raise funds through levies or taxes. The State Forest Corporation lacks these attributes, rendering it ineligible for tax exemptions under this provision.\n(b) Income Tax Act, Section 11 – Exemptions for Charitable Purposes\nKey Conclusion: The claim for exemption based on charitable purposes must be presented before income tax authorities. The High Court cannot grant such exemptions during writ proceedings without factual investigation by the appropriate tax authorities.\n(c) Writ Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedies\nKey Principle: Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised where effective alternative remedies are available. The High Court's decision to entertain the writ petition was inappropriate. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the assessing authorities to decide on exemptions under Section 11.\nCited Cases:\n1.\nUnion of India v. R.C. Jain, AIR 1981 SC 951\n2.\nCalcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT, (1996) 219 ITR 515 (SC).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "General Clauses Act, 1897=3", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 180 to 182 of 1989, decision dated: 2-03-1998", + "Judge Name:": "B. N. KIRPAL, JUSTICE\nA. P. MISRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ranbir Chandra, N.K. Aggarwal and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, for Appellant. \nS.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate (Sunil Gupta and H.K. Puri, Advocates with him) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax\nVS \nU.P. FOREST CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 513 = 1998 SLD 513 = 1998 PLD 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Finance Act (VII of 1992), Section 15 – Levy of Education Fee\nConstitutionality of Federal Education Fee\nKey Conclusion: The Federal Government's levy of education fees under the Finance Act, 1992, is unconstitutional. Education falls under the provincial domain, and federal legislation on this matter exceeds constitutional authority. Section 15 of the Finance Act, 1992, lacks a legislative basis and conflicts with the division of powers under the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. The absence of any parent law supporting the fee further invalidates the provision.\nKey Observations:\n•\nThe education fee did not constitute a special service for the companies it was imposed upon.\n•\nCompanies were already paying fees under provincial laws, such as the Workers’ Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972.\nCited Cases:\n1.\nSohail Textile Mill v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1991 SC 329\n2.\nSindh Glass Industries v. Chief Controller of Imports, 1990 CLC 638", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=Preamble", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 105 of 1976, 690, 691 of 1993, 168, 192, 276 of 1994 and 504 and 596 of 1996; decided on 31st July, 1997, hearing DATE : 3rd July, 1997", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, JUSTICE\nMRS. KHALIDA RACHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Mian Mohibullah Kakakhel and Qazi Muhammad Anwar for Petitioners. \nMursaleen Khan, Standing Counsel for the Federal Government. \nSaifur Rehman Kiyani and Eid Muhammad Khattak for the Central Board of Revenue/Customs Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAIF TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nVS \n--RespondentS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 152 = 1987 SLD 152 = 1987 CLC 1919", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Fraud\nDefinition and Burden of Proof:\nFraud is a mixed question of law and fact. The burden of proving fraud rests on the party alleging it, requiring clear and convincing evidence. Establishing fraud involves two steps:\n1.\nA factual determination of the alleged conduct.\n2.\nLegal interpretation to assess if the conduct constitutes fraud.\nMere selling of shares at a lower price than the market rate is insufficient to presume fraud unless collusion or fraudulent intent is established.\nCited Cases:\n1.\nAbdul Wahid v. Mst. Zamrut, PLD 1967 SC 153\n2.\nAhsan Ali v. District Judge, PLD 1969 SC 167\n________________________________________\n(b) Contract Act, Section 176\nNotice Requirement in Sale of Pledged Goods:\nA pledgee intending to sell pledged goods must provide reasonable notice to the pledgor. However, once notice is served, no additional notice is necessary at the time of the actual sale.\nCited Cases:\n1.\nUsman Malik v. Bank of Bahawalpur, PLD 1959 (W.P.) Kar. 725\n2.\nMessrs Continental Syndicate of Trade v. Lloyds Bank Ltd., PLD 1966 (W.P.) Kar. 556\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Ordinance (1984), Section 62(5)\nExemption for Scheduled Banks and Financial Institutions:\nScheduled banks and financial institutions are exempt from the restrictions in Section 62(1), which prohibits the sale of shares without the permission of the relevant authority.\n________________________________________\n(d) Companies Ordinance, Section 62 – Public Sale of Shares\nInterpretation:\nThe phrase “offer for sale to the public of 10% of shares” refers to such a sale being deemed as a prospectus. However, a sale of shares exceeding 10% of a company’s issued capital does not automatically qualify as an offer for sale to the public. Violations attract penalties under Section 66.\n________________________________________\n(e) Security and Exchange Ordinance (1969), Section 31\nDistinct Contracts:\nContracts between a bank and a debtor (creditor-debtor relationship) and those between the bank and share purchasers (seller-purchaser relationship) are distinct. Fraud alleged against a debtor does not affect bona fide purchasers who bought shares without notice of any defect.\n________________________________________\n(f) Civil Procedure Code (1908), Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2\nGrant of Interim Injunction:\nAn injunction that results in a one-sided benefit to the plaintiff and a significant loss to the defendant (e.g., millions of rupees) is inequitable. Absence of balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favor of the plaintiff precludes granting such an injunction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=62,62(2),62(5)Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=31Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2,151Contract Act, 1872=176", + "Case #": "Suit No. 428 of 1987, decision dated: 2-07-1987. dates of hearing: 9th, 29-06-and 2nd July,1987", + "Judge Name:": "TANZIL-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwer for Plaintiff.\nSajid Zahid for Defendant No. 1.\nA.H. Mirza for Defendant No. 2.\nMansoor Ahmed Khan for Defendants Nos. 3 to 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "A. HABIB AHMAD\nVS\nTHE HONG KONG B SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 259 = 1996 SLD 259 = 1996 PLD 543 = 1996 PTCL 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Right of Appeal Against Investigation Orders\nConsideration by Larger Bench:\nLeave to appeal was granted to address whether an order of the High Court could be appealed before a larger bench of the same court, rendering appeals to the Supreme Court inadmissible.\n________________________________________\n(b) Director Involvement in Investigations\nRights of Directors:\nThe appeal questioned whether excluding directors from company management during investigations, despite no specific allegations of wrongdoing, was appropriate.\n________________________________________\n(c) Suspension of Management\nFairness in Investigations:\nThe Company Judge’s rationale for suspending management to ensure proper investigations was challenged.\n________________________________________\n(d) Jurisdiction of the High Court\nOriginal Civil Jurisdiction:\nThe High Court exercises original jurisdiction in cases under the Companies Ordinance. Proceedings initiated as the court of first instance relate to civil rights and are adjudicated under statutory provisions.\n________________________________________\n(e) Applicability of Section 10(1), Companies Ordinance\nNo Winding-Up Order:\nSection 10(1) applies only in cases involving a company’s winding-up. Investigation orders by the Corporate Law Authority fall under Section 10(2).\n________________________________________\n(f) Appeals Against Orders of Company Judge\nAppeals Within the High Court:\nOrders under Section 292 of the Companies Ordinance are interlocutory and appealable before a two-judge bench of the High Court, not the Supreme Court.\nKey Cases:\n1.\nGokulchand D. Morarka v. Company Law Board, 44 Com. Cas. 173\n2.\nSunrise Textiles v. Mashreq Bank, PLD 1996 Lah. 1\n________________________________________\n(g) Definition of Original Civil Jurisdiction\nScope:\nOriginal jurisdiction includes proceedings initiated before a court as the trial court. This is distinct from appellate jurisdiction, which reviews lower court decisions.\nKey Observations:\n1.\nBlack’s Law Dictionary defines original civil jurisdiction as authority to try a case from inception.\n2.\nJurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance involves statutory original jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10(1),10(2),265(a)(ii),290&292Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 31 to 38 of 1995, heard on 28-01-1996. dates of hearing: 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 28-01-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, JUSTICE \nFAZAL KARIM, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JUSTICE\nMAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE\nPER SALEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. No. 31 of 1995).\nCh. Muhammad Farooq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ashtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate (with permission of the Court) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.32 to 38 of 1995).\nS. Jamshaid Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. I (in C.As. Nos. 31 to 34, 36, 37 of 1995 and for Respondent No. 3 in C.As. Nos. 35 and 38 of 1995).\nRaja Muhammad Bashir, Dy. A.G. and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 9 (in C.A. No. 38 of 1995).", + "Petitioner Name:": "BROTHER STEEL MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS\nVS\nMIAN ILYAS MIRAJ AND 14 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 260 = 1996 SLD 260 = 1996 PLD 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code, Order XVII, Rule 3\nNon-Appearance of Counsel:\nIf a party is granted adjournment to present arguments but fails to do so, the court may proceed under Order XVII, Rule 3, along with Section 107 of the CPC, to decide the case on merit.\n________________________________________\n(b) Arbitration Act (1940), Sections 8 & 9\nAppointment of Arbitrators:\nUnder Section 8, a party must serve notice to the opposing party to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator. Without court approval, the arbitrator's appointment is invalid. In contrast, Section 9 permits direct appointment without court involvement, provided procedural requirements are met.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=107", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.70 of 1995, decision dated: 5-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nAGHA SAIF-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant.\nIqbal Kazi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AKBAR HUSSAIN\nVS \nWADERO MUHAMMAD TAYYAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 448 = 1995 SLD 448 = 1995 PLD 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (1984), Section 10\nAppeals to the Supreme Court for Winding Up Orders:\nAn appeal against any decision or order of a court under the Companies Ordinance lies with the Supreme Court if:\n1.\nThe company ordered to be wound up has a paid-up share capital of not less than one million rupees, or\n2.\nThe company has no share capital, provided leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court.\nSection 10(2) specifies that appeals must follow the same manner and conditions as appeals from other court decisions.\nKey References:\n1.\n1993 SCMR 80\n2.\nPLD 1991 Lahore 467\n________________________________________\n(b) Dismissal of Winding Up Petition\nAppeal Jurisdiction:\nWhere a company judge dismisses a winding-up petition, the case falls under Section 10(2). In such instances, the appeal lies with the Supreme Court, not with a High Court division bench.\n________________________________________\n(c) Law Reforms Ordinance (1972), Section 3\nIntra-Court Appeals Against Company Judge Orders:\nJurisdiction under the Companies Ordinance is statutory and not classified as original civil jurisdiction. Consequently, intra-court appeals under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance are not applicable for company judge decisions under the Companies Ordinance.\nKey References:\n1.\nPLD 1988 Peshawar 19\n2.\nPLD 1980 Lahore 69\n________________________________________\n(d) Appeals to High Court Against Interlocutory Orders\nAn interlocutory order made by a company judge under Section 292 of the Companies Ordinance can be appealed to a division bench of the High Court. However, if the judge refuses to wind up the company, the appeal must be made to the Supreme Court under Section 10(2).", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.l of 1992, decision dated: 25-08-1994, hearing DATE : 25-05-1994", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR-UL-MULK MENGAL, JUSTICE \nJAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.I. Chundrigar and Muhammad Riaz Ahmed for Appellants.\nBasharatullah for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\nM/S. KAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 11 = 1993 SLD 11 = 1993 PLD 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) FIR and Narrative of Incident\nThe FIR must include a narrative of the incident but need not explain how the informant came to be present at the crime scene. Omissions in such details do not undermine the FIR’s credibility.\nKey Reference:\nLiaqat Ali v. The State (1981 SCMR 1130)\n________________________________________\n(b) Credibility of Witnesses\nThe relationship between witnesses and the deceased does not automatically discredit their testimony, especially when no motive to falsely implicate the accused exists. The absence of delay in filing the FIR further strengthens its reliability.\n________________________________________\n(c) Substitution of Accused in Single-Accused Cases\nSubstitution of accused is exceedingly rare when there is only one accused.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=154", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1991, decision dated: 2-03-1993, hearing DATE : 22-11-1992", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JUSTICE \nJALAL-UD-DIN AKBAR, JEE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Muhammad Asif for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAUKAT JAVAID\nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 21 = 1971 SLD 21 = 1971 SCMR 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Reappraisal of Evidence\nCourts that properly assess all evidence and follow established rules do not warrant re-examination in special jurisdictions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-6 of 1970, decision dated: 17th August 1970.", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE\nWAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azizullah Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KAIM\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 22 = 1971 SLD 22 = 1971 SCMR 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Landlord-Tenant Relationship in Compromises\nA tenant’s agreement to pay rent during a pending appeal does not establish a landlord-tenant relationship under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (1959). The landlord retains the right to evict.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-47 of 1970; decided on 20th August 1970.", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSALAHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mujahid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nKishanchand, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HYDERABAD MEMON ANJUMAN\nVS\nDIVAN KEWALRAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 23 = 1971 SLD 23 = 1971 SCMR 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Discrepancy Between Medical and Witness Evidence\nMinor discrepancies between medical evidence and witness testimony (e.g., the weapon used) are expected in chaotic situations like melees. Proper conviction based on well-appreciated evidence will not be overturned.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-7 of 1970, decision dated: 17th August 1970", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE\nWAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azizullah Shaikh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mohammad Ibrahim Memon, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MOHAMMAD URIS AND 5 OTHERS\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 24 = 1971 SLD 24 = 1971 SCMR 96", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal of Leave for Special Jurisdiction\nLeave to appeal in criminal matters based solely on questions of evidence reappraisal will be denied.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-19 of 1970, decision dated: 17th August 1970.", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE\nWAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jamal-ud-Din H. Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mohammad Ibrahim Memon, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAH MUHAMMAD\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 25 = 1971 SLD 25 = 1971 SCMR 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Jurisdiction and Necessary Parties\nIn writ proceedings under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution, necessary parties include those adversely affected by quashing an order. Failure to include such parties renders any order ineffective.\nKey Reference:\nPLD 1970 SC 1", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 186 of 1970, ant decided on 21-10-1970.", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nSAJJAD AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nAzim-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3(i) to 3(vi).\nNemo for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 26 = 1971 SLD 26 = 1971 SCMR 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Recognition by Witnesses in Dacoity Cases\nRecognition of the accused by a reliable witness, supported by the deceased’s dying declaration, is sufficient to convict. Acquittal of co-accused does not discredit such evidence if independently corroborated.\n(b) Dying Declarations\nA dying declaration carries significant weight due to its frankness and proximity to death.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 22-D of 1970, decision dated: 23rd June 1970.", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSALAHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir-ud-Din Chowdhury, Attorney Supreme Court instructed by S. M. Huq, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WASIBULLAH\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 27 = 1971 SLD 27 = 1971 SCMR 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Evidence Review in Civil Matters\nThe Supreme Court does not interfere with the High Court’s findings unless cogent reasons exist.\n(b) Damages for Breach of Contract\nDamages are assessed based on specific criteria, not on market price alone.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-38 of 1970, decision dated: 20th August 1970.", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSALAHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naim-ud-Din, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nK. A. Ghani, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLONY WOOLLEN MILLS\nVS\nESMAIL ABDUL SATTAR & BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 28 = 1971 SLD 28 = 1971 SCMR 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Bribery and Subsequent Defense\nFailure to provide an immediate explanation for marked currency notes found in possession undermines the accused’s defense.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-15 of 1970, decision dated: 17th August 1970.", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE\nWAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azizullah Shakih, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. I.\nMemon, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM ALI\nVS\n--RespondentS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 29 = 1971 SLD 29 = 1971 SCMR 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail and Acquittal Appeals\nThe presence of credible eyewitnesses and immediate reporting of incidents support refusal of bail in acquittal appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-14 of 1970, decision dated: 20th August 1970.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE\nWAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mujahid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record on behalf of Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BADSHA KHAN\nVS\n--RespondentS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 30 = 1971 SLD 30 = 1971 SCMR 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Receiver Appointment in Land Disputes\nLong-standing possession by appellants as allottees negates the need for a receiver. However, appellants are restrained from encumbering the property during litigation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-166 of 1968, decision dated: 21st August 1970.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE\nWAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. A. Ghani, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nS. M. Hanif Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS\n VS\nDHARMUMAL AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 181 = 1984 SLD 181 = 1984 PLD 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Second Application After Dismissal of First in Default\nDismissal of a first application in default does not bar a second application unless adjudicated on merits. Constructive res judicata does not apply in such cases.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 157 of 1977, heard on 18-03-1984", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Sami Hayat for Appellant. Maid Ali Khan for Kh. Muhammad Farooq for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. \nNemo for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Muhammad Hussain Naqashbandi for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN TIWANA \nVS \nMST. SADEEQA BEGUM AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 115 = 1982 SLD 115 = 1982 CLC 2575", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)\nSection 13(2)(vi) and Section 13(5-B): Compromise in Ejectment Proceedings\n•\nFacts: A tenant agreed outside the court to vacate the premises within 30 days in exchange for the landlord providing a room in a newly constructed house. The Rent Controller recorded the compromise and passed an order based on it. The tenant failed to vacate, leading to the landlord obtaining possession through execution. The tenant subsequently filed an application under Section 13(5-B).\n•\nHeld: The Rent Controller’s order provided a legal framework for the compromise but could not be construed as an order under Section 13(2)(vi). Consequently, an application under Section 13(5-B) was incompetent.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)=13", + "Case #": "First Rent Appeal No. 249 of 1982, decision dated: 8-06-1982, hearing DATE : 1st June, 1982", + "Judge Name:": "MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. H. Rizvi for Appellant. \nFarman Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PHOOL MUHAMMAD \nVS\nABDUL GHAFFAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 18 = 1988 SLD 18 = 1988 CLC 2183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Section 405\nDissolution of Companies: Preferential Rights of the Government\n•\nKey Principle:\nDebts owed to the Federal Government must be paid before all other debts during the dissolution of a company.\n•\nExample Case: The Income Tax Recovery Officer has priority over other creditors in recovering tax dues from a dissolved company.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=405", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.19 of 1978, decision dated: 26-03-1985", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Azam for petitioner.\nRespondent in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1968 15 = 1968 SLD 15 = 1968 PLD 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Act (VII of 1913), Sections 2(2) & 254\nDefinition of Company and Joint Stock Companies:\n1.\nCompany Defined:\nA company refers to entities formed and registered under the Companies Act. However, not every company qualifies as a joint-stock company.\n2.\nJoint-Stock Company:\nMust have permanent or fixed capital.\nExample: A cooperative society under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925) is not a company but a corporation.\n________________________________________\n(b) Bombay Co-operative Societies Act (1925), Section 68\nThis section is relevant when assessing whether the Companies Act (1913) applies to cooperative societies but has limited relevance to the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (1957).\n________________________________________\n(c) Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (1957), Section 22\nAn order by the Custodian in determining a society’s evacuee status must be specific, not general or abstract, to be binding.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=2", + "Case #": "Petition No. 614 of 1963, decision dated: 22nd May 1967, hearing DATE : 5th May 1967", + "Judge Name:": "QADEERUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE \nA. S. FARUQUI, JUSTICE\nS. A. RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nFAZLE-AKBAR, JUSTICE\nB. Z. KAIKAUS, JUSTICE\nHAMOODUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faiz Muhammad Soomro for Petitioner. \nSayeed A. Shaikh for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. \nZaheer-ud-Din for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHUDABADI AMIL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE BANK AND ASSOCIATION LTD., HYDERABAD (IN LIQUIDATION)\nVS \nCUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTY (JUDICIAL), WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1965 25 = 1965 SLD 25 = 1965 PLD 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Article 58\nLeave to Appeal Regarding Deputy Commissioner’s Reference\n•\nFacts:\nA Commissioner directed a Deputy Commissioner to refer a case to a Council of Elders under Section 11 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR). The Deputy Commissioner issued the order after the FCR had ceased to apply in the area.\n•\nIssue:\nWhether the Deputy Commissioner’s reference was valid.\n•\nHeld:\nLeave to appeal was granted to examine whether:\n1.\nThe Commissioner’s direction was binding.\n2.\nThe Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to act after the FCR’s repeal.\n________________________________________\n(b) Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901), Section 11\n1.\nAuthority of the Commissioner:\nThe Commissioner can only direct the Deputy Commissioner to refer a case to the Council of Elders. The reference itself must be made by the Deputy Commissioner.\n2.\nRepeal of FCR:\nIf the FCR is repealed before the Deputy Commissioner’s reference, the reference is invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)=11", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-53 of 1964, decision dated: 8th March 1965", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Brohi Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Saiyed M. Sadiq Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ghulam Ali Memon Attorney for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "(1) THE COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR DIVISION, AND (2) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JACOBABAD\nVS \nMUHAMMAD NAKIFO AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 146 = 1960 SLD 146 = 1960 PLD 541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Writ Jurisdiction and Disputed Facts\nWhen disputes require fact-finding or evidence recording, they cannot be resolved solely based on affidavits under writ jurisdiction.\n________________________________________\n(b) Company Domicile\nA company’s domicile remains constant throughout its existence. The Registrar of Companies lacks authority to change a company’s domicile, especially under ministerial directives.\n________________________________________\n(d) Registrar’s Actions Under Writ Jurisdiction\n1.\nThe Registrar of Companies performs quasi-judicial functions and is subject to writ jurisdiction.\n2.\nImproper registration or altering a company’s status based on external directives can be challenged via mandamus.\nKey Reference:\nRex v. Registrar of Companies (1912)\n________________________________________\n(f) Laches in Writs\nDelay in filing a writ petition is not always fatal. The court evaluates whether the petitioner “slept over their rights.”", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions No. 6, 7 and 8 of 1960, decision dated: 29th February 1960, dates of hearing : 19th, 22nd and 23rd February 1960", + "Judge Name:": "AKBAR AND ASIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asrarul Hossain and Md. Nurul Huq for Petitioners in all three Petitions. \nA. S. Chowdhury and Shahab-ud-Din Ahmad for Respondent 1 in all three Petitions. \nB. A. Siddiky, Advocate-General and K. M. Subhan for Respondent 2 in all three Petition. \nH. S. Suhrawardy, H. H. Chowdhury, S.R. Pal, Nurul Amin and Ahmadur Rahman Khan for Respondent 3 in all three Petitions.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUR RAB CHOUDHURY\nVS \nREGISTRAR OF JOINT STOCK COMPANIES AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2017 2819 = 2017 SLD 2819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVUTFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7A(2),38,72BSales Tax Special Procedure Rules, 2007=58A,58B,58C,58D,58E,58E(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=98(2),199", + "Case #": "W.P No. 30492 of 2014, Order dated: 27-12-2017, hearing DATE : 15-12-2017", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondents by: M/s Kausar Parveen, Shahid Usman, Liaqat Ali Ch., Imran Rasool, Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema and Tahir Butt, Advocates.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAHID SALEEM \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1956 2 = 1956 SLD 2 = 1956 PLD 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), Section 57(3)\nKey Principle:\nNo decision regarding an application for a permit under Section 57 can be made until a minimum period of 30 days has elapsed from the date the application was published.\n________________________________________\nExplanation:\nSection 57(3) establishes a procedural safeguard to ensure adequate time for stakeholders (such as existing permit holders, the public, and relevant authorities) to submit objections or make representations regarding the application.\n1.\nPurpose:\nTo ensure transparency and provide a reasonable opportunity for anyone potentially affected by the granting of a permit to voice concerns or objections.\n2.\nNon-Compliance:\nAny decision made before the expiration of this 30-day period would be deemed procedurally flawed and could be challenged for non-compliance with statutory requirements.\nPractical Implications:\nAuthorities must strictly adhere to this 30-day period, and applicants or affected parties should monitor the timeline to ensure procedural compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Motor Vehicles Act, 1939=57", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 117 of 1954-55, decision dated: 17th January 1956, from the decision of R. T. A., Multan, dated 24th July 1955", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR AHMAD, MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Abdur Rahim for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE MULTAN TRANSPORT CO., MULTAN \nVS \nMALIK BUS SERVICE MULTAN, & R. T. A. MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1951 5 = 1951 SLD 5 = 1951 PLD 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Pakistani Courts Over Foreign Companies Post-Partition\nDetails: This case addressed the issue of whether companies, registered under the Indian Companies Act of 1913, with their registered office located in India before the partition of India and Pakistan, would be considered unregistered companies or foreign companies in Pakistan. The key question was whether such companies could be subjected to jurisdiction in Pakistan for winding up purposes under the Companies Act (VII of 1913), as adapted by Pakistan's laws post-partition. Held: The Court ruled that companies which had their registered office in India immediately before the partition would not be considered existing companies under the Companies Act of 1913. They would be classified as unregistered companies and could be subject to winding-up orders in Pakistan if other conditions were met. The adaptation of the laws under the 1949 Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order clarified that such companies would fall under Section 270 of the Pakistan Companies Act. Citations:\n•\nCompanies Act (VII of 1913), S. 2-A, S. 270\n•\nAdaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949\n•\nA.I.R. 1937 Bom. 15\n•\nA.I.R. 1939 Mad. 318\n•\nA.I.R. 1949 All. 778\n________________________________________\nDefinition of Unregistered Company Under the Companies Act\nDetails: The case explored whether companies, whose registered office was located in India after the partition, should be regarded as unregistered companies in Pakistan. The Court analyzed the distinctions between the terms principal place of business and carrying on business and examined the scope of Section 270 of the Companies Act in relation to such companies. Held: The Court held that the term principal place of business would determine the forum for an unregistered company. In the case of a company that ceased to conduct business but maintained records in Lahore, the place where the records were kept would be considered its principal place of business in Pakistan. Citations:\n•\nCompanies Act (VII of 1913), S. 270\n•\n1944 L.R. 1 Ch. D. 404\n•\n1911 S.C. 612\n•\nA.I.R. 1948 All. 146\n•\nA.I.R. 1934 Lah. 882\n________________________________________\nRegistered Office Location and Company Incorporation Under the Companies Act\nDetails: This part of the case discussed whether a company that had its registered office outside Pakistan could still be considered as incorporated under the Indian Companies Act of 1913 for the purposes of Pakistani law post-partition. Held: The Court concluded that a company, whose registered office was outside Pakistan on the 15th of August 1947, could not be considered incorporated under the Companies Act of 1913 in Pakistan. The location of a company's registered office was determined to be the key factor in identifying the jurisdiction of incorporation. Companies with registered offices outside Pakistan were classified as unregistered in Pakistan. Citations:\n•\nPakistan (Adaptation of Existing Pakistan Laws) Order, 1947, Art. 4 (2)\n•\nCompanies Act (VII of 1913), S. 1(3)\n________________________________________\nRetrospective Effect of the Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949\nDetails: The case addressed whether the 1949 Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order had retrospective effect, covering business done by companies in Pakistan territory before the formation of Pakistan. Held: The Court confirmed that the Adaptation Order of 1949 was retrospective in nature and would apply to businesses done in Pakistan even before the establishment of Pakistan as a separate Dominion. This ruling helped clarify the applicability of the Companies Act and its adaptations to companies operating in Pakistan after the partition. Citations:\n•\nAdaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949, Art. 3(1)\n________________________________________\nLegality of the Adaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949\nDetails: The case also considered whether the Governor-General's authority to issue the Adaptation Order of 1949 was ultra vires under the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Held: The Court held that the Adaptation Order of 1949 was not ultra vires the Governor-General, as the Governor-General had been authorized by the Indian Independence Act, 1947, to make necessary adaptations. The extension of time by the Constituent Assembly to March 1949 was valid, and the Governor-General's actions were legally within his authority. Citations:\n•\nIndian Independence Act, 1947, S. 9\n•\nAdaptation of Central Acts and Ordinances Order, 1949", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=2", + "Case #": "Letters Patent Appeal No. 5 of 1949, decision dated: 6th March 1951", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF, JUSTICE\nS. A. RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khwaja Nazir Ahmad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PRESENT\nSHEIKH AMINUD DIN\nVS \nLAHORE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 449 = 1995 SLD 449 = 1995 PLD 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Ss. 265 & 9 - Application for appointment of Inspector for investigation of company's affairs\n•\nAppointment of Inspector under Companies Ordinance, 1984\n•\nDetails: The court, in proceedings under section 265, does not require a full-fledged inquiry or the recording of formal evidence. It must only determine prima facie, based on available material, whether an investigation by an Inspector is warranted. The discretion to decide on the investigation rests with the court, following the summary procedure of Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nHeld: The court does not need to conduct a trial or record formal evidence; it only needs to satisfy itself that an investigation is warranted.\n•\nCitations: Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal, AIR 1969 SC 707; Patrakola Tea Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 Cal. 406; Saw Mills and Industries Ltd., AIR 1962 Ker. 148.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S. 265 - Constitutional of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3) - Application for appointment of Inspector\n•\nLeave for appeal - Financial liabilities of the company\n•\nDetails: The correctness of financial liabilities, though disputed, was not countered by a certificate from the bank. No misreading or disregard of material by the High Court was found.\n•\nHeld: The High Court’s discretion to appoint an Inspector was upheld, and leave to appeal was refused.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S. 265 - Constitutional of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) - Locus Standi\n•\nLocus Standi for applying for Inspector appointment\n•\nDetails: The opposing party argued that the applicants, having received valuable consideration, were precluded from seeking an investigation. The High Court found that the Memoranda of Understanding were not enforceable.\n•\nHeld: The petitioners had the locus standi to apply for the appointment of an Inspector.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\n________________________________________\n(d) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S. 265 - Constitutional of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) - Petition for leave to appeal\n•\nPetition for leave to appeal - Disposal of multiple applications\n•\nDetails: The petitioners contended that the High Court disposed of the applications in a rolled-up manner, despite them involving independent companies.\n•\nHeld: No prejudice was shown from this method, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=265", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.93-L to 100-L of 1995, decision dated: 8-02-1995. dates of hearing: 7th and 8-02-1995", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA MAHMOOD MIRSA, JUSTICE\nIRSHAD HASAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners. Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Tenvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BROTHERSTEEL LTD. AND OTHERS\nVS\nMIAN MIRAJUDDIN AND 15 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 162 = 1990 SLD 162 = 1990 CLC 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S. 2(28) - Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XL, R.1 - Private limited company - Dispute between shareholders\n•\nRights between shareholders in a private limited company\n•\nDetails: Disputes between shareholders, particularly where one acts adversely to others, can lead to the appointment of an Interim Receiver. The necessary ingredients for such an equitable remedy include allegations of misconduct.\n•\nHeld: The rights of shareholders in a private company can lead to the appointment of a receiver.\n•\nCitations: Ladli Prasad v. Karnal Distillery Co., PLD 1965 SC 221.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - S. 2(28) - Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XL, R.1 - Private limited company - Appointment of Receiver\n•\nAppointment of Interim Receiver\n•\nDetails: The court found material indicating malfeasance in the conduct of the company’s affairs. An Interim Receiver was appointed to take over assets while the matter was pending.\n•\nHeld: The appointment of an Interim Receiver was deemed necessary to meet the ends of justice.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\n________________________________________\n(c) Practice and procedure - Civil and criminal proceedings\n•\nSimultaneous civil and criminal proceedings\n•\nDetails: Same facts can give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, as the objectives of each are distinct.\n•\nHeld: Civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2", + "Case #": "Civil Suit No.865 of 1987, decision dated: 31st August, 1989. dates of hearing: 26th February and 6-03-1989", + "Judge Name:": "WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Saeed Khan Ghori for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALRIADH PACKAGES (PVT.) LTD.\nVS \nAKHLAQ HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 112 = 1983 SLD 112 = 1983 PLD 589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Trade Organisations Ordinance (XLV of 1961) - S. 8(1)(a) & (b) - Amendment of Articles of Memorandum of Association\n•\nAmendment of Articles and Increase in Admission Fees\n•\nDetails: Government approved amendments in the Articles of Association, including the increase of admission fees, which was challenged. The court evaluated the powers under Section 8(1)(b) of the Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: The government’s direction to increase the admission fee was valid.\n•\nCitations: Chairman, East Pakistan Railway v. Abdul Majid Sardar, PLD 1966 SC 725.\n________________________________________\n(b) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) - Art. 9 - Trade Organisations Ordinance (XLV of 1961)\n•\nGovernment direction regarding increase of admission fees\n•\nDetails: The government’s directions regarding the increase in admission fees were found to be within its jurisdiction, and the High Court did not have the authority to examine the correctness of reasons for these directions.\n•\nHeld: The government's directions were valid, and the High Court was not to examine the reasons for such directions.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\n________________________________________\n(c) Trade Organisations Ordinance (XLV of 1961) - S. 8 - Companies Act (VII of 1913) - Amendment of Articles\n•\nAmendment of Articles of Memorandum of Association\n•\nDetails: The petitioners claimed no opportunity was given to them for hearing before the amendment, but the court found that the usual procedure under the Companies Act, 1913, provided an opportunity for the members to object.\n•\nHeld: The claim of no opportunity of hearing was not upheld as the procedure allowed for a resolution to be passed in a general meeting.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\n________________________________________\n(d) Companies Act (VII of 1913) - Ss. 20 & 81 - Articles of Memorandum of Association\n•\nInvalid notice for Special Resolution\n•\nDetails: The notice for the meeting was found to be invalid as it did not specify the intention to pass a Special Resolution, and the required period of notice was not followed.\n•\nHeld: The notice was invalid, and the resolution could not be passed.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\n________________________________________\n(e) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981) - Art. 9 - Companies Act (VII of 1913) - Invalid Amendment of Articles\n•\nInvalid amendment of Articles of Association\n•\nDetails: The amendment of the Articles of Association was not valid as it did not follow the proper procedure for notice and approval.\n•\nHeld: The amendment was invalid, and no interference was warranted under the Provisional Constitution Order.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-763 of 1982, decision dated: 18-06-1983, hearing DATE : 2-06-1983", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN, JUSTICE\nFAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfar for Petitioner. S. Hamid Hasan for Respondent No. 1. \nNasim Farooqui for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PRESENT\nMUHAMMAD RAFIQ MOTI\nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH SECTION OFFICER, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 113 = 1983 SLD 113 = 1983 PLC 1116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act (XII of 1968) - S. 2(e) - Industrial Undertaking\n•\nRice Export Corporation and its status as an Industrial Undertaking \n•\nDetails: The Rice Export Corporation’s operations, involving rice treatment for finishing and polishing, were deemed to add value, qualifying the corporation as an industrial undertaking subject to the Workers' Participation Fund.\n•\nHeld: The Rice Export Corporation was classified as an industrial undertaking, and the findings of the Labour Court and Tribunal were upheld.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\n________________________________________\n(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) - S. 34 - Companies Profits (Workers' Participation) Act (XII of 1968)\n•\nWorkers' Participation Fund - Labour Court Jurisdiction\n•\nDetails: Despite the Rice Export Corporation’s claim it was not an industrial undertaking, the court ruled that the Employees' Union could invoke the Labour Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the creation of the Workers' Participation Fund.\n•\nHeld: The Labour Court had jurisdiction to enforce the creation of the Fund.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Profit (Workers Participation) Act, 1968=2", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1584 of 1980, decision dated: 25-04-1983, hearing DATE : 8-03-1983", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, ACTG. CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSALEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Obaid-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.\nShaikh Haider for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RICE EXPORT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN LTD.\nVS \nSIND LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND TWO OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 239 = 1991 SLD 239 = 1991 MLD 1258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 23\nCompensation for land acquisition based on market value.\nDetails: The land was treated as a building site, and documentary evidence and witness testimonies supported the market value assessment. The compensation amount awarded was found appropriate.\nHeld: The amount of compensation awarded by lower forums was upheld.\nCitations: Government of Sindh v. Muhammad Usman, 198.1 CLC 3406; Government of Pakistan v. Hamid Akhtar, PLD 1987 Azad J & K 95.\n•\n(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 23\nMode for determining compensation for land acquisition.\nDetails: Compensation was assessed by considering comparable property prices and the potential future value of the land.\nHeld: Market value, including potential use, was correctly considered in compensation assessment.\nCitations: Deputy Commissioner v. Raja Amair Zaman, PLD 1985 Kar. 385; Fazalur Rehman v. General Manager S.I.D.B., PLD 1986 SC 158.\n•\n(c) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), S. 23\nNotice requirement for WAPDA in land acquisition proceedings.\nDetails: WAPDA, a statutory authority, was not entitled to notice under the Land Acquisition Act, as it was not classified as a local authority for purposes of the Act.\nHeld: The proceedings were valid despite the absence of a notice to WAPDA.\nCitations: Ilyas Ali Khan alias Muhammad Ilyas v. WAPDA, 1988 MLD 2094.\n•\n(d) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 23\nDamages for land installations affected by acquisition.\nDetails: The land's owner claimed damages for demolished installations, with no counter-evidence to dispute this.\nHeld: The owner's version was accepted and damages were awarded.\nCitations: None provided.\n•\n(e) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 28-A\nAdditional compensation as per the 1984 amendment.\nDetails: The newly added Section 28-A, granting an additional 15% per annum, applied to pending cases.\nHeld: Additional compensation was granted as per the amendment.\nCitations: Muhammad Abdul Muid Khan v. Land Acquisition Officer, 1987 CLC 542.\n•\n(f) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), S. 28-A\nAppeal for additional compensation.\nDetails: The compensation awarded by the Acquisition Judge was upheld, and the owners received the additional 15% compensation.\nHeld: Cross-objections were allowed, and additional compensation was granted.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Land Acquisition Act, 1894=23", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.108 of 1987, decision dated: 3rd April, 1991. dates of hearing: 17th and 18-03-1991", + "Judge Name:": "QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed Khan for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF SINDH THROUGH ABDUL MAJEED SHAIKH\nVS\nSYED SHAKIR ALIA JAFRI AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 240 = 1991 SLD 240 = 1991 MLD 1225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 21\nForfeiture of fully paid-up shares.\nDetails: A company can forfeit shares if allowed by its Articles of Association. Forfeiture is not allowed if it reduces share capital.\nHeld: Forfeiture is permissible under specific conditions but must not reduce share capital.\nCitations: Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. v. S.N. Nundy & Co., I.L.R. 1 Cal. 235.\n•\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 2(7) & 305\nWinding up of a company treated as a partnership.\nDetails: A private company with family members can be treated similarly to a partnership for winding-up purposes.\nHeld: The principles of partnership law apply to such companies.\nCitations: The President v. Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali, PLD 1971 SC 585.\n•\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 31\nValidity of share forfeiture.\nDetails: The forfeiture of shares by the company was invalid since it violated the principles of partnership law.\nHeld: Forfeiture was not valid under the circumstances.\nCitations: Naresh Chandra Sanyal v. The Calcutta Stock Exchange, A.I.R. 1971 SC 422.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=21", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No. 1 of 1990, decision dated: 13-02-1990", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JUSTICE\nMALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ahmad Sheikh for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "HILBRO (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER\nVS \nEJAZ AHMAD CHATHA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 192 = 1985 SLD 192 = 1985 MLD 1505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 8\nAppointment of Chairman of Arbitration Tribunal.\nDetails: The appointment of a Chairman not named in the arbitration agreement rendered the Tribunal's constitution illegal.\nHeld: The arbitration proceedings and award were invalid.\nCitations: Messrs Oil and Gas Development Corporation v. Messrs Karachi Builder, 1978 SC 278.\n•\n(b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 8\nAward made in favor of a non-party.\nDetails: An award in favor of a person not named in the arbitration agreement was void.\nHeld: The award was void since the person was not a party to the agreement.\nCitations: Rai Bahadur Mohan Sing Oberoi v. Rai Babadur Joha Mal Kuthalia, PLD 1961 SC 6.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=8", + "Case #": "Suit No. 510 of 1983, decision dated: 23rd December, 1984, hearing DATE : 20-09-1984", + "Judge Name:": "K.A. GHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Ahmad for Plaintiff. \nMuneer A. Malili for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALHAJ ALI HUSSAIN\nVS \nMESSRS EASTERN FILM STUDIO LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 11 = 1993 SLD 11 = 1993 CLC 1565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\n(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 110\nLimitation for recovery of arrears of rent.\nDetails: The claim for arrears beyond the three-year limitation period was not maintainable.\nHeld: The claim was barred by limitation.\nCitations: None provided.\n•\n(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 25\nBenefit of a promise under Section 25 of the Contract Act.\nDetails: The promise must be signed by the person to be charged and be supported by a debt that is not time-barred.\nHeld: The claim under Section 25 could not be enforced as the conditions were not met.\nCitations: None provided.\n•\n(c) Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 2(b) & 25\nProposal becoming a promise.\nDetails: A proposal becomes a promise only when the recipient signifies assent.\nHeld: There was no contract as the proposal was not accepted.\nCitations: None provided.\n•\n(d) Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 25\nLegality of promise made by a company officer.\nDetails: A Sales Manager was not authorized to bind the company under Section 25.\nHeld: The promise was invalid, and the claim was not enforceable.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 48 of 1988, beard on 5-10-1992. dates of hearing: 28th, 29th and 30th September; 1st and 5-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDER ALI PIRRADA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Nabi Qureshi for Appellant.\nMuhammad Anis for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ANWARUL HAQ\nVS\nSTATE OIL COMPANY LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 155 = 1987 SLD 155 = 1987 MLD 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art.199--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Tribunal having jurisdiction in matter had dismissed appeal being barred by time?Order passed by such Tribunal in accordance with law, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 976, 977, 978 of 1986, decision dated: 6-10-1986", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, ACTG. CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noor-ud-Din N. Ramzan for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS POPULAR CLEARING SERVICES\nVS\nDIRECTOR OCTROI, K.M.C. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 513 = 1998 SLD 513 = 1998 CLC 600", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S.2(7)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--­Locus standi to file---Petitioner's appointment as Management Trainees for fixed period of two years---Termination of employment before expiry of two years' period---Termination challenged in Constitutional petition ---Competency--­Respondent-company claimed to be not amenable to jurisdiction of Court on account of having been registered under Companies Ordinance. 1984--­Respondent-corrtpam, had 11 Directors including its Chairman of which Directors had to be appointed by Government while Chairman who must be Secretary to government of Pakistan had to be appointed by Board of Director for specified period---Management and affairs of company were, thus, being controlled by Government through Chairman and its Directors, who formed majority in Board of Directors---Respondent Company was, therefore, performing functions in connection with the affairs of Federation and, thus, was amenable to jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution.\n \nFateh Khan v. Sharaaf Khan and others PLD 1984 Lah. 106 rel.\n \n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---\n \n----S.2(7)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--­Management trainees---Appointment for fixed period of two years---Termination of appointment during training period---Validity---Employment of petitioners admittedly was not regulated by statutory rules of service---Petitioners during period of training as Management Trainees were governed by their appointment letters which provided that training could be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any reasons if performance of trainee was considered unsatisfactory by the Company---Petitioners were not charged for any misconduct and termination of their employment was in accordance with the terms of their employment---Such termination would not attach stigma to career of petitioners---No show-cause notice being necessary, order of termination would not warrant interference in circumstances.\n \nCentral Board of Revenue v.. S.I.T.E. PLD 1985 SC 97; Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another AIR 1986 SC 1571; Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1974 SC 393 and State of U. P. and another v. Prem Lata Misra (KM) and others (1994) 4 SCC 189 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2(7)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5546 of 1997, decision dated: 8-09-1997, hearing DATE : 5-07-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SHARIF HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ahmad Mujtaba Wattoo, A. Karim Malik, Iqbal Mahmud Awan, Mian Suba Sadiq Wattoo and Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. M. Saleem Baig and Ghulam Muhammad Mirza for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ILYAS\nVS \nMANAGING DIRECTOR, SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES, LIMITED, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 450 = 1995 SLD 450 = 1995 PLD 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Federal Investigation Agency Act (VIII of 1975)\n•\nJurisdiction of Special Court in directing transfer of funds\n•\nDetails: The Special Court directed the respondent Bank to deliver an amount in question, but such a direction was limited to preventing its removal or transfer. The determination of title, however, could only be made by a Civil Court.\n•\nHeld: The Special Court's order was set aside as it violated procedural limits, including the removal of funds from accounts without prior notice.\n•\nCitations: Federal Investigation Agency Act (VIII of 1975), S. 5(5); Criminal Procedure Code (IV of 1898), Ss. 516-A & 439\n(b) Principles of Natural Justice\n•\nViolation of natural justice in decision-making\n•\nDetails: It was emphasized that no adverse decision can be made without providing the concerned party an opportunity to defend themselves.\n•\nHeld: This is a violation of the fundamental right to natural justice.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Revision Application No.54 of 1994, decision dated: 7-03-1995", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL RAHIM KAI, JUSTICE\nMRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Gulzar Ahmad for Applicant. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nMuhammad Sadiq for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI\nVS \nPRESIDING OFFICER, SPECIAL COURT (OFFENCES IN BANKS) KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 324 = 1997 SLD 324 = 1997 MLD 2155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\n•\nTransfer of shares post-government takeover\n•\nDetails: Petitioners purchased fully paid shares before the company's nationalization. After the takeover, the company refused to transfer the shares due to technical reasons, even though the petitioners were lawful owners.\n•\nHeld: The petitioners' right to transfer the shares was upheld, and the respondent's objections based on procedural technicalities were rejected.\n•\nCitations: Malik Ghulam Jillani v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1967 SC 373; Naeem Finance Ltd. v. Bashir Ahmad Rafiqui PLD 1971 SC 8; etc.\n(b) Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act (XVII of 1974)\n•\nUltra vires of rules related to share transfers\n•\nDetails: Rule 3 of the Petroleum Products (Acquisition and Compensation) Rules, 1974, which dealt with the transfer of shares, was found to be ultra vires the parent statute, Marketing of Petroleum Products (Federal Control) Act, 1974, as it overreached the statute's intended purpose.\n•\nHeld: Rule 3 was declared invalid for exceeding the scope of the enabling statute.\n•\nCitations: None specified.\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nScope of statutory rules\n•\nDetails: Rules framed under a statute cannot extend beyond the objectives of the parent statute.\n•\nHeld: The rules must align with the objectives of the law under which they were made.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=77", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application Nos.65 and 72 of 1993, decision dated: 24-12-1996. dates of hearing: 9th, 26th, October; 13-11-1995 and 29-10-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Sayeed and Iqbal Kazi alongwith Muhammad Ashraf Kazi for Petitioners.\nFateh Ali W. Vellani for Respondent No. 1. S.M. Aamir Naqvi for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. FATIMA BAI SULEMAN AND 5 OTHERS\nVS \nPAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED, DAWOOD CENTRE, M.T. ROAD, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 652 = 2002 SLD 652 = 2002 PTD 121 = (2003) 87 TAX 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nVested rights and rescission of exemptions\n•\nDetails: The importers' right to claim exemption under a prior notification was protected, despite the rescission of the exemption by a subsequent notification.\n•\nHeld: Importers' vested rights were upheld based on the previous exemption notification.\n•\nCitations: M.Y. Electronic Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1404; etc.\n(b) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951) and Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nDistinction between sales tax and customs duty\n•\nDetails: Even though provisions of the Sales Tax Act 1951 were linked to the Customs Act 1969 for collection, they remained distinct in terms of imposition, assessment, and collection.\n•\nHeld: Sales tax and customs duties are separate in nature, and rights acquired under sales tax remain unaffected by customs law provisions.\n•\nCitations: Friends Sons v. Deputy Collector PLD 1989 Lah. 337\n(c) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)\n•\nRule-making power under S. 37\n•\nDetails: The delegation of rule-making powers under the Central Excises Act did not extend to creating new charges or taxes, which remained a legislative function.\n•\nHeld: Rule-making power could not be used to impose taxes beyond the scope of the enabling statute.\n•\nCitations: Malik Muhammad Din v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi PLD 1966 Kar. 518", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=31ASales Tax Act, 1990=3(5)Central Excise Rules, 1944=9Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1582, 1583, 1584, 1666, 1667, 1701 and 1729 of 1999, decision dated: 13-12-1999, hearing DATE : 26-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan for Petitioners. \nJavaid Farooqi for Respondent No. 1. \nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KOHINOOR TEXTILE \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 412 = 2003 SLD 412 = 2003 PLD 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)\n•\nRight to be defended by counsel in capital cases\n•\nDetails: The Trial Court must ascertain whether the accused can afford counsel; if not, the court is required to arrange counsel at government expense.\n•\nHeld: Failure to ensure legal representation violates the accused's rights.\n•\nCitations: High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chap. 24, Part C, paras. 1 & 2\n(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)\n•\nLiberal construction of S. 340 in favor of the accused\n•\nDetails: The Trial Court is obligated to provide counsel for the accused in capital cases if the accused is unable to afford one.\n•\nHeld: S. 340, Cr.P.C. must be read in favor of ensuring fair trial rights.\n•\nCitations: None specified.\n(c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)\n•\nViolation of the accused's right to legal defense\n•\nDetails: The Trial Court did not provide the accused with a counsel, nor did it investigate their ability to afford one.\n•\nHeld: The case was remanded for a fresh trial with proper legal representation for the accused.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=340", + "Case #": "Criminal Jail Appeal No. 129 of 2002, decision dated: 4-11-2002, hearing DATE : 9-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nAKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BAZ MUHAMMAD\nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 258 = 1994 SLD 258 = 1994 PLD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)\n•\nApplicability of Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to suits filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, and the extent of its provisions.\n•\nHeld: The provisions of the C.P.C., except where excluded by the Ordinance, apply to suits under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979.\n•\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nRule-Making Power\n•\nDetails: The case considers the scope of rule-making powers conferred by a statute, emphasizing that rules cannot override the core principles of the statute, and must be in line with public policy and justice.\n•\nHeld: Rule-making power cannot extend beyond the scope of the parent statute and must remain just, reasonable, and in accordance with public policy.\n•\nCitations: Joti Pershad v. Emperor AIR 1921 Lah. 134, Saleh Muhammad v. Traffic Manager PLD 1961 Kar. 349, and others\n(c) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979\n•\nConstitutionality of Rule 8\n•\nDetails: Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, was examined in light of the Civil Procedure Code.\n•\nHeld: Rule 8 does not contravene the C.P.C. or the Ordinance, as it aligns with the procedural requirements and aims to expedite banking suits.\n•\nCitations: Ahmad Auto's case PLD 1990 SC 497\n(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)\n•\nService by Publication\n•\nDetails: The effectiveness of service by publication was considered, with the presumption of proper service arising when legal requirements are met.\n•\nHeld: Adequate publication creates a presumption of service, though defendants can challenge this with evidence of non-receipt.\n•\nCitations: Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Tahir Traders PLD 1986 Kar. 369, Ram Bharose v. Gangah Singh AIR 1931 All. 727\n(e) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980\n•\nPresumption of Service through Publication\n•\nDetails: Rule 8 ensures that service through publication is effective, while also requiring that the service be likely to bring knowledge to the defendant.\n•\nHeld: Service by publication should be presumed effective, but it must meet certain criteria to ensure knowledge reaches the defendant.\n•\nCitations: Emirate Bank International v. Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills 1993 MLD 54\n(f) Administration of Justice\n•\nJudicial Fairness\n•\nDetails: The law favors the disposal of cases on their merits rather than on technicalities.\n•\nHeld: Judicial procedure aims to promote justice and should not be obstructed by minor technicalities.\n(g) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980\n•\nNon-Appearance After Service\n•\nDetails: The case examines the consequences of non-appearance despite proper service methods being used.\n•\nHeld: Additional attempts should be made to serve the defendant if earlier attempts failed, ensuring the process is fair and complete.\n•\nCitations:\n(h) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)\n•\nApplication to Applications under Section 5\n•\nDetails: The application of Article 181 of the Limitation Act in the context of various procedural applications was discussed.\n•\nHeld: Article 181 applies only to applications under the Civil Procedure Code, and using it indiscriminately in other cases could render the process ineffective.\n•\nCitations: Emirate Bank International v. Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills 1993 MLD 54", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=Preamble", + "Case #": "Suits Nos.341 of 1985, 417, 428 and 429 of 1986 and 1076 of 1989, decision dated: 23rd December, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansrooul Arfin, Sarmad J. Osmany and Jawaid Alam (in Suit No. 341 of 1985). \nZahid Hussain Burhani, A.I. Chundrigar, Mansoorul Arfin and Shamsul Arfin Qureshi (in Suit No. 417 of 1986). \nNoorullah A. Manji and Abdul Qadir (in Suit No. 428 of 1986) Noorullah A. Manji, Abdul Rashid and A. Aziz Khan (in Suit No. 429 of 1986). Noorullah A. Manji and Abdul Wahecd Kanjo (in Suit No. 107b of 1989)", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nM/S. MOHIBALI TANNERY LTD., KARACHI AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 527 = 1999 SLD 527 = 1999 PLD 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) West Pakistan Anti-Corruption Establishment Ordinance (XX of 1961)\n•\nRegistration of Cases against Public Servants\n•\nDetails: The issue regarding the registration of cases against public servants at ordinary police stations under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code.\n•\nHeld: The law established in Abdul Latif’s case clarifies that cases against public servants under the Anti-Corruption Ordinance can be registered at police stations.\n•\nCitations: M. Abdul Latif v. G. M. Pareacha 1981 SCMR 1101\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nUltra Vires Rules\n•\nDetails: The case considers whether rules made by executive authorities can exceed the scope of the parent statute and become ultra vires.\n•\nHeld: Rules must remain within the boundaries set by the parent statute, and any rule exceeding this scope is considered ultra vires.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "West Pakistan Anti Corruption Establishment Ordinance (XX of 1961)=8", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18785 of 1998, heard on 8-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner. \nAshtar Ausaf Ali, A.G Punjab with Muhammad Amin Lone, Asstt A.G. Punjab for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIRZA MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND OTHERS\nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 514 = 1998 SLD 514 = 1998 PLD 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) - S. 15(2)(vi) - Ejectment on Ground of Reconstruction of Building\n•\nEjectment on the grounds of reconstruction of a building, and requirement for approval of the building plan.\n•\nDetails: The approval of the building plan for reconstruction had expired and no fresh approval had been obtained. The issue was whether the landlord had locus standi to file an eviction application for the reconstruction of the building.\n•\nHeld: The landlord must have valid approval for the building plan before filing an eviction application. Mere expiry of the approval period did not invalidate the eviction process.\n•\nCitations: Rashid Brothers Faisalabad v. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan and another, 1981 SCMR 782\n(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979) - S. 15(2)(vi) & Sind Building Control Ordinance (V of 1979) - S. 21-A\n•\nNeed for an agreement between landlord and tenant for alternate accommodation before building reconstruction approval.\n•\nDetails: The regulations under the Sind Building Control Ordinance require that an agreement must be made between the landlord and tenant before approval for building reconstruction is granted. If no agreement exists, prior approvals are suspended.\n•\nHeld: Landlord-tenant agreements are necessary before a building plan can be approved for reconstruction.\n•\nCitations: Sind Building Control Ordinance (V of 1979), S. 21-A\n(c) Sind Building Control Ordinance (V of 1979)\n•\nScope and purpose of the Sind Building Control Ordinance.\n•\nDetails: The ordinance regulates construction and building activities within the province to ensure orderly urban development.\n•\nHeld: The ordinance seeks to regulate the construction of buildings to ensure public safety and urban planning.\n•\nCitations: Sind Building Control Ordinance (V of 1979)\n(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art. 199 & Sind Building Control Ordinance (V of 1979)\n•\nChallenge to the regulations under the Sind Building Control Ordinance.\n•\nDetails: Regulations under the Ordinance must be intra vires the authority granted by the Ordinance. If regulations exceed the powers, they would be considered ultra vires.\n•\nHeld: Any condition exceeding the scope of authority is ultra vires.\n•\nCitations: Haji Hashmat Ullah v. Karachi Municipal Corporation, PLD 1971 Kar. 514\n(e) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nRules for interpreting statutes and regulations.\n•\nDetails: Statutes, regulations, and bylaws must be construed as intra vires, but if they exceed the granted authority, they can be challenged.\n•\nHeld: Regulations exceeding the prescribed limits of authority are open to challenge.\n•\nCitations: Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., pp. 301-302\n(f) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nImplied repeal of inconsistent provisions.\n•\nDetails: When two provisions of a statute cannot stand together, the earlier provision is repealed by the latter.\n•\nHeld: Implied repeal should not be inferred unless provisions are so inconsistent that they cannot coexist.\n•\nCitations: Abdul Hadi alias Abdul Hadi Hussain v. Syed Ali Haider, PLD 1983 SC 342\n(g) Repugnancy of Statutes\n•\nRepugnancy of rules and regulations.\n•\nDetails: A rule or regulation is not repugnant unless it exceeds the boundaries of general law.\n•\nHeld: Regulations that transgress the limits of the general law must be declared inconsistent.\n•\nCitations: Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes\n(h) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art. 199 & Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)\n•\nLandlord-tenant agreements under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance.\n•\nDetails: A landlord must execute an agreement with the tenant before a building reconstruction plan is approved. If the landlord breaches the agreement, the tenant may resort to the provisions of S. 15(4) of the Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: There is no conflict between the regulations and the provisions of S. 15(4) of the Ordinance.\n•\nCitations: Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979\n(i) Sind Building Control Ordinance (V of 1979) - S. 21-A\n•\nVires of regulations under the Sind Building Control Ordinance.\n•\nDetails: The regulations framed under the Ordinance were found to be ultra vires and unreasonable.\n•\nHeld: The regulations exceeded the powers granted under the Sind Building Control Ordinance and were therefore ultra vires.\n•\nCitations: Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=15", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-914 of 1984, decision dated: 17-04-1986. dates of hearing : 3rd and 4-03-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Sadiq and A. Monem Khan for Petitioners. \nMirza Yakoob Baig, S. Zafar, R. F. Virjee, Nisarally, Muhammad Asar, Suleman Kassim, A. Aziz Khan, Mustafa Lakhani, Amjad Hussain, Mr. Talati, Mirza Shabbir Kazilbash and Saeed Qureshi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASHWANI SALES & SERVICES LIMITED\nVS \nKARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY AND 15 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 413 = 2003 SLD 413 = 2003 PLD 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) - S. 69-A\n•\nFranchise and purpose of Section 69-A.\n•\nDetails: Section 69-A was introduced to improve public transport by substituting low-capacity vehicles with high-capacity ones. It grants franchises to operators providing buses with a capacity of 70 or more passengers.\n•\nHeld: The provision aims to ensure safer, more reliable public transportation by replacing low-capacity vehicles.\n•\nCitations: Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965\n(b) Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) - S. 69-A\n•\nRegulatory nature of transport permits.\n•\nDetails: The permit granted under Section 69-A is a license to operate transport, with the government having full authority to regulate the transport business.\n•\nHeld: The government has the authority to regulate transport business, including by granting or cancelling permits.\n•\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary\n(c) Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) - S. 69-A & Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 18 & 199\n•\nConstitutional protection of transport regulations.\n•\nDetails: The grant of a franchise under Section 69-A is not considered a monopoly and is protected under Article 18 of the Constitution. The law regulates the commercial use of public roads for transport.\n•\nHeld: The regulation does not violate the freedom of trade under Article 18.\n•\nCitations: Malik Niaz Muhammad v. Provincial Transport Authority, 1989 SCMR 790\n(d) Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) - S. 69-A & Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 18 & 199\n•\nJudicial review of the grant of franchise.\n•\nDetails: The High Court rejected the challenge to the grant of franchise under Section 69-A, finding no violation of constitutional rights.\n•\nHeld: The franchise system complies with constitutional principles, and the High Court found no basis for intervention.\n•\nCitations: Province of Punjab v. National Industrial Credit Corporation, 2000 SCMR 567\n(e) Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) - S. 69-A & Art. 203-G of the Constitution\n•\nJurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court.\n•\nDetails: The High Court determined that the jurisdiction to examine whether Section 69-A violated Islamic principles lies with the Federal Shariat Court.\n•\nHeld: The High Court deferred to the Federal Shariat Court on this matter.\n•\nCitations: Province of Punjab v. National Industrial Credit Corporation, 2000 SCMR 567\n(f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Arts. 2A & 199\n•\nObjectives Resolution and the validity of laws.\n•\nDetails: Article 2A ensures no law can be declared invalid solely on the basis of religious or constitutional principles under the Objectives Resolution.\n•\nHeld: Laws cannot be invalidated based on the Objectives Resolution.\n•\nCitations: Various case law references from the Constitution and legal precedents\n(g) Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965) - S. 69-A & Art. 18 of the Constitution\n•\nFreedom of trade and the regulation of commercial use of public roads.\n•\nDetails: The state’s power to regulate trade includes controlling the use of public roads for commercial purposes, which can be regulated by licensing systems.\n•\nHeld: The regulation of transport under Section 69-A is consistent with the constitutional provisions regarding freedom of trade.\n•\nCitations: Malik Niaz Muhammad v. Provincial Transport Authority, 1989 SCMR 790\n(h) Words and Phrases - Regulate \n•\nConnotation of the term Regulate. \n•\nDetails: The term regulate refers to the power of government to control, establish, and manage various sectors, including transport.\n•\nHeld: The power to regulate encompasses control, restriction, and promotion of public safety.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)=69", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.2418, 718, 2449 of 2001, 19239 and 19240 of 2002, decision dated: 10-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nSYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE \nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Saeed Sheikh, Dr. Babar Awan and Nazir A. Ghazi for Petitioner. Kamran Shaja for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Shan Gul for Respondent No. 4. M. Arif Raja and Ch. M. Imtiaz for the Remaining Respondents. Ahmad Awais for Respondent/Varan Tours. Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.G., Punjab", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK ASGHAR AND 3 OTHERS \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 515 = 1998 SLD 515 = 1998 SCMR 1462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRejection of Nomination Papers for Election on Grounds of Being a Defaulter\n•\nDetails: The case involved the rejection of nomination papers of a candidate due to their status as a defaulter. The issue centered around the amendment in the Representation of the People Act, 1976, which was deemed to have lapsed. However, Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, along with Section 21(1)(f) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, remained applicable.\n•\nHeld: The High Court declined to issue a writ despite the non-survival of the amendment. The Court highlighted that relief under Article 199(1) of the Constitution is discretionary and can be withheld if it promotes justice. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining integrity in elected bodies as mandated by the Constitution.\n•\nCitations: Articles 2A, 3, 4, 7, 31, 32, 37, 38, and 62-63 of the Constitution; Punjab Local Government Ordinance (1979), S.21(1)(f); Representation of the People Act (1976), S.12(2); Nawab Syed Rounaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236); Mahmood Khan Achakzai v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 426).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance (VI of 1979)=21", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.457 of 1998, decision dated: 13-05-1998", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUNIR A. SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nWAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Rafiq Rajwani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. \nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RANA MUHAMMAD ARSHAD\nVS \nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), MULTAN DIVISION AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1990 163 = 1990 SLD 163 = 1990 PLD 1034", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nValidity of Railway Coaching Tariff Rules (R. 1.34)\n•\nDetails: The case questioned whether Rule 1.34 of the Pakistan Western Railway Coaching Tariff Rules was ultra vires to the powers granted under Sections 54 and 77 of the Railways Act, 1890. The rule limits claims for compensation to goods damaged or lost unless prior notice is given, which could conflict with the statutory provisions.\n•\nHeld: The Court held that Rule 1.34 was inconsistent with Section 77 of the Railways Act, as it imposed a stricter requirement for notice before delivery, which was not in the statutory provision. Consequently, the rule was deemed ultra vires and unenforceable.\n•\nCitations: Railways Act (IX of 1890), Ss. 54 & 77; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54; Azizul Rehman v. The Bombay-Baroda and Central India Railway Company (1908 PR 353).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Western Railway Coaching Tariffs Rules=1", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 24-P of 1983, decision dated: 23rd May, 1990, hearing DATE : 13-05-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nRUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Fazle Hussain, Nur Ahmad Khan and Ch. M. Aslam, Advocates-on-Record for Appellants. \nMian M. Ajmal, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji A. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, LAHORE AND OTHERS\nVS\nMESSRS M. WAHABUDDIN & SONS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 259 = 1986 SLD 259 = 1986 PLD 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPermanent Injunction Regarding Industrial Exhibition\n•\nDetails: The dispute involved a suit for permanent injunction where the respondent sought to prevent the petitioner from holding an industrial exhibition at a site where the respondent had previously held exhibitions. The respondent had no legal or contractual right preventing the petitioner from using the site.\n•\nHeld: The Court held the suit for permanent injunction was misconceived because there was no legal obligation preventing the petitioner from holding the exhibition. The term third annual used by the petitioner referred to the serial number of the exhibition, not ownership or exclusive rights to the site.\n•\nCitations: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11; Habib v. Haji Muhammad (PLD 1963 (W.P.) Kar. 1050); Crutwell v. Lya (1810) 14 E.R. 129.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 192/1) of 1986, heard on 6-05-1986. dates of hearing : 5th and 6-05-1986", + "Judge Name:": "C. A. RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Bilal for Appellant. \nBashir Ahmad Ansari for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ISLAMABAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, ISLAMABAD\nVS \nRAWALPINDI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 260 = 1986 SLD 260 = 1986 CLC 2337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code and Pleas Not Discussed in Court\nDetails: The case discusses the presumption when certain pleas are not discussed in court. It also addresses the issue of a mixed question of law and fact raised in second appeals, which was not raised earlier in the trial court. Lastly, it deals with the date of institution of a suit involving the appointment of a guardian for minors.\nHeld:\n•\nIf a plea is not discussed in court, it is presumed that it was not pressed before the court.\n•\nA mixed question of law and fact not raised earlier in the trial court cannot be raised in a second appeal.\n•\nThe date of a suit’s institution is considered as the date when it was filed, not when a guardian was appointed.\nCitations: Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Sarwar 1980 S.C. M.R. 254; Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Sarwar P.L.D. 1978 Lah. 1461; Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Feroze P.L.D. 1983 Lah. 164.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=31", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeal No. 948 of 1979, decision dated: 26-02-1986", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. Basit for Petitioner.\nCh. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NOOR MUHAMMAD\nVS \nDIN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 261 = 1986 SLD 261 = 1986 CLC 2560 = 1986 PTCL 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Register of Directors under the Companies Act – Disputed Resignation and Share Transfer\nDetails:\nThe petitioners (Manzoor Ahmad Bhatti, Zahoor Ahmad Bhatti, Haji Muhammad Yousuf, Shamim Akhtar, and Mst. Zeenat Begum) sought rectification of the company's register under Section 38 of the Companies Act, asserting that their names were fraudulently removed as directors.\nThe respondents opposed, claiming:\nThe petitioners had resigned from directorship via a written agreement dated 3-9-1983.\nPursuant to the agreement, their shares were transferred, and returns were filed with the Registrar.\nThe petitioners had accepted part-payment, with the rest to follow in installments.\nNumerous documents (Exhs. A/1 to A/29) were submitted to prove execution and resignation.\nThe petitioners denied executing most of these documents. Upon examination in court:\nPetitioner No. 1 admitted signatures only on Exhs. A/1 and A/3.\nPetitioner No. 2 admitted only A/1 and A/6.\nThe court refrained from comparing signatures and held that the disputed facts, including the authenticity of signatures and receipt of payments, require detailed inquiry unsuitable for summary procedure under the Companies Act.\nHeld:\nThe petition cannot be decided summarily under Section 38. The matter involves complex factual disputes, requiring proper adjudication via civil proceedings. Proceedings under the Companies Act were stayed until civil court determination. The interim order dated 26-3-1984 remains effective until further orders.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=38", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 1984, decision dated: 24-03-1986", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "I. H. Zaidi for Applicants. \nKhalid M. Ishaq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MANZOOR AHMAD BHATTI AND 4 OTHERS\nVS \nHAJI NOVAL KHAN AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 519 = 2000 SLD 519 = 2000 MLD 1880", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance and Principles of Natural Justice\nDetails: The case addresses the appointment of an inspector to investigate a company's affairs, with a focus on the authority's failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the company, violating the principles of natural justice.\nHeld: The investigation against the company was ordered without giving an opportunity for a hearing, violating natural justice principles. The order was set aside by the High Court.\nCitations: Zakir Ahmad's case P.L.D. 1965 S.C. 90; Maryam Yunus v. Director of Education P.L.D. 1990 S.C. 666; Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi's case 1994 S.C.M.R. 1299; Muhammad Tariq v. PIA 1998 S.C.M.R. 429.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=263", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6311 of 2000, decision dated: 26-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Islam for Petitioner. \nHaider Zaman Qureshi for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SERVICE INDUSTRIES TEXTILES LIMITED, LAHORE\nVS \n THROUGH CHAIRMAN, BLUE AREA, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 240 = 1991 SLD 240 = 1991 PLC 501", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance and Termination of Service\nDetails: The case concerns the termination of services of workers and the suspension of back benefits during the pendency of an appeal.\nHeld: The Labour Appellate Tribunal directed that back benefits be suspended during the appeal but refused to stay the reinstatement of the workers. The offer made by employers to pay emoluments without reinstating the workers was accepted by the respondents.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 677 to 680 of 1991, heard on 10-03-1991.", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Balal Khan for Petitioner.\nMunawar Ahmad Javed and Bashir Zafar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MORACFCO INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER\nVS\nMUHAMMAD YAOOOB AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 241 = 1991 SLD 241 = 1991 PLC 506", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Workmen's Compensation Act and Compensation Award\nDetails: The case involves an appeal against an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal rejecting an appeal due to the failure to deposit the required amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.\nHeld: The Labour Appellate Tribunal's order was upheld as the appeal was rejected for non-compliance with the statutory requirement.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 6974 of 1990, heard on 4-02-1991.", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Sarfraz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.\nIrfan Qadir, A.A.G. for Respondent No. 2.\nNemo for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF\nVS \nPUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 242 = 1991 SLD 242 = 1991 PLC 511", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition and Adverse Action\nDetails: During the hearing of a constitutional petition, the respondent stated that no adverse action was planned against the petitioner.\nHeld: The petition was dismissed as withdrawn after the respondent's submission that no action was contemplated against the petitioner.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1377 and Miscellaneous Application No. 3117 of 1990, decision dated: 20-12-1990.", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE\nSALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar G. Shaikh for Petitioner.\nS. Hamid Hussain for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (pursuant to Notice).", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALTAF AHMED\nVS\nKARACHI PORT TRUST THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 243 = 1991 SLD 243 = 1991 PLC 508", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance and Termination of Service\nDetails: The case deals with the termination of service under moral turpitude and the applicability of the Standing Orders.\nHeld: The termination of the employee’s service for a moral turpitude case was upheld as lawful and reasonable.\nCitations: Messrs Sindh Alkalis Limited v. Pam Jan 1983 P.L.C. 733; Pakistan Cycle Industrial Co-operative Society Limited v. Muhammad Serwar Butt 1982 S.C.M.R. 950.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-523 of 1986, heard on 12-03-1991.", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE\nSALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Amjad for Petitioner.\nQamar-ud-Din Hasan for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SIKANDAR HAYAT\nVS\nSINDH LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 516 = 1998 SLD 516 = 1998 CLC 610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code and Production of Evidence\nDetails: This case concerns the closure of a defendant’s right to produce evidence under O. XVII, R.3 of the Civil Procedure Code.\nHeld: The closure of evidence was deemed unjust, and the case was remanded for a decision based on merits, considering the delays and non-objection by the plaintiffs.\nCitations: Syed Tasleem Ahmad Shah v. Sajawal Khan and others 1985 S.C.M.R. 585.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.8203 of 1991, decision dated: 8-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": "TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khan Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitione. \nMuhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HADI BAKHSH\nVS \nADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 517 = 1998 SLD 517 = 1998 CLC 1050", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Administration of Justice and Construction of Legal Provisions\nDetails: The case discusses the liberal interpretation of legal provisions to facilitate justice rather than hinder it due to technicalities. It also examines a landlord’s bona fide personal need for additional accommodation under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance.\nHeld: Laws should be construed liberally to facilitate justice. The landlord's need for additional accommodation was deemed bona fide.\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=15", + "Case #": "First Rent Appeal No.530 of 1989, decision dated: 11-04-1997. dates of hearing: 22-09-1996 and 24-03-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person. \nMuhammad Sadiq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL JABBAR KHAN\nVS\nISMAIL THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 46 = 1958 SLD 46 = 1958 PLD 41", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Control of Shipping Act (XXVI of 1947) and Constitution of Pakistan\nDetails: The case examines the validity of the Control of Shipping Act (XXVI of 1947) in light of various constitutional provisions, particularly the right to property, equality before the law, and regulation of trade.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Control of Shipping Act is an existing law under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, meaning its validity cannot be challenged on the grounds of violating property rights under Articles 15(1) and 15(2).\n•\nIf the statute is capable of being administered in a discriminatory manner, it can be challenged under Article 5 of the Constitution. However, the party must show actual discriminatory practices.\n•\nIf a statutory functionary acts mala fide or in a discriminatory, unjust, or oppressive manner, relief can be granted through writ jurisdiction.\n•\nThe conferring of discretionary powers on an officer does not violate the principle of equality unless the powers are exercised arbitrarily.\n•\nThe Control of Shipping Act's requirement for licensing is a valid regulation of trade under the Constitution.\n•\nThe restrictions imposed by the Act are reasonable in the public interest and necessary to address national needs.\n•\nThe licensing system is not unconstitutional as it falls under the constitutionally permitted regulation of trade.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Control of Shipping Act, 1947=15", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5 of 1957, decision dated: 14th January 1958. dates of hearing : 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th and 19th December 1957", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nM. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SHARIF, JUSTICE\nAMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. Brohi and Dingomal N. Ramchand, Senior Advocates. \nSupreme Court (Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate, Supreme Court, with them), instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS. EAST AND WEST STEAMSHIP COMPANY\nVS\nTHE SHIPPING AUTHORITY\nA PARTNERSHIP FIRM, CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT KARACHI, BY ITS PARTNER RUSTOM F. COWASJEE, PARSI, RESIDING AT KARACHI\nVS\n(1) PAKISTAN, TO BE SERVED THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, KARACHI (2) THE SHIPPING AUTHORITY. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF SHIPPING CONTROL, ELMARKAS, BUNDER ROAD, KARACHI AND (3) THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 19 = 1988 SLD 19 = 1988 CLC 866", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Process in Winding Up of Companies\nDetails: This case discusses the appeal process in relation to company winding-up orders under the Companies Ordinance (1984) and the previous Companies Act (1913).\nHeld:\n•\nAn appeal against a winding-up order for a company with a paid-up share capital of over one million rupees must be made to the Supreme Court. For companies with less than one million rupees in paid-up capital, the appeal is subject to the Supreme Court granting leave to appeal.\n•\nThe right to appeal is considered a substantive right. Changes to laws during a proceeding do not affect this right unless the new law explicitly curtails it.\n•\nIn cases where there is a conflict between provisions of an enactment, efforts should be made to harmonize them. If that is not possible, the later provision will prevail.\n•\nSection 6 of the General Clauses Act (1897) does not save the right to appeal under the Companies Act (1913), as Section 10(1) of the Companies Ordinance (1984) expresses a different intention regarding appeal procedures.\n•\nThe case relies on various judicial precedents to support the interpretation of appeal procedures under the relevant laws.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.53 of 1987, decision dated: 4-02-1988, hearing DATE : 25-01-1988", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, JUSTICE\nALLAHDINO G. MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.S.A. Jamali for Appellant.\nM. Aziz A. Munshi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MEHB00B INDUSTRIES LTD.\nVS \nPAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL !CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 116 = 1982 SLD 116 = 1982 CLC 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975 and Companies Act\nDetails:\n•\n(a) The case discusses whether properties under the Abandoned Properties Act (1975) are considered abandoned by the operation of Sections 3, 6, and 11, even if there is no notification under Section 11.\n•\n(b) The issue concerns a dispute between a company, its shareholders, and the Administrator of Abandoned Properties. The Court held that Section 38 of the Companies Act (1913) does not apply in such disputes.\n•\n(c) The case addresses the transfer of shares, where a transfer without adhering to the company's Articles of Association is considered invalid, and the Administrator has the power to prevent such transfers.\n•\n(d) The High Court, while exercising its original civil jurisdiction, cannot entertain questions that fall under the jurisdiction of functionaries under the Abandoned Properties Act.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Abandoned Properties Act provisions are effective even in the absence of a notification under Section 11.\n•\nSection 38 of the Companies Act is not applicable in this case, and the Administrator has the power to forbid the transfer of shares if it doesn't comply with the company's Articles of Association.\n•\nThe High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction on issues that should be decided by functionaries under the Abandoned Properties Act.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=38", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No. 25 of 1976, decision dated: 5th November 1980, hearing DATE : 2-11-1980", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAYEE QURESHI, ACTG. CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfar for Applicant. \nAkhtar Mahmood Khan for the Intervenors. \nMamnoon Hassan and Shah Jamil Alam for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAUDUD AHMAD FARUQUI\nVS \nAMIN FABRICS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 20 = 1988 SLD 20 = 1988 PLC 564", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Closure of Establishment, Labor Court Jurisdiction, Companies Ordinance, and Industrial Relations Ordinance\nDetails:\n•\n(a) The Court discusses the maintainability of constitutional petitions related to the closure of establishments, stating that a constitutional petition is competent when there is a legal infirmity in the closure order, and no right of appeal is available.\n•\n(b) The case involves the Companies Ordinance (1984), requiring companies to have their annual accounts audited by a qualified auditor.\n•\n(c) The Companies Act (1913) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (1969) provisions regarding the protection of shareholders' and workers' interests through accurate accounting are also considered.\n•\n(d) The Labor Court has the discretion to approve or reject closure requests, especially where the company proves financial distress.\nHeld:\n•\nConstitutional petitions are maintainable when a closure order is legally flawed.\n•\nThe Companies Ordinance mandates the audit of accounts, and the Labor Court must ensure the accounts correctly reflect financial positions and worker share entitlements.\n•\nEmployers can terminate services or close establishments under certain conditions, with the Labor Court having discretion over such matters.\n•\nThe Court emphasizes the importance of corroboration in the appraisal of evidence related to labor disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.S-138 of 1986, decision dated: 22-03-1988. dates of hearing: 14th and 15-03-1988", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Amjad for Petitioner.\nSyed Afsar Abidifor Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED WOOLEN MILLS WORKERS‘ UNION \nVS \nPRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT NO. III AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 270 = 1992 SLD 270 = 1992 PLC 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Auditor’s Report, Authority, and Jurisdiction in Companies and Industrial Relations\nDetails:\n•\n(a) The case addresses the competency of auditors appointed by the government to audit commercial and financial transactions of a company, ruling that the auditor's report must be within the scope of Section 23-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.\n•\n(b) The Companies Ordinance (1984) specifies the limits of an auditor's authority, and an auditor must only examine the accounts to ensure compliance with the law.\n•\n(c) The case also considers the power of government-appointed auditors over factory audits and whether they can overstep their authority.\n•\n(d) Issues of natural justice arise when the auditor prepares a report without hearing from the company, making the report invalid.\nHeld:\n•\nAuditors cannot examine transactions outside the scope of their authority under Section 23-B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.\n•\nThe government auditor’s report is invalid if the company was not given an opportunity for a hearing.\n•\nThe report of an auditor appointed by the government is void if it exceeds legal authority.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=23", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1083 of 1989, decision dated: 14-01-1992, hearing DATE : 4-11-1991", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Obaidur Rehman for Petitioner.\nAli Amjad, Sulaiman Oasim and Abdul hafoor Mangi, Addl. A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARACHI PIPE MILLS LIMITED\nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 653 = 2002 SLD 653 = 2002 SCMR 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of a Company and Appeal Procedures\nDetails: The case examines whether an appeal against a winding-up order of a company is competent before the High Court or the Supreme Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal as incompetent, but the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.\nHeld: The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the appeal before the High Court was competent, or whether it should have been made before the Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 17-K of 2000, decision dated: 24-02-2000", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE \nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.I. Chundrigar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ali, Akbar, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Afsar Abidi, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN\nVS \nMESSRS VALIBHAI KAMARUDDIN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1966 116 = 1966 SLD 116 = 1966 PLD 684", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code, Additional Evidence, and Company Representation\nDetails:\n•\n(a) The case discusses the requirement for a third judge to resolve differences of opinion between two judges in a Division Bench, particularly in reference to the Civil Procedure Code (1908), Sections 98 and 4.\n•\n(b) It covers the admissibility of additional evidence, emphasizing the need for genuine reasons for its admission, particularly in the case of a difference of opinion in appeal.\n•\n(c) The case also discusses the role of the Articles of Association in authorizing an attorney to represent a company.\n•\n(d) The Bankers' Books Evidence Act (1891) and the Evidence Act (1872) address the admissibility of certified copies of accounts, clarifying their role in proving liability.\nHeld:\n•\nA third judge can call for additional evidence to address a genuine need.\n•\nCompanies must ensure that their representatives are properly authorized under the Articles of Association.\n•\nCertified copies of accounts are not conclusive by themselves and must be corroborated by further evidence to establish liability.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=98", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1964, decision dated: 18th January 1966. dates of hearing: 17th and 18th January 1966", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. CORNELIUS, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAZLE-AKBAR, JUSTICE\nHAMOODUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nS. A. RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Abdul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Z. Khalil, Attorney for Appellants. Muhammad Sarwar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Attorney for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ MUHAMMAD UMAR AND ANOTHER. \nVS \nTHE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 255 = 1989 SLD 255 = 1989 PTD 676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInvestment Allowance and Entitlement in Share Transactions\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the entitlement of the assessee to claim investment allowance under Section 41 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, in the context of the purchase of receipts and allotment letters for shares from a previous allottee who had not become a registered holder of the shares.\n•\nHeld: The assessee was not entitled to the investment allowance because the shares were not issued in the name of the purchaser at the time of purchase. The Official Income Tax Officer (I.T.O.) was directed to verify whether the shares were issued in the name of the assessee or the original allottee, which would determine the entitlement.\n•\nCitations: Sections 72 & 73 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984; Sections 74 to 81 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984; Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 41.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=41", + "Case #": "I.T.As Nos.1053 and 4054/KB of 1986-1987 decided on 15-04-1989", + "Judge Name:": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.R. Memon DR for Appellant. \nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARHAT ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN\nA.R. Memon DR for --Appellant." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 154 = 1987 SLD 154 = 1987 CLC 2109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSale of Company Assets Under Liquidation\n•\nDetails: This case involves the question of whether the sale of assets of a company under liquidation by the Official Liquidator is governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), particularly in relation to the confirmation of offers by the High Court.\n•\nHeld: The High Court was not bound to accept the highest bid in this case and had the authority to reject offers or invite new ones. The notice issued by the Official Liquidator stated that offers were subject to court confirmation and could be rejected without reasons.\n•\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 64, 78 & 89; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305 (e), 333(1)(f), 333(3); Case references: Ganapathia Pillani v. Malaiperumal Chettiar A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 202, among others.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.2 of 1986, decision dated: 15-06-1987", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmed Memon, Official Liquidator in person.\nI. H. Zaidi for Consortium of Banks lead by I. C. P.\nMuhammad Asghar Ansari for I.D.B.P.\nSalim Karimally for U. B. L.\nHabibur Rehman for Bank of Oman.\nSalim Iqbal for Habib Bank.\nJunaid Farooqui for Workers.\nA.S. Vaswani for the Company in Liquidation.\nKhuda Bux for Rashid Enterprises.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SPECIALITY TRADERS\nVS \nFIRDOUS TEXTILE MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 151 = 1987 SLD 151 = 1987 CLC 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nImpleading of Necessary Parties in Corporate Disputes\n•\nDetails: The case involves a petition concerning corporate governance and shareholder rights, specifically about the necessity of involving the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies in the proceedings.\n•\nHeld: The Registrar was not a necessary party because no allegations were made against them, and the issue was only between the directors. Additionally, minor defects in the power of attorney were considered curable and did not affect the petition’s maintainability.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 161(8), 158(3), 230(7), 161(2); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R.10.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=161", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application No.2 of 1986, decision dated: 7-09-1986, hearing DATE : 27-08-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner.\nObaidur Rehman for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI ABDUL JABBAR AND OTHERS \nVS \nHARYANA ASBESTOS CEMENT INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 520 = 2000 SLD 520 = 2000 CLC 1438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSale of Mortgaged Property Through Auction\n•\nDetails: This case involves the validity of a decree-holder’s application to halt auction proceedings after the mortgaged property was sold to the highest bidder, despite the debtor offering a higher price.\n•\nHeld: The auction sale was not to be disturbed as the auction had been lawfully conducted, and no malpractice or fraud was alleged. The purchaser had completed all necessary legal formalities and could not be deprived of their acquired rights.\n•\nCitations: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits, and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S. 18; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 92; Case references: Messrs Dawood Flour Mills and others v. National Bank of Pakistan, 1999 MLD 3205.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.44 of 1999, decision dated: 7-10-1999, hearing DATE : 5-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE\nANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aijaz Ahmed for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 5.\nRespondent No. 8 in person. \nAkhtar Hussain for Respondent No. 9.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED\nVS \nMESSRS A.Z. HASHMI (PVT.) LIMITED AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 39 = 2001 SLD 39 = 2001 CLC 1267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJudicial Sale and its Stability\n•\nDetails: This case examines the implications of receiving a better offer than the one made during a judicial sale under winding-up proceedings, and whether such an offer can result in the sale being set aside.\n•\nHeld: Judicial sales must be stable to maintain the sanctity of the court's commitment. The sale should not be set aside merely on the basis of a better offer, as it would encourage a culture of rescinding commitments based on better offers.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 309 & 319; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, R. 64, 92; Case reference: Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1987 SC 512.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=309", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.23 of 1996 and Civil Miscellaneous No.447-L, 439-L, 621/L and 622/L of 2000, decision dated: 10-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azmat Saeed for Petitioner.\nZafar Iqbal Awan and Chaudhry Zafar for Respondents Noor Muhammad Khan Chandia for NBP.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED\nVs\nSHAHDIN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 20 = 1988 SLD 20 = 1988 CLC 2127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInterpretation of Statutory Provisions\n•\nDetails: This case addresses the interpretation of certain sections of the Companies Ordinance, particularly focusing on the mandatory nature of time limits for disposing of cases and the consequences of failure to meet these limits.\n•\nHeld: The provisions of Section 9 of the Companies Ordinance are not mandatory because no explicit consequences were provided for failure to dispose of cases within the specified time.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=9", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 131 of 1987, decision dated: 14-10-1987", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, JUSTICE\nMAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Qureshi for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PUNJAB LAMP WORKS LIMITED\nVS \nINVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1967 4 = 1967 SLD 4 = 1967 PLD 637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Act (VII of 1913) - S. 162 (Winding up of company)\n•\nCourt's authority to order winding up.\n•\nDetails: The Court may order the winding up of a company if its substratum is gone, even if the majority of shareholders or creditors oppose it. This can be especially relevant if the majority shareholders' stance is deceptive.\n•\nHeld: The Court is not bound to adhere to the majority shareholders' wishes and can order the winding up if the substratum is gone.\n•\nCitations: Re: The British Oil and Cannel Company (1857); In re: Coly & County Bank (1875); In re: Langham Skating Rink Company (1875); R. Sabapathy Rao v. Sabapathy Press AIR 1925 Mad. 489.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Act (VII of 1913) - S. 6(1)(iii) (Company’s Memorandum of Association)\n•\nCompany's authority under its Memorandum of Association.\n•\nDetails: A company cannot operate outside the main objects specified in its Memorandum of Association, even if a wide range of activities is listed within it. The subsidiary activities must support the main objective.\n•\nHeld: The company must adhere to the primary objectives stated in its Memorandum.\n•\nCitations: Re: Red Rock Gold Mining Company (1960); Govind v. Rangnath AIR 1930 Bom. 572.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=162", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application No. 77 of 1964, decision dated: 1st August 1966. dates of hearing: 22nd and 23rd November 1965", + "Judge Name:": "QADEERUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "E. V. Castellino for Petitioners.\nDingomal for Respondent.\nPermanand and Talati for the Supporters.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIDA ALI YUSUFALI AND OTHERS\nVS \nGRAXALT REFINERIES LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1968 16 = 1968 SLD 16 = 1968 PLD 412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Act (VII of 1913) - Ss. 72(2), 82(1), 137 (Registrar’s duties)\n•\nRegistrar's discretionary authority.\n•\nDetails: While the word shall in sections 72(2) and 82(1) of the Companies Act suggests mandatory action, the Registrar has a quasi-judicial function and can refuse to file information if it is incomplete or unsatisfactory.\n•\nHeld: The Registrar is not merely an automaton and must exercise discretion to ensure compliance with the Companies Act.\n•\nCitations: The King v. The Registrar of Companies (1912); Alousel & Company (Chittagong) Limited v. The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, East Bengal PLD 1957 Dacca 209.\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Act (VII of 1913) - S. 24 (Certificate of Incorporation)\n•\nChallenging an illegally granted certificate of incorporation.\n•\nDetails: A certificate of incorporation is conclusive evidence of the registration process, but it can be challenged if granted illegally.\n•\nHeld: The certificate can be contested in an appropriate legal proceeding.\n•\nCitations: No additional citations provided.\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Act (VII of 1913) - S. 3 and Trade Organizations Ordinance (XLV of 1961) - Writ Jurisdiction\n•\nHigh Court's jurisdiction over Registrar's duties.\n•\nDetails: If the Registrar fails to properly discharge duties, a writ can be filed. The Companies Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under the Constitution.\n•\nHeld: Writ jurisdiction remains available despite sub-constitutional legislations.\n•\nCitations: Imilaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali and others PLD 1963 SC 382.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=72", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 60-D of 1968, decision dated: 20th August 1968. dates of hearing: 19th and 20th August 1968", + "Judge Name:": "FAZLE-AKBAR, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nHAMOODUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nABDUS SATTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mozammal Huq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by D. K. Khadim, Attorney for Appellant. \nRuhul Islam, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. R. Khan, Attorney for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IDRISH\nVS \nEAST PAKISTAN TIMBER MERCHANTS GROUP AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1982 117 = 1982 SLD 117 = 1982 PLD 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - S. 98 and Letters Patent (Lahore) - cl. 26 (Appeals)\n•\nProcedure when Judges in a Division Bench have differing opinions.\n•\nDetails: If there is a difference of opinion between judges in a Division Bench, the Chief Justice can order a hearing by a third judge. However, the case must be heard de novo by a new Division Bench if the procedure was not followed properly.\n•\nHeld: The procedure adopted by the Chief Justice and third judge was not in accordance with the law.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Sayyar v. Vice-Chancellor, University of Peshawar PLD 1974 SC 257.\n________________________________________\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - S. 98 and Letters Patent (Lahore) - cl. 26 (Difference of Opinion)\n•\nJurisdiction of the referee judge in case of difference of opinion.\n•\nDetails: A referee judge's jurisdiction is limited to deciding the point of difference between dissenting judges. The entire case should not be placed before him.\n•\nHeld: The referee judge cannot decide beyond the subject matter of the difference between judges.\n•\nCitations: No additional citations provided.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=98", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1970, decision dated: 25-04-1982", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. CHIEF, JUSTICE \nSHAFIUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sa. dar Muhammad Iqbal, Senior Advocate, Sh. Ziaullah, Advocate, Kh. M. Tufail, Advocate and Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Tariq Rahtm, Advocate and Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUBARAK ALI KHAN AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\nANJUMAN ISLAMIA PUNJAB, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 459 = 1983 SLD 459 = 1983 PLD 178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Act (VII of 1913) - Ss. 262 & 24 (Types of Companies)\n•\nDefinition and types of companies.\n•\nDetails: Companies may either be formed by satisfying statutory requirements and registration under the Companies Act or they may be created by legislation, irrespective of registration.\n•\nHeld: Companies may exist based on statute regardless of registration under the Companies Act.\n•\nCitations: No additional citations provided.\n________________________________________\n(b) West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (1958) - Ss. 3 & 4\n•\nWAPDA's status as a company.\n•\nDetails: WAPDA, although not registered under the Companies Act, is still considered a company as defined by other relevant legislation.\n•\nHeld: WAPDA is considered a company for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act.\n•\nCitations: No additional citations provided.\n________________________________________\n(c) Land Acquisition Act (1894) - S. 3(e) (Definition of Company)\n•\nInterpretation of Company. \n•\nDetails: The term company under the Land Acquisition Act is not restricted to a technical company but extends to any association of persons for a common purpose.\n•\nHeld: Company includes any association of persons formed for a common purpose.\n•\nCitations: Wharton's Law Lexicon.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=262", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5402 of 1981, decision dated: 22-12-1982, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 1982", + "Judge Name:": "GHAZANFAR ALI GONDAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioners. \nRespondent No. 1 in person with Record. Sajjad Hussain for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN AND 2 others\nVs\nTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SIALKOT AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 153 = 1987 SLD 153 = 1987 PLD 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 – Procedures of Special Banking Court\nDetails:\nThis case examines the procedures the Special Banking Court must follow while trying a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, particularly in relation to the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.). Key provisions discussed are sections 3, 6(1)(a), 7(2), and 8(3) of the Ordinance. The Special Banking Court is mandated to follow the summary procedure under Order XXXVII of the C.P.C., and it is established that the procedural framework of the C.P.C. applies unless overridden by provisions in the Ordinance. Notably, section 7(2) of the Ordinance dictates that the summary procedure applies to all suits.\nThe Special Banking Court also holds similar powers to a Civil Court in execution matters, including the sale of property by auction. However, even after a sale, the rights of the auction purchaser cannot be disregarded. The discretion vested in the Court regarding the confirmation of sales is not unlimited, and a refusal to confirm the sale merely because the decree has been satisfied is improper.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe Special Banking Court must follow the summary procedure under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. for suits concerning loan recovery, as required by section 7(2) of the Ordinance.\n2.\nThe Special Banking Court's powers are subject to provisions in the C.P.C., unless specifically overridden by the Ordinance.\n3.\nThe Special Banking Court must apply equitable principles where C.P.C. provisions are not directly applicable.\n4.\nJudicial discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily in confirming sales under execution, and the interests of third-party purchasers must be considered.\nCitations:\n•\nHussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, PLD 1970 SC 1\n•\nNanhelal v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1931 PC 33\n•\nMian Muhammad Abdul Khaliq v. M. Abdul Jabbar Khan, PLD 1953 Lah. 147\n•\nShivaram Sand v. Manu Lal Khemka, AIR 1928 Patna 40\n•\nGauri v. Ude, AIR 1942 Lah. 153\n•\nSitaram v. Asaram, AIR 1924 Nag. 108", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=3", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.90 of 1987, decision dated: 12-08-1987", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE\nALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Zaffar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abdul Assim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for the Appellants.\nRana A. Rahim Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HUDAYBIA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS\nVS \nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 103 = 1981 SLD 103 = 1981 SCMR 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Act and Sale of Property under Civil Procedure Code\nDetails:\nThe case addresses the issue of limitation for setting aside a sale of property under execution. According to Article 166 of the Limitation Act, the time period for filing an application to set aside a sale begins from the date of the sale, not from the date of issuance of the sale certificate. The Court examines the implications of irregularities in the sale proclamation and the sufficiency of such irregularities to warrant setting aside the sale.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe limitation period for setting aside a sale in execution starts from the date the hammer falls in a public auction, or in case of a private sale, from the date the offer is accepted.\n2.\nAlleged violations in the publication of the proclamation, such as failing to publicize it by drum or other means, do not automatically invalidate the sale if no substantial loss to the debtor is shown.\n3.\nThe Court can adopt alternative means of property disposal as long as the mode complies with the justice of the case.\nCitations:\n•\nSham Singh v. Vir Bhan, AIR 1942 Lah. 102\n•\nGhulam Abbas v. Zohra Bibi, PLD 1972 SC 337\n•\nNarsing Das v. Mangal Dubey, 5 All. 163", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-295 of 1979, decision dated: 14-09-1980", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD HALEEM, JUSTICE\nASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fazle Ghani Khan, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. ASMA ZAFARUL HASSAN\nVS \nMESSRS UNITED BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 261 = 1996 SLD 261 = 1996 SCMR 88 = 1996 PTCL 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Official Liquidator under Companies Ordinance, 1984\nDetails:\nThis case concerns the powers of the Official Liquidator under section 333 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The case examines the Official Liquidator's authority to sell company assets, either by public auction or private contract, subject to Court or Committee approval. The case involves a sale offer made for company assets that was subject to Court approval. The Court had discretion to accept or reject the offer based on the interests of the company and its creditors. Despite the appellant's bid being the highest, the Court rejected it, as the offer did not sufficiently meet the company’s liabilities.\nHeld:\n1.\nThe Official Liquidator has the power to sell company assets subject to the sanction of the Court or the Committee of Inspection.\n2.\nNo right to enforce the sale arises until the Court approves the offer.\n3.\nThe Court has complete discretion to sanction or reject sales, based on the interests of the company and creditors.\n4.\nThe discretion of the Court was correctly exercised in rejecting the appellant's bid as it did not adequately address the company's financial obligations.\nCitations:\n•\nTaj Clay Works Ltd. v. Official Liquidator, AIR 1960 Andh. Pra. 429", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=333", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 741 of 1995, decision dated: 1st August, 1995", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE\nRAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mehta W.N. Kohf, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.\nF.G. Ibrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Ghany, Advocate-on-Record absent) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. SARBAZ CEMENT LTD. THROUGH MANAGER\nVS \nBANKERS EQUITY LTD. AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 262 = 1996 SLD 262 = 1996 CLC 516 = 1996 PTCL 262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompanies Ordinance - Investigation of Company Affairs\n•\nDetails: Petitioners applied for an investigation into the affairs of companies they jointly owned with respondents, invoking S. 265-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, for the appointment of Inspectors.\n•\nHeld: The Court held that an application for investigation under S. 265-A was independent of S. 263, and it could be filed directly without the need for prior approval from the Corporate Law Authority. The Court found prima facie evidence supporting the investigation, especially allegations of account manipulation. The respondents failed to rebut the evidence. The Court declared the investigation should proceed.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 263, 265-A, 265-A; Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=263,265A", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 95 of 1994, decision dated: 6-10-1994", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. Basit with Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Abid Aziz Sheikh for Appellant.\nCh. Muhammad Farooq, Ashtar Ausaf Ali and Ch. Muhammad Raza Farooq for Respondents Nos. 1. and 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MIRAJ DIN AND OTHERS\nVS \nBROTHERSTEEL MILLS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 522 = 2000 SLD 522 = 2000 CLC 477 = 2000 PTCL 483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Shareholdings and Election of Directors\nDetails: The case dealt with the process for transferring shareholdings and the election of directors. Issues were raised regarding voting rights, procedural requirements, and the jurisdiction of courts in resolving disputes.\nHeld: Proper procedure must be followed in share transfer, including the requirement for valid instruments. Challenges to elections under S.161(8) were deemed maintainable with the requisite voting power. Disputes related to elections should be addressed through the special forum under the Companies Ordinance.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 7, 50, 76, 161(8), 173, 178, 179; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=76", + "Case #": "C.O. No.6 of 1998, decision dated: 12-11-1999. dates of hearing: 16th, 20th, 28th July; 11th and 12-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar and Muzammil Akhtar Shabbir for Petitioners.\nM. Saleem Sehgal, M. Naeem Sehgal, Shams Mahmood Mirza and Mrs. Rubina Yasmeen for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SIDDIQUE MUHAMMAD MALIK AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\nIMMAD IFTIKHAR MALIK AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 15 = 1993 SLD 15 = 1993 MLD 42 = 1993 PTCL 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S.208(1)\n•\nDisinvestment and scope of S.208(1)\n•\nDetails: The transfer of shares by the plaintiff was a disinvestment, not a fresh investment, and thus not governed by S.208(1) of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: Transfer not governed by S.208(1).\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) S.208(1)\n________________________________________\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S.76\n•\nValidity of share transfer\n•\nDetails: The defendant company failed to produce a deed of transfer, making the transfer of shares by the company invalid under S.76 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: Transfer of shares not valid due to lack of documentation.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) S.76\n________________________________________\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S.76\n•\nShare transfer without consent\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff did not consent to the transfer of shares, and dividends on disputed shares were ordered to be deposited in court pending the suit.\n•\nHeld: Dividends deposited in court.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) S.76\n________________________________________\n(d) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S.76\n•\nProtection against special resolutions affecting rights\n•\nDetails: The defendant company was directed to notify the plaintiff of any intention to pass special resolutions to protect plaintiff's rights.\n•\nHeld: Protection for plaintiff's rights through notice requirement.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) S.76", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=76,208(1)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=Order40readwithOrder39,Rules,1,2,7and10andsection151,", + "Case #": "C.MA. No.917 in Suit No. 227 of 1991, decision dated: 13-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": "G.H. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Pervez Hassan with Muhammad Ali Sayyed and A.S. Pingar for Plaintiff. \nKhalid Anwar for Defendants Nos. 1 to 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LTD. \nVS \nNAVEED TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 16 = 1993 SLD 16 = 1993 MLD 94 = 1993 PTCL 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S.306\n•\nWinding up of company\n•\nDetails: The company failed to pay its debts after receiving a statutory notice and was therefore treated as unable to pay its debts, warranting its winding up.\n•\nHeld: Company ordered to be wound up.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) S.306", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305(e),306Income Tax Act, 1922=42", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous No. 19 of 1991, decision dated: 13-10-1992", + "Judge Name:": "G.H. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Hamid Hussain for Petitioner. \nNoor Muhammad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PICIC\nVS \nMESSRS INDUS STEEL PIPE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 530 = 1999 SLD 530 = 1999 MLD 1694", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---S.10\n•\nDisputed mark-up claim\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff could not claim mark-up without prior agreement between parties; leave to defend the suit was denied to the defendants.\n•\nHeld: Defendants could not claim leave to defend due to the disputed mark-up.\n•\nCitations: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) S.10\n________________________________________\n(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---Ss. 176 & 177\n•\nPledge and obligation to return property\n•\nDetails: The pledgee must return pledged property upon payment of debt.\n•\nHeld: Pledgee's obligation to return property.\n•\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 176 & 177\n________________________________________\n(c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---Ss. 151 & 152\n•\nInability of pledgee to return goods\n•\nDetails: The pledgee’s inability to return goods due to legal restrictions did not absolve them of responsibility.\n•\nHeld: Pledgee still responsible for returning goods.\n•\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 151 & 152\n________________________________________\n(d) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---S.10\n•\nGrant of leave to defend suit\n•\nDetails: Evidence of negligence on part of plaintiff was insufficient for the defendants to claim leave to defend.\n•\nHeld: Leave to defend was denied.\n•\nCitations: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) S.10\n________________________________________\n(e) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---S. 176\n•\nRight to redeem pledged goods\n•\nDetails: The defendant could redeem pledged goods only upon payment of the entire debt.\n•\nHeld: Right to redeem only after full payment of debt.\n•\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872) S. 176\n________________________________________\n(f) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---S. 128\n•\nPersonal guarantee and liability\n•\nDetails: Guarantors could not evade their liability using technicalities.\n•\nHeld: Guarantors held liable.\n•\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872) S. 128\n________________________________________\n(g) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---S. 10\n•\nProtection of plaintiff’s interest\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff was protected from the risk of alienation of property by the defendants, and an order was passed to prevent such actions during the proceedings.\n•\nHeld: Protection order for plaintiff’s interest in property.\n•\nCitations: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) S. 10", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1276 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 6013, 7630, 7840 and 8252 of 1997, decision dated: 27-08-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHTAQ A. MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoorul Arfeen for Plaintiff.\nMohsin Tayabally and Mazharul Haq for Defendants. \nNos. to 5 and 8 to 10. S.A. Majid for Defendant No. 6. A. Aziz Khan for Defendant No. 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PRUDENTIAL COMMERCIAL BANK LTD \nVS \nHYDARI GHEE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND 9 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 523 = 2000 SLD 523 = 2000 MLD 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)---S.12(1)\n•\nFailure to repatriate sale proceeds\n•\nDetails: Exporter failed to prove the repatriation of sale proceeds within the required period, and therefore, the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board could not raise a presumption of bona fides.\n•\nHeld: Exporter failed to prove bona fides of repatriation.\n•\nCitations: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947) S.12(1)\n________________________________________\n(b) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)---S.12(1)\n•\nProtection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992)\n•\nDetails: The Protection of Economic Reforms Act did not override the obligation to repatriate sale proceeds under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.\n•\nHeld: Protection Act did not apply.\n•\nCitations: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947) S.12(1), Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992) S.3\n________________________________________\n(c) Interpretation of statutes\n•\nMeaning of notwithstanding \n•\nDetails: The term notwithstanding should be interpreted contextually, implying that pre-existing laws remain intact but the new Act may create additional obligations.\n•\nHeld: Interpretation of notwithstanding clarified.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Tayyub Khan v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore 1979 PLC 377\n________________________________________\n(d) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)---S.12(l)\n•\nStatutory obligation of exporter\n•\nDetails: The statutory obligation to repatriate sale proceeds under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not overridden by the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992.\n•\nHeld: Statutory obligation for repatriation upheld.\n•\nCitations: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947) S.12(l), Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992) Ss.4 & 5", + "Court Name:": "Foreign Exchange Appellate Board", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli and Nasar Ahmad for Appellants.\nKhawaja Saeeduz Zafar, Dy. A.G (on Courts Call).", + "Petitioner Name:": "EAST WEST TRADING COMPANY AND ANOTHER\nVS\nSTATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 524 = 2000 SLD 524 = 2000 MLD 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTerritorial Jurisdiction and Forma Pauperis Suit\n•\nDetails: A suit for the recovery of dowry was filed in forma pauperis, and during the proceedings, the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was questioned. Initially, it was decided that the Court had jurisdiction, and the suit was registered. Later, during the trial, the issue of territorial jurisdiction was re-examined, and the Trial Court ruled that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, ordering the plaint to be returned. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this, stating that the issue of jurisdiction had already been decided.\n•\nHeld: The issue of territorial jurisdiction had been decided earlier in favor of the plaintiff, and there was no need to frame the issue again. The matter had become final and could not be re-opened, as no party had challenged the initial finding. The revision petition was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. VII, R. 10; O. XIV, R. 1; S. 115; Premier Sugar Mills' case, PLD 1991 Lah. 381; Haji Abdullalh Khan's case PLD 1965 SC 690.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ghulam Shabbir for Petitioner.\nSyed Ahmad Saeed Karmani for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAUKAB\nVS\nKAUKAB SULTANA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 444 = 2005 SLD 444 = 2005 MLD 1165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLocus Standi and Authorization in Suit by Corporation\n•\nDetails: A suit for the recovery of money was filed by a Technical Advisor of a plaintiff company. The defendants challenged the competence of the Technical Advisor to file the suit. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The High Court, however, found that the Trial Court did not properly address the issue of the Technical Advisor's authority to file the suit.\n•\nHeld: The High Court remanded the case back to the Trial Court after framing additional issues regarding the authority of the Technical Advisor. The decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside.\n•\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXIX, R. 1; Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) S. 30; Premier Sugar Mills' case, PLD 1991 Lah. 381.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.484 of 1999, heard on 28-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rehman Madni for Appellants.\nMuhammad Raza Qureshi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WAPDA AND ANOTHER\nVS \nMESSRS GHULAM RASOOL & CO. (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 21 = 1971 SLD 21 = 1971 PLC 507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRegistration and Recognition of Employers' Trade Union\n•\nDetails: The case dealt with the formation and registration of a Trade Union for employers, which was challenged on the grounds that such a union was not contemplated under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The legality of registering an employers' trade union was contested based on non-compliance with specific provisions of the Ordinance.\n•\nHeld: The Court held that employers can form a trade union, and the registration of such a union was valid despite non-compliance with certain provisions that apply only to workers' unions. An industrial dispute can also arise between employers, and such disputes can be adjudicated by the Labour Court.\n•\nCitations: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) Ss. 2(xxvi), (xiii), 6, 7, 43 & 20(1); Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Company Limited v. Vandry and others A I R 1920 P C 181; Queen v. The Bishop of Oxford (1879) 4 P B D 245.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)=2", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 453 of 1970, decision dated: 30th June 1970", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ALI SAYEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Mahmood Mirza for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL JAMIL\nVS \nREGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1954 4 = 1954 SLD 4 = 1954 PLD 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - Appeal against part of decree; jurisdiction to deal with the whole decree\n•\nDetails: An appeal was filed against only a part of the decree. The Court of Appeal, under Order 41 Rule 33, has jurisdiction to deal with the entire decree, even if the appeal concerns only a portion. The Court’s discretion to interfere is not restricted, and it must consider whether to exercise this power. Additionally, failure of the lower appellate court to consider this discretion may be subject to revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.\n•\nHeld: The Court has discretion to deal with the entire decree and should exercise it judiciously. Failure to consider this discretion by a lower appellate court is revisable under Section 115, CPC.\n•\nCitations: AIR 1926 Pat 40, I L R 15 Mad. 170, I L R 29 All. 730, AIR 1944 Lah. 76, I L R 9 Pat. 358", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=33", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 46/C of 1953, decision dated: 6th May 1954", + "Judge Name:": "S. A. RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nB. Z. KAIKAUS, JUSTICE\nJ. ORTCHESAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. D. Malik, for Petitioner. \nMian Muhammad Shahs and Nazar Muhammad, for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAEED AHMAD\nVS\nMESSRS. INDO ENAMEL WORKS LTD., LAHORE (IN LAHORE)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 41 = 2001 SLD 41 = 2001 PTD 3406 = (2001) 249 ITR 307", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncome Tax - Manufacture or production of article; cutting and polishing diamonds\n•\nDetails: The court considered whether cutting and polishing raw diamonds amounts to the manufacture or production of an article for the purpose of tax deduction under section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The activity of cutting and polishing raw diamonds was found not to constitute manufacture or production.\n•\nHeld: The process of cutting and polishing diamonds does not qualify as manufacturing or production of an article under Section 80I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thus no deduction is available.\n•\nCitations: CIT v. London Star Diamond Co. (L) Ltd. (1995) 213 ITR 517 (Born.)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=80", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 180 of 1999, decision dated: 5-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA, JUSTICE\nN. SANTOSH HEGDE, JUSTICE\nY K. SABHARWAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Navin Chawla, Prateek, S.K. Dwivedi and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.\nKrishnan Venugopal, Deepamala Ranganathan, Musharaf Chaudhary and Uday Tiwari, Advocates for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax \nVS \nGEM INDIA MANUFACTURING CO" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1244 = 2012 SLD 1244 = 2012 CLD 1405", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSugar Cane Dues - Recovery from sugar mill owners\n•\nDetails: The petitioners (sugar cane growers) sought a direction for the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, to recover dues from sugar mill owners. The High Court directed the Cane Commissioner to use all available powers under the relevant sugar control laws for expeditious recovery, including initiating criminal proceedings if necessary.\n•\nHeld: The High Court directed the Cane Commissioner to proceed with the recovery of the dues using the powers under the Punjab Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950.\n•\nCitations: West Pakistan Sugar Factories Control Act, (XXII of 1950), S. 14(2)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1950=14", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.14930, 14866, 15529, 14275 and 12619 of 2010, decision dated: 16-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Hamid Raza Bukhari for Petitioner.\nRaja Nadeem Haider, Additional A.G. for Respondent.\nSyed Sibte Hasan, Assistant Office of the Cane Commissioner, Punjab.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAUKAT MEHMOOD \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY AGRICULTURE AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1245 = 2012 SLD 1245 = 2012 CLD 1408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompanies Ordinance - Unauthorized investment in associated companies\n•\nDetails: A company made advances to its associated company without proper authority under Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The advances were not normal trade credit but were classified as an investment, which required a special resolution. The resolution passed earlier was deficient, and the company did not comply with legal requirements.\n•\nHeld: The company did not comply with the legal requirements under Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and was directed to ensure compliance with Section 473.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208 & 473, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.21 of 2005, decision dated: 14-02-2012, hearing DATE : 22-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD) \nMUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Saeed for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LIMITED \nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1246 = 2012 SLD 1246 = 2012 CLD 1413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction - Time Charter and liability for bunker supply\n•\nDetails: A plaintiff sought recovery for bunker supplies to a vessel under time charter. The claim was dismissed as the charterer, not the vessel owner, was liable under the charter party agreement. The plaintiff had failed to establish a claim in rem against the vessel or in personam against the owner.\n•\nHeld: The claim was not maintainable in rem against the vessel; no liability could be imposed on the vessel owner or its charterer under the terms of the time charter agreement.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Global Venture Ltd. v. M. V. Rio G. 2001 YLR 1115, Medway Drydock and Engineering Company Ltd. v. The Andrea Ursula (1971) 1 Lloyd's Law Reports 145", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suit No.37 of 2011, decision dated: 10-02-2012, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Ahmed for Plaintiff.\nShaiq Usmani for Defendants Nos.1 and 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NASEEM OILS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nM.T. MIRAMIS THROUGH MASTER/CHIEF OFFICER AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1247 = 2012 SLD 1247 = 2012 CLD 1423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompanies Ordinance - Trust management and provident fund non-compliance\n•\nDetails: A company failed to comply with the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 regarding managing the provident fund. The trustees had advanced funds to the company in contravention of legal requirements, and the company did not repay the loan with interest.\n•\nHeld: The trustees, not the company, were responsible for complying with Section 227(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The trustees were reprimanded for non-compliance and directed to adhere strictly to legal requirements.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 227, 229 & 476", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227", + "Case #": "Appeal No.36 of 2008, decision dated: 5-04-2012, hearing DATE : 14-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD) \nMUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashfaq A. Khan for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHARIBWAL CEMENT LIMITED \nVS\nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1248 = 2012 SLD 1248 = 2012 CLD 1428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConsumer Court - Jurisdiction and cancellation of gas bill\n•\nDetails: A Consumer Court directed a gas company to revise a gas bill issued to the complainant. However, the court first needed to determine its jurisdiction over such matters, as it is a court of limited jurisdiction.\n•\nHeld: The Consumer Court lacked jurisdiction over the cancellation of the gas bill, and its order was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)=25", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.120 of 2008, decision dated: 6-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Sharif for Appellants.\nRespondent ex parte.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE LIMITED THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nABDUL HAMEED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1249 = 2012 SLD 1249 = 2012 CLD 1430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Violation of Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Trade Debts from Associated Company\nDetails:\nThis case concerns a company that provided credit facilities to an associated company, which did not constitute 'normal trade credit' as per Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The credit was extended without prior approval through a special resolution from the shareholders. The Executive Director (Enforcement) imposed a penalty after the directors admitted the violation and began efforts to recover the dues. The company's financial statements showed that the receivables far exceeded the paid-up capital, and the associated company had significant financial difficulties.\nHeld:\nThe Chief Executive and Directors were found in violation of the provisions of Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, as the credit extended to the associated company was not approved by the shareholders. The penalty imposed was upheld as the company had failed to comply with the relevant legal requirements, and no markup was provided for the receivables.\nCitations:\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 208, 473, 476; Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.38 of 2006, decision dated: 1st March, 2012, hearing DATE : 22-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SM)\nMUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Amina Aziz, Director for Respondent Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.M. AHMED AND 6 OTHERS\nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1250 = 2012 SLD 1250 = 2012 CLD 1436", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002) - Broadcasting License\nDetails:\nThe scheme of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, governs the issuance of broadcast licenses, ensuring that no monopoly is created. The objective is to provide maximum coverage to the public in a competitive and transparent manner based on the financial and organizational capability of the broadcaster.\nHeld:\nThe issuance of broadcasting licenses aims to ensure competitive, transparent service coverage to the public without creating monopolies.\nCitations:\nPakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002), Ss. 19 & 23", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)=19", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.22884 of 2011, decision dated: 19-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Ahmad Awan for Petitioner. \nMuhammad Azam Zia for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL PROPRIETOR UNIVERSAL CABLE NETWORK, DASKA KALAN \nVS \nPAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY (PEMRA), ISLAMABAD THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1251 = 2012 SLD 1251 = 2012 CLD 1439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQ1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Allotment and Transfer of Shares\nDetails:\nA complaint was lodged due to non-receipt of shares after successful balloting. The company had allotted shares but later transferred them through a verified transfer deed. The issue was about 20 years old, and the complainant had not communicated with the company about her shareholding or dividends. The Commission imposed a fine on the Directors for non-compliance with Section 74 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\nHeld:\nThe appeal was allowed as there was sufficient evidence that the shares were allotted and transferred, and the fine imposed on the Directors was unwarranted. The dispute regarding verification of signatures should have been resolved by the courts, not the Commission.\nCitations:\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 74 & 476", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=74", + "Case #": "Appeal No.69 of 2006, decision dated: 9-03-2012, hearing DATE : 5-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nMUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid Sadiq for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "S. M. MUNEER AND 9 OTHERS\nVS \nDIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT (CLD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1252 = 2012 SLD 1252 = 2012 CLD 1445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Public Procurement Rules - Bidding Process and Prequalification\nDetails:\nIn public procurement, merely prequalifying a bidder does not guarantee direct selection. The prequalification criteria must remain consistent and lawful throughout the process. Changes to these criteria without justification are illegal. Prequalified contractors are entitled to participate in the financial bid unless disqualified or blacklisted.\nHeld:\nPrequalified contractors should not be excluded from the bidding process unless there is valid disqualification or blacklisting. The court emphasized compliance with public procurement regulations.\nCitations:\nPublic Procurement Rules, 2004, Rr. 15, 18, 19 & 36; Public Procurement Regulations, 2008, Regln. 3", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Suit No.1294 of 2011 and C.Ms. Nos.11671, 10783, 11687 and 11689 of 2011, decision dated: 30-01-2012. dates of hearing: 14th, 16th, 20th and 21st December, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahenshah Hussain for Plaintiff.\nM. Ilyas Khan and Omer Siyal for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAHEEN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH MRS. ZEESHAN FATIMA\nVS \nPAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1253 = 2012 SLD 1253 = 2012 CLD 1461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 12101\nPunjab Consumers Protection Act (II of 2005) - Consumer Court Decision\nDetails:\nThe consumer (respondent) had complained about a defective refrigerator, and the Consumer Court directed the manufacturer to replace it and pay compensation. The manufacturer challenged the decision, arguing that the claim was barred by time as the notice was not issued to them and the consumer had not applied for a delay condonation.\nHeld:\nThe appeal was allowed, as the consumer had not made a timely claim, and expert evidence should have been invited for technical matters.\nCitations:\nPunjab Consumers Protection Act (II of 2005), Ss. 28(2), 28(4), 30(1)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)=28", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.173 of 2009, heard on 12-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kashif Ali Chaudhry for Appellant.\nEx parte for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DAWLANCE UNITED REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. THROUGH BRANCH COORDINATOR\nVS \nMUHAMMAD JAMEEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1254 = 2012 SLD 1254 = 2012 CLD 1465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Act (V of 1940) - Opposition to Trade Mark Registration\nDetails:\nThe appellant opposed the respondent's application for the trade mark EASTERN SHAN TEA, claiming it was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered SHAN mark. The registrar had extended the opposition filing deadline. The appeal challenged the validity of the extension and the similarity of the marks.\nHeld:\nThe appeal was allowed, as the extension was valid, and the marks were indeed deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public. The registration of the respondent's trade mark was prohibited.\nCitations:\nTrade Marks Act (V of 1940), Ss. 8(a), 10(1), 15; Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963, Rr. 30, 76", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=15", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.223-K of 2011, decision dated: 4-07-2012. dates of hearing: 8th June and 4-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Ahmed Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Abdul Kadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.\nSaleem Ghulam Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAN FOOD INDUSTRIES \nVS \nEASTERN PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1255 = 2012 SLD 1255 = 2012 CLD 1486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Words and phrases\n•\n Leniency or lenience : Defined as a concept of giving a lighter penalty or punishment. Historically, leniency programs are used in competition law to encourage cartel members to come forward with evidence in exchange for reduced penalties or immunity. According to Bac-caria (1986 [1764] p.46), leniency is rooted in creating incentives for individuals to disclose prohibited activities, fostering a cooperative approach to law enforcement. Additionally, the Drafting and Implementing an Effective Leniency Program document by the ICN (2006) outlines the benefits and implementation of such programs for cartel enforcement.\n(b) Competition (Leniency) Regulations, 2007\n•\nReglns. 3, 4 & 5\n•\nCompetition Act (XIX of 2010), S.4\n•\nLeniency application and its benefits: Regulation 3 allows for total immunity from penalties if the undertaking is the first to provide evidence of prohibited activity. Regulation 4 provides a reduction of penalties for those who come forward with corroborative evidence, even after a show-cause notice. The leniency policy’s benefits include deterrence, detection, desistence, and sanctioning of cartels. The applicant in this case satisfied all conditions under Regulation 3 and was granted immunity from penalty.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition (Leniency) Regulations, 2007=3", + "Case #": "File No.1(2)/Reg/S.39/CCP/2011, decision dated: 3rd April, 2012. dates of hearing: 19th and 31st January, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON \nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SIEMENS (PAKISTAN) ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1256 = 2012 SLD 1256 = 2012 CLD 1525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\n•\nS. 309: Specifies who can file a winding-up petition, with standing granted only to creditors or contributories.\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2\n•\nSpecific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 56\n•\nInterim injunction for restraining winding-up petition: The plaintiff, a construction company, sought to prevent the defendant from filing a winding-up petition. The court found that the defendant was not yet a creditor and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, as presenting the petition could cause significant commercial harm to the plaintiff.\nKey Cases Referenced:\n•\nRoss & Craig v. Williamson [2006] EWHC 880 (Ch)\n•\nMoorside Investments Ltd. v. DAG Construction Ltd. [2007] EWHC 3490 (Ch)\n•\nCotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank AIR 1983 SC 1272", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=309", + "Case #": "Suit No.1352 of 2011, decision dated: 21st May, 2012. dates of hearing: 8th, 20-12-2011, 5th January and 15-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayebaly, Amel Khan Kansi, Ovais Ali Shan and Ali T. Ebrahim for Plaintiff.\nKhalid Mehmood Siddiqui for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CREEK MARINA (PRIVATE) LIMITED \nVS \nPAKISTAN DEFENCE OFFICERS HOUSING AUTHORITY THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1257 = 2012 SLD 1257 = 2012 CLD 1550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2\n•\nSuit for recovery of money based on pro-note: The trial court dismissed the suit as the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of consideration for the pro-note. The High Court upheld this dismissal.\n(b) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)\n•\nS. 13: Addresses the issue of insufficiently stamped negotiable instruments. The Stamp Act requires certain pro-notes to be stamped correctly, and the court ruled that deficiently stamped documents could still be admitted in evidence upon penalty payment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.418 of 2006, heard on 24-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE \nSHAHID WAHEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN \nVS \nMALIK ALLAH YAR KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1258 = 2012 SLD 1258 = 2012 CLD 1588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)\n•\nSections 214, 215, 216 & 217: Directors must disclose any personal interest in contracts or arrangements made with third parties. This obligation ensures loyalty to the company and prevents conflicts of interest. Breaching this duty results in penalties and potential legal action.\nTrusts Act (II of 1882), S.88\n•\nDirectors who act in conflict with their duties towards the company may face a constructive trust, where benefits gained by personal interest conflicting with the company's interest are not countenanced.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=214", + "Case #": "Suit Nos. 222 and 293 of 2012, decision dated: 13-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Javed Khan for Plaintiffs (in Suit No. 293 of 2012).\nSalman Talib-ud-Din for Plaintiffs (in Suit No. 222 of 2012).\nSalman Talib-ud-Din for Defendant No. 1 (in Suit No. 293 of 2012).\nTaha Ali Zia for Defendants (in Suit No. 222 of 2012).", + "Petitioner Name:": "NADIR AKMAL KHAN LEGHARI AND OTHERS\nVS \nASIM ARSHID AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1259 = 2012 SLD 1259 = 2012 CLD 1641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), Ss. 35 & 36\n•\nDelivery of goods: When there is no express agreement regarding delivery, Sections 35 and 36 govern the buyer's duty to apply for delivery. The seller may choose to deliver the goods voluntarily or wait for the buyer's request.\nKey Case Referenced:\n•\nAlapaty Ramamoorthy and others v. Polisetti Satyanarayana, AIR Andhra Pradesh 550\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 6\n•\nAppeals against executed decrees: An appeal filed against a decree does not abate the execution of the decree unless a stay is granted.\n(c) Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), S. 35\n•\nThis section emphasizes that the seller is not obligated to deliver goods until the buyer requests delivery, unless otherwise stated in the contract.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=35", + "Case #": "First Civil Appeal No.3 of 2011, decision dated: 22-03-2012, hearing DATE : 2-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hamid Bhurgi, Additional A.G. Sindh for Appellants. \nInayatullah Morio for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY, FOOD DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH AND ANOTHER\nVS \nMESSRS JAKHARNI ROLLER FLOUR MILL, JACOBABAD THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1260 = 2012 SLD 1260 = 2012 CLD 1659", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAgreement and its Validity under Contract Act, 1872\n•\nDetails: Plaintiffs filed a suit against authorities for enforcement of a letter addressed to them, contending it constituted an agreement. The letter did not have the signature of a government official and was issued by an unauthorized district officer. Authorities argued no agreement existed.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the letter did not meet the definition of a valid agreement under Section 2(b) of the Contract Act, 1872. For a valid agreement, signatures of both parties, including a competent authority, were required. The suit was dismissed, and the revision petition was accepted.\n•\nCitations: Blackwood Hodge (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Hakimsons (Impex) Ltd. 1983 CLC 1251; Government of N.-W.F.P. and others v. Bahadur Khan 1985 CLC 1457; Michal Assely and others v. Messrs Abdul Sattar and Brothers PLD 1960 Kar. 346.", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.184 of 2010, decision dated: 2-05-2011, hearing DATE : 20-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Aziz Khilji, Additional A.G. for Petitioners.\nAli Ahmed Kurd for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER MEKRAN AND ANOTHER \nVS \nHAJI ABDUL WAHID AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1261 = 2012 SLD 1261 = 2012 CLD 1663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExecution of Decrees and Jurisdiction under Modaraba Companies Ordinance\n•\nDetails: A debtor objected to the execution of a decree by the Modaraba Tribunal, arguing it should be executed as land revenue arrears by the Collector under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The court examined whether such a decree could be enforced by the Tribunal or the Collector.\n•\nHeld: The court held that the Tribunal could execute the decree, not by the Collector, as the decree arose from a business agreement unrelated to land revenue. The Tribunal could adopt procedures available under the Civil Procedure Code or the Land Revenue Act.\n•\nCitations: Maj. Mehtab Khan v. The Rehabilitation Authority and another PLD 1973 SC 451; First Grindlays Modaraba v. Pakland Cement Ltd. and 2 others 2000 CLC 2017.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.268 of 2010, decision dated: 5-03-2012, hearing DATE : 13-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat and Barkat Arif Chaudhry for Appellants.\nMuhammad Aqil Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN AFTAB A. SHEIKH AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nMESSRS TRUST MODARBA THROUGH TRUST MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1262 = 2012 SLD 1262 = 2012 CLD 1681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRecovery of Loan and Liability of Partners in a Partnership Firm\n•\nDetails: Partners of a registered partnership firm denied personal liability for a loan taken by the firm. They argued that they did not execute a personal guarantee.\n•\nHeld: Even without a personal guarantee, the partners were jointly and severally liable for the firm's debts. The court dismissed the defense and upheld the claim for recovery.\n•\nCitations: Bankers Equity Limited through Principal Law Officer and 5 others v. Messrs Bentonite Pakistan Limited and 7 others 2003 CLD 931.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "C.O.S. No.144 of 2010, decision dated: 13-10-2011, hearing DATE : 28-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Suleman and Syed Ali Zafar for Plaintiff. \nShahid Ikram Siddiqui for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASKARI BANK LIMITED \nVS \nWALEED JUNAID INDUSTRIES AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1263 = 2012 SLD 1263 = 2012 CLD 1696", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nEnvironmental Protection and Procedural Violations\n•\nDetails: The prosecution alleged pollution by a mill affecting the surrounding area but failed to establish procedural compliance and evidence. Samples were delayed, and no proper notice was given to the mill.\n•\nHeld: The court acquitted the CEO of the mill due to procedural violations and insufficient evidence supporting the allegations of pollution.\n•\nCitations: Waqar Ahmed v. Shaukat Ali and others 2006 SCMR 1139; Qurban Hussain alias Ashiq v. The State 2010 SCMR 1592.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No.3 of 2010, decision dated: 27-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN (CHAIRPERSON), \nABDUL KARIM MEMON (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Karim Nawaz Qureshi, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for SEPA.\nZulfiqar Ali Noorani for Respondent/Accused.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH \nVS \nRAEES-ULHASSAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HABIB SUGAR MILLS, NAWABSHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1956 6 = 1956 SLD 6 = 1956 PLD 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCourt’s Non-Interference in Internal Management of Companies\n•\nDetails: A dispute arose regarding internal management decisions of a company.\n•\nHeld: The court emphasized that it does not interfere in internal management unless the actions are fraudulent or against natural justice. The company’s actions were deemed within its powers.\n•\nCitations: Satyavart Sidhantalankar v. The Arya Samaj Bombay, (1946) 48 B L R 341.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1 of 1956. Plaintiffs Application under O. XXXIX, rule 1 C. P. C. read with section 151 C. P. C., decision dated: 22nd February 1956", + "Judge Name:": "INAMULLAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. H. Suhrawardy, Ihsan-ul-Hag for Plaintiffs. \nSyed Sharif -ud-Din for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARID SONS LTD. \nVS \nTHE KARACHI COTTON ASSOCIATION LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1264 = 2012 SLD 1264 = 2012 CLD 981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAuction Sale and Clerical Mistakes in Court Records\n•\nDetails: A clerical mistake occurred in the report of an auction sale, where the sale price was misstated. Petitioners challenged the entire auction process.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled the clerical error did not invalidate the auction proceedings, which were otherwise lawfully conducted. The petition was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: Haji Inayat Ali v. Haji Rehmat Ali and 16 others 2010 MLD 894.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=26", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.779 of 2011, decision dated: 20-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghazanfar Ali Syed for Petitioners.\nUmar Abdullah for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. QAMAR MAHMOOD AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nRUKHSANA KAUSAR AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1265 = 2012 SLD 1265 = 2012 CLD 987", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFailure to Provide Complete Information in Brokerage\n•\nDetails: A brokerage company failed to provide complete and accurate information as requested by the Commission. The company violated the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001.\n•\nHeld: The company was found guilty of violating the rules and was sanctioned. However, the Commission took a lenient approach instead of suspending the company.\n•", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.Misc/MSW/SMD/1 (5) 2004/1480 dated 3rd February, 2012, decision dated: 24-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1266 = 2012 SLD 1266 = 2012 CLD 993", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) - Transfer of Suit\nDetails: The application for transferring the suit based on the possibility of conflicting decisions was dismissed. The High Court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of banking cases and cautioned against transferring suits in a mechanical fashion, which could hinder the goal of quick resolution under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance.\nHeld: The application for transfer was dismissed.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 7(6), 9 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=7", + "Case #": "Civil Transfer Application No. 22 of 2010, decision dated: 8-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Shaikh for Applicant.\nKhalid Mehmood Siddiqui for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAHMOODUZZAMAN KHAN\nVS \nMESSRS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1267 = 2012 SLD 1267 = 2012 CLD 996", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) - Limitation Act (IX of 1908)\nDetails: An application for condonation of a 32-day delay in filing an appeal was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant did not demonstrate sufficient reasons for the delay, despite having knowledge of the decree and the possibility of filing within 30 days.\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed as time-barred.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 22; Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 5 & 29(2)\nReference Cases: Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Rehmania Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. 2006 CLD 81; Protein and Fats International (Pvt.) Limited v. Capital Assets Leasing Corporation Limited 2005 CLD 857; Sikandar Hayat v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan 2005 CLD 870", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 345 of 2008, heard on 4-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE\nSAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Aziz Khan for Appellant. \nWaqar Mushtaq for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALLIED BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER AND A.V.P. SAM\nVS \nMESSRS SHAHABAD TEXTILES PVT. LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1268 = 2012 SLD 1268 = 2012 CLD 999", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 - Compliance and Responsibility\nDetails: A broker, a member of Karachi Stock Exchange, failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring transactions, resulting in misleading impressions about a specific company’s trading activity. Despite this, a lenient approach was taken, with a warning for future compliance.\nHeld: The company was warned and directed to comply with rules and regulations.\nCitations: Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rr. 5, 8, 14 FL 17", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=5", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.MISC/MSW/SMD/ 1(5)2004 dated 22-12-2011, decision dated: 31st January, 2012, hearing DATE : 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Tayyaba Nisar, Assistant Director assisting Director/HOD (MSCID).", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1269 = 2012 SLD 1269 = 2012 CLD 1009", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005) - Jurisdiction of Consumer Court\nDetails: The complainant’s contribution to a pooled amount did not qualify as consumer activity under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The Consumer Court had no jurisdiction to hear the grievance.\nHeld: The appeal was allowed, and the Consumer Court’s order was set aside.\nCitations: Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005), S. 2(c)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Consumer Protection Act, (II of 2005)=2", + "Case #": "Consumer Appeal No.F.A.O. 287 of 2008, decision dated: 12-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Zafar Iqbal for Appellant. \nMalik Muhammad Rasheed Awan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAVED IQBAL\nVS\nABDUL LATIF ALVI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1270 = 2012 SLD 1270 = 2012 CLD 1014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000) - Liquidated Damages Calculation\nDetails: The interpretation of the term prevailing base rate under the Insurance Ordinance for calculating liquidated damages was disputed. The High Court ruled that the prevailing base rate referred to the State Bank of Pakistan's most recent repurchase rate, calculated monthly.\nHeld: The appeal was allowed, and the Insurance Company was directed to rework the damages calculation.\nCitations: Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), Ss. 118(2), 118(1), 2(8)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118", + "Case #": "Execution First Appeals Nos.53, 47, 48 and F.A.Os. Nos. 173 to 175 of 2011, heard on 28-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Lashari for Appellant.\nLiaquat Ali Butt for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN\nVS\nMST. ANWAR GULZAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1271 = 2012 SLD 1271 = 2012 CLD 1020", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act (I of 2001) - Definition of Public Office Holders\nDetails: Employees of banks did not fall within the definition of public office holders under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act. The scope of jurisdiction for investigating offenses related to banks was also clarified.\nHeld: The Ehtesab Bureau had no jurisdiction over offenses related to banks not under government control.\nCitations: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act (I of 2001), S. 4(n); Azad Jammu and Kashmir Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Act, 1984, Ss. 4 & Sched. 1", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001=4", + "Case #": "Reference No.48-A of 2012, decision dated: 18-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, JUSTICE\nM. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sadaqat Hussain Raja for Applicant.\nSardar Zaffar Iqbal Azad, DCP for the Ehtesab Bureau. \nCh. Shaukat Aziz, Advocate for the Government. \nSyed Shahid Bahar, Advocate for the Bank. \nSardar K.D. Khan, Advocate for Muhammad Anwar Khan, Muhammad Munir Khan and Malik Naeem. Muhammad Idrees Mughal as Amicus Curiae.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1272 = 2012 SLD 1272 = 2012 CLD 1031", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Failure to Submit Beneficial Ownership Statements\nDetails: A bank failed to file the required beneficial ownership return, violating the Companies Ordinance. A fine was imposed, though leniency was shown due to the bank’s prompt action after receiving a notice.\nHeld: The Commission imposed a fine of Rs. 30,000 for the violation.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 222, 223 & 224", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=222", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. S.M(B.O.)C.O.222/1(85)11 dated 21-12-2011, decision dated: 31st January, 2012, hearing DATE : 30-12-2011.", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1273 = 2012 SLD 1273 = 2012 CLD 1036", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) - Application for Leave to Defend Suit\nDetails: The court outlined that while granting leave to defend a suit, the defendant must raise substantial questions of law or fact requiring evidence to be recorded. The case involved territorial jurisdiction and mortgage issues.\nHeld: Leave to defend was granted as the defendant raised substantial questions of law and fact.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9 & 10(8); Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 16, O. XXXIV, R. 1; Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 91", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-50 and C.M.A. No. 5295 of 2009, decision dated: 10-01-2012. dates of hearing: 21st September, 4-10-18-10-3rd November and 15-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Sofia Saeed for Plaintiff.\nSalman Butt and Shoaib Rashid for the Defendants Nos 1 to 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN KUWAIT INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE\nVS\nMESSRS ACTIVE APPARELS INTERNATIONAL AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1274 = 2012 SLD 1274 = 2012 CLD 1060", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Suit for Recovery of Amount Based on Promissory Note\nDetails: Defendant filed an application for leave to defend a suit for recovery of an amount based on a promissory note. He claimed that he was not served according to the requirements of O.XXXVII R.2 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The defendant contended that while his counsel appeared on 19-12-2007, the court failed to inform him that it was the last day for filing the leave application, instead adjourned proceedings.\nHeld: The High Court held that the defendant had not been properly served with summons as required under CPC. As per the law, the summons should include the principal amount due, interest, and costs. The failure to inform the defendant about the time limitation for filing the leave application due to procedural mistakes in the trial court made the decree invalid. The High Court set aside the trial court's decree, directing the trial court to decide the leave application on merits.\nCitations: Mian Muhammad Talah Adil v. Mian Muhammad Lutfi 2005 SCMR 720.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.126 of 2008, heard on 29-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Shah Abbas for Appellant.\nMuhammad Akram Khawaja for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YASIN\nVS\nSHEIKH MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1275 = 2012 SLD 1275 = 2012 CLD 1065", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Directors of a Company under the Companies Ordinance\nDetails: The dispute involved the disposal of 30% of a company's total assets and 48% of its land, which was not approved by shareholders as required under S. 196 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Despite shareholder approval at an AGM, the disposal did not follow the statutory procedure, leading to penalties for the directors.\nHeld: The High Court held that the directors violated the mandatory procedures for asset disposal under the Companies Ordinance and imposed penalties. Directors were fined Rs. 3,50,000 for their failure to comply with the provisions of the law.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, Ss. 196 & 476.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.EMD/233/78/02-983-89 dated 12-01-2012, decision dated: 1st February, 2012, hearing DATE : 27-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AZEEM IKRAM, HEAD OF ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1276 = 2012 SLD 1276 = 2012 CLD 1082", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Violation of Securities and Exchange Ordinance by Company Directors\nDetails: The company faced multiple complaints about unlawful actions such as unauthorized withdrawal of shares and failure to honor arbiter awards. Despite the Securities and Exchange Commission's investigation, the company failed to provide the necessary documents and information.\nHeld: The High Court found the company and its directors guilty of willful failure to cooperate, violating S. 21 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969. The company was fined Rs. 3 million, and the directors were fined Rs. 2 million.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969, Ss. 21 & 22; Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, S. 29.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=21", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.4 (BRL-53) SE/SMD/2001 dated 14-02-2012, decision dated: 7-03-2012, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (G) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1277 = 2012 SLD 1277 = 2012 CLD 1095", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Dispute over Trade Mark Registration\nDetails: The plaintiff sought to restrain the Registrar from canceling the trade mark registration, claiming a long history of use. The intervener sought to be impleaded in the suit, asserting rights to the mark based on an assignment deed.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that an appeal pending against the Registrar's order did not automatically affect the proceedings in the suit. The trial court could not dismiss the intervener's application solely based on the Registrar's dismissal.\nCitations: Trade Marks Act, 1940, Ss. 8(a), 10 & 76; Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.I, R.10.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=8", + "Case #": "Revision Application No. 79 of 2006, decision dated: 28-12-2011, hearing DATE : 10-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid F. Ibrahim for Applicant.\nShaiq Usmani for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JACOBS BAKERY LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEY\nVS\nENGLISH BISCUIT MANUFACTURERS (PVT.) LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1278 = 2012 SLD 1278 = 2012 CLD 1109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Renewal of Registration Certificate for Stock Exchange Member Company\nDetails: A company, despite facing financial difficulties, sought the renewal of its registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company failed to improve its financial health despite the Commission's repeated advisories.\nHeld: The High Court allowed the renewal of the registration certificate, but directed the company to submit quarterly financial reports to the Commission. A lenient view was taken given the company's ongoing efforts to stabilize its finances.\nCitations: Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R.8.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.4(BRL-91)/SMD/SE/2002 dated 7-02-2012, decision dated: 7-03-2012, hearing DATE : 20-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (BR&ICW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1279 = 2012 SLD 1279 = 2012 CLD 1112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Insurance Appeal\nDetails: The petitioner sought the condonation of a one-day delay in filing an appeal under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that the provision for condonation under the Limitation Act did not apply to appeals governed by the Insurance Ordinance.\nCitations: Insurance Ordinance, 2000, Ss. 121 & 124; Limitation Act, 1908, Ss. 5, 29(2), Art. 156.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=121", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.913 of 2011, decision dated: 9-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nNASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Abid Tahir for Appellant.\nLiaqat Ali Butt for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GENERAL MANAGER\nVS\nMST. SAKINA BIBI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1280 = 2012 SLD 1280 = 2012 CLD 1120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Unlawful Trading by Clients in Stock Market\nDetails: The company failed to detect and prevent its clients from trading on confidential information, causing significant profits for the clients in violation of fair market practices.\nHeld: The company was censured and directed to implement stronger control measures. The directors were advised to ensure compliance with the relevant laws to prevent such unlawful practices.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969, S. 22.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(7) IT/MSW/SMD/2011/09 dated 28-11-2011, decision dated: 20-03-2012, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCI)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO JS GLOBAL CAPITAL LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1281 = 2012 SLD 1281 = 2012 CLD 1128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Public Procurement and Tendering\nDetails: The petitioner challenged a catering services tender finalized by the Lahore Development Authority for failing to comply with the Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009.\nHeld: The High Court found that the tender process violated procurement rules and canceled the awarded contract. The Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority was directed to perform its duties under the law more rigorously.\nCitations: Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009, Ss. 2(n) & 5; Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, Rr. 50 & 51; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Procurement Regulatory Authority Act, 2009=2", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1805 of 2012, decision dated: 6-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Faiz-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.\nWaqar A. Sheikh for Respondent.\nImran Ahmad Mian for Respondent No. 5.\nIshtiaq Ahmed, Director, C&I, LDA.\nSibtain Raza Qureshi, Assistant Director, LDA", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ALEEM\nVS\nLAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LDA AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1282 = 2012 SLD 1282 = 2012 CLD 1136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Challenge to Compromise Agreement and Decree in Bank Loan Recovery\nDetails: The defendant challenged a compromise agreement in a bank loan recovery case on the grounds of misrepresentation and illegality. The question was whether the decree could be modified based on the invalidity of the agreement.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that a challenge to the compromise agreement did not necessarily invalidate the compromise decree, and the remedy under S. 152 of the CPC was not applicable to modify the agreement itself.\nCitations: Contract Act, 1872, Ss. 18 & 19; Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.XXIII, R.3; Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997, S. 9; Specific Relief Act, 1877, Ss. 39 & 40.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-213 of 2000 and C.M.As. Nos. 8049, 8050 of 2009, decision dated: 14-03-2012. dates of hearing: 24-03-13th, 26-04-6th, 18th, 30-05-5th, 13th July and 16-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed and Aijaz Shirazi for Plaintiff.\nMushtaq A. Memon for Defendant No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. \nVS \nMESSRS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED AND ANOTHER." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1283 = 2012 SLD 1283 = 2012 CLD 1166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)–S. 14–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.2 & O.XLVII, R.1–Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.158 & 178–Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42–Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, O. XLVI–Review of Supreme Court\n•\nArbitration proceedings and objection to report/award of the Arbitrator; limitation\n•\nDetails: A trial court appointed an arbitrator whose report was submitted in the presence of the parties, but the plaintiffs filed objections to the report beyond the 30-day limitation period. The trial court rejected these objections and passed a decree based on the arbitrator's award. The High Court modified the decree regarding over-payment but upheld the rest. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition as the plaintiff failed to identify any apparent error.\n•\nHeld: The review petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court, as the plaintiff failed to establish any apparent error in the record.\n•\nCitations: Ramnath Agarwal v. G.S. Iyer, AIR 1961 Gujarat 51; Rashida Awan v. District Education Officer, 2007 SCR 406; Azad Government v. Muhammad Suleman, 2003 SCR 423.\n(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)–O. XLVII, R.1–Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, O. XLVI–Review of Supreme Court\n•\nGrounds for review of a Supreme Court decision\n•\nDetails: The Supreme Court can review its decisions based on error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new evidence, but it cannot review the interpretation of the law.\n•\nHeld: Review was not permissible in this case since no error apparent on the face of the record was shown.\n•\nCitations: Rashida Awan v. District Education Officer, 2007 SCR 406; Azad Government v. Muhammad Suleman, 2003 SCR 423.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=14", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petition No.23 of 2010, decision dated: 10-02-2012, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tahir Aziz, Advocate for Petitioner.\nAbdul Waheed Durrani, Advocate for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAFDAR ALI KHAN \nVS \nAZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1284 = 2012 SLD 1284 = 2012 CLD 1174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)–S. 22–Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R.12, Sched.III\n•\nFailure to abide by trading rules leading to market manipulation\n•\nDetails: A company's two clients engaged in suspicious trading practices that manipulated share prices. The company failed to detect or control this abnormal trading, violating the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules.\n•\nHeld: A penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the company for violating trading rules and facilitating market manipulation.\n•\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969, S. 22; Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. MISC/MSW/SMD/1(5)2004/1471 dated 17-01-2012, decision dated: 13-04-2012, hearing DATE : 22-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Tayyaba Nisar, Assistant Director and Kapeel Dev, Assistant Director assisting the Director/HOD (MSCID)", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1285 = 2012 SLD 1285 = 2012 CLD 1183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)–S. 10\n•\nPayment in due course; Bank's right to stop payment\n•\nDetails: A pay-order issued by a bank cannot be cancelled or replaced without the consent of the payee. The bank's duty is to ensure payment is made to the correct beneficiary.\n•\nHeld: The bank cannot issue a duplicate pay-order without the payee's consent, as the payment must be made to the rightful beneficiary.\n•\nCitations: United Bank Limited v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi, 1994 CLC 2116; Vadlamany Venkatesam v. Mangipudi Viswanadham, AIR 1918 Mad. 512.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 72 of 2007, heard on 1st February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Saeed uz Zafar for Appellant.\nMiss Umbreen for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAUDHRY MUHAMMAD ANWAR \nVS \nHABIB BANK LTD. THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1286 = 2012 SLD 1286 = 2012 CLD 1192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)–Ss. 18 & 19–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 2(2), 12(2) & O. XXIII, R. 3\n•\nDistinction between compromise decree and agreement\n•\nDetails: A distinction must be made between a compromise agreement (a contract) and a compromise decree (court order). A compromise agreement can be impugned for misrepresentation, while a compromise decree can be set aside under specific legal provisions.\n•\nHeld: The compromise decree can be set aside, but the agreement may be contested separately on grounds of misrepresentation.\n•\nCitations: Jamnabhai v. Fazalbhoy Heptoola, AIR 1923 PC 184; Allah Wasaya v. Irshad Ahmad, 1992 SCMR 2184.\n(b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XXV of 1997)–S. 9\n•\nRecovery of loan and modification of compromise decree\n•\nDetails: A defendant challenged the compromise agreement for being tainted by illegalities, but the challenge was not applicable to modifying the decree under S.152, C.P.C.\n•\nHeld: The challenge was directed towards the agreement, not the decree; hence, relief under S.152, C.P.C. was not granted.\n•\nCitations: Mobile Eye Service v. Director Social Welfare, PLD 1992 Kar. 183.\n(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)–Ss. 39 & 40–Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 10\n•\nVoidable agreement and its effect\n•\nDetails: If an agreement is voidable, the court cannot modify it; it must either stand or fail in its entirety.\n•\nHeld: The court cannot modify a voidable agreement; it must decide whether it is void or valid.\n•\nCitations: Taj Muhammad Khan v. Munawar Jan, 2009 SCMR 598.\n(d) Fraud\n•\nFull particulars of fraud\n•\nDetails: Specific details of fraud or misrepresentation must be fully stated and particularized for the court's review.\n•\nHeld: The claim of fraud must be fully substantiated with clear particulars.\n•\nCitations: Ghulam Shabbir v. Nur Begum, PLD 1977 SC 75.\n(e) Contract Act (IX of 1872)–S. 19\n•\nVoidability of agreement due to fraud\n•\nDetails: If fraud is proved, the aggrieved party may insist on the contract being performed or rescinded as if the representation had been true.\n•\nHeld: The aggrieved party can invoke S.19 of the Contract Act to remedy the situation.\n•\nCitations: No additional citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-213 of 2000 and C.M.A. Nos. 8049, 8050 of 2009 decided on 14-03-2012. dates of hearing: 24-03-13th, 26-04-6th, 18th, 30-05-5th, 13th July and 16-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed and Aijaz Shirazi for Plaintiff. \nMushtaq A. Memon for Defendant No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. \nVS \nMESSRS KHAIRPUR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1287 = 2012 SLD 1287 = 2012 CLD 1222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)–Ss. 9 & 10\n•\nApplication for leave to defend in a banking recovery suit\n•\nDetails: A company sought leave to defend a suit, claiming discrepancies in the loan documents and the statement of accounts. The court initially dismissed the application, but on appeal, the company was granted leave to defend due to the arguable case raised.\n•\nHeld: The company was granted leave to defend as the case raised issues that required evidence to be presented.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Liaqat Flour v. Muslim Commercial Bank, 2007 CLD 188.\n(b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)–Ss. 9 & 10\n•\nGrant of leave to defend\n•\nDetails: If leave to defend is denied, the defendant may face an unjust decree. Therefore, leave should be granted when the defendant presents an arguable case.\n•\nHeld: The defendant should be granted leave to defend when the case justifies it.\n•\nCitations: Healthco Surgical Supplies v. Standard Chartered Bank, 2006 CLD 1587.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.383 of 2005, decision dated: 2-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nIBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Ishaque for Appellants.\nFakhar-ul-Zaman Akhtar Tarar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS WARRIOR CHEMICAL (PVT.) LTD. AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1288 = 2012 SLD 1288 = 2012 CLD 1225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Administration of Justice\n•\nProcedural objections hindering merit-based decisions\n•\nDetails: Procedural issues should not prevent the court from reaching a decision on the merits of the case.\n•\nHeld: Procedural objections should not impede the determination of a case on its merits.\n•\nCitations: Mastersons v. Ebrahim Enterprises, 1988 CLC 1381.\n(b) Contract\n•\nRight of a third party to sue under a contract\n•\nDetails: A third party may sue under a contract if it creates a trust or quasi-trust in their favor.\n•\nHeld: Third parties may have standing to sue if the contract includes provisions for their benefit.\n•\nCitations: No specific citation provided.\n(c) Contract\n•\nPrivity of contract and third-party benefits\n•\nDetails: The no-benefit rule can be modified to allow third parties to enforce benefits under certain conditions.\n•\nHeld: The no-benefit rule is modified under specific conditions outlined in the test provided.\n•\nCitations: Leigh and Sullivan v. Aliakmon Shipping, [1986] 2 All ER 145.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.1263 of 2011 and C.M. As. Nos.10555, 10556 of 2011, 2737 of 2012 decided on 25-04-2012. dates of hearing: 10th, 12th and 18-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Plaintiff. \nAbid Shahid Zuberi for Defendant No. 1. \nQazi Majid Ali, A.A.G. for Defendant No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE \nVS \nMESSRS KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1289 = 2012 SLD 1289 = 2012 CLD 1262", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInsider Trading and Market Manipulation\n•\nDetails: A company under scrutiny for trading through its funds showed suspicious activity, trading heavily in shares that resulted in significant gains. The company claimed no insider information, but its actions raised doubts about the integrity of the transactions. The company was criticized for questionable trading practices that could indicate insider trading.\n•\nHeld: The company was reproached and censured for failing to meet expected market conduct standards. It was warned against engaging in such practices in the future and directed to ensure compliance with the law.\n•\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S. 15(E)", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(3)INS/MSW/SMD/2012/AMIML-01, dated 5-01-2012, decision dated: 28-03-2012, hearing DATE : 27-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Osman Syed, Deputy Director, SECP assisting the Director/HOD (MSCID)", + "Petitioner Name:": "AL MEEZAN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1290 = 2012 SLD 1290 = 2012 CLD 1269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPublic Procurement and Vested Rights of Bidder\n•\nDetails: A petitioner, claiming to be the lowest bidder for two Pilot Boats, challenged the non-award of the contract by KPT. The two remaining bids were of different hull materials (GRP and steel), and KPT decided not to award the contract based on the comparison.\n•\nHeld: The Court held that there could not be a lowest bid with only two bids in the field, and declined to interfere with the KPT’s decision.\n•\nCitations: Public Procurement Rules, 2004, Rr. 33, 36 & 38, Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-4168 of 2011, decision dated: 13-03-2012. DATE of 6-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE\nNISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Rashid for Petitioner. \nBadar Alam for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAFEHAVEN MARINE LTD., IRELAND THROUGH DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY \nVS \nKARACHI PORT TRUST" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1291 = 2012 SLD 1291 = 2012 CLD 1276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nWinding Up of Company and Non-Compliance with Securities Regulations\n•\nDetails: A company in the process of winding up failed to provide necessary documents to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It was found to have made false statements during an inquiry into its financial obligations, leading to a penalty.\n•\nHeld: The company and its Chief Executive were penalized for non-compliance with the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 297, Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), Ss. 18 & 22, SEC Act (XLII of 1997), Ss. 21 & 29", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=297", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated 17-02-2012, decision dated: 29-03-2012, hearing DATE : 8-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (G) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1292 = 2012 SLD 1292 = 2012 CLD 1288", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLicense Fee Demand and Legal Standing in Constitutional Petitions\n•\nDetails: A textile manufacturing company challenged a license fee demand issued under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance. The matter had previously been settled by the Supreme Court in a binding judgment.\n•\nHeld: The demand was upheld as lawful, as the Supreme Court's binding decision applied to the petitioner, and the petition was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001), Sixth Sched., para 44, Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42, Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001)=SixthSched", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 177 of 2008, decision dated: 17-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Ahsan Mahmood for Petitioner.\nCh. Abrar Ahmad and Hafiz Muhammad Naeem for Respondent No. 1.\nRana Shamshad Khan, A.A.G.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NISHAT CHUNIAN LTD. \nVS \nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1293 = 2012 SLD 1293 = 2012 CLD 1319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction and Arrest of Sister Ships\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff filed suits against shipping companies for failure to obtain bank guarantees for the release of goods. The Appellate Court reduced the decree, ruling that sister ships were improperly arrested.\n•\nHeld: The Court restored the decree, affirming that the admiralty jurisdiction allowed the arrest of sister ships even if they weren’t initially impleaded as defendants.\n•\nCitations: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980), Ss. 3(2)(h) & 4(4)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1444 to 1447 of 2004, decision dated: 9-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "R.F. Virjee, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.1444 and 1445 of 2004).\nShaiq Usmani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.1446 and 1447 of 2004).\nShaiq Usmani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C.As. Nos. 1444 and 1445 of 2004).\nEx parte for Respondent No. 2 (in C.As. Nos. 1444 and 1445 of 2004).\nR.F. Virjee, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C.As. Nos. 1446 and 1447 of 2004).\nEx parte for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (in C.As. Nos. 1446 and 1447 of 2004).", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.V. \"\"LEMON BAY\"\" AND OTHERS \nVS \nSADRUDDIN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1294 = 2012 SLD 1294 = 2012 CLD 1326", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nBroker Registration and False Information\n•\nDetails: A company’s application for renewal of its broker registration was rejected after an investigation found false and incorrect information about its shareholding structure. The company failed to meet the eligibility criteria for renewal.\n•\nHeld: The company’s renewal application was denied, and its false information resulted in its disqualification from maintaining its broker status.\n•\nCitations: Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rr. 5 & 7, SEC Act (XLII of 1997), Ss. 22 & 23", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=5", + "Case #": "Application No. Nil, dated 17-11-2011, decision dated: 18-04-2012, hearing DATE : 5-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (BR&ICW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "BROKERS AND AGENTS REGISTRATION RULES, 2011: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1295 = 2012 SLD 1295 = 2012 CLD 1330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLicense for Cable Television Operations\n•\nDetails: A hotel operator challenged the notice demanding a cable television operator license, claiming it did not qualify as it was not engaged in broadcasting or transmission.\n•\nHeld: The Court held that the hotel could invoke jurisdiction to seek a declaration that the PEMRA ordinance did not apply to its operations, and the trial court’s rejection of the plaint was set aside.\n•\nCitations: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002), S. 33, Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11, Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 56", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)=33", + "Case #": "Second Appeals Nos.73, 74 and 77 of 2009, decision dated: 1st February, 2012, hearing DATE : 21st November, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Awan for Appellants (in Appeals Nos.73 and 74 of 2009).\nZahid F. Ebrahim for Appellants (in Appeal No. 77 of 2009).\nPir Riaz M. Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.\nKashif Hanif for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AVARI HOTELS LIMITED\nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1296 = 2012 SLD 1296 = 2012 CLD 1339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRepeal of Trade Organizations Ordinance and Impact on Rules\n•\nDetails: The Trade Organizations Ordinance, 2007, expired, leading to the abatement of the Trade Organizations Rules. The Court ruled that the rules made under the ordinance had no legal effect after its expiration.\n•\nHeld: The Court declared that the Trade Organizations Rules, 2007, ceased to have validity after the ordinance expired, as the law was considered as if it had never existed.\n•\nCitations: Trade Organizations Ordinance (XXXI of 2007), S. 31, General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.61 of 2012, decision dated: 29-02-2012. dates of hearing: 20th and 21st February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Pirzada and Rana Ikramullah for Plaintiff No. 1.\nRehman Aziz Malik for Plaintiff No. 2. Sameer Ghazanfar for Plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4.\nSyed Qamarul Hassan, Standing Counsel for Defendants Nos.1 and 2.\nKhalid Javed and Malik Asghar for Defendant No. 3.\nBaz Muhammad Kakar and Usman Shaikh for Defendant No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAVEED JAN BALOCH AND 3 OTHERS \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1297 = 2012 SLD 1297 = 2012 CLD 1366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNon-Compliance with Reporting Requirements for Ownership Changes\n•\nDetails: A company failed to file a return regarding a change in the beneficial ownership of its shares, as required under the Companies Ordinance. This non-compliance led to penalties.\n•\nHeld: The company was penalized for failure to meet the regulatory requirements under the Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984).\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 222 & 224", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=222", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.S.M.(B.O)C.O.222/2(306)07 dated 9-01-2012 decided on 22-03-2012, hearing DATE : 22-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE PAKISTAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1298 = 2012 SLD 1298 = 2012 CLD 1380", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 12147\nPartnership Firm and Authority of Partners After Dissolution, Damages for Mala Fide Acts\nDetails:\n•\n(a) Unregistered partnership firms cannot start business until registered.\n•\n(b) Even after dissolution, the partnership continues, and partners retain authority to perform duties until the winding-up is complete. Partners can still sue or be sued under the firm's name if the cause of action arose before dissolution and is unresolved.\n•\n(c) A partner appointed a general attorney to represent the firm in arbitration after its dissolution. The attorney’s actions were valid because the partners had not revoked the power of attorney, and the firm had not challenged the authority, validating the award as not a result of fraud.\nHeld:\n•\nThe dissolution does not end the firm's existence; the partnership continues for winding up, and general attorney actions remain valid post-dissolution.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Memon Trading Co. v. Messrs Hajee Gaffar Hajee Habib Janoo, PLD 1966 Dacca 612\n•\nLakhani Textile International v. Messrs Southern Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd., 2008 CLC 444\n•\nMessrs Sainjee Cargo Services v. Messrs Cargo Movers, 1989 CLC 2229\n•\nAbdul Rehman v. Parvez Ahmed Butt, 1983 CLC 1740", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=69", + "Case #": "C.M. No.1503-C of 2003 in F.A.O. No.221 of 1994, decision dated: 2-11-2011, hearing DATE : 27-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Akbar Qureshi for Applicant. \nKhawar Ikram Bhatti for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH DIRECTOR-GENERAL \nVS \nMESSRS SARWAR LATIF ASSOCIATES THROUGH ALLEGED ATTORNEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1299 = 2012 SLD 1299 = 2012 CLD 1394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "False Statement in Share Capital Increase, Penalty on Directors\nDetails:\n•\nThe Securities and Exchange Commission issued a penalty on the Directors of a company after investigating a false statement regarding the purpose of loans converted into equity, diluting shareholders' equity. The Directors also failed to comply with directives to provide a financial plan and other information.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Directors were penalized for the misstatement, with a fine imposed and a directive to provide a financial plan after due diligence.\nCitations:\n•\nSecurities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33\n•\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 86(3), 472, 492", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "Appeal No.26 of 2006, decision dated: 9-03-2012, hearing DATE : 22-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD) \nMUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Haroon Mumtaz for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZIR AHMED PERACHA, CHAIRMAN, SHAHPUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nCOMMISSIONER (CL), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1300 = 2012 SLD 1300 = 2012 CLD 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Damages for Malicious Official Acts\nDetails:\n•\nA civil servant sued for damages resulting from unlawful acts performed by the defendant, including malice. Although the plaintiff failed to provide a full breakdown of damages, general damages were awarded for mental anguish caused by the defendant’s actions.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Supreme Court granted general damages, compensating the plaintiff for mental agony and legal expenses, despite inadequate proof for specific claims.\nCitations:\n•\nBritish Transport Commission v. Gourley, 1956 AC 185\n•\nQazi Dost Muhammad v. Malik Dost Muhammad, 1997 CLC 546\n•\nIslamic Republic of Pakistan v. Sh. Nawab Din, 2003 CLC 991\n________________________________________\nSpecial and General Damages in Official Misuse of Power\nDetails:\n•\nThe plaintiff sought general and special damages for losses incurred due to mala fide acts by the defendant. The Supreme Court awarded general damages but required special damages to be specifically pleaded and proven.\nHeld:\n•\nSpecial damages must be quantifiable with evidence, while general damages compensate for mental suffering and reputational harm.\nCitations:\n•\nC.K. Subramonia Iyar v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 SC 376\n•\nSinglet v. War Office, 1956 1 WLR 51\n•\nAzziullah Sheikh v. Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., 2009 SCMR 276", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.463 of 2011, decision dated: 19-09-2011, hearing DATE : 15-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person.\nHashmat Ali Habib, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3. \nNemo for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL MAJEED KHAN\nVS\nTAWSEEN ABDUL HALEEM AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1301 = 2012 SLD 1301 = 2012 CLD 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.XII, R.6 & O.XXIX, R.1 - Recovery of Money - Admissions\nDetails:\nThe plaintiff sought recovery of money from a company and its chief executive. The company, being a juristic entity, was separate from its shareholders, and the admission of liability by the defendant/chief executive could not be treated as an admission of liability by the company. Despite filing a written statement, the company did not lead evidence challenging the plaintiff’s claim. There was no denial of liability by the company, and the liability was admitted by both the company’s representative and the chief executive. The suit was decreed, ordering both defendants to pay the claimed amount jointly and severally, with interest at the prevailing bank rate.\nHeld:\nThe suit was decreed as both defendants were liable to pay the plaintiff jointly and severally.\nCitations:\nCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - O.XII, R.6, O.XXIX, R.1", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=6", + "Case #": "Suit No. 833 of 2006, decision dated: 11-05-2011, hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Qureshi for Plaintiff.\nShafiq Ahmed for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2.\nNemo for Defendants Nos. 3 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MANSOOR AHMED MUGHAL\nVS\nNOOR QADIR TAWAQAL AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 417 = 2003 SLD 417 = 2003 PLD 149 = 2003 PTCL 421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompanies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Winding-Up Petition\n•\nDetails: The Investment Corporation filed a winding-up petition against a company that failed to pay debts and commence business. The company contested the petition, arguing that the Investment Corporation (Syndicate) was not a creditor. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the loan agreements and found that the investment was secured through proper documentation, and the company was a borrower, not an investor.\n•\nHeld: The company’s failure to commence business and its inability to pay debts warranted winding-up, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 305 & 309.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1307 of 1995, decision dated: 2-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE \nFALAK SHER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. \nRai Muhammad Nawaz Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMERICAN MARBLES PRODUCTS LTD. \nVS \nI.C.P. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1304 = 2012 SLD 1304 = 2012 PLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)—Ss. 4 & 17(4)—Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 30, 31, 32, 451 & 452—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44—Writ petition—Acquisition of property—Public purpose—Scope\n•\nDetails: The petitioners challenged the acquisition of property by a company for a Power Project, arguing that the company was not registered in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and was non-State-Subject.\n•\nHeld: The company was registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and met the legal requirements for registration. The land was acquired for a public utility purpose as the project would eventually be owned by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government. The petitioners' objections were dismissed.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894).\n(b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)—Ss. 4 & 17(4)—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44—Writ petition—Acquisition of land for public purpose— Public purpose , determination of—Scope\n•\nDetails: The petitioners contested the acquisition, arguing that the purpose was not for the public.\n•\nHeld: The determination of public purpose was within the Collector's discretion and could not be reviewed in writ jurisdiction. The acquisition was deemed for a public purpose.\n•\nCitations: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974).\n(c) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894)—Ss. 4 & 15—Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 44—Writ petition—Acquisition of land—Determination of amount of compensation\n•\nDetails: The petitioners objected to the formation of an Advisory Committee for determining compensation.\n•\nHeld: The formation of the Advisory Committee was invalid as the Collector had the sole authority to determine compensation. The Advisory Committee's actions were quashed, and the Collector was ordered to assess compensation independently.\n•\nCitations: Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894).", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=30", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1208 of 2011, decision dated: 7-12-2011, hearing DATE : 6-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, JUSTICE\nM. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rasheed Abbasi for Petitioners.\nSyed Shahid Bahar for Respondents Nos. 1 to 9.\nNoorullah Qureshi for Respondent No. 10.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 27 OTHERS\nVS\nAZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY TO AZAD GOVT. MUZAFFARABAD AND 9 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1305 = 2012 SLD 1305 = 2012 PLD 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 199—Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.196—Constitutional petition—Company\n•\nDetails: A company filed a petition without following the proper procedure in its Articles of Association.\n•\nHeld: The petition was not maintainable as it was not filed in the proper manner according to the company's Articles.\n•\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan, Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984).\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Scope—Contractual obligation—Unclean hands of petitioner—Effect\n•\nDetails: Petitioners failed to meet contractual obligations within the stipulated period.\n•\nHeld: The petition was dismissed as the petitioners approached the court with unclean hands.\n•\nCitations: PLD 2009 SC 28, 2007 SCMR 1318.\n(c) Constitution of Pakistan—Art. 199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope—Contractual obligation—Arbitration clause\n•\nDetails: The dispute centered on whether construction work complied with the contract.\n•\nHeld: The High Court could not resolve factual disputes under Article 199, especially when an arbitration clause existed in the contract.\n•\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan, Contract Act (IX of 1872).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 10703, 10823 and 10945 of 2011, decision dated: 7-07-2011. dates of hearing: 16th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 23rd and 24-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Asjad Saeed and Ch. Muhammad Naseer for Petitioner. \nShakil-ur-Rehman, Additional Advocate-General along with Shehryar Sultan DG, LG and CD Department and Ch. Abrar Ahmad, Director Legal, LG and CD Department. \nKhurram Mushtaq for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. \nSyed Shadab H. Jafferi and Pervaiz Akhtar Tahir for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS \nGOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 666 = 2002 SLD 666 = 2002 PTCL 546 = 2002 SCMR 1747 = 2002 CLD 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInterpretation of Provisions Relating to Revenue and Preferential Claims\n•\nDetails: The case concerns the classification of government claims under the Companies Ordinance and whether a government claim for unpaid dues can be classified as a preferential debt in liquidation proceedings. The Court examined the interpretation of revenue and found that the claim did not qualify for preferential treatment due to its status as an ordinary unsecured debt.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court ruled that the claim was not a preferential debt and upheld the lower court's decision.\n•\nCitations: Punjab Cables v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1989 Lah. 121; Prem's Judicial Dictionary, Vol.IV, 1964, Arora Law House, New Delhi, India", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=405", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.629 of 1997, decision dated: 8-11-2001, hearing DATE : 25-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE \nJAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Ali, Additional Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. and Haji M.A. Qureshi, Advocate- on-Record (absent) for Appellant. \nAnwar H. Mir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF N. W.F.P., PESHAWAR \nVS \nMESSRS NOWSHERA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1317 = 2012 SLD 1317 = 2012 PTD 1883", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nShareholder status and tax liability\n•\nDetails: A petitioner claimed that due to not being listed as a shareholder in the company’s Form-A, he was not liable for taxes. The court determined that the company’s Form-A, being a statutory document, indicated the cessation of his shareholder status.\n•\nHeld: The petitioner was not liable for the company’s taxes for the relevant years as he was not a shareholder.\n•\nCitations: Shahana Parvez and 2 others v. Messrs Goodluck Trade Impex (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore and 6 others 1998 CLC 1157.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=76", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18046 of 2012, decision dated: 16-08-2012, hearing DATE : 10-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, Mian Muhammad Athar and Abdul Qaddus Mughal for Petitioner.\nAsjad Yaqub, Advocate with Zain-ul-Abadin Addl. Commissioner and Shahid Sattar, Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenue for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WASEEM YAQOOB \nVS \nCHIEF COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1318 = 2012 SLD 1318 = 2012 PTD 1942", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nVoluntary Separation Scheme and tax treatment\n•\nDetails: A company disputed the tax treatment of expenses related to its Voluntary Separation Scheme, arguing these should be considered salary expenses rather than intangible assets for amortization.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled in favor of the taxpayer, stating that payments under the scheme should be treated as salary expenses and not as intangibles.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd., Islamabad v. CIR, LT.U., Islamabad I.T.A. No.788/LB/2010.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=234", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 442/IB and 463/IB of 2010, decision dated: 31st July, 2012, hearing DATE : 1st June, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD, JAHANDAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, JUSTICE\nQURBAN ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. for Appellants (in I.T.A. No. 442/IB of 2010).\nKhalid Mehmood, FCA for Respondents (in I.T.A. No. 442/IB of 2010).\nKhalid Mehmood, FCA for Appellants (I.T.A. No. 463/IB of 2010).\nMuhammad Tahir Khan, D.R. for Respondents (in I.T.A. No. 463/IB of 2010).", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS \nVS \nMESSRS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1319 = 2012 SLD 1319 = 2012 CLD 1709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction of Banking Court in financial disputes\n•\nDetails: After a bank's application returned a plaint to a plaintiff for filing before the Banking Court, the plaint was rejected on the grounds that the Banking Court lacked jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that no remedy had been provided.\n•\nHeld: The court set aside the rejection and allowed the appeal, confirming that the Banking Court had jurisdiction over the case.\n•\nCitations: State Bank of Pakistan v. Chiragh Sun Engineering Ltd. and another 2000 YLR 1198.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.90 of 2003, heard on 16-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nIBAD UR REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Aslam Butt for Appellant.\nM. Akram Raja for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHOKHAR \nVS \nUNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH PRESIDENT AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1320 = 2012 SLD 1320 = 2012 CLD 1714", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNatural gas policy and priority distribution\n•\nDetails: The issue involved the suspension of gas supply to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) stations and the priority distribution of natural gas to various regions, as dictated by the Constitution and relevant government policy.\n•\nHeld: The court clarified that the priority distribution of gas to a specific region as per the Constitution could not be extended to other regions or federal territories by judicial pronouncement.\n•\nCitations: PLD 2007 SC 642; 1978 SCMR 327.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.3128, 3144, 3145, 3156, 3160, 3161, 3171, 3172, 3173, 3177, 3191, 3203, 3204, 3206, 3210, 3236, 3254, 3255, 3258, 3260, 3292, 3299, 3311 and 3312 of 2011, decision dated: 23rd December, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, Barrister Khurram M. Hashmi, Saad M. Hashmi, Sajid ur Rehman Mashwani, Umair A. Rishi, Hyder Ali Khan and Shahzaib for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.3128, 3171 and 3172, 3236 of 2011).\nSyed Hassan Ali Raza for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 3144 of 2011).\nCh. Abdul Rehman Bajwa for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.3160, 3177 and 3210 of 2011).\nBarrister Sajeel Shehryar for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 3173 of 2011).\nSyed Intikhab Hussain Shah for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.3191, 3254, 3255, 3258 and 3312 of 2011).\nMuhammad Ilyas Sheikh and Rubina Shaheen for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 3292 of 2011).\nTahir Afzal Abbasi for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 3203 of 2011).\nSyed Intikhab Hussain Shah on behalf of Ayyaz Shaukat for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.3206 and 3156 of 2011).\nSheikh Muhammad Suleman for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 3145 of 2011).\nNaveed Malik, Yasir Raja and Qazi Hafeez for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.3161, 3260 and 3299 of 2011).\nRaja Amjad Mehmood for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No. 3311 of 2011).\nAgha Sikandar, President, CNG Association for Petitioners.\nNoor-ul-Amin, Vice-President, C.N.G. Association I.C.T. for Petitioners.\nMirza Mahmood Ahmad for M/O Petroleum.\nAsim Hafeez for SNGPL.\nMuhammad Abid Raja, D.A.G., Rizwan ul Haq, Principal Law Officer, OGRA, Rehan Nawaz, General Manager, SNGPL for Respondents.\nMisbah Gulnar Sharif, for OGDCL (in Writ Petition No. 3144 of 2011)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHANDAR PETROLEUM/CNG THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 46 OTHERS\nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1321 = 2012 SLD 1321 = 2012 CLD 1734", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConstitutional Petition and Judicial Review in Public Contracts\n•\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the exclusion from a public tender process on the grounds of being wrongly categorized as a defaulter despite clearing dues. The petition was based on unfair and arbitrary actions by the public functionary awarding the contract.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the exclusion was arbitrary and violated the Constitution. The petitioner was entitled to participate in the tender process, and its categorization as a permanent defaulter was unsustainable. The actions of the public functionary lacked authority and transparency and were struck down.\n•\nCitations: 2010 CLC 1810; 2006 CLD 674; 1999 MLD 1238; PLD 1967 SC 530; 2009 MLD 1399; PLD 1996 SC 109; PLD 1998 Kar. 79; Messrs Huffaz Seamless Pipe Industries v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited 2001 CLC 713; Gatron (Industries) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1999 SCMR 1072; Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs (Exports) PLD 1996 Kar. 68.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2188 of 2012, decision dated: 10-07-2012, hearing DATE : 2-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "S. HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousuf Ali Sayeed for Petitioner.\nSadaqat Ali Khan Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.\nRafique Kalwar for Respondent No. 2. Nemo for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED\nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1322 = 2012 SLD 1322 = 2012 CLD 1754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPromissory Note and Recovery of Money\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 15,00,000 based on an Iqrarnama which was contested by the defendant as not being a promissory note. The Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte, and the defendant's application to set aside the decree was dismissed.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, confirming that the Iqrarnama met the definition of a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The ex parte decree was valid.\n•\nCitations: Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen 2006 SCMR 631; Pir Saber Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan, PLD 1995 SC 66 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.1019 of 2012, decided 26-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jamil for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RANA MUHAMMAD IKRAM\nVS\nMEHRAN FERTILIZERS (REGD.), FAISALABAD THROUGH MS. RASHIDA TALLAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1323 = 2012 SLD 1323 = 2012 CLD 1762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompetition Act and Anti-Competitive Practices in Banking Services\n•\nDetails: The case involved the Association of Banks and the practices surrounding electronic banking services (ATM, UBPS, IBFT) and price-fixing agreements among banks regarding fees. The Competition Commission reviewed whether these practices violated competition laws.\n•\nHeld: The Competition Commission determined that the association's conduct in fixing uniform fees for ATM transactions violated the Competition Act. It directed the banks to cease collective decision-making and implement independent pricing decisions. Additionally, exemptions for certain services were granted under the Act's provisions.\n•\nCitations: ATM Fee Anti-Trust Litigation on March 24, 2008; Competition Act (XIX of 2010), Ss. 4, 5 & 9.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=2", + "Case #": "Files Nos.1/24/ATM Charges/C&TA/CCP/2011, 2(317) and (318)/AGR/EXM/REG/CCP/2012, decision dated: 28-06-2012. dates of hearing: 3rd May and 12-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON,\nABDUL GHAFFAR AND DR., JOSEPH WILSON, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Imtiaz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Bank of Khyber.", + "Petitioner Name:": "1-LINK GUARANTEE LTD. AND MEMBER BANKS: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1324 = 2012 SLD 1324 = 2012 CLD 1819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and National Accountability Ordinance, 1999\nDetails:\nThis case discusses the interpretation of default under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and the implications for civil or criminal liability. It also examines the applicability of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, particularly regarding wilful default and financial liabilities.\nHeld:\n•\nThe term default under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance refers to the breach of an agreement by a customer, not a criminal offense, and penalties are compensatory, involving the cost of funds.\n•\nThe National Accountability Bureau (NAB) can intervene only if corruption is involved, and a court must adjudicate to determine the amount due from a debtor.\n•\nThe case emphasizes that any default must be proven in court before the amount is considered due under the NAB laws.\n•\nThe Banking Court’s decision on suits for recovery is paramount, and actions without a proper court decree are invalid.\nCitations:\nMuhammad Umer Rathore v. Federation of Pakistan 2009 CLD 257\nAgricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v. Sanaullah Khan and others 1988 PLD SC 67\nAbdul Latif v. The Government of West Pakistan and others PLD 1962 SC 384", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=3", + "Case #": "C.O.S. No.69 of 2012, decision dated: 5-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Ikram Siddiqui for Petitioner/Defendants.\nA.W. Butt for Respondents/Plaintiff.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH EXECUTIVE VICEPRESIDENT\nVS \nMESSRS ACRO SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 16 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1325 = 2012 SLD 1325 = 2012 CLD 1835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nCompanies Ordinance, 1984 - Investment in Associated Concerns\nDetails:\nThis case involves a company's violation of Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, for making investments in its associated concerns without shareholder approval via special resolution. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan imposed a penalty for this violation.\nHeld:\n•\nThe company's investments in associated concerns without a special resolution from shareholders were in violation of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nDespite the company's argument that the violation was not wilful, it was found that the company knowingly disregarded the requirement for shareholder approval.\n•\nA penalty was imposed, but the fine was waived, and the directors were reprimanded, with a warning to comply with legal requirements in the future.\nCitations:\n1984 CLC 2456\n2010 CLD 75; 2006 CLD 1150; 2009 CLD 1639", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 2007, decision dated: 1st March, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE) \nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Pervez Hassan and Majid Jehangir for Appellants.\nAmina Aziz and Ayesha Riaz, Directors for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.M. EHTISHAMULLAH AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1326 = 2012 SLD 1326 = 2012 CLD 1844", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 - Auction of Mortgaged Property\nDetails:\nThis case concerns the failure of a bank to comply with the provisions of Section 15(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, when attempting to auction mortgaged property without proper court intervention.\nHeld:\n•\nThe bank's failure to comply with statutory provisions regarding the auction of mortgaged property invalidated its actions.\n•\nThe appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the law, which mandates court intervention in such proceedings.\nCitations:\nRashid Ahmad v. State PLD 1972 SC 271\nIzhar Alam Farooqi Advocate v. Sheikh Abdul Sattar Lasi and others 2008 SCMR 240", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "Appeal No.22 of 2011, decision dated: 19-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "QAISER RASHID KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Mehmood Abbasi for Appellant.\nRespondent in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED\nVS \nSAJJAD AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1327 = 2012 SLD 1327 = 2012 CLD 1848", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nPakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 - Wastewater Discharge\nDetails:\nThis case examines whether a factory violated environmental laws by discharging untreated wastewater into the environment, potentially contaminating underground water and affecting local flora and fauna.\nHeld:\n•\nThe prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the factory discharged wastewater outside its premises.\n•\nThe Environmental Protection Agency's order was invalid due to lack of proper hearings, and the case was dismissed, with the factory's CEO acquitted.\nCitations:\nNo direct case law referenced in judgment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No.8 of 2010, decision dated: 27-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN (CHAIRPERSON)\nABDUL KARIM MEMON (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Karim Nawaz Qureshi, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for SEPA.\nKhowaja Navid Ahmed for Respondent/Accused.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR-GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH\nVS \nABDUL KHALIQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1328 = 2012 SLD 1328 = 2012 CLD 1855", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 - Failure to Pay Credit Balance\nDetails:\nThis case involved a securities company that failed to pay credit balances to its clients, issuing cheques to an authorized representative instead of the clients directly.\nHeld:\n•\nThe company's actions were determined to be an inadvertent error, not a deliberate or wilful violation.\n•\nThe show-cause notice was withdrawn, and no penalty was imposed on the company.\nCitations:\nNo direct case law referenced in judgment.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.(BRL-138)/SE/SMD/2006, decision dated: 30-05-2012, hearing DATE : 2-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (BR&ICW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1329 = 2012 SLD 1329 = 2012 CLD 1858", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 - Constitutional Petition\nDetails:\nA petitioner challenged a Banking Court's order striking off certain respondents from a recovery suit.\nHeld:\n•\nThe appeal was barred by law as the order in question was an interlocutory one and did not dispose of the entire case.\n•\nThe constitutional petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.\nCitations:\nNo direct case law referenced in judgment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1780 of 2009, decision dated: 5-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nSHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sami Ahsan for Petitioners. \nMs. Naheed A. Shahid for Respondents Nos.1 to 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAJID BROTHERS & CO. THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nMANAGER, ALLIED BANK LIMITED AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1330 = 2012 SLD 1330 = 2012 CLD 1861", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nCompetition Act, 2010 - Deceptive Marketing Practice\nDetails:\nThis case deals with deceptive marketing practices by a Fresh Juice company, which falsely advertised its product as 100% Pure Juice when it was a reconstituted juice.\nHeld:\n•\nThe company's marketing misled consumers into thinking the juice was entirely pure, while it was actually a reconstituted juice with additives.\n•\nThe company was reprimanded, and it was assured that the misleading claims would be removed from packaging and advertisements.\nCitations:\nFederal Trade Commission v. Bronson Partners, LLC, [564 F.Supp.2d 119 (2008)]\nNew Zealand Commerce Commission v. Brownlie Brothers (District Court Napier, CRI 2003-041-3200, 29 March, 2004)", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=10", + "Case #": "File No.18/REG/OFT/FRESHER JUICE/CCP/2011, decision dated: 20-06-2012, hearing DATE : 19-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON\nSHAHZAD ANSAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALHILAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1331 = 2012 SLD 1331 = 2012 CLD 1873", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Topic:\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894 & Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 - Merger of Co-operative Society with Company\nDetails:\nThis case discusses the merger of a co-operative society with a private company, which was found to be illegal under the relevant laws.\nHeld:\n•\nThe merger was not in accordance with the law, as the Co-operative Societies Act and Companies Ordinance were not compatible for such a merger.\n•\nThe exemption granted by the Provincial Government was invalid, and the merger was declared illegal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=4", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.258 of 2007, decision dated: 21st June, 2012. dates of hearing: 18th and 19-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. SHAHID SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Bashir, Manzoor Hussain Malik, Hamad Malik, Rizwan Niaz, Malik Atta Rasool Joya and Muhammad Masroof Chaudhry for Petitioner.\nBarristers Gohar Ali Khan and Bilal Khokhar for Respondent No. 7 (Bahria Town).\nQaiser Qadeer Qureshi for Respondents Nos.4 and 5 (DHA).\nKhan Beg Janjua for Respondent No. 8 (Administrator).", + "Petitioner Name:": "RIAZ UD DIN\nVS \nPROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1332 = 2012 SLD 1332 = 2012 CLD 1882", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nBrokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 – Violation of Code of Conduct\n•\nDetails: Two clients of a company were involved in circular trading on the Karachi Stock Exchange, where buy orders of one client matched with sell orders of another, and the trades were reversed on the same day. The company failed to maintain high standards of integrity, violating the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, particularly Rule 12, and the Code of Conduct.\n•\nHeld: No penal action was taken against the company, but a stern warning was issued. The company was directed to comply with all regulations to avoid future punitive actions.\n•\nCitations: Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Rule 12", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001=8", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.MISC/MSW/SMD/1(5)2004/1538 dated 13-04-2012, decision dated: 28-06-2012, hearing DATE : 20-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Atif Hameed, Deputy Director, SECP (through Video Conference Link) assisting the Director/HOD (MSCID)", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAKARWALA CAPITAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1333 = 2012 SLD 1333 = 2012 CLD 1887", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 – Violation of Environmental Standards\n•\nDetails: A factory was discharging polluted wastewater, exceeding the National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS) for Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Chemical Oxygen Demand. Despite admitting the violation, the appellant sought additional time for remediation, which was not granted.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed as the violation was admitted, and no justification for further delay was found.\n•\nCitations: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, Ss. 11, 16, 22", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2 of 2010, decision dated: 25-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, CHAIRPERSON\nABDUL KARIM MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui for Appellant.\nAbdul Maroof, DDPP for the Environmental Protection Agency, Sindh.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COCA COLA BEVERAGES (PAKISTAN) LIMITED\nVS \nDIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 129 = 2011 SLD 129 = 2011 CLD 1174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nModarba Companies – Violation of Rules and Regulations\n•\nDetails: Directors of a company violated Modarba Rules and Prudential Regulations by making investments in associated companies without proper authorization. Penalties were imposed for non-compliance with these regulations.\n•\nHeld: The penalties for violations were upheld, with a lenient view taken for directors, excluding the CEO, who was directed to pay the penalty.\n•\nCitations: Modarba Companies and Modarba (Floating and Control) Ordinance, 1980, Ss. 11, 32; Modarba Rules, 1981, R.10; Prudential Regulations for Modarba, Regln.7(3)", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 19 of 2010, decision dated: 1st June, 2011, hearing DATE : 29th April. 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Faiqa Naz, Abdul Baqi Lone and Jam Asif Mehmood for Appellants.\nHasnat Ahmed, Registrar (Modaraba) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MAJEEDULLAH IIUSSAINI, CEO AND 4 OTHERS \nVS \nDIRECTOR (NBFCD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 130 = 2011 SLD 130 = 2011 CLD 1179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nEnvironmental Tribunal Procedures – Issuance of Process\n•\nDetails: The court's power to issue summons and warrants of arrest under the Criminal Procedure Code was clarified, particularly in the context of the Environmental Tribunal. The District Officer (Environment) was found not to be an appropriate authority to issue notices.\n•\nHeld: The notice issued through the District Officer (Environment) was deemed illegal as it was not permissible under the law.\n•\nCitations: Environmental Tribunal (Procedure and Functions) Rules, 2008, Rule 21; Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Ss. 68–93", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Environmental Tribunal (Procedure and Functions) Rules, 2008=21", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 616 of 2010, decision dated: 29-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON), \nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.)\nMS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Rasul Clerk for the Complainants Counsel.\nADPP with Khalid Mehmood, Inspector EPA, Lahore for Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SARDAR FAKHAR IMAM \nVS \nTAJ PAPER MILLS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 131 = 2011 SLD 131 = 2011 CLD 1181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompanies Ordinance – Late Filing of Beneficial Ownership Return\n•\nDetails: A bank failed to file its return of beneficial ownership on time, resulting in a 272-day delay. The bank admitted the default but requested leniency, explaining it was not intentional.\n•\nHeld: The default was not found to be willful, and the bank was warned to ensure timely compliance in the future.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance, 1984, S.222(2)(b)", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=222", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. S.M(B.O) C.O.222/1(150) 11, decision dated: 30-06-2011, hearing DATE : 6-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 132 = 2011 SLD 132 = 2011 CLD 1186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance – Suit for Recovery\n•\nDetails: A suit for recovery of funds was decreed as the defendants failed to provide substantial defense. The defendants had objected to the sale of leased vehicles at low prices, but no significant defense was raised.\n•\nHeld: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff (leasing company).\n•\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, S.10", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-22 of 2008, decision dated: 14-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jam Asif Mahmood for the Plaintiff.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASKARI LEASING LIMITED \nVS\nSHER BAHADUR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 133 = 2011 SLD 133 = 2011 CLD 1189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 – Prohibition of Certain Discharges\n•\nDetails: The accused’s statement under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code was not recorded promptly after prosecution evidence, violating mandatory provisions.\n•\nHeld: The trial was vitiated as the statement of the accused under Section 342, Cr.P.C. was required before proceeding further.\n•\nCitations: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, Ss. 11, 12, 13, 16, 17; Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S.342", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Private Complaint No. 43 of 2008, decision dated: 29-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON), \nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.)\nMS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muhammad Imran Complainant in person.\nAkhtar H. Awan along with Liaqat owner of Unit for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD IMRAN\nVS \nPARAMOUNT ENGINEERING WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 134 = 2011 SLD 134 = 2011 CLD 1190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCivil Procedure Code – Promissory Note Suit\n•\nDetails: A suit for the recovery of money based on a promissory note was examined in the context of non-cancellation of stamps and the requirement of marginal witnesses.\n•\nHeld: The case was granted leave to appeal to address key issues related to stamp cancellation, marginal witnesses, and the nature of the promissory note.\n•\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. XXXVII, R.2 & 3; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.4; Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Arts. 17(a) & 79", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 417-L of 2008, decision dated: 16-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Javed Jalal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEHR NOOR MUHAMMAD \nVS \nNAZIR AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 135 = 2011 SLD 135 = 2011 CLD 1196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCivil Procedure Code – Suit Against Director for Recovery of Money\n•\nDetails: A suit against the director of a company for recovery of money was deemed not maintainable as the liability lay with the company, not the individual director.\n•\nHeld: The plaint was rejected as no cause of action was disclosed against the individual director.\n•\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. VII, R.11; Defamation Ordinance, 2002, Ss. 2(e), 3(4), 8", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11", + "Case #": "Suit No.952 and C.M.A. No.12872 of 2010, decision dated: 20-05-2011, hearing DATE : 2-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Habib ur Rehman and Hasan Hashimi for Plaintiff.\nAli Almani and Sami-ur-Rehman for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "A. KHALID ANSARI \nVS \nMIR SHAKIL UR RAHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 136 = 2011 SLD 136 = 2011 CLD 1209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (1997) - Poultry Farm Compliance\nDetails: The tenant of the respondent stated that the poultry farm already had a soakage pit and burial pit provided by the owner. A site inspection report confirmed compliance with environmental guidelines. However, the farm's proximity to a river raised concerns about pollution risks.\nHeld: The poultry farm was ordered to relocate 500 meters away from the river, in compliance with environmental guidelines.\nCitations: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (1997), Ss. 11, 16, 21.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 220 of 2010, decision dated: 17-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON),\nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.)\nMS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Majeed, AD (L & E), EPA, Lahore with Inam ul Haq, Inspector EPA, Rawalpindi for the Complainant. Azhar Rehman Abbasi along with Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPA\nVS\nGULZAREEN POULTRY FARM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 137 = 2011 SLD 137 = 2011 CLD 1211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance - Issuance of Duplicate Share Certificates\nDetails: A complaint was filed against a company for failing to transfer shares to the complainant's name. The company had issued duplicate shares to a third party despite the complainant holding the original shares and transfer deeds.\nHeld: The company was directed to return the original share certificates and transfer deeds to the complainant, enabling him to pursue legal action against the third party.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (1984), S. 75; Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (1987), S. 33; Central Depository Act (1997), S. 11.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=75", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 8 of 2009, decision dated: 14-07-2011, hearing DATE : 1st July, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN\nTAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wasif Majeed for Appellant.\nNazar Hussain for the Complainant.\nAli Azeem Ikram, Director (Enforcement) and Tariq Ahmed, Deputy Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZGARD NINE LIMITED \nVS \nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 138 = 2011 SLD 138 = 2011 CLD 1216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance - Amalgamation of Private Limited Companies\nDetails: A petition was filed to sanction the proposed amalgamation of two private limited companies, which was not opposed by employees or creditors.\nHeld: The court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation, as there were no objections from stakeholders and no violation of public interest or law.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (1984), Ss. 284, 287.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Petition No. 44 of 2010, decision dated: 21st January, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehmood Y. Mandviwalla and Ms. Sana Iftikhar for Petitioners.\nSaghir Ahmed Hashmi, Registrar of Companies along with Syed Imran Shamsi, Law Officer of SECP.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STIEFEL LABORATORIES PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND GLAXO SMITHKLINE PAKISTAN LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 139 = 2011 SLD 139 = 2011 CLD 1220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act - Pollution Penalty\nDetails: A complaint was filed for pollution caused by the respondent, resulting in a Rs. 50,000 fine. The court failed to follow the procedure outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code before conviction.\nHeld: The case was returned for compliance with S. 265-D, Cr.P.C., for proper framing of charges before conviction.\nCitations: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (1997), Ss. 11, 16, 17, 21; Criminal Procedure Code (1898), S. 265-D.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 8 of 2010, decision dated: 28-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON),\nCH. KHALIL (MEMBER TECH.)\nMS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ADPP with Khalid Mehmood, Inspector EPA, Punjab for the Complainant.\nAzhar Majeed Bhatti for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPA\nVS \nHAFEEZ STEEL MILLS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 140 = 2011 SLD 140 = 2011 CLD 1221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions Ordinance - Loan Recovery Execution\nDetails: A loan recovery suit resulted in a property auction. The debtor’s mother, claiming ownership, filed an application to set aside the sale.\nHeld: The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to deposit the required amount to set aside the auction, and no illegality was found in the sale.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (2001), Ss. 9 & 19; Civil Procedure Code (1908), O. XXI, Rr. 66 & 89; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-475 of 2007, decision dated: 29-04-2009, hearing DATE : 21st April, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE\nMAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed-ud-Din Siddiqui for Petitioner.\nMumtaz Alam Leghari, Assistant A.G. for Respondent No. 1.\nAnwar Baig Mughal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM SARWAR\nVS \nMUKHTIARKAR (REVENUE) TALUKA QASIMABAD, HYDERABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 141 = 2011 SLD 141 = 2011 CLD 1225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Negotiable Instruments Act - Promissory Note Dispute\nDetails: A suit was filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note, with the defendant disputing the signature. Fingerprint expert evidence supported the plaintiff’s claim.\nHeld: The High Court overturned the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit, ruling in favor of the plaintiff, based on the fingerprint expert's report and legal presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.\nCitations: Negotiable Instruments Act (1881), S. 118; Civil Procedure Code (1908), O. XXXVII, Rr. 1 & 2.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 38 of 2001, heard on 17-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nAMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Sohail Iftikhar for Appellant.\nPirzada Muhammad Afzal Nizami for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED NAJAM ALI SHAH \nVS \nMUHAMMAD HAJI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 142 = 2011 SLD 142 = 2011 CLD 1228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance - Management Association's Payments\nDetails: A complaint was filed against the Management Association of Pakistan for paying remuneration to its Executive Director in violation of the law.\nHeld: The case was remanded for further investigation into whether the Executive Director's membership and financial benefits complied with the Articles of Association.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (1984), Ss. 42, 476, 506(2); Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (1997), S. 33.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=42", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 20 and 23 of 2010, decision dated: 26-05-2011, hearing DATE : 29-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN \nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar-ud-Din F. Vellani, Ferzeen E. Bhadha and Masood Hashmi for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAROOQ HASSAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN) AND ANOTHER \nVS\nDIRECTOR (CL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 143 = 2011 SLD 143 = 2011 CLD 1232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Environmental Protection Act - Factory Operations Without Approval\nDetails: Complaints were made about factories operating without environmental approval, causing noise, fumes, and other nuisances. However, the inspections revealed compliance with emissions standards, except for the lack of environmental approval for expansion.\nHeld: The factories were fined Rs. 1,00,000 for not obtaining environmental approval before expanding.\nCitations: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (1997), Ss. 11, 12, 16, 17, 21.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Private Complaint No. 15 of 2008, decision dated: 18-05-2011, hearing DATE : 2-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL, CHAIRPERSON \nCH. MUHAMMAD KHALIL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Ahmed along with Complainant.\nADPP for Respondent. \nAshfaq Amir on behalf of Akhtar H. Awan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAHEEL MAJEED \nVS \nDG EPA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 144 = 2011 SLD 144 = 2011 CLD 1238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code - Misjoinder of Parties & Specific Performance\nDetails: A suit for specific performance and injunction was filed based on a Memorandum of Understanding with the defendant-bank. The bank failed to restructure the plaintiff's liabilities as agreed.\nHeld: The High Court restrained the bank from creating third-party interests in the property until the suit was decided, emphasizing that the Memorandum of Understanding was still valid and could be enforced.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (1908), O. I, Rr. 9 & 10; Specific Relief Act (1877), Ss. 42, 12, 64; Order XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1294 and C.M.A. No. 6463 of 2010, decision dated: 29-12-2010. dates of hearing: 6th, 13th, 22nd and 23rd December, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Farogh Naseem for Plaintiff.\nArshad Tayyabally for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DEWAN DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD. AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nMESSRS MYBANK LIMITED THROUGH REGIONAL GENERAL MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 145 = 2011 SLD 145 = 2011 CLD 1249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Failure to Attach Consolidated Financial Statements\nDetails:\nThe holding company owned more than 50% of voting shares in nine other companies and was mandated to prepare and attach consolidated financial statements to its own. Under Section 3(a) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, a company holding such a majority stake in another company is required to provide consolidated financial statements as per the Fourth Schedule of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and International Accounting Standards. The company, however, failed to do so, violating Section 237 of the Ordinance. The company’s failure to comply with the law was deemed reckless, and the directors and the Chief Executive were held liable for neglecting their fiduciary duties, as they should have been aware of and complied with the legal requirements. The failure was not seen as a bona fide mistake and was considered careless.\nHeld:\nThe penalties imposed on the company and its officers were upheld, as their failure to comply was deliberate and reckless. The impugned order could not be interfered with.\nCitations:\nShaikh Jalaluddin F.C.A. v. Commissioner (Enforcement and Monitoring) SEC 2005 CLD 333.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=3", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 35 of 2010, decision dated: 26-05-2011, hearing DATE : 28-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN\nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Furkan Ali for Appellants.\nBilal Rasul, Additional Registrar/Director (Enforcement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "VAZIR ALI F. MUHAMMAD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE (FORMER) AND 6 OTHERS \nVS \nDIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)/ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 146 = 2011 SLD 146 = 2011 CLD 1253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Pollution Due to Wastewater Discharge\nDetails:\nA complaint was filed against a mill for discharging untreated wastewater into the environment, leading to violations of National Environmental Quality Standards (NEQS). Tests on the wastewater samples revealed high levels of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and excessive Grease and Oil, which were detrimental to the water quality and public health. However, the prosecution's case was weakened due to a failure to properly collect and handle evidence, specifically the environmental samples. The prosecution could not produce witnesses to verify the sampling process, and discrepancies in the sample identification undermined the case. Furthermore, the samples were delayed for six days before being tested, with no explanation provided. The environmental protection agency's actions were deemed unprofessional and lax.\nHeld:\nThe mill was acquitted as the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof due to the mishandling of evidence and lack of supporting testimony. The Tribunal also noted that the Environmental Protection Agency had been negligent in fulfilling its duties.\nCitations:\nJamil Khan Afridi v. The State 2004 MLD 542; Ashfaq v. The State 1993 SCMR 147.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 4 of 2010, decision dated: 15-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JEHAN (CHAIRPERSON)\nABDUL KARIM MEMON (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Maroof, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for SEPA.\nMuhammad Jamshid Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY \nVS \nSMAIL H. ZAKARIA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 147 = 2011 SLD 147 = 2011 CLD 1263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Judgment Requirements in Civil Procedure\nDetails:\nThe Banking Court issued a non-speaking order in a case concerning the recovery of finances, dismissing the defendant’s application for leave to defend without addressing the points of fact and law raised in the application. The defendant had presented several documents, but the Banking Court failed to consider or discuss them before passing a decree in favor of the bank. This led to a violation of procedural fairness, as judgments must be reasoned and address all relevant issues and evidence presented by the parties.\nHeld:\nThe High Court set aside the Banking Court's decree and remanded the case for a fresh decision, instructing the Banking Court to provide a detailed, speaking judgment addressing the factual and legal points raised by the defendant.\nCitations:\nNo specific citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=5", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 16 of 2007, decision dated: 30-05-2011, hearing DATE : 17-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellants.\nAyaz Sawati for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NOOR FLOUR MILLS THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR AND ANOTHER \nVS \nJUDGE BANKING COURT BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 148 = 2011 SLD 148 = 2011 CLD 1268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal to Register Company Name\nDetails:\nAn application for the name Pakistan Community Services Association was filed by a proposed sponsor seeking registration under Section 42 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The registration was rejected by the Junior Executive of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), citing the term Association as reserved for trade bodies. The appellant contended that other registered entities had used similar names, and the guidelines published by SECP allowed the use of the term Association for companies licensed under Section 42 or those established as trade organizations.\nHeld:\nThe SECP’s rejection was overturned, and the name Pakistan Community Services Association was allowed for registration, as it complied with the relevant rules and guidelines.\nCitations:\nNo specific citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=37", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 6 of 2011, decision dated: 26-05-2011, hearing DATE : 29-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN \nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aga Zaheer for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGHA FAQUIR MUHAMMAD \nVS\nREGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 149 = 2011 SLD 149 = 2011 CLD 1271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Pollution from Mill's Chipboard Production\nDetails:\nThe mill was involved in the production of chipboard from Bagasse, mixed with various chemicals, and was discharging fine particles into the open air, affecting air quality and causing health issues in the surrounding community. Multiple complaints from local residents and workers highlighted adverse health impacts, including waterborne diseases. Despite multiple warnings and environmental reports, the mill did not address the pollution issue or comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s directives.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal upheld the environmental protection order, as the mill continued to violate environmental standards and failed to take corrective measures. The order to halt operations was enforced to protect public health and the environment.\nCitations:\nNo specific citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1 of 2010, decision dated: 20-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN (CHAIRPERSON) \nABDUL KARIM MEMON (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zulfiqar Norrani for Appellant. \nAbdul Maroof, DDPP for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SINDH PARTICLE BOARD MILLS LIMITED THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY \nVS\nENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY THROUGH DIRECTOR-GENERAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 150 = 2011 SLD 150 = 2011 CLD 1280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Noise Pollution from Diesel Generator\nDetails:\nA residential area, particularly a children’s park, was being disturbed by severe vibration and noise from a diesel generator located on the premises. The Environmental Protection Agency issued an environmental protection order demanding the cessation of operations until approval was granted. The premises were sealed as the unit had been operating without obtaining the necessary environmental approval. The application for de-sealing was filed after the limitation period had expired.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal denied the request for de-sealing, citing the potential adverse environmental impacts and prioritizing public welfare over the applicant’s interests. The sealing of the premises was upheld, and the matter was to be resolved at the final hearing of the appeal.\nCitations:\nNo specific citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Application No. 5 of 2011, decision dated: 18-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON),\nCH. MUHAMMAD KHALIL (MEMBER TECHNICAL)\nMS. GULZAR BUTT (MEMBER LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamood ur Rehman for Applicant/Appellant.\nADPP with Aamir Shah Inspector (Legal) EPA for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN MOBILE COMMUNICATION, SANGLA HILL \nVS \nDG EPA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 151 = 2011 SLD 151 = 2011 CLD 1295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Protection Order for Plant Construction\nDetails:\nA private company challenged an environmental protection order issued for its failure to obtain approval under Section 12 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, for a plant constructed in 1994. The company argued that the law had not yet been in effect when construction began, but it later submitted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to comply with legal requirements. However, the company failed to seek approval for the operation of its plant.\nHeld:\nThe Tribunal imposed a fine of Rs. 100,000 on the company for violating the law. The company was directed to seek approval for the plant's operation from the Environmental Protection Agency.\nCitations:\nNo specific citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Environmental Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 9 of 2008, decision dated: 6-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON)\nCH. MUHAMMAD KHALIL (MEMBER TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAFARGE PAKISTAN CEMENT COMPANY LTD. \nVS \nDG EPA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 152 = 2011 SLD 152 = 2011 CLD 1300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation of Insurance Company’s Business Income\nDetails:\nThe case revolved around the taxation of an insurance company’s income, which was divided into business income from insurance activities and normal business income. The company argued that the income from its insurance business should be governed by the special provisions laid out in the Fourth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as opposed to the general tax provisions. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) accepted that insurance companies should be treated as a single unit for tax purposes, with income from insurance business and normal business being taxed together.\nHeld:\nThe principles of tax computation for insurance businesses were reaffirmed, and the special provisions of the Fourth Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were upheld as overriding general tax provisions. The company’s income from insurance and normal business was treated as a single unit for tax calculation.\nCitations:\nFederal Bank for Cooperatives, Islamabad v. Ahsan Muhammad 2004 SCMR 130; Golden Orphies (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Director of Vigilance, Central Excise, Customs and Sales Tax 1993 SCMR 1635; Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, A Karachi v. Messrs Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd. 1991 SCMR 2485; Messrs E.F.U. General Insurance Co. Limited v. The Federation of Pakistan and others 1997 PTD 1693; Central Insurance Co. and others v. Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others 1993 PTD 766 = 1993 SCMR 1232; 2003 PTD 1321.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=3", + "Case #": "I.T.R.As. Nos. 158 to 160 of 2010, decision dated: 6-06-2011, hearing DATE : 15-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi for Applicant/Appellant.\nSirajul Haq Memon and Arshad Siraj Memon for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER (LEGAL) \nVS\nMESSRS EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 153 = 2011 SLD 153 = 2011 CLD 1325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Pollution from Industrial Wastewater\nDetails:\nThe Industrial Estate was accused of causing severe environmental pollution due to improper disposal of untreated wastewater. The Estate had initiated the construction of a Combined Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) in partnership with the government. Despite the Estate’s efforts to address immediate issues, the environmental protection order required compliance with all directions, including the establishment of the CETP.\nHeld:\nThe complaint was disposed of with instructions for the Estate to pursue the completion of its environmental compliance projects with the government, particularly the construction of the CETP.\nCitations:\nNo specific citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 25 of 2008, decision dated: 13-06-2011, hearing DATE : 28-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON) \nCH. MUHAMMAD KHALIL (MEMBER TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPA \nVS\nMULTAN INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 154 = 2011 SLD 154 = 2011 CLD 1329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction & Beneficial Ownership in Ship Arrest\nDetails: The plaintiff sought to arrest two ships in lieu of the ship against which a cause of action existed, claiming that the defendant was the beneficial owner of the ship. The arrest was sought based on the alleged beneficial ownership of the defendant in the ships. The Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, governs such cases, and it requires proof of beneficial ownership of the majority shares in the ship to be arrested. The case revolved around the determination of whether the defendant held the beneficial interest in the ship and whether it could be arrested under the applicable provisions of the Ordinance.\nHeld: The application for the arrest of the ship was dismissed. The High Court ruled that for a ship to be arrested, it must be beneficially owned by the person against whom the claim in personam is made. The provisions of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, which are special laws, override the provisions of the general law under the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance, 2001. Additionally, the defendant’s beneficial interest in the ship was not established, and the court determined that no valid case for arrest had been made.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs V.N. Lakhani and Company v. M.V. Lakatoi Express, PLD 1994 SC 894\n•\nCentral Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.T. Tasman Spirit, 2004 CLD 695\n•\nMessrs Maratos and Co. v. Rice Trader, PLD 1989 Kar. 94\n•\nUnion Council, Ali Wahan, Sukkur v. Associated Cement (Pvt.) Ltd., 1993 SCMR 468\n•\nM.T. Portofino v. M.T. Portofino, 2003 CLD 1655", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=4", + "Case #": "Admiralty Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011, decision dated: 18-05-2011. dates of hearing: 8th, 9th, 11th and 15-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIMAM BUX BALOUCH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar I. Lari for Appellants.\nKhalid Rehman for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KHADIJA EDIBLE OIL REFINERY (PVT.) LTD. \nVS\nM.T. \"\"GALAXY\"\" AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 155 = 2011 SLD 155 = 2011 CLD 1450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance & Deceptive Marketing Practice\nDetails: The company, which manufactured a product called Remaine for hair fall treatment, was found to be misleading consumers through advertisements claiming that the product would stop hair fall by 100% in 8-15 days. The Competition Commission of Pakistan, after investigating the claims, found that the company’s advertisements lacked a reasonable basis for such absolute claims.\nHeld: The company was directed to amend its advertisements and remove any absolute claims that lacked a reasonable basis. The Commission took a lenient approach and did not impose a penalty, instead reprimanding the company and urging it to act more responsibly in future marketing.\nCitations: Competition Ordinance, 2010, Sections 10 & 37", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=10", + "Case #": "Show-cause Notice No. 1 of 2011, decision dated: 11-05-2011, hearing DATE : 1st February, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barrister Yousaf Khosa and Leena Inaam Khan for RITS Incorporation", + "Petitioner Name:": "Barrister Yousaf Khosa and Leena Inaam Khan for RITS Incorporation\nMessrs RITS INCORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 156 = 2011 SLD 156 = 2011 CLD 1351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Protection & Jurisdictional Dispute\nDetails: The appellant company challenged the validity of an environmental protection order issued under Section 16 of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, which directed the company to apply for paying a fine for violating environmental norms. The appellant argued that such authority was vested exclusively in the Environmental Tribunal under Section 21(2) of the Act.\nHeld: The court ruled that the direction for payment of a fine was beyond the jurisdiction of the Environmental Agency and could only be imposed by the Environmental Tribunal. Consequently, the direction was declared invalid.\nCitations: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, Sections 11, 12, 16, 17 & 21", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 8 of 2008, decision dated: 10-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON)\nCH. MUHAMMAD KHALIL (MEMBER TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "ADPP for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LTD.\nVS\nEPA, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 157 = 2011 SLD 157 = 2011 CLD 1355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance & Attachment of Non-Mortgaged Property\nDetails: A bank sought to attach the defendants' properties, which were not mortgaged, as part of a loan recovery process. The bank argued that without such attachment, the defendants’ business would come to a halt.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the attachment could only be applied to mortgaged properties under Section 16(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. Since the properties sought to be attached were not mortgaged, the court dismissed the application.\nCitations: Messrs MEC Shipbreakers Ltd. v. Messrs Peason Investment Inc., PLD 1982 Kar. 701", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "C.O.S. No. 5 of 2009 and C.Ms. Nos. 168, 166, 194 of 2009 and 204 of 2011, decision dated: 13-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omer Farooq Adam, Muhammad Aslam Aryan and Shoaib Aslam for Plaintiff.\nEhsan Ahmad G. Khawaja for Defendants Nos. 1 to 5.\nMuhammad Ghani for Defendant No. 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MCB BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER\nVS\nMESSRS MILLENNIUM SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 158 = 2011 SLD 158 = 2011 CLD 1360", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Protection & Non-Compliance with Formalities\nDetails: A complaint was filed against a company for causing environmental pollution, but the complainant failed to serve the mandatory 30-day notice required under Section 21(3)(b) of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997.\nHeld: The failure to comply with the statutory notice requirement resulted in the complaint being deemed not maintainable.\nCitations: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, Sections 11, 12, 16, 17 & 21", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Private Complaint No. 41 of 2009, decision dated: 30-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON) \nCH. MUHAMMAD KHALIL (MEMBER TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant.\nADPP for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZIA ULLAH\nVS\nDG EPA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 159 = 2011 SLD 159 = 2011 CLD 1373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Protection & Noise Pollution\nDetails: A company was directed to control high levels of noise and fumes from its operations, but it contended that the pollution did not extend beyond its workshop. Testing revealed that while the company caused discomfort due to noise, the levels of noise and fumes were within permissible limits for a commercial area.\nHeld: The complaint was dismissed as the complainant failed to prove that the company’s operations caused environmental pollution beyond permissible levels.\nCitations: Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997, Sections 11, 12, 16, 17 & 21", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 20 of 2009, decision dated: 13-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD AFZAL (CHAIRPERSON) \nCH. MUHAMMAD KHALIL (MEMBER TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DG EPA\nVS\nSHAHEEN FOUNDRY, OKARA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 160 = 2011 SLD 160 = 2011 CLD 1376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance & Retrospective Application of Prohibited Agreements\nDetails: A company argued that its Strategic Services Agreement, executed before the enactment of the Competition Ordinance, 2010, should not be subject to its provisions as the ordinance was prospective.\nHeld: The court ruled that even if an agreement was made before the enactment of the Competition Ordinance, if it continued post-enactment, it would be governed by the ordinance. The application of the ordinance was deemed prospective only for the ongoing effects of the agreement.\nCitations: Kowtha Suryanarayan Rao v. Bank of Hindustan Ltd. (1953) 23 Comp Case 168 (Mad), Khan Asfandyar Wali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 607", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=4", + "Case #": "Show-cause Notices Nos. 63 and 64 of 2010, decision dated: 22-03-2011. dates of hearings: 22nd, 30th December of 2010 and 13th January of 2010", + "Judge Name:": "RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON \nVADIYYA S. KHALIL, MEMBER (M&A)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Hafeez for Defence.\nMuhammad Aslam Khan Niazi, Additional Director Telecom for Housing Authority.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WATEEN TELECOM (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 161 = 2011 SLD 161 = 2011 CLD 1402", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance & Reinsurance Treaty Violation\nDetails: The insurance company issued multiple policies on a single risk, violating the terms of its reinsurance treaty. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan imposed a penalty for this violation.\nHeld: The court set aside the penalty as no violation of Section 41 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, was found. The company was directed to comply with the reinsurance treaty but the penalty was overturned.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997, Sections 20(4)(r) & 33; Insurance Ordinance, 2000, Sections 2(xxvii), (ii), 11(1)(d), 41, 59-A & 156.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 41 of 2011, decision dated: 17-06-2011, hearing DATE : 29-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN \nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rizwan Ali Dodani, Kazim Raza and Imran Ali Dodani for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "EAST WEST INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 162 = 2011 SLD 162 = 2011 PLD 578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Suit for Damages\n•\nDamages for Maltreatment by Tax Officials\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff filed for damages of Rs. 81.82 million against sales tax officials due to the embargo on his factory for non-payment of taxes. The plaintiff claimed the officials had forcibly taken over his vehicle, detained him overnight, and subjected him to physical abuse. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the confiscation order and condemned the officials' treatment. The trial court awarded damages of Rs. 100,000.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the plaintiff had proven maltreatment by the officials, who acted with mala fide intention. However, the plaintiff failed to prove exact financial damages, and the claim for exaggerated damages was dismissed. The awarded damages were upheld as a deterrent.\n•\nCitations: Haji Salman Ali and Co. v. Province of Balochistan PLD 1994 Quetta 13\n(b) Tort: Damages\n•\nDiscretion of Court in Awarding Damages\n•\nDetails: The court has discretion to award damages based on the facts of each case.\n•\nHeld: Damages are assessed on a rational basis, especially for non-quantifiable losses such as mental agony.\n•\nCitations: Haji Salman Ali and Co. v. Province of Balochistan PLD 1994 Quetta 13, Sufi Muhammad Ishaque v. Metropolitan Corporation Lahore PLD 1996 SC 737\n(c) Tort: Proof of Damages\n•\nEssentials for Damages Claims\n��\nDetails: The claimant must provide proof of the exact amount of damages to support their claim.\n•\nHeld: Claims without evidence or with exaggerated amounts should not be entertained.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Ashraf v. Nawabuddin PLD 1951 Lah. 283, Muhammad Akram v. Farman Bibi PLD 1990 SC 28", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=", + "Case #": "H.C. Appeals Nos.98 and 128 of 2009, decision dated: 24-06-2011, hearing DATE : 26-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Gull Muhammad Awan Appellant in person (in HCA No. 98 of 2009 and Respondent in HCA No. 128 of 2009).\nMrs. Masooda Qureshi for Respondents (in HCA No. 98 and for Appellant in HCA No. 128 of 2009).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK GUL MUHAMMAD AWAN \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 163 = 2011 SLD 163 = 2011 CLD 1417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance (XVI of 2010): Abuse of Dominant Position\n•\nTying of Movie Tickets with Food Coupons\n•\nDetails: The company tied the sale of movie tickets with mandatory food coupons, which violated competition laws. The company justified this as a marketing strategy. The Competition Commission of Pakistan found the company in violation but accepted their offer to provide free movie shows as compensation.\n•\nHeld: The Commission accepted the company's commitment to hold five free shows but warned of potential market impact.\n•\nCitations: None provided", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=3", + "Case #": "Show-cause Notice No. 25 of 2010, decision dated: 28-03-2011, hearing DATE : 1st March, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CINEPAX LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 164 = 2011 SLD 164 = 2011 CLD 1425", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984): Failure to Submit Accounts\n•\nPenalty for Failure to Prepare Half-Yearly Accounts\n•\nDetails: A company failed to prepare and transmit half-yearly accounts. A fine of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the Chief Executive and Directors. The fine on the Chief Executive was set aside, as he was not the recipient of the show-cause notice.\n•\nHeld: Fine on the Chief Executive was set aside, but it was upheld for the Directors.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1969 SC 167, 1990 SCMR 164, 1983 SCMR 1239", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 20 of 2003, decision dated: 17-06-2011, hearing DATE : 19-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN \nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Khokhar and Aslam Arain for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAHIR HASSAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANOTHER\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (E & M)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 165 = 2011 SLD 165 = 2011 CLD 1430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): Objection Petition\n•\nTime Limits for Filing Objections\n•\nDetails: An objection petition was filed after a year from the first attachment. The court ruled that the one-year limit applied only if the objector knew about the attachment. The objection was accepted as the first attachment did not comply with required procedures.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the objection petition and set aside the sale of the warehouse.\n•\nCitations: Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure, Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Prasad (1888), Aamer Raza A. Khan", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=54", + "Case #": "Execution No.69 of 2008 and C.M.A. No.908 of 2010, decision dated: 15-07-2011, hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Behzad Haider for Decree-Holder. Abdul Sattar Lakhani for the Judgment-Debtor.\nZaki Ahmed and Jawad A. Sarwana for PIAC. Ahmed Nawaz Bhatti for Auction Purchaser.\nKh. Ahsan,. Advocate. Jam Asif Ali, Advocate.\nQadir Bux Umrani, Official Assignee.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.C.B. BANK LTD.\nVS\nDUTY FREE SHOP LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 166 = 2011 SLD 166 = 2011 CLD 1457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997): Insider Trading\n•\nInsider Trading by CEO of Company\n•\nDetails: The CEO traded shares of the company while possessing inside information from a board meeting. The CEO violated insider trading rules by trading based on price-sensitive information.\n•\nHeld: A penalty was imposed on the CEO for engaging in insider trading.\n•\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Milken, U.S. v. Rajaratnam", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 64 of 2009, decision dated: 17-06-2011, hearing DATE : 19-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN \nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nauman Qaiser for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR MOTI CAPITAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nDIRECTOR (SMD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 167 = 2011 SLD 167 = 2011 CLD 1463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Export Processing Zone Authority Ordinance (IV of 1980): Arbitration Clause\n•\nStay of Proceedings Due to Arbitration Clause\n•\nDetails: A dispute between the parties was covered by the arbitration clause of the Export Processing Zone Authority Ordinance. The court ruled that arbitration was applicable and stayed the proceedings.\n•\nHeld: The High Court's order to stay the proceedings was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Novelty Cinema, Lyallpur v. Firdaus Films, Ali Muhammad Khan v. Riazuddin Khera", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.46 of 2010, decision dated: 4-05-2011, hearing DATE : 26-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.A. Rahmani for Appellants.\nAli Mumtaz Shaikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABID IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS\nVS\nEXPORT PROCESSING ZONES AUTHORITY THROUGH CHAIRMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 168 = 2011 SLD 168 = 2011 CLD 1471", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQVNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance (XVI of 2010): Merger Control\n•\nMerger of Telecommunication Companies\n•\nDetails: A company applied for approval to acquire another company, which raised competition concerns. The Commission allowed the merger on the condition of mitigating measures to address market impact.\n•\nHeld: The merger was approved with conditions and the Commission reserved the right to review the effects after one year.\n•\nCitations: None provided", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=2", + "Case #": "File No. 373/Merger/CCP/2011) of 2011, decision dated: 17-03-2011, hearing DATE : 11-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Nasim, Mir Nasar Ahmad and Orr, Dignam & Co. (Legal Advisors) for Vemplecom. \nKhalid S. Ibrahim, Agha M. Qasim, VP Corporate Affairs, PMCL and Niaz Brohi, Director (Legal), PMCL for PMCL. Romano Righetti, Deputy COO, Wind Telecom for Wind Telecom", + "Petitioner Name:": "ACQUISITION OF WIND TELECOM S.P.A. (FORMERLY WEATHER INVESTMENTS Sarl) BY VIMPELCOM LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 169 = 2011 SLD 169 = 2011 CLD 1479", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969): Insider Trading\n•\nInsider Trading by CEO of Company\n•\nDetails: The CEO of a company traded shares based on inside information related to positive financial results. A penalty was imposed under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance for insider trading.\n•\nHeld: The CEO was penalized for insider trading.\n•\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Milken, U.S. v. Rajaratnam", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 8 of 2011, decision dated: 12-08-2011, hearing DATE : 28-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN \nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal and Sohail Razzak for Appellant.\nImran Inayat Butt, Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD HANIF Y. BAWANY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF BAWANY AIR PRODUCTS LIMITED\nVS\nDIRECTOR (SMD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 170 = 2011 SLD 170 = 2011 CLD 1517", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decree and Sale of Mortgaged Property\nDetails: (a) Under Section 19(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the Banking Court may execute a decree through provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), or other applicable laws, or as requested by the decree holder in writing. (b) The non-deposit of 3/4 of the auction money within 15 days, as stipulated in the proclamation of sale, was considered a mandatory condition. The Executing Court’s decision to extend this period was invalid, as failure to comply rendered the auction a nullity. (c) Sale of mortgaged property by auction could be challenged if the proceedings did not comply with mandatory provisions of C.P.C., specifically regarding the transparency and proper documentation of the auction process. (d) Sale of property in violation of the provisions of C.P.C. could be contested by an interested party, even after the sale was confirmed by the Executing Court. (e) Provisions of Order XXI, Rule 90 of C.P.C. must be read with exceptions, where necessary, as any law without exceptions would be considered a bad law. (f) Violation of mandatory provisions of C.P.C., including the failure to affix a notice on the court's notice board and the omission of auction details, nullifies the auction. (g) Objectors to such sales, who fail to deposit 20% of the sale amount under Rule 90, could have the condition waived in exceptional circumstances where the auction was flawed.\nHeld: The auction sale was invalid due to procedural violations and could be challenged. The Executing Court's acceptance of the delayed payment application was wrongful, and the sale was set aside.\nCitations:\n•\nAfzal Maqsood Butt v. Banking Court No. 2, Lahore, PLD 2005 SC 470\n•\nManilal Mohanlal Shah and others v. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mahmad, AIR 1954 SC 349\n•\nPakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. Peshawar Cantt. v. Government of Pakistan, 2002 CLD 1", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 2002, decision dated: 2-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nTARIQ PARVEZ, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Alam Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nGul Zarin Kyanai, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 5 to 6.\nSajid Mehmood Sh., Advocate Supreme Court and Altaf Elahi Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. NADIA MALIK\nVS\nMESSRS MAKKI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 171 = 2011 SLD 171 = 2011 CLD 1536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Filing Accounts and Imposition of Penalties\nDetails: The company was penalized for a 22-day delay in filing quarterly accounts with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The company claimed the delay was due to the aftermath of a bomb blast in Karachi, but the delay exceeded the claim of being caused solely by law and order issues.\nHeld: The SECP imposed penalties on the CEO and directors, as the company's compliance record showed repeated delays in fulfilling its obligations. The penalties were upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nN/A", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 24 of 2006, decision dated: 12-08-2011, hearing DATE : 4-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN \nTAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farhan Siddiqui for Appellants", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAROOQ IBRAHIM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 6 OTHERS\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 172 = 2011 SLD 172 = 2011 CLD 1539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Banking Court and Quashing of F.I.R. in Loan Dispute\nDetails: A constitutional petition sought the quashing of an F.I.R. filed against a guarantor in a loan recovery case, asserting that the Banking Court had exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.\nHeld: The F.I.R. was quashed as it was filed in violation of the special law, which ousted the jurisdiction of local police in such financial matters.\nCitations:\n•\nIndustrial Development Bank of Pakistan and others v. Mian Asim Fareed, 2006 SCMR 483", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12772 of 2010, decision dated: 26-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Suleman Bhatti for Petitioners.\nRana Javed Akhtar, Standing Counsel along with Shafiq Ahmad, S.-I. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MURSHID ALI AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\nS.H.O., POLICE STATION SADDAR, KHANEWAL AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 173 = 2011 SLD 173 = 2011 CLD 1546", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of SECP and Imposition of Penalties\nDetails: The company failed to submit quarterly accounts to SECP but argued that it was not under SECP’s jurisdiction as it was incorporated in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). SECP imposed penalties, but the company contested them based on jurisdictional grounds.\nHeld: The court ruled that since the company was incorporated in AJK, the SECP lacked jurisdiction to impose penalties. The penalties were therefore set aside.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1985 SC (AJ & K) 62", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 25 of 2006, decision dated: 17-06-2011, hearing DATE : 28-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN\nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, KASHMIR POLYTEX LTD. AND 6 OTHERS\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 174 = 2011 SLD 174 = 2011 CLD 1550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Attachment of Guarantor’s Property in Loan Recovery\nDetails: The bank sought to attach the guarantor's property as part of loan recovery. However, the guarantor contested the attachment, arguing that merely being a guarantor did not give the bank automatic right to interfere with his assets.\nHeld: The court ruled that without specific evidence of an intent to defraud or delay, the attachment request was dismissed.\nCitations:\n•\nN/A", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-45 of 2009 and C.M.A. No. 5399 of 2010, decision dated: 9-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bahzad Haider for Plaintiff.\nZeeshan holding brief for Asim Mansoor for Defendant No. 1.\nSalim Salam Ansari for Defendants Nos. 5 and 7.\nIrfan Haroon for Intervener.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MCB BANK LIMITED\nVS\nMESSRS ATLAS RUBBER AND PLASTIC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 175 = 2011 SLD 175 = 2011 CLD 1554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal to Grant CNG Marketing Licence\nDetails: A petitioner, who had invested in establishing a CNG station, was denied a marketing licence due to a ban on new gas connections imposed by the Prime Minister. The petitioner had complied with all requirements before the ban was imposed.\nHeld: The refusal to grant the marketing licence was unlawful, and the petitioner’s fundamental right to conduct business was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nBrig. Muhammad Bashir v. Abdul Karim and others, PLD 2004 SC 271", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.(S) 51 of 2011, decision dated: 18-08-2011, hearing DATE : 11-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE\nGHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Shakeel Ahmed for Petitioner.\nMalik Sikandar Khan, Dy. A.G. for Respondent No. 1.\nSaleem Ahmed Lashari for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALMAKKAH CNG STATION THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH SECRETARY ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 176 = 2011 SLD 176 = 2011 CLD 1560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Wash Trades and Penalties\nDetails: The appellant company conducted wash trades, repeatedly buying and selling shares without changing ownership. A penalty was imposed for contravening regulations under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.\nHeld: The penalty was upheld as the trades were deemed unfair and harmful to market integrity.\nCitations:\n•\n1990 PLC 373\n•\n2002 CLC 1925", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 56 of 2011, decision dated: 12-08-2011, hearing DATE : 4-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN \nTAHIR MEHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Waheed, Basil Nabi Malik, Ms. Rubab Dhanji, M.Farhan Rafiq, C.E.O. and Adnan Abdul Majeed for Appellant. \nImran Inayat Butt, Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADAM SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nDIRECTOR (SMD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 177 = 2011 SLD 177 = 2011 CLD 1569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) - Judgment setting aside\nDetails:\n•\nThe issue involved whether a judgment and decree could be challenged before the court that passed it, on the grounds of non-service or misrepresentation.\n•\nThe defendants sought to have a decree set aside after the High Court varied a Banking Court decree, increasing the bank’s claim.\nHeld:\n•\nThe judgment of the High Court had attained finality and the Banking Court’s jurisdiction did not extend to setting it aside.\n•\nThe proper forum to challenge the High Court's decree was the High Court itself under S. 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 12(2)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=12", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 484-K of 2010, decision dated: 23rd February, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nafis Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Khalique Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SILK BANK LIMITED\nVS\nQAZI EHTISHAMUL HAQ AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 178 = 2011 SLD 178 = 2011 CLD 1571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition - Jurisdiction of High Court\nDetails:\n•\nA Banking Court ordered the defendant to furnish security, and the defendant claimed the order was without jurisdiction.\n•\nThe High Court reviewed and modified the condition, considering no risk of abscondence from the defendant company.\nHeld:\n•\nThe High Court had jurisdiction to correct any errors, especially when no other effective remedy was available.\n•\nThe condition to furnish security was modified, but the jurisdiction of the High Court was affirmed.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances Ordinance) Ss. 9 & 10; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199; PLD 1982 Lah. 92; 1983 CLC 2828", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-3382 and C.M.A. No. 13504 of 2010, decision dated: 21st June, 2011, hearing DATE : 14-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSYED HASSAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kashif Hanif for Petitioner.\nKhaliq Ahmed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HABIB BANK LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICERS/ATTORNEYS\nVS\nMESSRS VICTOR ELECTRONICS APPLIANCES INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 179 = 2011 SLD 179 = 2011 CLD 1586", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Tort - Malicious Prosecution\nDetails:\n•\nPlaintiffs sought damages for malicious prosecution, alleging the defendant's suit against them was false and without merit.\n•\nThe plaintiffs could not provide sufficient evidence to prove their claims.\nHeld:\n•\nThe suit for malicious prosecution was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence supporting their allegations.\n•\nThe Appellate Court's decision was upheld.\nCitations: PLD 1994 SC 476; MLD 271, 1982 CLC 2367", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.268 of 2008, decision dated: 9-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalil Khan Khalil and M. Muhammad Younas Shah for Petitioners.\nHidayatullah Khattak for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAFIQ AND 6 OTHERS\nVS\nASHIQ BADSHAH OR ZAHAWAR SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 180 = 2011 SLD 180 = 2011 CLD 1594", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) - Presumption of Death\nDetails:\n•\nLegal heirs sought a succession certificate for an insured person presumed dead after being missing for 12 years.\n•\nThe insurance company objected, stating that death needed to be established for the claim to be valid.\nHeld:\n•\nAfter 12 years with no evidence to the contrary, the insured person was presumed dead.\n•\nThe insurance claim was due, and the insurance company was bound to pay the claim.\nCitations: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117, 120, 124; Succession Act (1925), S. 381; PLD 1972 Azad J & K 26", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=117", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.428 of 2003, decision dated: 17-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jahanzaib Khan Bharwana for Petitioner.\nKhalid Aseer Chaudhary for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ZONAL HEAD\nVS\nFAISAL TAHIR AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 181 = 2011 SLD 181 = 2011 CLD 1602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 12312\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction - Suit for Vessel's Arrest\nDetails:\n•\nA foreign bank sought to arrest a vessel for loan recovery.\n•\nThe issue concerned the applicability of the limitation period for a maritime lien under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Ordinance.\nHeld:\n•\nThe claim did not constitute a maritime lien, and the suit was not barred by limitation under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Ordinance.\n•\nProvisions of the Stamp Act did not apply to mortgage claims relating to the purchase of a vessel.\nCitations: Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (1980) Ss. 3(2)(c) & 6; 1984 CLC 2265", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suit No. 29 and C.M.As. Nos. 1314, 1315 of 2010, decision dated: 15-07-2011, hearing DATE : 19-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ahsan Ghani Siddiqui for Plaintiff. Naeem Ahmed for Defendant No. 1.\nSaghir Ahmed Abbasi for the Invervener.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEGA INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK CO., LTD.\nVS\nF.T. SELNES AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 182 = 2011 SLD 182 = 2011 CLD 1619", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange - Short Selling Penalty\nDetails:\n•\nA company was penalized for engaging in short selling without a pre-existing interest in the shares and not having a borrowing arrangement.\nHeld:\n•\nThe penalty of Rs. 2.5 million imposed under S.22 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance was upheld.\n•\nThe company was found in violation of regulations for short selling under the Ready Market Regulations.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance (1969), S.22; 1984 CLC 2456", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 22 of 2010, decision dated: 12-08-2011, hearing DATE : 4-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barrister Atif Rafiq and Farhan Rafiq, CEO for Appellant. Imran Inayat Butt, Director (SMD), Muhammad Ali, Deputy Director and Kapeel Dev, Assistant Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRA SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nDIRECTOR (SMD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "6698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 183 = 2011 SLD 183 = 2011 CLD 1625", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Contract Act (IX of 1872) - Bank Guarantee\nDetails:\n•\nA plaintiff sought to prevent the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee, citing breach of contract.\nHeld:\n•\nAn injunction against encashment was not granted due to the nature of the guarantee.\n•\nEncashment would be allowed unless prima facie evidence of breach was present.\nCitations: 1989 SCMR 379; PLD 1996 Kar. 183; PLD 1997 Kar. 636", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.157 and C.M.A. No. 1086 of 2010, decision dated: 13-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Usman Shaikh for Plaintiff.\nYawar Faruqui for Defendant No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CONTINENTAL CABLE (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nMESSRS CHINA HARBOR ENGINEERING CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 184 = 2011 SLD 184 = 2011 CLD 1633", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Insider Trading - Penalty for Disclosure\nDetails:\n•\nAn insider (respondent) disclosed non-public information to his family, enabling them to engage in insider trading.\nHeld:\n•\nThe respondent was penalized Rs. 500,000 for the offense of insider trading under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance (1969), S.15-E(3)", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. 1(7)IT/MSW/SMD/2011/01 dated 8-06-2011, decision dated: 11-08-2011, hearing DATE : 23rd June, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR HOD (MSCI)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umair Zahid, Assistant Director assisting the Director (MSCID)", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO MUHAMMAD ATIF MALIK: IN THE MATTER OF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 185 = 2011 SLD 185 = 2011 CLD 1642", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Act (X of 1940) - Stay of Legal Proceedings\nDetails:\n•\nA defendant sought to stay a suit due to an arbitration clause in a contract.\nHeld:\n•\nThe stay was not granted as the case involved multiple defendants not bound by the arbitration clause, and the suit's jurisdiction was deemed appropriate.\nCitations: PLD 1986 Kar. 138; PLD 1993 SC 42", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "Suit No.1083 and C.M.A. No. 9176 of 2007, decision dated: 9-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Naqi Mirza for Plaintiffs. Nemo for Defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3.\nAhmed Subhani for Defendants Nos. 4 and 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\nMESSRS UNIVERSAL NAVIGATION (PTE.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED LOCAL AGENTS AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 186 = 2011 SLD 186 = 2011 CLD 1655", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001\nDetails:\n(a) The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is to be construed strictly, as it is a special law, and every provision must be adhered to meticulously.\n(b) Under the Ordinance, defaults by customers or financial institutions not only incur costs under Section 3(2) but also have legal consequences under Section 9. The party seeking recovery must support the plaint with documents like a statement of accounts.\n(c) In the case of a bank suing for recovery, objections by the customer on the way the statement of accounts is presented were rejected because there was no dispute over the finance’s amount or payments made.\n(d) The customer’s claim for damages due to the bank’s actions in a recovery suit is not maintainable under the Ordinance. Any claim of damages would entitle the borrower to defend the suit, making the provisions of Section 10 redundant.\n(e) Provisions in Section 10(6) and Section 10(5) are mandatory, with penal consequences for non-compliance.\n(f) The test for determining whether a statute is mandatory or directory involves checking if penal consequences are involved. If penal consequences exist, the provision is mandatory.\n(g) The filing of an appeal under Section 22 of the Ordinance takes precedence over other provisions in the Civil Procedure Code.\n(h) An appeal is not valid if it is not accompanied by the decree copy unless the situation warrants extension under the Limitation Act.\nHeld:\nThe provisions of the Ordinance must be adhered to strictly. Objections raised regarding the financial statements or claims for damages were rejected as they would frustrate the recovery process. Appeals under the Ordinance take precedence over other statutory provisions.\nCitations:\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Sections 3(2), 4, 9, 10(5), 10(6), 22; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order VIII Rule 6, Order XLI Rule 1, Section 96, Section 104, Section 141, Rule 1(J), and others.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=Preamble", + "Case #": "Special High Court Appeal No. 40 of 2010, decision dated: 20-06-2011, hearing DATE : 11-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Pooja Kalpana for Appellants.\nAziz-ur-Rehman for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "APOLLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND DIRECTOR AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\nSONERI BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER/ PRINCIPAL OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 187 = 2011 SLD 187 = 2011 CLD 1683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 & Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001\nDetails:\n(a) A company’s appeal was maintainable as the Chief Executive was authorized through a valid resolution of the Board of Directors. However, in the case of another appeal, there was no proper resolution or authorization to represent the company, making the appeal invalid.\n(b) An appeal filed under the Civil Procedure Code cannot override a provision of appeal under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and the latter provision takes precedence. A technical error in citing the wrong provision does not make the appeal incompetent.\n(c) In auction proceedings, when fraud or irregularity is alleged, the objection is valid under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the CPC, not Rule 89, which requires a deposit of 5% of the auction amount.\n(d) Objections regarding payment by cheque instead of cash were dismissed, as the cheque was accepted and the amount cleared.\n(e) Allegations of fraud due to low auction prices were rejected, as the auction proceedings and bids were transparent and supported by evidence.\n(f) The absence of a reserve price in the auction proclamation and failure to follow mandatory procedures led to the cancellation of the auction and an order for a fresh one.\nHeld:\nAppeals were determined based on proper authorizations, with technicalities not affecting the substance of the appeals. In auction proceedings, allegations of fraud and irregularity need to be substantiated by clear evidence. The auction was cancelled due to procedural flaws.\nCitations:\nLaw Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3; Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Sections 4, 7(1)(a), 9(4), 9(5), 19(2), 19(7), 22; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Order XXI, Rules 64, 65, 66, 84, 85, 89, 90.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "I.C.As. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011, decision dated: 13-07-2011, hearing DATE : 2-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nYAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Mudassir Amir for Appellants. \nAmir Javed and Ch. Riasat Ali Gondal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SPINGHAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND ANOTHER\nVS\nUNITED BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 188 = 2011 SLD 188 = 2011 CLD 1706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--Ss. 9 & 10---Suit for recovery of loan amount---Application to leave to defend---Admission of execution of loan documents and re-payments by defendant---Non-raising of any substantial question of fact or law in such application---Validity---Bank had already given up rebate and other interest and had claimed only due amount recoverable in terms of loan agreement, execution of which was not denied by defendant---Such admission of defendant amounted to admission of his liability---High Court dismissed leave application and decreed suit as prayed for.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-59 and C.M.As. Nos. 10014 to 10016 of 2008, decision dated: 13-06-2011, hearing DATE : 1st June, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Faruqui for Plaintiff. \nFarogh Nasim for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NIB BANK LTD.\nVS\nMESSRS APPOLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 189 = 2011 SLD 189 = 2011 CLD 1711", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSuit for Recovery of Lease Rentals and Repossession of Leased Machines\n•\nDetails: The principal debtor was sued for the recovery of outstanding lease rentals and repossession of leased machines based on an Equipment Lease Agreement. The debtor had not denied the financial transaction, execution of documents, or receipt of leased machines, but raised a dispute about the disposal of the machines with two other defendants.\n•\nHeld: The principal debtor’s plea regarding disputes with other defendants was deemed irrelevant since they were not party to the agreement. The principal debtor failed to meet the requirements under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for defending the suit. The appeal was dismissed, and the decree was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Waheed Corporation v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2003 CLD 245; Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Blue Star Hotel (Pvt.) Ltd., 2006 CLD 1568; Ms Afshan Ahmed v. Habib Bank Limited 2002 CLD 137; Techno Powergen (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Al-Zamin Leasing Modaraba Management (Pvt.) Ltd. 2003 CLD 1729; Rehman Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Agriculture Development Bank of Pakistan 2001 YLR 2240.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "First Appeal No. 24 of 2009, decision dated: 5-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kashif Paracha for Appellant.\nBashir Ahmed for Respondent No. 1.\nMushtaq Ahmed Chaudhry for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAJJAD GONDAL\nVS\nORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 190 = 2011 SLD 190 = 2011 CLD 1721", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDelay in Filing Leave to Defend Application\n•\nDetails: The defendant filed an application for leave to defend a loan recovery suit late, citing a delay due to refusal of service summons and eventual receipt of summons via newspaper publication.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that service via publication was valid under S. 9(5) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The defendant’s application was time-barred, and the leave application was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: Sitara Rice Trading v. UBL 2011 CLD 254; Axle Products Limited v. ABL 2009 CLD 836; Haji Muhammad Yaqoob Akhtar v. HBL 2009 CLD 1699.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-154 and C.M.As. Nos. 13145, 13146 of 2010, decision dated: 2-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Plaintiff.\nShahab Sarki for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MY BANK LIMITED\nVS\nMESSRS MUSLIM COTTON MILLS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 191 = 2011 SLD 191 = 2011 CLD 1730", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTrade Mark Infringement and Interim Injunction\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff claimed the defendant was infringing on a registered trademark, but the defendant argued no registration existed. The trial court granted an interim injunction to the plaintiff.\n•\nHeld: In the absence of a Certificate of Registration, no infringement claim could be made. The trial court’s decision was overturned as no prima facie case or other injunction prerequisites were met.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=40", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 2011, decision dated: 24-08-2011, hearing DATE : 8-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Qahir Shah for Appellant.\nKamran Murtaza for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AKHTAR MUHAMMAD AND BROTHERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\nHAJI MUHAMMAD NABI AND BROTHERS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 192 = 2011 SLD 192 = 2011 CLD 1737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSetting Aside Ex Parte Winding-Up Order\n•\nDetails: The application to set aside an ex parte winding-up order under the Companies Ordinance was dismissed by the High Court.\n•\nHeld: The provisions of the Companies Ordinance apply in company matters, overriding the Civil Procedure Code.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Swaleh v. United Grain and Fodder Agencies PLD 1964 SC 97; Malik Muhammad Nazir v. Mian Abdur Rahim PLD 1968 Lah. 792.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 50 of 2010 and C.M.As. Nos. 186, 187 of 2011, decision dated: 22-08-2011, hearing DATE : 20-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ejaz Ahmed for Petitioners.\nKhalid Mehmood Siddiqui for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZULFIQUAR HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS\nVS\nBAMBINO (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 193 = 2011 SLD 193 = 2011 CLD 1743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConstitutional Petition against Insurance Company’s Decision\n•\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the President's affirmation of the Wafaqi Mohtasib's order directing an insurance company to waive late fees and review the policy’s revival. The President had acted without providing a reasoned order.\n•\nHeld: The High Court set aside the President’s decision, directing the company to implement the Mohtasib’s recommendations.\n•\nCitations: Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada 1999 SCMR 2744; State Life Insurance Corporation v. Jaffar Hussain PLD 2009 SC 194.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order (I of 1983)=9", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-255 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd July, 2011, hearing DATE : 2-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person. \nGhulam Ali for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "VAKIL AHMED SIDDIQUI\nVS\nSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 194 = 2011 SLD 194 = 2011 CLD 1753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDispute over Nominee in Group Insurance Claim\n•\nDetails: The dispute concerned the entitlement to a group insurance claim where the deceased had made his widow the nominee, but children from a previous marriage claimed their share.\n•\nHeld: The High Court directed the insurance company to pay the children from the divorced wife their respective shares.\n•\nCitations: Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 731; Mst. Ameeran Khatoon v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar 2005 SCMR 512.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=73", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 11317 of 2010, decision dated: 11-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Butt for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RABIA JAMSHED AND 2 OTHERS\nVS\nSTATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ZONAL HEAD AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 195 = 2011 SLD 195 = 2011 CLD 1757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDishonoured Crossed Cheque\n•\nDetails: The suit was filed for the recovery of money based on a dishonoured cheque, with the defendant objecting that the cheque was issued in the name of Agar Corporation, not the plaintiff.\n•\nHeld: The court decreed the suit as the defendant had previously issued cheques to the plaintiff in the name of Agar Corporation, and no valid defense was raised.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Javed Ansari 2007 SCMR 818; Messrs C.M. Textile Mills v. ICP 2004 CLD 587.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 192 of 2010, decision dated: 3rd August, 2011, hearing DATE : 30-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Hassan Ali for Appellant.\nKazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAEED ABBAS\nVS\nAGAR INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 196 = 2011 SLD 196 = 2011 CLD 1770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRecovery of Loan Amount by Bank\n•\nDetails: The bank filed a suit for loan recovery, and the defendant’s leave application was dismissed for non-prosecution.\n•\nHeld: The court decreed the suit based on the documents showing the defendant’s failure to repay as per the finance agreements.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-133 and C.M.A. No. 11536 of 2010, decision dated: 16-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed Shirazi for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED\nVS\nADMORE GAS (PVT.) LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 197 = 2011 SLD 197 = 2011 CLD 1779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nWinding-Up Petition and Non-Appearance of Respondents\n•\nDetails: In a winding-up petition, the respondents failed to appear or file objections, leading the court to accept the petition.\n•\nHeld: The court accepted the petition, deeming the contents of the petition true and correct.\n•\nCitations: Jehan Khan v. Province of Sindh PLD 2003 Kar. 691; Mehmood-ul-Hassan v. Baig Industries 1997 CLC 1577.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=309", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.4 and C.M.A. No. 80 of 2010, decision dated: 16-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Mustafa Hussain for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs A.M. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 198 = 2011 SLD 198 = 2011 CLD 1783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlFpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSanction of Securities and Exchange Commission for Issuance of Shares at Discount\n•\nDetails: The company sought approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for issuing shares at a discount, which was granted under Section 84 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, subject to compliance with Section 86. However, the company’s directors did not follow prudent commercial practices, especially regarding underwriting commissions. The directors failed to disclose the underwriting commission arrangements in the original application, which constituted concealment, violating Sections 196 and 492 of the Companies Ordinance. The company’s non-disclosure led to penalties being imposed on the directors.\n•\nHeld: The court held that the failure to disclose underwriting arrangements violated the Companies Ordinance, and penalties were imposed on the directors for the omission.\n•\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 82, 84, 86, 196, 476, 492", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=82", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. CLD/RD/Co.84(5) of 2010, decision dated: 11-08-2011. dates of hearing: 20-04-13-05-27-05-22nd June and 8th July of 2011", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED SHAHEEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (REGISTRATION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ibrar Ahmed for Respondents.\nNemo for Qazi Munir-ul-Haq, Director for Respondent No. 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALHAMRA HILLS (PRIVATE) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 199 = 2011 SLD 199 = 2011 CLD 1794", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMalicious Prosecution and Suit for Damages\n•\nDetails: The accused, who was acquitted by a criminal court after being extended the benefit of doubt, filed a suit for malicious prosecution against the complainant. The court discussed the scope of acquittal and malicious prosecution, asserting that acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not imply malice or entitle the accused to claim damages. The principle in criminal justice that it is better to acquit a hundred guilty than convict one innocent was emphasized, alongside Islamic jurisprudence principles of mercy and justice.\n•\nHeld: The suit for malicious prosecution was not maintainable as the acquittal was based on the benefit of doubt, not malice.\n•\nCitations: Altaf Gohar v. Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan PLD 1981 Kar. 515; Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman B PLD 1990 SC 28; Syed Ahmed Saeed Kirmani v. Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. Islamabad 1993 SCMR 441", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 72 of 2001, heard on 20-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, JUSTICE\nSAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Afrasiab Khan for Appellant.\nSardar Muhammad Zameer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MASTER ABBAS KHAN\nVS\nSUB. SIKANDAR KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 200 = 2011 SLD 200 = 2011 CLD 1802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption Certificate and Misapplication\n•\nDetails: A complainant, who was a major shareholder in a joint venture company, alleged that the respondents acquired an exemption certificate from the Competition Commission without informing him and in violation of the applicable regulations. The complainant sought the cancellation of the exemption. However, the complainant later withdrew the complaint after expressing no desire to pursue it.\n•\nHeld: The Competition Commission accepted the withdrawal of the complaint and dismissed the case as withdrawn.\n•\nCitations: Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Reglns. 4 & 21; Competition Act (XIX of 2010), S.37", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=37", + "Case #": "Complaint File No.2(236)/AGR/EXM/REG/CCP of 2011, decision dated: 8-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ELTEK VALARE A.S.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 201 = 2011 SLD 201 = 2011 CLD 1806", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDissolution of Firm and Liability of Partners\n•\nDetails: The case discussed the liability of partners after the dissolution of a firm under Section 45 of the Partnership Act, 1932. It highlighted that partners remain liable for acts done after dissolution unless public notice is given.\n•\nHeld: Partners remain liable for acts carried out after dissolution unless a public notice is provided.\n•\nCitations: Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S.45", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=45", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 614-K of 2011, decision dated: 29-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. M. Jalib, Advocate Supreme Court and Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Imran Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. RUBINA BADAR (DECEASED) THROUGH L.R.\nVS\nMESSRS LONG LIFE BUILDERS AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 202 = 2011 SLD 202 = 2011 CLD 1812", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRecovery of Bank Loan and Appointment of Local Commissioner\n•\nDetails: A bank filed a suit for the recovery of finance, and both parties agreed to have their accounts scrutinized by a Chartered Accountant. The High Court appointed a Chartered Accountant’s firm as the Commissioner to review the records and ascertain the quantum of finance and payments.\n•\nHeld: The High Court appointed a Chartered Accountant to scrutinize the accounts and directed that the entire financial record be reviewed.\n•\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (LXVI of 2001), S.9", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-152 and C.M.A. No. 11223 of 2009, decision dated: 10-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jam Asif Mehmood for Plaintiff.\nAdnan Choudhry for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE BANK OF PUNJAB\nVS\nNINA INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 203 = 2011 SLD 203 = 2011 CLD 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nBank Loan Recovery and Technical Defect in Plaintiff’s Suit\n•\nDetails: A bank’s suit for recovery of a loan was contested on the basis of a technical defect in the plaint, as it was not signed by both of the bank’s attorneys. The court ruled that such procedural issues could be corrected and did not warrant the rejection of the plaint.\n•\nHeld: The High Court allowed the correction of the technical defect in the plaint, permitting the bank to sign it with both attorneys and proceed with the case.\n•\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9 & 10; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, Rr. 14, 15 & O. XXIX, R.1", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-71 of 2008, decision dated: 30-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nafees Siddiqui for Plaintiff.\nKhaleeq Ahmed for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SONERI BANK LIMITED \nVS\nCLASSIC DENIM MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS\nJAHANGIR ELAHI, AND 8 OTHERS \nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 532 = 2010 SLD 532 = 2010 CLD 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInvestment in associated companies and undertakings without shareholders' approval\n•\nDetails: The appellants, who were Directors of a company, were penalized for transferring short-term borrowings, including bank credit facilities, from an associated company to their own company. The transaction was labeled as a sale by the appellants, but the Commission determined it was essentially an investment. The appellants failed to follow the requirements under Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which mandates that investments in associated concerns must be approved by shareholders via a special resolution. This violation was further evidenced by the fact that the discussion regarding the transaction took place only after the investment had already been made.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to meet the requirements set by the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and they had ample opportunities to explain their actions but failed to respond. The Commission's decision to impose a penalty and direct rectification of the default was valid.\n•\nCitations: 2008 PTD (Trib.) 679; 1992 SCMR 1755; 1984 CLC 2456 and PLD 1966 Lah. 822", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.27 of 2007, decision dated: 12-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD) \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shoaib for the Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 533 = 2010 SLD 533 = 2010 CLD 426", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIssuance and listing of preference shares without a rights issue\n•\nDetails: Two appellant companies sought approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan for the issuance of preference shares to financial institutions, without issuing them through rights offerings. The Commission approved the issuance but did not authorize their listing with the Lahore Stock Exchange. Despite this, the Lahore Stock Exchange listed the preference shares, leading to a violation of the relevant Listing Regulations. The Commission issued show-cause notices, and after hearings, imposed fines and directed the delisting of the preference shares.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was partially accepted. The Lahore Stock Exchange was penalized for failing to properly scrutinize the listing application, while the penalty on the Managing Director was overturned. The preference shares were to be delisted.\n•\nCitations: Shaukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil PLD 2005 SC 530; Pakistan Paper Corporation Limited v. Secretary, Federal Minister of Finance 1984 CLC 2456; Jalaluddin F.C.A. v. Commissioner SEC, 2005 CLD 333", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.39, 40 and 45 of 2006, decision dated: 4-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN \nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD/CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Parvez Hassan and Asif ur Rehman for Appellants.\nImran Inayat Butt, Director (SMD) for the Respondent Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN ELECTRON LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS\nVS\nARIF MIAN, ED (SMD) SECP" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 534 = 2010 SLD 534 = 2010 CLD 433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFailure to maintain statutory deposit and meet solvency requirements\n•\nDetails: The appellant insurance company failed to meet several regulatory requirements, including maintaining the statutory deposit and meeting the solvency margin as prescribed by the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. Additionally, the company had not paid the annual supervision fee, and other statutory amounts were also outstanding. Despite ample time to comply, the company did not meet these financial obligations.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was directed to comply with the Commission's directives, or it would cease its insurance business. The appellant was found in contravention of several provisions of the Insurance Ordinance.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=6", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 17 of 2008, decision dated: 12-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nSALMAN ALI SHAIKH, COMMISSIONER (SCD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Azeem Ikran and Uzma Farogh for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 535 = 2010 SLD 535 = 2010 CLD 442", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLeave to defend in loan recovery suit\n•\nDetails: A bank sought recovery of a loan, including penalty and interest, from the defendants. The defendants raised objections, alleging that the bank had illegally charged interest and other fees, and concealed repayments made. The bank argued that the application for leave to defend was not in accordance with the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nHeld: The court granted the leave to defend, as the factual and legal issues raised by the defendant required proper adjudication. The matter was not one that could be resolved without a detailed examination of evidence.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Yussra Textile Corporation and others v. RICIC Commercial Bank Ltd. 2003 CLD 905; Messrs Haq Feed Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. National Development I Finance Corporation 2007 CLD 975; Messrs ARK Management Ltd. v. Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. PLD 1991 SC 976", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-42 of 2008 and C.M.A. No.10394 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd September, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED PIR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Lakhani for the Plaintiff.\nMuhammad Saleem Thepdawala for the defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAYSAL BANK LIMITED \nVS \nBADIN BOARD MILLS AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 536 = 2010 SLD 536 = 2010 CLD 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInfringement of copyright and rectification of orders\n•\nDetails: The appellant had registered a copyright for the PONY product (cable and wire), claiming it had been in use since 1983. The respondent argued that the appellant was infringing upon their trade mark PONY , which had been in use since 1984 and was registered in 2003. The Copyright Board had expunged the appellant’s registration based on evidence that the respondent had been using the trademark since 1995.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed. The Copyright Board's decision to rectify the registration was upheld. The appellant's claim was found to be invalid as there was no substantial evidence to support the claim of using the mark PONY since 1983.\n•\nCitations: Haji Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Yousaf v. Messrs Hitachi Limited 2007 CLD 202; Pakistan Drug House (Pvt.) Limited v. Rio Chemical Company 2003 CLD 1531", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19, C.M.A.s Nos.208 and 1465 of 2009, decision dated: 27-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi for Appellant.\nAli Mumtaz Shaikh for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD WAHID \nVS \nADNAN MEMON AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 537 = 2010 SLD 537 = 2010 CLD 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInterim relief and competition law\n•\nDetails: The appellants filed for interim relief in an appeal against a decision by the Competition Commission imposing a floor on the prices of securities traded at stock exchanges. The Appellate Bench of the Commission was tasked with determining whether interim relief should be granted to protect the public interest and prevent harm to the appellants.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was allowed, and interim relief was granted. The Commission was restrained from initiating recovery proceedings related to the penalty until the appeal was disposed of. The factors considered included the urgency of the matter, its effect on the appellants, and the impact on competition.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=4", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 12 and 13 of 2009, decision dated: 17-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA, CHAIRMAN \nRAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 538 = 2010 SLD 538 = 2010 CLD 457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAbuse of dominant position and adjournment application\n•\nDetails: The applicant requested an adjournment of the case where proceedings were initiated against the abuse of dominant position under the Competition Ordinance, 2007. The Commission was concerned with dilatory tactics and the abuse of the law's process but decided to grant an adjournment after the applicant’s counsel assured timely assistance.\n•\nHeld: The adjournment was granted. However, the counsel was reminded that adjournments should not be used as a tactic to delay proceedings.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=3", + "Case #": "F. No.3/Dir(M&TA) PSM/CCP of 2009, decision dated: 15-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA, CHAIRMAN,\nRAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (Pvt.) LIMITED (SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE NO.53 OF 2009 DATED 29-4-2009" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 539 = 2010 SLD 539 = 2010 CLD 460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExtension of time for winding-up proceedings due to law and order situation\n•\nDetails: The winding-up process for a company had not been concluded within the one-year period due to law and order issues. The official liquidator requested an extension, and a special resolution was passed by the company's members to extend the time for six months.\n•\nHeld: The application for an extension of time was granted by the court. The time for winding-up proceedings was extended by another six months as requested, given the exceptional circumstances.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=387", + "Case #": "J.M. No.48 of 2009, decision dated: 27-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omair Nisar for the Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs INDUS POLYESTER COMPANY LTD. through Official Liquidator" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 540 = 2010 SLD 540 = 2010 CLD 462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nComplaint of abuse of dominant position by Pakistan International Airlines\n•\nDetails: Complaints were filed against Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) for charging a discriminatory fee for rescheduled or cancelled flights. The Commission found that PIA’s policy was contrary to industry standards. PIA voluntarily agreed to change the fee structure.\n•\nHeld: The Competition Commission took a lenient view and exonerated PIA from penalties. PIA was required to implement a non-discriminatory fee structure starting from January 1, 2010.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=3", + "Case #": "File No. 14/DIR (M&TA)/PIA/CCP/09 decided on 3rd November, 2009. dates of Hearing: 12 October, 2009 and 3rd November, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suhail Mahmud, GM Legal and Rashid Aziz, GM (Revenue and Management) and Ali Tahir Qasim, Deputy GM (Revenue and Management) for P.I.A", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 2282 = 2010 SLD 2282 = 2010 CLD 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTrading by company director with gain\n•\nDetails: A director of a company engaged in trading shares of the company for personal gain, violating the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which mandates that directors must tender any gain made from such transactions to the Commission. The director failed to do so within the stipulated time.\n•\nHeld: The court upheld the Commission’s directive requiring the director to tender the amount of gain. The petitioners' request to allow the gain to be tendered to the issuer instead of the Commission was rejected, as the legal requirement could not be waived.\n•\nCitations: PLD 2000 Quetta 66", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Revision Application filed under section 484 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 decided on 25-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Javed Panni and Boo-Ali Siddiqui, for Petitioners. Imran Inayat Butt and Muhammad Farooq for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAJEEB ULLAH GHAURI and another \nVs \nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SMD)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 542 = 2010 SLD 542 = 2010 CLD 484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - False statement in Directors' report\nDetails: A company issued a Director's report that falsely stated the number of shares held by two spouses of a director. Upon examination of the annual audited accounts, a contradiction was found. A show-cause notice was issued, and the company's Chief Executive admitted the violation. The Chief Executive requested leniency, explaining that the misstatement was not intentional and assured future compliance. Despite the violation, the company corrected the shareholding information and assured future compliance. As a result, a penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed on the director, instead of the maximum penalty under the Companies Ordinance.\nHeld: The penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed on the director, taking into account the company's corrective action and assurance for future compliance.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 492", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=492", + "Case #": "Show-Cause No.EMD/233/528/2002, dated 9-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENF)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN PAPER PRODUCTS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 543 = 2010 SLD 543 = 2010 CLD 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969) - Illegal sale transactions\nDetails: The company was found violating the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, by executing illegal sale transactions. A Computer Operator placed sale orders in a client’s account without pre-existing interest, violating the Code of Conduct. The company failed to inform the stock exchange of the error, which created a misleading market impression. As a result, a penalty of Rs.50,000 was imposed, with a directive to ensure future compliance.\nHeld: Penalty of Rs.50,000 imposed on the company for violating the Code of Conduct, with a directive to ensure full compliance with the rules.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S. 22; Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R. 8 & Schedule", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.1(13)BS/LSE/MSW/SMD/2009/09, dated August 28, 2009, decision dated: 26-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SDI)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervez Sheikh, Director and Abdul Majeed, Financial Consultant.\nMuhammad Ali, Deputy Director assisting the Director (SMD)", + "Petitioner Name:": "PLUS SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 544 = 2010 SLD 544 = 2010 CLD 491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984) - Directors trading in company shares\nDetails: A company engaged in buying and selling shares of its own company within six months, violating Section 224 of the Companies Ordinance. The company made a gain of Rs.3,136,980, but failed to report the gain or tender it to the Commission. A notice was issued to the company under Section 224(2) of the Companies Ordinance, and the company was directed to tender the gain amount to the Securities and Exchange Commission.\nHeld: The company was directed to tender Rs.3,136,980 to the Securities and Exchange Commission due to non-compliance with the reporting requirement.\nCitations: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S. 224", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. SM/BO/Co.22/ 1(88)2008, dated 17-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 545 = 2010 SLD 545 = 2010 CLD 500", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) - Specific performance of contract\nDetails: In a dispute arising from a Joint Venture Agreement to establish WiMax telecommunication services, the claimants sought specific performance of the agreement after the respondents failed to fulfill their obligations. However, the agreement allowed either party to terminate if conditions were unmet, and the respondents validly terminated the agreement after the closing date passed. The claimants also sought recovery of damages for the alleged bad faith of the respondents, but failed to prove mala fide actions.\nHeld: Specific performance was refused, as the respondents validly terminated the agreement. The claimants also failed to prove bad faith.\nCitations: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12; International Chamber of Commerce Rules, Arts. 9(2), 13 & 18(2); Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Matter No. 15498/JEM/MLK, decision dated: 7-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (R) SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, CHAIRMAN, \nJUSTICE (R) NASIR ASLAM ZAHID \nJUSTICE (R) G.H. MALIK, CO-ARBITRATORS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Mohsin Tayebaly and Mohsin Tayebaly & Co. for Claimants.\nAli Raza and Awan Raza Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WITRIBE LIMITED AND ANOTHER \nVS \nTELECARD LIMITED AND ANOTHER\nArshad Mohsin Tayebaly and Mohsin Tayebaly & Co. for Claimants." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 546 = 2010 SLD 546 = 2010 CLD 540", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969) - Blank sales by company\nDetails: A company executed sales on behalf of its clients without pre-existing interest, violating the Brokers Rules and the Code of Conduct. The company's actions were deemed to interfere with fair market operations and create misleading market impressions. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs.600,000 for the violation and directed the company to ensure future compliance.\nHeld: A penalty of Rs.600,000 was imposed on the company for executing blank sales and violating the Code of Conduct.\nCitations: Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S. 22; Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, R. 8 & Third Schedule", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. 1(07)BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2009/18, dated July 8, 2009 decided on 5-11-2009.", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ACE SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 547 = 2010 SLD 547 = 2010 CLD 547", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) - Appeal for loan recovery\nDetails: The appellants contested the decree of a Banking Court, which awarded a decree in favor of the bank, including costs of funds from the date of the suit's institution until realization. The appellants conceded discrepancies in the amount claimed and the costs awarded. The court modified the decree, ruling that costs of funds could only be granted from the date of default until realization, in line with the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance.\nHeld: The decree was modified to limit the costs of funds to the period from the date of default until realization.\nCitations: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 31 & 22", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=31", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.46 and C.M. No.1633 of 2009 decided on 16-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nAQEEL A. ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mukhtiar Kumber for Appellants.\nAziz Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EMEN TEXTILE THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR AND ANOTHER \nVS \nHABIB BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 548 = 2010 SLD 548 = 2010 CLD 549", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance (LII of 2007) - Irregularities in tendering process\nDetails: The Competition Commission of Pakistan took notice of irregularities in the tendering process for the import of sugar by Trading Corporation of Pakistan, which was found to violate the Competition Ordinance. The Commission initiated an inquiry, which revealed that certain terms of the tender were restrictive and potentially anti-competitive. Following amendments to the tender terms, the Commission determined that no further inquiry was required.\nHeld: The Trading Corporation of Pakistan was directed to amend the tender conditions, and no further inquiry was needed as concerns were addressed.\nCitations: Competition Ordinance (LII of 2007), Ss. 3, 4, 28(2), 30, 31 & 32", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=3", + "Case #": "File No. 3(31)/D.D(L)/TCP/CCP/2010, decision dated: 12-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA, CHAIRMAN,\nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER (C, M & T.A) \nMS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT, ) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 549 = 2010 SLD 549 = 2010 CLD 554", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPower of Attorney and Rejection of Plaint\n•\nDetails: The defendant, who is the owner of a vessel, sought the rejection of a plaint on the grounds that the suit had been filed by an individual who did not have a valid power of attorney executed from a foreign state. The power of attorney was challenged, but the plaintiff had submitted the power of attorney along with a translation of the relevant gazette notification from the foreign government. The High Court concluded that the plaint was filed by a duly authorized person, and the foreign language power of attorney had been properly translated and did not raise any issues requiring further evidence. The defendant’s application for rejection was dismissed as the court found the documentation sufficient and in order.\n•\nHeld: The High Court declined to reject the plaint as the documents filed were valid, including the translated power of attorney and supporting gazette notification.\n•\nCitations: 2009 CLD 234, N.V. Nutricia v. Messrs Nutricia Foods International 2000 CLC 866, Ramesh M. Udeshi v. The State PLD 2003 Kar. 420, Rashid Khan v. Shujauddin 1986 MLD 2930.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "ADMIRALTY SUIT No.35 of 2008 and C.M.A. No.1178 of 2009, decision dated: 16-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar Abbas for the plaintiff.\nShaiq Usmani for the defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "METAL CONSTRUCTION OF GREECE S.A. THROUGH ATTORNEY\nVS\nOWNERS OF THE VESSEL M.V, LADY REA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 550 = 2010 SLD 550 = 2010 CLD 558", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAmendment of Compromise Decree\n•\nDetails: During execution proceedings of a compromise decree passed by the Banking Court, the debtor sought the amendment of the decree. The defendant resisted the amendment, but the High Court ruled that a compromise decree could not be amended without mutual consent of the parties. It was explained that a compromise decree, though passed by the court, remains an agreement between the parties, and any change to its terms required the agreement of both sides. Since the bank (decree holder) did not consent to the amendment, the court declined to interfere.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the terms of a compromise decree cannot be amended unilaterally and dismissed the application for amendment.\n•\nCitations: PLD 2002 Lah. 268 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=17", + "Case #": "C.M.As .Nos.3061, 3058, 3060 and 3059 of 2009 in suits Nos.B-14 of 2004, 46 and B-48 of 2001 decided on 15-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Memon for Plaintiff.\nAbdul Qayyum Abbasi for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. (M.C.B.) \nVS\nMESSRS WORLD AUTOMOBILES THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 551 = 2010 SLD 551 = 2010 CLD 567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction and Interpretation of Agreements\n•\nDetails:\no\n(a) Jurisdiction: The defendants contended that the Banking Court at place L did not have jurisdiction, as agreements executed by the financial institution stipulated that the court at place R should have exclusive jurisdiction. The High Court ruled that such clauses are for the benefit of the financial institution, and if it chose to file the suit at place L , the defendants could not object to it.\no\n(b) Interpretation of Documents: The High Court distinguished between specifically negotiated documents and printed/cyclostyled agreements, indicating that the rules for interpreting such agreements differ.\no\n(c): The Court also discussed the legal implications of jurisdiction clauses in contracts between financial institutions and borrowers and reaffirmed that the jurisdiction clause is meant for the convenience of the institution.\n•\nHeld: The High Court found that the Banking Court at place L had jurisdiction and dismissed the petition to challenge jurisdiction.\n•\nCitations: Pahrianwali Sugar Mills v. Pak-Libya Holding 2004 CLD 161, Bankers Equity Ltd. v. Iqas Weaving Mills 2001 CLC 169, State Life Insurance Corp. v. Rana Muhammad Saleem 1987 SCMR 393, Messrs Kadir Motors v. National Motors Ltd. 1992 SCMR 1174.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=5", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.24148 of 2009, decision dated: 11-02-2010, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Aziz Khan for Petitioners.\nMuhammad Raza Qureshi and Zahid Nawaz Cheema for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HIGH NOON TEXTILE LTD THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\nSAUDI PAK INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT CO. (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 552 = 2010 SLD 552 = 2010 CLD 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRejection of Plaint and Specific Performance\n•\nDetails:\no\n(a) Rejection of Plaint: The defendant argued for the rejection of the plaint under the provisions of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The defendant’s plea was based on the premise that the agreement to sell the disputed property was linked to the recovery proceedings of a bank, and thus, fell under the jurisdiction of the Banking Court. However, the trial court rejected the application, ruling that the defendant could not simultaneously deny the agreement and claim its invalidity.\no\n(b) Specific Performance: The plaintiff had fulfilled his part of the agreement, and payments were made through banking channels. The High Court observed that technicalities should not obstruct the trial of the case as valuable rights were involved.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition for rejection of the plaint, emphasizing the need to focus on the merits of the case.\n•\nCitations: 2006 CLD 771, PLD 1995 Lah. 598, 2003 CLD 363, 2003 CLD 1843.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=7", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.198 of 2008, decision dated: 1st February, 2010, hearing DATE : 4-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ-UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waseem Rehmat for Petitioner.\nM. Anwar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEIKH JAMEEL AHMAD \nVS \nRAJA KHALID HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 553 = 2010 SLD 553 = 2010 CLD 578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInfringement of Trade Mark and Ex Parte Decree\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of their trade mark by the defendants. The suit was verified by the plaintiff, who provided documents in support of their claim, including an affidavit. Despite attempts to serve the defendants, they failed to appear or contest the suit, leading to an ex parte decree. The High Court, however, declined to award damages due to the absence of proof of damages, but did decree the suit in favor of the plaintiff regarding the infringement.\n•\nHeld: The court granted the plaintiff’s claims except for damages, due to the lack of supporting evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=39", + "Case #": "Suit No.250 of 2004, decision dated: 12-02-2010, hearing DATE : 13-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saleem Ghulam Ali for Plaintiff.\nDefendants declared ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "PETROMARK (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS \nALI TRADERS AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 554 = 2010 SLD 554 = 2010 CLD 582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLeave to Defend in Banking Recovery Case\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff filed a suit against the bank, alleging that the bank failed to act on irrevocable letters of credit. The bank filed a recovery suit for the amount of Rs. 71,150,745.28, and the plaintiff sought leave to defend both suits simultaneously. The High Court ruled that petitions for leave to appeal in both suits needed to be argued independently.\n•\nHeld: The High Court adjourned the case for further arguments, confirming that each petition would be treated separately.\n•\nCitations: Messrs First Women Bank v. Registrar, High Court of Sindh, Karachi 2004 SCMR 108.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=5", + "Case #": "C.O.S. No.27 of 2007, decision dated: 20-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Karim for the Plaintiffs.\nShams Mehinood Mirza for the Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CHIMERA (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\nHABIB BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 555 = 2010 SLD 555 = 2010 CLD 585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction of Banking Court and Concession by Plaintiff\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff filed a suit against the bank for recovery related to letters of credit, and the appellate court returned the plaint to the Banking Court based on a concession made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contested that jurisdiction could not be created by concession or agreement between parties. The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction in such matters is governed by the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and conceded jurisdiction could not change the applicable legal framework.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's plea, affirming that the Banking Court had exclusive jurisdiction under the Financial Institutions Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1478 of 2007 decided on 4-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saalim Saleem Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori Advocate-on-Record for the Appellants. Iqbal Haider Sr. Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab Advocate-on-Record for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS VICTOR ELECTRONICS APPLIANCES INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. \nVS\nHABIB BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 556 = 2010 SLD 556 = 2010 CLD 588", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInsurance Ordinance and Jurisdiction of the SECP\n•\nDetails: A matter was sub judice when a complaint was filed with the Insurance Ombudsman, but the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit could only be determined by the court before which the suit was pending. The Security Exchange Commission (SECP) did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the object of the Insurance Ordinance had been fulfilled in the case.\n•\nHeld: The jurisdiction was confirmed to rest with the court handling the case, not the SECP.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=122", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7 of 2009 decided on 19-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NASREEN RASHID, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Waqar Rana for the Appellant.\nMuhammad Zeeshan Abdullah for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MANGLA VIEW RESORT (PVT.) LTD.\nVS \nMESSRS UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 557 = 2010 SLD 557 = 2010 CLD 591", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRecovery of Loan and Scope of Interim Markup\n•\nDetails: The appellant bank sought to recover interim markup, markup for grace periods, and penalties related to a loan recovery. The respondent contested the imposition of such charges, and the High Court ruled that the finance agreement did not include provisions for penalty or markup during grace periods. As the bank failed to provide evidence of damages or legal injury, the appeal was dismissed.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the bank could not recover the claimed penalties and dismissed the appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1961)=39", + "Case #": "H.C.A.173 of 2004, decision dated: 10-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azizur Rehman for Appellant.\nTasawar Ali Hashmi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN\nVS\nMESSRS BALOCH ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD. AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 558 = 2010 SLD 558 = 2010 CLD 596", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNon-Appearance of Counsel and Principles of Natural Justice\n•\nDetails: The defendant’s counsel failed to appear in court due to a miscommunication, which was explained in an affidavit. The High Court acknowledged that the defendant was not given a fair opportunity to be heard and thus violated natural justice principles. The court ordered that the application be reheard.\n•\nHeld: The application was fixed for rehearing, ensuring that both parties had an opportunity to present their arguments.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Baghpatee Service (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited 2001 CLC 1363.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-47 of 2009, decision dated: 24-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jam Asif Mahmood for the Plaintiff.\nIrfan Haroon for the Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MY BANK LIMITED \nVS \nFIRST DAWOOD INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 559 = 2010 SLD 559 = 2010 CLD 599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) and Bank’s Liability\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amounts from FDRs issued by the Dacca branch of a bank, asserting that due to political unrest, he was unable to present the FDRs to the Dacca branch. Despite this, the bank failed to transfer the funds to its Karachi branch as per the plaintiff’s instructions. The High Court ruled that the bank was liable to pay the amounts covered by the FDRs.\n•\nHeld: The High Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, affirming that the bank’s failure to honor the FDR instructions led to its liability.\n•\nCitations: WAPDA v. Ghulam Bari PLD 1991 SC 780, United Bank Ltd. v. Sartazj Industries PLD 1990 Lah. 99.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.187 of 1991, heard on 31st March, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nARSHAD SIRAJ MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mamnoon Hassan for the Appellants.\nAziz-ur-Rehman for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GULSHAN ADAMJEE AND OTHERS \nVS \nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 560 = 2010 SLD 560 = 2010 CLD 610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAbuse of Dominant Position – Imposition of Penalty\n•\nDetails: The Competition Commission of Pakistan took notice of a media report regarding PIA's exorbitant Hajj fares. Allegations were made against PIA for price discrimination between regular passengers and Hajj passengers on scheduled flights between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The fares for non-Hajj passengers ranged from Rs. 41,500 to Rs. 46,250, while Hajj passengers were charged between Rs. 100,000 to Rs. 120,000. PIA admitted to charging higher fares for Hajj passengers, which was classified as price discrimination under S.3(1) of the Competition Ordinance, 2007. PIA's actions were found to be an abuse of its dominant position, violating the ordinance.\n•\nHeld: PIA was penalized with a fine of Rs. 10 million and directed to refund the fare difference to Hajj passengers.\n•\nCitations: Competition Ordinance (LII of 2007), S.3(1).", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=2", + "Case #": "File No.05/Dir(M&TA)Hajj/CCP/09, decision dated: 20-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MALEEHA MIMI BANGASH, MEMBERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 561 = 2010 SLD 561 = 2010 CLD 628", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExcise Duty on Insurance Surrender Value\n•\nDetails: A life insurance company allowed its policyholders to withdraw up to 90% of their paid-up premiums as surrender value. The company treated this transaction as a service similar to advances or loans and claimed an excise duty under the Central Excise Act. However, the court distinguished the nature of this service from that of a bank, noting that policyholders were required to return the amount with interest, unlike a bank customer.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that excise duty was applicable on the service provided by the insurance company.\n•\nCitations: Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000), S.89; Central Excise Act (I of 1944), First Schedule, Item 14.14; Hirjina and Company v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1342; ICC Textile Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2003 PTD 1017.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=89", + "Case #": "Spl. S.T.R.A. No.364 of 2007, decision dated: 24-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Ali for the Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH DIVISIONAL HEAD \nVS \nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 562 = 2010 SLD 562 = 2010 CLD 635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRecovery of Loan Amount – Excess Mark-Up\n•\nDetails: The defendant had utilized finance facilities provided by a bank and admitted the liability. The defendant's claim that the bank had charged excess mark-up was contested. The High Court dismissed the leave application as it did not fulfill the mandatory requirements of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the leave application, directing the parties to file breakup statements for adjudicating the actual amount due to the bank.\n•\nCitations: 2003 SCMR 1156; 2007 CLC 1356; 2007 CLD 217.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-65 and C.M.A. No.11316 of 2008, decision dated: 29-01-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Farooqi and Abdul Qayoom Abbasi for the Plaintiff.\nAgha Faisal for the Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NIB BANK LIMITED \nVS \nTAHA SPINNING MILLS LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 563 = 2010 SLD 563 = 2010 CLD 639", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nQuashing of FIR – Exclusive Jurisdiction of Banking Court\n•\nDetails: The accused sought to quash the FIR filed under S.489-F of the Penal Code, arguing that the provisions of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, were not applicable. The High Court declined to quash the FIR, holding that the Supreme Court's decision under Art. 189 of the Constitution was binding.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the accused to address the investigating officer.\n•\nCitations: PLD 2001 Lah. 533; Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Asim Fareed 2006 SCMR 483.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=20", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5549 of 2010, decision dated: 22-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Misbah-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAHMOOD AKHTAR KHAN \nVS\nTHE STATE 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 564 = 2010 SLD 564 = 2010 CLD 641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAbuse of Dominant Position – Exclusive Dealing\n•\nDetails: The complainant alleged that a company had refused to consider their beverages for a fast food chain and had engaged in exclusive dealings with another company. The inquiry found that the company had a dominant market position and had engaged in exclusive dealing, violating S.4 of the Competition Ordinance, 2007.\n•\nHeld: The company agreed to consider other products and the show-cause notice was disposed of after the company’s undertaking.\n•\nCitations: Competition Ordinance (LII of 2007), Ss. 3(3)(h), 4(1).", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=2", + "Case #": "(File No.03/SEC-3/CCP/08), decision dated: 24-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LTD \nVS \n SIZA FOODS (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 565 = 2010 SLD 565 = 2010 CLD 651", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRejection of Plaint – Non-Compliance with Financial Ordinance\n•\nDetails: The Banking Court rejected a plaint for failing to submit a statement of account as required by the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The plaintiff’s argument that the suit should have been decreed automatically was dismissed.\n•\nHeld: The Banking Court’s rejection of the plaint was upheld, and the High Court declined to interfere.\n•\nCitations: Bela Automotives Ltd. v. Habib Bank Ltd. 2008 CLD 778; Messrs Haseeb Waqar Sugar Mills Limited's case 2008 CLD 786.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal Case No.579 of 2002, heard on 24-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Shabbir Azar for Appellants.\nNemo for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \n MESSRS BENTONITE PAKISTAN LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 566 = 2010 SLD 566 = 2010 CLD 660", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction – Vessel Arrest and Ownership Transfer\n•\nDetails: The plaintiffs sought to take action in rem against a delinquent vessel, but the vessel had been sold to a new owner before the writ was issued. The court held that action in rem would not be applicable after the transfer of ownership but action in personam could still be pursued against the original owner.\n•\nHeld: The court upheld that statutory liens would apply to the vessel, and action in rem was no longer viable after the transfer of ownership.\n•\nCitations: V.N. Lakhani and Co. v. M.V. Lakatoi Express PLD 1994 SC 894; Bangladesh Shipping Corporation v. S.S. Nedon 1982 CLC 142.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Appeals Nos.4 and 5 of 2009, decision dated: 16-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar Imtiaz Lari for the Appellant.\nAgha Zafar Ahmed for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.V. \"\"GOLOZ\"\" EX-M.V. \"\"MUSTAFA BEY\"\" THROUGH CHIEF OFFICER /PERSON INCHARGE \nVS \n MESSRS PACMAR SHIPPING (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED PERSON IN PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 567 = 2010 SLD 567 = 2010 CLD 670", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction Clause – Territorial Jurisdiction in Contract\n•\nDetails: The defendants raised objections to the territorial jurisdiction of the court and requested the plaint to be returned. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had previously submitted to the court's jurisdiction. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, stating that the agreement specified jurisdiction in another location.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the agreement.\n•\nCitations: Tahir Tariq Textiles Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. National Development Finance Corporation 2003 CLD 1546; Chaudhry Mehtab Ahmad and another v. Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman 2004 MLD 662.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.48 of 2006, heard on 12-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Hameed Ayaz for Appellant.\nMuhammad Saleem Shahnazi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHELL PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE\nVS \n MESSRS TRADE MASTERS (PVT.)LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 568 = 2010 SLD 568 = 2010 CLD 676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration of Trade-mark\nDetails: Appellant applied for registration of a trade-mark for vehicles, excluding auto parts. Respondent held a registered trade-mark for spare parts. Registrar rejected appellant's application, citing potential confusion due to resemblance with respondent's registered mark.\nHeld: High Court ruled there was no likelihood of deception or confusion between the goods, as they were different and sold to different customers. The Registrar had wrongly invoked jurisdiction under Sections 8(1) and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The order was set aside, and the application was directed to be advertised in the Trade Mark Journal.\nCitations: Seven-Up Company v. Kohinoor Thread Ball Factory (PLD 1990 SC 313); Messrs Colgate-Palmolive v. Assistant Registrar (PLD 1992 Kar. 15); The Welcome Foundation Ltd. v. Khawar (1990 SCMR 561).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeal No.34 of 2004, decision dated: 22-03-2010. dates of hearing: 3rd and 4-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Amna Salman for the Appellant.\nSalim Ghulam Husein for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JATCO KABUSHIKI KAISHA \nVS\n REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 569 = 2010 SLD 569 = 2010 CLD 692", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Similarity in Trade-marks\nDetails: Appellant, the owner of the trade-mark Master, objected to the registration of the respondent's mark Minister, claiming potential confusion.\nHeld: High Court upheld the Registrar's decision, ruling there was no likelihood of confusion between Master and Minister, as the two words were phonetically and visually distinct.\nCitations: Nahan Foundry v. Messrs Seth Muhammad Rafique Zarati Foundry (1994 MLD 2401); The Welcome Foundation Ltd. v. Messrs Karachi Chemical Industries (2000 YLR 1376).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=114", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Appeals Nos.45, 34 and 46 of 2008, decision dated: 26-03-2010, hearing DATE : 22-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Shazia for Appellant.\nManzoor Ahmed Arain and Saleem Ghulam Hussain, for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MASTER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \n REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 570 = 2010 SLD 570 = 2010 CLD 701", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Defend in Financial Recovery Suit\nDetails: Defendant objected to the bank's suit, citing an unauthorized sub-attorney. The defendant sought leave to defend the suit.\nHeld: The bank had ratified the sub-attorney's act by filing replication through the same sub-attorney. The court granted the defendant leave to defend, and the validity of the sub-power of attorney would be assessed during the trial.\nCitations: Al-Madina Electric Store v. H.B.L. (2006 CLD 734); Central Bank of India v. Talibuddin Abdur Rauf (1992 SCMR 846).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-141 and C.M.As Nos.10511 to 10514 of 2009, decision dated: 2-04-2010. dates of hearing: 25 February, 2010 and 10 March, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Karim Hassan for Plaintiff.\nSalman Talib-ud-Din for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED \nVS \n PAK LEATHER GRAFTS LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 571 = 2010 SLD 571 = 2010 CLD 713", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding-up of a Company\nDetails: Court's power to order winding up of a company, considering equitable circumstances.\nHeld: Court must act justly and equitably while deciding on the winding-up of a company.\nCitations: No specific citations provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J.M.No.33 of 2009, decision dated: 18-03-2010, hearing DATE : 9-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaiq Usmani for the Petitioners.\nNadeem A. Pirzada for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NESAR AHMED SIDDIQUI AND ANOTHER \nVS \n MICRO ENGINEERINGS (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 572 = 2010 SLD 572 = 2010 CLD 716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Banking Recovery Suit\nDetails: Appeal on the limitation for filing a banking recovery suit, based on the certified copy's receipt date.\nHeld: Time starts from the date when the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the appellant, not when it was prepared.\nCitations: No specific citations provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=12", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.525 of 1996, heard on 11-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Adeel Aqil Mirza for Appellant.\nMuhammad Saleem Shehnazi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD \nVS \n SHIFA LABORATORIES THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 573 = 2010 SLD 573 = 2010 CLD 717", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Defamation and Aggrieved Person\nDetails: Defamation case where the complainant, a resident manager of a newspaper group, filed a complaint against the accused for defamatory publication.\nHeld: The complainant was considered an aggrieved person under Section 198, Cr.P.C., as the defamatory content affected both the group and the complainant personally.\nCitations: Muhammad Abdullah v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 576); Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar ul Islam (PLD 2004 SC 298).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=198", + "Case #": "Criminal Revision No.30 of 2010, decision dated: 19-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Arshad Tabrez for Petitioner.\nAmjad Afsar Ghakhar for respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD SHOAIB BHUTTA \nVS\n ABDUL AZIZ MOHMAND AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 574 = 2010 SLD 574 = 2010 CLD 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Public Procurement and Transparency\nDetails: Pakistan Railways awarded a contract without competitive bidding, based on a private negotiation with a respondent.\nHeld: The award was unlawful and non-transparent. Pakistan Railways was directed to invite fresh bids and assess any financial loss caused by the illegal contract award.\nCitations: Arsalla Khan v. Bashir Ahmad Blour (PLD 1976 SC 581); Mubashar Iqbal Cheema v. Cantonment Board (PLD 2009 Lah. 506).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XXII of 2002)=1", + "Case #": "I.C.As. Nos.951,991 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.11923 of 2009, decision dated: 5-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, JUSTICE\nNASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for the Appellant in (ICA No. 951 of 2009) and Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for the Appellant in (ICA No. 991 of 2009).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MALIK MUSHTAQ GOODS TRANSPORT COMPANY \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY RAILWAYS, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ISLAMABAD AND 9 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 575 = 2010 SLD 575 = 2010 CLD 738", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Protection Compliance\nDetails: Complaint against respondents for failing to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for their construction project.\nHeld: Respondents were ordered to submit an EIA report to the Environmental Protection Agency within two months.\nCitations: No specific citations provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1 of 2009, decision dated: 2-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, CHAIRPERSON, \nDR. SAMI-UZ-ZAMAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL\nABDUL KAZIM M. MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in Person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAEEM AHMED MUGHAL, DIRECTOR GENERAL\nVS \n JABIR HUSSAIN DADA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 576 = 2010 SLD 576 = 2010 CLD 741", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Ex parte Decree in Financial Recovery Suit\nDetails: Defendant sought to set aside an ex parte decree, claiming incorrect address for the service of notice.\nHeld: The defendant's plea was rejected, as the address discrepancy appeared after the defendant changed advocates, and the suit was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period.\nCitations: No specific citations provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=12", + "Case #": "COS No.26 of 2005, CMs Nos.219-B, 419-B and 420-B of 2006 and 93 of 2009, decision dated: 14-01-2010, hearing DATE : 10-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Masood for the Plaintiff.\nShahid Ikram Siddiqui for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAUDI PAK COMMERCIAL BANK LTD \nVS\n UMAR BILAL (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 577 = 2010 SLD 577 = 2010 CLD 747", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTort Feasors, Vicarious Liability, Admiralty Jurisdiction\n•\nDetails: Plaintiffs, legal heirs of a deceased worker, sought recovery of damages after the worker died aboard a vessel while performing duties. The plaintiffs included various parties in the suit, including government officials, the vessel owner, and others, based on joint tort feasors and vicarious liability principles. The plaintiffs aimed to implead Bureau Veritas in the case. The High Court allowed the inclusion of Bureau Veritas, ruling that the determination of negligence and responsibility would be addressed after the trial.\n•\nHeld: The plaintiffs were permitted to implead Bureau Veritas as a defendant, and the court would assess the involvement of each party based on the evidence.\n•\nCitations: Province of the Punjab v. Messrs Qavi Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. 2007 MLD 89; Manzoor Ahmed Khan v. Muhammad Farooq 1999 MLD 3329; Mrs. Rahat Ali v. Dr. Saeeda Rehman 2002 CLC 96.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suit No.8, C.Ms. Nos.467, 356 of 2009 and C.M.A. 35 of 2010 decided on 7-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Umer Lakhani for Plaintiff. \nGhulam Murtaza for Defendants Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. \nImran Taj holding brief for Khawaja Saif-ul-Islam for Defendants Nos.4 and 5. \nS. Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel along with Mirza Shahid Baig and Sohail Rana for Defendant No. 8.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. KHATIJA AND 7 OTHERS\nVS \n BANGLAR MAMATA AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 578 = 2010 SLD 578 = 2010 CLD 753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompany Merger, Scheme of Arrangement\n•\nDetails: Petitioners sought approval for the amalgamation and merger of companies. The petitioners had entered into a Scheme of Arrangement, which was duly approved, and all required formalities were completed. No objections were raised by any party. The High Court, after reviewing the Scheme, approved the merger and granted the petition.\n•\nHeld: The Scheme of Arrangement was approved, and the companies were ordered to merge in accordance with the terms.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "J.M.No.15 of 2009, decision dated: 10-05-2010, hearing DATE : 7th April and 4-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ammar Yaser for Applicants.\nMs. Saima, Deputy Registrar of Companies has appeared on Court Notice.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUNRISE RAGS CO. (PVT.)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 579 = 2010 SLD 579 = 2010 CLD 757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction, Recovery of Damages, Partial Satisfaction\n•\nDetails: Plaintiffs filed a suit under admiralty jurisdiction for $108,465 in damages. The defendant argued that the claim should be dismissed as the plaintiffs had already received compensation under an insurance policy. The plaintiffs argued that only a portion of their claim was covered by the insurance, and the remainder was still owed by the defendant. The High Court dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint.\n•\nHeld: The case would proceed, as part of the plaintiffs' claim had not been satisfied, and the remaining claim required adjudication.\n•\nCitations: New Jubilee Insurance Co., Ltd. Karachi v. American Orient Lines Inc., PLD 1977 Kar. 569; New Jubilee Insurance Co., Ltd. Dacca v. The United Oriental Steamship Co., PLD 1975 Kar. 647.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Adm. Suit No.30 of 2006 and C.M.A. No.970 of 2007, decision dated: 1st March, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar Lari for the Plaintiff.\nAdeel Abid for the Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD \nVS \n M.T. PACIFIC JADE AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 580 = 2010 SLD 580 = 2010 CLD 760", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTerritorial Jurisdiction of Banking Court, Recovery of Finance\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff Bank sought recovery of finance based on a lease facility agreement. The defendant argued that the suit should be filed at the location of the lease agreement's execution. However, the High Court ruled that since the finance and repayments were handled at the bank's registered office, the banking court at that location had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.\n•\nHeld: The Banking Court at the plaintiff's registered office had territorial jurisdiction to hear the suit.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Rahmania Trading Company v. Messrs Eagle Star Insurance Company, Ltd. PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 202; United Distribution Pakistan Ltd. v. Al-Syed Agrochemical Services 2005 CLC 1659; State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Rana Muhammad Saleem 1987 SCMR 393.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=3", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-53 of 2008, decision dated: 5-05-2010, hearing DATE : 1st April, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui for the Plaintiff.\nAbdul Qayoom Abbasy for the Defendants.\nKhurram Shehzad Chughtai, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN KUWAIT INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n SAADULAH KHAN AND BROTHERS AND 14 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 581 = 2010 SLD 581 = 2010 CLD 774", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAppointment of Investigator, Companies Ordinance, 1984\n•\nDetails: The company challenged the appointment of a firm of chartered accountants by the Securities Exchange Commission to investigate its affairs, claiming it would damage the company's reputation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appointment was part of an ongoing investigation and not a final decision.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed, and the investigation was allowed to continue.\n•\nCitations: None specified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=265", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.111 of 2009, decision dated: 21st April, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nAfnan Karim Kundi, Advocate-Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ATTOCK REFINERY LTD \nVS \n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING DIVISION, S.E.C.P. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 582 = 2010 SLD 582 = 2010 CLD 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNegotiable Instruments Act, Liability on Promissory Note\n•\nDetails: The defendant signed a promissory note on behalf of a partnership firm, not in a personal capacity. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court found that the defendant had not personally assumed liability. The plaintiff's evidence failed to establish a personal liability on the part of the defendant.\n•\nHeld: The decree was set aside, as the liability lay with the partnership firm, not the defendant personally.\n•\nCitations: Negotiable Instruments Act, S.28.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "R.S.A. No.32 of 2003, decision dated: 28-04-2010. DATE of healing: 31st March, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawar us Slam for Appellant.\nMuhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAHID MAHMOOD \nVS \n TAHIR AZIZ CHUGHTAI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 583 = 2010 SLD 583 = 2010 CLD 784", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Auction of Mortgaged Property\n•\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance & Civil Procedure Code\n•\nFacts:\nThe Banking Court rejected an objection petition filed by a claimant who asserted ownership of a mortgaged property based on an ex parte decree for specific performance. The bank auctioned the property without court intervention and executed a sale deed in favor of the purchaser. The claimant filed a second application to set aside the sale, claiming ownership.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe earlier rejection order attained finality, and the second application could not create a new cause of action. The claimant, without a registered sale deed, could not claim title to the property based solely on the ex parte decree. The Banking Court dismissed the second application for incompetency.\n•\nCitations:\nMumtaz ud Din Adil v. Sheikh Iftikhar Adil and others PLD 2009 SC 207;\nHakim Enayat Ullah v. Khalil Ullah Khan and another AIR 1938 Allahabad 432.\nCase (b): Ex-Parte Decree & Title\n•\nTransfer of Property Act & Specific Relief Act\n•\nFacts:\nAn ex parte decree in a specific performance suit required execution of a registered sale deed for the decree-holder to acquire title.\n•\nConclusion:\nA decree-holder cannot claim ownership based solely on the decree without executing the requisite registered sale deed.\n________________________________________\nCase (c): Application to Set Aside Sale\n•\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance & Civil Procedure Code\n•\nFacts:\nThe bank sold a mortgaged property without court execution. The claimant deposited 5% of the auction price in court, seeking to set aside the sale.\n•\nConclusion:\nApplications under O. XXI, R. 89 CPC are valid only if the sale is illegal. Sales conducted without court decrees do not fall under this rule, making the application inadmissible.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "EFA No.158 of 2008, heard on 20-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, JUSTICE\nNASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Qamar-uz-Zaman for Appellants.\nSh. Nadeem Ashraf for Respondents Nos. 1 to 9.\nInam Ullah Hashmi for Respondents Nos. 11.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND ANOTHER \nVS \n HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 10 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 584 = 2010 SLD 584 = 2010 CLD 792", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Limitation for Insurance Claims\n•\nInsurance Ordinance & Limitation Act\n•\nFacts:\nAn insurance claim was filed in 2006, ten years after the policyholder’s accidental death in 1996. The claim relied on the creation of the Insurance Tribunal in 2006 as the cause of action.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe tribunal’s establishment in 2006 reinitiated the limitation period for insurance claims. Claims filed after this were deemed timely.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\n________________________________________\nCase (b): Evidentiary Value of Reports\n•\nInsurance Ordinance & Qanun-e-Shahadat\n•\nFacts:\nThe insurance company contested the claim, alleging the policyholder was murdered. The company relied on an investigative report not substantiated by court testimony.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe report lacked legal authenticity as the investigator was not examined, and its claims were not cross-verified. The policyholder’s claim was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=121", + "Case #": "R.FA. No. 16 of 2008, heard on 13-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAHID IQBAL, JUSTICE\nNASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Butt for Appellant.\nMian Naseer Ahmed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM RAZA SAJID \nVS\n STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 585 = 2010 SLD 585 = 2010 CLD 798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Jurisdiction of Civil Court\n•\nInsurance Ordinance & Specific Relief Act\n•\nFacts:\nAn insurance claim was adjudicated in civil court due to the absence of a constituted Insurance Tribunal. The plaintiff, as a nominee, sought payment under a joint policy.\n•\nConclusion:\nCivil courts retain jurisdiction when no tribunal exists. The plaintiff’s entitlement as a nominee and business partner was upheld.\n•\nCitations:\nAbdur Rahim v. Mst Janatay Bibi 2000 SCMR 146;\nHaji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=72", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 304 of 2004, decision dated: 26-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ATTAULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Kamran for S.L.I.C.\nRespondent in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAIRMAN STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND 7 OTHERS \nVS\n UMAR ZAD SHAH BUKHARI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 586 = 2010 SLD 586 = 2010 CLD 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Coercion in Debt Recovery\n•\nConstitutional Law & Banking Regulations\n•\nFacts:\nA petitioner accused the bank of using coercive measures to recover credit card debt. The bank assured the court that it would adhere to legal recovery methods.\n•\nConclusion:\nCoercive recovery methods violate banking laws. The petitioner’s concerns were addressed with assurances from the bank to use lawful forums.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-578 and C.M.A. No.2584 of 2008, decision dated: 17-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE\nSYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed holding brief for Gohar Iqbal for Petitioner.\nM.A. Khan for Respondents Nos.2 and 4.\nNeel Keshav for Respondent No. 3.\nSIP Muhammad Javed of P.S. Zaman Town.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMIR FEROZ \nVS\n STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 587 = 2010 SLD 587 = 2010 CLD 804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Territorial Jurisdiction\n•\nCivil Procedure Code\n•\nFacts:\nThe suit’s cause of action arose in a location differing from the defendant’s residence. Jurisdiction was contested based on territorial limits.\n•\nConclusion:\nJurisdiction depends on where the cause of action occurs. Plaintiffs’ claims in the plaint determine initial jurisdiction.\n•\nCitations:\nAbdur Rahim Baig v. Abdul Haq Lashari PLD 1994 Kar.388.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=16", + "Case #": "Suit No.1785 and C.M.A. No.11382 of 2009, decision dated: 29-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan for the Plaintiff.\nMansoor-ul-Arfin and Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui for the Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIGITAL WORLD PAKISTAN (PVT.) Ltd. through Chief Executive\nVs \n SAMSUNG GULF ELECTRONICS FZE through Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 588 = 2010 SLD 588 = 2010 CLD 823", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Banking Court Jurisdiction\n•\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA suit involving a non-customer financial dispute was decided by the Banking Court, which lacked jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion:\nBanking Courts can only adjudicate customer-institution disputes. The court’s decision was deemed void but could still be treated as valid for practical purposes.\n•\nCitations:\nNawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=2", + "Case #": "F.A.B. No.7 of 2007, decision dated: 25-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMAZHAR ALAM KHAN, MIANKHEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shumail Ahmad Butt for Appellants.\nMian Fazal Wahab for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "EXECUTIVE VICEPRESIDENT AND ANOTHER \nVS \n BRIG. (R) MIAN HAMEEDUDDIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 589 = 2010 SLD 589 = 2010 CLD 828", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Leave to Defend\n•\nFinancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA leave to defend application failed to comply with procedural requirements under S.10 of the ordinance.\n•\nConclusion:\nNon-compliance with S.10 renders the application inadmissible. The suit proceeds in favor of the plaintiff.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No.68 of 2009, decision dated: 13-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed for Plaintiff.\nAbdul Sattar Lakhani for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED \nVS \n PROGAS PAKISTAN LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 590 = 2010 SLD 590 = 2010 CLD 838", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Mortgage Property Execution\n•\nBanking Companies Act & Civil Procedure Code\n•\nFacts:\nAn applicant with a money decree claimed a share in proceeds from the auction of a mortgaged property.\n•\nConclusion:\nOnly holders of mortgage decrees can claim proceeds under O. XXXIV R.13 CPC. The application was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "C.M.A.No.270 of 2009 and Execution No.232 of 2000, decision dated: 14-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azizur Rehman for Decree-holder.\nJudgment-Debtor absent.\nMuhammad Abdul Aziz Khan for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVS \nMESSRS NAYA DOUR MOTORS (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 591 = 2010 SLD 591 = 2010 CLD 845", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Witness Summoning\n•\nInsurance Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA petitioner requested the summoning of a witness whose testimony was vital for proving fraud. The tribunal dismissed the request.\n•\nConclusion:\nTribunals must weigh sufficient cause for summoning witnesses. In this case, the petition was allowed, and the tribunal was directed to summon the witness.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=123", + "Case #": "Writ Petition 4682 of 2009, decision dated: 5-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Naseer Ahmad for the Petitioners.\nLiaqat Ali Butt for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER \nVS \n ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGEI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 592 = 2010 SLD 592 = 2010 CLD 848", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Seafarer Injury Compensation\n•\nAdmiralty Jurisdiction & Pakistan Merchant Shipping Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA Chief Officer suffered a comminuted fracture (severe multiple bone breakages) while working aboard a ship. Medical experts confirmed his permanent incapacitation for sea service. The employment agreement stipulated compensation for injury during service. Despite the accident's acknowledgment, the defendant failed to constitute a medical board or verify the incapacity.\n•\nConclusion:\nBased on employment terms, the plaintiff was entitled to:\no\n48 months’ wages\no\nMedical expenses exceeding Rs. 500,000\no\nCosts and mark-up as per the State Bank's rate from the suit date until payment.\n•\nCitations:\nPLD 1973 SC 1076; 1982 CLC 1128; PLD 1975 Kar.819; 1996 MLD 1819; PLD 1968 SC 140.\nCase (b): Definition of Comminuted Fracture \n•\nMedical Jurisprudence\n•\nConclusion:\nA comminuted fracture refers to a bone injury where it is broken, splintered, or crushed into multiple pieces.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suit No.38 of 2008, decision dated: 28-05-2010, hearing DATE : 21st April, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aga Faqir Muhammad and Aga Zafar Ahmed for the Plaintiff.\nA.H. Mirza for the Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SERAJ-ULHAQ SYED\nVS \n M.V. BANGLAR MAYA THROUGH MASTER AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 593 = 2010 SLD 593 = 2010 CLD 859", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)\n•\nPakistan Environmental Protection Act & Civil Procedure Code\n•\nFacts:\nA construction project worth over Rs. 50 million in Karachi was challenged for not conducting an EIA. The respondents argued an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) sufficed as per regulations. The project was labeled under Urban Development but fell under the more specific Transport category.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nThe specific legal provision requiring an EIA for transport projects (costing over Rs. 50 million) applied.\no\nConstruction was allowed to continue at the developer's risk, conditional upon EIA submission within a month.\n•\nCitations:\n2009 CLD 682.\nCase (b): Statutory Interpretation\n•\nInterpretation of Statutes\n•\nConclusion:\nSpecific provisions of law take precedence over general ones when both are applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1 of 2010, decision dated: 5-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, CHAIRPERSON,\nDR. SAMI UZ ZAMAN MEMBER TECHNICAL\nABDUL KARIM M. MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Roland de Souza on behalf of the Complainant. Qaiser Jamil Ahmed Malick for CDGK. Abdul Maroof, DDPP for the SEPA", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEHRICBE - THROUGH MEMBER EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE \nVS \n SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 594 = 2010 SLD 594 = 2010 CLD 870", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Liquidated Damages in Insurance Claims\n•\nInsurance Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nAn insurance company delayed payment of a death claim and later sought recovery of an excess amount paid. The claimant challenged the recovery notice. The tribunal ruled against the claimant.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nDelay in claim payment justified liquidated damages for the claimant.\no\nThe corporation's recovery notice lacked legal basis and was declared null and void.\n•\nCitations:\nMst. Nusrat Malik Saleem v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 CLD 874; PLD 1984 SC 403.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.2 of 2008, heard on 20-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Butt for the Appellant.\nIbrar Ahmad and Kashif Kharal for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. NUSRAT MALIK SALEEM \nVS \n STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 595 = 2010 SLD 595 = 2010 CLD 876", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Patent Infringement\n•\nPatents Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nThe plaintiff sought a temporary injunction to stop the defendant from producing or selling a competing product, alleging patent infringement. The defendant claimed their product and processes were distinct.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court dismissed the temporary injunction application, stating disputed factual questions required evidence before final resolution.\n•\nCitations:\nGlaxo Group Ltd. v. Evron (Pvt.) Ltd. 1992 CLC 2382; Pfizer Ltd. v. Wilson’s Pharmaceuticals 2002 CLD 1653.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.973 of 2007 and C.M.As, Nos.5437 and 5780 of 2010, decision dated: 10-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mueen Qamar and Amna Salman for the Plaintiffs.\nAbid S. Zuberi, Muhammad Umer Lakhani and Haseeb Jamali for the defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ELI LILLY AND COMPANY THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \n ATCO LABORATORIES (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 596 = 2010 SLD 596 = 2010 CLD 888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmQlNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Agreement to Sell\n•\nTransfer of Property Act\n•\nConclusion:\nAn agreement to sell does not create ownership rights for the vendee.\nCase (b): Bank’s Right to Seize Vehicles\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance & Transfer of Property Act\n•\nFacts:\nA petitioner claimed ownership of a seized vehicle based on an agreement with the original purchaser. The bank sold the vehicle without court intervention.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe petitioner lacked locus standi as the agreement to sell did not transfer ownership.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2369 of 2006, decision dated: 9-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Sohail Iftikhar for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Saleem Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKMAL \nVS\n TRUST LEASING INVESTMENT BANK THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 597 = 2010 SLD 597 = 2010 CLD 890", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Trademark Infringement\n•\nTrade Marks Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nThe plaintiff sought an injunction against a defendant manufacturing products using the EXIDE trademark under a foreign entity's orders.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nPakistani law governs trademarks.\no\nThe defendant's actions violated S.40(1) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, prohibiting unauthorized use of the trademark.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=39", + "Case #": "Suit No.33 and C.M.As. Nos. 230, 7623, 7942 and 7856 of 2006, decision dated: 20-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Shazia Tasleem along with Irfanullah Khan for Plaintiff.\nMunawar Ghani for Defendant No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendants Nos.2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EXIDE PAKISTAN LIMITED \nVS \n PAKISTAN ACCUMULATORS (PVT.) LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 598 = 2010 SLD 598 = 2010 CLD 894", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Banking Suit Transfer\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA banking suit transfer was requested based on alleged bias due to the counsel’s involvement in unrelated litigation against judges.\n•\nConclusion:\nMere apprehensions of bias are insufficient for transferring cases. The application was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=7", + "Case #": "Civil Transfer Application No.56 of 2009, decision dated: 11-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haq Nawaz Talpur for the Applicant.\nMs. Naheed A. Shahid for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZIR AHMED TUNIO \nVS\n STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 599 = 2010 SLD 599 = 2010 CLD 896", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Suit for Recovery of Finance\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nThe defendant challenged a decree, alleging no statement of accounts was filed.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court presumed compliance with legal requirements in the absence of contrary evidence.\n•\nCitations:\nPLD 1985 SC 405; PLD 2000 Lah.232.\nCase (b): Finance Instruments\n•\nNegotiable Instruments Act\n•\nConclusion:\nPakistan Investment Bonds qualify as financial instruments under the Financial Institutions Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.27 of 2009, decision dated: 9-06-2010. dates of hearing: 3rd and 9-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Emmadul Hassan for Appellant.\nSyed Mamnoon Hasan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SPEEDWAY FONDMETALL, PAKISTAN LTD \nVS\n NIB BANK LTD.(FORMERLY PICIC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 600 = 2010 SLD 600 = 2010 CLD 903", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Set-Off Claims in Leave Applications\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA defendant claimed a set-off in a leave to defend application.\n•\nConclusion:\nSet-off claims do not entitle defendants to leave as they alter the suit's nature under special law.\n•\nCitations:\nRahat Badaruddin Bandey v. Union Bank Ltd. 2005 CLD 1080.\nCase (b): Right to Recover Without Selling Pledged Goods\n•\nContract Act & Financial Institutions Ordinance\n•\nConclusion:\nPawnees may either sue for debt or sell pledged goods after reasonable notice.\n•\nCitations:\nSalim Adamjee v. Al-Faysal Investment Bank PLD 1999 Kar.468.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-64 of 2009, decision dated: 25-05-2010, hearing DATE : 19-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Lakhani for Plaintiff.\nSaalim Salam Ansari for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANK OF PUNJAB\nVS \n FIRST NATIONAL EQUITIES LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 601 = 2010 SLD 601 = 2010 CLD 920", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Dishonoured Cheque & Recovery\n•\nCivil Procedure Code (CPC), O. XXXVII\n•\nFacts:\nA plaintiff sued for recovery based on a dishonoured cheque but only submitted a photocopy instead of the original. The defendant failed to furnish surety or cross-examine the plaintiff, indirectly admitting liability.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe plaintiff's claim was upheld as:\no\nThe defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements.\no\nLiability was indirectly admitted through a prior letter and lack of cross-examination.\n•\nCitations:\nMessrs M.A. Majeed Khan v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board PLD 2002 Kar.315;\nAbdullah v. Shaukat 2001 SCMR 60.\nCase (b): Non-Registration of Firms\n•\nPartnership Act, S.69\n•\nConclusion:\nObjections about a firm's non-registration must be raised by the defendant. If not raised, such objections are deemed waived.\nCase (c): Cheque Recovery by Partnership Firms\n•\nCPC, O. XXXVII & Partnership Act, S.69\n•\nConclusion:\nA dishonoured cheque provides an independent right to sue. Courts are not required to investigate underlying contracts unless leave to defend is granted.\nCase (d): Definition of “Proved” and “Disproved”\n•\nQanun-e-Shahadat, Arts. 2(4) & 2(5)\n•\nConclusion:\nProof in legal contexts implies positive probability rather than conclusive evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.34 of 2004, decision dated: 28-06-2010, hearing DATE : 2-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jam Asif Mehmood and Tauqeer Ahmed Bokhari for Appellant.\nMuhammad Safdar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M. MUHAMMAD SHAFI & CO \nVS\n A. REHMAN ENTERPRISES AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 602 = 2010 SLD 602 = 2010 CLD 935", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Procedural Fairness in Tender Process\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\n•\nFacts:\nThe petitioner challenged arbitrary changes in royalty rates after submitting a tender, claiming procedural unfairness.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled the process lacked fairness, noting authorities failed to disclose impending rate increases. Earnest money was ordered to be refunded.\n•\nCitations:\nPakistan Industrial Development v. Aziz Qureshi PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar.202.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-232 of 2009, decision dated: 7-05-2010, hearing DATE : 2-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, CHIEF, JUSTICE \nZAHID HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Ahmed Memon for Petitioner.\nSarwar Khan, Additional A.G. along with Abdullah Memon, Director-General, Mines and Mineral Development, Government of Sindh", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KOHISAR ENTERPRISES THROUGH PARTNER\nVS \n PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 603 = 2010 SLD 603 = 2010 CLD 942", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Right Shares Issuance\n•\nCompanies Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA shareholder sought to suspend a resolution allowing the issuance of right shares, arguing the resolution was improperly passed.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court dismissed the application, stating:\no\nThe resolution aimed to improve financial conditions.\no\nNo alteration of the company's memorandum or authorized capital occurred.\n•\nCitations:\nMessrs China Fiber Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Jabbar PLD 1968 SC 381.\nCase (b): Court Interference in Company Affairs\n•\nCompanies Ordinance\n•\nConclusion:\nCourts do not interfere with board decisions unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or malicious.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "Suit No.111 and C.M.A. No.764 of 2010, decision dated: 4-06-2010. dates of hearing: 5th and 22-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem and Nadeem Akhtar for Plaintiffs.\nTaha Alizai for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MUHAMMAD RAFIQ THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \n EMAAR GIGA KARACHI LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 604 = 2010 SLD 604 = 2010 CLD 963", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Case (a): Ownership of Company Assets\n•\nCompanies Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nShareholders claimed ownership of company assets based on majority shareholding of a predecessor.\n•\nConclusion:\no\nA company is a separate legal entity.\no\nShareholders cannot claim ownership of company assets.\no\nThe application for interim relief was denied.\n•\nCitations:\nMuhammad Taj v. Arshad Mehmood 2009 SCMR 114.\nCase (b): Minority Shareholders’ Rights\n•\nCompanies Ordinance\n•\nConclusion:\nMinority shareholders may file derivative suits on behalf of the company if majority shareholders misuse their control.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=209", + "Case #": "Suit No.867 and C.M.A. No.5641 of 2010, decision dated: 7-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Mushtaq Ahmed for Plaintiff.\nAgha Zafar Ahmad for Defendants Nos. 1 to 14.\nMs. Samia Faiz Durrani for Defendant No. 16.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST SAKINA KHATOON AND 6 OTHERS \nVS \n S.S. NAZIR AHSAN AND 17 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 605 = 2010 SLD 605 = 2010 CLD 972", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Limitation in Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA Banking Court dismissed a defendant’s application to set aside an ex parte decree due to limitation, ignoring the date of knowledge rule.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe High Court remanded the case, requiring the Banking Court to determine the date of knowledge before applying the limitation period.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=12", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.446 of 2004, decision dated: 22-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE\nSH. AHMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yasin Hatif for Appellant.\nMaqsood Ahmad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAZALERABBI \nVS \n JUDGE BANKING COURT AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 607 = 2010 SLD 607 = 2010 CLD 974", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Appealability of Banking Court Orders\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance, S.22(6)\n•\nFacts:\nThe High Court ruled a Banking Judge's order was not appealable and that the reserved property price was presumptuous. Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to address these issues.\n•\nCitations:\nPakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation v. Government of Pakistan 2002 CLD 1.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.145-L and C.M.A. 62-L of 2010, decision dated: 3rd March, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Mehmood Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KOHINOOR LOOMS LTD \nVS \nMCB BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 608 = 2010 SLD 608 = 2010 CLD 975", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Professional Tax on Banking Companies\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 163 & 199\n•\nFacts:\nA bank challenged professional tax levied on its branches in Cantonment areas, claiming exemption due to payments by its head offices.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court upheld the levy, noting that tax liability extends to branches operating in different provinces.\n•\nCitations:\nProvince of Punjab v. Sargodha Textile Mills PLD 2005 SC 988.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=5", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1982 of 2006, 742, 1107 of 2007,950 of 2008 and 188 of 2009 decided on 10-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMAZHAR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Butt for Petitioners.\nFarman Ullah Khattak and Waqar Ali DA-G for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BANK ALFALAH LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER \nVS \n EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 609 = 2010 SLD 609 = 2010 CLD 981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Transfer of Banking Cases\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance & CPC\n•\nFacts:\nThe defendant sought to consolidate two related banking suits for joint trial.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court allowed consolidation to avoid conflicting judgments and expedite justice.\n•\nCitations:\nMalik Jehangir Khan v. Banking Tribunal No.1 Karachi 2002 CLD 1466.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=5", + "Case #": "Civil Transfer Application No.54 of 2007 decided on 7-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salam Salim Ansari for the Applicant.\nMuhammad Rashid for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZIMUDDIN AND ANOTHER\nVS \n S.M.E. LEASING LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 610 = 2010 SLD 610 = 2010 CLD 983", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Rectification of Company Name\n•\nCompanies Ordinance\n•\nFacts:\nA company sought to rectify another company’s name, alleging it was deceptively similar and caused reputational harm.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court directed rectification, citing potential damage to the complainant's goodwill.\n•\nCitations:\nMessrs ADT Services AG v. ADT Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 2005 CLD 1546.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=37", + "Case #": "Notice No.CLD/RD/CO 484(1)2009, decision dated: 11-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED HUSSAIN, REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurram Shahzad Chughtai for Appellants", + "Petitioner Name:": "VERIZON TRADEMARK SERVICES LLC, through authorized signatory" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 611 = 2010 SLD 611 = 2010 CLD 988", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Promissory Estoppel in Gas Pricing\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\n•\nFacts:\nA gas company relied on the Attorney General’s opinion to fix gas prices, but the government refused to abide by it.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court ruled the Attorney General’s opinion, accepted as binding by both parties, must be upheld based on promissory estoppel.\n•\nCitations:\nMessrs Airport Support Services v. Airport Manager Karachi 1998 SCMR 2268.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Rules of Business (Federal), 1973=14", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3708 of 2009, decision dated: 14-07-2010, hearing DATE : 4-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ASAD MUNIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waseem Sajjad, Sami Zafar and Malik Qamar Afzal for Petitioner.\nYousaf Khosa for Respodnents Nos. 1 and 2.\nTariq Aziz for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEWAN PETROLEUM (PVT.) AND OTHERS \nVS \n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 612 = 2010 SLD 612 = 2010 CLD 999", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Case: Satisfaction of Decree & Limitation\n•\nFinancial Institutions Ordinance & CPC\n•\nFacts:\nThe appellant challenged an order recording satisfaction of a decree, arguing it was void due to lack of authority by the director who paid the decretal amount.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court held the order was valid as the jurisdiction of the Executing Court is limited to ensuring decree satisfaction, not adjudicating external disputes.\n•\nCitations:\nNational Bank of Pakistan v. Khairpur Textiles 2001 CLC 1187.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.36 of 2005 decided on 9-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Appellants.\nMuhammad Rasheed Khan for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAFIZUR REHMAN AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS FRESH FARMS (PVT.) LTD. AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 613 = 2010 SLD 613 = 2010 CLD 1014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "Topic (a): Ex Parte Proceedings and Cross-Examination Rights\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of service of summons.\no\nDefendant’s right to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses.\n•\nFacts:\nSummons were allegedly served on a person claimed to be in charge of the defendant’s factory. The defendant denied any association with the person and argued that the service was invalid. Ex parte proceedings were initiated, and a decree was passed without allowing the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDefendants are entitled to proper service under CPC O.IX, R.6.\no\nDefendants retain the right to cross-examine witnesses even if proceeded ex parte (Qanun-e-Shahadat, Art. 133).\n•\nConclusion:\no\nEx parte proceedings and the decree were set aside due to improper service.\no\nDenial of cross-examination violated procedural fairness, leading to the case being remanded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=6", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.154 of 2007, heard on 25-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nMIAN SHAHID IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jahangir A. Jhojha for Appellant.\nSh. Zulfiqar Haider Mankee for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NASCO PACKAGING (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS \nVS \n SHEIKH INAMULHAQ AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 614 = 2010 SLD 614 = 2010 CLD 1021", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Blank Sales and Market Manipulation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nUnauthorized trading activities by a broker.\no\nImpact of such actions on market integrity.\n•\nFacts:\nA brokerage firm executed blank sales for its clients without pre-existing interest, violating trading norms. These trades interfered with the fair operation of the market.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBrokers must adhere to the Code of Conduct (Securities and Exchange Ordinance, S.22).\no\nTransparency and integrity in market operations are paramount.\n•\nConclusion:\nA penalty of Rs. 1,000,000 was imposed for violating trading regulations and compromising market integrity.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause-Notice No.1(07)BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2009 dated 9-12-2009 decided on 19-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 615 = 2010 SLD 615 = 2010 CLD 1035", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Reporting and Disclosure Violations\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nOmission of key financial details in company reports.\n•\nFacts:\nA company failed to disclose information about fixed assets and liabilities in its financial statements. The omission was termed a “printing error.”\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nComplete and accurate financial reporting is mandated under the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe company was warned to ensure compliance, and the omission was rectified without imposing a penalty.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=244", + "Case #": "Show-Cause-Notice No.EMD/233/90/02, dated 18-02-2010 decided on 8-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAFFI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 616 = 2010 SLD 616 = 2010 CLD 1039", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Share Sales\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nViolations of trading regulations through unauthorized sales.\n•\nFacts:\nSales were executed in client accounts without pre-existing interest. The brokerage firm failed to monitor these trades effectively.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBrokers are responsible for ensuring compliance with trading rules.\n•\nConclusion:\nA penalty of Rs. 75,000 was imposed for regulatory violations and negligence.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause-Notice No.1(07)BS / KSE / MSW / SMD / 2009 / 63 dated 7-12-2009 decided on 11-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 617 = 2010 SLD 617 = 2010 CLD 1044", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Hold Annual General Meeting\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nStatutory requirements for holding AGMs.\n•\nFacts:\nA company cited a factory fire as the reason for failing to hold its AGM within the prescribed period.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAGMs are critical for shareholder transparency and statutory compliance (Companies Ordinance, S.158).\n•\nConclusion:\nThe company was warned but not penalized due to mitigating circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "EMD/233/484/2002-832 dated 11-12-2009, decision dated: 25-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAMSHAD ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BUXLY PAINTS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 618 = 2010 SLD 618 = 2010 CLD 1047", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Proprietary Account Sales Without Justification\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nUse of proprietary accounts for client trades.\n•\nFacts:\nThe brokerage firm executed sales in its proprietary accounts without proper justification or pre-existing interest.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProprietary trades must comply with client interest and market rules.\n•\nConclusion:\nA penalty of Rs. 2,500,000 was imposed for endangering market integrity and client trust.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.1(07)BS /KSE/MSW/ SMD/ 2009 / 66 dated 9-12-2009 decided on 5-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 619 = 2010 SLD 619 = 2010 CLD 1057", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decree and Misrepresentation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nIncorrect address used for service of summons.\no\nValidity of ex parte decree.\n•\nFacts:\nSummons were served at an incorrect address, leading to an ex parte decree. The defendant argued misrepresentation and sought to set aside the decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nService must be effected correctly (CPC, S.12(2)).\no\nMisrepresentation invalidates ex parte decrees.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe decree was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Banking Court for trial.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=12", + "Case #": "J.M. Application No.13 of 2007 in Suit No.67 of 2004 decided on 23rd July, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia-ul-Haq Makhdoom for the Appellant. A.H.\nMirza and Ghulam Murtaza for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAHIR \nVS \n EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL PJSC AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 620 = 2010 SLD 620 = 2010 CLD 1071", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Investments in Associated Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nShareholder approval for investments.\n•\nFacts:\nInvestments were made in associated companies without obtaining prior shareholder approval.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 208 of the Companies Ordinance requires special resolutions for such investments.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties of Rs. 500,000 on the CEO and Rs. 50,000 on each director were imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause-Notice No.EMD/233/90/2002 dated 27-5-2009 decided on 21st May, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZAM TEXTILE MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 621 = 2010 SLD 621 = 2010 CLD 1083", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Listing Regulation Violations\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAmendments to listing regulations.\n•\nFacts:\nA stock exchange proposed amendments that conflicted with regulatory requirements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegulatory compliance is mandatory for amendments in listing rules.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe stock exchange was directed to ensure future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD/SE/2(77)/2003 dated 4-03-2010 decided on 27-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUSARAT, JABEEN, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 622 = 2010 SLD 622 = 2010 CLD 1088", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Blank Sales by Brokers\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nMarket manipulation through blank sales.\n•\nFacts:\nClients executed blank sales, which the brokerage firm failed to monitor.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBrokers must prevent violations of trading norms.\n•\nConclusion:\nA penalty of Rs. 200,000 was imposed for violations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause-Notice bearing No. 1(07)BS/KSE /MSW / SMD/2009 /64, dated 7-12-2009 decided on 31st March, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 623 = 2010 SLD 623 = 2010 CLD 1096", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Loans to Associated Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFiduciary duty of directors.\n•\nFacts:\nLoans were extended to associated companies without proper authorization.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors must act in the shareholders’ best interests.\n•\nConclusion:\nDirectors were penalized Rs. 100,000 each.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD233/371/2002/1054-60 dated 29-12-2009 decided on 26-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DADABHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 624 = 2010 SLD 624 = 2010 CLD 1103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Dispute\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPerformance guarantee obligations.\n•\nFacts:\nThe insurance company failed to honor a performance guarantee, leading to a complaint with the Ombudsman.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGuarantees are binding unless shown otherwise.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, and the Ombudsman’s decision was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=127", + "Case #": "Appeal No.1 of 2010 decided on 19-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NASREEN RASHID, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Nabi, Deputy Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Balochistan and Muhammad\nHassan, Assistant Fund Manager.\nFinance Department, Government of Balochistan for Appellant. \nZeeshan Abdullah for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN (GOB \nVS \n UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 625 = 2010 SLD 625 = 2010 CLD 1110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Misstated Financial Statements\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nNon-disclosure of liabilities.\n•\nFacts:\nContingent liabilities were omitted from company reports, and projected financial data was misstated.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAccuracy in financial disclosures is critical under the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion:\nA penalty of Rs. 200,000 was imposed on the CEO.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=476", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. EMD233/371/2002/1061-67 dated 29-12-2009 decided on 20-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DADABHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 626 = 2010 SLD 626 = 2010 CLD 1115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---Ss. 305 & 309---Winding up of a company---Essential factors requiring consideration by Court stated.\n \nFor winding upon of a company, the Court has to consider the grounds (a) that whether the substratum of the company is deemed to be gone; (b) that the object for which it was incorporated, had substantially failed; (c) that whether it is impossible to carry on the business of the company except a loss; (d) that there is no reasonable hope that the object of the trading at profit can be attained, or (e) that existing or probable assets are insufficient to meet the existing liabilities. Before final order of winding up, Court remains under legal obligation to form an opinion under clause (h) of section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, whether it is just and equitable that company should be wound up. The words `just and equitable\"\" are words of the widest significance and do not limit the jurisdiction of the Court to any case. It is a question of fact and each case must depend on its circumstances. \n \n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--Ss. 209(b), 305, 309 & 320---Petition for winding up of company---Balance sheet of company showing huge losses---Audit report showing company to be dormant and not functional for last ten years---Failure of company to hold Annual General meeting for last seven years---Filing of such petition by Additional Registrar of Companies with approval of Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan granted after hearing company---Dismissal of appeal filed by company against such order of Commission---Validity---Petitioner had raised lawful grounds for winding up of respondent/company, which had not opposed the petition--High Court accepted such petition and appointed official liquidator for submitting preliminary report in terms of S.329 of Companied Ordinance, 1984. \n \n2010 CLD 162; Additional Registrar of Companies v. Messrs Noorie Textile Mills Ltd. 2010 CLD 147 and Additional Registrar Companies v. Karim Silk Mills 2009 CLD 124 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J.M.No.41 of 2009, decision dated: 11-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naved ul Haque, for the Petitioner.\nNone for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KARACHI\nVS \n TRI STAR POWER LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 627 = 2010 SLD 627 = 2010 CLD 1123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)--Ss. 79 & 123---Widow of insured person filed an application before Insurance Tribunal for recovery of insurance money alongwith liquidated damages---Insurance Company contested application on the ground that insurance policy was procured by concealment of facts and that investigation was conducted by a duly authorized person under S.79 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 which had been exhibited as a proof---Insurance Tribunal dismissed application for insurance claim---Validity---Report exhibited had not been declared as per se admissible by the provisions of Insurance Ordinance, 2000---Contention that the officer who prepared report had retired and had not been produced for the said reason, was not made out from the record---Statement of facts made by the officer who prepared report, without producing such officer for cross-examination, could not make report admissible in the eye of law---Contention that the insurance policy obtained by the late husband of the applicant was through material suppression of facts and by making fraudulent declaration was not established by the company, during trial--Insurance Company itself undertook investigation through its own doctor and there was nothing found by the said doctor which could disentitle issuing of policy in favour of late husband of the applicant---No show-cause notice was issued before passing the impugned order---High Court accepted appeal and set aside the impugned and directed Insurance Company to make payment of claim amount to applicant in accordance with insurance policy. \n \nR.F.A. No.16 of 2008 rel.\n \n(b) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)---\n \n----S. 123---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.132---Examination-in-chief---Statement of facts made by the officer who prepared report which was exhibited, without producing such officer for cross-examination, could not make the report exhibited admissible in the eye of law. \n \n(c) Insurance Ordinance (XXXIX of 2000)---\n \n----S. 124(2)---Insurance claim---Application for---Plea of application being time-barred by Insurance Company--Insurance Tribunal dismissed application for recovery of insurance claim---Validity---Plea of the applicant that Insurance Tribunal was constituted on 20-6-2006 and upon constitution of the said Tribunal, application was moved and the same could not be treated as barred by time---Findings of Insurance Tribunal, with respect to application moved by applicant, to be barred by time was not legally correct, in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=79", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 443 of 2007, heard on 7-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nMIAN SHAHID IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Butt for the Appellant.\nAbrar Ahmad for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. RIFFAT ASGHAR \nVS\n STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 628 = 2010 SLD 628 = 2010 CLD 1130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance (XLVI of 2009)--Ss. 4, 37(2) & 41---Prohibited agreement---Complaint against---Appeal to the Appellate Bench of the Commission---Complainant in his complaint filed before the Commission had assailed the legality of an exclusive agency agreement executed between the respondent and another company---Complaint had alleged that by virtue of its exclusive agency agreement, the respondent had captured the entire market of the complainant; and that the respondent was capable of imposing its own terms on the Government for the purchase of tractors---Inquiry report appraised the procurement process of tractors under the scheme and gave findings that said scheme gave the farmers discretion to select the make and model of their own choice from a wide range of tractors available in the market; in view of said report it could not be said that the respondent would be able to monopolize the scheme and impose his own terms and conditions on the Government for the purchase of the tractors by the farmers---Counsel for the complainant requested to dispose of the complaint as not pressed in view of the fact that impugned exclusive agency agreement was no more effective as period for which said agreement was valid had expired.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2009=4", + "Case #": "File No.22/Dir (M&TA) Minsk/CCP/09, decision dated: 28-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER (C, M & TA)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner.\nAmer Raza Naqvi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER (C, M & TA)\n MESSRS FECTO BELARUS TRACTORS (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n SHAHZAD TRADE LINKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 629 = 2010 SLD 629 = 2010 CLD 1134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Ordinance (LII of 2007)---Ss. 2(1) (e) (P), 3, 37 & 38---Abuse of dominant position---Refusal of deal, conditions for---Imposition of penalty---Pakistan Steel Mills was a body corporate in business of producing and supplying steel products; it having 100% share in relevant market, had complete dominance in the low-carbon steel billet market that entitled the alleged abuse that transpired and could have permitted it to refuse to supply certain of its customers and not others---Commission took suo motu notice of news items appearing in the media relating to the shortage in the supply of steel billets by the Mills to all, but one downstream buyer---Another association also alleged gross malpractice of steel billets by the management of Mills---Commission appointed an Inquiry Officer, who in his report, stated that allegation against the Mills, was true---Show-cause-notice was issued to the Mills, reply to which was not satisfactory---Refusal to supply low-carbon steel had been alleged against the Mills---Terms \"\"refused to deal\"\" was used to describe a situation in which one undertaking refused to sell another undertaking, was willing to sell only at a price that was considered \"\"too high\"\" or was willing to sell only under conditions that were deemed unacceptable, thereby qualifying as an abuse of undertaking's dominant position-\"\"Refusal to deal\"\" could occur either in vertical relations, where an undertaking refused to deal with or supply its product to its competitors---Refusal to deal, could be unilateral or concerted---In the present case, refusal to deal occurred in vertical relation and involved the unilateral refusal by the Mills to supply the downstream purchaser---Additionally the refusal which was unilaterally, did not involve any concerted action between suppliers---Mills was the only supplier of the refused product---Conditions which were typically included to make a finding of refusal to deal, were that the refusing firm must have a dominant position in the market of the product or service, it was refusing; that the product or service that was being refused, must be objectively indispensable input, with no actual or potential substitutes; that refusing firm must not be willing to sell or supply at terms and conditions that would be considered appropriate or reasonable part of the industry standard or in ordinary conduct of business; that such denial of service, must have a material impact on competition in a related market to the detriment of customers; that denial of dealing, supply or service must be without objective commercial justification; and that it was necessary that a remedy could be crafted which ensure that the relevant product was provided on the ongoing basis, at appropriate terms and conditions--Held, Mills, in the case, having abused its dominant position by refusing to deal with customers in violation of S.3(3) (g) of Competition Ordinance, 2007, penalty of Rs.25 millions, would be an appropriate penalty to be imposed on Mills.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=2", + "Case #": "File No. 3/DIR(M&TA)/PSM/CCP/09 dated decided on 22-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID AZIZ MIRZA, CHAIRMAN\nMS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STEEL MILL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 630 = 2010 SLD 630 = 2010 CLD 1160", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969)--S. 18-A---Submission of fictitious and multiple applications for subscription of shares-Confiscation of applications' money---Privatization Commission offered shares to the general public for subscription through the offer for Sale Document, wherein it was clearly stated that fictitious and multiple applications (more than one application by a single applicant) were prohibited; and such applications' money would be liable to confiscation under S.18-A of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969---Preliminary examination of applications submitted in that respect raised the suspicion that most of the applications submitted through the Bank were made in violation of S.18-A of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969; it was observed that 94 applications were made from one single address and most of said applications contained such Bank account numbers which were mentioned in other applications as well---Applicants' signatures affixed on most of the applications varied from those affixed on their respective CNICs---Representative of applicants, admitted that submission of applications for subscription of shares with false particulars like false Bank account number was a mistake, but it was due to unawareness of law; it was, in circumstances fully established that submission of said applications was fraudulent, collusive and in pre-arranged scheme, made and implemented with the help of some employees of the Bank in violation of S.18-A of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969---Said applications being fictitious, subscription of the same was confiscated under S. 18-A(2) of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=18", + "Case #": "SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES 1969, decision dated: 30-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR M. KHAN AFRIDI, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 631 = 2010 SLD 631 = 2010 CLD 1175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)--Ss. 3, 4, 5 & 9-Defamatory suit---Plaintiff claimed Rs.20,00,000 as damages alleging that the defendant had published false news items in the newspaper damaging his reputation and professional performance-Trial Court decreed the suit awarding Rs.500,000 as damages directing the defendant to publish apology for and contradiction of the false news within fifteen days, failing which plaint would be entitled to remaining Rs.15,00,000 of the amount claimed-Defendant contended that publication of the apology had dissolved his liability to pay Rs.500,000 as damages awarded by the Trial Court-Validity-Defendant's contention that the publication of apology had entitled him to the defence provided by S.5(e) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was not maintainable because the defendant published apology only after the had been passed by the Trial Court, so the same could not be regarded as a proper apology offered to be tendered and published voluntarily---Defendant published apology to save him from payment of the hefty amount of Rs.1500,000 awarded as portion of damages---Apology tendered in pursuance of of the court to avoid payment of alternative damages could not be termed a proper apology as envisaged in S.5(e) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002---Plaintiffs case for damages was proved beyond shadow of doubt---Defendant could not produce any evidence to prove the veracity of allegations levelled against the plaintiff in the news items--Publication of news items constituted defamation, appeal therefore, was dismissed. \n \n(b) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)---\n \n----S. 5(e)--'Proper apology'---Validity---In order to set up the defence of proper apology under S.5(e) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, offer to tender and publish apology must be voluntary---Apology tendered and published under court order / in order to avoid payment of damages could not be termed a proper apology as envisaged in S.5(e) of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)=3", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.180 of 2008, heard on 26-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nMIAN SHAHID IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwaar ul Haq Pannun for Appellant.\nSultan Mahmood Dar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAO DIL JAN KHAN \nVS\n DR. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 632 = 2010 SLD 632 = 2010 CLD 1182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art.199---Constitutional petition relating to contractual matters-Maintainability-Pre-conditions stated.\n \nIssue relating to contracts can be agitated in constitutional jurisdiction. However, the condition precedent for such a judicial review, is where the impugned order or an action or in-action is based on mala fide, against the principles of transparency and it does not have any contentious contested question of fact determinable from the record of the case. \n \n(b) North-West Frontier Province Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Rules, 2003---\n \n---R.29-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), 199-Constitutional petition-Maintainability-Tendering, evaluation of tenders or award of contract in violation of North-West Frontier Province Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Rules, 2003-Such violation could be validly agitated in constitutional jurisdiction. \n \n(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n---Art.199---Constitutional petition-Maintainability-Consti­tutional petition containing allegation of mala fide Proof-Mala fide must be alleged against a named person and shown from record without recording of evidence, otherwise such petition would become non-maintainable-Principles.\n \nIn regard to alleged mala fide, the petitioner has to firstly allege the mala fide against an individual, who has to be clearly named in the petition. Secondly, he has to, from the record, show clearly without there being any need to record evidence that the individual has committed the alleged mala fide. Alleging mala fide is a double edged weapon. It can very easily throw the petition out of the realm of maintainability, as proving mala fide is difficult. In case the mala fide cannot be proved from the record, then the need for recording of evidence comes in and in such eventuality the petition cannot proceed in constitutional jurisdiction. The matter would then have to be resolved and adjudicated by an ordinary civil court of competent jurisdiction. \n \n(d) North-West Frontier Province Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Rules, 2003---R.29---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Constitutional petition--Bids invited for supply of buses---Committee constituted to assess market price and after sale service of bidders---Technical evaluation of engine of buses offered by bidders through Engineering University---Rejection of petitioner's lowest bid by Tender Accepting Authority on basis of reports submitted by such Committee and Engineering University and awarding contract to respondent for supply of buses---Petitioner's plea that reasons in writing for rejection of his bid had not been conveyed to him---Validity---Authority after reviewing such reports had given valid reasons for rejecting lowest bid of petitioner and accepting bid of respondent---Authority had complied with principles of natural justice---Petitioner had not filed counter-affidavit rebutting reports of technical experts, thus, could not dispute correctness thereof--Petitioner, if wanted to challenge such reports, would be required to produce evidence--High Court dismissed constitutional petition in limine. \n \nIttehad Cargo Service's case PLD 2001 SC 116; Airport Service's case 1998 SCMR 2268; Pak Steel Mill's case 2007 SCMR 190; Mian Fazal Din's case PLD 1969 SC 223; Preston Products's case CLC 2001 1412 and Arshad's case 2000 SCMR 1557 ref.\n \n(e) North-West Frontier Province Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Rules, 2003---\n \n--Rs.29(2) --Requirement of giving reasons in writing while rejecting lowest bid---Scope---Such requirement postulated assertions of principles of natural justice, which must be duly complied with.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "North West Frontier Province Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Rules, 2003=29", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.679 of 2010, decision dated: 8-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE\nYAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Jawed Ihsanullah for Appellant.\nIshaq Ali Qazi and Fazal ur Rehman A.A.G. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AFZAL MOTORS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR \nVS\nQazi Jawed Ihsanullah for --Appellant." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 633 = 2010 SLD 633 = 2010 CLD 1190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Non-disclosure of Changes in CEO Remuneration Terms\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nNon-compliance with disclosure requirements under the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nFacts:\nA company failed to disclose changes in terms affecting the remuneration of its CEO in its Directors' Report. The company appealed against a penalty of Rs. 5000.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 218(1) requires disclosure of any variations in terms of CEO appointment.\no\nMere mention of remuneration without specifics does not fulfill the statutory obligation.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed as the company failed to meet the legal requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=218", + "Case #": "Appeal No.10 of 2010, decision dated: 18-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PLATINUM INSURANCE COMPANY LTD \nVS\n DIRECTOR (INSURANCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 634 = 2010 SLD 634 = 2010 CLD 1194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Trading by Directors Without Reporting Gains\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFailure to report share transactions and tender gains to the company.\n•\nFacts:\nThe CEO of a listed company earned gains from share transactions but did not report or deposit the gains with the company or SECP. The SECP imposed penalties, and the CEO appealed.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 224 requires reporting of transactions and tendering gains.\no\nThe SECP may vest gains with itself if the company fails to recover them.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, and the penalty upheld for non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=222", + "Case #": "Appeal No.18 of 2010, decision dated: 30-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant in Person. \nImran Inayat Butt, Director (SMD) for the Respondent Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM MUHAMMAD MALKANI \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SMD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 635 = 2010 SLD 635 = 2010 CLD 1998", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Withdrawal of Suit Involving Alleged Fraud\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiffs sought withdrawal of a suit after allegations of fraud.\n•\nFacts:\nPlaintiffs sought withdrawal of a declaration suit against a bank but were accused of fraud in securing finance facilities.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nWithdrawal is restricted where fraud is alleged (CPC O.XXIII, R.1).\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court dismissed the suit, barring withdrawal due to fraud allegations.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No.37 and C.M.No.357 of 2010, decision dated: 29-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawar-ul-Islam, for the Applicants/Plaintiffs.\nKhawaja Haris for the Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HARRIS STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ANOTHER \nVS\n BANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 636 = 2010 SLD 636 = 2010 CLD 1207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Assets by an Insurance Company in Violation of Law\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFailure to transfer assets in the corporate name.\n•\nFacts:\nAn insurance company failed to provide title documents for assets purchased. SECP imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 million.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 39 mandates keeping assets in the corporate name.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe penalty was upheld as the company failed to meet statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=156", + "Case #": "Appeal No.8 of 2010, decision dated: 30-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PLATINUM INSURANCE COMPANY LTD \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 637 = 2010 SLD 637 = 2010 CLD 1210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Investment in Associated Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInvestment without passing a special resolution.\n•\nFacts:\nA company extended abnormal trade credit to an associated company without shareholder approval, causing losses.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 208 requires shareholder approval for such investments.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe penalty was upheld for violating statutory obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2 of 2010, decision dated: 30-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui for the Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD OMAR AMIN BAWANY AND 5 OTHERS \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 638 = 2010 SLD 638 = 2010 CLD 1214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Hold Annual General Meetings\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRepeated defaults in holding AGMs.\n•\nFacts:\nA company failed to hold AGMs for consecutive years, depriving shareholders of statutory rights.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 158 requires AGMs for shareholder transparency.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties were imposed on directors personally for wilful default.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.60-E, 60-F and 60-G of 2006, decision dated: 13-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Pervaiz Tahir for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SERVICE FABRICS LIMITED AND 7 OTHERS \nVS\n DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 639 = 2010 SLD 639 = 2010 CLD 1218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Prepare and Transmit Quarterly Accounts\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDelays in submitting quarterly financials.\n•\nFacts:\nThe company failed to meet reporting deadlines. SECP imposed penalties of Rs. 60,000 per director and Rs. 100,000 on the CEO.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 245 ensures timely disclosure of financial performance.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties were upheld for habitual non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.60-A, 60-B, 60-C, 60-D and 70 of 2006 , decision dated: 13-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SALMAN ALI SHAIKH, CHAIRMAN\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Pervaiz Tahir for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAROOQ HAMEED, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 6 OTHERS\nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 640 = 2010 SLD 640 = 2010 CLD 1221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Enquiry on Complaint Under Competition Ordinance\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nProcedural fairness in dismissing a complaint.\n•\nFacts:\nA complaint dismissed based on an inquiry without giving the complainant a hearing.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nNatural justice requires a hearing before dismissal of complaints.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appellate bench emphasized the need for procedural fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2009=4", + "Case #": "Appeal No.14 of 2009, decision dated: 16-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA, CHAIRMAN\nRAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Raheel Kamran Sheikh for the Appellant. \nAmer Raza Naqvi for Shahzad Trade Links.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FECTO BELARUS TRACTORS (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 641 = 2010 SLD 641 = 2010 CLD 1228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Deceptive Market Practices by an Insurance Company\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nMisleading policyholders through deceptive marketing.\n•\nFacts:\nAn insurance company engaged in misleading marketing practices, failing to disclose necessary information.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 76 prohibits misleading practices.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe penalty was upheld, with instructions to recalculate fines under statutory limits.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=76", + "Case #": "Appeal No.63 of 2009, decision dated: 30-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashraf Ali Siddiqui, Muhammad Umer and Sameer -ud-Din Ali Khan for Appellant.\nNasreen Rashid, Executive Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAKAFUL PAKISTAN LTD \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 642 = 2010 SLD 642 = 2010 CLD 1234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Transfer of Shares of a Deceased CEO\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nForged transfer of inherited shares.\n•\nFacts:\nA complainant alleged that shares of her deceased father were illegally transferred.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDe-registration of transfer forms was upheld, preserving the complainant’s rights.\n•\nConclusion:\nParties were directed to seek remedies through civil courts.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=79", + "Case #": "Appeal No.1 of 2009, decision dated: 18-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Humera Ehsan for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. BUSHRA EHSAN AND ANOTHER \nVS\n REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 643 = 2010 SLD 643 = 2010 CLD 1237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Submit Quarterly Accounts\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nContinuous non-compliance with reporting obligations.\n•\nFacts:\nDirectors failed to submit quarterly accounts and did not appear for hearings.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 245 penalizes wilful non-compliance.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties were upheld against directors.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeal No.19 of 2005, decision dated: 15-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (ID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALID SURAJ BAJWA AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (CLD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 644 = 2010 SLD 644 = 2010 CLD 1240", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Inspection of Books of Accounts\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAdministrative orders for inspection.\n•\nFacts:\nThe SECP ordered inspection of accounts under Section 231.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInspection orders are fact-finding processes and not prejudicial.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed as inspection orders were administrative.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=231", + "Case #": "Appeal No.37 of 2008, decision dated: 15-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafiq Ahmad for the Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 645 = 2010 SLD 645 = 2010 CLD 1243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Pleadings\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDetermining real questions of controversy.\n•\nFacts:\nA court allowed amendments to pleadings to address substantive issues.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAmendments should be granted to clarify material questions.\n•\nConclusion:\nAmendments were upheld as necessary for justice.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-94 of 2001 and C.M.A. No.4652 of 2009, decision dated: 3rd September, 2010. dates of hearing: 28-04-28-05-3rd and 4-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar Alam for the Plaintiff.\nMansoorul Arfin for the Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD \nVS\n MESSRS BELA AUTOMOTIVES LTD. AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 646 = 2010 SLD 646 = 2010 CLD 1265", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Reinsurance Treaty with a Fake Corporation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFraudulent reinsurance arrangements.\n•\nFacts:\nAn insurance company maintained non-existent reinsurance treaties.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCompliance with reinsurance requirements is mandatory.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe penalty of Rs. 1 million was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=158", + "Case #": "Appeal No.11 of 2010, decision dated: 18-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atir Aqeel Ansari for the Appellant.\nMs. Nasreen Rashid, Executive Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PLATINUM INSURANCE COMPANY LTD \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 647 = 2010 SLD 647 = 2010 CLD 1268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Hold AGM\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRepeated failure to comply with AGM requirements.\n•\nFacts:\nThe company cited non-finalization of accounts as the reason for delay.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors must take action against auditors for delays.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalty was imposed on directors for negligence.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Appeal No.9 of 2006, decision dated: 14-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "PETITIONERSSHEHRYAR SAEED, CHAIRMAN/CEO AND 6 OTHERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Furkan Ali for the Appellant.\nTariq Bakhtawar, Director (Enforcement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEHRYAR SAEED, CHAIRMAN/CEO AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\n DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 648 = 2010 SLD 648 = 2010 CLD 1271", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Prohibited Agreements by Banks\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAnti-competitive agreements.\n•\nFacts:\nBanks colluded to introduce a new savings account product.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 4 prohibits agreements that restrict competition.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties were imposed, though reduced on compliance assurance.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=4", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.1-10 of 2008, decision dated: 10-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "APPEALS FILED BY PAKISTAN BANKS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS NO.4(1) /REG/BANKS/CCP/2008" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 649 = 2010 SLD 649 = 2010 CLD 1303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Collusive Behavior in Setting Newspaper Prices\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPrice-fixing agreements.\n•\nFacts:\nA press association set minimum prices for newspapers.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 4 prohibits price-fixing agreements.\n•\nConclusion:\nNo penalties were imposed due to voluntary compliance but future violations were warned.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=4,30,37", + "Case #": "File No.6/Sec-3/CCP/08, decision dated: 23rd April, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MALEEHA MIMI BANGASH, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALL PAKISTAN NEWSPAPER SOCIETYS SUB-COMMITTEE ON COVER PRICES AND ALL PAKISTAN AKHBAR FAROSH FEDERATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 650 = 2010 SLD 650 = 2010 CLD 1337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Scheme of Arrangement Between Two Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApproval of merger schemes.\n•\nFacts:\nA merger scheme was presented with no objections raised.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 284 allows mergers with court approval.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe scheme was approved.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "J.M.No.01 of 2010, decision dated: 12th August. 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar-ud-Din F. Vellani for Petitioners.\nSyed Imran Ali Shamsi, Law Officer for SECP", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD. and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 651 = 2010 SLD 651 = 2010 CLD 1339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Anti-competitive Insurance Practices\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTying insurance products with travel services.\n•\nFacts:\nA travel association colluded with an insurer to bundle products.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSections 3 and 4 prohibit tying and deceptive practices.\n•\nConclusion:\nAgreements were declared void, and penalties imposed.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2009=10", + "Case #": "File No. 9/M(A&R) / CAA-TAAP / CCP/ 2007 decided on 29-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TAKAFUL PAKISTAN LIMITED AND TRAVEL AGENT ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 652 = 2010 SLD 652 = 2010 CLD 1377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Stock Exchanges Setting Price Floors\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nArtificial restriction on securities trading.\n•\nFacts:\nStock exchanges set price floors for securities, restricting trading volumes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 4 prohibits anti-competitive practices.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties were imposed, reduced on compliance assurance.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=4", + "Case #": "Appeal, decision dated: 26-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA (CHAIRMAN)\nMS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LTD\nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 653 = 2010 SLD 653 = 2010 CLD 1410", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "Placing/ Fixing a Price Floor for Securities\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nProhibited agreements and price-fixing under competition law.\n•\nFacts: Three undertakings placed a price floor on trading prices for securities. The Competition Commission held this as a violation of Section 4(1) of the Competition Ordinance, 2007. Penalties of Rs. 6 million, Rs. 1 million, and Rs. 200,000 were imposed on the respective parties.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAgreements to fix prices, whether horizontal or vertical, violate competition law unless exempted under Section 5.\no\n Object in Section 4 refers to the purpose of the agreement in its economic context.\n•\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed, considering the nascent stage of the competition regime in Pakistan.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=5", + "Case #": "No.1/Dir(Inv)KSE/CCP/08) decided on 18-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfar, Haider Waheed and Rafique Umer, Company Secretary for Karachi Stock Exchange.\nSalman Raja and Waqqas Ahmad Mir for Lahore Stock Exchange.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE, LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE AND ISLAMABAD STOCK EXCHANGE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 654 = 2010 SLD 654 = 2010 CLD 1454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Deceptive Marketing Practices by Banks\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nMisleading advertisements of deposit accounts and profit rates.\n•\nFacts: Banks advertised profit rates calculated on flawed formulas, misleading consumers. The Competition Commission deemed the practice deceptive but took a lenient approach, warning the banks instead of imposing penalties.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 10 applies to deceptive marketing of both goods and services.\no\nMisleading advertisements affecting consumer choices constitute a violation.\n•\nConclusion: Banks were warned to provide accurate, clear, and standardized information in future advertisements.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=10", + "Case #": "No.2(9)/Dir(L)/CCP/2008, decision dated: 14-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL/OFT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Hasan Ali Rana, SVP and Syed Nasik Ijaz, AVP for Askari Bank Ltd.\nAli Almani for Habib Bank Ltd" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 655 = 2010 SLD 655 = 2010 CLD 1478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Misleading Telecom Advertisements\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFalse and misleading advertisement claims by telecom companies.\n•\nFacts: Telecom companies advertised low call rates and packages without specifying details, misleading consumers. The Commission reprimanded the companies but did not impose penalties since the advertisements were withdrawn post-notice.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 10 prohibits false or misleading advertisements likely to deceive consumers.\no\nOmission of critical information constitutes a violation.\n•\nConclusion: The companies were warned against future violations.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=10", + "Case #": "File No.2(1) / Dir.(L)CCP / 2008) and File No.2(6) / Dir(L) / CCP/2008, decision dated: 29-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL & OFT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHINA MOBILE PAK LIMITED AND MESSRS PAKISTAN TELECOM MOBILE LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 656 = 2010 SLD 656 = 2010 CLD 1507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Pollution: Hazardous Industrial Activity\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLeakage of ammonia gas from an ice factory in a residential area.\n•\nFacts: The factory was accused of emitting hazardous ammonia gas. The tribunal found the activity unsafe for a residential area but acquitted the accused due to procedural lapses in evidence collection.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nHazardous industrial activities cannot operate in residential zones.\no\nEnvironmental hazards are assessed based on evidence and public safety concerns.\n•\nConclusion: Industrial activities using ammonia gas should not be allowed in residential areas.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No.2 of 2009, decision dated: 24-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, CHAIRPERSON\nDR. SAMI-UZ-ZAMAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL\nABDUL KARIM MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Ali Effendi for the Complainant. Raza Hashmi for the accused Amanullah. Abdul Maroof, DDPP for the EPA, Sindh", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL KARIM MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL\n SARFRAZ KHAN \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 657 = 2010 SLD 657 = 2010 CLD 1519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "Violation of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTrades conducted solely for generating brokerage commissions.\n•\nFacts: A company engaged in circular trading to generate commissions, violating the Code of Conduct. The SECP imposed a penalty of Rs. 600,000.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCircular trading misleads investors and disrupts market fairness.\no\nViolations of Section 22 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance warrant penalties.\n•\nConclusion: The penalty was upheld, with directions for strict future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause-Notice No.1(01)KSE /MSW/SMD-South/2009 /07, dated 6-08-2009 decided on 24-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASB SECURITIES (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 658 = 2010 SLD 658 = 2010 CLD 1529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decree: Service of Notice on Wrong Address\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSetting aside an ex parte decree due to improper service of notice.\n•\nFacts: Notices were served at an incorrect address, leading to an ex parte decree. The decree was set aside, and the defendant was granted leave to defend.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProper service of notice is essential for legal proceedings.\n•\nConclusion: The ex parte decree was set aside, and the defendant was allowed to defend.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "J.M.No.34 of 2008 and C.M.A. No.339 of 2009, decision dated: 24-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Emad ul Hasan for Applicants.\nS. Wahid Ali for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHYBER TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS \nVS\n INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 659 = 2010 SLD 659 = 2010 CLD 1531", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Scrutiny of Company Accounts\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAllegations of embezzlement in a family-owned company.\n•\nFacts: A shareholder sought scrutiny of accounts due to alleged embezzlement. The High Court directed the SECP to appoint an auditor to investigate.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 265 permits investigations into company affairs upon prima facie evidence.\n•\nConclusion: The SECP was directed to appoint an auditor for scrutiny.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=188", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Petition No.30 of 2009, C.M.As. Nos.722, 723 and 930 of 2009, decision dated: 26-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar Alam for the Petitioner.\nEmadul Hasan for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SARFARAZ QUADRI \nVS\n MESSRS LIGHT METAL AND RUBBER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 660 = 2010 SLD 660 = 2010 CLD 1541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Malicious Prosecution\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDamages for wrongful criminal proceedings.\n•\nFacts: A suit for malicious prosecution was filed beyond the one-year limitation period. The suit was dismissed as time-barred.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLimitation for malicious prosecution suits is one year from the date of acquittal.\n•\nConclusion: The suit was dismissed for being time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11", + "Case #": "Suit No.385 of 1996, decision dated: 31st August, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Plaintiffs.\nGhulam Murtaza for the Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAIDER LADHU JAFFER AND ANOTHER \nVS\n HABIB BANK LTD. THROUGH PRESIDENT AND 10 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 661 = 2010 SLD 661 = 2010 CLD 1550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Quality Control Review of Chartered Accountants\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDecision to conduct a review earlier than usual.\n•\nFacts: The Quality Assurance Board decided to conduct a review after one year instead of 2.5 years. The High Court upheld the decision, emphasizing public interest and professional standards.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProfessional reviews are necessary to ensure high standards.\n•\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed for lack of evidence of mala fide intentions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961=15", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.17037 of 2009, heard on 6-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muhammad Waheed Akhtar for Appellant.\nAnwar Kamal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAMEED KHAN & CO. (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS) THROUGH PARTNER \nVS\n INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN THROUGH REGIONAL DIRECTOR NORTH AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 662 = 2010 SLD 662 = 2010 CLD 1555", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Environmental Complaint\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nProcedural lapses and locus standi in filing environmental complaints.\n•\nFacts: An environmental complaint was filed against a company without statutory notice. The tribunal decided to proceed with evidence, emphasizing public interest.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProcedural lapses do not bar public interest cases.\n•\nConclusion: The tribunal dismissed the application for dismissal of the complaint.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No.2 of 2010, decision dated: 29-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JOHAN, CHAIRPERSON\nDR. SAMI UZ ZAMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui for the Complainant.\nJamshed Malik for the Respondent No. 1.\nAbdul Maroof, DDPP for the EPA, Sindh", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED. HAROON AHMED \nVS\n MESSRS DADEX ETERNIT LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 663 = 2010 SLD 663 = 2010 CLD 1563", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "Conditional Leave to Defend Recovery Suit\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBanking Court discretion in granting conditional leave.\n•\nFacts: A recovery suit required the defendant to furnish a surety bond for leave to defend. The High Court upheld the condition as lawful.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 10(9) of the Financial Institutions Ordinance allows conditional leave.\n•\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed, affirming the Banking Court's order.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2390 of 2004, decision dated: 12-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Muhammad Farooq for the Petitioner.\nMuhammad Aslam Arain for Respondent No. 1.\nAbdul Qayyum Khan for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SARA FASHION GARMENTS (PVT) LTD \nVS\n ALBARAKA ISLAMIC BANK AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 664 = 2010 SLD 664 = 2010 CLD 1565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Duties of an Official Liquidator\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInvestigation of creditor claims by a liquidator.\n•\nFacts: The liquidator failed to investigate and document creditor claims properly. The High Court directed a proper investigation and submission of a compliant report.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRule 863 of Sindh Chief Court Rules mandates liquidators to verify claims.\n•\nConclusion: The reference was disposed of with directions for compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=333", + "Case #": "J.M. No.17 of 2005, decision dated: 17-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: Messrs PIMA FOODS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 665 = 2010 SLD 665 = 2010 CLD 1572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL): Status and Appointment of President\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLegal status of ZTBL post-reorganization.\no\nApproval for the appointment of the bank president.\no\nMaintainability of a writ of quo warranto.\n•\nFacts: ZTBL, as the successor of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, retained its status as a scheduled bank under the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956. The court invalidated the appointment of the ZTBL president, citing lack of approval from the State Bank of Pakistan and failure to meet the qualification requirements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nZTBL remains subject to banking regulations and State Bank oversight.\no\nPresidential appointments require State Bank clearance under Section 11(3)(a) of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974.\no\nWrits of quo warranto address public interest, ensuring lawful appointments in public offices.\n•\nConclusion: The president’s appointment was declared unlawful for violating banking regulations and qualifications.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=37", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2947 of 2009, decision dated: 27-08-2010, hearing DATE : 28-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ASAD MUNIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Ahmad Naeem Qureshi for Appellant.\nCh. Imtiaz Ahmad for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHATTAK \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 666 = 2011 SLD 666 = 2011 CLD 1575", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Act: Price Fixing in Shipping Services\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nProhibited agreements and price fixing.\no\nRole of trade associations in competitive practices.\n•\nFacts: The Pakistan Ship's Agents Association was penalized for fixing ancillary service charges. Despite cooperative conduct, a nominal penalty of Rs. 1 million was imposed, with directives for compliance to prevent future violations.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPrice-fixing agreements contravene Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2010.\no\nAssociations must avoid collusive practices to ensure free market competition.\n•\nConclusion: A nominal penalty was imposed with instructions to adhere to competition regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=4", + "Case #": "File No. 08/APPMA/CMTA/CCP/10/1709, decision dated: 22-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR, (MEMBER)\nMUEEN BATLAY (MEMBER)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN SHIPS AGENTS ASSOCIATION: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 667 = 2010 SLD 667 = 2010 CLD 1586", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "Cement Industry Price Collusion\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAnti-competitive agreements in the cement industry.\no\nLegality of forcible entry and search by the Competition Commission.\n•\nFacts: Cement manufacturers colluded to raise prices by Rs. 15-20 per bag. The Competition Commission conducted a lawful search, despite resistance, and imposed penalties amounting to 7.5% of turnover.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCollusion to fix output or prices violates Section 4 of the Competition Ordinance, 2007.\no\nSection 34 empowers the Commission to search premises without prior notice if resistance is anticipated.\n•\nConclusion: Penalties were imposed to deter future violations and ensure compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2007=4", + "Case #": "F.No.4/2/Sec.4/CCP/2008, decision dated: 27-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA (CHAIRMAN)\nMS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Askari Cement LTD.Wah." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 668 = 2010 SLD 668 = 2010 CLD 1648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Territorial Jurisdiction in Constitutional Petitions\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nJurisdiction of High Courts in cases of public procurement and service agreements.\n•\nFacts: The Trading Corporation of Pakistan bypassed open bidding in procuring stevedoring services for Gwadar Port, leading to a constitutional petition. The court directed a review of procurement procedures under public procurement laws.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nHigh Courts have jurisdiction where the aggrieved authority resides.\no\nPublic procurement must adhere to principles of transparency and competitive bidding.\n•\nConclusion: The petition was upheld, directing compliance with procurement rules.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=20", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous No.8786 of 2010 in C.P.No.D-2138, decision dated: 23rd August, 2010, hearing DATE : 12-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioners.\nMazhar Jafri for Respondent No. 2.\nAnwar Mansoor Khan for Respondent No. 3. \nMian Khan Malik, D.A.G. Hasan Akber for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "A.R. KHAN & SONS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND 3 OTHERS \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 669 = 2010 SLD 669 = 2010 CLD 1675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Beneficial Shareholders and EGM Proceedings\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLocus standi of beneficial shareholders.\no\nValidity of Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) proceedings.\n•\nFacts: A trust challenged the validity of an EGM. The court dismissed the petition, holding that beneficial shareholders lacked locus standi under the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBeneficial shareholders are not considered members under Section 148.\no\nMaterial defects in notice or proceedings are required for intervention.\n•\nConclusion: The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to meet statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.41 of 2009, decision dated: 25-08-2010, hearing DATE : 19-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Petitioners.\nImtiaz Rasheed Siddique and Barrister Qadir Baldish for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL INVESTMENT TRUST LTD. AND ANOTHER \nVS\n CRESCENT TEXTILES MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 670 = 2010 SLD 670 = 2010 CLD 1690", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment in Associated Companies Without Special Resolution\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRequirement of shareholder approval for investments.\no\nImposition of penalties for violations.\n•\nFacts: A company invested in an associated undertaking without a special resolution, violating Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance. The SECP imposed penalties, which were upheld on appeal.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 208 mandates shareholder approval through a special resolution for investments.\no\nBoard resolutions cannot substitute special resolutions.\n•\nConclusion: The penalty was upheld to ensure compliance with corporate governance norms.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.4 of 2010, decision dated: 30-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asad Ali Shah and Ghulam Farooq for Appellants.\nAmina Aziz Joint Director, Enforcement for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD M. ISMAIL, CHAIRMAN AND 7 OTHERS \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 671 = 2010 SLD 671 = 2010 CLD 1695", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Deceptive Marketing by Shampoo Manufacturer\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFalse claims in advertising.\no\nEnforcement of consumer protection under the Competition Ordinance.\n•\nFacts: A shampoo manufacturer claimed its product rendered hair 100% dandruff free, which was deemed deceptive. The Commission directed modifications in advertising and imposed potential penalties for non-compliance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFalse advertising violates Section 10 of the Competition Ordinance, 2009.\no\nClaims must be substantiated with scientific evidence.\n•\nConclusion: The manufacturer was directed to amend its advertising practices.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Ordinance, 2009=10", + "Case #": "File No. 3(1)/DIR(L)/CCP/2009 decided on 23rd February, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL/OFT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehmood Y. Mandviwalla, Taimur Ali Mirza, Usman Muneer and Qaiser Shareef for P&G", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: MESSRS PROCTOR AND GAMBLE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED (HEAD AND SHOULDERS SHAMPOO)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 672 = 2010 SLD 672 = 2010 CLD 1716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Mismanagement of Security Deposits\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nNon-compliance with obligations for security deposit management.\no\nImposition of penalties under the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nFacts: A company failed to deposit security funds in a separate account, contravening Section 226 of the Companies Ordinance. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000 on appeal.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 226 requires separate accounts for security deposits.\no\nPenalties should align with specific violations.\n•\nConclusion: The penalty was modified and upheld to ensure accountability.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=226", + "Case #": "Appeal No.44 of 2007, decision dated: 18-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafiq Ahmad for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.A. JAMEEL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 673 = 2010 SLD 673 = 2010 CLD 1722", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Transmit Quarterly Accounts\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nObligation to submit quarterly accounts.\no\nLiability of directors for non-compliance.\n•\nFacts: Directors failed to transmit quarterly accounts, resulting in penalties. The court dismissed the appeal, holding directors personally liable.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 245 mandates timely submission of quarterly accounts.\no\nDirectors are accountable for compliance, even during liquidation.\n•\nConclusion: Penalties on directors were upheld for ensuring statutory compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeal No.30 of 2008, decision dated: 14-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nisar Ahmed and Abdul Hamad for the Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALTAF HUSSAIN AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 674 = 2010 SLD 674 = 2010 CLD 1725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Provident Fund Mismanagement by a Company\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nNon-deposit of provident fund amounts.\no\nUse of provident funds as loans for company operations.\n•\nFacts:\nThe company and its directors failed to deposit employees' provident fund as mandated under Section 227 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The provident fund was used for company operations. The court imposed penalties on the company and directors.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 227 protects employees' provident funds to ensure their security.\no\nLoans from provident funds violate mandatory legal provisions.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties were upheld to emphasize the importance of compliance with provident fund regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227", + "Case #": "Appeal No.8 of 2006, decision dated: 14-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Furkan Ali for the Appellants.\nTariq Bakhtawar, Director (Enforcement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEHRYAR SAEED, CHAIRMAN/CEO AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\n DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 675 = 2010 SLD 675 = 2010 CLD 1729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment Without Special Resolution\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInvestment in associated companies without shareholder approval.\no\nNon-compliance with Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nFacts:\nThe company invested Rs. 24.1 million in an associated entity but only obtained shareholder approval for Rs. 20 million. The remaining Rs. 9.103 million was unapproved. Penalties were imposed on the company and its directors.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 208 mandates prior approval via special resolution for investments in associated companies.\no\nPost facto approvals do not comply with the law.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties were justified to enforce corporate governance standards.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.45 of 2007 , decision dated: 14-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nisar Ahmad and Abdul Hamad for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAHIR A. KHAN \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 676 = 2010 SLD 676 = 2010 CLD 1733", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Misstatements in Annual Accounts\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSubmission of false and misleading audited accounts.\no\nFraudulent activity by the management.\n•\nFacts:\nThe company submitted unaudited accounts while claiming they were audited. This misrepresentation constituted fraudulent behavior, and penalties were enhanced to Rs. 500,000.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMisstatements in financial reporting undermine trust and violate fiduciary duties.\no\nFraudulent omissions in financial disclosures attract significant penalties.\n•\nConclusion:\nEnhanced penalties emphasized the seriousness of compliance with financial regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=231", + "Case #": "Appeal No.9 of 2010, decision dated: 18-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "S. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL DAYALA, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atir Aqeel Ansari for the Appellant.\nMs. Nasreen Rashid, Executive Director for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PLATINUM INSURANCE COMPANY LTD \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 677 = 2010 SLD 677 = 2010 CLD 1737", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Contempt Jurisdiction and Corporate Communications\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWhether publication of a legal opinion in a corporate report constitutes contempt.\no\nScope of contempt jurisdiction.\n•\nFacts:\nRespondents published a legal opinion in their annual report during ongoing litigation. The court dismissed the contempt application, finding no intention to obstruct justice.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nContempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised for serious infractions.\no\nLegal opinions, unless prejudicial, do not obstruct justice.\n•\nConclusion:\nContempt was not established, and the application was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "J.M. No.25 and C.M.A. No.1090 of 2009, decision dated: 30-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Munshi and Abdullah Munshi for Petitioner No. 1.\nArshad Tayyabali and Muhammad Shahid for Petitioner No. 2.\nKhalid Anwar for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.\nMakhdoom Ali Khan for Respondent No. 5.\nKh. Shoaib Memon for Respondent.\nEjaz Ahmed for the Respondent No. 9.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SIRAJ KASSAM TELI AND OTHERS \nVS\n BASHIR ALI MUHAMMAD AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 678 = 2010 SLD 678 = 2010 CLD 1757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Submit Required Financial Reports\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nNon-compliance with submission requirements for financial reports.\n•\nFacts:\nThe company failed to submit annual reports and AGM notices within the stipulated time. Penalties of Rs. 5,000 each were imposed on the Chief Executive and the Financial Controller.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nListed companies are obligated to comply with reporting requirements.\no\nToken penalties are appropriate for first-time violations with assurances of future compliance.\n•\nConclusion:\nPenalties served as a deterrent against non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=246", + "Case #": "No.EMD/233/480/2002, dated 22-02-2010, decision dated: 22-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "BAWANYAIR PRODUCTS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 679 = 2010 SLD 679 = 2010 CLD 1762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decree and Fraud Allegations\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nChallenging an ex parte decree based on fraud and misrepresentation.\n•\nFacts:\nThe defendant was not properly served notices for a recovery suit. The court set aside the decree and directed the Banking Court to decide after recording evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProper service of notice is fundamental for legal proceedings.\no\nFraud allegations warrant evidence-based resolution.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded for a fair hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.3 and C.M.As Nos.73-75, 666 of 2009, decision dated: 19-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nMS. SOOFIA SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdus Salam Baloch for Appellant.\nM. Hassan Akbar for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD \nVS\n HABIB BANK LIMITED, KARACHI THROUGH HEAD OFFICE AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 680 = 2010 SLD 680 = 2010 CLD 1765", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Mortgaged Property Without Decree\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLegality of a private sale by a bank under Section 15 of the Financial Institutions Ordinance.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank sold mortgaged properties without a court decree. The High Court declared the sale unconstitutional for violating the fundamental right to property.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nActions affecting property rights must comply with constitutional guarantees.\no\nBanks must follow due process in exercising statutory powers.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe sale was voided, and the bank was directed to comply with legal procedures.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.795 in.W.P.No.8346 of 2009, decision dated: 26-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE\nUMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Mehmood Sheikh and Khalid Mehmood Shad for the Appellants.\nImran Aziz for Respondent Bank.\nMiss Shaista Qaiser, Deputy Attorney General", + "Petitioner Name:": "AF INDUSTRIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY LAW AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 681 = 2010 SLD 681 = 2010 CLD 1770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Unregistered Agent Acting in Securities Trading\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nUnauthorized trading in securities.\n•\nFacts:\nA respondent was accused of trading as an unregistered agent. While evidence did not substantiate the claims, a warning was issued against future violations.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegistration is mandatory for acting as a securities agent.\no\nWarnings are appropriate when violations are unsubstantiated but preventive action is needed.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe respondent and the company were warned to comply with securities laws.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=5", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. SM / LSE-C / 38 / 2009, dated 29-04-2010, decision dated: 8-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHAUKAT HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Babar Mushtaq Khan for Respondent No. 1. Sajid Mahmood Naz for Respondent No. 2.\nTahir Mahmood Kiani, Deputy Director and Asima Wajid, Deputy Director assisting the Director (ICW)", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1888 = 2011 SLD 1888 = 2011 CLD 1774", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Procurement Without Open Bidding\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAward of contracts without competitive bidding.\no\nCompliance with Public Procurement Rules.\n•\nFacts:\nPIA awarded a catering contract without open bidding. The court upheld trial court orders against issuing interim relief and directed the case to proceed expeditiously.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nOpen bidding ensures transparency in public procurement.\no\nInterim relief cannot grant the total relief sought in the main suit.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe case was remanded for detailed adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.998 of 2011, decision dated: 8-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Jawed Ehsanullah for Petitioner.\nAlam Zeb and Zakir Tareen for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GAGGAN CATERING SERVICE\nVS\n MESSRS BALANA RESTAURANT THROUGH AUTHORIZED PARTNER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 682 = 2010 SLD 682 = 2010 CLD 1775", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Irregularities by a Non-Banking Finance Company\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nMisappropriation of public funds.\no\nCancellation of a company’s license.\n•\nFacts:\nA non-banking finance company was found guilty of financial irregularities. Its license was canceled under Section 282-J(2) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFinancial irregularities severely impact public trust and economic stability.\no\nRegulators can cancel licenses to protect stakeholders.\n•\nConclusion:\nLicense cancellation was upheld, and the company faced winding-up proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No. SC/NBFC-1 / NLRL / 2009, dated 13-04-2009, decision dated: 19-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ASIF, JALAL BHATTI, DIRECTOR (NBFCD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATOVER LEASE AND REFINANCE LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 683 = 2010 SLD 683 = 2010 CLD 1783", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Comply With Regulatory Directions\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nNon-compliance with Competition Commission directives.\n•\nFacts:\nCompanies delayed compliance with regulatory directions. The Commission granted an extension with conditions, taking a lenient view.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTimely compliance with regulatory orders is essential.\no\nExtensions can be granted with conditions for genuine delays.\n•\nConclusion:\nAn extension was granted with strict compliance requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=38", + "Case #": "File Nos.8(576)/INV/CCAO/MCA/94 and 8/AC(R&I)/MCA/05 decided on 16-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID A. MIRZA, CHAIRMAN, \nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER (C&M)\nRAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, MEMBER (LEGAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FAUJI FERTILIZER COMPANY LTD. AND FAUJI FERTILIZER BIN QASIM LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 684 = 2010 SLD 684 = 2010 CLD 1792", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Loan and Markup\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nCharging of markup after rolling over loans.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank sought loan recovery but waived markup claims due to objections regarding interest on interest. The suit was decreed for the principal amount only.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCharging markup on rolled-over loans is impermissible.\no\nPrincipal amounts are recoverable when interest is waived.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe decree was granted for the principal amount.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=3", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-39 of 2003, decision dated: 28-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Lakhani, Mukhtar Ahmed and Abdul Majeed Khoso holding brief for Sadaat Yar Khan", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANK OF KHYBER \nVS\n NAZAMUDDIN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 685 = 2010 SLD 685 = 2010 CLD 1795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Pledged Stock Shortages\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLiability of banks for missing pledged stock.\n•\nFacts:\nA borrower alleged stock shortages but failed to provide evidence. The court dismissed the claim for lack of proof.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBorrowers must prove stock shortages to hold banks liable.\no\nDocumentary evidence is crucial for such claims.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe suit was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=20", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-196 of 1995, decision dated: 27-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mukhtar Ahmed Kubar for the Plaintiff.\nGhulam Hussain for the Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MACKS ELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL CO. THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS\n NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 686 = 2010 SLD 686 = 2010 CLD 1798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "Restoration of Dismissed Injunction Application\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nNon-prosecution of an injunction application.\n•\nFacts:\nAn application for interim injunction was dismissed for non-prosecution. The court restored it upon finding valid reasons for the counsel's absence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProcedural lapses can be rectified if valid reasons are provided.\no\nRestoration is subject to costs for accountability.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe application was restored with conditions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=46", + "Case #": "Suit No.1598 of 2009 and C.M.As. Nos.3283, 3284 of 2010, decision dated: 16-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RUKHSANA AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Ahmed Shaikh for the plaintiff.\nMuhammad Shafi Siddiqui for the Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAIKH YOUSUF SHAHID\nVS\n SHAHID NADEEM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 687 = 2010 SLD 687 = 2010 CLD 1802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Scheme of Amalgamation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSanctioning of amalgamation schemes.\no\nObjections regarding authorized share capital.\n•\nFacts:\nTwo companies sought court approval for amalgamation. The court overruled SECP objections and sanctioned the scheme.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAmalgamations follow a one-window operation under Section 287.\no\nStatutory fees paid by merging companies satisfy legal requirements.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe scheme was approved without additional statutory requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=92", + "Case #": "C.O. No.58 of 2009, decision dated: 6-09-2010, hearing DATE : 2-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Moazzam Ali Shah for Petitioners.\nSalman Akram Raja along with Muhammad Saqlain Arshad, Deputy Director SECP", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs OMER IQBAL SOLVENT (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 688 = 2010 SLD 688 = 2010 CLD 1819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Mandatory Statutory Compliance\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nIgnoring mandatory provisions of the law.\n•\nFacts:\nNon-compliance with statutory provisions in winding-up proceedings led to dismissal of a recovery suit.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMandatory provisions must be followed to uphold legislative intent.\no\nNon-compliance renders proceedings void.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe suit was dismissed for non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=333", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-17 of 2005 in C.M.As Nos.7889, 7441 and 7390 of 2005, decision dated: 21st September, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ghanghro for the Plaintiff.\nMushtaq A. Memon for the Defendants 2 to 8.\nQadir Bux Umrani, Official Assignee.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. THROUGH ATTORNEYS AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS SCHON TEXTILE LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 689 = 2010 SLD 689 = 2010 CLD 1827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Liquidity Requirements for Insurance Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nCompliance with financial criteria for mutual insurance companies.\n•\nFacts:\nA mutual insurance company failed to meet liquidity reserve requirements. The court upheld the SECP's demand for Rs. 10 million compliance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFinancial criteria ensure stability in the insurance sector.\no\nStatutory requirements cannot be avoided through interpretation.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, affirming SECP's demand.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Com. Appeal No.2 of 2008, decision dated: 21st May, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rao Qasim Mustafa for the Appellant.\nSalman Akram Raja for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY \nVS\n APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SECP AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 690 = 2010 SLD 690 = 2010 CLD 1829", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Bank-Customer Disputes and ECL Placement\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nMisuse of Exit Control List (ECL) for alleged bank defaulters.\no\nViolation of fundamental rights through discriminatory circulars.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank placed a customer's name on the ECL without a court order, relying on State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) circulars. The High Court declared such circulars illegal, stating that neither SBP nor the federal government could act without court adjudication.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFundamental rights under the Constitution cannot be curtailed by circulars.\no\n Public interest must be substantiated before ECL placement.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court quashed the ECL placement, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.6003 and 6004 of 2010, decision dated: 29-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Ikram Siddiqui for Petitioner.\nRehan Nawaz for Respondent No. 2.\nAhmad Nadeem Kashmiri, Dy. Attorney-General.\nNadeem Saeed for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUNIR AHMAD BHATTI \nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 691 = 2010 SLD 691 = 2010 CLD 1840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Deceptive Marketing Practices\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nUnauthorized use of a trademark.\no\nFraudulent marketing affecting competitors.\n•\nFacts:\nA company used a competitor's trademark in advertisements. The Competition Commission found the violation under Section 10 of the Competition Ordinance, 2010, and imposed a token penalty of Rs. 250,000.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nIgnorance of the law is no excuse.\no\nDeceptive marketing harms fair competition and consumer trust.\n•\nConclusion:\nA penalty was imposed, with a warning against future violations.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=10", + "Case #": "File Nos.3 [REG/COMP/BMW/SEC.10/CCP/09 and 4/REG/COMP/H.D/SEC.10 /CCP/09, decision dated: 16-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhary Tayyab Ali and Chaudhary Tahir Mansoor on behalf of ACE Group of Industries.\nHassan Irfan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Ms. Habeeba Ahmad and Ms. Amina Afzal for the Complainants BMW and Harley Davidson", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 692 = 2010 SLD 692 = 2010 CLD 1856", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal to Register Company Name\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAppropriateness and potential deceptiveness of a proposed company name.\n•\nFacts:\nThe Registrar refused to register the name Fraud Risk Investigation (Pvt.) Ltd. due to concerns over public confusion. The court held that public misunderstanding was insufficient to bar legitimate activities under a lawful name.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nA company name must align with its stated objectives.\no\nRegistration should not be denied based on speculative concerns.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe proposed name was approved for registration.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=15", + "Case #": "Appeal No.6 of 2007 decided on 19-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MALUNOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Habib Ullah Khan for the Appellant.\nMuhammad Musharaf and Ahmad Muzammil, Additional Registrars for Respondent Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL \nVS\n REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 693 = 2010 SLD 693 = 2010 CLD 1862", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Encashment of Insurance Performance Guarantee\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nNon-fulfillment of contractual obligations.\no\nValidity of encashment of guarantees.\n•\nFacts:\nAn insurance company contested the encashment of a performance guarantee, arguing that delays were caused by the complainant. The Ombudsman and SECP upheld the encashment.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGuarantees must be honored if contractual terms are breached.\no\nClaims of contributory default require substantial evidence.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe insurance company was directed to encash the guarantee.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=118", + "Case #": "Appeal No.49 of 2009 decided on 14-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)\nS. TARIQ ASAF HUSAIN, COMMISSIONER (LD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asjad Saeed for the Appellant.\nAli Ibrahim for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD \nVS\n SIALKOT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 694 = 2010 SLD 694 = 2010 CLD 1866", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up Due to Amalgamation Irregularities\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFinancial mismanagement post-amalgamation.\no\nDefault on obligations to depositors.\n•\nFacts:\nFollowing amalgamation, significant financial irregularities endangered the company’s viability. SECP removed the board, canceled licenses, and initiated winding-up proceedings.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegulators have authority to protect stakeholders in cases of gross mismanagement.\no\nAmalgamation terms must be adhered to strictly.\n•\nConclusion:\nWinding-up proceedings were justified to safeguard stakeholders.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SC / NBFC-I / HBL / 2010 decided on 22-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "M. ASIF, JALAL BHATTI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SCD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INNOVATIVE INVESTMENT BANK LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 695 = 2010 SLD 695 = 2010 CLD 1878", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Abuse of Dominant Market Position\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDominance in the packaging industry.\no\nRestrictive practices affecting competition.\n•\nFacts:\nA company was found abusing its dominant position by imposing restrictive conditions on customers. The Competition Commission required amendments to agreements and imposed conditions for compliance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDominant market players must avoid practices that stifle competition.\no\nAmendments to unfair agreements promote market fairness.\n•\nConclusion:\nConditions were imposed to prevent future abuses, with mandatory compliance reporting.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=28", + "Case #": "File Nos.2/DIR(INV)/TETRA PAK/CCP/08, decision dated: 13-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON\nMS. VADIYYA S. KHALIL, MEMBER (M & A)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 501 = 2004 SLD 501 = 2004 CLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmR1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Amalgamation and Merger Principles\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInterpretation of statutory provisions on mergers.\no\nFraud and misrepresentation in amalgamation proceedings.\n•\nFacts:\nA merger was challenged for alleged fraud. The court dismissed the challenge, finding no substantive evidence. It emphasized the binding nature of court-sanctioned schemes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nStatutory requirements for mergers must be strictly followed.\no\nFraud allegations require clear and convincing evidence.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe merger scheme was upheld, and allegations of fraud were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=287", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No. 14-L of 2003, decision dated: 25-11-2003. dates of hearing: 16-09-2nd, 6th, 9th, 13th, 15th, and 20-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD GHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saleem Sahgal for Appellant.\nMunawarusSalam for Respondent No. 1.\nAbid Hussain Chattha and Faisal Maalik Buttar for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL MULTI LEASING COMPANY \nVS\n CAPITAL ASSETS LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 502 = 2004 SLD 502 = 2004 CLD 707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright and Trademark Misuse\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nUnauthorized use of foreign trademarks and designs.\no\nRegistration and assignment of trademarks.\n•\nFacts:\nA company used a foreign trademark without authorization. The court upheld the validity of the original registration and assignment, emphasizing that the Copyright Board could not question registered trademarks.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegistered trademarks are prima facie valid.\no\nUnauthorized copying of designs and trademarks is prohibited.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe misuse of trademarks was condemned, and the registration was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 100 of 2000, heard on 4-04-2002. dates of hearing: 3rd and 4-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Abid for Appellant.\nSaleem Ghulam Hussain for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RIO CHEMICAL COMPANY (REGD.) \nVS\n PAKISTAN DRUG HOUSE (PVT.) LTD. AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 503 = 2004 SLD 503 = 2004 CLD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Dispute Over Borrower's Liability\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nChallenge to a bank's demand notice.\no\nReconciliation of statements of accounts.\n•\nFacts:\nA borrower contested a demand notice of Rs. 36,000 issued by the bank, alleging incorrect calculations. The Banking Court declared the notice illegal, as the bank failed to provide independent evidence or reconcile discrepancies in the statement of accounts.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGeneral clauses in agreements do not suffice as proof of liability.\no\nBanks must provide credible evidence to substantiate claims.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court upheld the borrower’s stance, invalidating the notice due to insufficient evidence from the bank.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.586 of 2001, heard on 17-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR., JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shuja Baba for Appellant.\nSardar Mashkoor Ahmad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER \nVS\n MRS. NAJMA PERVEEN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 504 = 2004 SLD 504 = 2004 CLD 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)---Ss. 5, 9, 10 & 22---Suit for recovery of amount decreed by Banking Tribunal---Past and closed transaction---Suit filed by plaintiff-Bank against defendant borrower was decreed by Banking Tribunal on 9-6-1996---Banking Tribunal having decreed the suit without granting mark-up in terms of agreement arrived at between the parties, Bank filed appeal before High Court against the and decree of the Banking Tribunal--­Defendant resisted appeal filed by Bank contending that decree passed by Banking Tribunal was saved on the principle of past and closed transaction as held by Full Bench of High Court in PLD 1996 Lah. 672---Validity---Judgment and decree in the present case were passed before rendering of the of Full Bench dated 21-7-1996 as the decree was passed on 9-6-1996 and was challenged by plaintiff through filing of appeal---Decree under appeal, in circumstances did not fall within the terms past and closed transactions' and was not saved within ambit of the of Full Bench-- Appeal filed by the Bank was accepted and and decree dated 9-6-1996 passed by Banking Tribunal was set aside with the result that suit filed by Bank would be deemed to be pending before newly-constituted Banking Courts established under S.5 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and Banking Court would decide the suit afresh after hearing parties in accordance with provisions of the said Ordinance. \n \nMessrs Chenab Cement Products (Pvt.) Limited and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lah. 672; Syed Farasat Ali Shah v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited 2002 CLD 759 and Aman Ullah Khan v. National Bank of Pakistan 2002 CLD 950 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.42 of 1997, heard on 10-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nasir Mahmood for Appellant.\nRai Muhammad Tufail Kharal for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB BANK LIMITED \nVS\n IQTIDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 505 = 2004 SLD 505 = 2004 CLD 92", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution Proceedings and Banking Laws\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDelays in execution proceedings.\no\nValidity of objections by judgment-debtors.\n•\nFacts:\nA borrower objected to execution proceedings citing a settlement scheme. The court dismissed the objection, holding that execution could not be stayed merely on the anticipation of settlement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExecution proceedings require strict adherence to procedural laws.\no\nObjections unsupported by substantial compliance are invalid.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe Banking Court rightly dismissed the objections, emphasizing timely compliance with decrees.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Executive First Appeal No.356 of 2003, heard on 18-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Waqar Hussain Naqvi for Appellant.\nAzhar Elahi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAWAZISH LATIF BHATTI \nVS\n ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN, LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 506 = 2004 SLD 506 = 2004 CLD 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Ownership and Mortgage Disputes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nChallenges to decrees based on alleged ownership claims.\no\nTimeliness of Section 12(2) CPC applications.\n•\nFacts:\nInterveners claimed co-ownership of a mortgaged property but failed to implead the bank in a prior application. The court dismissed their objections as frivolous and collusive.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nApplications under Section 12(2) CPC must be filed within a reasonable timeframe.\no\nOwnership claims must be substantiated with clear evidence.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court upheld the bank's right to recover the loan by dismissing the interveners' claims.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Execution First Appeal No. 135 of 2003, decision dated: 16-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ullah Malik and Mrs. Khalid Abid for Appellants", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. IMTIAZ AKHTAR AND ANOTHER \nVS \n HABIB BANK LIMITED, SIALKOT AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 507 = 2004 SLD 507 = 2004 CLD 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of Guarantors\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nScope of guarantors’ liability.\no\nEvidentiary burden in banking suits.\n•\nFacts:\nGuarantors disputed their liability, alleging their guarantees were limited to specific facilities. The court held that they failed to prove their claims and affirmed the bank's suit.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGuarantors bear the burden of disproving claims of liability.\no\nBanking documents carry a presumption of validity unless rebutted.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, and the guarantors were held liable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.68 of 2001, decision dated: 25-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Sofia Saeed for Appellants.\nR. F. Virjee for Respondent No. 1.\nMoin Azhar for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SUPREME TRADING CORPORATION AND OTHERS \nVS\n HABIB BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 508 = 2004 SLD 508 = 2004 CLD 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Repossessed Assets and Bank’s Liability\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank’s obligations in managing repossessed assets.\no\nRights of borrowers to claim damages.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank repossessed a vehicle and misappropriated it. The court ruled the bank could not claim outstanding dues without returning or accounting for the asset.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRepossessed assets must be returned or accounted for before further recovery.\no\nBorrowers may claim damages for mismanagement by banks.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe bank's claim was dismissed due to its failure to comply with legal obligations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.52 of 2002, decision dated: 16-05-2003, hearing DATE : 23rd April, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tamaz Khan for Appellant.\nAmir Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD FAROOQ ANWAR \nVS\n HABIB BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 509 = 2004 SLD 509 = 2004 CLD 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Defend Banking Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nGrounds for granting leave to defend.\no\nDisputed bank claims.\n•\nFacts:\nDefendants raised valid objections, including discrepancies in mark-up rates and documentation. The court granted leave to defend.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts must allow defense if prima facie disputes exist.\no\nBanking claims require scrutiny of all submitted evidence.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe defendants were allowed to contest the suit.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No.45 of 2000, decision dated: 5-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.I. Chundrigar for Plaintiffs.\nSalim Thepdawala for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED\nVS \nMRS. FAHMIDA AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 510 = 2004 SLD 510 = 2004 CLD 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Performance Against Banks\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRejection of plaints due to lack of cause of action.\no\nProcedural aspects of banking suits.\n•\nFacts:\nA plaintiff’s suit for specific performance was dismissed as the bank fulfilled its contractual obligations. The court held the plaintiff had no valid claim.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPlaintiffs must establish a clear cause of action in suits against banks.\no\nFulfilled contracts negate claims for specific performance.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, with costs imposed on the plaintiff.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.476 of 1998, heard on 30th September 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD GHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Asghar Haider for Appellant.\nCh. Muhammad Mansha for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZUBAIR MUHAMMAD\nVS\nUNITED BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 511 = 2004 SLD 511 = 2004 CLD 123", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Disputes Over Sale of Shares\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRights of shareholders.\no\nEquity and fairness in share sales.\n•\nFacts:\nA shareholder claimed priority rights over shares being sold. The court found the claim baseless as the shares were not legally transferred to the claimant.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nShareholders must establish legal ownership to claim rights.\no\nEquity relief requires evidence of bona fide conduct.\n•\nConclusion:\nInjunctions were denied due to the plaintiff’s lack of prima facie case.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=86", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.42 of 2003, decision dated: 29-03-2003. dates of hearing: 7th, 12th 19th and 21st March, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Mansoor Khan and Abid S. Zuberi for Appellant.\nKhalid Jawaid for Respondent. Khalid Anwar for Respondents Nos. 2 and 5.\nMansoor-ul-Arfain for Respondent No. 3.\nAfsar Abidi for Respondent No. 4.\nAsif Ali for Respondent No. 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "METRO MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD \nVS \nPRIVATIZATION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 512 = 2004 SLD 512 = 2004 CLD 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Modaraba Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of limitation laws to Modaraba suits.\no\nSummary procedures under Modaraba laws.\n•\nFacts:\nThe court clarified that Modaraba suits are governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and not summary provisions under CPC.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nModaraba suits require adherence to specific limitation periods.\no\nSummary procedures under CPC do not automatically apply.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court’s findings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.466 of 1999, heard on 23rd January, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah and Muhammad Ahmed Qayyum for Appellant.\nNaseer Ahmed Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN AFTAB AHMED SHAIKH \nVS \nMESSRS TRUST MODARABA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 513 = 2004 SLD 513 = 2004 CLD 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Election Disputes in Trade Organizations\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nJurisdiction of courts in election matters.\no\nAvailability of alternative remedies.\n•\nFacts:\nPetitioners sought judicial intervention in trade organization elections. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the availability of statutory remedies.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts avoid interfering in election processes.\no\nParties must exhaust alternative remedies before filing constitutional petitions.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe petition was dismissed, and the statutory process was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12808 of 2003, decision dated: 24-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arfan Qadir for Petitioners.\nSher Zaman Khan, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondent No. 1.\nFaisal Islam and Jawad Hassan for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "USMAN ASHRAF AND 3 OTHERS \nVS\nDIRECTOR OF TRADE ORGANIZATION, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 514 = 2004 SLD 514 = 2004 CLD 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Challenges in Banking Disputes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nContractual clauses limiting jurisdiction.\no\nTransfer of suits under CPC.\n•\nFacts:\nA suit was returned due to jurisdictional objections based on contractual clauses. The court upheld the agreement’s jurisdiction clause.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nJurisdictional clauses in contracts are binding.\no\nCPC provisions govern the transfer of suits.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe plaint was returned, respecting the contractual clause.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "C.O.S. No.3 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd May, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Plaintiffs. Shahzad Mazher for Defendant No. 1.\nShoaib Zafar for Defendant No. 3.\nShamas Mehmood Mirza for Defendant No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAHRIANWALI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED THROUGH DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND OTHERS \nVS\nPAKLIBYA HOLDING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 515 = 2004 SLD 515 = 2004 CLD 162", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Mark-Up Beyond Contractual Period\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLegality of charging mark-up post-contract.\no\nLiabilities of guarantors.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank claimed mark-up beyond the contract period. The court deemed such claims illegal without supporting agreements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMark-up must align with contract terms.\no\nGuarantors’ liability is conditional on primary borrower’s obligations.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe claim for post-contract mark-up was rejected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.256 of 2002, heard on 18th September 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nCH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asghar Hameed Bhutta for Appellants.\nFarooq Bedar for Respondent No. 1.\nZahid Hamid for L.D.A. Masud Akhtar Khan and Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI FAZAL ELAHI & SONS THROUGH MUHAMMAD TARIQ \nVS \nBANK OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 516 = 2004 SLD 516 = 2004 CLD 171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Temporary Injunctions in Trademark Cases\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPrinciples for granting injunctions.\no\nProtection of intellectual property.\n•\nFacts:\nA company sought an injunction against the unauthorized use of its trademark. The court upheld the injunction, citing potential confusion among consumers.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTemporary injunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.\no\nIntellectual property rights deserve strong protection.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe injunction was granted to safeguard the trademark.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=1", + "Case #": "Suit No.637 of 2003, decision dated: 16-06-2003. dates of hearing: 5th and 6th, June, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SUIT NO.637 OF 2003, DECIDED ON 16TH, JUNE, 2003. DATES OF HEARING5TH AND 6TH, JUNE, 2003\nSHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawwar Ghani for Plaintiff.\nFarogh Naseem for Defendant No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAAZA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY L. L. C. \nVS \nPOPULAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 517 = 2004 SLD 517 = 2004 CLD 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Auction of Mortgaged Properties\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nExecution of decrees against borrowers.\no\nBanking court’s discretion in property sales.\n•\nFacts:\nA banking court restricted the auction of a mortgaged property. The High Court overturned the order, allowing the bank to proceed with the auction.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMandatory provisions of banking laws govern execution proceedings.\no\nCourts must ensure fair procedures in property auctions.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe banking court’s restrictions were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "Amended Writ Petition No. 24830 of 1998, heard on 23rd October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Khalid Pervaiz for Petitioner.\nSher Zaman, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE\nVS\nJUDGE BANKING COURT NO.IV, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 518 = 2004 SLD 518 = 2004 CLD 202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Timeliness of Leave to Defend Application\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFiling timelines for leave to defend.\no\nConsequences of non-compliance.\n•\nFacts:\nDefendant failed to file the application for leave to defend within the statutory period. The Banking Court decreed the suit, and the High Court dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of merit in the case.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTimely filing of leave to defend is mandatory.\no\nAppeals cannot override statutory non-compliance.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; the Banking Court’s decree upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 465 of 1998, heard on 14-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Karamat Ali Awan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE \nVS \nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 519 = 2004 SLD 519 = 2004 CLD 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decrees and Appellate Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPowers of the Executing Court.\no\nRaising new contentions at the appellate stage.\n•\nFacts:\nAppellants attempted to introduce new arguments on appeal that were not raised in prior proceedings. The High Court disallowed this, emphasizing adherence to pleadings and the limitations of appellate jurisdiction.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExecuting courts cannot go behind the decree.\no\nNew contentions cannot be introduced at the appellate level.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; no illegality in the Banking Court’s order.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=47", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 245 of 1998, heard on 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nisar Ahmed for Appellants.\nTariq Saleem for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TARIQ SHAHBAZ CHAUDHRY AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nBANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH ATTORNEY AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 520 = 2004 SLD 520 = 2004 CLD 212", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal of Leave to Defend Application\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRequirements for plausible defense.\no\nConsequences of unsatisfactory repayment.\n•\nFacts:\nThe borrower failed to provide a plausible defense for their non-repayment of the loan. The Banking Court dismissed the leave to defend and decreed the suit, with the High Court upholding the decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBorrowers must disclose substantial triable issues for leave to defend.\no\nFailing to contest valid claims results in decrees in favor of financial institutions.\n•\nConclusion:\nJudgment and decree upheld; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "F.A.B. No.31 and Civil Miscellaneous No. 287 of 2003, decision dated: 2-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, JUSTICE\nIJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haji Zahir Shah for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARIM BAKHSH \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 521 = 2004 SLD 521 = 2004 CLD 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Execution and Sale of Mortgaged Property\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSale without court intervention.\no\nRole of the Housing Authority in transfers.\n•\nFacts:\nThe Housing Authority refused to transfer the property to the auction purchaser without court documentation. The court emphasized compliance with Section 15(7) and formalities outlined in the Financial Institutions Ordinance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCompletion of legal formalities is mandatory for the sale of mortgaged property.\no\nThe Banking Court retains jurisdiction to oversee transactions.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; Housing Authority justified in requesting compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12606 of 2003, heard on 7-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashdeen Nawaz for Petitioner.\nKhalid Mehmood Ansari for Respondent No. 1.\nTariq Masood and Azmat Saeed (on Courts call)", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED \nVS \nDEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY THOROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 522 = 2004 SLD 522 = 2004 CLD 223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Execution Applications\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nStatutory limits on execution applications.\no\nDifferences between first and subsequent applications.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank’s subsequent execution application was deemed time-barred under Section 48 CPC. The first application, though timely, was withdrawn, and the fresh application was filed after the six-year limit.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFirst execution applications must adhere to Article 181 of the Limitation Act.\no\nSubsequent applications fall under Section 48 CPC.\n•\nConclusion:\nExecution application dismissed as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=8", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 189 of 1994, November, 2003, hearing DATE : 6-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saleem Sehgal for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED, BANK SQUARE BRANCH, LAHORE \nVS\nFATEH HAYAT KHAN TIWANA AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 523 = 2004 SLD 523 = 2004 CLD 232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Return of Security Documents\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConditions for retaining security documents.\no\nDefinition of dependent relative. \n•\nFacts:\nA bank refused to return security documents, citing liabilities of the borrower’s relatives. The court ruled that mere familial ties do not establish dependency or liability.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBanks cannot withhold security documents without legitimate claims.\no\n Dependent relative requires substantive proof of dependency.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition allowed; security documents ordered to be returned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Loans for Agricultural Purposes Act (XLII of 1973)=", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2882 of 2003, heard on 8-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Karim for Petitioners.\nMuhammad Afzal Sindhu for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AGRO DAIRIES (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nMESSRS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 524 = 2004 SLD 524 = 2004 CLD 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Agricultural Loan Recovery\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of Article 132 of the Limitation Act.\n•\nFacts:\nThe court remanded the case, directing the trial court to consider the three-year limitation period applicable to charges under the Loans for Agricultural Purposes Act.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCharges under Section 4(5) create a simple mortgage governed by Article 132.\n•\nConclusion:\nTrial court’s decision set aside; case remanded.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Loans for Agricultural Purposes Act, (XLII of 1973)=3", + "Case #": "First Appeals Nos. 22 to 55, 58 to 65, 69 to 81, 97 to 135, 141 to 180 and 184 to 190 of 2002, heard on 5-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Respondents.\nAnwar Mansoor Khan, A.G. (on Court Notice)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED \nVS \nMUHAMMAD MITHAL AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 525 = 2004 SLD 525 = 2004 CLD 239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance in Banking Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nImpleading insurance companies in banking suits.\n•\nFacts:\nA borrower sought to include an insurance company as a party in a suit. The court dismissed this, holding that the insurance policy had no direct connection to the loan agreement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nNon-borrower entities cannot be impleaded without direct relevance to the finance agreement.\n•\nConclusion:\nSuit decreed; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 373 of 1998, heard on 14-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asad Munir for Appellant.\nMuhammad Ali Butt for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EVERGREEN PRESS AND 3 OTHERS \nVS \nBANK OF PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 526 = 2004 SLD 526 = 2004 CLD 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction Over Insurance Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nJurisdiction of FIA versus SECP.\n•\nFacts:\nThe FIA issued notices to an insurance company over alleged fraudulent claims. The court held that SECP had exclusive jurisdiction under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFIA lacks jurisdiction over insurance company disputes; SECP governs such matters.\n•\nConclusion:\nFIA notice declared void; petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=59", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1181 and Miscellaneous No.2969 of 2002, decision dated: 21st November, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE\nZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kamal Azfer for Petitioner. Nadeem Azhar, D.A.G", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEY SYED ZIAUDDIN AHMED \nVS \nFEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (F.I.A.) THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, F.I.A., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 527 = 2004 SLD 527 = 2004 CLD 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Mortgaged Property Without Court Intervention\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConstitutional validity of Section 15 of the Financial Institutions Ordinance.\n•\nFacts:\nThe petitioner challenged the unbridled powers of financial institutions under Section 15. The High Court admitted the constitutional petition to examine these powers.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nStatutory provisions conferring unchecked powers warrant judicial scrutiny.\n•\nConclusion:\nConstitutional petition admitted for examination.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.321 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nAKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waseem Sajjad, Ali Hassan Sajjad and Tallat Waheed for Petitioner.\nK. N. Kohli, D.A.G. Nafees Siddiqui for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SH. ABDUL SATTAR LASI \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 528 = 2004 SLD 528 = 2004 CLD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Nature of State Bank Circulars\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nEnforcement of circulars under the Banking Companies Ordinance.\n•\nFacts:\nThe court held that State Bank circulars have the force of law and are binding on financial institutions.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCirculars issued under Section 33-B have statutory authority.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; circulars upheld as binding.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=33", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-729 of 2003, decision dated: 25-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent No. 1.\nAkber H. Mirza for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRISTAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nSTATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 529 = 2004 SLD 529 = 2004 CLD 260", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Damages and Counterclaims in Banking Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nJurisdiction of Banking Tribunals over counterclaims.\n•\nFacts:\nBorrowers alleged maladministration and sought damages. The court affirmed the tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide such issues.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTribunals can adjudicate claims of maladministration linked to loan disputes.\n•\nConclusion:\nCase to proceed before the Banking Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-721 of 1996, decision dated: 18-09-2003, hearing DATE : 10-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qadir Siddiqui for Petitioners.\nS. Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION \nVS \nWAFAQI MOHTASIB, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 530 = 2004 SLD 530 = 2004 CLD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Auction and Extension of Time\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLegality of extending time for auction deposits.\n•\nFacts:\nThe court allowed an auction purchaser to deposit the balance amount beyond the stipulated time, dismissing objections due to non-compliance by petitioners.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts can grant extensions if no prejudice is caused.\n•\nConclusion:\nAuction confirmed; leave to appeal refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=89", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.429 of 2001, decision dated: 2-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nQAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nRoohul Amin, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.\nSyed Asghar Hussain Sabazwari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALHASSAN FEEDS AND ANOTHER \nVS \nUNITED BANK LTD., JINNAH ROAD, ABBOTTABAD AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 531 = 2004 SLD 531 = 2004 CLD 279", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Fraud and Misrepresentation in Banking Court Decrees\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplication under Section 12(2) of CPC in Banking Courts.\no\nAllegation of fraud and misrepresentation.\n•\nFacts:\nAn application under Section 12(2), CPC, was filed alleging fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the decree. The court held that Section 12(2) CPC applies to Banking Court decrees, but the allegations must pertain to the proceedings and not actions outside the court.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 12(2), CPC, is applicable to Banking Court decrees.\no\nAllegations of fraud must relate to the court proceedings, not external actions.\n•\nConclusion:\nApplication dismissed for lack of grounds within the scope of Section 12(2), CPC.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.97 of 2001, decision dated: 15-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saalim Salam Ansari for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAFA TEXTILE LTD. \nVS \nMESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 532 = 2004 SLD 532 = 2004 CLD 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Stay on Execution of Mortgaged Property\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInjunction against sale of mortgaged property.\n•\nFacts:\nDebtors sought to stay execution proceedings during the sale of mortgaged property. The court held that neither the Banking Court nor the High Court could issue injunctions restraining such sales under Section 15(2) of the Financial Institutions Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInjunctions restraining the sale of mortgaged property are prohibited.\no\nExecuting courts must adhere to statutory provisions without overstepping.\n•\nConclusion:\nStay order set aside as being without jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10475 of 2003, decision dated: 30-7-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashideen Nawaz Kasuri for Petitioner.\nWasim Majeed Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB BANK LIMITED \nVS \nMESSRS CHANLITTY (P.V.T" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 533 = 2004 SLD 533 = 2004 CLD 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction and Maritime Liens\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConditions for invoking maritime lien.\no\nLimitation for actions in rem.\n•\nFacts:\nThe plaintiff claimed a maritime lien on a vessel based on a loan agreement. The court found no evidence linking the loan to the ship's purchase and ruled that maritime liens require direct association with the vessel or services rendered to it.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMaritime liens attach to property only when directly related.\no\nActions in rem must be filed within two years of the lien's accrual.\n•\nConclusion:\nClaim dismissed for lack of evidence and failure to establish a valid maritime lien.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=6", + "Case #": "Admiralty Appeals Nos.24 and 125 of 2002, decision dated: 7-1-2003. dates of hearing: 26th and 27-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhar Ali Mahmud for Appellants.\nNaeem Ahmed and Abdul Inam for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ABDOUN OIL COMPANY S.A. INCORPORATED UNDER LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA, IN GREECE, WITH THEIR OFFICE AT 4345 PORTMAN SQUARE, LONDON \nVS \n\"\"M/T ABDOUN DISCOVERY\"\" A SHIP FLYING PANAMA FLAG PRESENTLY AT THE PORT OF PORT QASIM AUTHORITY, KARACHI, PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 534 = 2004 SLD 534 = 2004 CLD 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Registration and Protection of Trademarks\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRights conferred by trademark registration.\no\nConditions for interim injunctions in infringement cases.\n•\nFacts:\nA registered trademark user sought an injunction against infringement. The court upheld the exclusive rights of registered users, provided there was no fraud in obtaining registration.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegistration grants exclusive rights unless challenged under Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act.\no\nInterim relief depends on the balance of convenience and good faith.\n•\nConclusion:\nInjunction granted; infringer restrained from using the trademark.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.219 of 2002, decision dated: 24-12-2003. dates of hearing: 21st, 25th February and 12-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Navin Merchant for Appellant.\nZulfiqar Ali Khan for Respondent No. 1.\nAkhtar Hussain for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NASEEM AHMED \nVS \nMESSRS SAMIUDDIN RAMZAN KHAN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 535 = 2004 SLD 535 = 2004 CLD 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration and Res Judicata\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nParallel proceedings in arbitration and civil courts.\no\nJurisdiction over foreign arbitration.\n•\nFacts:\nArbitration was initiated abroad while a related suit was pending domestically. The court held that foreign arbitration proceedings governed by local laws cannot be interfered with by domestic courts.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nArbitration awards are binding under the doctrine of res judicata.\no\nDomestic courts lack jurisdiction over foreign arbitration governed by foreign laws.\n•\nConclusion:\nSuit dismissed; arbitration award upheld as final and binding.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1051 of 1999, decision dated: 20-05-2003, hearing DATE : 20-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moulvi Yousaf for Plaintiff.\nKhalid Rehman for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HASAN ALI RICE EXPORT CO. THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR \nVS\nFLAME MARITIME LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 536 = 2004 SLD 536 = 2004 CLD 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Licenses and Specific Performance\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRevocation of licenses.\no\nInjunctions for misuse of trademarks.\n•\nFacts:\nA plaintiff sought specific performance of a license agreement and an injunction to prevent the defendant from interfering. The court found the plaintiff had breached their obligations by registering the trademark in their own name, invalidating their equity claim.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInjunctions are equitable remedies requiring good faith.\no\nLicense agreements are revocable unless coupled with interest.\n•\nConclusion:\nInjunction denied; plaintiff's application dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No 759 of 2000, decision dated: 2-10-2002. dates of hearing: 8th May and 12-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noorullah A. Maji for Plaintiffs.\nRasheed A. Razvi for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIAMOND FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED \nVS \nJOSEPH WOLF GMBH & CO. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 537 = 2004 SLD 537 = 2004 CLD 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Trading by Brokers\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTrading during lapse of broker registration.\no\nDuties of Stock Exchanges as frontline regulators.\n•\nFacts:\nA broker traded during the lapse of their registration, and the Stock Exchange failed to intervene effectively. The Securities Commission imposed penalties on both the broker and the Stock Exchange.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBrokers must comply with registration rules.\no\nStock Exchanges must act bona fide to protect investors.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeals dismissed; penalties upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 11 of 2003, decision dated: 9-04-2003, hearing DATE : 3rd April, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL REHMAN QURESHI, CHAIRMAN\nETRAT H. RIZVI, COMMISSIONER (INS., SC & IT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood A. Awan and Ahmed Noman for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ISLAMABAD STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LIMITED \nVS \nPREMIER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 538 = 2004 SLD 538 = 2004 CLD 356", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Import License Fee\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConditions for refund after policy changes.\n•\nFacts:\nA petitioner sought a refund of the import license fee, claiming they were disadvantaged by a policy change. The court held that refunds are only applicable if non-establishment of credit results directly from policy changes, which was not proven.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRefunds depend on demonstrable impact of policy changes.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; refund claim denied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2402 of 1994, decision dated: 16-07-2003, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazar Akber for Petitioners.\nSajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INAYAT ENTERPRISES\nVS \nSECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 539 = 2004 SLD 539 = 2004 CLD 363", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals Against Interlocutory Orders\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nMaintainability of appeals under Section 21.\n•\nFacts:\nAn appeal was filed against an interlocutory order refusing leave to defend. The court ruled such appeals are only maintainable for decrees or specific final orders.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAppeals against interlocutory orders are not maintainable.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed in limine.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "First Appeal No. 103 of 2001, decision dated: 22-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Malik and Qazi Abdul Hameed Siddiqui for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUTUAL TRADING CO. (PVT.) AND OTHERS \nVS\nMESSRS FAISAL BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 540 = 2004 SLD 540 = 2004 CLD 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Execution and Auction of Mortgaged Property\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRight to bid for ancestral property in auctions.\n•\nFacts:\nA petitioner sought to purchase their ancestral land being auctioned under a decree. The High Court allowed re-auction with the petitioner’s higher bid as the base price.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRe-auction permitted if in the interest of justice and fairness.\n•\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; re-auction directed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 8318 of 2000, decision dated: 19-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Petitioner.\nKhawaja Ashiq Pervaiz and Rana Nasrulah Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAO MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ \nVS\nJUDGE BANKING COURTII AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 541 = 2004 SLD 541 = 2004 CLD 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Summoning Witnesses Under Section 540, CrPC\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nJudicial discretion in summoning new witnesses.\n•\nFacts:\nThe Banking Court summoned a witness not listed in the original complaint. The High Court upheld this under Section 540, CrPC, emphasizing the necessity for justice.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts can summon witnesses essential for resolving disputes.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; summoning upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=540", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6224 of 2003, decision dated: 14-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.N. A. Butt for Petitioners.\nMuhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.G. (on Courts Call)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR CHOHAN AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \nSYED FARUKH ALI SHAH AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 542 = 2004 SLD 542 = 2004 CLD 373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Proxy Voting in Corporate Meetings\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRights and limitations on proxy voting.\n•\nFacts:\nMembers of a Race Club contested elections held without adherence to proxy provisions. The court held that irregularities did not invalidate intra vires transactions absent fraud or statutory violation.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProxy voting must align with statutory and corporate governance rules.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; election proceedings upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=161", + "Case #": "Civil Original No. 5 of 2003, heard on 4-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Petitioners.\nAamer Raza A. Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LT.GEN. (RETD.) SHAH RAFI ALAM AND OTHERS \nVS\nLAHORE RACE CLUB AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 543 = 2004 SLD 543 = 2004 CLD 385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decree and Awarding Costs to Bank\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nIncentive schemes during execution proceedings.\no\nCosts awarded on balance amount.\n•\nFacts:\nThe judgment-debtor partially satisfied the decree by depositing a significant amount. The bank resisted the release of the debtor’s property for balance payment, causing delays. The court directed costs of funds to be calculated for the delay and ordered payment within 15 days to avoid the entire decretal amount becoming due.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCosts of funds can be awarded for delays in satisfying decrees.\no\nThe bank’s conduct can impact cost impositions.\n•\nConclusion:\nCosts of funds awarded; directive for timely payment issued.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 173 of 2000, heard on 24-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Mehmood Khan for Appellant.\nRespondent in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANK ALLAH LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER \nVS\nRIAZ AHMED, PROPRIETOR, MESSRS FINE AGENCIES AND FINE INDUSTRIES, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 544 = 2004 SLD 544 = 2004 CLD 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Defend and Evasive Denial\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nEffect of evasive denial by the plaintiff bank.\no\nRight to leave to defend.\n•\nFacts:\nThe defendant alleged unauthorized withdrawal of funds, which the bank vaguely denied. The court found this denial insufficient and granted leave to defend while setting aside part of the decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nEvasive denial can entitle defendants to leave to defend.\no\nSpecific and clear responses are required in pleadings.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed in part; case remanded for trial.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 493 of 2002, decision dated: 6-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nasir Mehmood on behalf of learned Counsel for Appellants.\nShuja Ahmed Baba for Respondent-Bank.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEIKH MUHAMMAD KASHIF ZIA AND ANOTHER \nVS\nBANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 545 = 2004 SLD 545 = 2004 CLD 389", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Extension of Time to Furnish Surety\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nCompassion in judicial decisions.\no\nRight to extension due to extenuating circumstances.\n•\nFacts:\nThe defendant failed to furnish surety due to a family bereavement. The court deemed the refusal to extend time harsh and remanded the case for reconsideration after the surety was furnished.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts must consider extenuating circumstances compassionately.\no\nProcedural non-compliance should not override substantial justice.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree set aside; case remanded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.127 of 1997, heard on 10-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riyasat Ali Chaudhary for Appellant.\nRashdeen Nawaz Kasuri for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BHATTI EXPORT PRIVATE LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR \nVS \nUNITED BANK LTD. THROUGH ATTORNEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 546 = 2004 SLD 546 = 2004 CLD 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Against Loan Recovery Decree\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConditional disposal of appeal.\no\nRights of guarantors upon principal debtor’s relief.\n•\nFacts:\nThe guarantor appealed against a decree, citing the principal debtor’s application for loan write-off. The court allowed the appeal to be revived if the write-off was denied.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGuarantors’ liability depends on the status of the principal debtor’s obligations.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal conditionally disposed of.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=17", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos. 187 and 179 of 2002, decision dated: 10-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haq Nawaz Chattha for Appellants.\nMushtaq Mehdi Akhtar for Respondent No. 1.\nSajid Mehmood Sheikh for Respondent No. 5.\nNemo for the Remaining Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ SHAFIQUE AND ANOTHER \nVS \nUNION BANK LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH, MANAGER AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 547 = 2004 SLD 547 = 2004 CLD 393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Issuance of Summons in Prescribed Modes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nMandatory compliance with summons procedures.\n•\nFacts:\nSummons issued through fewer than the four prescribed modes were deemed invalid.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nStrict adherence to procedural requirements is mandatory.\n•\nConclusion:\nService declared invalid due to non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.321 of 2001, heard on 23rd January, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Ihsanul Haque Bhalli for Appellants.\nPervaiz Ahmad Rana for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHEER PAK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 548 = 2004 SLD 548 = 2004 CLD 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Adjudicate on Merits\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nJudicial obligation to decide issues based on evidence and law.\n•\nFacts:\nThe Banking Court failed to consider evidence and applicable law. The High Court remanded the case for proper adjudication.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts must fulfill their duty of thorough and reasoned adjudication.\n•\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for re-adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 187 of 1999, heard on 13-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barjees Nagi for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M. S. NAGI, ADVOCATE \nVS \nUNITED BANK LIMITED, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 549 = 2004 SLD 549 = 2004 CLD 399", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Defending Suits Against Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of applications filed by company executives.\no\nProcedural technicalities in pleadings.\n•\nFacts:\nThe Chief Executive filed an application for leave to defend without a pre-existing power of attorney, which was later ratified. The court upheld the application, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSubsequent ratification validates earlier unauthorized acts.\no\nProcedural non-compliance should not prejudice substantive rights.\n•\nConclusion:\nLeave application upheld; revision dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=15", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 1604 of 1996, decision dated: 19-05-2003. dates of hearing: 15th, 17th, 22nd, 24th and 28-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Almas Ali for Petitioner.\nCh. Ihsan-ul-Haq Bhalli for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAHIBZADA ANWAR HAMID \nVS\nMESSRS TOPWORTH INVESTMENTS (MACAU) LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 550 = 2004 SLD 550 = 2004 CLD 430", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Temporary Injunction in Trademark Dispute\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInterim relief in cases of trademark infringement.\n•\nFacts:\nThe plaintiff, a registered trademark holder, sought an injunction against infringement. The court upheld the injunction, emphasizing the plaintiff’s prima facie case.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegistered trademark holders have exclusive rights unless challenged.\n•\nConclusion:\nInjunction upheld; defendants restrained from use.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=8", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.8 of 2004, decision dated: 30-01-2004, hearing DATE : 23rd January, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Waqar Saleem for Appellant.\nSh. Ijaz Nazir for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MIRAGE MEHRA (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nENERGIC BEVERAGES (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR, MARKETING/ PURCHASE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 551 = 2004 SLD 551 = 2004 CLD 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Borrower’s Dispute Over Incentive Scheme\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nState Bank of Pakistan Circular compliance.\n•\nFacts:\nA borrower’s application under an incentive scheme was rejected without reasons. The High Court directed the Committee to reconsider and provide specific reasons for any decision.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDecisions affecting rights must be reasoned and transparent.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition accepted; matter remanded for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10939 of 2003, heard on 1st December, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Chatha and Sajid Mahmood Sh. for Petitioners.\nRana Muhammad Asad Abbas for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALHADAYAT TEXTILES AND 2 OTHERS\nVS \nSTATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 552 = 2004 SLD 552 = 2004 CLD 437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up Due to Deadlock\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDeadlock among shareholders.\n•\nFacts:\nA company was wound up due to shareholder deadlock and financial losses, with no prospect of profitability.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPersistent deadlock and insolvency justify winding up.\n•\nConclusion:\nWinding up order passed; Official Liquidator appointed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application. No.38 of 2002 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.1649 and 1650 of 2003, decision dated: 13-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.\nNadeem Azhar Siddiqui for Respondent N.C. Motiani for the Intevenor", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADIL MASOOD BUTT AND OTHERS\nVS \nMESSRS COSSAR CARPETS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 553 = 2004 SLD 553 = 2004 CLD 444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance – Connotations of Banking Company and Finance \n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDefinition and scope of Banking Company. \no\nPermissibility of interest-free accommodations under Finance. \n•\nFacts:\nThe Equity Participation Fund was added to the Ordinance's schedule, making it a Banking Company. The High Court found that unauthorized charges in a loan recovery were impermissible and deleted the amount from the decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nOnly entities listed in the schedule are recognized as Banking Companies. \no\nUnjustified charges not specified in agreements cannot be claimed.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal partly allowed; decree modified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=2", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.266 of 1996, heard on 3rd December, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Azhar Salam for Appellants.\nSadiq Hayat Lodhi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FANCY MANUFACTURES LIMITED AND ANOTHER\nVS \nEQUITY PARTICIPATION FUND" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 554 = 2004 SLD 554 = 2004 CLD 449", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up Due to Insolvency\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInability to repay loans as grounds for winding up.\no\nImpact of shareholder disputes on business operations.\n•\nFacts:\nA company failed to repay loans for importing harvesters and became insolvent. Despite defenses, the court held that operational insolvency and lack of profitability justified winding up.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInsolvency and prolonged non-functionality warrant winding up.\no\nMere ownership of assets is insufficient without active business prospects.\n•\nConclusion:\nWinding up order passed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=306", + "Case #": "Civil Original No.32 of 1991, decision dated: 4-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Pervaiz Hassan and Jawad Hassan for Petitioner.\nUzair Karamat Bhandari for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEUTSCHE BANK A.G., LAHORE\nVS \nMESSRS FARM AIDS (PVT.) LTD. AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 555 = 2004 SLD 555 = 2004 CLD 460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Loan and Denied Settlement Claims\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of claims regarding settlement agreements.\n•\nFacts:\nDefendants claimed that a settlement had reduced their liability. The Banking Court rejected this claim due to lack of evidence, affirming the decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAllegations of settlement must be substantiated with evidence.\n•\nConclusion:\nHigh Court upheld the decree; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.930 of 2001, decision dated: 18-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TRAVEL KINGS (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 4 OTHERS\nVS \nUNION BANK LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 556 = 2004 SLD 556 = 2004 CLD 464", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Extension of Limitation Due to Court Closure\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act.\n•\nFacts:\nA leave application filed after a court holiday was rejected as barred by time. The High Court overruled, emphasizing that court closure cannot prejudice litigants.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 4 permits filing on the next open day if the limitation period expires during court closure.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; case remanded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.811 of 2002, heard on 22-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE \nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Allah Bakhsh Gondal for Appellant. \nMuhammad Yousaf Chughtai for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUMTAZ AHMAD \nVS \nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 557 = 2004 SLD 557 = 2004 CLD 466", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decree and Incentive Schemes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRelevance of incentive schemes during execution proceedings.\n•\nFacts:\nThe judgment-debtor claimed benefits under a scheme issued post-decree. The court ruled that execution must align with the decree's terms, disregarding the scheme.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExecuting courts cannot modify decrees based on external schemes.\n•\nConclusion:\nJudgment-debtor denied relief under the incentive scheme.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No. 522 of 2002, heard on 18-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Javed Jalal for Appellants.\nSyed Mansoor Ali Shah for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INTERCITY TRANSPORT SYSTEM AND 3 OTHERS\nVS \nJUDGE, BANKING COURT NO.II, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 558 = 2004 SLD 558 = 2004 CLD 469", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decree and Arrest Warrants\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConditions for issuing arrest warrants.\n•\nFacts:\nGuarantors challenged arrest warrants issued without satisfying conditions under CPC. The High Court set aside the warrants, emphasizing procedural compliance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nArrest warrants require factual determinations of default under CPC.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; case remanded for compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "E.F.As. Nos.18 and 19 of 2003, heard on 4-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA., JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azmat Saeed for Appellants.\nNaseem Ahmad Khan and Shams Mehmood Mirza for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BASHIR AHMAD KHAN MANIKA AND ANOTHER\nVS\nHABIB BANK LTD., LAHORE AND 11 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 559 = 2004 SLD 559 = 2004 CLD 472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution and Condonation of Delay\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act.\n•\nFacts:\nAn appeal against a sale certificate was dismissed as time-barred, with no proof of good faith in prosecuting prior proceedings.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGood faith and specific explanations for delays are prerequisites for condonation.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No.47 of 2001, heard on 13th,November, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPARVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for Appellants.\nKhalid Mehmood and Ras Tariq Chaudhary for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CONOCO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. AND 3 OTHERS\nVS \nUNITED BANK LIMITED, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 560 = 2004 SLD 560 = 2004 CLD 481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Defend and Validity of Guarantee\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nScope of guarantees under the Contract Act.\n•\nFacts:\nA defendant argued that guarantees signed were for personal loans, not third-party obligations. The court upheld the decree, noting the absence of supporting documents for the defendant's claims.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGuarantees are enforceable unless explicitly excluded under applicable laws.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.245 of 1998, heard on 11-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uzair Karamat Bhindhari for Appellants.\nTariq Nawaz Bhatti for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IMTIAZ AHMAD AND ANOTHER\nVS \nPLATINUM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED THROUGH GENERAL ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 561 = 2004 SLD 561 = 2004 CLD 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Defense Based on Oral Gift and Ownership Claims\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of oral gifts and their impact on mortgage claims.\n•\nFacts:\nA defendant challenged a mortgage on the basis of an oral gift, which lacked documentary evidence. The court upheld the decree, emphasizing proper documentation.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nClaims of oral gifts must be substantiated with credible evidence.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First .Appeal No.96 of 1998, heard on 18-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar Riaz Hussain for Appellants.\nAbdi Hussain for Respondent No. 1.\nSaif-ud-Din Chughtai for the Remaining Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASAD TAJ REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS \nVS\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH GENERAL ATTORNEY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 562 = 2004 SLD 562 = 2004 CLD 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRegistration and stamping requirements for mortgages.\n•\nFacts:\nA memorandum acknowledging prior deposit of title deeds did not require registration or stamping as a mortgage deed.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPrior delivery of title deeds eliminates registration and stamp duty requirements.\n•\nConclusion:\nMemorandum deemed valid without registration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 172 of 1995, heard on 16-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz Kasuri for Appellant.\nMuhammad Saleem Shahnazi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BANK OF OMAN LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS \nM. Y. MALIK & CO. AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 563 = 2004 SLD 563 = 2004 CLD 493", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Mortgaged Property\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRights of shareholders in mortgaged properties.\n•\nFacts:\nThe court allowed partial auction of property excluding the appellant's share, ensuring proper investigation under the Act.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nObjections in execution must be resolved expeditiously, ensuring fair treatment.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; sale modified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "Execution First Appeal No.225 of 2000, heard on 19-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Amin Javed for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YUSUF\nVS\nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH MANAGER AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 564 = 2004 SLD 564 = 2004 CLD 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Liquidated Damages in Loan Recovery\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nEntitlement to liquidated damages.\n•\nFacts:\nThe Banking Court erroneously included liquidated damages in a decree, which the High Court subsequently removed.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nClaims for liquidated damages must align with contractual terms.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree modified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.251 of 1996, heard on 8-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Kamal Qazi for Appellant.\nMumtaz Hussain Bokhari for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNION BANK LIMITED\nVS\nMESSRS BLUESKY TRAVELS (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 565 = 2004 SLD 565 = 2004 CLD 499", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Leave to Defend\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act.\n•\nFacts:\nA leave application filed after a court holiday was deemed timely under Section 4.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourt holidays extend filing deadlines.\n•\nConclusion:\nApplication deemed timely.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.275 of 2002, decision dated: 22-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Tabinda Islam for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ATTA ULLAH KHAN\nVS \nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 566 = 2004 SLD 566 = 2004 CLD 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Objections in Execution Proceedings\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nProcedural fairness in execution proceedings.\n•\nFacts:\nThe court faulted the Banking Court for dismissing an objection petition without granting sufficient opportunity to comply with a deposit order.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProcedural orders require fair opportunity for compliance.\n•\nConclusion:\nObjection petition restored for rehearing.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=23", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.298 of 2001, heard on 16-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rahim Tariq Alvi for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondent-Corporation.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NAZIM POLY SACK (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 3 OTHERS\nVS \nNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 567 = 2004 SLD 567 = 2004 CLD 506", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Misinterpretation of Bank Guarantees\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nScope of claims under cash finance facility. \n•\nFacts:\nThe Banking Court included amounts unrelated to the suit's subject matter in its decree, which was corrected on appeal.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDecrees must be limited to claims in the suit.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree modified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.512 of 1996, heard on 16-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar-uz-Zaman for Appellant.\nMahmood Shah Bokhari for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH HEAD OFFICE\nVS \nMESSRS VICTORY STEEL REROLLING MILLS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 568 = 2004 SLD 568 = 2004 CLD 510", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of address for service of process.\n•\nFacts:\nThe appellants argued incorrect address details for service. The High Court remanded the case, granting an opportunity to defend.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nService of process must align with addresses in agreements.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; case remanded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=12", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.176 of 2002, heard on 17-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Kaifi for Appellants.\nNadeem Saeed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHAFOOR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER\nVS\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH S.V. P." + }, + { + "Case No.": "6951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 569 = 2004 SLD 569 = 2004 CLD 512", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Res Judicata in Banking Disputes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of res judicata to subsequent suits.\n•\nFacts:\nA second suit challenging an earlier decree was dismissed as barred by res judicata.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSubsequent claims arising from settled issues are barred.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.309 of 2001, heard or December, 2002, hearing DATE : 16-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nSYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 2 OTHERS\nVS\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH PRESIDENT AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 570 = 2004 SLD 570 = 2004 CLD 516", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark and Copyright Infringement\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nProtection of registered trademarks against prior use.\n•\nFacts:\nThe plaintiff’s registration was upheld, and the defendants were restrained from using the trademark.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegistration confers prima facie rights unless challenged before the Registrar.\n•\nConclusion:\nInjunction upheld; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.258 of 2003 decided on 31st January, 2004. dates of hearing: 22nd and 23rd January, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Saeed Hussain and Syed Nisar Ali Shah for Appellants.\nMiss Shaheen Kiran for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR AND ANOTHER \nVS\nHASSAN QAISER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 571 = 2004 SLD 571 = 2004 CLD 520", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Contractual Obligations and Unilateral Alterations by Bank\n•\nKey Issue:\nWhether a bank can unilaterally reduce profit rates on fixed deposit schemes.\n•\nFacts:\nA depositor under the Mahana Munafa Certificate Scheme challenged a unilateral profit rate reduction. The bank justified this change based on State Bank of Pakistan notifications but failed to provide evidence supporting its applicability to existing contracts.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nContracts without conditional terms cannot be unilaterally altered.\no\nProfit rates agreed in fixed deposit schemes are binding.\no\nCirculars or external notifications cannot override contractual obligations without specific provisions.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe court declared the bank’s actions unlawful and directed payment as per the agreed terms.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4095 of 2003, heard on 11-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Kazmi for Petitioner.\nRashdeen Nawaz for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAVAID ANJUM \nVS\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 572 = 2004 SLD 572 = 2004 CLD 532", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Defend and Imposition of Conditions\n•\nKey Issue:\nWhether granting leave to defend can be made conditional on providing a bank guarantee.\n•\nFacts:\nThe petitioner challenged a trial court's order granting leave to defend conditioned upon furnishing a bank guarantee.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nUnder Section 10, Banking Courts must grant leave to defend if a bona fide dispute is established without imposing additional conditions.\n•\nConclusion:\nThe condition imposed was declared unlawful; leave to defend granted unconditionally.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.958 of 2001, heard on 22-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ihsan Ahmad Khawaja for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SARDAR SHAKEEL MAHMOOD AND ANOTHER \nVS\nJUDGE BANKINGCOURT AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 573 = 2004 SLD 573 = 2004 CLD 535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Forgery Claims in Guarantee Agreements\n•\nKey Issue:\nValidity of guarantees alleged to be forged.\n•\nFacts:\nGuarantors denied executing guarantees and alleged forgery. However, their signatures on related documents established their obligations.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDenial of execution unsupported by evidence is insufficient to absolve contractual liability.\no\nIncomplete instruments imply authority for completion under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; guarantees upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=2", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.88 of 1999, heard on 16-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Kamal Qazi for Appellants.\nZahid Ahmad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MACH KNITTERS (PVT.) LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS \nVS \nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1387 = 2004 SLD 1387 = 2004 CLD 542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Waiver of Rights in Execution of Instalment Decrees\n•\nKey Issue:\nEffect of waiver on penalty clauses in instalment decrees.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank accepted delayed payments without objection, leading to an argument that it waived its right to invoke penalties.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAcceptance of delayed payments without objection constitutes a waiver.\no\nWaiver prevents subsequent invocation of penalty clauses.\n•\nConclusion:\nExecution petition dismissed as the bank waived its rights by its conduct.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=48", + "Case #": "Execution Petition No.24-B of 2003, decision dated: 26-02-2004, hearing DATE : 16-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD GHANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Aamer Farooq for Petitioner. Nomaan Akram Raja for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MASHREQ BANK \nVs \nMessrs NAZIR COTTON MILLS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 575 = 2004 SLD 575 = 2004 CLD 583", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Impleadment of Legal Heirs in Loan Recovery\n•\nKey Issue:\nEffect of non-impleadment of all legal heirs in recovery suits.\n•\nFacts:\nA widow not impleaded in a recovery suit challenged an ex parte decree. The court found significant prejudice due to her exclusion.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFailure to implead all legal heirs renders proceedings flawed.\no\nEx parte decrees require compliance with procedural safeguards.\n•\nConclusion:\nSale proceedings invalidated; widow's application upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XXXI of 1961)=39", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.355 of 1999 and Civil Petition No.456-L of 1999, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE : 25-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nSARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nusratullah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ozair Chughtai, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Ch. Abdul Wahid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL GHAFOOR \nVS \nMST. HASSAN BIBI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 576 = 2004 SLD 576 = 2004 CLD 587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Compliance in Loan Recovery Suits\n•\nKey Issue:\nRequirements for maintaining a recovery suit in special banking courts.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank's suit lacked a proper statement of accounts, undermining its claim.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nVerified statements of account are mandatory for initiating recovery suits.\no\nSpecial courts require strict adherence to procedural requirements.\n•\nConclusion:\nSuit dismissed due to non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=4", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.147 of 2003, decision dated: 21st January, 2004, hearing DATE : 11-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Hamid Ali Shah for Appellants.\nBashir Ahmad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS C.M. TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nINVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 577 = 2004 SLD 577 = 2004 CLD 603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Grant of Interim Injunctions in Contract Disputes\n•\nKey Issue:\nConditions for granting interim injunctions in sale of goods contracts.\n•\nFacts:\nA party sought an injunction without holding the original bill of lading, essential for title.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInjunctions require proof of irreparable harm and balance of convenience.\no\nPossession of original documents of title is essential.\n•\nConclusion:\nInjunction denied.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=2", + "Case #": "Suit No.715 of 2002, decision dated: 13-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Plaintiff.\nNaeem Ahmed for Defendant No. 3.\nMazhar 1. Lari for Defendant No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAHIR ZAMAN \nVS\nJIN WEI (M) SDN BHD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 578 = 2004 SLD 578 = 2004 CLD 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Plaint for Lack of Cause of Action\n•\nKey Issue:\nCriteria for rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank challenged a borrower’s suit alleging fraud and breach of agreement. The court found the claims warranted factual inquiry.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPlaint cannot be rejected solely on disputed defense claims.\no\nFactual issues require evidence and trial.\n•\nConclusion:\nApplication for rejection dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1700 of 1999, decision dated: 30-05-2003, hearing DATE : 20-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farogh Naseem and Sardar Ejaz for Plaintiffs.\nSajid Zahid for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MASOOD ASIF AND OTHERS\nVS\nUNITED BANK LTD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 579 = 2004 SLD 579 = 2004 CLD 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Infringement of Trademarks\n•\nKey Issue:\nRights of trademark holders and remedies for infringement.\n•\nFacts:\nTrademark owner sought damages and an injunction against infringement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTrademarks signify product origin and quality.\no\nInfringement harms reputation and goodwill, warranting remedies.\n•\nConclusion:\nInjunction and damages awarded.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "Suit No.280 of 2002, decision dated: 25-09-2003, hearing DATE : 3rd September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED \nVS \nMESSRS REHMAN TRADERS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 580 = 2004 SLD 580 = 2004 CLD 631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Guarantor's Liability and Fraudulent Transactions\n•\nKey Issue:\nGuarantor’s liability when alleging fraud and breach by the bank.\n•\nFacts:\nA guarantor claimed fraud and alteration of the original finance contract without consent.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGuarantors are discharged if the contract is materially altered without consent.\no\nFraud claims necessitate factual inquiry.\n•\nConclusion:\nLeave to defend allowed unconditionally.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-226 of 2000, heard on 24-10-2003, hearing DATE : 24-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zubair Qureshi for Plaintiff.\nMuhammad Shafi Siddiqui for Defendant No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVS \nMESSRS SHOAIB CORPORATION AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 581 = 2004 SLD 581 = 2004 CLD 635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Banker’s Lien and Customer Rights\n•\nKey Issue:\nExercise of banker’s lien over customer deposits.\n•\nFacts:\nA bank withheld deposits claiming a set-off for an overdraft. The court scrutinized its legality.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBanker’s lien applies only when explicitly agreed or implied in the account terms.\no\nCustomer deposits must be honored absent valid lien claims.\n•\nConclusion:\nBank directed to release funds.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1988 of 1999, heard on 22nd January 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aftab Ahmad Gujjar for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Rashid Qamar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NADEEM IQBAL ANSARI \nVS\nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, RAWALPINDI THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 582 = 2004 SLD 582 = 2004 CLD 640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\nGrounds for winding up, including just and equitable considerations.\n•\nFacts:\nA shareholder with a minority stake alleged mismanagement and sought winding up.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nWinding up requires strong evidence of insolvency, fraud, or oppression.\no\nInternal disputes are insufficient without broader implications.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; internal remedies emphasized.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=309", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No. 150 of 1955, decision dated: 6-02-2004. dates of hearing: 4-03-2002, 14th, 22nd, 23rd May, 2002, 16-08-10-09-25-11-2002, 10-02-17-03-11-08-8-09-2nd, 23rd, 30th, 31st, October, 7th, 14th and 20th November of 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Mansoor Khan for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Ali Sayeed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHAMATULLAH QURESHI \nVS\nHITECH CONSTRUCTION (PVT) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 583 = 2004 SLD 583 = 2004 CLD 680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Infringement and Passing-Off\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether Plus used by both parties constitutes trademark infringement or passing-off.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nUnregistered trademarks can only claim remedies through passing-off actions.\no\nDistinctiveness and likelihood of confusion are crucial in trademark disputes.\no\nDelay in filing a claim undermines injunction requests.\n•\nConclusion:\nTemporary injunction denied due to delay and lack of prima facie case. Both trademarks were deemed sufficiently dissimilar.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "Suit No.282 of 1999, decision dated: 2-05-2002, hearing DATE : 16-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed Iqbal for Plaintiffs.\nZain Shaikh for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GENERAL BISCUIT AND ANOTHER \nVS\nENGLISH BISCUIT MANUFACTURERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE/ DIRECTOR/ MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 584 = 2004 SLD 584 = 2004 CLD 689", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Banking Court in Underwriting Agreements\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether underwriting agreements fall under finance per the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nUnderwriting agreements are not categorized as finance under Section 2(d) of the Ordinance.\no\nBanking Courts lack jurisdiction over underwriting agreements unless financial obligations are established.\n•\nConclusion:\nSuit reclassified as an ordinary civil suit due to jurisdictional limitations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=2", + "Case #": "Suit No.B-200 of 2000 and C.M.A. No.7619 of 2001, decision dated: 24-11-2003, hearing DATE 13-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoorul Arfin for Plaintiff.\nArshad Tayebal for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVS\nS.G. FIBRE LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 585 = 2004 SLD 585 = 2004 CLD 695", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction and Sister Ships\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether two ships owned by separate companies can be treated as sister ships for liability purposes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPiercing the corporate veil is permissible only upon evidence of fraud.\no\nRegistered ownership is determinative in the absence of fraud allegations.\n•\nConclusion:\nShip arrests vacated; no evidence of fraud or common ownership.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=4", + "Case #": "Adm. Suit No. 20 and C.M.A. No. 1808 of 2003, decision dated: 30-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ATA-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Faez Isa for Plaintiff.\nMuhammad Naeem for Defendants Nos. 1 to 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS\nVS\nM.T. TASMAN SPIRIT AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 586 = 2004 SLD 586 = 2004 CLD 707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright and Trademark Rectification\n•\nKey Issues:\nValidity of assignments and rights of aggrieved persons in copyright disputes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegistration of trademarks and their assignments are prima facie evidence of validity.\no\nUnauthorized copying of artistic works is prohibited.\n•\nConclusion:\nRespondent deemed an aggrieved person with valid claims; unauthorized copying deprecated.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 100 of 2000, heard on 4-04-2002. dates of hearing: 3rd and 4-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Abid for Appellant.\nSaleem Ghulam Hussain for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RIO CHEMICAL COMPANY (REGD \nVS\nPAKISTAN DRUG HOUSE (PVT.) LTD. AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 587 = 2004 SLD 587 = 2004 CLD 712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Pleading Requirements in Banking Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\nImportance of verified statements of accounts and pleadings in loan recovery suits.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAbsence of required documents invalidates claims.\no\nEvidence beyond pleadings is inadmissible.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree set aside; case remanded for reevaluation with proper documents.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 199 of 1999, heard on 19-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azmat Saeed for Appellants.\nMuhammad Aqeel Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJTABA AND 5 OTHERS \nVS \nTHE BANK OF PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 588 = 2004 SLD 588 = 2004 CLD 716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Defend Applications\n•\nKey Issues:\nNon-compliance with procedural requirements in filing leave applications.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nStrict adherence to statutory requirements is mandatory.\no\nNon-compliance results in application rejection.\n•\nConclusion:\nLeave application dismissed; decree upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Civil Original Suit No. 123 of 1999, decision dated: 22-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Saghal for Plaintiff.\nSyed Haider Ali Shah for Defendants Nos. 1 and 3.\nDefendant No. 4 ex. parte. Nemo for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH IFTIKHAR-ULHAQ AND KHALID ISHAQ \nVS\nMOHIB FABRIC INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 589 = 2004 SLD 589 = 2004 CLD 726", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Interlocutory Applications in Banking Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether interlocutory applications can be filed before leave to defend is granted.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLeave to defend must precede other applications.\no\nThe defendant cannot challenge jurisdiction without obtaining leave.\n•\nConclusion:\nConstitutional petition dismissed; defendant required to secure leave to defend.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=Preamble", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.22813 of 2000, heard on 10-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Waqar Saleem for Petitioner.\nHafiz Muhammad Tahir for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FALCON VENTURES PVT. LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE, IFTIKHAR AHMAD \nVS\nPUNJAB BANKING COURT NO.II, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 590 = 2004 SLD 590 = 2004 CLD 732", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Leave to Defend Applications\n•\nKey Issues:\nConsequences of filing leave applications beyond the prescribed period.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDelay without condonation is fatal.\no\nCourts must address jurisdiction and limitation issues even after leave rejection.\n•\nConclusion:\nApplication dismissed as time-barred; court obligated to address jurisdiction before decreeing.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 228 of 1999, heard on 12-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irshad Ullah Chatha for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AWAN APPARELS (PVT.) LTD THROUGH ZAHID AZIZ AWAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\nUNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH MURAD ALI AND TARIQ SAEED GENERAL ATTORNEY AND PRINCIPAL OFFICERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 591 = 2004 SLD 591 = 2004 CLD 736", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Fraud and Misrepresentation in Banking Decrees\n•\nKey Issues:\nRemedies for fraudulent decrees and execution challenges.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFraudulently obtained decrees can be challenged under Section 12(2), CPC.\no\nBanking Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over execution-related claims.\n•\nConclusion:\nFraud allegations to be addressed by the Banking Court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No.59 of 2001, decision dated: 25-11-2003, hearing DATE : 14-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ejaz Ahmed for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CAPTAIN AIJAZ HAROON AHMED \nVS\nTRISTAR SHIPPING LINES LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 592 = 2004 SLD 592 = 2004 CLD 743", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decrees and Service\n•\nKey Issues:\nValidity of ex parte decrees when the defendant is abroad.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProper service includes publication and due diligence.\no\nPower of attorney terms govern mortgage-related disputes.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; decree upheld as service was valid.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.136 of 2001, heard on 13-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tahir Mahmood Khokhar for Appellant.\nMian M. Rafi-ud-Din for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAHMOOD HUSSAIN BAJWA \nVS\nMESSRS GULF COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED AND 9 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 593 = 2004 SLD 593 = 2004 CLD 745", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Mortgage Documents and Forgery Claims\n•\nKey Issues:\nValidity of mortgage documents allegedly executed posthumously.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nForgery claims require substantial proof.\no\nDeath certificates must be certified to be admissible.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; mortgage deed upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=15", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.326 of 2000, decision dated: 3rd February, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pervaiz I. Mir for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. GHULAM KUBRA AND 7 OTHERS\nVS \nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 594 = 2004 SLD 594 = 2004 CLD 748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals Against Section 12(2) Dismissals\n•\nKey Issues:\nMaintainability of appeals against orders under Section 12(2), CPC.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSuch appeals must meet limitation requirements.\no\nDelay without explanation renders appeals invalid.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as time-barred.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.200 of 2002, decision dated: 29-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Asghar Khan for Appellant.\nFarrukh Mehmood Solehria for ADBP.\nMuhammad Iqbal Akhtar for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAVAID TANVEER MUGHAL \nVS\nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 595 = 2004 SLD 595 = 2004 CLD 752", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Counter-Claims in Banking Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\nBanking Tribunal's authority to decree refunds absent counter-claims.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRefunds require counter-claims or set-offs.\no\nBanking Tribunals cannot exceed statutory authority.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree modified; refund directive removed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.448 of 1996, heard on 11-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nasir Mehmood for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER \nVS\nSAKANDAR HAYAT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 596 = 2004 SLD 596 = 2004 CLD 755", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Necessary Parties in Mortgage Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\nNon-impleadment of necessary parties in mortgage disputes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPurchasers of mortgaged properties must be impleaded.\no\nEquitable mortgages must comply with lease conditions.\n•\nConclusion:\nCase remanded to include necessary parties.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos.721 and 782 of 2001, decision dated: 29-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. S. Baqir for Appellants.\nShams Mehmood Mirza for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALILUR-REHMAN AND ANOTHER \nVS\nHABIB BANK LIMITED AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 597 = 2004 SLD 597 = 2004 CLD 757", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Credit Card Misuse and Bank Liability\n•\nKey Issues:\nBank’s liability for unauthorized credit card transactions.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLoss intimation shifts liability to the bank.\no\nVisual comparison of signatures is insufficient to dismiss claims.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree set aside; case remanded for evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.674 of 2001, heard on 15-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haq Nawaz Chattha for Appellant.\nAshar Elahi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KAMRAN BASHIR \nVS\nCITIBANK N.A. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 598 = 2004 SLD 598 = 2004 CLD 760", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Land Acquisition and Mortgage Rights\n•\nKey Issues:\nValidity of mortgages over acquired land.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAcquired land vests with the government irrespective of revenue records.\no\nSubsequent mortgages are invalid.\n•\nConclusion:\nLand excluded from execution proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 144 of 1996, heard on 17-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant.\nShamas Mehmood Mirza and Syed Mumtaz Hussain for Applicant/ Assignee", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL \nVS\nHABIB BANK LTD. AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 599 = 2004 SLD 599 = 2004 CLD 762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decrees and Service Defects\n•\nKey Issues:\nProper service requirements for ex parte decrees.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nService through publication must ensure wide circulation.\no\nAffixation reports require judicial validation.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree set aside; case remanded for proper service.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=6", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.95 of 1994, decision dated: 17-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Nadeem for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZULFIQAR ALI MUMTAZ \nVS\nUNITED BANK LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 600 = 2004 SLD 600 = 2004 CLD 766", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Bank Claims for Liquidated Damages\n•\nKey Issues:\nBank’s entitlement to liquidated damages and returns.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBanking Tribunals lack authority to award speculative returns.\no\nIslamic financing precludes claims for excess returns.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; damages claim denied.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.442 of 1996, heard on 10-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nasir Mehood for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRICULUTRAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER \nVS\nMST. MUHAMMAD KHATOON AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 601 = 2004 SLD 601 = 2004 CLD 768", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmSFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Auction Purchasers’ Rights\n•\nKey Issues:\nRights of auction purchasers post-sale certificate issuance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSale certificates confer ownership rights.\no\nAuction purchasers must be heard in objection petitions.\n•\nConclusion:\nOrder set aside; case remanded for rehearing.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=92", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 69 of 1996, heard on 31st January, 2003, Proceeded ex part vide order dated 29-4-2002,", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahid Khan, for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASHIF YOUNAS \nVS\nABDUL SATTAR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 602 = 2004 SLD 602 = 2004 CLD 771", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Summons in Banking Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\nValidity of service procedures in banking cases.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAffixation requires due diligence and judicial verification.\no\nNewspapers used for publication must have wide circulation.\n•\nConclusion:\nService invalid; decree set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=12", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.153 of 2001, heard on 22-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.M. Sarwar for Appellant.\nSardar Muhammad Tariq Dreshak for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MAHMOOD BROTHERS THROUGH MAHMOOD AHMED AND ANOTHER \nVS \nNATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 603 = 2004 SLD 603 = 2004 CLD 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Condonation of Delay in Appeals\n•\nKey Issues:\nAcceptability of delayed appeals with unchallenged affidavits.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nUnrebutted affidavits justify delay condonation.\no\nCooperation between parties promotes efficient resolution.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal accepted; case remanded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=9", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.176 of 1996, decision dated: 31st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPARVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Allah Yar for Appellant.\nMian Nasir Mehmood for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BARKHURDAR \nVS \nAGRICULTRAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 604 = 2004 SLD 604 = 2004 CLD 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Leave Applications\n•\nKey Issues:\nHarshness of technical dismissals for late filing.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProcedural fairness overrides strict timelines.\no\nCourts must accommodate plausible defense attempts.\n•\nConclusion:\nDismissal deemed harsh; decree set aside for reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 18 of 2002, heard on 27-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Petitioners.\nNisar Ahmad Nisar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GENERAL PACKING INDUSTRIES THROUGH ZAHID SULTAN AND 5 OTHERS \nVS\nMESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 605 = 2004 SLD 605 = 2004 CLD 785", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Decrees and Functus Officio Doctrine\n•\nKey Issues:\nJurisdiction of Banking Court to amend decrees and award future interest post-decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBanking Court becomes functus officio after decree issuance.\no\nAmendments for clerical errors must align with Sections 152/153, CPC, and be timely.\no\nClaims not raised in appeal are deemed acquiesced.\n•\nConclusion:\nAmendment of decree and award of future interest were invalid. High Court set aside orders.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=12", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.229 of 1996, heard on 7-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nMAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz Kasuri for Appellants.\nSh. Shahid Waheed for Respondent No. 1.\nRespondent No. 2 proceeded ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. NUSRAT AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 606 = 2004 SLD 606 = 2004 CLD 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Mark-Up in Execution\n•\nKey Issues:\nRecovery of voluntarily deposited mark-up not awarded under a decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nVoluntary deposits to prevent property auction do not indicate consent to mark-up.\no\nUnawarded mark-up in decrees is not enforceable.\n•\nConclusion:\nBank directed to refund the mark-up deposited by the debtor.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=15", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 168 of 2002, decision dated: 20-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farooq for Appellant.\nZahoor Anwar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEHZAD NADEEM \nVS\nAGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, GUJRAT BRANCH THROUGH MANAGER/ATTORNEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 607 = 2004 SLD 607 = 2004 CLD 797", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Attachment of Property Purchased in Good Faith\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether a bona fide purchaser's property can be attached for a debtor’s liabilities.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSales made without intent to defraud creditors are valid.\no\nRegistered sales carry a presumption of legality.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal allowed; attachment order against bona fide purchaser set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Execution First Appeal No.230 of 2002, heard on 28-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Mazaffar Ahmed Zafar for Appellants.\nMuhammad Aslam Bahleem and Mukhtar Muhammad Rana for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOHSIN NAZIR AND 3 OTHERS \nVS\nHABIB BANK LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 608 = 2004 SLD 608 = 2004 CLD 800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Appeals under Special Laws\n•\nKey Issues:\nApplicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Financial Institutions Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSpecial laws override general provisions like Section 5 of the Limitation Act.\no\nTime-barred appeals are non-maintainable.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed as time-barred; Section 5 of the Limitation Act deemed inapplicable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.709 of 2002, decision dated: 19-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant in person.\nTariq Saleem Sheikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RASHEED AND ANOTHER \nVS\nBANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 609 = 2004 SLD 609 = 2004 CLD 802", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal for Non-Production of Evidence\n•\nKey Issues:\nDismissal of a banking suit for non-production of evidence despite adjournments.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAdjournments granted suo motu are not attributable to parties.\no\nDismissal under Order XVII, Rule 3, CPC, requires specific requests for adjournments.\n•\nConclusion:\nDismissal set aside; case remanded for evidence recording.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=12", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.302 of 1996, heard on 18-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Aniqua Mughis Sheikh for Appellant.\nMuhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MULSIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED \nVS\nMESSRS GAFCOLOR (PAKISTAN) LIMITED AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 610 = 2004 SLD 610 = 2004 CLD 806", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Consent Decree and Non-Consenting Defendants\n•\nKey Issues:\nValidity of consent decrees against non-consenting defendants.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nConsent decrees bind only consenting parties.\no\nLeave applications of non-consenting defendants must be decided separately.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree against appellants set aside; leave application remanded for decision.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 105 of 2002, decision dated: 29-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Arshad Mehmood for Appellants.\nMian Qamar-uz-Zaman for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NASIM IQBAL MALIK AND ANOTHER \nVS\nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 611 = 2004 SLD 611 = 2004 CLD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)--Ss. 9, 15 & 21---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts---Bank issued notice to borrower showing his liability to tune of Rs.36,000---Borrower filed suit seeking declaration that no such amount was payable to Bank--­Bank filed fresh statement of accounts---Banking Court decreed suit of Borrower and declared such notice illegal and void---Contention of Bank was that according to terms of sanctioned letter coupled with relevant clauses of agreement, statement of accounts prepared by Bank was conclusive proof of liability of borrower---Validity---Such general clause in a cyclostyled document by itself would not be a sufficient proof of liability---Bank had to justify by independent evidence entries in statement of accounts cogently disputed by borrower---Bank could not explain the basis on which such amount had been calculated---Entry made in statement of accounts did not reconcile with agreement between parties---Bank could not establish from record liability of borrower to the extent of disputed amount---Borrower had not defaulted in payment of agreed instalments of loan till the end of the contract---High Court dismissed appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=15", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.586 of 2001, heard on 17-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shuja Baba for Appellant.\nSardar Mashkoor Ahmad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER \nVS\nMRS. NAJMA PERVEEN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 612 = 2004 SLD 612 = 2004 CLD 811", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Amended Leave Applications in Pending Cases\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether amended leave applications can rectify defects in earlier applications.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 10(12) of the Ordinance permits amended applications in pending cases.\no\nDismissals for technicalities without considering amendments are unjust.\n•\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for adjudication of pending leave application.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 225 of 2002, heard on 7-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVEZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi for Appellants.\nSh. Ashiq Per. vaiz for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CHANCELLORS OVERSEAS AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\nMUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 613 = 2004 SLD 613 = 2004 CLD 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether Section 5 applies to proceedings under Financial Institutions Ordinance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 5 is inapplicable to timeframes set by special laws.\no\nPending applications may proceed under the Ordinance’s provisions.\n•\nConclusion:\nBanking Court directed to decide pending leave applications.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=Preamble", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.352 of 2002, heard on 15-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Abdul Majid and Shahid Shaukat for Appellants.\nAshar Elahi for Respondent.\nCh. Muhammad Aslam Chatha and Haji Dildar Khan for Respondents Nos. 3 to 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FRIENDS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 614 = 2004 SLD 614 = 2004 CLD 821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decree and Improper Service\n•\nKey Issues:\nService validity when address used was outdated.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProper service requires current addresses of defendants.\no\nNotices to outdated addresses invalidate ex parte decrees.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree set aside; defendant permitted to file leave application.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.399 of 2001, heard on 24-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jamil for Appellant.\nFarooq Beedar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LT.COL. (RETD.) MAHMOQD AKHTER \nVS\nBANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 615 = 2004 SLD 615 = 2004 CLD 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Damages and Liquidated Penalties\n•\nKey Issues:\nRecovery of damages or penalties without proving actual loss.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLiquidated damages require proof of actual loss.\no\nUnsupported claims for additional rental/penalties are invalid.\n•\nConclusion:\nBank’s claim for additional rentals denied; decree modified.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.711 of 2001, heard on 7-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jehanzeb Khan Bharwana for Appellants.\nM. Naeem Sahgal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HUNZA PACKAGES (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 616 = 2004 SLD 616 = 2004 CLD 832", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Revised Statements of Account\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether payments acknowledged in revised statements should alter decrees.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAcknowledged payments must adjust decrees.\no\nExecution proceedings should reflect actual liabilities.\n•\nConclusion:\nDecree modified to account for payments; execution adjusted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Execution First Appeal 810 of 2002, decision dated: 26-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ehsan-ul-Haq Khan for Appellant.\nShahid Ikram Siddiqui for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAMID ALI CHAUDHRY AND ANOTHER \nVS \n CITIBANK N.A. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "6999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 617 = 2004 SLD 617 = 2004 CLD 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Liquidated Damages in Banking Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\nDenial of liquidated damages and agreed returns in banking decrees.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nClaims for agreed returns require substantiation.\no\nLiquidated damages must align with contract terms.\n•\nConclusion:\nCase remanded for reconsideration of agreed returns.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.486 of 2001, heard on 11-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nasir Mehmood for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER \nVS\n MST. BALQEES BEGUM AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 618 = 2004 SLD 618 = 2004 CLD 847", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice for Ex Parte Decree\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether bank's intimation suffices as notice for ex parte decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nNotice must be issued by the court, not the plaintiff.\no\nBank’s communication cannot replace proper service.\n•\nConclusion:\nEx parte decree set aside; case remanded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=12", + "Case #": "Civil Original Suit No.76 of 1998, decision dated: 10th December. 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LTD. \nVS\n MESSRS HAFIZ BROTHERS LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 619 = 2004 SLD 619 = 2004 CLD 849", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Stipulations in Sales Contracts\n•\nKey Issues:\nAllocation of liability for sales tax imposed post-contract.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAbsent stipulations, liability follows statutory provisions.\no\nDelayed acceptance of goods implies acceptance of terms.\n•\nConclusion:\nDefendant liable for additional sales tax; concurrent findings upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sale of Goods Act, (III of 1930)=64", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeal No.59 of 1997, heard on 25-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Kh. For Appellant.\nSajid Mahmood Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL STORAGE \nVS\n CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 620 = 2004 SLD 620 = 2004 CLD 853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Res Judicata in Execution\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether auction-related objections are barred by res judicata.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nIssues decided by appellate courts cannot be re-litigated.\no\nTime-barred objections contravene res judicata principles.\n•\nConclusion:\nObjection petition dismissed as barred by res judicata.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=89", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 174 of 2002, heard on 16-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Inayatullah for Appellant.\nShahid Ikram Siddiqui for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MAHMOOD ZAFAR SAMEEN \nVS\n CITIBANK N.A. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 621 = 2004 SLD 621 = 2004 CLD 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Appearance and Leave Applications\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether a non-appearance justifies dismissal of leave applications.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLeave applications pending adjudication must be decided first.\no\nNon-appearance alone does not invalidate pending applications.\n•\nConclusion:\nAppeal dismissed; leave application dismissed for non-appearance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.186 of 2002, heard on 27-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar for Appellants.\nFarrukh Mahmood Sulehria for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AMMAR RICE DEALERS AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 622 = 2004 SLD 622 = 2004 CLD 860", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Legislation\n•\nKey Issues:\nValidity of retrospective application of price equalization surcharge.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLegislature has authority to enact retrospective laws.\no\nLong-standing claims are non-justiciable.\n•\nConclusion:\nIntra-court appeal dismissed; surcharge validated.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3", + "Case #": "I.C.As. Nos.505, 506, 554, 555 and 556 of 2000, decision dated: 4-03-2004, hearing DATE : 18th and 19-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nPERVAIZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Dogar for Appellant (in I.C. As. Nos.505 and 506 of 2000).\nMian Nisar Ahmad for Appellants (in I.C.As.Nos.554, 555 and 556 of 2000).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MODEL STEEL MILLS LIMITED \nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY COMMERCE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 623 = 2004 SLD 623 = 2004 CLD 868", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Monopoly Rules\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether Monopolies Control Authority Rules exceed statutory powers.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRules aligned with statutory purposes are valid.\no\nUltra vires claims require substantive evidence.\n•\nConclusion:\nPetition dismissed; rules upheld as intra vires.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970=19", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.708 of 2004, decision dated: 17-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saleem Sahgal for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KOHAT CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\n MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 624 = 2004 SLD 624 = 2004 CLD 871", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright Disputes\n•\nKey Issues:\nExpunction of register entries without proper evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAffidavits alone are insufficient without cross-examination.\no\nCases must be decided on substantive evidence.\n•\nConclusion:\nCase remanded to Registrar for re-evaluation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 111 of 2003, decision dated: 24-02-2004, hearing DATE : 18-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Abid for Appellant.\nSh. Maqsood Ahmad Qadir for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WELCOME FABRICS \nVS\n VICO FABRICS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 625 = 2004 SLD 625 = 2004 CLD 875", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Patent Infringement and Executing Court’s Role\n•\nKey Issues:\nWhether executing courts can penalize without proper trial.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExecution must align with trial findings.\no\nMere conjectures cannot justify penalties.\n•\nConclusion:\nExecuting court’s order set aside; petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.273 of 2003, decision dated: 4-03-2004. dates of hearing: 9-09-2003, 27th February and 4-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi and Amjad Hameed Ghouri for Petitioners.\nFarrukh Irfan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WARRIACH PHARMACEUTICALS THROUGH MUHAMMAD OWAIS AND 5 OTHERS \nVS\n ELI LILLY & COMPANY THROUGH AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 626 = 2004 SLD 626 = 2004 CLD 881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Mortgage and Registration\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSecond charge rights.\no\nAdmissibility of unregistered mortgage deeds in Banking Court.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCreation of a second charge does not nullify mortgagee’s rights under the second charge.\no\nBanking Court, under special laws, can admit unregistered documents overriding general laws like the Registration Act.\n•\nConclusion: High Court upheld the Banking Court's decision and dismissed the appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Registration Act, 1908=17", + "Case #": "Spl. 1st Appeal No.2 of 2000, decision dated: 9-10-2003,", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sami Ahmad for Appellant.\nHamza I. Ali for Respondent No. 1.\nNone for the rest of the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN \nVS\n HABIB BANK LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 627 = 2004 SLD 627 = 2004 CLD 897", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Judicial Sale and Winding Up of Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of judicial sales under winding-up proceedings.\no\nSubsequent offers after sale confirmation.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nJudicial sales carry the sanctity of court commitment and public interest.\no\nOnce a sale is confirmed, it cannot be revoked for better offers, ensuring commercial stability.\n•\nConclusion: Applications to set aside judicial sales were dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "C.O. No-23 of 199.6 and C.Ms. Nos.447-L; 621-L, 439-L and 622-L of 2000, decision dated: 10-04-2001, hearing DATE : 4-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azmat Saeed for Petitioner.\nZafar Iqbal Awan and Chaudhary Zafar for Respondent.\nNoor Muhammad Khan Chandia for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.\nVS\n SHAHDIN LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 628 = 2004 SLD 628 = 2004 CLD 905", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Organizations and Election Disputes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of post-scrutiny of nominations.\no\nRole of Trade Director in elections.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nScrutiny after issuance of a valid list is impermissible.\no\nA person cannot judge their own cause (conflict of interest).\n•\nConclusion: Scrutiny Committee's actions were deemed unlawful, and the election process was preserved.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13108 of 2003, decision dated: 4-12-2003, hearing DATE : 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Masud for petitioner.\nHamid Khan, Ijaz-ul-Ahsan and Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAVED HUSSAIN DAR \nVS\n LAHORE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 629 = 2004 SLD 629 = 2004 CLD 889", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Liquidated Damages and Mark-Up\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDecree on admissions.\no\nInclusion of disputed mark-up and liquidated damages.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDecrees should address all issues raised.\no\nMark-up over mark-up must be justified; unsupported claims for damages are invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Preliminary decree maintained for admitted amounts, and the case remanded for addressing remaining issues.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.414 of 1998, heard on 6-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nFARRUKH LATIF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Imam Ali for Appellants.\nKhalid Mahmood Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAK. GREEN ACRES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN AND 13 \nOTHERS\nVS\n UNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER/ATTORNEYHOLDER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 630 = 2004 SLD 630 = 2004 CLD 915", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Duress and Banking Facilities\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDefense of duress in acknowledging liability.\no\nDisbursements of loans and repayments.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDuress claims must specify nature and be supported by legal action.\no\nAcknowledgment of debt without evidence of coercion is binding.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; liability upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=7", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal Case No.452 of 2002, heard on 11-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellants.\nKhawaja Aamer Farooq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AGHA FABRICS. (PVT) LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\n UNION BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 631 = 2004 SLD 631 = 2004 CLD 886", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Modaraba and Musharaka Agreements\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDisputes over mark-up and additional charges in Musharaka agreements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAgreements extending beyond original terms must align with stipulated clauses.\no\nUnsubstantiated claims for mark-up cannot be upheld.\n•\nConclusion: Decree modified to exclude additional mark-up.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal Case No.625 of 2002, heard on 22-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nCH IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azmat Saeed and Asim Hafeez for Appellants.\nShakeel Ahmed Awan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GRAIN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (PVT.) LTD. AND 2 OTHERS\nVS\n MESSRS FIRST CRESCENT MODARABA THROUGH CRESCENT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 632 = 2004 SLD 632 = 2004 CLD 930", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Promissory Note Liability\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPersonal liability of agents signing promissory notes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAgents signing in a representative capacity do not incur personal liability if clearly stated.\n•\nConclusion: No personal liability on the agent in this case.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular Second Appeal No. 1 of 1995, heard on 12-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawar-ul-Islam for Appellant.\nZulfiqar Ali Bhatti for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAHID MAHMOOD \nVS\n MST. SABRINA IQBAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 633 = 2004 SLD 633 = 2004 CLD 944", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Pendente Lite Compensation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nCharging of mark-up post-facility expiry.\no\nCompensation during litigation.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMark-up post-facility expiry not payable unless agreed.\no\nCompensation pendente lite may be awarded until realization.\n•\nConclusion: Decree modified to exclude mark-up but retained compensation pendente lite.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.454 of 2000, heard on 1st July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan for Appellant.\nMuhammad Aqeel Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TARIQ RASHID \nVS\n FIRST PUNJAB MODARBA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 634 = 2004 SLD 634 = 2004 CLD 1081", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Execution and Objections\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nObjections to decrees not challenged in appeal.\no\nAuction proceedings and contractual obligations.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFailure to challenge decrees precludes objections in execution.\no\nDebtors cannot back out from commitments without legal consequences.\n•\nConclusion: Auction confirmed; objection dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1396-L of 2003, decision dated: 9-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abbas Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. KHAIRUNNISA CHANNA \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 635 = 2004 SLD 635 = 2004 CLD 1040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Awards and Arbitration\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nEnforcement of foreign awards under Arbitration Act.\no\nRole of executing courts.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExecuting courts cannot review foreign awards on merits.\no\nAwards are binding unless invalid under specific grounds.\n•\nConclusion: Foreign award upheld; objections dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suits Nos. 731, 1583 of 1998, 275 of 1999 and 343 of 2000, decision dated: 27-03-2004. dates of hearing: 9th, 10th, 11th and 15-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anjum Ghani for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 731 of 1998).\nMamnoon Hasan for Defendant (in Suits Nos.731, 1583 of 1998 and 343 of 2000).\nA. H. Mirza for Plaintiff, (in Suit No. 1583 of 1998).\nAbdul Aziz A. Munshi for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 275 of 1999).\nNoorullah A. Manji for Defendant (in Suit No. 275 of 1999).\nArshad Tabebaly for Plaintiff (in Suit No. 343 of 2000).", + "Petitioner Name:": "QUINN CORPORATION AND OTHERS \nVS\n COTTON EXPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 636 = 2004 SLD 636 = 2004 CLD 1037", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up and Appeals\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nMaintainability of intra-court appeals.\no\nSupreme Court jurisdiction over winding-up orders.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAppeals against Company Judge orders lie with the Supreme Court.\no\nHigh Court erred in dismissing the intra-court appeal.\n•\nConclusion: Leave granted by the Supreme Court to examine appeal maintainability.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.569-K of 1999, decision dated: 15th March 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nRizwan Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAKAUDDIN \nVS\n DASTGIR INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), THROUGH THE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 398 = 2014 SLD 398 = 2014 YLR 468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Ownership Disputes and Occupancy Tenancy\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nProof of ownership under unregistered deeds.\no\nMutation validity and adverse possession.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nUnregistered deeds require corroborative evidence.\no\nProprietary rights cannot be acquired via adverse possession post-1990.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded for proper framing of issues and inclusion of the government as a party.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.852 of 2008, decision dated: 1st July, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azghar Ali for Petitioner.\nAtlas Khan Dazai for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NOOR MAIDAR \nVS\n ALTAF AHMAD KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 637 = 2004 SLD 637 = 2004 CLD 1023", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Foreign Arbitration Awards\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nObjections to foreign awards in execution.\no\nTerritorial jurisdiction and enforceability.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExecution courts act within limited jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act.\no\nAwards consistent with foreign laws are enforceable.\n•\nConclusion: Objections dismissed; award enforced.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.381 of 2001, decision dated: 7-05-2004. dates of hearings: 22-03-26th and 30-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qadir H. Sayeed and Yousuf Ali Sayeed for Plaintiff.\nMunib Akhtar for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COGETEX S.A., A COMPANY DULY IN CORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF SWITZERLAND \nVS\n MAYFAIR SPINNING MILLS LIMITED, A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PAKISTAN COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1984" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 638 = 2004 SLD 638 = 2004 CLD 1064", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of Companies\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nGrounds for winding-up petitions.\no\nCommercial insolvency and mismanagement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nWinding-up requires evidence of insolvency or creditor support.\no\nShareholder allegations must be substantiated.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; company not wound up.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous No.226 of 1996, decision dated: 6-04-1999, hearing DATE : 4-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioner.\nM. A. Rehman for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMINUDDIN \nVS\n MESSRS AZAD FRIENDS & CO." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 639 = 2004 SLD 639 = 2004 CLD 984", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Breach of Contract and Earnest Money\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nForfeiture of earnest money upon default.\no\nEquitable relief in contract breaches.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nEarnest money is forfeited on buyer’s breach unless unconscionable.\no\nCourts enforce penalties if they align with contractual terms.\n•\nConclusion: Earnest money forfeiture upheld; breach penalties enforced.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Control of Shipping Act, 1947=236", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.22-L of 2000, heard on 28-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Dogar for Appellant. \nIqbal Mehmood Awan Assisted by Ch. Shahram Sarwarm for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RAVIANS PAPER AND BOARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\n MESSRS TAJ COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 399 = 2014 SLD 399 = 2014 YLR 484", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Suspension of Sentence\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConviction under Sections 337-D and 337-F of the Penal Code.\no\nApplication for suspension of sentence pending appeal.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSuspension of sentences for short durations is considered when appeals are pending and unlikely to be heard soon.\no\nCourts consider factors like pending paper books and bail status during the trial.\n•\nConclusion: High Court suspended the sentence pending appeal since the accused had short sentences and were already on bail during the trial.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.S-41 of 2013, decision dated: 20-09-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Ali A. Samtio for Appellants.\nSaleem Raza Jakhar for the Complainant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LIAQUAT AND ANOTHER \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 640 = 2004 SLD 640 = 2004 CLD 1131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Infringement\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiff claimed exclusive rights to the trademark “Acer” used globally for computers and related goods.\no\nDefendant used the same trademark and registered a similar domain name, causing confusion.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nUnauthorized use of a trademark, leading to consumer confusion, constitutes infringement.\no\nLong-term usage of a trademark establishes proprietary rights even without immediate local registration.\n•\nConclusion: Defendant’s use of the trademark “Acer” was declared unauthorized and infringing. Defendant was permanently restrained from using the trademark and domain name.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No. 766 of 2002, decision dated: 20-10-2003. dates of hearing: 17th and 19-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moeen Qamar for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ACER, INC. \nVS\n ACER COMPUTERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 400 = 2014 SLD 400 = 2014 YLR 529", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nProsecution failed to prove the case conclusively due to contradictory evidence, lack of source of light at the scene, and discrepancies in medical and ocular evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInconsistent prosecution evidence raises doubts benefiting the accused.\no\nMere absconsion by the accused is not conclusive proof of guilt.\n•\nConclusion: Prosecution's case was found doubtful, and the accused were acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.542 of 2009, decision dated: 9-10-2013, hearing DATE : 26-09-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SHEHZADA MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Naseer Ahmad Tahir for Appellant. \nBasharat Ullah Khan for the Complainant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAVED IQBAL AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 641 = 2004 SLD 641 = 2004 CLD 1126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDVT0", + "Key Words:": ": Execution Proceedings\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPetitioner’s application to set aside a sale under Order XXI, Rule 89 of CPC was dismissed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.\no\nPetitioner approached the High Court through a constitutional petition.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExecution proceedings must follow prescribed procedures strictly.\no\nConstitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be invoked in the absence of compliance with mandatory requirements.\n•\nConclusion: The constitutional petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to meet procedural requirements and did not act in good faith.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3321 of 2003, decision dated: 15-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nauman Mushtaq Awan for Petitioners.\nCh. Farrukh Mehmood Sulehria for Respondents Nos. 1 and 4.\nMian Muhammad Saleem for Respondent No. 2.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS STILETTO (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\n BANKING COURT NO.II, GUJRANWALA, CAMP AT SIALKOT AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 401 = 2014 SLD 401 = 2014 YLR 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 497---Drugs Act 1976 (XXXI of 1976), Ss. 7, 23 & 30---Sale of spurious and unregistered drugs---Bail, refusal of---Allegation against the accused was that he was selling spurious and unregistered drugs, and some of the drugs seized from his shop were without warranty and had expired---Drugs/medicines were recovered from the business place of accused in his presence, and he was caught red-handed---Samples of recovered medicines were sent for analysis and most of them were found substandard and spurious---Accused had prima facie committed an offence which had a direct impact on the public at large---Bail petition of accused was dismissed in circumstances with the observations that a person dealing in spurious drugs choose such business knowing that the same would directly affect the health of the public, and he sold spurious drugs just for getting monetary benefit through an easy way in a short period of time, and that sale of spurious drugs had to be dealt with iron hands in order to save innocent victims. \n \n Mrs. Jumana Khursheed v. Ist A.D.J. Karachi East and 2 others 2007 YLR 363 and The State v. Iqbal Khan 1996 SCMR 767 distinguished.\n \n(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---\n \n----Ss. 497 & 103---Drugs Act, 1976 (XXXI of 1976), Ss. 7, 23 & 30---Sale of spurious and unregistered drugs---Bail, refusal of---Raid proceedings---Police officials as recovery witnesses---Legality---Plea that no person from the public witnesses was joined at the time of alleged recovery of spurious drugs from the shop---Validity---Police personnel were as good witnesses as persons from the public unless mala fide was established against them---Persons from public were normally reluctant to offer themselves as witnesses in order to avoid animosity---Bail was refused to accused accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.4802-B of 2012, decision dated: 7-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nSYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ahmad Mehmood for Petitioner. \nHassan Mehmood, D.P.G., Rehman Ali, A.S.-I. and Dr. Muhammad Kaleem Bhutta, Drug Inspector for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNAS \nVS\n THE STATE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 642 = 2004 SLD 642 = 2004 CLD 1136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": ": Bail Refusal in Drug Case\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAccused was caught selling spurious and unregistered drugs that were expired or lacked warranty.\no\nThe plea for bail was contested on the basis of the accused’s act having severe public health implications.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe sale of spurious drugs impacts public health and must be dealt with stringently.\no\nPolice officers are considered credible witnesses unless proven otherwise.\n•\nConclusion: Bail was refused due to the gravity of the offense and the prima facie evidence against the accused", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=2", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 738-L of 2002, decision dated: 20-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Fazal-e-Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhter Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CH. ABDUL MAJID \nVS\n SADAQAT SAEED MALIK AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 402 = 2014 SLD 402 = 2014 YLR 553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Execution of Decree and Third-Party Claims\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDispute arose over auctioned property mortgaged with the bank.\no\nA third party filed a separate suit for specific performance of an agreement concerning the auctioned property.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSpecial courts have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with execution matters.\no\nSection 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act provides limited protection, not overriding the rights of auction purchasers.\n•\nConclusion: Third-party claims were dismissed, and the auctioned property’s sale was upheld as per the decree", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.27 of 2008, decision dated: 18-11-2013, hearing DATE : 25-07-2013", + "Judge Name:": "QAZI FAEZ ISA, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yaqoob Khan for Appellants. \nSyed Ayaz Zahoor and Shehak Baloch, Assistant Advocate General for official Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN AND ANOTHER \nVS\n SECRETARY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS HASHIM KHAN TRUST, QUETTA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 643 = 2004 SLD 643 = 2004 CLD 1114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition in Execution\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nObjection petition in execution proceedings was dismissed.\no\nPetitioner filed a constitutional petition instead of an appeal.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAdequate statutory remedies, such as appeals, must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.\no\nConstitutional petitions are not a substitute for statutory remedies.\n•\nConclusion: Constitutional petition dismissed as an appeal was the appropriate remedy.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.22308 of 1998, decision dated: 5-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashideen Nawaz for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent No. 1.\nSh. Zia Ullah for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNITED BANK LIMITED \nVS\n BANKING COURT NO.IV, LAHORE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 403 = 2014 SLD 403 = 2014 YLR 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": ": Rejection of Plaint\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiffs challenged a compromise-based mutation, claiming the agreement was invalid.\no\nPlaintiffs themselves benefited from the compromise in prior litigation.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nParties are estopped from challenging agreements they have benefited from.\no\nPlaintiffs must abide by their covenants.\n•\nConclusion: Plaint rejected as the plaintiffs were estopped from raising inconsistent pleas.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.1957 of 2010, decision dated: 7-06-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Numan Khan for Appellants. \nMujahid Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD JAN AND OTHERS \nVS\n SYED ZAHOOR AHMAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 644 = 2004 SLD 644 = 2004 CLD 1105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Modaraba Recovery Suit\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSuit for recovery of funds provided from the Modaraba fund.\no\nDefendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAcknowledgment of liability extends the limitation period.\no\nModaraba suits must be filed in Modaraba Tribunals.\n•\nConclusion: Suit deemed within limitation; Modaraba Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.626-L of 2003, decision dated: 22-04-2003. dates of hearing: 21st and 22-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nFALAK SHER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nSh. Naseer Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Umer Mahmood Kasuri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Talib Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN AFTAB A. SHEIKH AND OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS TRUST MODARABA AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 404 = 2014 SLD 404 = 2014 YLR 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Revision on Misreading of Evidence\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTrial court’s findings contradicted unrebutted evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMisreading or non-reading of evidence warrants revision.\no\nFindings must align with evidence presented.\n•\nConclusion: High Court set aside the trial court's findings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.1437 of 2005, heard on 13-05-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Iqbal Mian for Petitioner. Mian Shah Abbas for Respondents Nos. 1 to 8. Zulfiqar Ali, A.A.G. for Respondents Nos. 9 to 12 with Basharat Ali, Head Clerk.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH through L.Rs. and others \nVs \nMUHAMMAD ANWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 645 = 2004 SLD 645 = 2004 CLD 1109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTYz0", + "Key Words:": ": Winding Up of Company\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRegistrar filed a winding-up petition without proof of serving notice to the company.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nQuasi-judicial authorities must strictly adhere to procedural fairness.\no\nProper service of notice is mandatory before granting winding-up sanctions.\n•\nConclusion: Winding-up proceedings were declared void and remanded for compliance with procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous Application No.55 of 2003, decision dated: 21st May, 2004, hearing DATE : 12-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Aamir Naqvi for Petitioner.\nJhamat Jethanand for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, COMPANY REGISTRATION OFFICE, KARACHI \nVS\n MESSRS NORRIE TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 405 = 2014 SLD 405 = 2014 YLR 575", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Conviction for Murder\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConviction based on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and recovery of the murder weapon.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCorroborated evidence, including confessions, is sufficient for conviction.\no\nMinor inconsistencies do not vitiate reliable evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Conviction upheld; prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.97 of 2006, decision dated: 12-07-2013", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faiz Muhammad M. Larik for the Appellant. \nNaimatullah Bhurgri, for the Complainant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARBAB \nVS\n THE STATE\nAbdul Rasheed Soomro, State Counsel." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 646 = 2004 SLD 646 = 2004 CLD 1084", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Court Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBorrowers filed suits against banks for alleged over-recovery of dues.\no\nThe bank challenged the Banking Court’s jurisdiction.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBanking Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning loans and finances.\no\nTerms like “including” in statutes enlarge the scope of jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Banking Court had jurisdiction; suits were maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7", + "Case #": "C.P. Nos.D-361 to D-371 of 2003, decision dated: 12-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Jehanghir Hussain Shah for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS \nVS\n YAR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 406 = 2014 SLD 406 = 2014 YLR 581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Non-Compliance in Ejectment\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nEjectment petition was filed without requisite affidavits.\no\nTenants challenged maintainability based on procedural lapses.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProcedural requirements must be strictly followed for statutory compliance.\no\nCurable defects require sufficient justification.\n•\nConclusion: Ejectment petition declared invalid for procedural non-compliance; landlords allowed to file afresh.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.490 of 2013, heard on 12-11-2013", + "Judge Name:": "M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Ata Rasool Joya for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Aslam for Respondents Nos.3 to 8.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHABBIR \nVS\n ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND 7 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 647 = 2004 SLD 647 = 2004 CLD 1097", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTTT0", + "Key Words:": ": Trade Mark Rectification\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicant sought cancellation of the respondent's trademark due to prior global usage.\no\nRespondent failed to contest.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPrior global usage and lack of bona fide use in Pakistan justify trademark cancellation.\no\nTrademark registration requires genuine intent for use.\n•\nConclusion: Respondent’s trademark registration was expunged; applicant’s rights were upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=6", + "Case #": "J. Miscellaneous No.31 of 2001, decision dated: 8-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hameed Iqbal and Hasan Irfan for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GAP, INC. (A COMPANY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE) THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS\n SHAHID CORPORATION THROUGH SHAHID MAQBOOL (SOLE PROPRIETOR) AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 407 = 2014 SLD 407 = 2014 YLR 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAccused charged with attempted murder and assault on a public servant during a police encounter.\no\nProsecution alleged heavy crossfire, but no injuries or evidence, such as spent cartridges, were found.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDelay in identification parade weakens its evidentiary value.\no\nAbsence of physical evidence (e.g., injuries, bullet shells) creates significant doubt.\no\nBenefit of doubt is a right, not a concession.\n•\nConclusion: Prosecution failed to substantiate charges, and the accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence and procedural flaws", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Jail Appeal No.S-35 of 2004, decision dated: 4-10-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faiz Muhammad Larik for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL AZIZ AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 648 = 2004 SLD 648 = 2004 CLD 1100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Company Affairs and Petition Maintainability\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank filed a petition under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, alleging unlawful company conduct.\no\nBank lacked standing as it was neither a member nor a creditor of the company.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nOnly shareholders or creditors with substantial stakes can file petitions regarding company affairs.\no\nComplicated issues require resolution through regular suits, not summary jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed due to lack of standing and the need for a detailed inquiry through appropriate legal proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.01 of 1999, decision dated: 10-04-2002. dates of hearing: 20th and 21st November, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Asghar for Petitioner.\nAgha Faisal and Asghar Nadeem Farooq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVS\n BALOCHISTAN WHEELS LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 408 = 2014 SLD 408 = 2014 YLR 586", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Agreement to Sell and Declaration Suit\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiff sought ownership of a property based on an agreement to sell.\no\nCourts below erroneously decreed the suit without establishing possession or title transfer.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAgreements to sell do not confer ownership; specific performance must be sought.\no\nProtection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act applies only when possession is delivered.\n•\nConclusion: Judgments of lower courts were overturned, and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed as legally untenable.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.254-A of 2006, decision dated: 28-10-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. IRSHAD QAISER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Anwar for Petitioner.\nIkhlaq Ahmad Khan and Nadeem Ali Yousafzai for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. RAB NAWAZ KHAN THROUGH L.RS \nVS\n LIAQAT USMAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 649 = 2004 SLD 649 = 2004 CLD 1213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Lease Rentals and Public Policy\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nFinancial institution sought recovery of additional lease rentals, denied by the Banking Court as being against public policy.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nClaims of public policy must be supported by evidence and statutory interpretation.\no\nMixed questions of law and fact require judicial examination.\n•\nConclusion: The Banking Court's decision was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.456 of 1999, heard on 5-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azmat Saeed for Appellant.\nAli Sibtain Fazli for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ATLAS LEASE LTD.\nVS\n MESSRS PUNJAB STEELS (PVT.) LTD. AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 409 = 2014 SLD 409 = 2014 YLR 590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Maintenance Allowance and Dowry Articles\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nWife claimed recovery of dowry articles and maintenance.\no\nHusband contested the inclusion of gold ornaments in the claim.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nClaimant bears the burden of proving possession and retention of disputed items.\no\nUnsubstantiated claims about gold ornaments cannot be granted.\n•\nConclusion: Constitutional petition was partially allowed, modifying the trial court's judgment concerning gold ornaments.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2921 of 2010/BWP, decision dated: 22-07-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Tayyab Zameer Khan for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Asim Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KALEEMULLAH \nVS\n ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 650 = 2004 SLD 650 = 2004 CLD 1224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Equipment Lease Dispute\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBorrower alleged non-disbursement of full loan amount.\no\nBanking Court rejected leave to defend and decreed the suit for recovery.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBorrower’s failure to raise disputes during the loan term undermines later objections.\no\nClear terms of the lease agreement bind parties.\n•\nConclusion: Borrower’s appeal was dismissed; the Banking Court’s decision was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 510 of 1999, heard on 8-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Appellants.\nAzmat Saeed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PUNJAB STEELS (PVT.) LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS ATLAS LEASE LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 651 = 2004 SLD 651 = 2004 CLD 1210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Infringement and Interim Injunction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiff sought an injunction to stop the defendant from using its trademark.\no\nDefendant challenged the injunction citing pending appeal.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInterim injunctions are valid to prevent ongoing damage during litigation.\no\nLegal rights must be proven to continue business under a disputed trademark.\n•\nConclusion: Injunction granted to the plaintiff was upheld, protecting trademark rights during litigation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 170 of 2003, decision dated: 18-05-2004, hearing DATE : 14-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shakeel Abid for Appellants.\nSaleem Ghulam Hussain for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RIO CHEMICAL COMPANY AND ANOTHER \nVS\n PAKISTAN DRUG HOUSE (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 652 = 2004 SLD 652 = 2004 CLD 1247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Credit Card Finance Recovery\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank sought recovery of service charges under a credit card agreement.\no\nCardholder disputed charges as being interest.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nService charges agreed upon in a contract are not considered interest.\no\nBanks are entitled to fees for services rendered.\n•\nConclusion: Bank’s claim was upheld; appeal against recovery of service charges was dismissed", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal Case No. 362 of 2001, heard on 21st April, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khursheed Akhtar for Appellant.\nUmar Atta Bandial and Asher Elahi for Respondent.\nDr. Pervaiz Hassan and Salman Akram Raja Amicus Curiae", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.M.S. BOKHARI\nVS\n CITI BANK N.A" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 653 = 2004 SLD 653 = 2004 CLD 1250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": ": Loan Interest Dispute\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBorrower contested interest charges due to lack of supporting documentation from the bank.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBanks must provide contractual evidence for interest charges.\no\nDisputed entries warrant investigation, not summary decrees.\n•\nConclusion: Leave to defend was granted, and the case was remanded for detailed examination", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=10", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.250 of 1993, heard on 13-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Ikram Siddiqui for Appellant.\nKhalid Mehmood Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAK DUCK TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\n MESSRS UNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEYS/OFFICERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 654 = 2004 SLD 654 = 2004 CLD 1243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Property Attachment and Banking Court Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nObjector claimed ownership of a property mortgaged to a bank, alleging forged documents.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nExecuting courts must investigate objections before dismissing claims.\no\nDecisions must align with evidence and legal principles.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded for fresh decision after proper investigation of objections.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "E. F. A. No.33 of 2002, heard on 11-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Haider Ali Shah for Appellant.\nImran Raza Khan for Respondents.\nRespondents Nos.2 and 3 were proceeded ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD KHALID \nVS\n MESSRS BANK OF PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 655 = 2004 SLD 655 = 2004 CLD 1227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Summons in Banking Disputes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDefendant claimed improper service of summons due to address changes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDebtors must update creditors about address changes.\no\nPresumption of service applies when summons are dispatched and not returned.\n•\nConclusion: Application for leave to defend was dismissed, upholding the Banking Court’s decision", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.107 of 2001, heard on 20-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon for Appellant.\nHassan Nawaz Makhdoom for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MASOOD ALAM \nVS\n MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 656 = 2004 SLD 656 = 2004 CLD 1266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Court’s Territorial Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSuit filed at the place of a guarantor’s residence.\no\nBorrower claimed loan was written off.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTerritorial jurisdiction is governed by CPC principles.\no\nLoans written off for accounting purposes remain recoverable.\n•\nConclusion: Suit was maintainable, and the claim of loan write-off was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos.587 to 589 of 2000, heard on 8-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Khalid Sajjid Khan for Appellants.\nMiss Aniqua Mughees Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HI LITE INDUSTRIES AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\n MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 657 = 2004 SLD 657 = 2004 CLD 1254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Representation in Karachi Port Trust\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nEntity renamed but excluded from representation in Karachi Port Trust.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nChange in name does not alter the legal identity or rights of an entity.\no\nRepresentation rights flow from statutory provisions.\n•\nConclusion: Entity’s right to representation was restored.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886=7", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1282 of 2003, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE : 29-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Rehman for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Sarfraz Sulehri for Respondent No 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "OVERSEAS INVESTORS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 658 = 2004 SLD 658 = 2004 CLD 1272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Winding Up of Non-Viable Company\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank initiated winding-up proceedings against a defaulter company unable to clear debts.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nNon-viable companies failing to discharge debts can be wound up.\no\nWinding-up proceedings are distinct from recovery suits.\n•\nConclusion: Winding-up was upheld due to the company’s inability to pay debts.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1694 and 1793 of 1996, decision dated: 11-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nKHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE\nFALAK SHER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abu Bakar Chundrigar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Bilal, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in C.A. No. 1793 of 1996 and Appellant in C.A. 1694 of 1996)Muhammad Ali Syed, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. No. 1694 of 1996 and Respondent in 1793 of 1996)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LTD \nVS\n HABIB BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 659 = 2004 SLD 659 = 2004 CLD 1210", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark and Copyright Disputes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiff sought an injunction against trademark infringement.\no\nDefendant claimed pending appeal.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAppeals do not bar injunctions to protect intellectual property rights.\no\nProvisional relief does not prejudice final adjudication.\n•\nConclusion: Injunction granted to prevent misuse of trademark rights.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 170 of 2003, decision dated: 18-05-2004, hearing DATE : 14-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shakeel Abid for Appellants.\nSaleem Ghulam Hussain for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RIO CHEMICAL COMPANY AND ANOTHER \nVS\n PAKISTAN DRUG HOUSE (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 660 = 2004 SLD 660 = 2004 CLD 1198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Registered Design and Injunction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiff sought to restrain defendants from using a registered design.\no\nDefendant argued the design lacked novelty.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegistered designs must demonstrate novelty to warrant protection.\no\nInjunctions require a prima facie case and proof of irreparable harm.\n•\nConclusion: Temporary injunction was denied due to lack of novelty and irreparable harm.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.266 of 2004, decision dated: 22-04-2004, hearing DATE : 12-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Mansoor Nadeem Qureshi and Saleem Ghulam Hussain for Plaintiff.\nMs. Shazia Tasleem for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS WALI OIL MILLS LTD. THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER \nVS\n MESSRS FAISALABAD OIL REFINERY (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 661 = 2004 SLD 661 = 2004 CLD 1163", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Passing Off and Trademark Protection\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiff sought interim relief for trademark infringement.\no\nAlleged passing off by the defendant using a similar trademark.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPassing Off: Protects goodwill and prevents misrepresentation to consumers.\no\nRegistration of a trademark or copyright secures exclusive rights to prevent unauthorized use.\no\nInjunctions require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and proof of irreparable harm.\n•\nConclusion: Plaintiff's application for an injunction was refused. Defendant's trademark registration and the lack of identical features in packaging supported its lawful use.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=21", + "Case #": "Suit No.89 of 2004, decision dated: 4-06-2004, hearing DATE : 26-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Shazia Tasleem for Plaintiff.\nMrs. Navin S. Merchant for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RABIA BAI \nVS\n ZEESHAN FAROOQI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 662 = 2004 SLD 662 = 2004 CLD 1174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Pleadings Amendment in Banking Disputes\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiff-bank sought amendment to include additional claims.\no\nBorrowers contested procedural fairness.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAmendments to pleadings are allowed if they don’t change the suit's nature.\no\nBorrowers were permitted to file additional grounds to address amended claims.\n•\nConclusion: Amendments allowed, balancing procedural fairness and justice.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "R. F. A. No. 156 of 1999, heard on 29-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nFARRUKH LATIF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nauman Akram Raja for Appellant.\nNaseem Mahmood for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. IFFAT SULTANA MALIK \nVS\n TRUST MODARBA THROUGH TRUST MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 663 = 2004 SLD 663 = 2004 CLD 1181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Leave to Defend in Banking Cases\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBorrower alleged bank breached its obligation to provide facilities, preventing contract performance.\no\nBank denied allegations and sought repayment.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSerious and bona fide defenses warrant trial, not summary judgment.\no\nGuarantors’ obligations are independent of borrower agreements.\n•\nConclusion: Leave to defend granted to borrower, ensuring fair adjudication of contractual disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "R. F. A. No.275 of 2000, heard on 8-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Appellant.\nDr. Pervez Hassan assisted by Faisal Islam for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHAUDHRI MUHAMMAD QASIM AND 7 OTHERS \nVS\n PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 664 = 2004 SLD 664 = 2004 CLD 1157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Filing Defenses\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank’s defense rejected as time-barred.\no\nDispute over service date affecting limitation calculation.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLimitation begins from actual service date.\no\nCourts must thoroughly examine procedural errors impacting defenses.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded for reconsideration, correcting procedural lapses.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.242 of 1997, heard on 24-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nMAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashdeen Nawaz for Appellants.\nImran Nazir for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ TANNERIES (PVT.) LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 665 = 2004 SLD 665 = 2004 CLD 1152", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Settlement Under State Bank Circulars\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBorrowers claimed settlement under State Bank schemes was mishandled.\no\nDispute over sale proceeds of mortgaged property.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBorrowers cannot claim benefits under a scheme if they fail to fulfill obligations.\no\nSale proceeds must be credited to reduce outstanding liabilities.\n•\nConclusion: Judgment upheld with instructions to adjust sale proceeds", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal Case No.296 of 1997, heard on 22-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azmat Saeed for Appellants.\nZaheer Ahmad Saeed for Respondent, No. 2.\nMuhammad Amjad Butt for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUNAAF IFTIKHAR & COMPANY AND ANOTHER \nVS\n JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.3 LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 666 = 2004 SLD 666 = 2004 CLD 1159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": ": Clerical Errors in Banking Transactions\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank sought recovery of funds withdrawn due to clerical errors.\no\nBorrower contested liability.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBorrowers are liable for funds withdrawn in excess of entitlement.\no\nMark-up claims require contractual backing.\n•\nConclusion: Borrower held liable for excess withdrawals; mark-up claim dismissed due to lack of agreement.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=2", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal Case No.451 of 1998, heard on 15-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar for Appellant.\nMuhammad Khalid Mahmood Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR \nVS\n UNION BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 667 = 2004 SLD 667 = 2004 CLD 1344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Surety Liability in Guarantee Contracts\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nGuarantor contested liability, alleging deviation from terms.\no\nBank sought recovery under a finance guarantee.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGuarantees are independent obligations enforceable despite borrower defaults.\no\nDeviations in disbursement terms do not absolve guarantors.\n•\nConclusion: Guarantor held liable under the contract.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.62 of 1998, decision dated: 25-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Javed Sarfraz for Appellant.\nTariq Kamal Qazi for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS STATE ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED, ISLAMABAD, THROUGH MANAGER (PERSONNEL) S.M. AKRAM FARHAT\nVS\n NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 668 = 2004 SLD 668 = 2004 CLD 1361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decree in Banking Cases\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDefendant challenged an ex parte decree citing defective service.\no\nDelay in filing objections was also contested.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMultiple modes of service ensure validity.\no\nLimitation applies strictly; delays require justified condonation.\n•\nConclusion: Application dismissed as time-barred with valid service established.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=12", + "Case #": "First Appeal No. 183 of 2003, decision dated: 9-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Sardar Ali for Appellants.\nAshar Elahi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AKHTAR KALEEM \nVS\n CITIBANK N.A. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 669 = 2004 SLD 669 = 2004 CLD 1338", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Evidence Standards in Banking Recovery Suits\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank’s suits dismissed due to insufficient evidence.\no\nStatements of account alone were relied upon.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nStatements of account must be corroborated with supporting documents.\no\nBurden of proof lies with the claimant.\n•\nConclusion: Trial court’s dismissal upheld; insufficient evidence from the bank.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=12", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.268 of 1997, heard on 21st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellant.\nRespondent proceeded. ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED \nVS\n MESSRS ILYAS ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR MR. ILYAS MALIK AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 670 = 2004 SLD 670 = 2004 CLD 1348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Against Interim Banking Orders\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAppeal filed against an interim order dismissing an application for suit decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAppeals are not maintainable against interim orders in banking cases.\no\nSpecial laws override general provisions.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed as non-maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 119 of 2000, heard on 12-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh for Appellants.\nSh. Javaid Sarfraz for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\n AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 671 = 2004 SLD 671 = 2004 CLD 1351", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Leave to Defend\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank debited disputed amounts; customer filed recovery suit.\no\nLimitation and privity of contract were contested.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTrial courts must conduct full trials for complex contractual disputes.\no\nSection 14 of the Limitation Act allows time exclusion in certain cases.\n•\nConclusion: Decree set aside; leave to defend granted for trial.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.790 of 2002, heard on 4th March 2004", + "Judge Name:": "M. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Karim for Appellants.\nRana Naeem Sarwar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNION BANK LIMITED THROUGH PRESIDENT AND ANOTHER \nVS\n ABDUL REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 672 = 2004 SLD 672 = 2004 CLD 1328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Auction of Mortgaged Property\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBank sought permission to purchase unsold auctioned properties.\no\nCourt rejected application without deciding related objections.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts must decide all objections before concluding execution proceedings.\no\nAuction-related decisions require judicial scrutiny.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded for fresh consideration of objections", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=19", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No. 12 of 1996, heard on 9-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Haris Ahmad for Appellant.\nMuhammad Siddiq Mughal for Respondent No. 1.\nSyed Zafar Ali Shah for Respondent No. 8.\nAbid Aziz Sheikh for Respondent No. 9.\nAshtar Ausaf Ali for Respondent No. 10.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED \nVS\n FAIR FAX TEXTILES AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 673 = 2004 SLD 673 = 2004 CLD 1322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Partnership Loan Apportionment\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDispute over loan repayment shares among partners.\no\nCourt apportioned liability based on admissions.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAgreed apportionments are binding.\no\nOnly aggrieved parties can appeal.\n•\nConclusion: Apportionment upheld; bank permitted to recover balances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=40", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.603 of 1999, heard on 18-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD GHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Naveed Shehryar for Appellant.\nKhalid Ibrahim Khatana for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. JINDAN BIBI\nVS\n MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 674 = 2004 SLD 674 = 2004 CLD 1325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Ex Parte Decree and Limitation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDefendant contested service validity and claimed illiteracy.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nValid service through multiple modes suffices.\no\nDelay explanations must be credible and supported by evidence.\n•\nConclusion: Application dismissed as time-barred with valid service established.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.66 of 2003, heard an 29-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "M. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Mushtaq Ahmad for Appellant.\nMs. Alia Neelum for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AFZAL HUSSAIN \nVS\n MESSRS HABIB BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 675 = 2004 SLD 675 = 2004 CLD 1289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDST0", + "Key Words:": ": Loan Recovery and Supporting Evidence\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBorrower denied liability despite audited accounts showing dues.\no\nDispute over loss of pledged stock.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAudited financial statements constitute strong evidence.\no\nBanks can recover without selling pledged stocks immediately.\n•\nConclusion: Liability upheld; rights over pledged stock to be decided during execution.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "C.O. S. No.58 of 2000, decision dated: 8-06-2001, hearing DATE : 16-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shams Mehmood Mirza for Plaintiff.\nMansoor-ul-Arfin for Defendants Nos. 1 to 7.\nMalik Asif Iqbal for Defendant No. 8.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB BANK LIMITED \nVS\n ORIENT RICE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 676 = 2004 SLD 676 = 2004 CLD 1313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Modaraba Suit and Limitation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDispute over successive acknowledgments extending limitation.\no\nNon-signatory defendants contested liability.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAcknowledgments extend limitation for signatories only.\no\nNon-signatories cannot be held liable without explicit commitments.\n•\nConclusion: Case remanded for fresh decision; limitation upheld for non-signatories.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 500 of 1998, decision dated: 21st January, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD GHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nisar Ahmad for Appellants.\nHaq Nawaz Chattha for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RAINBOW PACKAGES LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 7 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS FIRST ELITE CAPITAL MODARABA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 677 = 2004 SLD 677 = 2004 CLD 1462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Claim and Repudiation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nClaimant contested insurer’s rejection of death claim due to undisclosed health conditions.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nNon-disclosure of material facts justifies claim repudiation.\no\nClaims must align with policy terms.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; insurer’s decision upheld", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No.3025 of 2003, decision dated: 29-12-2003, hearing DATE : 23rd December, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nCH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Butt for Petitioner.\nIlyas Khan Awan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD INAYAT \nVS\nISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 678 = 2004 SLD 678 = 2004 CLD 1454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Registration and Deception\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicant sought cancellation of a registered trademark alleging confusion.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLocal market conditions determine the likelihood of confusion.\no\nRegistration is valid if no deception is proven.\n•\nConclusion: Application dismissed; no deception in local markets.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=10", + "Case #": "J.Misc. Application No. 39 of 1999, decision dated: 31st May, 2004, hearing DATE : 5-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Faez Isa for Applicant.\nMuhammad Nadeem Qureshi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BASIC TRADE MARK S.A. \nVS\n KAPUR AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 679 = 2004 SLD 679 = 2004 CLD 1452", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNDND0", + "Key Words:": ": Auction Confirmation and Legal Finality\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPetitioner challenged auction confirmation citing a subsequent settlement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nConfirmed sales are final and cannot be undone by later agreements.\no\nConstitutional petitions are non-maintainable if alternate remedies exist.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; auction sale upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=92", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-99 of 2004, decision dated: 24-07-2004, hearing DATE : 20-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Gohar Iqbal for Petitioner.\nSalim-ud-Din Nasir for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNICOM ENTERPRISES \nVS\n BANKING COURT NO.5, CITY COURT BUILDING, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 680 = 2004 SLD 680 = 2004 CLD 1445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Court Jurisdiction and Void Orders\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDispute over void orders and limitation periods.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLimitation for void orders starts from the date of knowledge.\no\nBanking courts’ jurisdiction remains intact despite legal errors.\n•\nConclusion: Limitation principles clarified; appeal rights reaffirmed.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=7", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal.No.3 of 2004, decision dated: 10-05-2004, hearing DATE : 30-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE\nFAZAL-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellants.\nMuhammad Aslam Chishti for Respondents.\nAdnan Basharat for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH PRESIDENT AND ANOTHER \nVS\n BASHARATULLAH AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 681 = 2004 SLD 681 = 2004 CLD 1433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Corporate Governance and Public Interest\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSuit challenged mandatory auditor rotation in listed companies.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLegislation aimed at transparency and shareholder protection is constitutional.\no\nPublic interest prevails over individual grievances.\n•\nConclusion: Suit dismissed; governance rules upheld as serving public interest.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=34", + "Case #": "Suit No. 173 of 2004, decision dated: 18-05-2004, hearing DATE : 31st March, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid F. Ebrahim for Plaintiff.\nAnwer Mansoor Khan for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "A.F. FERGUSON & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS \nVS\nSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 682 = 2004 SLD 682 = 2004 CLD 1424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTVT0", + "Key Words:": ": Banking Companies Act and Ex Parte Decree\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDefinition of Banking Company extended to Punjab Small Industries Corporation.\no\nEx parte decree for damages challenged on grounds of lack of evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nEx parte decrees require evidentiary support for damages.\no\nJudges must apply judicial principles and laws accurately, regardless of counsel's advice.\n•\nConclusion: Ex parte decree set aside; case remanded for fresh decision with evidentiary requirements", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.97 of 2000, heard on 31st May, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Appellants.\nMirza Aziz-ur-Rehman for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n HAJI COLD STORAGE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 683 = 2004 SLD 683 = 2004 CLD 1419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Auditor’s Conduct and Penalties\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAuditor penalized for violations of International Accounting Standards.\no\nMembership suspended for five years.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nViolations admitted by the auditor justify penalties under the Chartered Accountants Ordinance.\no\nCourts may modify penalties based on proportionality.\n•\nConclusion: Suspension reduced from five years to one year; fines upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=255", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 2002, decision dated: 1st August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahenshah Hussain for Applicant.\nI. H. Zaidi for Respondent No. 1. \nAgha Faqir Muhammad for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.\nRaja Mir Muhammad Khan for Respondent No. 4 called absent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SALMAN & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS \nVS\n INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 684 = 2004 SLD 684 = 2004 CLD 1407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Removal of Directors by State Bank\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nConstitutionality of State Bank's authority to remove directors challenged.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAlternate remedies must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.\no\nState Bank’s actions under S.41-A aim to maintain banking purity.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to avail statutory remedies", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=41", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 20872 of 2001, heard on 17-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ahmad Qayyum for Petitioner.\nOmer Soomro for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nNauman Akram Raja for Respondents Nos.3 to 5.\nDanishwar Malik, Deputy Attorney General on Court call", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASLAM HASSAN QURESHI \nVS\n GOVERNOR, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 685 = 2004 SLD 685 = 2004 CLD 1396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Finance and Liquidated Damages\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBorrower disputed additional finance disbursed without agreement.\no\nBank claimed liquidated damages.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBank cannot claim mark-up or damages without proper agreements and evidence.\no\nBorrowers are liable only for agreed sums.\n•\nConclusion: Suit dismissed; bank failed to substantiate additional claims.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Suit No.423 of 1998, decision dated: 25-11-2003. dates of hearing: 6th and 10-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Muhammad for Plaintiff.\nMansoor-ul-Arfin for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN \nVS\n SHEIKHUPURA TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 686 = 2004 SLD 686 = 2004 CLD 1266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Territorial Jurisdiction and Written-Off Loans\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTerritorial jurisdiction based on guarantor’s residence.\no\nDefendants claimed loans were written off.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLoans shown as bad debts in reports remain recoverable unless explicitly written off.\no\nTerritorial jurisdiction determined under S.20, CPC.\n•\nConclusion: Loan liability upheld; future mark-up reduced to a 210-day cushion.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos.587 to 589 of 2000, heard on 8-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Khalid Sajjid Khan for Appellants.\nMiss Aniqua Mughees Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HI LITE INDUSTRIES AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\n MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 687 = 2004 SLD 687 = 2004 CLD 1383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Infringement - MILO \n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPlaintiff alleged trademark misuse by the defendant.\no\nDefendant claimed no infringement due to product differences.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRegistered trademarks must be protected from deceptive misuse.\no\nCourts prioritize eliminating confusion among consumers.\n•\nConclusion: Plaintiff’s suit decreed; trademark rights enforced.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=8", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No. 100 of 2000, decision dated: 20-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ PARVEZ, JUSTICE\nSHAHZAD AKBAR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mueen Qamar for Appellant.\nAsghar Khan Kundi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE S.A. \nVS\n FOOD INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 688 = 2004 SLD 688 = 2004 CLD 1376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Suit and Statement of Accounts\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nBorrowers disputed the loan recovery decree.\no\nStatement of accounts served as primary evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProperly certified statements of accounts have evidentiary value under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act.\no\nDefendants must raise plausible defenses to obtain leave.\n•\nConclusion: Decree upheld; leave to defend denied for lack of substantive issues", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos. 120 to 122 of 2000, heard on 12-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh for Appellant.\nSh. Javaid Sarfraz for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\n AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 689 = 2004 SLD 689 = 2004 CLD 1371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRVNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Interim Decree and Estoppel\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nAppeal against interim and final decrees for loan recovery.\no\nAppellants alleged illegal interest enhancement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nIssues not raised in lower courts cannot be introduced on appeal.\no\nInterim decrees, unchallenged within limitation, attain finality.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; case remanded for evidence-based reconsideration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=7", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 159 of 1999, heard on 13-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "CH IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Abdul Basit for Appellant.\nMian Qamer-uz-Zaman for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MADINA RICE MILLS THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 6 OTHERS\nVS\n NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 690 = 2004 SLD 690 = 2004 CLD 1472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Guarantor’s Liability and Fresh Agreements\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nGuarantor argued discharge of liability due to new agreements.\no\nPlaintiff failed to link new loans to original agreements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGuarantees tied to specific agreements do not extend to unrelated subsequent agreements.\no\nLack of contractual consideration invalidates guarantee claims.\n•\nConclusion: Suit dismissed against guarantor for lack of nexus to original loan.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Suit No.7 of 2001, decision dated: 10-06-2004, hearing DATE : 14-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Mansoor for Plaintiff.\nAbdul Rauf for Defendant No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVS\n MESSRS MAHMOOD (PVT.) LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 691 = 2004 SLD 691 = 2004 CLD 1507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Execution Appeals\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nTime-barred appeal against an execution order.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAppeals filed after the limitation period require sufficient cause for condonation.\no\nNegligence cannot justify delay.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; leave to appeal denied by the Supreme Court.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.910-L of 2000, decision dated: 4-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE\nKHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Azhar Salam, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF \nVS\n UNITED BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 692 = 2004 SLD 692 = 2004 CLD 1505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Workers Welfare Fund\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nRefund and profit claims on workers' welfare fund by petitioner company.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCompliance with statutory provisions is mandatory for refunds.\no\nProfits must be distributed to workers through trustees.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal allowed; profits allocated for workers’ benefit.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Profit (Workers Participation) Act, 1968=3", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1231 of 1998, decision dated: 10-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nIFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, JUSTICE\nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Haider Ali Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.\nMrs. Naheeda Mehboob Ellahi Standing Counsel Chaudhry Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONALIANKER COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER \nVS\n FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 693 = 2004 SLD 693 = 2004 CLD 1522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Defaulter’s Application for Leave\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDefaulter company’s non-application for leave contested.\no\nGuarantor’s leave application treated separately.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPrincipal borrowers must independently seek leave to defend.\no\nGuarantor’s application does not substitute for the borrower’s defense.\n•\nConclusion: Decree upheld; guarantor precluded from challenging decree validity.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2409-L of 2004, decision dated: 20-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, JUSTICE\nJAVED IQBAL AND FALAK SHER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAHARA TRADING INTERNATIONAL (PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS \nVS\n BANK ALFALAH LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 694 = 2004 SLD 694 = 2004 CLD 1490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDTT0", + "Key Words:": ": Priority of Secured Creditors\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPriority dispute between pledgee and hypothecatee.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSecured creditors' rights are prioritized based on registration dates.\no\nHypothecation and pledge create distinct rights over goods.\n•\nConclusion: Priority granted to plaintiff bank as the first charge holder.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No.240 of 1999, decision dated: 15-10-2003, hearing DATE : 23rd September and 2-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.I. Chundrigar for Appellant.\nSajid Zahid for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVS\n EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 695 = 2004 SLD 695 = 2004 CLD 1552", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Acknowledgement of Debt\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSuit filed beyond the limitation period.\no\nAcknowledgement of debt after limitation expiration.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLimitation Act, 1908 (S.19): Acknowledgment must occur within the limitation period to extend time.\no\nDuty of the Banking Court to assess limitation even if leave to defend is not sought.\n•\nConclusion: Suit declared time-barred; case remanded to the Banking Court for examination of limitation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=24", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.406 of 2000, heard on 30-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawar Ikram Bhatti for Appellants.\nCh. Abdul Rauf for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE, THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER\nVS\n HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE BANK LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 696 = 2004 SLD 696 = 2004 CLD 1530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Agency, Franchise, and Contractual Relationships\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDetermining whether a contractual agreement constitutes an agency or franchise.\no\nFranchisee's claim of irrevocable interest in the agreement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFranchise resembles a license rather than an agency.\no\nS.202, Contract Act, 1872: Agency must create a specific interest in the subject matter for irrevocability.\no\nBusiness conducted independently by one party does not constitute agency.\n•\nConclusion: Agreement was not an agency; franchisee’s claim of irrevocable interest rejected", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1356 of 1999, decision dated: 12th. August, 2004. dates of hearing: 3rd, 4th and 7-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "HAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE\nSARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BOLAN BEVERAGES (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS\n PEPSICO INC. AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 697 = 2004 SLD 697 = 2004 CLD 1548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Auction Proceedings and Prospective Bidders\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nValidity of objections to auction proceedings by a prospective bidder.\no\nConstitutional petition challenging auction.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nO. XXI, R.90, CPC: Only affected parties can challenge auction proceedings.\no\nCourts prioritize maintaining integrity and finality in judicial auctions.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; prospective bidder lacked standing to challenge auction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=90", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2160 of 2004, decision dated: 18-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL SATTAR \nVS\n JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.II, AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 698 = 2004 SLD 698 = 2004 CLD 1480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Chartered Accountants Examination Rules\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nPetitioner seeking additional chance to clear examination under old rules.\no\nInstitute's refusal to grant a third chance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBye-Law 118: Two attempts allowed under the old scheme.\no\nLegitimate expectations arise when courts allow additional chances through interim orders.\n•\nConclusion: Interim chance availed by petitioner condoned; Institute directed to declare results.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Chartered Accountants Bye Laws, 1983=118", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 15865 of 1998, decision dated: 10-03-2004, hearing DATE : 26-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Dogar for Petitioner. \nAnwar Kamal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NADEEM ANWAR \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 699 = 2004 SLD 699 = 2004 CLD 1555", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Suits and Service of Notices\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nLegality of service of notice through publication.\no\nErroneous charge of mark-up and leave to defend.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nService by publication deemed sufficient under law.\no\nLeave to defend requires raising substantive questions of fact or law.\n•\nConclusion: Decree upheld; no procedural flaws in notice service or mark-up calculation", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.556 of 2001, heard on 24-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Sarfraz-ul-Hassan for Appellant.\nKh. Aamer Farooq for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD BILAL \nVS\n UNION BANK LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 700 = 2004 SLD 700 = 2004 CLD 1509", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Mark Infringement\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nClaim of prior use of a trademark.\no\nGrant of interim injunction against infringement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nS.23, Trade Marks Act, 1940: Registration provides prima facie evidence of validity.\no\nAdoption of foreign trademarks not recognized without evidence of use.\n•\nConclusion: Injunction upheld; defendant failed to establish prior use or ownership", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Act, (V of 1940)=25", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No. 127 of 2003, decision dated: 4-06-2004. dates of hearing: 24th, 25th, 31st March 2004, 1st, 8th 15th April 2004, 11th and 13-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Navin Merchant for Appellant.\nMonawar Ghani for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "POPULAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. \nVS\n MAAZA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LL. C AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 701 = 2004 SLD 701 = 2004 CLD 1468", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Copyright and Exclusive License\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nOwnership of copyright and alleged exclusive license to defendants.\no\nLicense validity questioned due to lack of documentation.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCopyright licenses must be in writing as per the Copyright Ordinance.\no\nExclusive rights of legal heirs to copyrighted work are protected.\n•\nConclusion: Judgment in favor of legal heirs affirmed; exclusive license claim rejected", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 105 of 1991, heard on 25-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munawwar-ul-Islam for Appellant.\nMuhammad Ismail Qureshi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEIKH SAEED ULLAH \nVS\n MST. MAHMOODA BEGUM MAUDOODI AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 702 = 2004 SLD 702 = 2004 CLD 1465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Necessary Parties and Territorial Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nSupplier as a necessary party in banking recovery suit.\no\nJurisdiction based on agreement stipulations.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nS.9, Banking Companies Act: Supplier not necessary in suits targeting borrowers.\no\nS.20, CPC: Suits validly instituted where defendants reside.\n•\nConclusion: Objection on supplier dismissed; territorial jurisdiction upheld despite agreement stipulations", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos. 310 of 2002 and 712 of 2001, heard on 27-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Sajjad Khan for Appellant.\nAbid Aziz Sheikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGHA SAMIULLAH KHAN \nVS\n REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND ANOTHERs" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 703 = 2004 SLD 703 = 2004 CLD 1573", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---Ss. 5 & 29---Applicability of S.5---Limitation Act, 1908--¬Ordinarily time under Limitation Act, 1908 for filing of appeal was 90 days, whereas Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 being a special law had prescribed a period of 30 days for filing of appeal ---Condonation of delay---Where special law provides a different period of limitation than the ordinary law, S.5 of Limitation Act has no applicability in view of the provisions of S.29(2) of the Limitation Act.\nBashir Ahmed and others v. Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. 1990 CLC 1105 and Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR 286 ref.\n(b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---\n-----S.7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)---Section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code 1908 has no applicability to the proceedings arising out of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advance, Credits and Finances) Act 1997---Application by appellant under S.12(2), C.P.C. was misconceived, incompetent and not maintainable and was rightly dismissed by the Banking Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.226 of 1997, heard on 18-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asgher Hameed Bhutta for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUSHTAQ & CO. THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 3 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 704 = 2004 SLD 704 = 2004 CLD 1577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)---S.20---Legality of an incomplete negotiable instrument---Where some one signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with law, whether it is wholly blank or written as an incomplete negotiable instrument, in order that it may be made or completed into a negotiable instrument, it amounts to a prima facie authority to the person who receives that paper to make or complete it, as the case may be into a negotiable instrument of any amount.\nMian Rafique Saigol and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. and another PLD 1996 SC 749 ref.\n(b) Negotiable Instruments. Act (XXVI of 1881)---\n----S.118---Presumption as to negotiable instrument---Section 118 attaches a presumption to every negotiable instrument that it was made and drawn for consideration and that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made or drawn on such date.\n(c) Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881)---\n----S.120---Estoppel, principle of---Principle of estoppel works to bar a person from challenging the legality, validity and genuineness of a negotiable instrument that has earlier been endorsed or signed by him.\nMuhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Hasim Paracha and another PLD 1987 Kar. 76; S.K. Abdul Aziz v. Mahmoodul Hassan and 3 others 1988 CLC '337; Haji Karim and another v. Zikar Abdullah 1973 SCMR 100; Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Messrs Gujrat Friends Traders and others PLD 1988 Lah. 166; Messrs United Bank Ltd. v. President Bazm-e-Salat and another PLD 1986 Kar. 464; Bazm-e-Salat and others v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. PLD 1989 Kar. 150; Prudential Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Hydari Ghee Industries Ltd. and 9 others 1999 MLD 1694 and Messrs Bank of Oman Limited v. Messrs East Asia Trading Co. Ltd. and 4 others 1987 CLC 288 ref.\n(d) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---\n----S.21---Modification of decree---High Court can modify the decree by deducting from the decretal amount the sum subsequently received by the Bank from the sale of the vehicle of the -debtor.\n(e) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---\n----S.21---New plea---Bank had not raised objections to certain averments at any stage of the proceedings at the lower forum but had done it at higher stage---Held, it is a settled law that a litigant cannot be allowed to raise a new plea before the appellate or revisional forum, which has not been agitated before the lower forum.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeals Nos.264 of 1998 and 108 of 1999, heard on 17-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant in person.\nSh. Asif Feroz for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AJMAL KHAN \nVS\n UNITED BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 705 = 2004 SLD 705 = 2004 CLD 1640", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---Ss. 9 & 10---Recovery of bank loan---Leave to defend the suit, dismissal of---Signing of blank documents and cheques---Defendant had denied receiving of any loan from bank---Contention of the defendant was that the manager of bank had received the documents and cheques from him and he had withdrawn amount from bank thus the manager had committed fraud---Validity---As defendant had given blank cheques to the manager and amounts were withdrawn on the basis of those cheques, the manager was acting as agent for defendant---If the manager had played any fraud upon the defendant, the bank could not be held responsible for the action and could not be prevented from recovery of amount disbursed on the basis of those cheques---Leave to defend the suit was rightly refused by Banking Court---Judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court included the amount already deposited by the defendant---High Court modified the decree and the amount deposited by the defendant was adjusted in favour of the defendant---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 37 of 2002, heard on 2-04-2003. dates of hearing: 18-12-2002 and 2-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Mushtaq Ahmed for Appellants.\nSh. Asif Feroz for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GHULAM HUSSAIN & CO. THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 3 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SENIOR VICEPRESIDENT/ZONAL CHIEF OF MANDI WARBURTON BRANCH, HOLDING POWER OF ATTORNEY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 706 = 2004 SLD 706 = 2004 CLD 1637", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---Ss. 18 & 21---Execution of decree---Arrest of -debtor---Title of pledged goods---Banking Court did not decide application of -debtors regarding selling of goods pledged with the decree holder---During pendency of the application filed by the -debtors the Banking Court passed order of arrest and detention of -debtors---Validity---Banking Court was obliged to initiate inquiry about the status of pledged goods and then to decide the application---During pendency of the application, the Banking Court could not have issued warrants of arrest of the -debtors---Judgment-debtors had a right to ask the decree-holder about the position of pledged goods and the decree-holder was obliged to explain about the title of the same---Order of issuance of warrant of arrest by the Banking Court was passed in ignorance of record of the case and such findings were not only against the record of the case but also in violation of law on the subject---Such order of Banking Court was set aside and the case was remanded for decision afresh---Appeal was allowed accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "E. F. A. No.209 of 2000, decision dated: 3rd June, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.M. Alam for Appellants.\nMuhammad Ahsan Rasool Chattha for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS POLYMER INTERNATIONAL THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR AND ANOTHER \nVS\n MESSRS BOLAN BANK LTD. THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 707 = 2004 SLD 707 = 2004 CLD 1628", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---S.9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.99---Recovery of loan---Misjoinder of causes of action or of plaintiffs---Suit, dismissal of---Banking Court concluded that the suit could not proceed in the name of all plaintiffs but was maintainable in the name of any one of the plaintiffs--¬Despite having many opportunities, plaintiffs failed to give name of the plaintiff who was to conduct the proceedings--¬Banking Court thus dismissed the suit on account of such failure Validity--Judgment passed by Banking Court had apparent contradiction as on one hand the Banking Court had itself held that the suit was not liable to be dismissed on account of misjoinder of causes of action or of plaintiffs and on other hand proceeded to dismiss the suit on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to proceed with the suit---Judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court was set aside---Case was remanded to Banking Court for decision afresh---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=9", + "Case #": "R. F. A. No.612 of 2001, heard on 3rd June, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Appellants.\nMuhammad Ahsan Rasool Chatha for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CRYSTAL ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS BOLAN BANK LIMITED THROUGH PRESIDENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 708 = 2004 SLD 708 = 2004 CLD 1616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---S.18(6)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr. 66 & 93---Execution proceedings---Sale by auction, setting aside of---Void order---Publication of proclamation prior to its approval by Executing Court---After deposit of 25% auction price by the auction purchaser, debtor deposited decretal amount under incentive scheme floated by the bank and decree was satisfied---Judgment debtor filed objection petition on the ground that the auction was a result of fraud as the proclamation was published without approval of Executing Court ---Petition was dismissed by the Executing Court---Validity---Proclamation of sale was not properly and legally approved and the same had rendered subsequent proceedings as nullity in the eye of law---Basic order being not in accordance with law, all the subsequent proceedings and orders including the auction proceedings, report of Court auctioneer and dismissal of objection petition, would fall to the ground--Order passed by the Executing Court was set aside as the Court had assigned no reasons for dismissal of the objection petition and even pleas raised by the debtor were not adverted to---High Court directed the debtor to pay a sum equal to 5% of purchase money deposited by the auction purchaser-¬Appeal was allowed accordingly.\nYousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 104 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=18", + "Case #": "E. F. A. No.750 of 2002, decision dated: 9-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Haider Ali Shah for Appellants.\nIftikhar Hussain Shah for Respondent No. 1.\nAbdul Hameed Butt for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MAJID & SONS, AND ANOTHER \nVS\n NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 709 = 2004 SLD 709 = 2004 CLD 1676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---S.10---Dismissal of application for leave to defend the suit---Failure to record reasons---Defendants alleged that memorandum of deposit of title deed was blank qua quantum of guarantee and the suit was filed without any finance agreement---Banking Court without discussing the pleas raised in the application, dismissed the same--¬Validity---Whatever objections or grounds were raised/agitated by the defendants before the Banking Court, the same were to be discussed and were to be decided one way or the other---Judgment passed by the Banking Court manifested non-application of judicial mind inasmuch as even the points of controversies had not been dealt with in accordance with law---Judgment and decree passed by Banking Court was set aside and case was remanded for deciding the application afresh---Appeal was allowed accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=10", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.527of 1998 and R.F.A. No.45 of 1999, heard on 25-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar and Azmat Saeed for Appellant.\nS. M. Zamir Zaidi and Shams Mehmood Mirza for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK KHALIL AHMAD\nVS\n HABIB BANK LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 710 = 2004 SLD 710 = 2004 CLD 1680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) State Bank of Pakistan Act (XXXII of 1956)---Preamble & S.3---Establishment of State Bank of Pakistan---Object---State Bank is national monetary policy maker of the State---State Bank was created as an independent agency to do such national job having no concern with law enforcement or revenue collection for the Administration---Principles.\nState Bank is not only the national policy maker of monetary policies of the State, but it was created as an independent agency to do this national job. In particular, this institution has no connection with either law enforcement or revenue collection for the Administration, for which by statutes other agencies exist. State Bank of Pakistan was created on the pattern of the Reserve Bank of India. The independent nature of any Federal Reserve Bank is the sine qua non for its existence as only then it can ensure the Government's adherence to an expert body's neutral evaluation of how it is best to regulate such national fiscal and monetary policies in the country.\n(b) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)---\n----Ss. 33, 33-A [as added by Banking Companies (Amendment) Act (XIV of 1997)], 41(1) & 41-A---State Bank of Pakistan Circular No.22, dated 30-6-2003--State Bank of Pakistan Act (XXXII of 1956), S.3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.4, 9; 14, 25 & 199---Constitutional petition---Direction of State Bank of Pakistan requiring Banks/ Financial Institutions to supply to Central Board of Revenue information regarding profit/return in excess of Rs. 10,000 paid to account-holders/depositors along with their names, addresses, National Tax Numbers and National Identity Card Numbers---Validity---Seeking of such financial information, though privileged by normal banking practices, in respect of private accounts of ordinary depositors, would be in nature of fishing expeditions about anyone without any specific suspicion of any wrong doing of any specific person---Such measure would destroy public confidence and normal banking practices recognized world over in civilized countries---Such direction had been issued under assumed powers of State Bank under Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 without citing any provision thereof, but not under State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 being parent statute creating such Institution---Such vague basis of presumed powers of an extraordinary kind could not be allowed by Court---State Bank by giving such direction was working as an instrument of Central Board of Revenue being an institution of Federal Government controlling revenue collection policies of Administration---Such power to collect random data and information regarding individual citizen's accounts with Banking Companies did not exist in State Bank under State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956 or State Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1962---Impugned Circular neither claimed to have been issued in the public interest nor same found mention that State Bank before issuing same had satisfied itself that doing so would be in the public interest ---Such direction was not shown to be not detrimental to interest of depositors---State Bank by issuing such direction had made Central Board of Revenue proverbial whipping boy ---Such direction was not within category of compulsion by law, thus, such disclosure by Banks to Central Board of Revenue would be wrongful--¬Impugned Circular had exempted from its operation non-¬remunerative accounts , which expression would cover current accounts, where no interest bearing formula was applied, though transactions in such accounts might cross billions of rupees daily---Result of such exemptions would be to impinge upon saving habits of ordinary people being a necessary ingredient of a progressing community---Taking of private information without any allegation of wrong doing of ordinary people would affect their life making them potentially vulnerable and insecure being an extraordinary invasion of fundamental right of privacy---Such direction in the nature of subordinate legislation was illegal, bad on ground of unreasonableness, discriminatory being ultra vires of Arts.4 & 25 of the Constitution---High Court accepted Constitutional petition and struck down impugned Circular being without lawful authority.\nAbdul Ghafoor v. Crown PLD 1952 Lah.624; Maulvi Farid Ahmad v. Government of West Pakistan PLD 1965 (W.P.) Lah. 135; Syed Saeed Hasan v. Pyar Ali PLD 1976 SC 6; Khawaja Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 Lah.725; Messrs Universal Leasing Corporation Ltd. v. State Bank of Pakistan 2002 CLD 102; General Secretary v. The Director Industries 1994 SCMR 2061; Munn v. Illinois (1876) 94 U.S. 113 and M. Ismail Qureshi v. M. Awais Qasim 1993 SCMR 1781 rel.\n(c) Practice and procedure---\n---- Normal enforcement agencies invested with legal powers of enforcement cannot question everyone as a general practice, if they have no actual suspicion based on some material to do so.\n(d) Jurisdiction---\n---- Normally the powers and jurisdiction to perform any particular act must emanate from the powers or jurisdiction conferred upon or vested in a given Institution by its creating statute.\n(e) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)---\n----Preamble---Object of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 was to provide general details and guidelines of how Banking Companies would have to operate business.\n(f) Practice and procedure---\n---- Excess, even of virtue is to be avoided.\n(g) Interpretation of statutes---\n---- Subordinate legislation, status of --- Test-- - Direction , if valid, would operate as a law, though not possessing the status of an Act---Such direction would have the status of subordinate legislation, which would be normally tested on grounds both of jurisdictional ultra vires qua parent statute and recognized jurisprudential grounds of validity--¬Principles illustrated.\n(h) Banker and customer---\n---- Duty of banker to maintain secrecy as to its customer's affairs---Exceptions---Such duty of banker arising out of contract with its customer was legal one and not merely a moral one---Such duty was not absolute, but qualified being subject to reasonable restrictions, such as compulsion by law; duty to public, Bank's own interest justifying disclosure and disclosure with customer's consent---Danger to the State or public duty might supersede duty of agent to his principal---Compulsion by law must be confined to regular exercise by proper officer to actual legal power to compel disclosure, thus, every enquiry made by Governmental functionary would not fall within its ambit--¬Breach of such duty, if resulted in substantial injury, would give rise to a claim of damages against Banker.\nTournier, v. National Provincial and Union Bank of England [(1924) 1 KB 461]; Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edn., Vol.3, p.72, Article 97 and Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v. Bankers Trust Co. 1989 QB 728 = (1989) 3 All ER 252 fol.\n(i) Banker and customer---\n---- Non-remunerative accounts ---Connotation.\nM. L. Tannan in his book titled Banking Law and Practice in India Third Edition ref.\n(j) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n----Arts.9 & 14---Right of privacy, interference in---Scope--¬ Home , Person and Life itself had been granted Constitutional protection from State interference---Such, in Constitutional terms, was protection of right of privacy --¬Taking of private information without any allegation of wrong doing of ordinary people would be an extraordinary invasion of fundamental right of privacy---Taking of one's most private details would affect his life making him potentially vulnerable and insecure.\nGeneral Secretary v. The Director Industries 1994 SCMR 2061; Munn v. Illinois (1876) 94 U.S. 113 and M. Ismail Qureshi v. M. Awais Qasim 1993 SCMR 1781 rel.\n(k) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n----Arts.9 & 14---Security of person---Inviolability of dignity of man---Invasion of privacy of a woman of easy virtue--¬Right of privacy claimed by such woman---Held Such woman was entitled to privacy and no one could invade her privacy as and when he liked---Not open to any and even; person to violate her person as and when he wished---Such woman was entitled to protect her person, if there was an attempt to violate same against her wish---Such woman was equally entitled to protection of taw.\nState of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar AIR 1991 SC 207 fol.\n(l) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n----Art.14---Inviolability of dignity of man---Telephonic conversation, tapping of---Validity---Conversation on telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character---Telephone conversation is a part of modern man's life and is an important facet of one's private life--¬Right to hold a telephone conversation in privacy of one's home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as right of privacy being a Constitutionally protected right.\nAkhtar Hamid Ghori v. Saima Estate Developers 1989 CLC 2173; Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah v. Gharib Alam PLD 1990 Lah. 432 and People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC 568 rel.\n(m) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n----Art.9---Security of person---Word life used in Art. 9 of the Constitution---Not merely limited to bodily restraint or confinement.\nKharak Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956=Preamble", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13694 of 2003, decision dated: 9-03-2004, hearing DATE : 18-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD GHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in Person.\nKhawaja Aamir Farooq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.D. TAHIR, ADVOCATE \nVS\n DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 711 = 2004 SLD 711 = 2004 CLD 1664", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)---S.6(2)---Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.10--¬Reply to show-cause notice issued under S.6(2) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984---Validity---Such reply was treated as petition seeking leave to appear and defend the suit.\n(b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---Ss. 9 & 10---Recovery of bank loan---Application for leave to defend the suit---Failure to provide opportunity to file reply to the leave application---No such opportunity was provided to the bank and application was dismissed---Suit was decreed by Banking Court in favour of bank excluding the claim of bank to the extent of mark-up ---Validity--¬Failure of Banking Court to adhere to the procedure had caused prejudice to the bank to the extent that it had not been able to substantiate its claim for mark-up which had been debited to the account of defendant-Company subsequent to the date of expiry of financing agreement--¬High Court passed interim decree to the extent of admitted amount---Judgment and decree to the extent of disputed amount was set aside and matter was remanded to Banking Court for decision afresh after deciding application for leave to defend filed by the defendants---Appeal was allowed accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)=6", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 211 of 2000, beard on 3rd July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Regular First Appeal No. 211 of 2000, beard on 3rd July, 2003\nPervez Ahmed Burki for Appellant.\nZahid Hamid for Respondent No. 1.\nMian Javed Jalal for Respondent No. 2.\nSyed Hamid Ali Shah for Respondent No. 3.\nShakeel-ur-Rehman Khan for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AURANGZEB SHAAFI BURKI \nVS\n REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 712 = 2004 SLD 712 = 2004 CLD 1669", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)---S.12---Appeal---New plea, raising of---Non-award of penal interest---Failure to claim such interest in pleadings---Suit was decreed by Banking Court in favour of bank without awarding penal interest---Validity---Person cannot be allowed to raise a new plea before Court of appeal---Bank was precluded from agitating the non-award of penal interest at appellate stage when the defendant had already liquidated the total outstanding liabilities---Penal interest could not be awarded to Financial Institutions as the same amounted to penalty---High Court declined to interfere with the and decree passed by the Banking Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.\n(b) Appeal (civil)--- Raising of new plea---Altogether a new plea cannot be raised before Court of appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=12", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.509 of 1996, heard on 12-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nasir Mahmood for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEYS \nVS\n ALHUSSAIN MEDICOS THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 713 = 2004 SLD 713 = 2004 CLD 1654", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)---S.8(2)---Recovery of interest on -debt---Bank claimed recovery of interest on debt from the date of default but the Banking Court granted the interest from the date of institution of the suit---Validity---Bank was not entitled under S.8(2) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, to recover such interest from the date of default till the date of payment---Judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court was in accordance with law and the same did not call for any interference by High Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=8", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.491 of 1996, heard on 12-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH GENERAL ATTORNEYS/PRINCIPAL OFFICERS \nVS\n MESSRS GOLDEN CERAMIC INDUSTRIES AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 714 = 2004 SLD 714 = 2004 CLD 1733", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---Ss. 305(e) & 306(a)---Failure of company to pay undisputed debts within 30 days of service of statutory notice of demand by creditor---Condition precedent for passing order of winding up of company.\n1990 CLC 1030; PLD 1973 Lah. 60; PLD 1985 Kar. 193; 1989 MLD 374; 1970 SCMR 184; 1997 CLC 230; PLD 1992 Kar. 249; 1989 CLC 1167 and PLD 1971 Kar. 597 ref.\nPLD 1990 SC 768; 1992 SCMR 1006; re: Imperial Hydropathic Hotel Co. 49 IT 147 and re: European Life Assurance Society (1869) TX IR (Equity Cases) 122 rel.\n(b) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---\n----Ss. 305(e) & 306(a)---Notice by creditor demanding payment of debt from company---Essential contents---Service of notice on company---Burden of proof---Lack of service of notice or any defect in notice would render winding up proceedings non-maintainable---Principles.\nIn case of denial of debt by company, it is incumbent upon the creditor to prove the service of notice. Notice under section 306(a) of Companies Ordinance, 1984 is a highly formal and important document, which must be clear and unambiguous and should unequivocally state that the person sending the notice is a creditor of the company demanding as specific amount of money from the company. Any defect in the notice or lack of service of notice will render the winding up proceedings on this ground ab initio defective for a logical reason that it imposes a penal obligation upon the company and, therefore, has to be strictly construed. Where no demand notice is served upon company by its creditor, then petition for winding up would be rendered untenable.\n(c) Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)---S. 309---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIX, R.1--¬Petition for winding up of company by its creditor (a Banking Company)---Nothing on record was available to show that Board of Director of petitioner's Bank had taken any decision to initiate such proceedings and that signatories of petition claiming to be officers of bank had been duly authorized by Bank to sign and verify pleadings and institute such petition on behalf of Bank--¬High Court dismissed such petition being not maintainable.\nPLD 1971 SC 550; PLD 2003 Kar. 156; 2002 CLD 1665 and PLD 1991 Lah. 381 ref.\nSLD #12713: Limitation and Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nApplicability of Section 5, Limitation Act, in appeals under special laws.\no\nSection 12(2), CPC applicability in banking law proceedings.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nS.29(2), Limitation Act: Special laws prescribing specific limitation periods exclude S.5 applicability.\no\nS.12(2), CPC does not apply to proceedings under the Banking Companies Act.\n•\nConclusion: Appeals under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, are governed by the special limitation period. Section 12(2), CPC applications in banking matters were declared incompetent.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 143 of 1995, decision dated: 19-05-2004, hearing DATE : 26-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Razzak for Petitioners.\nRaja Qasit Nawaz for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS AJAX INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 715 = 2004 SLD 715 = 2004 CLD 1714", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Compliance with Advertisement Orders\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDismissal of petition for failure to advertise in newspapers.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nNon-compliance with court orders for advertisement invalidates petitions.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed due to non-compliance with advertising directives.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies (Court) Rules, 1997=78", + "Case #": "C.O. No. 15 of 2003, decision dated: 5-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ijaz Ahmad for Counsel for respondent-Company Nemo for Petitioner Sahibzada Anwar Hameed for Bank of Punjab", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM CHAUDHARY \nVS\n STYLE ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 716 = 2004 SLD 716 = 2004 CLD 1711", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Loan and Execution of Compromise Decree\n•\nKey Issue: Whether the plaintiff bank is entitled to mark-up on the decretal amount post-compromise decree.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTerms of the compromise decree govern the entitlement to mark-up.\no\nIf a defendant fails to fulfill the compromise terms, the plaintiff bank can recover the decretal amount and mark-up as specified.\n•\nConclusion: The defendant was held liable for the mark-up as per the compromise decree, and the bank was entitled to execute the decree.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997=21", + "Case #": "First Appeal No.34 and C.M.A. No.937 of 2002, decision dated: 16-08-2003, hearing DATE : 29-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui for Appellants.\nShafqat Ali Mahesar, O. G. II for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SINDH TANNERIES LTD. AND OTHERS \nVS\n NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 717 = 2004 SLD 717 = 2004 CLD 1723", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Winding-Up Petition by Registrar of Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of winding-up proceedings initiated due to prolonged non-functioning and failure to hold AGMs.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProper service of a show-cause notice and failure to reply constitute admission of allegations.\no\nWinding-up is justified when a company fails to fulfill statutory requirements.\n•\nConclusion: The company was directed to be wound up in accordance with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J. Misc. Application No. 58 of 2003, decision dated: 21st May, 2004, hearing DATE : 12-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Aamir Naqvi for Petitioner.\nJhamat Jethanand for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN \nVS\n MESSRS PAKISTAN NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 696 = 2010 SLD 696 = 2010 CLD 1715", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Bank Loan and Leave to Defend\n•\nKey Issue: Filing of a time-barred application for leave to defend after amended suit requirements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFailure to file an application within the prescribed period leads to dismissal of the leave to defend application.\no\nFinancial suits are not contingent upon prior permissions from regulatory bodies like the State Bank.\n•\nConclusion: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff bank due to the borrower's procedural lapse.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "C. O. S. No. 13 of 2000, heard on 5-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Kamal Qazi for Plaintiff.\nAsghar Hamid Bhutta for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "UNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEYS \nVS\n MESSRS AZIZ TANNERIES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE/MANAGING DIRECTOR AND 9 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 603 = 2012 SLD 603 = 2012 CLD 1893", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act\n•\nKey Issue: Maintainability of a constitutional petition instead of an appeal.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRemedies provided under specific statutes must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; the petitioner was directed to file an appeal under the Act.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2443 of 2010, decision dated: 10-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haroon Shah for Petitioner.\nNaheed A. Shahid for Respondent No. 3.\nMasood Anwar Ausaf for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nAashiq Raza, D.A.G. Sher Muhammad K. Shaikh, A.A.G", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAWMAN AHMED \nVS\n ADJUDICATING OFFICER AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 604 = 2012 SLD 604 = 2012 CLD 1895", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Mismanagement in Investment Transactions\n•\nKey Issue: Mismanagement and lack of due diligence in investment decisions by a Takaful company.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors and management are bound by fiduciary duties and statutory obligations.\no\nViolations may result in penalties or warnings depending on the severity and corrective actions taken.\n•\nConclusion: The company and directors were warned to ensure future compliance, and penalties were avoided.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=12", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated 20-01-2011, decision dated: 14-05-2012. dates of hearing: 12th April and 14-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID NASIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DAWOOD FAMILY TAKAFUL LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 410 = 2014 SLD 410 = 2014 SCMR 157", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "CSS Examination Viva Voce\n•\nKey Issue: Challenge to viva voce results due to alleged procedural irregularities.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts cannot substitute their opinion for subjective assessments by expert boards unless bias or mala fide is evident.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; no evidence of bias or procedural impropriety.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1372 of 2013, decision dated: 19-09-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF SANGRI \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 605 = 2012 SLD 605 = 2012 CLD 1915", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Appeals in Financial Cases\n•\nKey Issue: Whether an appeal filed under the Financial Institutions Ordinance meets procedural requirements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAppeals must adhere to specific statutory provisions, but procedural labels do not affect their merits.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal declared maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=22", + "Case #": "Special High Court Appeal No. 279 of 2010, decision dated: 5-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nNADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Mazhar-ul-Haque and S. Sammad-ul-Haque for Appellant.\nS. Mamnoon Hassan for Respondent No. 1.\nRespondent No. 2 called absent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MOGHUL AND SONS THROUGH PARTNER \nVS\n NIB BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 606 = 2012 SLD 606 = 2012 CLD 1936", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Regulatory Violations in Securities Trading\n•\nKey Issue: Non-compliance with trade confirmation requirements under securities laws.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCompanies must follow prescribed methods for trade confirmations.\no\nViolations may lead to penalties as determined by the regulatory authority.\n•\nConclusion: The company was fined for non-compliance with rules governing trade confirmations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. (BRL-148)/SE/SMD/2008 dated May 11, 2012, decision dated: 21st June, 2012, hearing DATE : 29-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (BR&ICW)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EQUITY MASTER SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED, MEMBER OF THE LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (G) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 607 = 2012 SLD 607 = 2012 CLD 1945", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5TT0", + "Key Words:": ": Insolvency Petitions\n•\nKey Issue: Compliance with insolvency laws and procedural requirements for declaring insolvency.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInsolvency petitions require proper disclosure of financial records and compliance with statutory mandates.\n•\nConclusion: Petitions dismissed due to lack of compliance and mala fide intentions.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Three Insolvency Petitioners Nos. Nil of 2012, decision dated: 3rd August, 2012, hearing DATE : 19-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hussain Bux Balouch for Petitioners.\nKadir Bakhsh Umrani, Official Assignee.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAVAID AHMED SIDDIQUI AND 2 OTHERS\nVS\n OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 608 = 2012 SLD 608 = 2012 CLD 1952", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Filing of Beneficial Ownership Returns\n•\nKey Issue: Failure of a director to file beneficial ownership returns.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors are required to comply with filing obligations, and non-compliance results in fines.\n•\nConclusion: A fine of PKR 15,000 was imposed", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=222", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No. S.M.(B.O.) C.O.222/4 (998)2012, dated 14-5-2012. decided on 28-06-2012, hearing DATE : 26-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KAMRAN SHAHID, DIRECTOR OF KOHINOOR ILLS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 609 = 2012 SLD 609 = 2012 CLD 1957", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Eviction of Tenants from Mortgaged Properties\n•\nKey Issue: Whether a tenant can resist eviction under banking laws.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTenants must prove bona fide tenancy to seek protection under Financial Institutions Ordinance.\no\nBanking Courts have jurisdiction to evict tenants in mortgaged properties.\n•\nConclusion: Appeal dismissed; tenant failed to prove bona fide tenancy.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=15", + "Case #": "First Appeal No. 14 of 2012, decision dated: 9-05-2012, hearing DATE : 20-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nNADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asif Ali Pirzada for Appellant. Sadr-ud-Din Hudda for Respondent No. 1.\nSohail Hameed for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. PATHANI THROUGH ATTORNEY\nVS\n HABIB BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 610 = 2012 SLD 610 = 2012 CLD 1966", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Transfer of Shares and Tax Liability\n•\nKey Issue: Share transfer compliance and tax liability during minority.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCompanies cannot transfer shares without compliance with statutory requirements.\no\nMinors are not liable for tax obligations incurred during their minority.\n•\nConclusion: Tax liability was set aside for the petitioner who was a minor during the relevant period.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=155", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 18046 of 2012, decision dated: 16-08-2012, hearing DATE : 10-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mahmood Chohan, Mian Muhammad Athar and Abdul Qaddus Mughal for Petitioner.\nAsjad Yaqub with Zain-ul-Abadin Addl. Commissioner and Shahid Sattar, Deputy Commissioner, Inland Revenue for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WASEEM YAQOOB\nVS\n CHIEF COMMISSIONER, Income Tax AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 611 = 2012 SLD 611 = 2012 CLD 2004", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Environmental Compliance Violations\n•\nKey Issue: Procedural irregularities in evidence collection for environmental violations.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProsecution must adhere to procedural rules, including timely testing of samples.\n•\nConclusion: The accused was acquitted due to procedural lapses by the prosecution.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 5 of 2010, decision dated: 22-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, CHAIRPERSON\nABDUL KARIM MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Karim Nawaz. Qureshi, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for SEPA.\nZulfiqar All Noorani for Respondent/Accused.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH \nVS \n MOHSIN TABANI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TMK SUGAR MILL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 612 = 2012 SLD 612 = 2012 CLD 2019", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Violations in Corporate Transactions\n•\nKey Issue: Approval requirements for transactions with associated companies.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTransactions with associated companies require board approval under Companies Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Penalties for some violations were upheld, while others were set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 42 of 2008, decision dated: 5-06-2012, hearing DATE : 20-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER. COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor-ul-Arafin for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER. COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)\n NASEEM A. SATTAR, CHAIRMAN AND 9 OTHERS \nVS\nPAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 613 = 2012 SLD 613 = 2012 CLD 2027", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery Suit Based on Dishonored Cheque\n•\nKey Issue: Failure to defend a suit for recovery based on dishonored cheques.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLeave to defend must be sought within the limitation period.\no\nNegotiable instruments carry a presumption of consideration.\n•\nConclusion: Suit decreed with costs and mark-up.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No. 541 of 2009, decision dated: 8-12-2009, hearing DATE : 7-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TUFAIL H. EBRAHIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Adeel Abid for the Plaintiff,", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. NUSRAT MUFTI \nVS\n MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 992 = 2008 SLD 992 = 2008 PTCL 63 = 2012 CLD 2032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Discretionary Relief in Constitutional Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nGrant of relief in constitutional petitions.\no\nCreditor's right to adjust payments under the Contract Act.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nEquities must favor the petitioner for constitutional relief.\no\nCreditors can adjust payments toward time-barred debts under Section 60 of the Contract Act.\n•\nConclusion: Relief denied; creditors’ adjustments upheld as valid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 14 of 2010, decision dated: 9-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRQF, JAHAN, CHAIRPERSON\nABDUL KARIM MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Karim Nawaz Qureshi, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for SEPA Syed Shamim Hasan for Respondent/Accused", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDHCOMPLAINANT\nVS\n SHABBIR AHMED, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 982 = 2007 SLD 982 = 2007 SCMR 1318 = 2008 PTCL 63", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Removal of Goods and Limitation\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nDetermination of duties on illegally removed goods.\no\nRevival of limitation due to acknowledgment of liability.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGoods unlawfully removed from bonded warehouses attract the highest rate of duty from the date of detection or other relevant dates.\no\nAcknowledgment in writing revives the limitation period for recovery of duties.\no\nTime-barred recovery or adjustment of dues cannot be reversed if already recovered.\n•\nConclusion: Recovery upheld; claims of the importer dismissed due to estoppel and acknowledgment.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No, 1098 of 2006, decision dated: 21st February, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE RANA BHAGWANDAS,\nMR. JUSTICE HAMID ALI MIRZA", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "WEST PAKISTAN TANKS TERMINAL (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n COLLECTOR (APPRAISEMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 952 = 2013 SLD 952 = 2013 CLD 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Scheme of Arrangements Between Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Approval of schemes of arrangement or compromise between companies.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe court considers statutory compliance, representation of shareholders, and acceptability to ordinary businesspersons.\no\nMinor deficiencies in the scheme do not warrant rejection unless strong grounds exist.\n•\nConclusion: Sanction granted for the scheme of arrangement.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application No.8 of 2012, decision dated: 11th June. 2012, hearing DATE : 30-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar-ud-Din F. Vellani for Petitioners Nos.1 and 5.\nOmer Soomro for Petitioners Nos.2 to 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "METRO CASH AND CARRY PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 879 = 2011 SLD 879 = 2011 PTD 536 = 2011 TAX 273 = (2011) 103 TAX 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Duty Under Customs Act\n•\nKey Issue: Entitlement to exemptions under specific notifications.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nHigh Courts have jurisdiction over mixed questions of fact and law, including classification of goods for exemptions.\no\nExemptions depend on the nature of goods and contractual conditions.\n•\nConclusion: Petition allowed; demand set aside as goods qualified for exemption", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=10", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1914 of 2010, decision dated: 10-12-2010, hearing DATE 29-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sayyid Murtaza Ali Pirzada, for the Petitioner.\nBabbar A. Khan, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WITRIBE PAKISTAN LTD\nVS\n MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 953 = 2013 SLD 953 = 2013 CLD 25", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDST0", + "Key Words:": ": Leave to Defend in Recovery Suits\n•\nKey Issue: Conditional leave to defend requiring deposit of the disputed amount.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourts have discretion under O. XXXVII, R. 3 of CPC to impose conditions for granting leave to defend.\n•\nConclusion: Leave granted conditionally; no illegality found.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=3", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No, 2275 of 2012, decision dated: 20-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHIGAAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Azhar Sulehria for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ADNAN (MUHAMMAD IRFAN \nVS\n ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE HAFIZABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 954 = 2013 SLD 954 = 2013 CLD 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Directors in Debt Relief\n•\nKey Issue: Directors providing debt relief without shareholder consent.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRelief or extension for repayment by directors requires shareholder approval under S.196 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty on the CEO upheld due to non-compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=195", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 57 of 2011, decision dated: 31st May, 2012, hearing DATE : 14-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Hussain, Director for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM MUHAMMAD MALKANI \nVS\nGhulam Muhammed Malkani, --Appellant present." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 955 = 2013 SLD 955 = 2013 CLD 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDQT0", + "Key Words:": ": Ex Parte Winding Up of Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Setting aside ex parte orders of winding up.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSubstantial injustice due to lack of notice to majority shareholders justifies setting aside ex parte orders.\n•\nConclusion: Winding-up order recalled; application allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=319", + "Case #": "J.M. No. 50 of 2010 and C.M.As. Nos.318, 319 of 2011. decided on 29-05-2012. dates of hearing: 19th, 27-10-2010, 16-11-20-12-2011, 13th and 23rd May, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed for Petitioners.\nMansoor ul Arfin, Nadeem Akhtar and Muhammad Junaid Farooqi for Applicant Shareholders.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZULFIQUAR HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n BAMBINO (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 956 = 2013 SLD 956 = 2013 CLD 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Mark Infringement\n•\nKey Issue: Use of deceptively similar trademarks.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTemporary injunction granted when there is a likelihood of confusion causing irreparable harm.\n•\nConclusion: Defendant restrained from using the contested trademark.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=46", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1429 and C.M.As. Nos. 11155, 11156 of 2012, decision dated: 19-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN SADAAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moiz Ahmed along with Muhammad Hafeez Qadri for Plaintiff", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SNOWHITE DRY CLEANS THROUGH PARTNER \nVS\n SUFIYAN AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 957 = 2013 SLD 957 = 2013 CLD 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJDND0", + "Key Words:": "False Statements by Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Penalties for false statements under S.492 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFalse statements attract penalties without needing to establish criminal intent.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty imposed under S.492 upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=492", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1 of 2010, decision dated: 13-07-2012, hearing DATE : 20-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anas Makhdoom.\nBarrister-at-law and Waqar Monnoo, CEO for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "OLYMPIA SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED \nVS\nMuhammad Anas Makhdoom." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 958 = 2013 SLD 958 = 2013 CLD 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTYz0", + "Key Words:": ": Breach of Contract and Necessary Party\n•\nKey Issue: Striking out parties unrelated to the contractual breach.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nOnly parties to the contract can be held liable for breaches.\n•\nConclusion: Defendant removed from the suit; revision allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.2644 of 2010, decision dated: 19-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "CH. SHAHID SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aamir Mehmood for Petitioner.\nBilal Kashmiri for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAVEED MERCHANT \nVS\n SAFDAR GONDAL AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 959 = 2013 SLD 959 = 2013 CLD 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Filing of Quarterly Accounts by Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Delayed filing of statutory accounts.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors are liable for delays and penalties can be enhanced for continued non-compliance.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty enhanced to the maximum under the law.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=245", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 9 and 10 of 2009, decision dated: 31st May, 2012, hearing DATE : 14-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI, CHAIRMAN\nMUHAMMAD ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Farooq for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZMAT ALI SHEIKH, DIRECTOR/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 6 OTHERS\nVS\nPAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 960 = 2013 SLD 960 = 2013 CLD 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTVT0", + "Key Words:": ": Recovery of Loan Amount by Banks\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nCompetency of suit filed by attorney.\no\nAdmissibility of electronic records.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nElectronic records are valid without signatures under the Electronic Transactions Ordinance.\no\nLeave to defend is not a right unless substantial questions of fact are raised.\n•\nConclusion: Leave to defend denied; suit decreed", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No. B-67 of 2009, decision dated: 5-11-2012. dates of hearing: 23rd and 24-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jam Asif Mehmood for Plaintiff.\nAltaf Hussain for Defendant No. 1.\nBilal Aziz Khilji for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK LTD \nVS\n MIAN ABDUL JABBAR GIHLLIN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 569 = 2000 SLD 569 = 2000 PTCL 711", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTUT0", + "Key Words:": ": Winding Up of a Non-Operational Company\n•\nKey Issue: Winding up due to inability to pay debts and operational suspension.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProlonged suspension of business and non-payment of debts justify winding up.\n•\nConclusion: Company ordered to be wound up", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "Civil Original No, 2 of 1995, heard on 29-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE AMIR ALAM KHAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Muhammad Sair Ali, Advocate Respondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (PICIC)\nVS\n M/S. WASEEM BEVERAGES LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 961 = 2013 SLD 961 = 2013 CLD 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTTT0", + "Key Words:": ": Loan Recovery and Leave to Defend\n•\nKey Issue: Refusal to grant leave to defend in a recovery suit.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLeave to defend must be granted when discrepancies in documents or procedural flaws exist.\n•\nConclusion: Decree set aside; leave granted, and case remanded", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)=10", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 218 of 2006, heard on 2-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN AND SHAHID WAHEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Mushtaq Ahmed for Appellants. Qazi lftikhar Ahmad Toor for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M. SALEEM & COMPANY and 4 others \nVs\nMessrs ASKARI COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 570 = 2000 SLD 570 = 2000 PTCL 384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Distinction Between Tax and Fee\n•\nKey Issue: Differentiation between tax and fee and the principle of quid pro quo.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nTaxes are general charges; fees must correspond to services rendered.\n•\nConclusion: Fee adjusted to reflect service timelines; excess amount refunded.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "LICENCES AND PERMITS FEE ORDER, 1979=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 824 of 1992, heard on 11-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Salman K. Cheema, Advocate...Petitioner Chaudhri Afrasiab Khan, Advocate..... Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Biafo Industries\nVs\nFederation of Pakistan" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1963 15 = 1963 SLD 15 = 1963 PTD 709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTRT0", + "Key Words:": ": Res Judicata in Tax Assessments\n•\nKey Issue: Reopening previously assessed matters without fresh evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPrevious assessments cannot be reopened without new material or proof of arbitrariness.\n•\nConclusion: Reassessment barred without fresh material", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1922=23", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 5 of 1961, decision dated: 3rd August 1962.", + "Judge Name:": "I. H. CHOWDHURY, C.J. AND M. R. KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. F. M. Mesbah-ud-Din and A. M. Khan Chowdhury for Applicant.\nAsrarul Hussain for Khondkar Mahbub-ud-Din Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EAST PAKISTAN, DACCA\nvs\nWAHIDUZZAMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 633 = 2006 SLD 633 = 2006 PLD 267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Proof in Specific Performance Suits\n•\nKey Issue: Burden of proof in agreements to sell.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAttesting witnesses must testify unless proven unavailable.\n•\nConclusion: Suit dismissed due to failure to prove the agreement.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.89 of 2004, decision dated: 10-03-2006, hearing DATE . 12-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Haque Kamboh for Applicants.\nMiss Sabra Ali Rajput for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALILUR-REHMAN AND OTHERS\nVS\n MST. VAKEELAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 993 = 2008 SLD 993 = 2008 PLD 603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Acquittal in Criminal Trial\n•\nKey Issue: Acquittal due to lack of evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nEvidence already known cannot implicate the accused under Art. 41 of Qanun-e-Shahadat.\n•\nConclusion: Accused acquitted; no substantive evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2004, decision dated: 21st August, 2008, hearing DATE : 21st August, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Nawaz Channa for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD HAYAT ALIAS LIAQUAT\nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 266 = 1996 SLD 266 = 1996 SCMR 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Procedural Changes in Banking Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issue: Retrospective application of jurisdictional amendments.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProcedural changes apply retrospectively unless substantive rights are affected.\n•\nConclusion: Case transferred to appropriate jurisdiction; appeals allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance (XIX of 1979)=12", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 629 of 1993, decision dated: 22-11-1995, hearing DATE : 29-10-1995", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nSH. RIAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nRAJA AFIASIAB KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Basharutullah, Advocate Supreme Court and K.N. Kohk Advocate on-Record for Appellants.\nTariq Mahmood, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK GUL HASAN & CO. AND 5 OTHERS\nVS\n ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 128 = 1980 SLD 128 = 1980 PCRLJ 707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Petition Dismissed\n•\nKey Issue: Relief under constitutional jurisdiction.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; no relief granted as petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7321 of 1979, 02/12/1979", + "Judge Name:": "GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Alias Muhammad Mehdi", + "Petitioner Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Alias Muhammad Mehdi\nVS\nDistrict Magistrate, Guirat And Another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1220 = 2016 SLD 1220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Minimum Capital Requirements\n•\nKey Issue: Non-compliance with minimum paid-up capital requirements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors and Chief Executive are obligated to ensure compliance with statutory requirements.\no\nSecurities and Exchange Commission imposed a penalty for non-compliance, warning the company to avoid future defaults.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty upheld; Directors and CEO warned for future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(C),114(4),114(6),116", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1117/IB/2016 Tax year 2010, hearing DATE & Order: 06.10.2016.", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, CHAIRMAN \nNADEEM DAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Naeem-ul-Haq, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Mr. Abdul Razzaq, DR.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. NAHEED IQBAL, G9/1, ISLAMABAD\nVS\nCIR, RTO, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1221 = 2016 SLD 1221", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Minimum Capital Requirements\n•\nKey Issue: Non-compliance with minimum paid-up capital requirements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors and Chief Executive are obligated to ensure compliance with statutory requirements.\no\nSecurities and Exchange Commission imposed a penalty for non-compliance, warning the company to avoid future defaults.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty upheld; Directors and CEO warned for future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,113(3),122(5),122(9),Clause11A(v) ofPart-IVtotheSecond ScheduleIncome Tax Ordinance, 1979=80,80D", + "Case #": "ITA No. 558/IB/2013 (Tax Year 2010) and ITA No. 571/1B/2013 (Tax Year 2010), hearing DATE : 25.04.2016, DATE of Order: 29.09.2016", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD RIAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Jawad, DR\nRespondent by: Mr. Imran Younus, ACA.\nAppellant by: Mr. Imran Younus, ACA.\nRespondent by: Mr. Muhammad Jawad, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "ITA No. 558/IB/2013 (Tax Year 2010)\nTHE CIR, LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, ISLAMABAD\nVs\nM/S. ATTOCK GEN LIMITED, RAWALPINDI\nITA No. 571/1B/2013 (Tax Year 2010) \nM/S. ATTOCK GEN LIMITED, RAWALPINDI --Appellant\nVs\nTHE CIR, LEGAL DIVISION, LTU, ISLAMABAD- --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1222 = 2016 SLD 1222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=2(12a),Rule43A(2) ofChapter-VII", + "Case #": "STA 135/IB/2013, Tax Year 2009, 2010 & 2011, hearing DATE : 02-06-2016, DATE of order: 22-09-2016", + "Judge Name:": "IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JEHANZEB MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Imran Shah, D.R.\nRespondent by: Mr. Rashid Qureshi, FCA", + "Petitioner Name:": "Commissioner IR (Zone-II), LTU, Islamabad, --Appellant \nVs\nM/s Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited, 93-Harley Street, Rawalpindi, --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1223 = 2016 SLD 1223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=15,15(3),153(1)(b),155,161,161(1B),205", + "Case #": "ITA No. 485/IB/2016, Assessment Year 2014, hearing DATE & order: 31 05.2016", + "Judge Name:": "IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JEHANZEB MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Syed Tariq Jameel, FCA \nRespondent by: Mr. Muhammad Jawad, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Pakistan Mobile Communication Limited, Islamabad ... --Appellant \nVs\nCommissioner Inland Revenue, Withholding IV, LTU, Islamabad ... --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1224 = 2016 SLD 1224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpST0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=3(1)(d),8,19,14(1),14(2)Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=214(C)Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(41),8(1)(a),11(2),33,34,72(B)", + "Case #": "STA No. 96/113/2016, (Tax period from Jan-2010 to Dec-2010), hearing DATE : 15.07.2016, DATE of Order: 15.08.2016", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMED, CHAIRMAN AND FAHEEMUL HAQ KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Khalid Mehmood, FCA \nRespondent by: Mr. Imran Shah, D.R.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Nokia Solutions and Networks Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad ...... --Appellant\nvs\nThe CIR Zone IV, LTU, Islamabad ....... --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1225 = 2016 SLD 1225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=159(3),Part-II ofthefirst Schedule,Clause(9A)Part-II oftheSecond Schedule", + "Case #": "ITA No. 617/IB/2013, ASSESSMENT YEAR, 2012, DATE OE HEARING & ORDER 08 09.2016", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, ISLAMABAD .... --Appellant\nVS\nM/S BAHAWALPUR ENGINEERING LTD., 123-A, INDUSTRIAL TRIANGLE, KAHUTA ROAD, ISLAMABAD --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1226 = 2016 SLD 1226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=161,205", + "Case #": "ITA No. 673/IB/2013, ASSESSMENT YEAR, 2010, hearing DATE & ORDER: 08 09.2016", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, LTU, ISLAMABAD\nVS\nM/S BAHAWALPUR ENGINEERING LTD. 123-A, INDUSTRIAL TRIANGLE, KAHUTA ROAD, ISLAMABAD --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1227 = 2016 SLD 1227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=63", + "Case #": "ITA No. 433/IB/2013, ASSESSMEN T YEAR, 2002-03, hearing DATE & ORDER: 09.09.2016", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MR. ALTAF HUSSAIN PROP M/S. GONDAL POULTRY FARMS, BHOUN ROAD, CHAKWAL\nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, RAWALPINDI --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1228 = 2016 SLD 1228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJpND0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111,114(4),122C,127,130(1),218(2),", + "Case #": "ITA No. 561/IB/2013, Assessment Year, 2008, hearing DATE & order: 07-09-2016", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE RTO, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nMR. ADEEL KHAN, HOUSE NO. E189, SATELLITE TOWN, RAWALPINDI --Respondent\n--Appellant BY: MR ALI MUHAMMAD, DR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1229 = 2016 SLD 1229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(9),177", + "Case #": "ITA No. 565/IB/2013, Assessment year 2009, hearing DATE & ORDER: 07.09.2016", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO, RAWALPINDI - --Appellant \nVS\nMR. MUHAMMAD KALEEM SHERAZI, PROP M/S SUPER RAJPUT JEWELLERS, NEW SARAFA BAZAR, RAWALPINDI --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1230 = 2016 SLD 1230", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(5A),169,233,234A,234(A)(4),235(1),235(4),235(4)(b),Part-IV oftheFirst Schedule", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1556/IB/2015 (Tax Year, 2009), ITA No.1557/IB/2015 (Tax Year, 2010), ITA No. 1558/IB/2015 (Tax Year, 2011), hearing DATE : 02.09.2016 DATE of older: 22.09. 2016", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NADEEM DAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Abid Mehmood, ITP\nRespondent by: Mr. Tauqir Ahmed, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Badhan Traders, W-592, Ratta Road, RAWALPINDI --Appellant\nVS\nCommissioner of Inland Revenue, R.T.O, RAWALPINDI --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1231 = 2016 SLD 1231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21,21l,21(l),113,122(1),121(1)(d),152,174,177(1),Clause72(A) ofthePart-IV oftheSecond Schedule", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 870/IB/2015 (Tax Year 2013), hearing DATE : 27.09.2016, DATE of Order: 28.09.2016", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND NADEEM DAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, ITP\nRespondent by: Abdul Razzaq, D.R.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Mutaf Hajj Umra Services (Pvt.) Ltd. House # 2, Mohallah Rafeeqi Road, Chaklala Cantt. Block-2, Rawalpindi..--Appellant\nVs\nThe Commissioner Inland Revenue, R.T.O. Rawalpindi.--Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1232 = 2016 SLD 1232", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=129,165", + "Case #": "ITA No. 538/IB/2013, Assessment Year, 2012, hearing DATE & ORDER: 06.09 2016", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s BIO LABS (PVT) LTD., RAWALPINDI ...... --Appellant\nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, RTO RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1233 = 2016 SLD 1233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(5A),153,153(1)(b),153(1)(c),153(3)(b),153(3)(d)", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1118/IB/2015 (Tax Year 2010), ITA No. 1119/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2012), ITA No. 1120/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2012), ITA No. 1121/IB/2012 (Tax Year 2012), hearing DATE : 04-08-2016, DATE of Order: 21-09-2016", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Masood Akhtar, D.R \nRespondent by: Mr Zahid Masood Chatha, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CIR, RTO, Rawalpindi ........ --Appellant\nVs\nMr. Sohail Tanveer, House No.298, Street No. 04, GulraiZIII, Rawalpindi ....... --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1234 = 2016 SLD 1234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,122(5A),", + "Case #": "ITA No. 1123/IB/2016, Tax year 2013, hearing DATE & order: 10-10-2016", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD, CHAIRMAN AND MIAN SAEED IQBAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Tipu Sultan, ITP.\nRespondent by: Mr. Abdul Razzaq, DR.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mr. Kamran Hamid Raja, Islamabad ......... --Appellant\nvs\nCIR, RTO, Islamabad ......... --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1235 = 2016 SLD 1235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11(2),8(1)(a),13(1),sixth ScheduleitemNo.32Sales Tax Rules, 2006=ChapterIVserialNo.25", + "Case #": "STA No. 106/IB/2016, hearing DATE : 21.09.2016, DATE of order: 23.09.2016", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID MASOOD MANZAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND, JEHANZEB MAHMOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Sheikh Istataat Ali, Advocate\nRespondent by: Mr. Muhammad Altaf Khan, D.R & Mr. Akbar Nawaz, D.R.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s Khursheed Printers. (Pvt) Limited, Islamabad ...... --Appellant\nVs\nThe CIR, RTO, Islamabad ..... --Respondent" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 962 = 2013 SLD 962 = 2013 CLD 261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Minimum Capital Requirements\n•\nKey Issue: Non-compliance with minimum paid-up capital requirements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors and Chief Executive are obligated to ensure compliance with statutory requirements.\no\nSecurities and Exchange Commission imposed a penalty for non-compliance, warning the company to avoid future defaults.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty upheld; Directors and CEO warned for future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=11", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice dated 18-01-2012. decided on 12-07-2012, hearing DATE : 16th February. 2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID NASIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANYLIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 963 = 2013 SLD 963 = 2013 CLD 273", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Independent Share Registrar\n•\nKey Issue: Non-appointment of an independent Share Registrar.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nIgnorance of the law is not a valid excuse.\no\nCEO and Directors are responsible for ensuring compliance with corporate governance laws.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty of Rs.200,000 upheld; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 42 of 2012, decision dated: 13-07-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAWAR ALMAS KHAWAJA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER \nVS\nPAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 964 = 2013 SLD 964 = 2013 CLD 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": ": False Accounts and Penalty\n•\nKey Issue: Filing of false half-yearly accounts.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors must ensure authenticity of financial statements.\no\nPenalty imposed due to deliberate non-compliance and an attempt to deceive regulatory authorities.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty upheld; leniency denied due to the seriousness of the violation.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22 and 25 of 2011, decision dated: 13-07-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd May. 2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SM)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Hussain Bhutta, Director for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN SHAHZAD ASLAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\n COMMISSIONER (CLD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "7164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 965 = 2013 SLD 965 = 2013 CLD 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDYz0", + "Key Words:": ": Late Submission of Quarterly Accounts\n•\nKey Issue: Delay in submission of quarterly accounts.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCompliance with statutory deadlines is mandatory.\no\nDelays due to management inefficiencies are not excusable.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty of Rs.25,000 upheld; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 43 of 2010, decision dated: 13-07-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Awan, FAC for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAMID TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\nPAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 966 = 2013 SLD 966 = 2013 CLD 357", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Directors’ Conflict of Interest\n•\nKey Issue: Failure to disclose interest in Board decisions.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors must disclose conflicts of interest and abstain from voting on such matters.\no\nPenalty imposed for non-disclosure and participation in Board decisions.\n���\nConclusion: Penalty of Rs.2,000 on each Director upheld; appeal dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.53 of 2010, decision dated: 13-07-2012, hearing DATE : 20-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SM)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.D. Rajani for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "YOUNUS DAWOOD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, M/S. DYL MOTORCYCLE LIMITED AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\nEXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 967 = 2013 SLD 967 = 2013 CLD 397", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Merger of Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Approval of a merger scheme.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCourt evaluates statutory compliance and benefits to shareholders.\no\nFair and reasonable schemes are sanctioned if unopposed.\n•\nConclusion: Merger scheme approved; petition allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=94", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Petition No.48 of 2011, decision dated: 24-09-2012. dates of hearing: 18th August and 6-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SECTIONS 284 TO 288 OF THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1984: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 251 = 1991 SLD 251 = 1991 PLC 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDUT0", + "Key Words:": ": Amalgamation of Civil Service Cadres\n•\nKey Issue: Amalgamation of service cadres and seniority concerns.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nGovernment holds discretion to amalgamate cadres.\no\nSeniority lists do not create vested rights.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed as no tangible loss was demonstrated.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 132 of 1990, decision dated: 27-01-1991.", + "Judge Name:": "FAZAL ELAHI KHAN, JUSTICE\nNAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PROF. DR. SHAMIM S. MAJID AND 8 OTHERS.\nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, N.-W.F.P. PESHAWAR AND 22 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 252 = 1991 SLD 252 = 1991 PLC 334", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Removal from Service\n•\nKey Issue: Probationary removal of a civil servant.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nProbationary employees cannot be removed arbitrarily without valid reasons.\no\nRemoval based on administrative errors is invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Removal order set aside; appellant reinstated.", + "Court Name:": "Service Tribunal (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Service Appeal No. 408 of 1988, decision dated: 22-02-1990.", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN, CHAIRMAN\nRAJA MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KAYANI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MANZOOR HUSSAIN\nVS\n AZAD GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 797 = 2001 SLD 797 = 2001 SCMR 190", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Termination of Employment\n•\nKey Issue: Whether drivers employed by a company were personal employees or corporate staff.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nEvidence supporting corporate employment validates reinstatement.\no\nSupreme Court prioritizes substantial justice over technicalities.\n•\nConclusion: High Court and Tribunal decisions reversed; reinstatement upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1501 and 1502 of 1997, decision dated: 31st May, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI, JUSTICE\nMIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE\nDEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehta K.N Kohli, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.\nMuhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate- on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZIR AHMED AND ANOTHER\nVS\n GILLETTE PAKISTAN LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 798 = 2001 SLD 798 = 2001 SCMR 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Resumption of Land by Colony Assistants\n•\nKey Issue: Legality of land resumption orders after decades.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nOrders without jurisdiction or based on mala fide actions are invalid.\no\nHigh Court jurisdiction under Art.199 extends to correcting administrative errors.\n•\nConclusion: Resumption order declared void; High Court’s decision upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.578 of 1997 decided on 26-03-1998. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 13-6-1995, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No.3323 of 1981)", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSH. RIAZ AHMED, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JUSTICE\nRESPONDENTSHUDABIA TEXTILES MILLS, FAISALABAD THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 4 OTHERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.M.A. Samdani, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants. \nA. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent.\nSyed Jamshed Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No. 3.\nS.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the Intervenors", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH COLLECTOR, FAISALABAD AND ANOTHER\nVS\n HUDABIA TEXTILES MILLS, FAISALABAD THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 799 = 2001 SLD 799 = 2001 SCMR 1822", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDQT0", + "Key Words:": ": Evacuee Property Claims\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of claims on evacuee property after the repeal of evacuee laws.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nClaims not pending at the time of repeal are barred.\no\nJurisdictional overreach in allotments is invalid.\n•\nConclusion: Claims dismissed; earlier allotments declared void.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 170 to 185 and 1561 to 1566 of 1999, decision dated: 25-05-2001. dates of hearing: 9th and 10-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. hlehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 170 and 171 of 1999).\nCh. Mushtaq Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court aid fanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 172 to 176 of 1999).\nMaqbool Ellahi Malik, Advocate General, Punjab, Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants in C.As. Nos. 177 to 184 of 1999).\nS.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. No. 1561 of 1999).\nMian Fazal Mehmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 1562 to 1566 of 1999).\nCh. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and M.Z. Khalil, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in all Cases).\nSaeed-ur-Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2 to 8 (in C.A. No. 170 of 1999)", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALI MUHAMMAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS\nVS\n CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 968 = 2013 SLD 968 = (2013) 107 TAX 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "EOB Act and Banking Institutions\n•\nKey Issue: Applicability of Employees Old-Age Benefit Act to banks.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nBanks are not exempt from EOB Act obligations post-2008 amendment.\no\nStatutory compliance is mandatory for all public and private banks.\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; EOB Act applies to the petitioner.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 314 of 2012, decision dated: 6-2-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Basir Qureshi, AS C for the petitioner, for the Petitioner.\nNone, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SME BANK LTD\nVS\n CHAIRMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY & ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1954 130 = 1954 SLD 130 = 1954 PLD 551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Companies in Liquidation – Income Tax Claims\n•\nKey Issue: Jurisdiction of liquidation courts to review income tax assessments.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nIncome tax authorities can prove claims in liquidation through assessment orders.\no\nCivil courts, including liquidation courts, cannot challenge income tax assessments; such disputes must follow procedures under the Income Tax Act.\n•\nConclusion: Income tax claims are valid based on assessment orders; jurisdiction to question assessments rests with tax authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Act, (VII of 1913)=228", + "Case #": "Civil Original Cases Nos. 17, 19 of 1952 and 11 of 1953. Reference answered on 5th June 1954", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nM. R. KAYANI, JUSTICE\nSHABIR AHMAD, JUSTICE\nM.A. SOOFI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. D. Malik, for Petitioner in Case No. 19 of 1952.\nMalik Muhammad Hussain, for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAVI PAINT COLOUR AND VARNISH WORKS LTD\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH I. T. C. LAHORE\n(CASES NOS. 19 OF 1952 AND 11 OF 1953).\n THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR PINDIKASHMIR TRANSPORT CO. LTD., (IN LIQUIDATION) LAHORE \nVS\n THE COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 969 = 2013 SLD 969 = 2013 CLD 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTYz0", + "Key Words:": ": False Statements in Financial Accounts\n•\nKey Issue: Misstatement of accounts by Directors of a company.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nPenalties under S.492 of the Companies Ordinance apply to false statements in financial accounts.\no\nMisstatements corrected in the following year were considered, and penalties were reduced.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty reduced to Rs.250,000 per Director due to corrective measures.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=492", + "Case #": "Appeal No.68 of 2009, decision dated: 5-06-2012, hearing DATE : 20-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Waseem, FCA and Iqbal, FCA for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM AHMED ADAM, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\nPAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 970 = 2013 SLD 970 = 2013 CLD 108", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Provident Fund Mismanagement\n•\nKey Issue: Jurisdiction for resolving provident fund disputes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nHigh Court jurisdiction under S.7 of the Companies Ordinance is limited.\no\nProvident fund disputes should be addressed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP).\n•\nConclusion: Petition dismissed; SECP has jurisdiction over provident fund issues.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=7", + "Case #": "C.O. No.31 of 2009, decision dated: 19-12-2012, hearing DATE : 28-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haris Azmat for Petitioner.\nShahzad Ata Elahi for Respondents Nos.1 to 5.\nUmair Mansoor, Assistant Director, Law, SECP for Respondent No. 6 (SECP)", + "Petitioner Name:": "ICI POLYESTER EMPLOYEES UNION (CBA) REGISTERED \nVS\n TRUSTEES UNION AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 971 = 2013 SLD 971 = 2013 CLD 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Company Assets and Oppression\n•\nKey Issue: Disputes over company assets and allegations of oppression.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCompany assets belong to the company, not shareholders individually.\no\nOppression claims must demonstrate harm to minority shareholders.\n•\nConclusion: High Court provided equitable relief but declined shareholder buyout; directions issued for future governance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "J.M. No.31 of 2007, decision dated: 5-07-2012. dates of hearing: 5th, 10th, 13th, 24th 30-05-2-06-3rd, 4-08-15-12-2011 and 10-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi, Asghar N. Faruqui and Haseeb Jamali for Petitioners.\nRasheed A. Razvi and Tahmasp Razvi for Respondent No. 1.\nAgha Faisal for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.\nArshad M. Tayebaly and Amel Khan Kansi for Respondents Nos.5 and 6.\nShehryar Qazi for Respondent No. 8.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. NEELOFAR SHAH AND ANOTHER \nVS\n MESSRS OFSPACE (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY AND 8 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 972 = 2013 SLD 972 = 2013 CLD 158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Insider Trading\n•\nKey Issue: Allegations of insider trading.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInsider trading involves using non-public information for personal gain.\no\nSECP imposed a penalty under S.15-E of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Respondent fined Rs.4.5 million for insider trading violations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(18)IT/MSW/SMD/1(5)2004/10 dated 20-1-2012, decision dated: 31st May, 2012, hearing DATE : 30-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AAMIR: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 973 = 2013 SLD 973 = 2013 CLD 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Investment in Associated Companies\n•\nKey Issue: Extending credit to associated companies without shareholder approval.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAbnormal credit terms equate to investments requiring shareholder approval under S.208 of the Companies Ordinance.\n•\nConclusion: Penalty of Rs.50,000 per Director upheld for unauthorized credit extensions.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.26 of 2008, decision dated: 5-06-2012, hearing DATE : 20-04-2012.", + "Judge Name:": "IMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)\nMOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAZA KULI KHAN KHATTAK, CHAIRMAN AND 9 OTHERS \nVS\nPAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 974 = 2013 SLD 974 = 2013 CLD 729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Late Filing of Beneficial Ownership Returns\n•\nKey Issue: Delay in filing beneficial ownership returns.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFiling delays, if unintentional, may warrant leniency.\n•\nConclusion: Warning issued; company assured timely compliance in the future.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=222", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.S.M(B.O.)C.O.222/4(2641)12 dated 31-7-2012, decision dated: 15-11-2012, hearing DATE : 13-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmed Faheem Niazi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUS DYING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 975 = 2013 SLD 975 = 2013 SCMR 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "SECP Chairperson Appointment\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of SECP Chairperson’s appointment.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAppointment processes must comply with statutory requirements.\no\nSECP rules on termination without cause were declared unconstitutional.\n•\nConclusion: Appointment invalidated; Federal Government directed to ensure compliance with SECP laws.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=5", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 59 of 2011 and C.M.As, Nos.326 and 633 of 2012 and Criminal O.P. 94 of 2012 in Constitutional Petition No.59 of 2011. (Petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution), hearing DATE : 9-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afnan Karim Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Barrister Momin Ali Khan, Advocate for Petitioners (in both cases).\nMuhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Barrister Sajeel Sheryar and Ch. Hasan Murtaza Mann, Advocates for Respondents Nos.2, 5 and 6 (in Constitutional Petition No. 59 of 2011).\nSalman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Malik Ghulam Sabir, Advocate, Sameer Khose, Advocate, Ms. Aneesa Agha, Advocate, Malik Ahsan Mehmood, Advocate and Ms. Zainab Qureshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 (in Constitutional Petition No. 59 of 2011).\nAnwar Mansoor Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal O.P. No. 94 of 2012).\nMuhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2 (in Criminal O.P. No. 94 of 2012).\nNo Amicus Curiae (in Criminal O.P. No. 94 of 2012).\nMuzaffar Ahmed Mirza, Dir. Litigation for SECP (in Criminal O.P. No. 94 of 2012)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF TIWANA AND OTHERS \nVS\n PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 19 = 1970 SLD 19 = (1994) 70 TAX 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTQT0", + "Key Words:": ": Loan vs. Share Capital\n•\nKey Issue: Characterization of interest-free loans as share capital.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLoans do not become share capital until formally appropriated as such.\n•\nConclusion: Amount remained a loan until shares were allotted.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Indian Company (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964=SecondSched", + "Case #": "Income Tax Reference No. 387 of 1979 Decided on 7-4-1993", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE\nU.T. SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate, for the Applicant.\nDr. V. Balasubramaniam and J.P. Deodhar Advocates, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SIEMENS INDIA LIMITED\nVS\n COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 976 = 2013 SLD 976 = 2013 PTD 1400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "EOB Act Applicability to Banks\n•\nKey Issue: Bank’s obligation under the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFinance Act, 2008 made the EOB Act applicable to all banks.\n•\nConclusion: Bank must register under the EOB Act and contribute accordingly", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.314 of 2012, decision dated: 6-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Basir Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioner.\nNone for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SME BANK LTD \nVS\n CHAIRMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 977 = 2013 SLD 977 = (2013) 108 TAX 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmRlNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Time-Barred Insurance Claims\n•\nKey Issue: Limitation period for insurance claims under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nLimitation cannot be condoned unless expressly allowed by statute.\no\nClaims under repealed acts must follow old procedures.\n•\nConclusion: Time-barred claims not entertainable under the new ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Case No. R.F.A. No. 183/2008. decided on 15-2-2013, hearing DATE : 12-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nAYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abrar Ahmed, Advocate, Ali Akbar Qureshi and Abrar Ahmed, Advocates.\nMr. Liaqat Ali Butt, Advocate in RFAs No. 911 /2011, 1024/2011 and WP. No. 948/2008, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. ROBINA BIBI\nVS\n STATE LIFE INSURANCE, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 426 = 2003 SLD 426 = 2003 CLD 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": ": Environmental Violations\n•\nKey Issue: Release of untreated effluents by a mill.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nViolations of procedural rules undermine the validity of environmental enforcement orders.\no\nDue process is mandatory before imposing penalties.\n•\nConclusion: Environmental Protection Order annulled; mill acquitted due to lack of evidence and procedural violations.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Complaint No.17 of 2010, decision dated: 30-06-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, CHAIRPERSON\nABDUL KARIM MEMON, MEMBER LEGAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Karim Nawaz Qureshi, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for SEPA.\nMuhammad Ali Tak Chhipa for Respondent/Accused.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH \nVS\n FAROOQ GULZAR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GULZAR OIL INDUSTRIES" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 978 = 2013 SLD 978 = 2013 CLD 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) – Discretion in Issuance of Broadcasting Licenses\n•\nKey Issue: Arbitrary denial of a broadcasting license to the petitioner for a religious and educational television channel.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAuthorities must act fairly, transparently, and without discrimination.\no\nDiscretionary powers must be exercised judiciously, adhering to principles of equity and fairness.\no\nArbitrary delays in processing applications violate fundamental rights.\n•\nOutcome: The High Court declared PEMRA's inaction ultra vires and unconstitutional. PEMRA was directed to decide the petitioner��s application for a license without delay and in accordance with the law", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)=19", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-2534 of 2010, decision dated: 25-10-2012, hearing DATE : 29-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Mansoor Khan for Petitioner.\nKashif Hanif for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARY COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER \nVS\nAND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 979 = 2013 SLD 979 = 2013 CLD 201", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Marks Ordinance – Evidence in Appeal and Rights of Distributors\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nAdmissibility of documents filed at the appeal stage without prior permission.\n2.\nRights of distributors concerning trademarks.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDocuments not filed before the Trial Court cannot be introduced at the appellate stage without leave of court.\no\nA distributor, as an agent of the trademark owner, cannot claim ownership or registration of the trademark.\no\nThe principle of prior user applies to unregistered trademarks when supported by substantial evidence.\n•\nOutcome: The appellate court deemed the additional documents inadmissible. It upheld the principle that distributors cannot register a principal's trademark in their name.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=14", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.213 of 2012, decision dated: 28-09-2012, hearing DATE : 24-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Azeem Abbas Naqvi for Appellant.\nMian Bilal Ahmad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PIONEER CEMENT LIMITEDTHROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY\nVS\n FECTO CEMENT LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 980 = 2013 SLD 980 = 2013 CLD 211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance – Manipulation Through Wash Trades \n•\nKey Issue: Execution of trades designed to artificially manipulate stock market prices.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\n Wash Trades violate the Code of Conduct for brokers as they create a false impression of market activity.\no\nSuch practices undermine market integrity and are detrimental to the development of a transparent trading environment.\n•\nOutcome: A penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed on the violator, with instructions to implement controls to prevent future occurrences.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(03)/Wash/KSE/MSW/SMD/ 2009/ dated 6-6-2012, decision dated: 25-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PEARL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 981 = 2013 SLD 981 = 2013 CLD 216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Against SECP Orders\n•\nKey Issue: Maintainability of a constitutional petition when alternative remedies are available under the SECP Act.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nWhen statutory remedies exist, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked directly.\no\nPetitioners must exhaust their statutory rights before approaching the High Court.\n•\nOutcome: The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition as the petitioner failed to utilize the available appellate remedy under the SECP Act.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1803 of 2010, heard on 16-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Imran Aziz for Petitioner.\nSultan Mazhar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NASEEMUL ALI, EX. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF TRUST MANAGEMENT SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. TRUST MODARBA \nVS\n EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 982 = 2013 SLD 982 = 2013 CLD 276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Negligence and Ex Parte Proceedings\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nFiling a written statement without recalling an ex parte order.\n2.\nResponsibility of parties to prove negligence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nWritten statements filed without recalling ex parte orders are invalid.\no\nPlaintiffs bear the initial burden of proving negligence, which shifts to defendants once a prima facie case is made.\n•\nOutcome: The court invalidated the written statement filed by the defendant and emphasized adjudication based on substantive merits rather than procedural technicalities", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=6", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.149 of 2008, decision dated: 12-10-2012, hearing DATE : 14-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Usmani for Appellants.\nAbdul Wajid Wyne for Respondent No. 1.\nMuhammad Ishaque Memon for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. ISHRAT JEHAN AND ANOTHER \nVS\n SYED ANIS-UR-REHMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 983 = 2013 SLD 983 = 2013 CLD 291", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Expiry of Ordinances and Its Impact on Pending Cases\n•\nKey Issue: Legal implications of an ordinance's expiry on pending cases.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nThe expiry of an ordinance does not affect proceedings initiated under it.\no\nPending cases are governed by the repealed law that resumes effect upon the ordinance’s lapse.\n•\nOutcome: The court upheld that proceedings initiated under the expired ordinance remain valid and are adjudicated under the previous legal framework.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "General Clauses Act, 1897=6", + "Case #": "Suit No.1804 of 2009, decision dated: 7-09-2012. dates of hearing: 6th, 16th and 28-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TASNIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moeen Qamar for plaintiff.\nSajid Zahid and Mansoor A. Shaikh for Defendants Nos.1, 2 and 4.\nGhulam Abbass Pishori for Defendant No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE (PAKISTAN) LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS \n CUMMINS MIDDLE EAST FZE THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 984 = 2013 SLD 984 = 2013 CLD 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Infringement – Rejection of Plaint\n•\nKey Issue: Improper rejection of a plaint involving allegations of trademark infringement.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nClaims involving trademark infringement and passing off require detailed inquiry and cannot be summarily dismissed.\no\nCourts favor decisions based on merits rather than technical grounds.\n•\nOutcome: The High Court overturned the Trial Court's rejection of the plaint and remanded the case for adjudication on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=43", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.110 of 2002, decision dated: 31st January, 2011, hearing DATE : 21st January, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moeen Qamar for Appellant.\nMuhammad Shakeel Abid for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LEO PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS \nVS\n SHAIGAN PHARMACEUTICAL (PVT.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 985 = 2013 SLD 985 = 2013 CLD 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Trademark Disputes – Unfair Competition and Delay\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRights of a trademark owner against misuse by an agent.\n2.\nImpact of delay in seeking remedies on interim relief.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAn agent or distributor cannot claim ownership of a trademark registered by the principal.\no\nDelay in initiating legal action may impact the grant of interim relief unless justified.\n•\nOutcome: The court granted interim relief in one case where misuse of the trademark was evident but denied it in another due to unjustified delay.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=90", + "Case #": "Suits Nos. 1453 and 1468 of 2011,decided on 24-07-2012, hearing DATE : 6-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moen Qamar for Plaintiff.\nFaisal Siddiqui for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TILLOTTS PHARMA AG THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS\n GETZ PHARMA (PRIVATE) LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER/DIRECTOR/SECRETARY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 986 = 2013 SLD 986 = 2013 CLD 362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction – Maritime Claims and Mortgages\n•\nKey Issue: Distinction between maritime liens and mortgages under admiralty law.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nMaritime liens are distinct from mortgages and have priority in claims.\no\nMortgages are contractual obligations and do not constitute maritime liens.\n•\nOutcome: The court held that the claim based on a mortgage was not a maritime lien and was unaffected by statutory limitations applicable to maritime liens.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Appeal No. 5 of 2011, decision dated: 30-07-2012, hearing DATE : 21st March, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nNADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Ahmed for Appellant.\nMuhammad Ahsan Ghani Siddiqui for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "F.T. SELNES \nVS\n MEGA INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 987 = 2013 SLD 987 = 2013 CLD 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Stamp Act – Inadmissibility of Instruments Without Proper Stamping\n•\nKey Issue: Admissibility of unstamped promissory notes and bills of exchange.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInstruments subject to stamp duty cannot be admitted into evidence if not duly stamped.\no\nThe defect of insufficient stamping on such documents is incurable.\n•\nOutcome: The court declared the document inadmissible due to inadequate stamping.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Stamp Act, of 1899=35", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.115 of 2012, decision dated: 18-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.\nCh. Abid Ali for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NOOR AHMAD\nVS\n MUHAMMAD SHAHID PARVAIZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 988 = 2013 SLD 988 = 2013 CLD 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Act – Stay of Legal Proceedings\n•\nKey Issue: Applicability of res judicata in arbitration-related disputes.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRes judicata applies only when an issue has been conclusively determined in prior proceedings.\no\nCourts encourage arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.\n•\nOutcome: The application for stay of proceedings was allowed, and res judicata was deemed inapplicable.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.3435 of 2011, heard on 29-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzad Atta Elahi for Petitioner.\nQayyum Javed Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CITY SCHOOLS (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PROJECT \nVS\n AZMAT NAWAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 989 = 2013 SLD 989 = 2013 CLD 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Malicious Prosecution – Requirements for Damages\n•\nKey Issue: Criteria for claiming damages for malicious prosecution.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nA plaintiff must demonstrate actual prosecution to claim damages for malicious prosecution.\no\nMerely filing a complaint or initiating an investigation does not constitute prosecution.\n•\nOutcome: The court dismissed the claim for damages as the plaintiff failed to establish prosecution.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=119", + "Case #": "Suit No.1637 of 2007, decision dated: 9-08-2012. dates of hearing: 16-09-2-10-9-10-22nd October and 25-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Plaintiff in person.\nNemo for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. SHAMIM AKHTER \nVS\n MUHAMMAD HANIF QURESHI\n----Plaintiff in person." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 990 = 2013 SLD 990 = 2013 CLD 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": ": Insurance Claims and Limitation\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nApplicability of limitation laws to insurance claims filed under repealed legislation.\n2.\nJurisdiction of Insurance Tribunals under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nInsurance claims arising from policies issued before the Ordinance are governed by the repealed Act.\no\nLimitation periods under the Limitation Act apply to such claims, and tribunals cannot condone delays.\n•\nOutcome: The court ruled that the Insurance Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over time-barred claims under the repealed Act. Appeals allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=115", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.183 of 2008, decision dated: 15-02-2013, hearing DATE : 12-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nAYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaqat Ali Butt for Appellant (in R.F.As. Nos. 188, 189, 190 of 2008 and 385 of 2007).\nAbrar Ahmed for Appellant/Petitioner (in R.F.As. Nos.911, 1024 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 948 of 2008).\nAli Akbar Qureshi and Abrar Ahmed for Respondents (in R.F.As. Nos. 188, 189, 190 of 2008 and R.F.A. No. 385 of 2007).\nLiaqat Ali Butt for Respondents (in R.F.As. Nos.911, 1024 of 2011 and Write Petition No. 948 of 2008).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. ROBINA BIBI \nVS \n STATE LIFE INSURANCE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 991 = 2013 SLD 991 = 2013 CLD 522", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": ": Arbitration Act – Arbitration Agreement in Pending Suit\n•\nKey Issue: Validity of arbitration agreements executed after the institution of a suit without court permission.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 applies only to suits instituted after an arbitration agreement.\no\nArbitration agreements in pending suits must follow the provisions of Sections 21-25 of the Arbitration Act.\no\nAgreements made without the court's leave in ongoing suits are null and unenforceable.\n•\nOutcome: The Trial Court correctly dismissed the application for stay of proceedings based on an arbitration agreement signed after the suit's institution. Appeal was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.255 of 2004, decision dated: 26-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID WAHEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sahibzada Mahboob Ali for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARMERS EQUITY PRIVATE LIMITED (FEP) THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 3 OTHERS \nVS\n MEHBOOB ALAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 992 = 2013 SLD 992 = 2013 CLD 550", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTST0", + "Key Words:": ": Doctrine of Indoor Management – Constitutional Jurisdiction\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDisputed private contractual obligations in constitutional jurisdiction.\n2.\nApplicability of the doctrine of indoor management.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nConstitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for contractual obligations or factual disputes between private parties.\no\nA party not a signatory to a novation agreement cannot be bound by its terms.\n•\nOutcome: The High Court declined jurisdiction, emphasizing that private contractual disputes must follow civil remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.734 of 2008, decision dated: 7-11-2012, hearing DATE : 30-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Mansoor Khan for Petitioners.\nKhalid Anwar, Mustafa Ali and Yousuf Naseem for Respondent No. 1.\nMuhammad Ashraf Mughal, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF D. BALOCH (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 2 OTHERS \nVS \n NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH PRESIDENT AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 993 = 2013 SLD 993 = 2013 CLD 566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance – False Net Capital Balance\n•\nKey Issue: Submission of false Net Capital Balance (NCB) by a broker.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCompliance with the Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971 is mandatory.\no\nProviding false financial information violates Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969.\n•\nOutcome: The broker was fined Rs.500,000 for overstating its NCB, and was directed to ensure compliance with regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=6", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.4/BRK-176/SE/SMD/2004, dated 11-05-2012, decision dated: 10-07-2012, hearing DATE : 5-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FIRST NATIONAL EQUITIES LIMITED, MEMBER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 994 = 2013 SLD 994 = 2013 CLD 579", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Breach of Trust and Bail\n•\nKey Issue: Bail application for a director accused of unauthorized pledging of shares.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAccusations must show direct involvement to deny bail.\no\nFurther inquiry is warranted when evidence does not establish prima facie guilt.\n•\nOutcome: The accused was granted bail due to the absence of incriminating evidence and lack of direct involvement.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497", + "Case #": "Criminal Bail Application No.380 of 2012, decision dated: 18-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahab Sarki and Zulfiqar Ali Langah for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD FURQAN \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 995 = 2013 SLD 995 = 2013 CLD 585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Malicious Prosecution – Burden of Proof\n•\nKey Issue: Requirements for proving malicious prosecution.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nEssential ingredients include malice, lack of reasonable cause, favorable termination of prosecution, and damages.\no\nThe plaintiff bears a heavy burden of proof.\n•\nOutcome: The court emphasized strict proof standards and dismissed claims unsupported by evidence", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.181 of 2010, decision dated: 20-09-2012, hearing DATE : 12-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Razzaq Leghari for Applicant.\nSontosh Kumar J. Kalal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF \nVS\n MST. HASEENA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 996 = 2013 SLD 996 = 2013 CLD 598", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "Objection to Auction of Mortgaged Property\n•\nKey Issue: Repeated objections to auction proceedings after dismissal for non-prosecution.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRefiling objections after dismissal is barred under Order IX, Rule 9, CPC.\no\nAgreements to sell do not override the rights of decree holders.\n•\nOutcome: The objection was dismissed, reaffirming the decree holder's priority.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=13", + "Case #": "E.F.A. No.2 of 2011, decision dated: 22-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE\nIJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Riaz Khokhar for Appellant.\nMuhammad Saleem Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.\nMuhammad Wasem Thaheem for Respondents Nos.3 to 5.\nMughees Aslam Malik for Respondent No. 6/auction purchaser", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST MAH RUKH BATOOL \nVS\n JUDGE BANKING COURT NO.III AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 997 = 2013 SLD 997 = 2013 CLD 604", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Award – Procedural Requirements\n•\nKey Issue: Rejection of an application for making an arbitration award a rule of court.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nArbitration Act procedures supersede CPC provisions.\no\nAn award must meet requirements of the Stamp Act and Registration Act after being made a rule of court.\n•\nOutcome: The court dismissed objections based on procedural technicalities, emphasizing adherence to the Arbitration Act.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=14", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No.594 of 2010, decision dated: 7-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.\nSyed Tajammul Hussain Bukhari for Respondents Nos.2 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI ASHRAF ALI AND OTHERS\nVS\n HAJI MUSHTAQ ALI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 998 = 2013 SLD 998 = 2013 CLD 630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": ": Partnership and Rendition of Accounts\n•\nKey Issue: Rights of partners to demand accounts in joint businesses.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nCo-sharers managing joint businesses act as agents and must render accounts.\no\nCourts assess partnership existence, profit shares, and account settlements.\n•\nOutcome: The Trial Court's decree for rendition of accounts was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No.81 of 2002, decision dated: 17-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "KH. IMTIAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nALI BAQAR NAJAFI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Altaf Elahi Sheikh for Appellant.\nSheikh Zamir Hussain for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED TAHIR HUSSAIN SHAH \nVS\n SYED SAEED ANWAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 999 = 2013 SLD 999 = 2013 CLD 636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Compensation for Breach of Contract and Arbitration\n•\nKey Issue: Determination of reasonable compensation and conditions for arbitration.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\n Reasonable compensation is determined by independent adjudication.\no\nArbitration requires an existing dispute and a valid arbitration agreement.\n•\nOutcome: The court allowed arbitration to resolve contractual disputes while ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suit No.104 of 2010, decision dated: 19-11-2012, hearing DATE : 1st November, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Assadullah Jaral for Plaintiff.\nWalid Khanzada for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "A.J. CORPORATION THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER \nVS\n FAUJI FERTILIZER BIN QASIM LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 414 = 2014 SLD 414 = 2014 SCMR 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Performance – Concurrent Findings\n•\nKey Issue: Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in cases with concurrent findings.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRevisional jurisdiction does not apply to errors of fact or law that do not affect jurisdiction.\no\nCourts avoid interfering with well-reasoned concurrent findings.\n•\nOutcome: The petition challenging specific performance decrees was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=115", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1500 of 2013, decision dated: 23rd September, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CANTONMENT BOARD THROUGH EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CANTT. BOARD, RAWALPINDI \nVS\n IKHLAQ AHMED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 415 = 2014 SLD 415 = 2014 SCMR 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": ": Lambardar Appointment – Education and Guidelines\n•\nKey Issue: Criteria for selecting a suitable candidate for Lambardar.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFactors under Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 serve as guidelines.\no\nEducation is a relevant consideration but not explicitly mandatory.\n•\nOutcome: The court upheld the appointment based on a comprehensive assessment of qualifications.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968=17", + "Case #": "C.R.P. No.92-L of 2013 in Civil Petition No.390-L of 2013, decision dated: 12-08-2013", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE\nRESPONDENTSMEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB AND OTHERS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN \nVS\n MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE PUNJAB AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1000 = 2013 SLD 1000 = 2013 CLD 650", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Internal Control Failures\n•\nKey Issue: Weak internal controls and governance in an insurance company.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDirectors are held to high standards of accountability for statutory compliance.\no\nLack of proper internal controls violates Sections 11 and 12 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nOutcome: The company was fined Rs.500,000 for governance failures and directed to strengthen internal controls.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=11", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice dated 5-07-2012, decision dated: 28-09-2012, hearing DATE : 13-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID NASIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EAST WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1001 = 2013 SLD 1001 = 2013 CLD 681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Act – Disputes in Commercial Contracts\n•\nKey Issue: Referral to arbitration for disputes over letter of credit terms.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nArbitration requires an existing dispute and a valid arbitration clause.\no\nCourts cannot interfere with unconditional bank guarantees.\n•\nOutcome: The High Court referred the matter to arbitration but refused to restrain encashment of the bank guarantee.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=20", + "Case #": "Suit No.455 and C.M.A. No. 4528 of 2012, decision dated: 30-01-2013. dates of hearing: 25th September and 30-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omair Nisar for Plaintiffs S. Mamnoon Hassan for Defendant No. 1.\nMalik Khushal Khan for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GLOBAL ENERGY & COMMODITY EXCHANGE GROUP ITALY SPA (GECX GROUP) AND ANOTHER \nVS\n TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1002 = 2013 SLD 1002 = 2013 CLD 706", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Weak Management Practices\n•\nKey Issue: Non-compliance with sound management practices and lack of internal controls by an insurance company.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFailure to establish investment policies and systems of internal control violates Sections 11 and 12 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.\no\nDirectors have fiduciary duties to ensure compliance with corporate governance standards.\n•\nOutcome: The company was warned, and further non-compliance would result in stricter penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=11", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice dated 24-07-2012, decision dated: 28-09-2012, hearing DATE : 12-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID NASIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1003 = 2013 SLD 1003 = 2013 CLD 719", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Act – Filing of Arbitration Award\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRole of arbitrators in filing awards.\n2.\nLimitation for filing awards under the Arbitration Act.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFiling an award is a ministerial act performed by the arbitrator or an authorized party.\no\nLimitation under Article 178 of the Limitation Act governs the timeline for filing awards.\n•\nOutcome: Emphasized the arbitrator's role and limitation periods for arbitration proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=14", + "Case #": "J.M. No.99 of 2011, decision dated: 31st October, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Munir-ur-Rehman for Applicant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BESROCK (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR/CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\n PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION THROUGH SECRETARY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1004 = 2013 SLD 1004 = 2013 CLD 733", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "Tort – Damages for Mental Agony\n•\nKey Issue: Compensation for mental agony and torture due to official misconduct.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nDamages must be supported by cogent evidence.\no\nGeneral damages are discretionary and assessed using the rule of thumb. \n•\nOutcome: Plaintiff’s petition for enhanced damages was dismissed, as no additional evidence was provided to justify the claim.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 777-K of 2011, decision dated: 26-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person.\nNemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.\nNemo for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK GUL MUHAMMAD AWAN \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY M/O FINANCE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1005 = 2013 SLD 1005 = 2013 CLD 740", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Missing Claim Files\n•\nKey Issue: Failure to maintain records of claim files, raising questions about the authenticity of payments.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 45 of the Insurance Ordinance mandates proper record-keeping.\no\nDirectors are accountable for implementing and maintaining internal controls.\n•\nOutcome: The company was fined Rs.500,000 and directed to probe and recover missing claim files", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=45", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice dated 24-07-2012, decision dated: 28-09-2012, hearing DATE : 12-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID NASIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1006 = 2013 SLD 1006 = 2013 CLD 748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Act – Cartelization of Medical Centers\n•\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDivision of markets and allocation of consumers by medical centers.\n2.\nViolation of anti-competition laws.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nAgreements to divide markets and allocate customers violate Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2010.\no\nCompetition laws apply to profit-driven entities providing economic services.\n•\nOutcome: Respondents were penalized and directed to discontinue cartel practices.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=2", + "Case #": "File No.2(2)/JD(L)/POEPA/CCP/2011), decision dated: 29-06-2012. dates of hearing: 20-03-25th April and 22-06-2012.", + "Judge Name:": "MS. RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON,\nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court, Umar Akram Chaudhry, Advocate, Malik Ghulam Sabir, Advocate, Dr. Inaam, Dr. Shamshad, Dr. Mujahid Malik, Imran Sohail and Dr. Hashmat Malik on behalf of GCC Approved Medical Centers and GAMCA", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT PROMOTERS ASSOCIATION (POEPA) \nVS\n G.C.C. APPROVED MEDICAL CENTERS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE (GAMCA) AND GCC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1007 = 2013 SLD 1007 = 2013 CLD 812", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance – Non-Compliance with Listing Regulations\n•\nKey Issue: Failure of a company to disclose Board decisions to the Karachi Stock Exchange as required by Regulation 16.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 22(c) of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 and Regulation 16 mandate prompt communication of key corporate actions to the Stock Exchange.\no\nA well-reputed company with internal controls is expected to prevent such lapses.\n•\nOutcome: Due to human error and prompt rectification, no penalties were imposed. A stern warning was issued to ensure future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.Misc./MSW/SMD/1(5) 2004/1645 dated 8-11-2012, decision dated: 30-11-2012, hearing DATE : 21st November, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB BANK LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1008 = 2013 SLD 1008 = 2013 CLD 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance – Winding-Up for Debt Default\n•\nKey Issue: Respondent-company’s failure to honor a settlement agreement regarding debt repayment.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nUnder Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, default in debt repayment is grounds for winding-up.\no\nNotices and failure to respond indicate the company’s inability to pay debts.\n•\nOutcome: Winding-up petition allowed, and an Official Liquidator was appointed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J.M. No.6 of 2009, decision dated: 11-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zeeshan Edhi for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent/Alleged contemnor.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNITED BRANDS LIMITED \nVS\n BRAND MASTERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1009 = 2013 SLD 1009 = 2013 CLD 831", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": ": Insurance Ordinance – Misstatement of Admissible Assets\n•\nKey Issue: Incorrect inclusion of security deposits as admissible assets in solvency statements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSections 32(2)(k) and 156 prohibit such misstatements.\no\nDirectors are held to fiduciary and statutory duties to ensure compliance.\n•\nOutcome: A nominal fine of Rs.100,000 was imposed, along with a stern warning for future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=32", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice dated 24-07-2012, decision dated: 28-09-2012, hearing DATE : 12-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID NASIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1010 = 2013 SLD 1010 = 2013 CLD 846", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Misleading Survey Reports\n•\nKey Issue: Issuance of survey reports without an authorized officer.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSections 111 and 112 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, require survey reports to be issued by registered officers.\no\nNon-compliance is a criminal offense, subject to fines or imprisonment.\n•\nOutcome: The company’s insurance surveying license was canceled due to willful violations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=111", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice dated 22-06-2012, decision dated: 18-09-2012, hearing DATE : 24-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID NASIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KHZ ASSOCIATES (PRIVATE) LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1011 = 2013 SLD 1011 = 2013 CLD 871", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": ": Arbitration Act – Objections to Arbitral Award\n•\nKey Issue: Dismissal of objections to an arbitral award without proper framing of issues or evidence.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nUnder Sections 17 and 30 of the Arbitration Act, courts must ensure awards are free from illegality or jurisdictional defects.\no\nSerious objections require detailed adjudication.\n•\nOutcome: Trial Court’s decision was set aside, and the case remanded for proper hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=17", + "Case #": "First Appeal against Order No.221 of 1998, decision dated: 19-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Akbar Qureshi for Appellants.\nSyed Ejaz Ali Akbar Sabzwari for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER \nVS\n MESSRS ORIENT ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS AND CONTRACTORS (PVT.) LIMITED, \nFAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1012 = 2013 SLD 1012 = 2013 CLD 875", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance – Broker's Client Trading Violations\n•\nKey Issue: A broker’s failure to monitor a client’s speculative trading activities.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nRules 8 and 12 of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, require brokers to ensure compliance with regulations.\no\nViolations of trading rules undermine market integrity.\n•\nOutcome: A penalty of Rs.25,000 was imposed, with directions to adhere to trading regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.1(07) BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2011/04 dated 24-09-2012, decision dated: 8-11-2012, hearing DATE : 10-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FALKI CAPITAL (PVT.) LIMITED, BROKER ISLAMABAD STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1013 = 2013 SLD 1013 = 2013 CLD 880", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code – Amendment of Pleadings\n•\nKey Issue: Amendment in the title of a plaint to correct a typographical error.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nOrder VI, Rule 17 of the CPC permits amendments that do not alter the substance of the case.\n•\nOutcome: Amendment allowed as it was a bona fide error and did not prejudice any party.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=17", + "Case #": "Civil Revision Application No.18 of 2009, decision dated: 24-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Altaf Hussain for Applicant.\nKhalid Javed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHABIR TILES AND CERAMICS LIMITED THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY \nVS\n MESSRS CACHE SYSTEMS PAKISTAN THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1014 = 2013 SLD 1014 = 2013 CLD 885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Act – Stay of Proceedings\n•\nKey Issue: Defendant’s application for stay under Section 34 after taking procedural steps in court.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nFiling applications before invoking arbitration constitutes submission to court jurisdiction.\n•\nOutcome: Application for stay was rightly rejected by the Trial Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.262 of 2012, heard on 17-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID WAHEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shamshad Ullah Cheema for Appellant.\nTariq Mehmood Sipra for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SPRINT ENERGY (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH ADVISOR\nVS\n AHSAAN ULLAH AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1015 = 2013 SLD 1015 = 2013 CLD 890", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Non-Compliance with Paid-Up Capital Requirements\n•\nKey Issue: Insurance company’s failure to meet minimum paid-up share capital requirements.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSections 11 and 28 mandate a minimum paid-up capital, with SRO 291(I)/2007 specifying Rs.300 million.\n•\nOutcome: The contravention was condoned as the company rectified the default. A warning was issued for future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=11", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice Issue dated 23rd January, 2012, decision dated: 18-07-2012, hearing DATE : 13-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID NASIM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Thaheem Murtaza, Legal counsel (Surridge Beecheno) for the Company", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHEEN INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1014 = 2015 SLD 1014 = (2015) 111 TAX 498 = 2016 PTD 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance – Illegal Additions to Income\n•\nKey Issue: Various additions made to taxpayer income without evidence or due process.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSections 122(9) and 111 require proper confrontation and evidence for tax additions.\n•\nOutcome: All additions were deleted due to procedural lapses and lack of supporting evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=39,111(1)(d)(i),111(1)(k),165,174(2),122(9),214(c)", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1563/LB of 2014, decided on 10th December, 2014. Date of hearing: 10th December, 2014.", + "Judge Name:": "Before Jawaid Masood Tahir Bhatti, Chairman and Fiza Muzaffar, Accountant Member", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zeeshan Riaz, ACA, Tahir Mehmood and Miss Sumaira Khurshid for Appellant.\nDr. Javed Iqbal Sheikh, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs IMRAN PIPE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE\nVs\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-IV, RTO-I, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1016 = 2013 SLD 1016 = 2013 CLD 907", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance – Brokerage Non-Cooperation\n•\nKey Issue: Failure of a brokerage company to provide information during inspection.\n•\nLegal Principles:\no\nSection 6 and Rule 8 of the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules mandate cooperation with inspectors.\n•\nOutcome: A penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed, and directions were issued to comply fully with inspections and regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=6", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.SMD-/MS&CID-C&IW/10-1(152)/ 2012 dated 20-09-2012, decision dated: 26-11-2012, hearing DATE : 13-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "LIVE SECURITIES LIMITED, TREC HOLDER OF KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1017 = 2013 SLD 1017 = 2013 CLD 920", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance – Death of Attorney & Subletting\n•\nKey Issue 1: Death of an attorney during ejectment proceedings and its effect.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nUnder Order XXII, Rule 1 of CPC, proceedings do not abate upon the death of an attorney if the principal (Trust) continues to exist.\n\nThe ejectment petition remains valid as the principal Trust was still operational.\no\nOutcome: Ejectment petition valid despite attorney's death.\n•\nKey Issue 2: Subletting by legal heirs through incorporation of a company.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nIncorporating a private limited company creates a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders.\n\nSubletting occurred even if legal heirs were sole shareholders.\no\nOutcome: Petition dismissed; subletting established.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=15", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.S-312 of 2010, decision dated: 22-03-2012, hearing DATE : 9-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qadir Khan for Petitioners.\nAbrar Hassan for Respondent No. 1.\nMustafa Lakhani for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAJMUL ARFEEN AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\n DEWAN METHARAM DHARMADAS TRUST AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1018 = 2013 SLD 1018 = 2013 CLD 934", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance – Share Price Volatility\n•\nKey Issue: Volatility in share price due to the withdrawal of stock dividend by the company.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSection 22 and Rules under the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules require fair disclosures of price-sensitive information.\n\nVolatility undermined investor confidence and market fairness.\no\nOutcome: Penalty of Rs.300,000 imposed on the company, with directives to improve disclosure practices.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show-Cause Notice No.1(5)IBL HCL/MSW/SMD/2012/01 dated 15-10-2012, decision dated: 26-11-2012, hearing DATE : 6-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "IBL HEALTH CARE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1019 = 2013 SLD 1019 = 2013 CLD 964", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance – Artificial Volume Creation\n•\nKey Issue: Brokerage company created artificial trading volume in concert with associates.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nViolated clauses of the Code of Conduct and Brokers Rules, creating a false market and misleading investors.\n\nMarket participants are accountable for ensuring fair and transparent operations.\no\nOutcome: Penalty of Rs.500,000 imposed for distorting market dynamics.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1 MISC/MSW/SMD/1(5)2004/1580 dated 31st July, 2012, decision dated: 6-11-2012. dates of hearing: 16th, 30-08-5th, 25-09-15th and 22-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCI)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FIRST NATIONAL EQUITIES LIMITED, BROKER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1020 = 2013 SLD 1020 = 2013 CLD 981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Defamation Ordinance – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts\n•\nKey Issue: Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to try defamation suits.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSection 13 of the Defamation Ordinance vests exclusive jurisdiction in District Courts.\n\nCivil courts lack jurisdiction in such matters, rendering proceedings coram non judice.\no\nOutcome: High Court declared civil court proceedings void and set aside the decree.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)=13", + "Case #": "First Civil Appeal No.2 of 2010, decision dated: 7-01-2013, hearing DATE : 24-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Qadir Shaikh for Appellants.\nArbab Ali Chandio for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHADIM HUSSAIN AND 12 OTHERS \nVS\n GUL HASSAN TIWANO AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1021 = 2013 SLD 1021 = 2013 CLD 989", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": ": Securities and Exchange Ordinance – Trading Violations by Clients\n•\nKey Issue: Clients engaged in speculative trading without pre-existing interest.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nViolations of Rules 8 and 12, as brokers must monitor trading to prevent speculative manipulation.\n\nTransparency and fairness are essential for market integrity.\no\nOutcome: Penalty of Rs.100,000 imposed with directions for stricter compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(07) BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2011 dated 7-09-2012, decision dated: 19-10-2012, hearing DATE : 20-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCI)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INVEST CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED, BROKER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1022 = 2013 SLD 1022 = 2013 CLD 994", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code – Service on Corporation\n•\nKey Issue: Service of notices on a corporation via its directors.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nOrder XXIX, Rule 2 permits service through directors.\n\nRepeating service without cause is unnecessary if the corporation has been duly served.\no\nOutcome: Appeal allowed; service deemed valid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 197 of 2011, decision dated: 18-12-2012, hearing DATE : 4-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Muhammad Yahya for Appellant.\nH. A. Rahmani for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. RUKHSANA YAHYA \nVS\n NAZAZ ALI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1023 = 2013 SLD 1023 = 2013 CLD 1014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Act – Deceptive Marketing Practices\n•\nKey Issue: Unauthorized use of trademarks/logos for marketing purposes.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSection 10 prohibits deceptive marketing practices, including unauthorized trademark use.\n\nIgnorance of law is not a defense.\no\nOutcome: Penalties ranged from reprimands to Rs.1,000,000, depending on the severity of violations and respondents' conduct.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=10", + "Case #": "File No.66/REG/COMP/DHL/CCP/2011, decision dated: 21st December, 2012. dates of hearing: 13th March and 15-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON,\nMUEEN BATLAY, MEMBER\nSHAHZAD ANSAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nauman Anwar Butt, Shoaib Atta, Uzair Zain ul Abidin, Abdul Shakoor on behalf of Rehan Sheikh, Raja Asir Munir, Asif Iqbal, Salman on behalf of ICS Couriers and Malik M. Pervaiz for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DHL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1024 = 2013 SLD 1024 = 2013 CLD 1071", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance – Late Filing of Returns\n•\nKey Issue: Failure to file timely returns of beneficial ownership.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSection 222 mandates filing changes in beneficial ownership within the stipulated period.\n\nLeniency can be exercised for first-time or non-willful defaults.\no\nOutcome: Warning issued to ensure future compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=222", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.S.M(B.O.)C.O.222/18(1264)90, dated 5-9-2012, decision dated: 17-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABRAR HASAN DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL FOODS LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1025 = 2013 SLD 1025 = 2013 CLD 1075", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Ordinance – Jurisdiction of Federal Insurance Ombudsman\n•\nKey Issue: Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over performance guarantees.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nPerformance guarantees are not contracts of insurance.\n\nOmbudsman’s jurisdiction is limited to insurance contracts.\no\nOutcome: Ombudsman’s order declared without lawful authority.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=Preamble", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.24457 of 2010, heard on 20-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE\nSHAHID WAHEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Muhammad Sarwar for Petitioner.\nUmair Mansoor for Respondents Nos.1 and 3.\nWaleed Khalid for Respondent No. 4.\nAli Ameel Pervaiz Malik for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CAPITAL INSURANCE CO. LTD \nVS\n AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1026 = 2013 SLD 1026 = 2013 CLD 1085", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Telecommunication Regulations – Prize Schemes\n•\nKey Issue: Suspension of prize schemes by the PTA due to unfair practices.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSections 4(m) and 18 emphasize consumer protection over commercial incentives.\n\nSchemes affecting market fairness or consumer interest can be suspended.\no\nOutcome: Petitions dismissed; PTA’s suspension upheld in the public interest.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996=4", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.1152 of 2012 and FAOs. Nos.16 to 19 of 2012, decision dated: 8-03-2013. dates of hearing: 4th and 8-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Raza, Ali Sibtain Fazli and Malik Sardar Khan for Petitioners/Appellants.\nAfnan Karim Kundi and Misbah-ul-Mustafa for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WARID TELECOM (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS \nVS\n PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1027 = 2013 SLD 1027 = 2013 CLD 1097", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": ": Companies Ordinance – Non-Compliance in Public Share Subscription\n•\nKey Issue: Submission of fictitious and multiple applications for subscription of shares and non-compliance with SECP orders regarding confiscated subscription money.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSection 18-A of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 empowers the SECP to confiscate subscription money to deter malpractices.\n\nFailure to deposit confiscated money constitutes willful non-compliance under Section 22(1)(b).\n\nRestrictions under Section 18-A are reasonable and not violative of Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution.\no\nOutcome: Penalty imposed for non-compliance upheld, reinforcing regulatory deterrence.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=57", + "Case #": "Appeal No.68 of 2011, decision dated: 2-11-2012, hearing DATE : 19-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)\nTAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rabeel Akhund for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAHIR MAHMOOD, COMMISSIONER (CLD)\nVS\n DIRECTOR (SMD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1028 = 2013 SLD 1028 = 2013 CLD 1110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Act – Dispute Resolution via Arbitration\n•\nKey Issue 1: Examination of arbitration agreements in disputes.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nArbitration clauses and contracts incorporating them are distinct but interdependent.\n\nCourts must evaluate the validity of arbitration agreements and appoint arbitrators as independent forums for dispute resolution.\no\nOutcome: Arbitrator’s role reaffirmed in resolving disputes arising under such agreements.\n•\nKey Issue 2: Restraining order against performance guarantee encashment pending arbitration.\no\nOutcome: High Court upheld the application, preventing premature encashment before arbitration", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=20", + "Case #": "Suit No.1107 of 2011, decision dated: 10-12-2012, hearing DATE : 29-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhry Atif for Plaintiff.\nSiddique Shahzad for Defendant No. 1.\nGazain Magsi for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CRESCENT STEEL AND ALLIED PRODUCTS LIMITED \nVS\n MESSRS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1029 = 2013 SLD 1029 = 2013 CLD 1122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "SECP Act – Disclosure of Share Acquisition\n•\nKey Issue: Non-compliance with disclosure requirements for substantial shareholding under the Listed Companies Ordinance, 2002.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSections 5 and 6 mandate timely disclosure to protect investor interests and ensure transparency in acquisitions.\n\nFailure to comply results in penalties for directors and executives.\no\nOutcome: Penalty upheld for directors, while an appellant not involved in the violation was exempted.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.4 of 2011, decision dated: 17-10-2012, hearing DATE : 24-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood Elahi, CEO Appellant in person.\nM. Javed Panni, Consultant for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAHBOOB ELAHI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\n COMMISSIONER (CLD)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "7240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1030 = 2013 SLD 1030 = 2013 CLD 1129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Competition Act – Pre-Merger Approval\n•\nKey Issue: Application for pre-merger approval in a dominant market position.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nTransactions reducing consumer choice or competition raise antitrust concerns under Sections 2(e) and 11.\n\nUndertakings ensuring availability of products mitigate competition concerns.\no\nOutcome: Merger authorized with conditions ensuring consumer protection.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=2", + "Case #": "File No.493/MERGER-CCP/2012, decision dated: 9-10-2012, hearing DATE : 2-10-2012.", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ACQUISITION OF PFIZER NUTRITION (A BUSINESS UNIT OF PFIZER INC.) BY NESTLE S.A.: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1031 = 2013 SLD 1031 = 2013 CLD 1144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition – Delay and Public Procurement\n•\nKey Issue 1: Petition challenging tender rejection dismissed due to laches.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nDelayed petitions without justification are dismissed under the doctrine of laches.\no\nOutcome: Petition dismissed for a five-month delay.\n•\nKey Issue 2: Duty of public authorities in transparent procurement.\no\nOutcome: Emphasized the sacred trust in public procurement processes.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-2524 of 2012, decision dated: 13-12-2012, hearing DATE : 30-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Haider Imam Rizvi for Petitioner.\nS. Toqeer Hassan for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.\nMunir-ur-Rehman, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 5.\nAyaz Ali Chandio and Shafique Ahmed for Respondent No. 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEGA CURRENCY EXCHANGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR AND ATTORNEY OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\n SENIOR MANAGER COMMERCIAL C.A.A. AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1032 = 2013 SLD 1032 = 2013 CLD 1150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Securities Ordinance – Insider Trading\n•\nKey Issue: Use of inside information by trustees to trade shares.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSections 15-A and 15-E prohibit trading based on undisclosed material information.\n\nViolations attract penalties to ensure fair market practices.\no\nOutcome: Rs.1 million penalty imposed; trustees directed to prevent future violations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(4)INS/MSW/SMD2012/PPL-02 dated 19-09-2012, decision dated: 30-11-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCID)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taha Alizai, Partner, Orr Dignam & Co.\nOsman Syed, Deputy Director, SECP assisting the Director/HOD (MSCID)", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN PETROLEUM PROVIDENT FUND TRUST COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED AND ITS DIRECTORS NAMELY; ASIM MURTAZA KHAN, MOIN RAZA KHAN AND KAMRAN WAHAB KHAN: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1033 = 2013 SLD 1033 = 2013 CLD 1174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "CPC – Summons and Leave to Defend\n•\nKey Issue: Procedural irregularities in serving summons and denying leave to defend.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nProper service of summons is mandatory before substituting service methods.\n\nCourts must consider authenticated affidavits when granting leave to defend.\no\nOutcome: High Court overturned Trial Court’s order; leave application directed to be heard on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=20", + "Case #": "Civil Revision No. 2376 of 2012, heard on 22-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muhammad Asif for Petitioner. \nImran Muhammad Sarwar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ \nVS\n AMIR SULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1034 = 2013 SLD 1034 = 2013 CLD 1179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Companies Ordinance – Unauthorized Investments\n•\nKey Issue: Advances to associated companies without shareholder approval.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSection 208 mandates shareholder authorization for non-trade financial advances.\n\nNon-compliance with mandatory provisions cannot be justified by subsequent approvals.\no\nOutcome: Penalties for directors and executives upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.1 of 2011, decision dated: 17-10-2012, hearing DATE : 27-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NASEEM SAIGOL, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\nPAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 427 = 2003 SLD 427 = 2003 CLD 131 = 2003 PTCL 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Statutory Interpretation – Investments and Compliance\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nInterpretation of Normal Trade Credit : Credits without specific purposes or long durations are non-compliant.\no\nMandatory Nature of Section 208: Violations cannot be excused by commercial benefits.\n•\nOutcome: Strict adherence to statutory provisions emphasized.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal against Order dated 5-12-2001, decision dated: 2-04-2002, hearing DATE : 5-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID GHAFFAR, COMMISSIONER (SM)\nM. ZAFAR-UL-HAQ HIJAZI, COMMISSIONER (CL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Parvez Hassan, Barrister Mujtaba Jamal, Zulfiqar A. Ch. and Ali Rashid Khan for Appellants. Abdul Rafique Khan for Appellant No. 3.\nAshfaq Ahmed Khan, Director, Abid Hussain, Deputy Director (Enf.) and Mubasher Saddozai, Deputy Director (Enf.) on behalf of Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GHARIBWAL CEMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS\nVS\nAND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 573 = 2000 SLD 573 = 2000 CLC 364 = 2000 PTCL 336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": ": Companies Ordinance – Shareholder Remedies\n•\nKey Issue: Court-ordered purchase of shares to resolve shareholder disputes.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSection 290 empowers courts to order remedies preventing unfair prejudice in company affairs.\no\nOutcome: Sale of shares between disputing parties ordered based on valuations by accountants.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=290", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No. 137 of 1997, decision dated: 14-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Saeed for Appellant.\nA.I. Chundrigar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TASNIM AND ANOTHER\nVS \n RUSTOM ALI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 574 = 2000 SLD 574 = 2000 MLD 357 = 2000 PTCL 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code – Decoy Witness and Search\n•\nKey Issue: Use of decoy witnesses in investigations deemed unethical.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nDecoy witnesses violate Islamic justice principles and vitiate proceedings.\n\nSearches without warrants or due process are unlawful.\no\nOutcome: FIR quashed for procedural violations.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=156Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6589 of 1999, heard on 22-07-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Faqir Muhammad for Petitioner.\nCh. Saghir Ahmed, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SALEEM\nVS\n DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FIA/CBC, MULTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 744 = 2002 SLD 744 = 2002 PTCL 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "12864: Companies Ordinance – Amalgamation and Merger\n•\nKey Issue: Merger of two companies to achieve efficiency and reduce costs.\no\nLegal Principles:\n\nSections 284 and 287 permit court-sanctioned mergers if in shareholders' interests.\n\nCommon management and operations justify amalgamation.\no\nOutcome: Petition for merger allowed", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 2000, decision dated: 2-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Muhammad Aqil, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "NOVA LEATHERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, I.I. CHUNDRIGAR ROAD, KARACHI AND ANOTHER\nVS\n THE REGISTRAR, JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, I.I. CHUNDRIGAR ROAD, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 720 = 2004 SLD 720 = 2004 CLD 1 = 2004 PTCL 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "Key Legal Issues and Principles\n1. Appeal Rights as Substantive Rights\n•\nPrinciple: The right to appeal is a substantive right that vests at the commencement of legal proceedings and can only be extinguished if expressly or implicitly provided by law.\n•\nCase Reference: Abdul Majid Ahmed Bawany v. III Sindh Labour Court PLD 1979 Kar. 549.\n________________________________________\n2. Companies Ordinance – Amalgamation and Merger of Companies\n•\nSections 284 and 287 Interpretation:\no\nAmalgamation results in the absorption of one company into another or their merger into a third entity.\no\nSection 287 can independently address amalgamation without strict adherence to Section 284.\no\nKey Principle: Clear statutory language must be applied as written without judicial modification.\n•\nCase References:\no\nMohan Exports Lundai Ltd. (1999) 95 Comp. Cas. 53.\no\nArdheshir Cowasje and others v. K.B.C.A. and others 2001 YLR 2403.\n________________________________________\n3. Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nPrinciple: If the statutory language is clear, courts must apply the plain meaning without adding or subtracting words.\n•\nCase Reference: Hindusthan General Electronic Corporation Ltd. AIR 1959 Cal. 1079.\n________________________________________\n4. Court’s Jurisdiction and SECP’s Powers\n•\nSection 282L Added by Companies (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2002:\no\nSECP’s powers are supplemental and do not derogate from the High Court’s jurisdiction over mergers.\n•\nKey Principle: High Court jurisdiction for pending cases remains intact post-amendment unless expressly transferred.\n•\nCase Reference: Aftabuddin Qureshi and others v. Mst. Rachel Joseph PLD 2001 SC 482.\n________________________________________\n5. Amalgamation Requirements\n•\nMajority Voting (Section 284):\no\nThe three-fourths majority for merger approval refers to those present and voting, excluding neutral attendees.\n•\nCourt’s Role (Sections 284 & 287):\no\nExamine statutory compliance, bona fide action by shareholders, and the fairness of the arrangement.\n•\nCase Reference: Brook Bond Pakistan Limited v. Aslam Bin Ibrahim 1997 CLC 1873.\n________________________________________\n6. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation\n•\nPrinciple: Fraud must be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence, including specifics in pleadings.\n•\nOutcome: Mere assertions of fraud without evidence are insufficient to vitiate mergers.\n•\nCase References:\no\nMst. Nasira Khatoon v. Mst. Aisha Bai 2003 SCMR 1050.\no\nDadabhoy Cement Industries Ltd. v. N.D.F.C. 2002 CLC 166.\n________________________________________\n7. Sanctity of Court-Sanctioned Schemes\n•\nPrinciple: Once sanctioned, amalgamation schemes assume statutory force, binding all parties, including dissenters.\n•\nCase References:\no\nCalgary and Edmonton Land Co. Ltd. [(1975) All. ER 1046].\no\nKrishna Nath v. Dinajpur Loan Office (1938) 8 Comp. Cas. 152.\n________________________________________\n8. Evidentiary Matters in Intra-Court Appeals\n•\nAdditional Evidence (CPC O.XLI, R.27):\no\nFresh evidence may only be introduced if essential for adjudication and unavailable earlier.\no\nCourts discourage new evidence at appeal stages to prevent procedural abuse.\n•\nCase References: Kassowji Issur v. G.I.G., Railway 34 IA 115.\n________________________________________\nOutcomes\n•\nThe court upheld the integrity of statutory procedures in amalgamations.\n•\nClaims of fraud and procedural impropriety were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.\n•\nThe appellate court emphasized adherence to statutory and evidentiary standards in amalgamation-related disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeal No. 14-L of 2003, decision dated: 25-11-2003. dates of hearing: 16-09-2nd, 6th, 9th, 13th, 15th, and 20-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD GHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saleem Sahgal for Appellant.\nMunawar-us-Salam for Respondent No. 1.\nAbid Hussain Chattha and Faisal Maalik Buttar for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INTERNATIONAL MULTI LEASING COMPANY\nVS\n CAPITAL ASSETS LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 416 = 2014 SLD 416 = 2014 SCMR 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Suo Motu Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 184(3)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nMissing Persons: Supreme Court directed authorities to produce missing persons before investigating agencies and file compliance reports.\n2.\nAbduction of Doctor: Supreme Court ordered all necessary steps for recovery and a report submission.\n3.\nInternally Displaced Persons (IDPs): Comprehensive report on rehabilitation and project status in sensitive districts ordered.\n4.\nSmuggling of Arms and Narcotics: Supreme Court highlighted the detrimental effects of smuggling on law and order and the economy, directing detailed reports on activities of the Customs Department, including non-custom-paid vehicles, arms, and contraband.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=Art.184", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.77 of 2010, H.R.Cs. Nos.16405-B of 2010, 13124-P, 40403-P, 40220-G, 43103-B of 2011, 245-Q and 246-Q of 2013, decision dated: 18-09-2013, hearing DATE : 18-10-2013", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Zahoor Ahmed Shahwani, Advocate Supreme Court, Hadi Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court, M. Qahir Shah, Advocate Supreme Court, Sajid Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Nazir Agha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.\nNemo for SCBAP. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicants/Complainants/relatives of the missing persons (in S.M.C. No. 7 of 2012). Nasrullah Baloch for Applicants/Complainants/relatives of the missing persons (in C.M.As. Nos.178 and 516-Q of 2012).\nDr. Haqdad Tareen, Dr. Syed Shamas-ud-Din, Prof. Saadat Khan, Dr. Abdul Malik Baloch and Dr. Ashraf Achakzai for PMA.\nNemo for M/o Interior.\nNemo for M/o Defence.\nNemo for M/o Narcotics.\nNaveed Akhtar, Additional A.G. for Government of KPK.\nAdnan Karim, Additional A.G. for Government of Sindh.\nNemo for Mobile Operators.\nNemo for PTA.\nZulfiqar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for PEMRA.\nBaz Muhammad Kakar, Advocate Supreme Court for CEO, ARY.", + "Petitioner Name:": "VS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1035 = 2013 SLD 1035 = 2013 CLD 1361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": ": Arbitration Act (1940) and Partnership Dissolution\nKey Issues:\n1.\nStay of Legal Proceedings (Section 34): The existence of an arbitration clause does not automatically bar court jurisdiction. Courts may exercise discretion based on the case's complexity.\n2.\nPartnership Dissolution (Section 44, Partnership Act): Partnership at will can be dissolved by notice. Courts decide dissolution on equitable grounds, even with arbitration clauses.\n3.\nOverlap of Legal and Arbitration Issues: Complex and overlapping legal and factual questions may render arbitration unsuitable.\no\nCase References:\n\nOlver v. Hillier [1959] 2 All E.R. 220.\n\nVawdrey v. Simpson [1896] 1 Ch. 166.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=34", + "Case #": "Suit No.438 and C.M.A. No.4582 of 2012, decision dated: 20-03-2013. dates of hearing: 16th, 30-11-7th and 18-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Tayebally for Plaintiffs Aziz A. Munshi and Abdullah Munshi for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARID VIRANI AND ANOTHER \nVS\n FEROZ VIRANI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1036 = 2013 SLD 1036 = 2013 CLD 1353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969\nKey Issues:\n1.\nFailure to Provide Records: A brokerage firm failed to provide essential books and documents despite reminders, citing law and order concerns, which the court deemed meritless.\n2.\nInspection Irregularities: Major deficiencies in Net Capital Balance (NCB) calculations were highlighted. Penalty of Rs.300,000 imposed with directions for compliance and future cooperation.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=6", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.4/BRK-121/SE/SMD/2006 dated 12-10-2012, decision dated: 23rd November, 2012.hearing DATE : 19-10-2012.", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.R.A. SECURITIES (PRIVATE) LIMITED, BROKER KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1037 = 2013 SLD 1037 = 2013 CLD 1385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1JpND0", + "Key Words:": ": Unauthorized Investments in Associated Companies\nKey Issues:\n1.\nInterest-Free Loans and Advances: Company provided unauthorized advances without shareholder approval via a special resolution as required under Section 208 of the Companies Ordinance.\n2.\nMalafide Intent: Actions were deemed willful violations of law, with penalties imposed on directors and directions for transaction regularization", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.3 of 2011, decision dated: 14-03-2013, hearing DATE : 27-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, COMMISSIONER (OED AND TMF&CD)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Basharat Hashim, Manager for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAWAD AHMAD MUKHTAR, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND 6 OTHERS \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1038 = 2013 SLD 1038 = 2013 CLD 1421", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": ": Investigation into Company Affairs\nKey Issues:\n1.\nDismal Financial Condition: Chartered Accountant appointed as inspector to investigate irregularities and financial mismanagement under Section 265(b) of the Companies Ordinance.\n2.\nNon-Interference in Investigative Orders: Investigation orders are not subject to appeal or revision unless jurisdictional errors are evident.\no\nCase Reference: Attock Oil Refinery v. Executive Director (Enforcement), SECP PLD 2010 SC 946.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.9 of 2013, decision dated: 14-03-2013, hearing DATE : 27-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, COMMISSIONER (OED AND TMF&CD)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian M. Tariq Hassan and Jabran Tariq Butt for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NAZIR COTTON MILLS LIMITED \nVS \n AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1039 = 2013 SLD 1039 = 2013 CLD 1438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Awards\nKey Issues:\n1.\nSetting Aside Awards: Limited grounds include legal errors, arbitrator misconduct, or invalid award procurement.\n2.\nJudicial Non-Interference: Courts generally refrain from overturning arbitration findings unless significant injustice occurs.\n3.\nObjective of Arbitration Act: Speedy and less formal resolution of disputes.\no\nCase References:\n\nKh. Ghulam Rasool Lone v. AJK Government PLD 1971 AJK 127.\n\nMessrs Tribal Friends Co. v. Province of Balochistan 2002 SCMR 1903.", + "Court Name:": "High Court (AJ&K)", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=30", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.159 of 2012, decision dated: 16-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nM.TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, JUSTICE\nABDUL RASHEED SULEHRIA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Rasheed Karnahi, Standing Council for Appellant.\nBarrister Humayun Nawaz Khan for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 5.\nRespondents Nos.3 and 4 in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER EEAP AJK \nVS \n MESSRS DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SYSTEM AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1040 = 2013 SLD 1040 = 2013 CLD 1432", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Reduction of Share Capital\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRectification of Typing Error: Alleged error in paid-up capital treated as a reduction of share capital, which falls under the High Court's jurisdiction per Sections 96 and 97 of the Companies Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=21", + "Case #": "Appeal No.3 of 2012, decision dated: 22-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Khalid Mahmood for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUCCESS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n THE REGISTRAR (SECP" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1041 = 2013 SLD 1041 = 2013 CLD 1319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Auditor's Misconduct\nKey Issues:\n1.\nFailure to Address Going Concern Uncertainties: Auditor neglected to modify the audit opinion despite evident financial risks, leading to penalties under Section 260 of the Companies Ordinance.\n2.\nResponsibilities of Auditors: Obligation to highlight uncertainties affecting the entity’s operational sustainability.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=260", + "Case #": "Appeal No.70 of 2009, decision dated: 17-10-2012, hearing DATE : 28-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ATHAR AND CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS \nVS\nZohra Sarwar Khan, Deputy Director and M. Anwar Hashmi, Deputy Director, Departmental Representatives." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1042 = 2013 SLD 1042 = 2013 CLD 1313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Tribunal Jurisdiction\nKey Issues:\n1.\nJurisdictional Scope: Insurance Tribunals address claims initiated by policyholders, not insurers. Insurers must seek remedies through civil courts.\n2.\nConcurrent Jurisdiction: Parties cannot bypass statutory jurisdiction through agreements.\no\nCase References:\n\nState Life Insurance Corporation v. Rana Muhammad Saleem 1987 SCMR 393.\n\nMessrs EFU General Insurance v. Fahim-ul-Haq 1997 CLC 1441.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=121", + "Case #": "Appeal No.29 of 2010, heard on 27-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Ahmed and Naveed Ahmed for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EFU GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED PERSON/ATTORNEY \nVS\n MESSRS DUTY FREE SHOPS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1043 = 2013 SLD 1043 = 2013 CLD 1300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Unauthorized Investment in Associated Companies\nKey Issues:\n1.\nViolation of Section 208 (Companies Ordinance, 1984): Company advanced funds to an associated entity without shareholder approval for equity investment, as required by law.\n2.\nNon-Compliance: No shares were issued, and the amount was treated as an advance for one year without interest, causing financial loss.\n3.\nPenalty Imposed: Executive Director of SECP fined each director Rs. 150,000, considering mitigating circumstances such as fund recovery.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=208", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7 of 2010, decision dated: 17-10-2012, hearing DATE : 24-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MOHAMMED ASIF ARIF, COMMISSIONER (INSURANCE)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashid Sadiq, CEO, RS Corporate Advisory for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INAYAT ULLAH NIAZI, DIRECTOR, D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1044 = 2013 SLD 1044 = 2013 CLD 1184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": ": Abuse of Dominant Position by ICAP\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRestrictive Directive (July Directive): ICAP prohibited its members from training non-ICAP accountancy students, restricting market competition and creating barriers for non-ICAP students.\n2.\nViolation of Competition Act, 2010: The directive and subsequent circular limited competition and market access, affecting firms and rival qualifications.\n3.\nPenalty: Rs. 25 million penalty imposed on ICAP, with directions to cease issuing such directives.", + "Court Name:": "Competition Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Competition Act, 2010=4", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.105/2012, dated 17-09-2012, decision dated: 10-01-2013. dates of hearing: 4-10-1st, 16th and 27-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "RAHAT KAUNAIN HASSAN, CHAIRPERSON\nABDUL GHAFFAR, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF PAKISTAN (ICAP): In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1045 = 2013 SLD 1045 = 2013 CLD 1213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitration Award Filing and Limitation\nKey Issues:\n1.\nScope of Section 14 (Arbitration Act, 1940): Arbitrator's duty ends after filing the award in court. No obligation exists to provide copies of the award.\n2.\nLimitation Periods:\no\n90 days to file an application for the award (Art. 178, Limitation Act).\no\n30 days to challenge the award after notice (Art. 158, Limitation Act).\n3.\nApplication Dismissed: Defendant’s application lacked merit due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=14", + "Case #": "Suit No.1266 of 2009, decision dated: 30-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Badar Alam for Plaintiff.\nAbdul Haleem Siddiqui for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CHIEF RESIDENT REPRESENTATIVE WAPDA \nVS\n MESSRS TRANSGLOBE SHIPPING SERVICES THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1046 = 2013 SLD 1046 = 2013 CLD 1216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Irregularities in Net Capital Balance (NCB)\nKey Issues:\n1.\nRegulatory Violations: Brokerage firm failed to comply with Securities and Exchange Rules, 1971, overstating its NCB.\n2.\nPenalty Imposed: Rs. 50,000 fine with directions to ensure future compliance with laws and regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=6", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.4/BRK-176/SE/SMD/2004, dated 11-05-2012, decision dated: 4-10-2012, hearing DATE : 30-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ILYAS SAEED & COMPANY, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1047 = 2013 SLD 1047 = 2013 CLD 1229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": ": Winding Up of a Company\nKey Issues:\n1.\nGrounds for Winding Up: Petitioners alleged illegal siphoning of funds and asset sales by the company.\n2.\nCourt’s Approach: Winding up is a last resort. Petitioners' claims were deemed insufficient under Section 305. Their grievance (non-transfer of shares) was directed to be addressed under Section 152.\n3.\nDismissal: High Court rejected the winding-up petition, emphasizing survival of the corporate sector.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J. M. No.10 of 2012, decision dated: 31st January, 2013. dates of hearing: 10-10-2nd and 6-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed and Aijaz Shirazi for Petitioners.\nArshad M. Tayebaly for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. SYMA MAHNAZ VAYANI AND OTHERS \nVS\n MOLASSES EXPORT COMPANY PVT. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1048 = 2013 SLD 1048 = 2013 CLD 1257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Brokerage Company’s Client Trading Violations\nKey Issues:\n1.\nImproper Trading Practices: Client engaged in short sales without pre-existing interest, violating the Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2000.\n2.\nCompany’s Responsibility: Brokerage failed to monitor client activities and ensure compliance.\n3.\nPenalty: Rs. 50,000 fine imposed, with directives to implement checks for regulatory adherence.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.1(07)BS/KSE/MSW/SMD/2011 dated 19-07-2012, decision dated: 17-09-2012, hearing DATE : 2-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IMRAN INAYAT BUTT, DIRECTOR/HOD (MSCI)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "EQUITY MASTER (PVT.) LIMITED, MEMBER LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1049 = 2013 SLD 1049 = 2013 CLD 1263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Plaint and Minority Shareholder Oppression\nKey Issues:\n1.\nOppression and Mismanagement Allegations: Plaintiff alleged mismanagement and exclusion from company affairs but sought relief outside the scope of Sections 263, 290, and 292 (Companies Ordinance, 1984).\n2.\nMultiple Reliefs: Court held that claims for damages, declarations, and injunctions warranted a full trial, not piecemeal rejection.\n3.\nDismissal of Application: Rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, was deemed inappropriate.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=263", + "Case #": "C.M.A. No.7010 of 2012 in Suit No.1458 of 2011, decision dated: 7-12-2012, hearing DATE : 18-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Kamal for Plaintiffs.\nSami Ahsan for Defendants Nos.1, 2 and 4.\nKhalid Dawoodpota for Defendant No. 3.\nSalman Hamid Advocate for Intervener", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAJAMUDDIN ZIA AND ANOTHER \nVS\n MST. ASMA QAMAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1050 = 2013 SLD 1050 = 2013 CLD 1275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Suspension of Registration for Unresolved Complaints\nKey Issues:\n1.\nUnresolved Investor Complaints: Company failed to settle complaints totaling Rs. 16 million despite repeated reminders.\n2.\nAction Taken: SECP suspended the company's registration until complaints were resolved.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "15", + "Case #": "Show Cause Notice No.4/BRC-160/PMEX/SMD/11 dated 25-10-2012, decision dated: 29-11-2012, hearing DATE : 28-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "HASNAT AHMAD, DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HUM SECURITIES LIMITED, MEMBER PAKISTAN MERCANTILE EXCHANGE LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1051 = 2013 SLD 1051 = 2013 CLD 1280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Corporate Liability from Directors\nKey Issues:\n1.\nSeparate Legal Entity Principle: Directors cannot be held liable for company debts unless specific conditions under Sections 111 and 112 (Companies Ordinance, 1984) are met.\n2.\nHigh Court Ruling: Struck down recovery demands against directors but allowed proceedings against the company or its assets in third-party hands.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996=23", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-2427 of 2009, decision dated: 1st November, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nHASSAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uzair Karamat Bhandari and Malik Muhammad Ejaz for Petitioners.\nYawar Farooqui for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.\nSarwar Khan, Learned D.A.G. Saifullah, Learned A.A.G. Shabbir Ahmed, Deputy Secretary and Baqar Raza, S.O., Finance Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SULTANULARFEEN AND 6 OTHERS \nVS\n DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1052 = 2013 SLD 1052 = 2013 CLD 1568", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction Over Winding-Up and Civil Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Whether a civil court can proceed with a suit involving a company already under winding-up orders by the Company Judge of the High Court without explicit permission.\n•\nFacts: A plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against a company under a winding-up order. The company’s application under Section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, to stay the proceedings until permission was obtained from the High Court was dismissed by the civil court.\n•\nRuling: High Court ruled that once a company is ordered to be wound up, jurisdiction in all related matters rests with the Company Judge. The civil court must stay proceedings and direct the plaintiff to seek permission.\n•\nPrinciple: Jurisdiction must be exercised strictly per legal requirements, and failure to do so renders proceedings void.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=2", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2933 of 2011, decision dated: 22-02-2013, hearing DATE : 15-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Usman Hadi for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents.\nAbid S. Zuberi, Amicus Curiae on Court Notice", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GAC PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. \nVS\n E.F.U. GENERAL INSURANCE LTD. AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1053 = 2013 SLD 1053 = 2013 CLD 1451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "Survival of Arbitration Clauses in Terminated Contracts\n•\nIssue: Whether an arbitration clause survives the termination of a contract.\n•\nFacts: The plaintiff invoked the arbitration clause in a terminated contract. The defendant argued that the arbitration clause ceased with the termination.\n•\nRuling: High Court ruled that arbitration clauses survive contract termination to resolve disputes arising from the termination, including wrongful terminations. Arbitration provisions are treated as separate agreements.\n•\nPrinciple: Arbitration remains a viable resolution mechanism irrespective of contract termination to uphold the intent of dispute resolution agreements.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=20", + "Case #": "Suit No.1134 of 2011, decision dated: 9-05-2013. dates of hearing: 15th March and 5-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Kamal for Plaintiff.\nMalik Muhammad Riaz for Defendant No. 2.\nNemo for Defendant No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SADAT BUSINESS GROUP LTD. \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1054 = 2013 SLD 1054 = 2013 CLD 1466", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Failure to Hold Annual General Meetings (AGM)\n•\nIssue: Non-compliance with statutory requirements for holding AGMs.\n•\nFacts: A company failed to hold its AGM within the statutory timeframe as mandated by Section 158 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The company cited operational issues.\n•\nRuling: High Court upheld penalties imposed by SECP, emphasizing that AGMs are fundamental for corporate governance and investor rights. Operational excuses were deemed insufficient.\n•\nPrinciple: AGMs are essential for accountability and transparency in corporate governance; non-compliance attracts strict enforcement.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=158", + "Case #": "Revision No.43 of 2011, decision dated: 22-05-2013, hearing DATE : 9-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, COMMISSIONER (OED AND TMF&CD)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqsood Ahmad for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHABBIR GHANI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER \nVS\n COMMISSIONER (CLD), SECP, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1055 = 2013 SLD 1055 = 2013 CLD 1470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sanction from SECP for Insurance Tribunal Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Whether prior sanction from SECP is mandatory for initiating proceedings under Section 162 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000.\n•\nFacts: The petitioner challenged the Insurance Tribunal’s decision to stay proceedings due to the lack of SECP sanction.\n•\nRuling: High Court ruled that Section 162 explicitly requires SECP sanction, and the tribunal’s stay was lawful.\n•\nPrinciple: Procedural requirements are mandatory, and failure to comply invalidates proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=162", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2113 of 2011, decision dated: 11-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIFTAH-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE\nWAQAR AHMAD SETH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Zafar Jehangir for Petitioner.\nM. Jamil Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD HUZAFA\nVS\n AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (PAKISTAN) LTD. (ALICO) THROUGH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1056 = 2013 SLD 1056 = 2013 CLD 1478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Misrepresentation in Financial Statements\n•\nIssue: Misstatements in financial disclosures to shareholders and regulators.\n•\nFacts: A company falsely declared that a house purchased with company funds was for official use, while it was used privately by the CEO.\n•\nRuling: High Court upheld penalties of Rs. 100,000 on each director for violating Section 492 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, citing the importance of transparency.\n•\nPrinciple: Accurate and truthful financial disclosures are non-negotiable for corporate accountability", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "Appeal No.6 of 2010, decision dated: 22-05-2013, hearing DATE : 9-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR ABDULLAH, COMMISSIONER (OED AND TMF&CD)\nIMTIAZ HAIDER, COMMISSIONER (SMD)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Rehana Zaman and Ms. Amina Iqbal for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HABIB ULLAH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND OTHERS\nVS\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1057 = 2013 SLD 1057 = 2013 CLD 1483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards\n•\nIssue: Extent of judicial interference in arbitration awards.\n•\nFacts: The appellant challenged an arbitration award, claiming procedural defects in appointing the arbitrator.\n•\nRuling: High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that courts presume the correctness of arbitration awards unless substantial procedural or substantive flaws are evident.\n•\nPrinciple: Courts give deference to arbitration awards, minimizing interference unless gross errors or injustice are apparent.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Arbitration Act, 1940=33", + "Case #": "R.F.A. No.98 of 2010, decision dated: 27-05-2013, hearing DATE : 26-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalil-ur-Rehman Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nMuhammad Shahid Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.\nSyed Tanvir Haider for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "OIL & GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED \nVS\n MESSRS MARATHON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1058 = 2013 SLD 1058 = 2013 CLD 1518", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Bank Guarantees and Arbitration\n•\nIssue: Encashment of unconditional bank guarantees during arbitration proceedings.\n•\nFacts: A party sought a stay on the encashment of a bank guarantee, arguing that arbitration was ongoing.\n•\nRuling: High Court held that unconditional bank guarantees are independent obligations and cannot be stayed during arbitration.\n•\nPrinciple: Bank guarantees are enforceable as per their terms, regardless of underlying disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Revision Petition No.2417 of 2012, decision dated: 12-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aurangzeb Mirza for Petitioner.\nIjaz Ali Akbar Sabzwari for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THROUGH PROJECT DIRECTOR \nVS\n MESSRS ABDUL SATTAR AND COMPANY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1059 = 2013 SLD 1059 = 2013 CLD 1525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Widow’s Insurance Claim\n•\nIssue: Insurance company’s refusal to pay a claim, citing nondisclosure of health issues by the deceased.\n•\nFacts: The insurer alleged that the deceased failed to disclose a pre-existing condition. The widow argued that the company’s medical examiner had declared the deceased fit.\n•\nRuling: High Court rejected the insurer's defense, awarding the widow the policy amount with costs for delayed payment.\n•\nPrinciple: Insurers cannot repudiate claims on tenuous grounds after accepting premiums and conducting their own due diligence.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=77", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No.26 of 2012, decision dated: 10-04-2013, hearing DATE : 9-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE\nIKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalil Khan Khalil for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS \nVS\n MST. SHUMILA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1060 = 2013 SLD 1060 = 2013 CLD 1531", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Mark Infringement\n•\nIssue: Protection of registered trade marks against deceptive imitations.\n•\nFacts: Defendant’s trade mark ( MALTOS ) was alleged to infringe upon the plaintiff's ( MALTOFER ) by creating confusion in the market.\n•\nRuling: High Court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant, ruling the marks to be deceptively similar. Damages were not awarded due to insufficient evidence of financial loss.\n•\nPrinciple: Trade mark protection extends to preventing confusion or deception in the market, upholding the rights of registered proprietors.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=2", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1282 of 2009, decision dated: 4-03-2013, hearing DATE : 13-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Amna Salman for Plaintiff.\nNemo for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "VIFOR (INTERNATIONAL) INC. THROUGH AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY \nVS\n MEMON PHARMACEUTICAL THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1977 286 = 1977 SLD 286 = (1977) 35 TAX 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": ": Partnership Deeds and Secondary Evidence\n•\nIssue: Admissibility of secondary evidence and legal requirements for partnership deeds.\n•\nFacts: A party sought to use a copy of a partnership deed as evidence, claiming the original was unavailable.\n•\nRuling: High Court allowed secondary evidence, presuming the original deed was properly stamped and executed. The unregistered document was held inadmissible to transfer property rights but admissible to establish other facts.\n•\nPrinciple: Secondary evidence is admissible under specific conditions, but registration requirements for property rights are strictly enforced.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Stamp Act, of 1899=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. K-9 and K-10 of 1974, decision dated: 27-7-1976. [ on the 11-05-1973, in L. P. A. No. 36 and L. P. A. No. 38 of 1971. respectively.). dates of hearing: 10th, 11th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th of March 17", + "Judge Name:": "SALAHUDDIN AHMED, ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shah Jamil Alam, Senior Advocate, M. Bilal, Advocate and A. Aziz Dastagir, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 7 (in C.A.K.-9 of 1974) And for Appellants and Respondents Nos. 28 to 33 (in C.A.K-10 of 1974,) Iqbal Kazi, Advocate and Noor Ahmed Noor Advocate-on-Record for the Remaining Respondents (in C.A. K-10 of 1974.)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMM AD ISHAQUE (Represented by legal heirs)\nVs\nEROSE THEATRE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1061 = 2013 SLD 1061 = 2013 CLD 1710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Late Deposits in Provident Funds\n•\nIssue: Delay in depositing employee provident fund contributions.\n•\nFacts: A company delayed transferring provident fund amounts but later rectified the delay without harming employees’ interests.\n•\nRuling: SECP issued a stern warning instead of penalties, emphasizing future compliance.\n•\nPrinciple: Timely provident fund deposits are a statutory duty, and leniency is conditional on rectification without harm", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=227", + "Case #": "In the matter of Show Cause Notice Issue DATE February 20, 2013, decision dated: 4-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ HUSSAIN. DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAK KUWAIT TAKAFUL COMPANY LIMITED:" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1062 = 2013 SLD 1062 = 2013 CLD 1735", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTST0", + "Key Words:": ": Winding-Up for Non-Commencement of Business\n•\nIssue: Grounds for winding-up a company under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nFacts: A company failed to commence operations for 16 years due to non-obtaining of required certifications.\n•\nRuling: High Court ordered winding-up, appointing an Official Liquidator.\n•\nPrinciple: Companies failing to commence or sustain operations within reasonable timeframes face dissolution to protect public and shareholder interests.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=305", + "Case #": "J.M. No.2 of 2012, decision dated: 18-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faiz Durrani for Petitioner.\nManzoor-ul-Haq. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RAUF \nVS\n ARY CEMENT LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1969 106 = 1969 SLD 106 = 1969 PLD 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Cooperative Society Disputes and Jurisdiction\n•\nIssue: Whether disputes involving cooperative societies are within civil court jurisdiction.\n•\nFacts: A cooperative bank member challenged arbitration proceedings initiated under cooperative society rules.\n•\nRuling: Supreme Court ruled that disputes covered by cooperative society rules are outside the jurisdiction of civil courts.\n•\nPrinciple: Specialized forums have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes within their statutory framework.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Co-operative Societies Registration Act, 1912=43", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1965, decision dated: 9th April 1969", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD AHMAD AND ABDUS SATTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghias Muhammad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Appellant. Muhammad Bakhsh Meer, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Amir Ahmad, Attorney for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE GUJRANWALA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., HAFIZABAD \nVS\n MUHAMMAD FEROZE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1973 5 = 1973 SLD 5 = 1973 PLD 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Clearing Agents’ Obligations\n•\nIssue: Obligations of clearing and forwarding agents.\n•\nFacts: Disputes arose over whether a clearing agent could act contrary to the principal’s instructions.\n•\nRuling: Clearing agents are bound by their principal’s instructions and fiduciary duties; deviation constitutes a breach.\n•\nPrinciple: Clearing agents must faithfully execute their principal's directives and cannot claim ownership of goods in their custody.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Revision Applications Nos. 15 to 18 and 22 of 1966, decision dated: 14th October 1971, hearing DATE : 25th August 1971", + "Judge Name:": "DORAB PATEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhr-ud-Din and G. Ibrahim for Applicant.\nHassan Mahmood for Respondent.\nRevision Application No. 16 of 1966\nFakhr-ud-Din for Applicant.\nHassan Mahmood for Respondent.\nRevision Application No. 17 of 1966\nFakhr-ud-Din for Applicant.\nHassan Mahmood for Respondent.\nRevision Application No. 18 of 1966\nFakhr-ud-Din for Applicant.\nHassan Mahmood for Respondent.\nRevision Application No. 22 of 1966\nFakhr-ud-Din for Applicant.\nHassan Mahmood for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AMEEJEE VALEEJEE & SONS\nVS\n MESSRS AMERICAN PRESIDENTS LINES LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 128 = 1981 SLD 128 = (2000) 81 TAX 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Loss Computation and Corporate Tax\n•\nIssue: Computation of losses under corporate taxation laws.\n•\nFacts: A company disputed the tax authority's computation of pre-depreciation losses under the Companies Act, 1956.\n•\nRuling: Supreme Court held that loss includes depreciation for accurate computation under Section 115J of the Income Tax Act.\n•\nPrinciple: Loss computation must align with statutory definitions, incorporating depreciation to ensure fair assessment", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=115", + "Case #": "(Civil Appeal No. 1589 (NT) of 1997) decided on 13-4-1999", + "Judge Name:": "S. P, BHARUCHA, JUSTICE\nR. C. LAHORE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao, K. Maruthi Rao, Ms. Radha, G. Prabhakar, AV Rangam, Neeraj Sharma, Neeraj Srivastava (S. Rajappa and G. Venkatesh), Advocates, for B.K. Prasad S.K. Gambhir Vivek Gambhir, Vijay Kumar C. Jaykar Abhijit Puri and Ms. V Mohana, Advocates", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nVS\n BRITE AUTOMOTIYES AND PLASTICS LTD.(SPECIAL LEAVE (C) NO. 12388 OF 1997) SHREE SYNTHETICS LTD(SPECIAL LEAVE (C) NO. 13429 OF 1997)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1063 = 2013 SLD 1063 = 2013 CLD 1736", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmS1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Securities and Exchange Commission – Adjudication and Share Consolidation\n•\nIssue: Whether a minor shareholder could challenge the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan’s (SECP) decision regarding shareholding consolidation in a listed company.\n•\nFacts: The petitioner, a minor shareholder, challenged SECP’s decision that Section 6 of the Listed Companies Ordinance, 2002, did not apply to an increase in the respondent's shareholding above 50%. The petitioner argued the SECP’s decision lacked reasons required under Section 22(3) of the SECP Act, 1997, depriving them of the right to appeal.\n•\nRuling: The High Court set aside the SECP's decision and remanded the case, directing the SECP to provide a reasoned decision within three months, maintain the status quo on share transactions, and ensure fair hearing for all parties.\n•\nPrinciple: Regulatory decisions must comply with statutory requirements of reasoned judgments to ensure accountability and protect shareholder rights.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=22", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1163 of 2011, decision dated: 11-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui assisted by Shahryar Kasuri for Petitioner.\nSikandar Bashir Mohmand on behalf of Abdul Hafeez Pirzada for Respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7.\nZahid Nawaz Cheema on behalf of Syed Ali Zafar for Respondent UBL.\nMehr Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 13/LSE.\nMuzammal Akhtar Shabbir for CCP/Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASGHAR ABBAS GARDEZI \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1064 = 2013 SLD 1064 = 2013 CLD 1770", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Insurance Claims and Settlement\n•\nIssue: Whether loss of vision from a fall was covered under an insurance policy.\n•\nFacts: The appellant claimed blindness resulted from an accidental fall, while the insurance company argued it stemmed from a pre-existing condition. Both sides failed to establish their claims conclusively.\n•\nRuling: The parties reached an amicable settlement where the insurance company refunded the premium without deductions and paid an additional Rs. 50,000. The life insurance policy was terminated.\n•\nPrinciple: Settlement can be a practical solution when factual disputes are unresolved, ensuring fair compensation without protracted litigation.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=129", + "Case #": "Appeal No.9 of 2012, decision dated: 30-04-2013, hearing DATE : 12-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Younus for Appellant.\nBarrister Tariq Saeed Rana for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IMRAN\nVS\n CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER\nFazaLur-Rehman (Father of --Appellant) and Dr. Rizwan (Brother of --Appellant)." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1065 = 2013 SLD 1065 = 2013 CLD 1742", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": ": Insurance Company Malpractice\n•\nIssue: Allegations of fraud and malpractice by insurance company officials.\n•\nFacts: A widow claimed company agents defrauded her of Rs. 390,000 under the pretext of issuing policies. Investigations confirmed malpractice and inadequate internal controls.\n•\nRuling: The Insurance Ombudsman ordered the company to pay the defrauded amount plus damages for mental anguish, emphasizing accountability for poor management.\n•\nPrinciple: Companies are liable for agent misconduct due to inadequate internal controls, especially when it causes financial harm to vulnerable individuals.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Insurance Ordinance, 2000=76", + "Case #": "Appeal No.1 of 2012, decision dated: 11-02-2013. dates of hearing: 30-11-2012 and 11-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "TARIQ HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (INSURANCE)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Khalid Mahmood, Regional Manager and M. Imran Butt an Official of the Insurance Company (Appellant).\nDr. S.M. Sarosh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EAST WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED \nVS\n MST. TEHMINA BASHIR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1066 = 2013 SLD 1066 = 2013 CLD 1748", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Constitutional Petitions for Non-Registered Firms\n•\nIssue: Whether an unregistered partnership could file a constitutional petition under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932.\n•\nFacts: Objections were raised regarding the maintainability of a petition by an unregistered firm, citing a statutory bar on suits by unregistered partnerships.\n•\nRuling: The High Court ruled that the bar under Section 69 does not extend to constitutional petitions, which arise under the Constitution and not ordinary claims. The filing of subsequent documents cured procedural defects.\n•\nPrinciple: Constitutional remedies are not barred by statutory restrictions applicable to ordinary claims under the Partnership Act.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Partnership Act, 1932=69", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.25955 of 2012, decision dated: 12-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Usman Awan for Petitioner.\nWaqas Qadeer Dar, A.A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CREATIIVE ELECTRONICS AND AUTOMATION \nVS\n COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1067 = 2013 SLD 1067 = 2013 CLD 1756", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Banking Mohtasib Jurisdiction and Complaints\n•\nIssue: Jurisdiction of the Banking Mohtasib in cases of fraudulent or unauthorized transactions.\n•\nFacts: A complaint was filed about unauthorized debit entries. The bank argued procedural non-compliance, including the absence of prior intimation and the existence of parallel criminal proceedings.\n•\nRuling: The Banking Mohtasib was authorized to entertain such complaints, with procedural requirements interpreted flexibly to avoid non-suiting complainants. Criminal proceedings were deemed irrelevant to civil claims.\n•\nPrinciple: Banking Mohtasib’s jurisdiction prioritizes resolving consumer grievances over procedural technicalities, focusing on the nature of complaints rather than parallel criminal cases.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=82", + "Case #": "Suit No.249 of 2012, decision dated: 18-03-2013, hearing DATE : 12-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rizwan A. Siddiqui for the Plaintiffs.\nIftikhar Javed Qazi for Defendants Nos.1 to 3.\nQamar Abbas for Defendant No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SONERI BANK LIMITED THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEYS/AUTHORIZED OFFICERS AND ANOTHER \nVS\n MESSRS PAK LAND CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CEO AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1068 = 2013 SLD 1068 = 2013 CLD 1953", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Invalidating AGM Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Whether proceedings of an adjourned Annual General Meeting (AGM) could be challenged under Section 160-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nFacts: Petitioners sought to declare the AGM invalid due to procedural irregularities, although the meeting had been adjourned due to a court stay.\n•\nRuling: The High Court dismissed the petition as premature, holding that Section 160-A applies only to concluded meetings. Petitioners were advised to challenge the AGM or director elections after the meeting concluded.\n•\nPrinciple: Challenges to AGMs must adhere to statutory frameworks and are premature for ongoing or adjourned meetings", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=160", + "Case #": "C.O. No.33 of 2012, decision dated: 21st January, 2013, hearing DATE :7-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Pervaiz for Petitioners.\nSalman Akram Raja for Respondent No. 3.\nSyed Shahab Qutab for Respondent No. 9.\nUmar Riaz Malik and Saqib Haroon for Respondents.\nMuzamil Akhtar Shabbir for SECP.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAHANGIR SIDDIQUI AND OTHERS \nVS\n AZGARD NINE LIMITED AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1069 = 2013 SLD 1069 = 2013 CLD 1945", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off\n•\nIssue: Whether similar packaging constituted passing off or infringement of a registered trade mark.\n•\nFacts: Respondents alleged that the appellants’ packaging mimicked their design, causing confusion among consumers.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld interim relief, ruling that while the trade marks differed, the packaging similarity could deceive ordinary purchasers. This was a case of passing off rather than infringement.\n•\nPrinciple: Even absent trade mark infringement, deceptive packaging can constitute passing off if it causes consumer confusion.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=4", + "Case #": "High Court Appeals Nos. 280 and 282 of 2010, decision dated: 13-03-2013, hearing DATE : 27-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khaleeq Ahmed for Appellant (in H.C.A. No. 280 of 2010).\nTanveer Ahmed for Appellant (in H.C.A. No. 282 of 2010).\nMonawwar Ghani for Respondents (in H.C.As. Nos.280 and 282 of 2010).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GOLDEN THREAD INDUSTRIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n J & P COATS LIMITED COMPANY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1070 = 2013 SLD 1070 = 2013 CLD 1895", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Executive Orders\n•\nIssue: Whether a State Bank of Pakistan circular canceling a bank’s license had retrospective effect.\n•\nFacts: The petitioner argued that the circular unlawfully introduced terms in a concluded agreement and usurped vested rights.\n•\nRuling: The High Court declared the cancellation void, holding that executive orders cannot retroactively impair rights or contracts unless explicitly authorized.\n•\nPrinciple: Retrospective application of executive actions is prohibited unless explicitly permitted, safeguarding contractual and vested rights.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962=27", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.18612 of 2010, decision dated: 28-05-2013, hearing DATE : 12-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioners.\nZahid F. Ebrahim for Respondents.\nAbdus Sattar Junaid, Standing Counsel for Federation.\nMahmood Shafqat, Additional Director Banking Policy and Regulation Department, SBP, Karachi.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MCB BANK LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND ANOTHER \nVS\n STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH GOVERNOR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1071 = 2013 SLD 1071 = 2013 CLD 1787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "SECP and High Court’s Role in Share Acquisitions\n•\nIssue: High Court’s role in remanding share acquisition disputes to the SECP.\n•\nFacts: A minor shareholder challenged SECP’s decision on share acquisition, seeking direct High Court adjudication.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld the SECP’s jurisdiction as the primary regulator, remanding the matter for a reasoned decision. The court emphasized that regulatory matters should first be addressed by the SECP.\n•\nPrinciple: High Courts appropriately remand regulatory disputes to specialized bodies like the SECP, ensuring due process and adherence to regulatory frameworks.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=20", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1757 of 2012, decision dated: 4-07-2013", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE\nIQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\n Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sikandar Bashir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.5 to 7.\n Babar Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3.\n Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASGHAR ABBAS GARDEZI \nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1072 = 2013 SLD 1072 = 2013 CLD 1807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Defamation Claims Under Special Laws\n•\nIssue: Whether defamation claims could be pursued under general tort law or required filing before specialized tribunals.\n•\nFacts: The plaintiff filed a suit for malicious prosecution under general tort law rather than the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint.\n•\nRuling: The court upheld that malicious prosecution suits could proceed under general tort law in ordinary courts. Claims specifically under the Defamation Ordinance must be filed before its tribunals.\n•\nPrinciple: Claims for malicious prosecution fall under general tort law, while specific defamation cases must follow the procedural rules of the Defamation Ordinance.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)=Preamble", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.16 of 2013, decision dated: 22-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE\nMALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Jamal Qureshi for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAH JEHAN \nVS\n FEROZ SHAH AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1073 = 2013 SLD 1073 = 2013 CLD 1810", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment of Chartered Accountants as External Auditors\n•\nIssue: Maintainability of a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of Chartered Accountants as external auditors.\n•\nFacts: The petitioner alleged non-compliance with the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and challenged the appointment of external auditors in a constitutional petition without first approaching regulatory forums.\n•\nRuling: The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the availability of alternate remedies such as approaching the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) or the Quality Assurance Board of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan. The High Court declined to interfere, as specialized forums were empowered to handle such issues.\n•\nPrinciple: Constitutional petitions are not maintainable when adequate and specialized regulatory remedies exist.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=252", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.31903 of 2012, decision dated: 28-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shazib Masud for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD MASOOD \nVS\n BANK OF PUNJAB (BOP) THROUGH PRESIDENT AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1074 = 2013 SLD 1074 = 2013 CLD 1815", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Salvage Rights of Law Firms\n•\nIssue: Whether a law firm could claim salvage rights for services rendered in an admiralty suit.\n•\nFacts: The law firm argued that its efforts in representing a client saved a vessel, entitling it to salvage rights under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980.\n•\nRuling: The High Court rejected the claim, holding that salvage rights arise from actions that save or preserve property in immediate danger. The law firm’s services, rendered after the vessel’s arrest, did not meet this threshold.\n•\nPrinciple: Salvage rights in admiralty law require proof of immediate danger and preservation of property through the claimant's actions.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1678 of 2008, decision dated: 4-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nIJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shaiq Usmani, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondents Nos.1 and 4.\nNemo for Respondent No. 2.\nQamar-ul-Islam Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SURRIDGE AND BEECHENO \nVS\n M.T. EASTERN NAVIGATOR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1075 = 2013 SLD 1075 = 2013 CLD 1829", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Action in Rem Against Vessel for Tort\n•\nIssue: Maintainability of an action in rem against a vessel for breach of duty related to seaworthiness.\n•\nFacts: A vessel carrying the plaintiff’s cargo was delayed due to an expired seaworthiness certificate, causing losses. The plaintiff initiated an action in rem against the vessel.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld the claim, finding that the shipowner had breached its duty to provide a seaworthy vessel. The action in rem was maintainable under Sections 3(2)(h) and 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980.\n•\nPrinciple: A shipowner's duty to ensure seaworthiness extends to all parties with an interest in the cargo, and breach of this duty justifies an action in rem.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance (XLII of 1980)=3", + "Case #": "Admiralty Suit No.35 of 2008, decision dated: 12-11-2012. dates of hearing: 28-03-16-04-21st May, 31st May and 8-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar Abbas for Plaintiff.\nShaiq Usmani for Defendant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "METAL CONSTRUCTION OF GREECE S.A. (MEKTA S.A.), ATHENS THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS\n OWNERS OF THE VESSEL M.V. LADY REA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1076 = 2013 SLD 1076 = 2013 CLD 1862", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Trade Mark Opposition Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Procedural fairness in opposition proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks.\n•\nFacts: The Registrar dismissed the appellant's opposition for failure to file evidence within the prescribed period without providing reasons or granting a hearing.\n•\nRuling: The High Court set aside the Registrar's decision, emphasizing the obligation to issue notices, provide hearings, and justify decisions with reasons. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.\n•\nPrinciple: Administrative decisions affecting rights must comply with procedural fairness, including reasoned judgments and opportunities to be heard.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)=111", + "Case #": "First Appeals Against Order Nos.61, 62 and 63 of 2010, heard on 16-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Abid for Appellant.\nHaseeb Zafar for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GUJRANWALA FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n MESSRS CORAL ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1077 = 2013 SLD 1077 = 2013 CLD 1886", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": ": Constitutional Petition vs. Alternate Remedies\n•\nIssue: Whether a constitutional petition was maintainable when alternate remedies existed under the SECP Act.\n•\nFacts: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging a penalty imposed under the SECP Act without exhausting appellate remedies.\n•\nRuling: The High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming that constitutional jurisdiction cannot substitute for statutory remedies unless the latter are inadequate.\n•\nPrinciple: Constitutional petitions are barred when adequate statutory remedies are available and not exhausted.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, (XLII of 1997)=33", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-2592 of 2009, decision dated: 22-02-2013, hearing DATE : 16-01-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saleem Thepdawala for Petitioners.\nKhurram Rasheed for Respondents.\nJawed Farooqui, D.A.G.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AVM (R) S.J. RAZA \nVS\n THROUGH REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 996 = 2008 SLD 996 = 2008 CLD 693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Amalgamation of Non-Banking Finance Companies\n•\nIssue: Approval of a merger scheme between two non-banking finance companies.\n•\nFacts: The SECP sanctioned the merger scheme subject to conditions, reserving the right to take action if any misrepresentation was later discovered.\n•\nRuling: The SECP’s approval was upheld, with the condition that any misrepresentation could lead to appropriate action, including license cancellation.\n•\nPrinciple: SECP has broad authority to regulate and approve mergers, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal requirements", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Amalgamation of Messrs UNIVERSAL LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED: In the matter of", + "Judge Name:": "AKIF SEWED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (SPECIALIZED COMPANIES DIVISION)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Amalgamation of Messrs UNIVERSAL LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 983 = 2007 SLD 983 = 2007 CLD 1038", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Company Assets Without Shareholder Approval\n•\nIssue: Non-compliance with legal requirements for shareholder approval in the sale of company assets.\n•\nFacts: A company sold its plant and machinery without prior shareholder approval, violating Section 196 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.\n•\nRuling: The High Court imposed penalties on the company’s directors but reduced fines due to mitigating factors, including efforts to revive the company.\n•\nPrinciple: Directors must obtain shareholder approval for significant asset sales, and violations are subject to penalties, with consideration of mitigating circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=196", + "Case #": "DADABHOY CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED: In the matter of", + "Judge Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN, DIRECTOR (ENFORCEMENT)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DADABHOY CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED: In the matter of" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1078 = 2013 SLD 1078 = 2013 CLD 2187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "SECP Circular on Net Asset Value of Mutual Funds\n•\nIssue: Legality of SECP’s directive on calculating mutual funds’ Net Asset Value.\n•\nFacts: The petitioner challenged the SECP’s circular, arguing it reduced their investment value.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld the circular, finding it aimed at stabilizing markets and safeguarding investors during a liquidity crisis.\n•\nPrinciple: Regulatory directives issued in public interest to prevent market collapse are valid and enforceable.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=282", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-424 of 2009, decided by 24-04-2013, hearing DATE : 13-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahenshah Hussain for Petitioner.\nKhurram Rasheed for Respondent No. 1.\nAbdul Qayyum Abbasi for BMA Associates Management.\nMuhammad Ashraf Mughal, D.A.G.\nMs. Naheed A. Shahid for Respondent No. 3.\nMuhammad Akram Javed for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RAHMAN BALOCH \nVS\n THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1079 = 2013 SLD 1079 = 2013 CLD 2202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax on Advertising Boards\n•\nIssue: Whether a Cantonment Board could impose tax on a bank’s advertisement boards on its own building.\n•\nFacts: The bank argued that displaying its name was mandatory under the Companies Ordinance and could not attract tax.\n•\nRuling: The High Court held that while mandatory display does not exempt entities from lawful taxes, the Cantonment Board must provide facilities for advertisements before imposing fees.\n•\nPrinciple: Tax imposition requires the provision of corresponding services or facilities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=143", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2820 of 2012, decision dated: 28-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Siddique Awan for Petitioner.\nMirza Waqas Rauf, Legal Advisor for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK PAKISTAN LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEYS \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 697 = 2010 SLD 697 = 2010 CLD 1020", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Trading by Directors and Recovery of Gains\n•\nIssue: Liability of a director for gains made from trading company shares.\n•\nFacts: The company voluntarily resolved the issue by depositing the director's gains with the SECP, avoiding further litigation.\n•\nRuling: The SECP accepted the deposit, closing the matter.\n•\nPrinciple: Directors are accountable for gains made through insider trading, with voluntary compliance mitigating penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=224", + "Case #": "In the matter of: RECOVERY OF TENDERABLE GAIN UNDER SECTION 224(2) OF THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1984", + "Judge Name:": "AKIF SAEED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SM)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "In the matter of: RECOVERY OF TENDERABLE GAIN UNDER SECTION 224(2) OF THE COMPANIES ORDINANCE, 1984" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1080 = 2013 SLD 1080 = 2013 CLD 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s Role in Schemes of Arrangement\n•\nIssue: Judicial scrutiny of schemes of arrangement between companies.\n•\nFacts: The High Court was tasked with approving a scheme involving share capital reduction.\n•\nRuling: The Court approved the scheme after ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and safeguarding stakeholders’ interests.\n•\nPrinciple: High Courts have a duty to ensure that corporate restructuring schemes serve the interests of all stakeholders and comply with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Companies Ordinance, 1984=284", + "Case #": "Judicial Miscellaneous Application No.46 of 2011, decision dated: 17-05-2012, hearing DATE : 21st March, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ICI PAKISTAN LIMITED and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 881 = 2011 SLD 881 = 2011 PTD 2220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation and Customs Notices\n•\nIssue: Validity of show-cause notices issued beyond the limitation period under the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nFacts: The Customs Department issued notices years after the alleged offenses, leading to legal challenges.\n•\nRuling: The High Court invalidated the notices due to violation of statutory limitations, directing disciplinary action against negligent officials.\n•\nPrinciple: Statutory timelines for enforcement actions are mandatory, and violations undermine the validity of proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 432 to 485 of 2009, decision dated: 21st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nAziz A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI \nVS\n PAKISTAN STATE OIL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 614 = 2012 SLD 614 = 2012 PTD 1867 = 2012 SCMR 1698 = (2013) 107 TAX 177 = 2013 PTCL 226", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Import Policy\n•\nIssue: Applicability of a subsequent import policy to an earlier transaction.\n•\nFacts: A vehicle imported under the gift scheme violated the earlier policy but complied with the new one, leading to its confiscation.\n•\nRuling: The High Court applied the new policy retrospectively, finding it beneficial to the importer and consistent with equity.\n•\nPrinciple: Subsequent beneficial policies can have retrospective effect when no adverse rights are infringed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Import Policy Order, 2005=PersonalBaggageTransfer of Residence and Gift Schemes (Import of Vehicles) Rules, 2005=3(1)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1555-L of 2009, decision dated: 20-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nIJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izhar-ul-Haque, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE AND OTHERS\nVS\n MRS. SHAHIDA ANWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1081 = 2013 SLD 1081 = 2013 PTD 783 = 2013 PTCL 87", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Clearing Agent’s Liability\n•\nIssue: Whether a clearing agent was liable for mis-declaration of imported goods.\n•\nFacts: The clearing agent filed documents based on the importer’s information, which later proved inaccurate.\n•\nRuling: The High Court exonerated the agent, holding that liability requires clear evidence of complicity or benefit from the evasion.\n•\nPrinciple: Clearing agents are not liable for misdeclarations unless proven to have acted with intent or benefited from the irregularity.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=209", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-317 of 2010, decision dated: 16th June; 2011", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IMRAN MASOOD, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahsan Mehmood for Appellant.\nAhmad Kamal D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PERVAIZ UMER ENTERPRISES, LAHORE \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AFU, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1966 18 = 1966 SLD 18 = 1966 PLD 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Writ Jurisdiction in Election Disputes\n•\nIssue: Maintainability of a writ petition against nomination acceptance in violation of election laws.\n•\nFacts: The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a rival candidate's nomination papers, claiming it violated the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act, 1964. The respondent argued that election disputes must be resolved through election petitions under Article 171 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962.\n•\nRuling: The High Court held that election disputes must follow the statutory framework, with no writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as lack of jurisdiction, fraud, mala fide actions, or errors on record.\n•\nPrinciple: Election disputes are governed by statutory mechanisms, with limited scope for judicial intervention under writ jurisdiction", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act, (VII of 1964)=52", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 646 of 1965, decision dated: 7th May 1965. dates of hearing : 5th, 6th and 7th May 1965", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD GUL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ismail Bhatli for Petitioner.\nRespondent No. 1 in person.\nKaram Elahi Chuhan for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMAD SAEED KIRMANI\nVS\n MUHAMMAD NAWAZ, CHEEMA, P. C. S. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 615 = 2012 SLD 615 = 2012 PTD 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duty on Petroleum Products\n•\nIssue: Mis-declaration of petroleum products as duty-free supplies and its implications for customs duty.\n•\nFacts: A company supplied petroleum products to the Pakistan Navy, claiming exemption under Section 106 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Customs Department alleged mis-declaration and issued notices under Section 32 for evasion of duty.\n•\nRuling: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the non-payment of duty was intentional or based on a long-standing exemption practice.\n•\nPrinciple: Long-standing practices in tax exemptions must align with statutory provisions, and intentional mis-declarations warrant scrutiny.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=106", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1965 to 1970 of 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nMAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nRAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Zahid Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak Advocate on-Record, for Appellants.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 352 = 1979 SLD 352 = (1999) 79 TAX 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Customs Duty\n•\nIssue: Whether partial payment of duties negates subsequent entitlement to exemptions.\n•\nFacts: A spinning mill claimed exemptions under S.R.O. 458(I)/88 but faced refusal because duties were partially paid. The company argued that delayed clearance did not negate their entitlement to exemptions.\n•\nRuling: The court ruled in favor of the mill, holding that exemptions under valid notifications remain applicable if conditions are met, irrespective of procedural delays.\n•\nPrinciple: Statutory exemptions apply as long as eligibility criteria are met, even if procedural delays occur.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1994, decision dated: 4-5-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SH. IJAZ NISAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ARIF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Ali Khan, Dy, A. G. , Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Gulzar Hasan, Advocate on-Record, for the Applicant.\nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh, Salah-ud-Din, Advocate on-Record, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\n KHURSHID SPINNING MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 353 = 1979 SLD 353 = (1999) 79 TAX 7", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Interim Orders\n•\nIssue: Extension of interim relief in cases involving public revenue.\n•\nFacts: A petitioner sought an extension of interim relief (stay of revenue recovery) beyond six months, contrary to Article 199(4A) of the Constitution.\n•\nRuling: The court held that interim orders affecting public revenue automatically lapse after six months and cannot be extended. The judiciary retains jurisdiction to decide cases but must adhere to constitutional limitations.\n•\nPrinciple: Interim orders affecting public revenue are time-bound under the Constitution and cannot be extended arbitrarily.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5765 of 1995, decision dated: 29-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE\nGHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "lmtiaz R. Siddiqui Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Salman Akram Raja, Shahzad Jahangir Ali Zafar Umer Ata Bandial, Zaeem ul Farooq Zia Ullah, Kiyani Ali Sibtain, FaziL Imran Aziz Khan, Irfan Qadir, Nawab Saeedullah Khan, Muzamil Akhtar", + "Petitioner Name:": "IHSANULLAH\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1082 = 2013 SLD 1082", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 32 & 156(1)(14)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---False statement, error, etc.--- Deliberate mis-declaration of goods---Submission of fake and forged documents at the time of clearance of goods---Tampering with PCT heading---Imposition of personal penalty on the importer---Scope---Company (petitioner) imported some material declaring the same under PCT heading 7210.5000 described as Tin Free Steel Sheets (Secondary Quality), attracting custom duty @ 10%---Subsequently it was discovered that material imported was Electrolytic Tin Plate, covered under PCT heading 7210.1200, on which 25% duty was leviable---Company had submitted fake and forged photocopies of original documents to the Customs authorities at the time of clearance and also tampered with the PCT headings---Material imported was confiscated by Customs authorities with an option to redeem the same after payment of fine along with leviable duty---Customs authorities also imposed a personal penalty on the company under S.32 read with S.156(1)(14) of Customs Act, 1969---Order of Customs authorities was upheld by all the appellate forums---Plea of company that mis-declaration was not deliberate and there was no evidence to show that management of company knowingly made a false declaration, and that declaration was made on basis of documents sent by the exporter for which company could not be held responsible---Validity---Management of the company had deliberately made a mis-declaration regarding the nature of goods imported---Company and its clearing agent had submitted photocopies instead of original invoices and letters of credit at the time of clearance---Original documents were clearly different compared to the photocopies submitted earlier---Original invoices classified the goods under PCT heading 7210.1200, 7210.5110 and 7209.9000 whereas photocopy of an invoice tendered earlier described the goods under PCT heading 7210.5000, therefore, photocopies had been tampered with---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances and leave was refused.\n \n(b) Constitution of Pakistan---\n \n----Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by all forums below---Supreme Court would be slow in interfering in concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the forums below.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(38A),21(l),65A,111,111(1)(b),120(1),122(3),122(5A),174(2)", + "Case #": "I.T.A. NO. 1910/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2008), I.T.A. No. 1911/LB/2013 (Tax Year 2009), DATE of Order & hearing: 25-11-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHIDH IQBAL DHILLON, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nSABIHA MUJAHID, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Ijaz Ali Bhatti, Advocate \nRespondent(s) by: Mr. Sajjad Tasleem, DR", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S SIDDIQUE SONS ENGG., LAHORE\nVS\nTHE CIR, RTO, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 800 = 2001 SLD 800 = 2001 PTD 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Withdrawal of Exemptions\n•\nIssue: Retrospective application of withdrawal of customs and sales tax exemptions.\n•\nFacts: Importers claimed exemptions under S.R.O. 279(I)/94 for power projects. The government withdrew the exemptions, creating disputes over applicability to prior transactions.\n•\nRuling: The court ruled that exemptions granted under statutory notifications remain valid until formally withdrawn, with withdrawal operating prospectively.\n•\nPrinciple: Statutory exemptions cannot be withdrawn retrospectively unless explicitly stated.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 505 of 1997, decision dated: 31st July, 2000, hearing DATE : 19-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram and Salman Akram Raja for Petitioners.\nFarhat Nawaz Lodhi and Raja Bashir Ahmad Kiani for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHADMAN COTTON MILLS LIMITED\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, FEDERAL SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 745 = 2002 SLD 745 = 2002 PTD 1989 = (2002) 86 TAX 28", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Pre-Shipment Inspection Charges\n•\nIssue: Refund of charges declared ultra vires.\n•\nFacts: The Customs Department delayed refunding pre-shipment inspection charges, declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court.\n•\nRuling: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended immediate action to process pending refund claims and improve administrative responsiveness.\n•\nPrinciple: Administrative inefficiencies and delays in processing refunds undermine public trust and require corrective measures", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18B,195Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(v),9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1315-K of 2001, decision dated: 26-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashhad Jawwad, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement Law) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 801 = 2001 SLD 801 = 2001 PTD 661 = (2001) 83 TAX 347", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation on Show-Cause Notices\n•\nIssue: Issuance of show-cause notices for short-levied duties beyond the statutory limitation period.\n•\nFacts: A notice was issued nine months after the payment of duties, exceeding the six-month limitation under Section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nRuling: The court invalidated the notice, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines.\n•\nPrinciple: Statutory limitation periods are mandatory, and actions beyond prescribed timelines are void.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32(2)(3)Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=65Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1479 of 1998, decision dated: 20-05-2000, hearing DATE : 15-03-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Siddiqui for Petitioner.\nS. Tariq Ali for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CHINA YUNNAN CORPORATION\nVS\n COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 746 = 2002 SLD 746 = 2002 PTD 2148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Stay on Wealth Tax Recovery\n•\nIssue: Conditional grant of stay on wealth tax recovery.\n•\nFacts: A taxpayer sought a stay on recovery, agreeing to pay 15% of the total demand.\n•\nRuling: The Appellate Tribunal granted a stay, contingent on proof of the agreed payment.\n•\nPrinciple: Interim relief in tax matters can be conditional upon partial compliance to ensure good faith and expedite dispute resolution.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=24", + "Case #": "M. As. (Stay) Nos. 165/KB to 168/KB of 2002, decision dated: 11-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIRUL HASAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Tahir, I.T.P. for Appellant. Respondent (absent)", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 747 = 2002 SLD 747 = 2002 PTD 2149 = (2002) 86 TAX 6", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claims and Local Manufacturing\n•\nIssue: Entitlement to refunds for goods deemed locally manufactured.\n•\nFacts: A claim for a refund under S.R.O. 1076(I)/95 was rejected because the goods were locally manufactured and did not satisfy all prescribed conditions.\n•\nRuling: The court upheld the rejection, stating that all conditions must be met for a valid refund claim.\n•\nPrinciple: Refund claims under customs notifications require strict compliance with all conditions, including the nature and origin of goods.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33,80,83,193Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1360-L of 2001, decision dated: 9-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for the Complainant.\nFarid Iqbal Qureshi, Deputy Collector, Customs and Masud Javed, Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SALMAN NOMAN ENTERPRISES LTD., LAHORE \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 748 = 2002 SLD 748 = 2002 PTD 2163 = (2002) 85 TAX 441", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Auction Proceedings\n•\nIssue: Auction held a day earlier than the informed date; failure to comply with tribunal orders.\n•\nFacts: Customs authorities auctioned a vehicle on 1st June 1999, despite informing the complainant of an auction on 2nd June. The complainant protested, arguing he was denied the opportunity to bid. Additionally, the vehicle was auctioned despite an order to release it on payment of reduced fines and taxes.\n•\nRuling: The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) ruled this as maladministration. The department's failure to comply with tribunal orders and mismanagement in auction timing demonstrated negligence.\n•\nPrinciple: Public authorities must adhere strictly to notified procedures and comply with tribunal decisions to avoid maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9Customs Act, 1969=169", + "Case #": "Complaint No.460 of 2001, decision dated: 3rd November, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK MASOOD UL HASSAN \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 749 = 2002 SLD 749 = 2002 PTD 2556", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Removal of Goods from Bonded Warehouse Without Duty\n•\nIssue: Violation of customs regulations by removing goods without paying duties or filing necessary documentation.\n•\nFacts: A state-owned enterprise removed goods from a bonded warehouse without filing a bill of entry or paying customs duty and taxes. The enterprise claimed financial constraints and sought concession under SRO 502(I)/94.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld penalties, stating that financial constraints did not justify violations. The provisions of SRO 502(I)/94 could not override statutory obligations.\n•\nPrinciple: Financial difficulties do not justify violations of statutory obligations, and compliance with customs laws is mandatory.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=13", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 136 of 2000, decision dated: 15-03-2002, hearing DATE : 1st November, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nGHULAM NABI SOAMRO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SINDH ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI BENCH, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 750 = 2002 SLD 750 = 2002 PTD 2585 = (2002) 86 TAX 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Pre-Shipment Charges\n•\nIssue: Delayed and unfair processing of refund claims.\n•\nFacts: A company claimed a refund for pre-shipment inspection charges, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate. The Customs Department rejected the claim without reviewing the certificate.\n•\nRuling: The FTO termed the rejection as mala fide and negligent. It recommended refunding the charges and reprimanding the officials involved.\n•\nPrinciple: Refund claims must be processed fairly and promptly. Negligence or mala fide actions by public officials constitutes maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i),9Customs Act, 1969=Sched.I", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1542-K of 2001, decision dated: 7th February; 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qamar Abbas, Manager. Finance and Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui.\nDr. Nasir Khan, D.C Custom Appraisement Customs House, Karachi.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS THAL JUTE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 751 = 2002 SLD 751 = 2002 PTD 2632 = (2002) 86 TAX 403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Implementation of Court Orders\n•\nIssue: Customs Department's refusal to release goods despite Supreme Court and executive directives.\n•\nFacts: The Customs Department delayed releasing goods imported under the Pakistan-Afghanistan Transit Trade Agreement, citing procedural hurdles.\n•\nRuling: The FTO found the department guilty of maladministration and ordered immediate compliance with directives, condoning the delay in filing complaints due to extraordinary circumstances.\n•\nPrinciple: Public authorities must promptly implement court and executive orders, especially in international trade contexts.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9,10(3)Sales Tax Act, 1990=13(l)Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 1640 of 2001, 115 to 119 of 2002, decision dated: 27-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jehangir Khan for the Complainant.\nRizwan Basharat, AC for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SULTAN MUHAMMAD THROUGH G.A. JEHANGIR & ASSOCIATES, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS\nVS\n SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 752 = 2002 SLD 752 = 2002 PTD 2667", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Imported Goods\n•\nIssue: Arbitrary rejection of declared value without evidence.\n•\nFacts: Customs authorities imposed a 10% surcharge on the declared value of imported goods without confronting the importer with supporting evidence.\n•\nRuling: The FTO directed the authorities to reassess the value after confronting the importer with evidence and process refunds if applicable.\n•\nPrinciple: Customs authorities must substantiate deviations from declared values with credible evidence and confront the importer.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1429-1 of 2001, decision dated: 7-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam for the Complainant.\nZulfiqar Ch., Deputy Collector, Customs and Ms. Tayyeba Kayyani, Assistant Collector, Customs for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HASSAN BEARINGS, LAHORE\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 753 = 2002 SLD 753 = 2002 PTD 2838 = (2001) 84 TAX 373 = 2003 PTCL 501 = 2001 CLC 1477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Reasoned Orders by Public Authorities\n•\nIssue: Lack of reasons in rejecting a refund claim.\n•\nFacts: An importer’s appeal for refund of excess freight charges was dismissed as time-barred, despite being filed within the statutory period.\n•\nRuling: The High Court set aside the decision, remanding the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for reasoned orders.\n•\nPrinciple: Public authorities must provide detailed reasoning in their orders to ensure transparency and accountability.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "General Clauses Act, 1897=24", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1894 of 1989, heard on 13-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Hamid for Petitioner.\nA. Karim Malik and Sh. Izharul Haq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ROYAL FLYING COACH (PVT.) LTD THROUGH CHAIRMAN \nVS\n (APPEALS), CUSTOMS AND EXCISE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 754 = 2002 SLD 754 = 2002 PTD 2850 = 2003 PTCL 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Discriminatory Duty Structure on Steel Scrap\n•\nIssue: Imposition of higher duties on loose steel scrap compared to bundled and shredded scrap.\n•\nFacts: Traders importing loose scrap faced higher duties, while bundled and shredded scrap, primarily imported by large companies, benefited from lower rates.\n•\nRuling: The High Court found the differentiation discriminatory and struck down the notifications, ordering a refund of excess duties.\n•\nPrinciple: Duty structures must be based on reasonable classification and should not disadvantage smaller traders or favor large investors.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 970, 1068, 1349, 1541 of 1991, 519, 520, 871 and 872 of 1992, decision dated: 10-07-2002, hearing DATE : 19-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ATA-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioners.\nSyed Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAK OCEAN AND OTHERS \nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 755 = 2002 SLD 755 = 2002 PTD 2885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Adjudication Proceedings vs. Criminal Trial\n•\nIssue: Impact of acquittal in criminal trial on customs adjudication proceedings.\n•\nFacts: A petitioner acquitted in a criminal trial argued for a refund of the differential amount paid during customs adjudication.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld the adjudication decision, noting that criminal acquittal due to insufficient evidence does not invalidate administrative findings under a lower standard of proof.\n•\nPrinciple: Administrative and criminal proceedings operate under different standards, and acquittal in one does not automatically nullify findings in the other.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14275 of 1993, heard on 10-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Uzair Karamat Bhindari for Petitioner.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQOOB AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 756 = 2002 SLD 756 = 2002 PTD 2935", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Import of Substandard Goods\n•\nIssue: Delay in testing and clearance of substandard goods.\n•\nFacts: Imported milk powder was suspected of being substandard, and testing was delayed.\n•\nRuling: The FTO recommended expedited action to finalize the matter within 15 days.\n•\nPrinciple: Delays in regulatory actions undermine public trust and must be addressed promptly.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 809 of 2002, decision dated: 31st July, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Latif and Tariq Khuda, Additional Collector for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUO MOTU COMPLAINT IN MATTER OF DETENTION OF SKIMMED MILK POWDER AT KARACHI BALAGAMWALA OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD \nVS \n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 757 = 2002 SLD 757 = 2002 PTD 2945", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-Shipment Inspection Fee Refund\n•\nIssue: Non-processing of refund claims for pre-shipment inspection fees.\n•\nFacts: Customs claimed they could not locate refund applications. The complainant submitted proof of filing but faced neglect.\n•\nRuling: The FTO directed processing the refund and reprimanded the department for negligence.\n•\nPrinciple: Administrative inefficiency in handling refund claims constitutes maladministration", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 262 of 2002, decision dated: 6-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for the Complainant.\nImran Ahmed, Assistant Collector, Customs (Appraisement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UCH POWER LTD., ISLAMABAD \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 758 = 2002 SLD 758 = 2002 PTD 2957 = 2003 PTCL 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Burden of Proof in Valuation Disputes\n•\nIssue: Department’s failure to prove misdeclaration in valuation disputes.\n•\nFacts: Customs authorities rejected declared values without presenting supporting evidence.\n•\nRuling: The court ruled in favor of the importer, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the Customs Department.\n•\nPrinciple: Customs authorities must substantiate allegations of misdeclaration with evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 56, 55 and 57 of 1998 and 5 of 2000, heard on 7-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azhar Maqbool Shah for Appellant.\nKhan Muhammad Virk for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PUNJAB BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD. \nVS\n APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SALES TAX) AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 759 = 2002 SLD 759 = 2002 PTD 2977", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeals on Questions of Fact\n•\nIssue: Whether valuation disputes involving factual determinations are appealable.\n•\nFacts: An importer sought a refund for duties paid, claiming the goods were of secondary quality.\n•\nRuling: The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that questions of fact are not reviewable under appellate jurisdiction.\n•\nPrinciple: Appeals involving factual determinations must be based on substantive legal grounds rather than procedural or evidentiary disputes.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 20 of 1997, decision dated: 10-06-2002, hearing DATE : 28-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawahar A. Naqvi for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS WAQAS ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (CUSTOMS), DRY PORT SIALKOT AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 760 = 2002 SLD 760 = 2002 PTD 2980 = (2002) 86 TAX 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDST0", + "Key Words:": ": Forfeiture of Earnest Money and Inferior Quality Goods\n•\nIssue: Forfeiture of earnest money due to delayed payment and sale of substandard goods.\n•\nFacts: The successful bidder failed to deposit the balance amount within the due date, resulting in forfeiture of the earnest money. Additionally, inferior quality black tea found unfit for consumption was disposed of without considering public health.\n•\nRuling: Forfeiture was justified under Auction Rules, which do not allow relaxation. The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) recommended an inquiry into the sale of substandard goods, directing action against officers responsible for endangering public health.\n•\nPrinciple: Strict adherence to auction rules is mandatory; public health concerns require rigorous oversight by authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=224Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9Auction Rules, 1996=21,22", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1615-P of 2001, decision dated: 18-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SADEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Sayed Javaid Husain Shah for the Complainant.\nDr. Sadiqullah Khan, D.C. Customs for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. SAYED JAVAID HUSSAIN SHAH\nVS\n SECETARY, REVENUE DIVISION; ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 761 = 2002 SLD 761 = 2002 PTD 3053", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of Principal and Agent\n•\nIssue: Determining the liability of agents for false declarations under the Customs Act.\n•\nFacts: Customs alleged an agent and importer committed misdeclaration, issuing a show-cause notice. The agent contended that the specific act constituting the alleged violation was not mentioned.\n•\nRuling: Without specific evidence or proper notice, charges under S.32 were invalid. The penalty imposed on the agent was remitted.\n•\nPrinciple: Liability of agents requires specific evidence linking them to violations. Due process must be followed in show-cause notices.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal No. K-1899 of 2001, decision dated: 24-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar M. Younus for Appellant.\nFarhan, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 762 = 2002 SLD 762 = 2002 PTD 3077 = 2003 PTCL 180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": ": Import Valuation Disputes\n•\nIssue: Post-import scrutiny revealed alleged under-declaration of value for microwave ovens.\n•\nFacts: Customs discarded the declared value based on a prior transaction, imposing penalties and additional duty. The importer claimed negotiated lower prices due to bulk purchase.\n•\nRuling: The transactional value could not be rejected without concrete evidence of fraud. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, emphasizing adherence to GATT valuation principles.\n•\nPrinciple: Import valuation must rely on verifiable evidence, and transactional value cannot be discarded arbitrarily.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25(1),25(5),16,32(3),156,156(1),Cl.9,14", + "Case #": "Appeal No.K-861 of 2001, decision dated: 8-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SULTAN AHMED SIDDIQUI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DAWLANCE (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), KARACHII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 763 = 2002 SLD 763 = 2002 PTD 3083 = 2003 PTCL 627", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggling and Vehicle Confiscation\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of a vehicle based on allegations of smuggling due to tampered chassis numbers.\n•\nFacts: Customs seized a vehicle with a tampered chassis, alleging it was smuggled. The owner provided verified registration documents.\n•\nRuling: Lack of evidence linking the vehicle to smuggling rendered the confiscation invalid. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.\n•\nPrinciple: Confiscation requires substantial evidence proving smuggling. Verified registration documents must be given due consideration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2(s),9,10,156(1),156(8),156(9)", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 146 of 1998, decision dated: 24-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SULTAN AHMED SIDDIQUI, MEMBER, JUDICIAL\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Munir Bajwa for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALI AHMED KHAN\nVS\n COLLECTOROF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 764 = 2002 SLD 764 = 2002 PTD 3087 = (2002) 86 TAX 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment in Bill of Entry\n•\nIssue: Rejection of an application for amending the bill of entry without a hearing.\n•\nFacts: The importer sought to reclassify goods under a lower-duty code based on a Supreme Court ruling. Customs rejected the application ex parte.\n•\nRuling: The FTO recommended a fresh hearing and directed the refund of any excess duties if warranted.\n•\nPrinciple: Importers must be given a fair hearing, and classification disputes require careful review of evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=205Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complainant No.C-1781-K of 2001, decision dated: 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE RETIRED SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Awan and Saeed Mustafa Mirza, Law Officer for the Complainant.\nAshhad Jawwad, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NADEEM TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 765 = 2002 SLD 765 = 2002 PTCL 481 = 2003 PTD 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs vs. Criminal Jurisdiction\n•\nIssue: Whether customs officials at a port can detain goods destined for inland dry ports.\n•\nFacts: Customs officials at Karachi detained goods meant for transshipment, initiating proceedings for alleged contraventions.\n•\nRuling: The High Court ruled that such actions exceeded the jurisdiction of Karachi customs. Goods were to be resealed and sent to the designated dry ports for further action.\n•\nPrinciple: Jurisdictional boundaries must be respected in customs operations, ensuring procedural compliance.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=185", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 2559 of 2000, 577, 1034 and 596 of 2002, heard on 1st October, 2002. dates of hearing: 18th September and 1st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEHULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar and Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellants.\nS. Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel, Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Nadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Dy. A.G. for the Custom Officials. Jawaid Farooqui for the K.P.T", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS N. B. TRADING COMPANY, SAMBERIAL (SIALKOT) AND OTHERS \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 766 = 2002 SLD 766 = 2002 PTCL 371 = 2003 PTD 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Regulatory Duty\n•\nIssue: Exemption of spares under a special order for PTA plant machinery.\n•\nFacts: Customs denied exemption, arguing that it applied only to spare parts. The importer contended the exemption covered all sanctioned goods.\n•\nRuling: The Tribunal upheld the exemption, stating the language of the special order clearly allowed it for all sanctioned machinery and spares.\n•\nPrinciple: Exemptions under special orders must be interpreted in line with their explicit language.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Appeal No.K-103 of 2000, decision dated: 15-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SAJID HUSAIN MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan for Appellant.\nQamar-ud-Din Sameejo, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 428 = 2003 SLD 428 = 2003 PTD 60", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": ": Confiscation of Gold Near Border\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of gold alleged to be smuggled to India.\n•\nFacts: Gold seized near the Indian border was claimed to be smuggled. The appellant failed to provide a valid explanation for possession.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld the confiscation, as concurrent findings from lower forums established smuggling.\n•\nPrinciple: Possession of significant quantities of valuable goods near borders without valid documentation raises a presumption of smuggling", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.5 of 1997, heard on 1st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irfan Masood Sheikh for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHRAF\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 429 = 2003 SLD 429 = 2003 PTD 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": ": Extension of Time by Tribunal\n•\nIssue: Application for extension of time dismissed by the Tribunal.\n•\nFacts: A party sought an extension for compliance with a Tribunal order. The Tribunal dismissed the application without addressing its merits.\n•\nRuling: The High Court ruled that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain time-extension applications, directing reconsideration.\n•\nPrinciple: Judicial forums must exercise discretion to grant extensions when justice demands it.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 367 of 2002, heard on 5-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Atta Bandial for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Revenue alongwith Lutaf Ullah Virk, Collector Customs for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAHANGIR KHAN TAREEN\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 430 = 2003 SLD 430 = 2003 PTD 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation Advice and Notification Compliance\n•\nIssue: Dispute over the applicability of valuation advice issued after establishing Letters of Credit (LCs).\n•\nFacts: The importer challenged the valuation advice, arguing it was issued post-LC and lacked statutory notification.\n•\nRuling: The High Court dismissed the appeal, as the issue was not raised before the Tribunal and thus could not be addressed.\n•\nPrinciple: Appeals must be confined to issues explicitly raised and ruled upon in prior proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 129 of 1998, heard on 4-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nKhan Muhammad Virk for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RABEELS, 209/2ND FLOOR ZULQURNAIN CHAMBER, GANPAT ROAD, LAHORE \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, MUGHALPURA, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 431 = 2003 SLD 431 = 2003 PTD 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Valuation of Imported Goods\n•\nIssue: Arbitrary increase in the declared value of imported goods by 150%.\n•\nFacts: Customs Authorities increased the declared value based on market inquiry without sequentially applying valuation methods under S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969. The importer was not given an opportunity to respond to the valuation dispute.\n•\nRuling: The Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) held that the valuation was arbitrary, lacking evidence and procedural fairness. Customs Authorities were directed to re-examine the valuation, consult the importer, and verify prices through thorough market inquiries and embassy confirmations.\n•\nPrinciple: Valuation disputes must follow the prescribed methods under the Customs Act and provide procedural fairness to importers.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-236-K of 2002, decision dated: 14-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mahmood Alam for the Complainant.\nAshir Azeem, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ASIA TRADE AGENCIES, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 432 = 2003 SLD 432 = 2003 PTD 199 = 2002 PTCL 376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Export of Counterfeit Antiquities\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of goods alleged to be counterfeit Gandhara sculptures.\n•\nFacts: Customs confiscated the goods under the Antiquities Act, claiming they were counterfeit antiquities. The exporter argued the goods were modern reproductions and not antiques.\n•\nRuling: The Tribunal found the goods were not antiques under the Antiquities Act as they lacked ancientness. There was no evidence of deception or intent to defraud. The confiscation was deemed illegal.\n•\nPrinciple: Goods must meet the statutory definition of antiquities to be subject to restrictions under the Antiquities Act.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=15,16,194AAntiquities Act, 1976=24,26", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1 of 2001, decision dated: 18-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SAJID HUSSAIN MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Siraj-ul-Haq for Appellant.\nAijaz for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 433 = 2003 SLD 433 = 2003 PTD 213 = (2003) 88 TAX 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation and Assessment Rules\n•\nIssue: Non-compliance with notified customs valuation rules.\n•\nFacts: Customs Authorities ignored notified valuation rules and relied on arbitrary valuation methods. The importer sought a refund based on notified prices.\n•\nRuling: The FTO rejected the Revenue Division's argument against its own rules, emphasizing that valuation must comply with notified procedures. Arbitrary actions by field officers were criticized as patent illegality.\n•\nPrinciple: Customs valuation must strictly adhere to notified rules and regulations, ensuring transparency and fairness.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25BInspection, Valuation and Assessment of Imported Goods Rules, 1996=8(2)", + "Case #": "Review Application No. 28 of 2002 in Complaint No.C-1743 of 2001, decision dated: 26-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shabbir Ahmad Project Manager.\nMuhammad Irfan Sarfraz, Deputy Collector of Customs.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SPECIALITY PRINTERS (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 434 = 2003 SLD 434 = 2003 PTD 220 = 2002 PTCL 388", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Duty Post-Exemption Notification\n•\nIssue: Denial of duty refund on computer parts despite retrospective exemption.\n•\nFacts: Computer parts charged duty under an earlier notification were later exempted through a subsequent notification. The importer sought a refund based on the exemption.\n•\nRuling: The Tribunal ruled that the exemption applied retroactively, entitling the importer to a refund. The earlier omission of the exemption was overridden by the Finance Act, 1998.\n•\nPrinciple: Subsequent exemptions with retrospective applicability must be honored, ensuring fair treatment to importers.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,33,194A", + "Case #": "Appeal No.453/LB of 1999, decision dated: 4-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL),\nMIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Hussain Qureshi for Appellant.\nSaqib Nazir Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 435 = 2003 SLD 435 = 2003 PTD 293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Goods\n•\nIssue: Allegations of misdeclaration for incorrect PCT heading.\n•\nFacts: Customs accused the importer of misdeclaration based on an incorrect PCT heading, despite accurate declarations of weight, description, and value.\n•\nRuling: The Tribunal found no intent to deceive, emphasizing that misdeclaration must relate to material particulars. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.\n•\nPrinciple: Misdeclaration charges require evidence of intent and material misstatement affecting the assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.K-1489 and K-743 of 2001, decision dated: 8-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID A. SHAIKH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan for Appellant.\nMuhammad Farooq, Law Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 436 = 2003 SLD 436 = 2003 PTD 296 = (2003) 88 TAX 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Mode of Tax Collection\n•\nIssue: Cellular company challenged the imposition of tax collection responsibility under an exemption notification.\n•\nFacts: A notification exempted customs duty and sales tax at the import stage but shifted the tax collection to cellular companies at activation. The complainant argued this was unlawful.\n•\nRuling: The FTO upheld the notification, stating it was within the government’s authority to impose conditions for exemptions. No illegality was found.\n•\nPrinciple: Exemption notifications may impose conditions, including shifting tax collection responsibilities, provided they comply with the law.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(3A)(6),(8)(1)(b),13(2)(9),71", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 259 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd July, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ayaz Shoukat Asif Saeed Khan and Mumtaz Ali for the Complainant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN MOBILE COMMUNICATION, ISLAMABAD \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 767 = 2002 SLD 767 = 2003 PTD 329", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Payment of Duty Drawback\n•\nIssue: Delay in processing duty drawback claims.\n•\nFacts: Duty drawback claims from 1995, 1997, and 1999 were unpaid until 2002, with no response to the complainant's follow-ups. Payments were made only after the complaint.\n•\nRuling: The FTO found gross maladministration, recommending disciplinary action against responsible officials and system improvements for claim processing.\n•\nPrinciple: Timely processing of duty drawbacks is essential to avoid maladministration and uphold taxpayer rights.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=21Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-155/K of 2002, decision dated: 29-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Dealing Officer.\nKausar Ansari, Manager. M. Amir Thahim, Assistant Collector of Customs (Exports)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNITED IMPEX, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 437 = 2003 SLD 437 = 2003 PTD 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Delegated Legislation\n•\nIssue: Applicability of exemption based on Economic Coordination Committee decisions.\n•\nFacts: The exemption, issued through an office order rather than a formal notification, was challenged as lacking legal authority.\n•\nRuling: The Supreme Court granted leave to re-examine whether such orders could substitute for notifications under the Customs Act.\n•\nPrinciple: Exemptions must be formally issued under statutory authority to ensure legal enforceability", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1210 to 1216 of 1997, decision dated: 16-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nKHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmed Khan, AdvocateinRecord for Petitioners (in all Petitions).\nWasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M. S.Khattak, Advocate-on-Record and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in all Petitions)", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS SAIF TEXTILE MILLS LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 438 = 2003 SLD 438 = 2003 PTD 409", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Cancellation of Import License and Jurisdiction of Civil Court\n•\nIssue: Cancellation of importer’s license and imposition of penalties based on alleged misdeclaration.\n•\nFacts: Customs accused the importer of misdeclaration without substantive evidence, canceling the license and imposing penalties.\n•\nRuling: The Court ruled the customs actions were without jurisdiction as the statutory prerequisites for issuing a show-cause notice under S.32 were not met. The importer’s license was ordered to be restored.\n•\nPrinciple: Jurisdictional conditions under S.32 must be strictly satisfied, and civil courts can intervene in cases of jurisdictional overreach.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Suit No. 706 of 2002, decision dated: 25-11-2002, hearing DATE : 23rd October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Navin Merchant for Petitioner.\nSyed Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAMAN DIPLOMATIC BONDED WAREHOUSE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN THROUGH ITS MANAGER AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, KARACHI \nVS \n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 439 = 2003 SLD 439 = 2003 PTD 442", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Payment of Duty Drawback Claims\n•\nIssue: Delayed or misdirected duty drawback payments and maladministration in customs processing.\n•\nFacts: Claims remained unresolved for 2–8 years, with some sanctioned payments deposited into another firm's account. Prompt actions followed only after the complainant approached the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO).\n•\nRuling: FTO identified maladministration, recommending an inquiry to determine accountability and systemic improvements in processing drawback claims.\n•\nPrinciple: Administrative failures in customs processes that lead to undue delays or errors in drawback payments constitute maladministration.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=41", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-194-K of 2002, decision dated: 30-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kausar Ansari, Manager. M. Amir Thahim, Assistant Collector of Customs.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ANSA TRADERS, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 440 = 2003 SLD 440 = 2003 PTD 451 = (2002) 86 TAX 396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Duty Refund on Re-Exported Goods\n•\nIssue: Refund of customs duty and release of bank guarantees for re-exported defective goods.\n•\nFacts: Imported goods were re-exported, and replacements were imported, but from a different port. Customs refused refunds citing procedural issues.\n•\nRuling: The FTO directed the refund of duties and release of guarantees, finding no justification for requiring a consumption certificate when re-export was allowed by customs.\n•\nPrinciple: Refunds on re-exported goods cannot be denied due to procedural deviations when the essential conditions of re-export are fulfilled.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=37(d)General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=24AFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1568-K of 2001 (C-10-K of 2001), decision dated: 30-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SNLEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for the Complainant.\nJawed Iqbal, Assistant Collector of Customs, Port Qasim.\nAbdul Majid, Principal Appraiser.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CYNAMID PAKISTAN LTD \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 441 = 2003 SLD 441 = 2003 PTD 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Fine in Lieu of Confiscation\n•\nIssue: Release of confiscated goods upon payment of fines.\n•\nFacts: Tribunal allowed release of goods confiscated for policy violations upon payment of fines, contrary to the applicable SRO.\n•\nRuling: High Court upheld the confiscation, ruling that tribunals cannot contradict explicit policy directions under SROs.\n•\nPrinciple: Tribunals must adhere to policy directions issued under statutory authority and cannot grant relief contrary to such policies.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.228 of 2002, decision dated: 24-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Hasan Minto with Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for the Revenue", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TAQIUR REHMAN, FAISALABAD \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS (IMPORT), DRY PORT, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 442 = 2003 SLD 442 = 2003 PTD 489 = (2003) 87 TAX 270", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Photostat Machines as Baggage\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of photostat machines declared as baggage.\n•\nFacts: Machines were confiscated as they were deemed office equipment and not household or professional goods as allowed under baggage rules.\n•\nRuling: FTO recommended release upon duty payment, criticizing outdated customs orders conflicting with liberalized import policies.\n•\nPrinciple: Customs rules should align with modernized policies, ensuring clarity and fairness in the treatment of personal imports", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=13(b)Baggage Rules, 1985=10(13)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-497/K of 2002, decision dated: 26th August; 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR ALI THROUGH SAKHAWAT ALI GULBAHAR, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 443 = 2003 SLD 443 = 2003 PTD 505 = 2003 SCMR 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Rule-Making Power of CBR\n•\nIssue: Validity of a rule restricting exports by land route.\n•\nFacts: Sub-rule (6) of Rule 15 of Manufacturing In-Bond Rules, 1997, restricted land-route exports, conflicting with federal government policies.\n•\nRuling: Supreme Court held the rule ultra vires, as CBR exceeded its statutory authority.\n•\nPrinciple: Statutory rules must remain within the scope of enabling legislation and cannot override federal government policies.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=219Sales Tax Act, 1990=50General Clauses (Amendment) Act, 1997=15(6)Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=37", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 to 1179 of 2001, decision dated: 24-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Javed, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 5 OTHERS \nVS\n ARYAN PETRO CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 444 = 2003 SLD 444 = 2003 PTD 552", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJpND0", + "Key Words:": ": Applicability of S.32 in Loss of Revenue\n•\nIssue: Misdeclaration of imported goods' fitness for human consumption.\n•\nFacts: Conflicting reports about the fitness of imported RBD Palm Oil led to confiscation. Importers argued the goods could be made fit after treatment.\n•\nRuling: High Court allowed the release of goods under strict conditions, emphasizing the importance of reconciling conflicting statutory provisions.\n•\nPrinciple: Misdeclaration must result in revenue loss for S.32 to apply, and statutory provisions must be interpreted harmoniously.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeals Nos. 78, 107, 111, 113, 81, 105, 125, 127, 119, 121, 123, 108, 110, 112, 79, 82, 106, 122, 124, 126, 117, 118, 120, 114, 115, 116, 109, 153, 156, 155 and 154 of 2002, heard on 17-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal alongwith Abdul Majeed, Principal Appraiser for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AL HAMD EDIBLE OIL (P) LTD. AND OTHERS\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 445 = 2003 SLD 445 = 2003 PTD 562", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Vehicles\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of vehicles due to alleged non-payment of duties.\n•\nFacts: Confiscation was challenged based on discrepancies in chemical reports and lack of evidence of unauthorized import.\n•\nRuling: High Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that appeals to the court should raise questions of law, not fact.\n•\nPrinciple: High Court jurisdiction in customs matters is limited to questions of law arising from tribunal decisions", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No.96 of 2001, decision dated: 21st November, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIDA RACHID, JUSTICE\nQAZI EHSANULLAH QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed M. Attiq Shah and Khalil Khan Khalil for Appellant.\nSyed Sardar Hussain for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR \nVS\n HILAL MUHAMMAD C/O MUHAMMAD ISMAIL DURRANI, CONSULTANT, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 446 = 2003 SLD 446 = 2003 PTD 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Release of Bank Guarantees\n•\nIssue: Encashment of bank guarantees despite timely compliance by the importer.\n•\nFacts: Delays in issuing consumption certificates caused late submissions, leading to unjustified encashment.\n•\nRuling: High Court directed the release of guarantees, highlighting the binding nature of CBR instructions.\n•\nPrinciple: Tax officials must comply with binding instructions to avoid undermining taxpayer confidence.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-2807 of 1993, decision dated: 13-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CIBAGEIGY (PAKISTAN) LTD. THROUGH MANAGER TREASURY AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, MAHMOOD RIAZ SIDDIQUI \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 447 = 2003 SLD 447 = 2003 PTD 575", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": ": Delayed Judgment\n•\nIssue: Excessive delay between arguments and judgment.\n•\nFacts: Appeal was decided after a prolonged delay post-hearing, violating natural justice.\n•\nRuling: High Court set aside the order and remanded the case for prompt decision.\n•\nPrinciple: Delayed judgments violate principles of natural justice and fair play.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2571 of 1990, heard on 16-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Jamal A. Sukhera for Petitioner.\nSh. Izharul Haq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PERVAIZ KASHANIAN\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMSAND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 448 = 2003 SLD 448 = 2003 PTD 675", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Quashing of Proceedings\n•\nIssue: High Court quashed proceedings based on weak prosecution evidence.\n•\nFacts: Principal accused was exonerated, and no direct evidence linked the co-accused to the offense.\n•\nRuling: Supreme Court upheld the quashing of proceedings, emphasizing the absence of credible evidence.\n•\nPrinciple: Prosecutions without substantive evidence amount to an abuse of judicial process.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 1995, decision dated: 3rd October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE\nKHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Deputy Advocate-General for Appellant.\nRana Muhammad Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.\nMunir Ahmad Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.\nImtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "VS\n KENNETH MARSHAL AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 768 = 2002 SLD 768 = 2002 PTCL 588 = 2003 PTD 707", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Redemption Fine\n•\nIssue: Time-barred refund claims for unlawfully imposed redemption fines.\n•\nFacts: Tribunal directed the refund despite expiration of the six-month limit, citing the illegality of the fine.\n•\nRuling: Tribunal emphasized that unlawful recoveries must be refunded irrespective of time limits.\n•\nPrinciple: Illegally imposed fines are refundable without reference to statutory time limits.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(895)CU/IB of 2000(PB), decision dated: 19-10-2002, hearing DATE : 2-07-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nS. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Noorul Ghani for Appellant.\nAl-Haj Gul, D.R. and Javed Iqbal, Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 449 = 2003 SLD 449 = 2003 PTD 791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding of Rebate\n•\nIssue: Encashment of bank guarantees and withholding of rebate without fraud determination.\n•\nFacts: Rebate was withheld based on allegations of fraud without conclusive findings.\n•\nRuling: FTO directed customs to resolve fraud allegations first before withholding rebates.\n•\nPrinciple: Rebates cannot be withheld based on unsubstantiated allegations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-914/K of 2002, decision dated: 26-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Awais for the Complainant.\nFeroze Junejo, Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports).\nAli Zaman Gardezi, Assistant Collector. \nAjaz Ahmad, Principal Appraiser.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 450 = 2003 SLD 450 = 2003 PTD 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Penalties Without Show-Cause\n•\nIssue: Penalty on clearing agents without proper show-cause notices.\n•\nFacts: Agents were penalized despite not being explicitly charged with violations.\n•\nRuling: FTO deemed the penalties arbitrary and recommended their remission.\n•\nPrinciple: Penalties must be preceded by specific charges and due process.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1000/K of 2002, decision dated: 26-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant for the Complainant.\nImtiaz Ahmed Sheikh, Deputy Collector (Appraisement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUHAMMADI CLEARING CORPORATION THROUGH NADEEM & CO., KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 451 = 2003 SLD 451 = 2003 PTD 873", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Passenger Baggage\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of shawls and foreign currency from a passenger.\n•\nFacts: Tribunal upheld confiscation, citing lack of proper documentation.\n•\nRuling: High Court maintained the tribunal's decision.\n•\nPrinciple: Proper documentation is crucial to avoid confiscation of personal goods.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=9", + "Case #": "Appeal No.K-288 of 2000; decided on 10-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SAJID HUSSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 452 = 2003 SLD 452 = 2003 PTD 878", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Valuation\n•\nIssue: Dispute over the valuation of goods provisionally assessed at a higher rate.\n•\nFacts: Tribunal upheld customs’ valuation due to lack of rebuttal evidence from the importer.\n•\nRuling: High Court affirmed the tribunal's findings, emphasizing the importer's burden of proof.\n•\nPrinciple: Importers must provide substantive evidence to challenge customs' valuations.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.392 of 2002, heard on 21st November, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawahar A. Naqvi for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RAVI AUTOS (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE\nVS\n CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCHIII, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 453 = 2003 SLD 453 = 2003 PTD 890", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Arbitrary Valuation\n•\nIssue: Tribunal arbitrarily fixed the value of imported goods without evidence.\n•\nFacts: Tribunal referred to invoices not on record and ignored declared values.\n•\nRuling: High Court set aside the tribunal’s valuation and accepted declared values.\n•\nPrinciple: Arbitrary valuations without evidence violate statutory valuation methods.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 271 of 2001, heard on 16-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noman Akram Raja for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IRFAN TAYYAB \nVS\n COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 454 = 2003 SLD 454 = 2003 PTD 902", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of Clearing Agent\n•\nIssue: Clearing agent penalized for unauthorized sale of goods post-clearance.\n•\nFacts: Agent argued lack of control over goods post-clearance.\n•\nRuling: Penalty was dismissed as no evidence linked the agent to the alleged fraud.\n•\nPrinciple: Clearing agents cannot be penalized for actions beyond their scope of responsibility.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. K-426 of 2000, decision dated: 19-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MS. YASMIN ABBASSEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)\nSAFDAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-III)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Afzal Awan for Appellant.\nSanaullah Abbasi, D.S. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 455 = 2003 SLD 455 = 2003 PTD 919", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Detention of Consignment\n•\nIssue: Interim detention of goods due to disputed regulatory duty.\n•\nFacts: FTO recommended release of goods against an undertaking by the complainant.\n•\nRuling: Consignment was released pending resolution of the dispute.\n•\nPrinciple: Interim measures should balance public interest and business continuity.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=202", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1080 of 2002, decision dated: 30-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Maqbool Islam for the Complainant.\nDr. Sadiqullah Khan, D.C. Customs, Peshawar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS M.B. DYES CHEMICAL & SILK INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD., SWABI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 456 = 2003 SLD 456 = 2003 PTD 946", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Removal of Machinery\n•\nIssue: Violation of SRO conditions for duty-free import of machinery.\n•\nFacts: Machinery was relocated without authorization, breaching import conditions.\n•\nRuling: High Court upheld penalties, citing clear violations of SRO conditions.\n•\nPrinciple: Importers must strictly adhere to SRO conditions to retain duty benefits.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 1 of 1999, decision dated: 16-10-2002. dates of hearing: 15th and 16-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Bashir Kayani for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNITED LEATHER TANNERY (PVT.) LTD. BHIMBER, AZAD KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE\nVS \n CUSTOMS, CENTRAL.EXCISE AND SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ISLAMABAD BENCH AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 457 = 2003 SLD 457 = 2003 PTD 960", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggled Vehicles\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of smuggled vehicles and liability of purchasers.\n•\nFacts: Vehicles were confiscated under explicit SRO provisions barring fine substitution.\n•\nRuling: High Court upheld confiscation, emphasizing adherence to SRO conditions.\n•\nPrinciple: Smuggled goods cannot be regularized contrary to explicit policy provisions.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos.333, 338 to 348, 351 to 354, 356 to 366, 419 to 421, 462, 420 to 442 and 444 to 476 of 2002, heard on 14-10-2002. dates of hearing: 3rd and 14-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad War Iqbal and A. Karim Malik for Appellants.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar, Sh. Zia-ud-Din Qamar, Mian Abdul Qadoos, Saqib Saleem and Ch. Sagheer Ahmad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE \nVS\n AZEEM AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 458 = 2003 SLD 458 = 2003 PTD 986", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Mobile Machinery\n•\nIssue: Determination of whether dump trucks used in cement manufacturing qualify for duty exemptions under S.R.O. 484(I)/92.\n•\nFacts: Dump trucks used for excavation and transportation of rocks to the factory were denied exemptions as plant and machinery. \n•\nRuling: The tribunal’s restrictive interpretation was overturned. The High Court held that mobile machinery like dump trucks qualifies as plant and machinery under S.R.O. 484(I)/92 when used in industrial processes.\n•\nPrinciple: Exemption notifications must be interpreted to support industrial growth, with installation including induction into industrial use", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 142 of 2002, decision dated: 1st January, 2003, hearing DATE : 26-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nAZIZULLAH A. MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Ikram Raja for Appellant.\nQazi Faez Isa for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH DEPUTY MANAGER MARKETING\nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, APPRAISEMENT GROUPVII, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 459 = 2003 SLD 459 = 2003 PTD 1037 = (2003) 88 TAX 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Goods' Value\n•\nIssue: Dispute over the valuation of imported goods where provisional assessments were directed by the High Court.\n•\nFacts: The appellant claimed that 14 bills of entries showing a decline in prices were ignored during final valuation.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld the tribunal's decision, finding that provisional assessments directed by the High Court were not binding for final adjudications.\n•\nPrinciple: Provisional assessments do not preclude independent adjudication of goods' value based on market evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos. 430 to 450 of 2002, heard on 23rd October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Zia Ullah for Appellants.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FLYING BOARD AND PAPER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE THROUGH MANAGER \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS DRYPORT, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 460 = 2003 SLD 460 = 2003 PTD 1047", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Short-Levy Notices\n•\nIssue: Bar of limitation on a short-levy notice under S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nFacts: Customs issued a show-cause notice for short-levied duties, but it was based on departmental errors rather than importer misstatements.\n•\nRuling: The High Court held the notice time-barred under S.32(3), as it was issued 15 months after the relevant date.\n•\nPrinciple: Short-levy notices based on departmental errors must adhere to statutory time limits, or they are invalid.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "C. P. No. D-1239 of 1992, decision dated: 11-11-2002, hearing DATE : 13-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zamir-ud-Din Ahmed for Petitioner.\nJawaid Farooqui for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.\nS. Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ROSE COLOUR LABORATORIES NAYAB NO. 1 (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n CHAIRMAN, C.B.R. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 461 = 2003 SLD 461 = 2003 PTD 1144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Exhaustion of Remedies\n•\nIssue: Whether a High Court can entertain constitutional petitions against assessment orders without exhausting statutory remedies.\n•\nFacts: Petitioner challenged duty assessments without availing appellate remedies.\n•\nRuling: The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that statutory remedies must be exhausted first.\n•\nPrinciple: Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1979-L of 1999, decision dated: 28-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JUSTICE\nQAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Allah Yar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. WALAYAT BEGUM\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 462 = 2003 SLD 462 = 2003 PTD 1251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Issuance of Show-Cause Notices\n•\nIssue: Levy of duty without a proper show-cause notice.\n•\nFacts: Appellant claimed the lack of a notice under S.32(2) rendered the levy unlawful.\n•\nRuling: The High Court deemed the objection technical and upheld the levy, noting the issue had not been raised earlier.\n•\nPrinciple: Procedural lapses like non-issuance of notices are inconsequential if not raised timely and if substantive rights are unaffected.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 187 of 2002, heard on 21st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzada Mazhar for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS COOL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., HANJARWAL THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED COMMERCIAL MANAGER\nVS \n CENTRAL EXCISE, SALES TAX AND CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 463 = 2003 SLD 463 = 2003 PTD 1254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Duty Exemption for Palm Kernel Oil\n•\nIssue: Entitlement to duty exemptions under PCT headings for imported RBD Palm Kernel Oil.\n•\nFacts: Customs classified the oil as others, denying exemptions for crude oil.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld the exemption, noting no misdeclaration by the importer and consistency with previous tribunal rulings.\n•\nPrinciple: Exemptions are to be granted where the classification matches the terms of the exemption notification.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeal No.67 of 1998, decision dated: 1st July, 2002.hearing DATE : 27-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Navin S. Merchant for Appellant.\nJaved Farooqui for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS COLGATE PALMOLIVE PAK. LTD. THROUGH ASSISTANT IMPORTS MANAGER \nVS\n AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 464 = 2003 SLD 464 = 2003 PTD 1267", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Promissory Estoppel in Tractor Imports\n•\nIssue: Duty exemption for tractors imported under the Awami Tractor Scheme.\n•\nFacts: Customs denied exemptions despite explicit representations in authorization letters.\n•\nRuling: High Court applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel to uphold the exemption, preventing undue hardship on the importer.\n•\nPrinciple: Government representations in tax matters create enforceable expectations under promissory estoppel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.207 of 2003, decision dated: 20-03-2003. dates of hearing: 18th, 19th and 20-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Noman Akram Raja for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MODerN CONTINENTAL BUSINESS (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\n COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 465 = 2003 SLD 465 = 2003 PTD 1316", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation and Assessment of Duties\n•\nIssue: Dispute over the assessment of imported goods' value at declared or market rates.\n•\nFacts: Importer challenged valuation at declared rates, arguing for ITP Commodity Codes.\n•\nRuling: The High Court upheld assessments based on declared transaction value, finding no evidence of lower prices.\n•\nPrinciple: Customs duties must align with transaction values unless evidence justifies deviation.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 428 of 2002, heard on 10-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. A. Basit and Irfan Qadir for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FLYING BOARD & PAPER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGER \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 466 = 2003 SLD 466 = 2003 PTD 1333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Reconciling Conflicting Import Provisions\n•\nIssue: Compatibility of provisions permitting and banning imports under the NRI Scheme.\n•\nFacts: Importer challenged the ban on prime movers under conflicting import rules.\n•\nRuling: The court clarified that the provisions operated in distinct spheres, permitting prime mover imports under the scheme.\n•\nPrinciple: Import policies must be harmonized to ensure logical application and avoid redundancy.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Import Policy Order, 1999-2000=156", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 144 of 2002, decision dated: 5-03-2003, hearing DATE : 31st January, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain for Appellant.\nCh. M. Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENT THROUGH ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT LAW), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI\nVS\n CUSTOMS, EXCISES AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCHII, KARACHI AND OTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 495 = 2004 SLD 495 = 2004 PTD 2543", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1),13(1)(aa),13(1)(ad),13(1)(b),58,132", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.4784/LB of 2002, dated 08/05/2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 467 = 2003 SLD 467 = 2003 PTD 1387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption for Agricultural Tyres\n•\nIssue: Denial of duty-free import of tyres due to typographical errors in customs descriptions.\n•\nFacts: Tyres were classified under a disputed heading caused by incorrect spelling in CBR documents.\n•\nRuling: High Court criticized the arbitrary denial and directed the release of guarantees, affirming the importers' eligibility for exemption.\n•\nPrinciple: Tax authorities must adopt assessee-friendly interpretations to foster compliance and reduce harassment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1002 of 1993, decision dated: 12-03-2003, hearing DATE : 5-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid Hameed Puri for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal and Sajjad Ali Shah, Standing, Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MERCURY GARMENT INDUSTRIES THROUGH PARTNER MUHAMMAD RAZI \nVS\n CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 468 = 2003 SLD 468 = 2003 PTD 1392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Special Law vs. Criminal Procedure Code\n•\nIssue: Procedure for arrest and investigation under special laws like Customs and Sales Tax Acts.\n•\nFacts: Dispute over the applicability of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to cases under special laws.\n•\nRuling:\no\nSection 5(2), CrPC: Cases under special laws follow their specific procedures, and CrPC applies only where the special law is silent.\no\nF.I.R. is not mandatory for arrest under special laws.\no\nOfficers under Customs and Sales Tax Acts can register and investigate offences without using the CrPC framework fully.\no\nNotifications like S.R.O. 388(I)/82 authorize officers to act under these laws.\n•\nPrinciple: Special laws prevail for procedures under their domain, with CrPC provisions applying only as a supplement.\n•\nPrecedents: Overruled PLD 1999 Lah. 18; reaffirmed principles from The State v. Hamtho (1971 SCMR 686).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=5", + "Case #": "Intra-Court Appeals Nos. 440, 439 of 1998, Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 188/Q of 2000, Writ Petitions Nos. 6741 to 6746, 927 and 928 of 2000, decision dated: 24-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nM. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik and Khan Muhammad Virk for Appellant.\nDr. A. Basit for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR, INVESTIGATION AND INTELLIGENCE, CUTSOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE\nVS \n MUHAMMAD NAWAZ AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 469 = 2003 SLD 469 = 2003 PTD 1489", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Corrigendum in Show-Cause Notices\n•\nIssue: Whether a corrigendum can create new liabilities or alter ongoing proceedings.\n•\nFacts: Customs issued a corrigendum to a show-cause notice, introducing new liabilities.\n•\nRuling:\no\nA corrigendum can correct material errors but cannot introduce new liabilities or parties.\no\nIssuing a corrigendum to expand the scope of proceedings violates principles of natural justice.\n•\nPrinciple: Corrections must ensure fairness and compliance with original procedural boundaries.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=180", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-15 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd February, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aleem Khan for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 470 = 2003 SLD 470 = 2003 PTD 1496", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Short-Levy Notices\n•\nIssue: Start of limitation period for short-levy notices.\n•\nFacts: Department issued short-levy notices after six months, claiming original assessments were provisional.\n•\nRuling:\no\nLimitation begins from final adjustments (S.80) if assessments were provisional.\no\nDepartment failed to prove assessments were provisional; thus, the notices were time-barred.\n•\nPrinciple: Burden of proof lies on the department to justify short-levy notices beyond limitation", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeals Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 1998, decision dated: 13-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. A. SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abul Khair for Appellants.\nRaja M. Iqbal and Khursheed A. Hashmi, D.-A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN PAPER PRODUCTS LTD.\nVS\n APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX & OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 471 = 2003 SLD 471 = 2003 PTD 1584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Old and Used Pipes\n•\nIssue: Proper valuation of old, used pipes for customs duty.\n•\nFacts: Tribunal valued goods at Rs.10,000 per metric ton, while Customs assessed them at Rs.17,000.\n•\nRuling:\no\nPhysical condition and market value must be considered for such goods.\no\nCustoms' valuation was upheld due to implied acceptance by the importer through payment.\n•\nPrinciple: Valuation disputes require evidentiary support, including physical examination and comparable data.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 139/LB of 1999, decision dated: 31st May, 2002, hearing DATE : 22-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran Tariq, D.R. for Appellant.\nKh. Ziaullah for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-ULMAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 472 = 2003 SLD 472 = 2003 PTD 1624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVmTFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Inedible Palm Oil\n•\nIssue: Whether palm oil not fit for consumption qualifies as edible oil for duty concessions.\n•\nFacts: Imported palm oil was deemed inedible without processing, leading to denial of concessions.\n•\nRuling:\no\nHigh Court’s classification of the oil as non-edible was upheld based on lab reports.\no\nNo concession applies to goods not meeting criteria at import.\n•\nPrinciple: Goods must meet stated conditions at import for eligibility under concession notifications", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No: 639-K of 2002, heard on 26-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUNIR A. SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shaiq Usmani, Advocate Supreme Court and K. A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nRaja M. Irshad, Dy. Attorney-General and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BATALA GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 473 = 2003 SLD 473 = 2003 PTD 1666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Weight Variations and Valuation Samples\n•\nIssue: Validity of drawing valuation samples and weight variations in export goods.\n•\nFacts: Customs detained goods and drew samples citing weight variations and valuation concerns.\n•\nRuling:\no\nDrawing samples for valuation must align with established rules (e.g., rebate thresholds).\no\nFederal Tax Ombudsman directed re-evaluation and prohibited contravention cases without proper adherence to rules.\n•\nPrinciple: Departmental actions must comply with procedural rules, ensuring fairness and preventing undue hardship.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1386/L of 2002, decision dated: 20th March. 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmad Mirza for the Complainant.\nFeroze A Junejo, D.C., Customs. (Export), Karachi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KHURRAM INTERNATIONAL, LAHORE \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 474 = 2003 SLD 474 = 2003 PTD 1683", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Surcharge and Maladministration\nDetails: A refund claim was filed, alleging that a surcharge of 10% was levied instead of the correct rate of 5%. The claim remained undecided for over 10 years. The Customs Department failed to confirm whether the case had been processed, accepted, or rejected.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman held this delay to be a case of maladministration. The Customs Authority was directed to reconstruct the case file with the complainant's assistance, decide the refund claim on its merits without further delay, and conduct an inquiry to identify and hold accountable those responsible for the delay.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss. 33 & 30); Finance Ordinance, 1982; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.9).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 10-L of 2003, decision dated: 20-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam for the Complainant.\nZulfiqar Ali Chaudhry, DC (Customs), Lahore for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALHABIB NYLON CORPORATION, LAHORE \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 475 = 2003 SLD 475 = 2003 PTD 1739", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman & Fraudulent Car Seizure Case\nDetails (a): The Federal Tax Ombudsman lacked jurisdiction over complaints regarding the Provincial Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab. The complainant was advised to approach relevant provincial authorities.\nHeld (a): No directions could be given to Provincial Excise Authorities.\nCitations (a): Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.9).\nDetails (b): A complainant purchased a car after verifying customs duties and taxes with the Customs Authority. Subsequent reports revealed forged documents, leading to threats of registration cancellation and seizure. Evidence suggested a coordinated fraudulent scheme involving multiple parties, including Customs staff.\nHeld (b): Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a thorough investigation into the fraud and directed that the complainant retain possession of the car on the condition of a security deposit until the investigation concluded.\nCitations (b): Customs Act, 1969 (S.168); Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.2(3)).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 709/1, of 2002, decision dated: 16-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Ahmad Malik for the. Complainant.\nAzhar Hussain Merchant, A.C. Appraisement-for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IFTIKHAR AHMAD MALIK \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 476 = 2003 SLD 476 = 2003 PTD 1777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Value of Imported Goods and Customs Duty Calculation\nDetails: A dispute arose over whether the value of imported goods should be based on the Import Trade Price at the time of filing the In-Bond Bill of Entry or the transaction value under amended provisions of S.25 of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The applicable rate was determined as per S.30 of the Act on the date of consignment removal from the bond, applying the amended transaction value provisions.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss. 25 & 30).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9520 of 2002,.decided on 22-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Ejaz Hotiana for Petitioner.\nK.M. Virk for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAHORE POLYPROPYLENE\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 477 = 2003 SLD 477 = 2003 PTD 1791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Bonded Warehouse Goods Mismanagement\nDetails: Goods stored in a bonded warehouse were removed without payment of duties, violating legal provisions. Replaced goods did not match descriptions in the original bill of entry.\nHeld: Customs Authorities were directed to charge duties based on the higher rate between in-bonding and ex-bonding dates and impose penalties equal to five times the duty for deficiencies. Appeals were allowed.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss. 30 & 156(57)).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos. 188 to 195 and 213 to 220 of 2001, decision dated: 14-04-2003, hearing DATE : 20-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nM. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHARWANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khan Muhammad Virk for Appellant.\nIrfan Gadir and Ziaullah Khawaja for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVS\n ZAMAN PAPER BOARD MILLS LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "7389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 478 = 2003 SLD 478 = 2003 PTD 1837", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction on Goods in Transshipment and Unauthorized Desealing\nDetails: Goods imported for transshipment were recovered from unauthorized locations, raising questions of jurisdiction at the port of entry.\nHeld: Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to examine the Customs Authorities' jurisdiction.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss. 2(s), 16, 32, 156(1)(8)(77), 157(2), 171 & 179); Famous Corporation v. Collector of Customs 1989 MLD 2342; M. Hameedullah Khan v. Director of Customs Intelligence 1992 CLC 57; Shaffi Shahid v. Director, Intelligence and Investigation; Messrs Baba Khan v. Collector of Customs, Quetta 2000 SCMR 678.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 1046-K, 1047-K, 1048-K, 1049-K and 2044 of 2002, decision dated: 23rd January, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSYED DEEDDR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C. P.$ Nos. 1046 to 1049 of 2002).\nKhalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 2014 of 2002).\nKhalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C.Ps. Nos. 1046 to 1048 of 2002).\nMuhammad Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 1049 of 2002).\nAkhtar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in C.P. No. 2044 of 2002).", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE AND OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS APEX INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, FAISALABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 479 = 2003 SLD 479 = 2003 PTCL 589 = 2003 PTD 1857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Appointment and Powers of Customs Officers\nDetails (a): Officers of Customs under S.3 of the Customs Act include specified roles such as Collectors, Inspectors, and others. Their functions must be explicitly assigned.\nHeld (a): Only those explicitly assigned duties under relevant provisions are appropriate officers. \nCitations (a): Customs Act, 1969 (S.3).\nDetails (b): Officers of Intelligence & Investigation require specific assignments to exercise customs-related functions.\nHeld (b): Their acts as Customs Officers without proper authorization are invalid.\nCitations (b): Customs Act, 1969 (Ss. 3, 4 & 6).\nDetails (c): Examiners of Intelligence & Investigation lacked the status of appropriate or authorized Customs Officers.\nHeld (c): Acts performed by such officers were void and of no legal effect.\nCitations (c): Customs Act, 1969 (Ss. 2(b), 3, 4 & 6).\nDetails (d): Punishment for certain offenses under the Customs Act can only be invoked by the Special Judge, not departmental officers.\nHeld (d): Departmental actions were invalid.\nCitations (d): Customs Act, 1969 (S.156(1), Cl. (82)).\nDetails (e): Safe Transportation Scheme violations were alleged without substantive proof of breach.\nHeld (e): Investigations lacked rigor and failed to establish the allegations. Appeals were allowed.\nCitations (e): Customs Act, 1969 (Various sections); Crescent Textile Mills Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue NLR 1982 Tax-I; State v. Muhammad Nawaz Criminal Appeals Nos. 103 to 107 of 1994.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=3", + "Case #": "Appeals Cases Nos. Cus. A-190/Transfer/PB of 2002 to Cus. A-199/Transfer/PB of 2002, 679/Transfer/PB/2002 to 688 and Cus. A-689/ Transfer/PB/2002 to 698, decision dated: 17-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nS.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER. (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Issac Ali Qazi on behalf of Appellant No. 1 (in 10 Appeals Cases Nos. Cus. A-190/Transfer/PB. to Cus. A-199/Transfer/PB of 2002).\nAnwar Shah on behalf of Appellants Nos.2 and 3 in Appeals Cases Nos. 679/Transfer/PB to 688 of 2002 and Appeals Cases Nos. Cus. A-689/Transfer/PB to 698 of 2002).\nMoeen Sethi, M.D. for Appeal No. 1 (in Appeals Cases Nos. Cus. A-190/Transfer/PB of 2002 to Cus. A-199/Transfer/PB of 2002).\nPir Alam Shah, D.R.; Al-Haj Gul, D.R.; Azam Khan, D.S. (Godoon); Muhammad Naeem, E.O., Muhammad Zaman, D.S., Abdul Latif, I.O., Rana Zahid Hussain, Ex-Examiner, Shabih Haider, I.O. and Zaman, Inspector from Gadoon Customs for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 480 = 2003 SLD 480 = 2003 PTD 1879", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Release of goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation\nDetails:\nUnder the Customs Act, 1969, provisions for the release of goods upon payment of a fine in lieu of confiscation were considered. The Tribunal accepted the appeal on such grounds on July 1, 2002. The Revenue argued that the appeal was not competent as the order pertained to goods not imported or exported as baggage. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the jurisdictional question was not raised before the Tribunal. The first proviso to Section 194-A(1)(a) of the Customs Act had been deleted effective July 1, 2002, by the Finance Ordinance, 2002.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the appeal.\nCitations: Collector of Customs, Customs House, Nabha Road, Lahore v. Abdul Majeed (2001 CLC 1461).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.406 of 2002, decision dated: 9-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azeem for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER\nVS\n MUHAMMAD ASHRAF AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 481 = 2003 SLD 481 = 2003 PTD 1928", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Violation of S.R.O. 279(I)/94 and denial of hearing\nDetails:\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on the grounds that the petitioner alleged being condemned unheard by the High Court. Issues included whether the petitioner could be proceeded against for violating S.R.O. 279(I)/94 after submitting a certificate of installation and whether the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the alleged offense.\nHeld: Leave to appeal was granted for examining these issues.\nCitations: N/A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1185-L of 2000, decision dated: 2-07-2002, hearing DATE : 2-08-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nTANVIR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sayed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nSh. Izhar-al-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HABIB RAFIQUE\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 482 = 2003 SLD 482 = 2003 PTD 1930", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of service charge under Section 18-B of Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\nA service charge levied under Section 18-B for pre-shipment inspection was challenged. It was argued that the service charge was not a fee as it did not benefit payees nor facilitate government expenses for their benefit. With modern technological advancements, the need for such a levy was questioned.\nHeld: The service charge was deemed ultra vires of the powers of the Federal Legislature. The appeal was allowed, and the order imposing the charge was set aside.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.K-3 of 2002, decision dated: 17-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MS. YASMIN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Afzal Awan for Appellant.\nIslam Jan, Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 483 = 2003 SLD 483 = 2003 PTD 2015", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of agents under Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\nGoods were confiscated due to discrepancies in weight between shipping documents and inspection findings. The penalty was imposed on the seller and its agent. The Tribunal reduced the penalty for the agent. The importer’s order had been routed through the agent, and the agent admitted to acting on behalf of the seller. The agent’s failure to verify the shipment’s compliance with import policies was highlighted.\nHeld: The High Court upheld concurrent findings against the agent, dismissing the appeal.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 209.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=209", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 337 of 2001, head on 27-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Custom Appeal No. 337 of 2001, head on 27th February, 2003\nAbdul Hafeez Lakho for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ARFEEN INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI THROUGH DIRECTOR(CHEMICAL) \nVS\n COLLECTOR CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) DRY PORT, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 882 = 2011 SLD 882 = 2011 SCMR 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Abuse of process through frivolous litigation and principles of justice\nDetails:\nThe court addressed the growing issue of repetitive and frivolous litigation after final adjudication. Principles emphasized the court’s duty to take stringent measures against obstinate litigants and their lawyers.\nHeld: The court highlighted its duty to curb false and frivolous litigation through early rejection under Order VII, Rule 11, of the Civil Procedure Code. Heavy costs could be imposed when necessary.\nCitations: Bashir Ahmed v. Abdul Hameed (1984 SCMR 689), Abdul Hayee v. Sardar Muhammad (1984 SCMR 1149).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 319 of 2009 in C.P.L.A. No.1540 of 2008, heard on 2-06-2009.(Against the judgment dated 20-11-2008 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta passed in R.F.A. No.51 of 2007)", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWEZ, SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nSAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nPER ZIA PERWEZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Afsar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIR SAHIB JAN \nVS\n JANAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 484 = 2003 SLD 484 = 2003 PTD 2030", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Transshipment rules and bonded carrier requirements\nDetails:\nPetitioners challenged the retrospective alteration of bonded carrier license terms under Customs Rules, 2001. Petitioners argued these requirements were harsh and oppressive. The government justified the conditions as necessary for ensuring efficient transshipment.\nHeld: High Court ruled the requirements were lawful and progressive. Bonded carriers had no vested right in license terms governed by statutory intent. The petition was dismissed.\nCitations: Customs Rules, 2001, Rules 326 & 328.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=326", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.3430, 3431 and 2332 of 2002, decision dated: 5-05-2003, hearing DATE : 10-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nFarhat Nawaz Lodhi for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EHSANUDDIN & COMPANY, LAHORE \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 883 = 2011 SLD 883 = 2011 SCMR 34", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Qatl-e-Amd and appraisal of evidence\nDetails:\nThe High Court altered the conviction of an accused from Section 302(b) to Section 302(c) of the Penal Code based on evidentiary discrepancies. Reasons included the absence of eyewitnesses at the time of the occurrence.\nHeld: The High Court’s decision to reduce the sentence from death to 14 years R.I. was upheld.\nCitations: Sattar Khan's case (1984 SCMR 678), Ghulam Qadir's case (1991 SCMR 61).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos. 207 and 208 of 2007, decision dated: 22-10-2009.", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE\nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE\nCH. IJAZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Criminal Application No. 207 of 2007).\nRaja Abdur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2007).", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUR REHMAN ALIAS BOOTA AND ANOTHER\nVS\n THE STATE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 485 = 2003 SLD 485 = 2003 PTD 2057", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of regulatory duty and encashment of lapsed bank guarantees\nDetails:\nHigh Court initially declared the imposition of regulatory duty as unlawful. Later, the Supreme Court upheld its legality. The Customs Authorities’ delay in recovering dues led to a challenge on the enforceability of lapsed guarantees.\nHeld: The bank guarantees remained enforceable. Customs officials were responsible for pursuing recovery efficiently. The complaint lacked merit and was rejected.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, SRO 1050(I)/95.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-97 of 2003, decision dated: 12-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riaz Hussain Naqvi, Consultant.\nAshhad Jawad, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement).", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 884 = 2011 SLD 884 = 2011 SCMR 38", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "Qatl-e-Amd and benefit under Section 382-B of Cr.P.C.\nDetails:\nAccused was denied the benefit of Section 382-B due to the barbaric nature of the offense. The High Court exercised its discretion judiciously to refuse leniency.\nHeld: The High Court’s decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.\nCitations: Ghulam Muhammad v. The State (2001 SCMR 1987).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.323 of 2004, decision dated: 18-08-2010.hearing DATE : 21st April, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nTARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Javed Aziz Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHIR ALIAS TIKO \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 486 = 2003 SLD 486 = 2003 PTD 2071", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court’s powers to remand cases\nDetails:\nThe High Court remanded a confiscation case to Customs Authorities for fresh adjudication, citing procedural errors by the Appellate Tribunal.\nHeld: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, refusing leave to appeal.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 196.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2339-L of 2002, decision dated: 11-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE\nKHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE\nFALAK SHER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Ashiq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nA. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS WORLD TRADERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR MUHAMMAD ALAM \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 487 = 2003 SLD 487 = 2003 PTD 2090", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Amendment of Bill of Entry and misdeclaration under Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\nCBR issued instructions under CGO 12 of 2002, allowing amendments to the Bill of Entry where importers opted for first appraisement. Conflicts arose with subordinate officers' instructions.\nHeld: CBR’s instructions under Section 219 of Customs Act were binding, and conflicting orders by subordinate officials were invalid.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 32 & 79.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2003, decision dated: 19-04-2003, hearing DATE : 28-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. A. SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Navin S. Merchant for Petitioner.\nSyed Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel assisted by Dr. Tariq Hudda, Additional Collector for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nWazir H. Rizvi for Respondent Nos.4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AKHTAR HUSSAIN THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 488 = 2003 SLD 488 = 2003 PTD 2105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 19 & 31-A---Concessionary notification allowing concession till a specific date---Withdrawal of notification before expiry date---Scope--­Discretion vested in Federal Government or revenue to grant concession and withdraw same cannot be equated---To allow concession is discretionary, while its abrupt and unilateral withdrawal is not so--­No one has a right to a concession---Concession once allowed for a specific time through a statute or statutory instrument can be withdrawn only in exceptional conditions, which are justiciable and open to judicial review---Mention of express date to dole out a concession does create a vested right in favour of person, who had acted upon promise so held out by Government or Revenue---Such notification cannot be withdrawn by Government or Revenue unilaterally at its whims in absence of compelling circumstances, which may include national interest, drastic changes in national economy or force majeure which could not be foreseen at time of granting concession--­Case for exercise of jurisdiction to withdraw a concession can certainly be made out, but not without explaining unforeseen events intervening before expiry of date of validity of concession---Principles illustrated.\n \nMessrs M.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt.) v. Government of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1404; Messrs Alhamd Textile Mills Ltd. v. Pakistan 2001 SCMR 556 and Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills v. WAPDA and others 1997 SCMR 641 ref.\n \n(b) Taxation---\n \n---- Assessee---Status---Assessee of revenue is not an adversary, who should always be under observation to be attacked whenever found negligent or lacking in tactic ---Assessee cannot be treated as an enemy, whose simplest fault should be exploited to the extreme to devastate him.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1998, decision dated: 22-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Nawaz Panni for Appellant.\nRaja Khalid Ismail Abbasi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INDUS PLASTIC INDUSTRY, RAWALPINDI \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, RAWALPINDI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 489 = 2003 SLD 489 = 2003 PTD 2118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAppeal and burden of proof in cases involving non-duty-paid vehicles.\n•\nDetails:\no\nUnder S.196 of the Customs Act, 1969, appeals to the High Court are confined to questions of law arising from the Appellate Tribunal's order under S.194-B.\no\nS.187 of the Act, read with Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, outlines the burden of proof in cases of non-duty-paid vehicles. The accused must establish a prima facie case of lawful possession, while the ultimate burden remains with Customs Authorities to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.\no\nA person in possession of a vehicle purchased from the original owner and registered under law prima facie discharges their evidential burden. The Customs Authorities failed to prove their case against the accused.\n•\nHeld: The burden under S.187 is evidential, requiring the accused to establish a prima facie case, whereas the ultimate legal burden rests on Customs. The accused benefited from doubt due to the prosecution's failure to provide conclusive evidence.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1973 Kar. 659; PLD 1980 Lah. 145; 1983 CLC 414; PLD 1990 SC 1051; Phipson on Evidence (14th Ed.).", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 3 of 2003, decision dated: 30-05-2003, hearing DATE : 7-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI, JUSTICE\nAKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "K. N. Kohli, D.A.G. for Appellant.\nRespondent in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOM HOUSE, QUETTA \nVS\n NAIMTULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 490 = 2003 SLD 490 = 2003 PTD 2127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction and maintainability of suits against Customs Tribunal decisions.\n•\nDetails:\no\nS.217(2) of the Customs Act bars civil suits against decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal. Civil Courts cannot assume appellate jurisdiction over matters addressed by the Tribunal.\no\nSpecial jurisdiction created under the Customs Act overrides general jurisdiction. Remedies against Tribunal orders must be sought through the appellate mechanisms under the Act.\n•\nHeld: Civil suits against Tribunal decisions are not maintainable. Jurisdiction must adhere to the hierarchy and appellate mechanisms prescribed in the Customs Act.\n•\nCitations: 1993 SCMR 29; PLD 1997 SC 334; Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Customs, 1999 SCMR 1881; others cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=217", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1746 of 1999, decision dated: 22-04-2003, hearing DATE : 9-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam for Plaintiffs.\nRaja M. Jrshad and S. Tariq Ali, Standing, Counsel for defendant No. 2.\nAkhter Hussain for Defendant No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DEWAN SCRAP (PVT.) LIMITED AND ANOTHER \nVS\n AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 491 = 2003 SLD 491 = 2003 PTD 2233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMisvaluation of imported goods.\n•\nDetails: Customs authorities enhanced the value of imported BOPP Film based solely on a photocopy of a computer printout without original documentation.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case for reevaluation with proper evidence.\n•\nCitations: S.R.O. 1374 (1)/98, dated 17-12-1998.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Appeal No. CA. 1538/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 492 = 2003 SLD 492 = 2003 PTD 2257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation and procedural fairness.\n•\nDetails:\no\nAppellants in judicial custody faced delays in filing an appeal due to procedural hurdles. The Tribunal condoned the delay.\no\nConfiscation orders were set aside due to non-service of hearing notices and the appellants being condemned unheard.\n•\nHeld: Delay was condoned, and the case was remanded for rehearing with proper evidence.\n•\nCitations: Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3 & 4.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.723/LB of 2001, decision dated: 2-05-2002, hearing DATE : 23rd April, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasoob Mufti for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 493 = 2003 SLD 493 = 2003 PTD 2264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLiability of agents under the Customs Act.\n•\nDetails:\no\nS.209 establishes the principal-agent relationship, holding principals responsible for agents' actions unless criminal misconduct by the agent is proven.\no\nThe agent was accused of collusion in fraudulent transactions without concrete evidence linking them to the crime.\n•\nHeld: Collusion was not proven. Procedural lapses by the agent did not constitute a criminal offense. The order against the agent was set aside.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1967 SC 1.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=209", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. 274 to 277/LB of 2000, decision dated: 27-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER, JUDICIAL\nZAFAR IQBAL MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sami Hayat for Appellant.\nM.B. Tahir, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 494 = 2003 SLD 494 = 2003 PTD 2280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of a vehicle on claims of non-duty-paid status.\n•\nDetails:\no\nChassis tampering allegations were unsupported by forensic evidence. Reports indicated the vehicle was locally assembled.\n•\nHeld: The confiscation was unsustainable, and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the lawful owner without conditions.\n•\nCitations: Forensic Science Laboratory report.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.933/LB of 2001, decision dated: 19-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Khan Babar for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. with Rahat Pirzada, D.S", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 495 = 2003 SLD 495 = 2003 PTD 2315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of foreign-origin cloth without proper examination.\n•\nDetails:\no\nThe adjudicating officer failed to examine the cloth through the Textile Engineering Institute, leaving the dispute about its origin unresolved.\n•\nHeld: The case was remanded for reexamination of the cloth’s origin and further proceedings according to law.\n•\nCitations: S.R.O. 1374(1)/98, dated 17-12-1998.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "C.A. No.95/LB of 2002, decision dated: 1st April, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawwad Mehmood for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 496 = 2003 SLD 496 = 2003 PTD 2353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMisdeclaration and confiscation of goods.\n•\nDetails:\no\nExcess weight detected in the consignment led to charges of false declaration. The accused admitted to discrepancies.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal upheld the charge of misdeclaration, confirming the confiscation of goods and associated penalties.\n•\nCitations: S.R.O. 1374(I)/98, dated 17-12-1998.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal No.C.A. 2312/LB of 2001, decision dated: 11-03-2002, hearing DATE : 4th February; 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana M. Arshad, for Appellant.\nM. Amjad Akhtar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 497 = 2003 SLD 497 = 2003 PTD 2374", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 17 & 156(1)(8)---Detention and confiscation of goods, imported in breach of section 15 or section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969--­Recovered car was confiscated---Ex parte decision on merits---No opportunity of being heard---Validity---Representative of the department himself suggested that since prima facie no opportunity of being heard was provided to the appellant, the order may be set aside for fresh decision according to law after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence which the parties may like to produce---Order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=17", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 1998/LB of 2001, decision dated: 24-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Suleman Ghazi for Appellant.\nImran Tariq D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 498 = 2003 SLD 498 = 2003 PTD 2381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 9(b)(c), 10 & 11---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Declaration of customs-ports, customs-airports, etc: ---Import of timber---Clearance of goods from a place and charging duties and taxes treating the said place as Customs House Station without notifying as required by S.9 of the Customs Act, 1969---Refund was claimed being illegal collection of such duties and taxes at such place---Validity---Levy and recovery of duties and taxes on timber were not challenged and same was paid without any objection hence refund could not be allowed---Question of mark-up also did not arise---Particulars for compensation of loss suffered had also not been given---Duty and tax leviable being legal and proper it could not be claimed that by paying the same the claimant had suffered any loss­ Department having acted contrary to Ss. 9, 10 & 11 of the Customs Act, 1969 maladministration was established---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that if the Central Board of Revenue deemed it proper and appropriate it might notify the place in question as a Customs Station under S.9 of the Customs Act, 1969 within a period of 45 days and if said place was not declared as Station House within the specified period and routes were not notified clearance of goods and levy of duties and taxes from said Check Post be not allowed.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=10", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 303 of 2002, decision dated: 31st December, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Riaz Hussain Naqvi for the Complainant.\nSadiqualla Khan, Deputy Collector Customs, Dryport Peshawar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BAJAUR TIMBER SUPPLY CO., DARGAI, MALAKAND AGENCY \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 499 = 2003 SLD 499 = 2003 PTD 2439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excise Duty—Assessable Value and Time-Barred Notice\nDetails:\nThe appellant was charged with undervaluing goods by excluding incidental expenses (e.g., transportation, octroi, packing) from the assessable value, resulting in short payment of central excise duty. The appellant argued that these expenses were borne on behalf of buyers and thus excluded from the assessable value. Additionally, the show-cause notice was issued 5 years and 8 months post-clearance.\nHeld:\nThe show-cause notice was invalid as it exceeded the one-year/three-year limitation under Rules 10(1) & 10(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, without satisfying the conditions for invoking Rule 10(3). The order was set aside, and the appeal was accepted.\nCitations: Central Excises Act, 1944; Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rules 10(1)-(3).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1359/LB of 2001, decision dated: 6-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Rashid for Appellant.\nMiss Kausar Akhtar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 500 = 2003 SLD 500 = 2003 PTD 2486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Penalty—Reduced Surcharge\nDetails:\nGoods not notified for import were penalized with a 30% surcharge on the assessable value.\nHeld:\nIn light of the Central Board of Revenue and Ministry of Commerce's directives, a 10% surcharge on the invoice value was deemed appropriate instead of the 30% penalty.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.156; C.B.R. Letter No.1/1/Mach/Mist/2001; Ministry of Commerce's Letter No. 1(29)/2001-R.O. (Imp).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "C.A. No.2567/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-03-2002, hearing DATE : 25-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 501 = 2003 SLD 501 = 2003 PTD 2488", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Import Mismanagement—Maladministration in Customs\nDetails:\nThe complainant's goods, cleared for import, were seized and auctioned arbitrarily despite directions from the Appellate Tribunal. Customs officials ignored the Tribunal's order and initiated fresh proceedings using the same set-aside show-cause notice.\nHeld:\nCustoms officials' actions were illegal and arbitrary, constituting maladministration. Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended disciplinary action against responsible officials and compensation to the owner.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 2(s), 32(2), 139; Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3), S.9.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1216 of 2002, decision dated: 11-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Zahid Hussain Khan, Consultant. \nDr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Deputy Collector of Customs, Hub, Quetta Collectorate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD DURRA \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 502 = 2003 SLD 502 = 2003 PTD 2494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Goods—Opportunity for Defense\nDetails:\nGoods (auto-parts) confiscated from a donkey cart were claimed as scrap by a subsequent owner, who was not heard during proceedings.\nHeld:\nThe case was remitted for fresh adjudication. The appellant was allowed to establish ownership and legality of import.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 17, 156(1)(8).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=17", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 1550/LB of 2001, decision dated: 26-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.\nImran Tariq D.R. with Haider Ali, S.I.O. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 503 = 2003 SLD 503 = 2003 PTD 2525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Benefit of Doubt—Confiscated Fork Lifter\nDetails:\nConfiscation of a fork lifter was upheld despite unverified Bill of Entry due to destroyed records.\nHeld:\nBenefit of doubt should favor the appellant. The vehicle was ordered to be released unconditionally to its owner.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 17, 156(1)(8); 1987 SCMR 1840.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=17", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 1600/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-03-2002, hearing DATE : 25-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 504 = 2003 SLD 504 = 2003 PTD 2527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Notices and Ex Parte Orders\nDetails:\nNo record of notice service or proper reasoning in an ex parte order.\nHeld:\nOrders were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision following legal procedures.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.215; PLD 1998 Lah. 100; 2001 CLC 903.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=215", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 2068/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-03-2002, hearing DATE : 26-02-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. with Manzoor Hussain, D.S. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 505 = 2003 SLD 505 = 2003 PTD 2541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Appellate Tribunal in Smuggling Cases\nDetails:\nAppeal for releasing confiscated smuggled vehicles on payment of duty was dismissed.\nHeld:\nDivision Bench of the Appellate Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with admitted smuggling cases.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 194-A, 17, 156(1)(8).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.2442 of 2001, decision dated: 24-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 506 = 2003 SLD 506 = 2003 PTD 2545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Diesel Engines—Clarification of Import Policy\nDetails:\nDiesel engines were confiscated as separate used machinery parts prohibited under the Import Policy.\nHeld:\nEngines under PCT Heading 8408.9000 are independent machines and not banned. Confiscation was deemed illegal, and goods were ordered to be released upon payment of duty and taxes.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.156(1)(89); Import Policy Order, 2001-2002.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2827/LB of 2001, decision dated: 12-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 507 = 2003 SLD 507 = 2003 PTD 2560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Auto Parts Confiscation—Compliance with S.R.O. Requirements\nDetails:\nOld and used auto parts were confiscated.\nHeld:\nGoods were to be released upon payment of duties, provided they were de-shaped as per S.R.O. No. 1374(I)/98 requirements.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 17, 156(1)(8).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 195/LB of 2002, decision dated: 30-04-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUMMEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 508 = 2003 SLD 508 = 2003 PTD 2580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscated Vehicle—Chassis Tampering\nDetails:\nVehicle confiscated for alleged chassis tampering.\nHeld:\nLaboratory confirmed the chassis as genuine. The vehicle was ordered to be released unconditionally to its lawful owner.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 17, 156(1)(8).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=17", + "Case #": "C.A. No.2404/LB of 2001, decision dated: 2-05-2002, hearing DATE : 20-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.\nImran Tariq D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 509 = 2003 SLD 509 = 2003 PTD 2594", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Vehicle Confiscation—Improper Registration and Chassis Welding\nDetails:\nA car using a tractor's registration number and with chassis welding was confiscated.\nHeld:\nEvidence did not support smuggling charges. The vehicle was ordered to be released unconditionally.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 17, 156(1)(8).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "C.A. No.958/LB of 2001, decision dated: 4-03-2002, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 510 = 2003 SLD 510 = 2003 PTD 2599", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nValue of imported and exported goods under S.R.O. 722(I)/89.\n•\nDetails: Due to a market slump, imported goods were not disposed of per S.R.O. 722(I)/89. The determination of duty and taxes on unused raw materials required detailed factual verification and reconciliation of accounts.\n•\nHeld: The case was remanded for fresh adjudication to ascertain payable duties and taxes after hearing the parties and considering their evidence.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus-2208/LB of 2001, decision dated: 29-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. And Kazim Ali Shah, Inspector for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 511 = 2003 SLD 511 = 2003 PTD 2603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of foreign-origin goods under S.17 and S.156(1)(8).\n•\nDetails: Goods were confiscated without providing an option for redemption due to the appellant's inability to prove lawful import or possession.\n•\nHeld: Confiscation was upheld, and the appeal for redemption was dismissed, as High Court decisions invalidated earlier redemption practices.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=17", + "Case #": "C.A.No. 1253/LB of 2001, decision dated: 2-05-2003, hearing DATE : 2-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muhammad Siddique for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 512 = 2003 SLD 512 = 2003 PTD 2608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSurcharge on goods imported under S.R.O. 818(I)/89.\n•\nDetails: Goods were imported for re-export but were cleared for home consumption. The appellant was required to pay both tax and surcharge for non-utilization within the specified period.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed based on the Central Board of Revenue’s clarification and legal requirements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=83", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 1099/LB of 2001, decision dated: 5-04-2002, hearing DATE : 5-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Pervaiz jami for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. and Obaid-ur-Rehman, D.S. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 513 = 2003 SLD 513 = 2003 PTD 2615", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of banned goods under Import Policy Order 2000.\n•\nDetails: Secondary quality liner craft paper, banned under the Import Policy, was confiscated. The reference to assessment provisions was deemed irrelevant.\n•\nHeld: Confiscation was valid, and the appeal was rejected as no discretion for redemption was allowed under the relevant S.R.O.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=14", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2751/LB of 2000, decision dated: 14-03-2002, hearing DATE : 12-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 514 = 2003 SLD 514 = 2003 PTD 2623", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nShow-cause notice for surcharge under S.32(3).\n•\nDetails: Goods were ex-bonded after the stipulated period. The show-cause notice was issued beyond the six-month limit prescribed under the Act.\n•\nHeld: The notice was time-barred, and the appeal was accepted, setting aside the order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 20/LB of 2001, decision dated: 12-03-2002, hearing DATE : 22-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. with Obaid-ur-Rehman, D.S. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 515 = 2003 SLD 515 = 2003 PTD 2642", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption from customs duty for imported equipment.\n•\nDetails: Locally manufactured components were deemed ineligible for exemption, despite the importer claiming compatibility issues. The Engineering Development Board had decided the dispute after a detailed inquiry.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that technical and factual matters fell within the Board’s purview.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=21", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-373 of 2003, decision dated: 4-07-2003, hearing DATE : 16-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMAH, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Amjad Hussain Bukhari for Petitioner.\nS. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.\nAkhtar Hussain For Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INTERGLOBE COMMERCE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 516 = 2003 SLD 516 = 2003 PTD 2665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRefund of service charges on pre-shipment inspection.\n•\nDetails: The Department demanded a Chartered Accountant's certificate for a refund claim, which was seen as non-compliant with the Supreme Court’s order.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended refund processing without requiring the certificate.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-338-K of 2003, decision dated: 2-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKTHAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor, Dealing Officer for Petitioner.\nS.M. Yunus, Attorney and Advisor.\nSajjad Haider Jhinjhin, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 517 = 2003 SLD 517 = 2003 PTD 2791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMeasurement of imported liquid commodities for customs duty.\n•\nDetails: Dispute arose over whether the duty should be based on ship tank measurements or land tank measurements.\n•\nHeld: Land tank measurements were upheld as valid. Customs authorities were directed to address refund claims.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-350 of 1995, decision dated: 16-07-2003, hearing DATE : 27-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mazhar Lari for Petitioner.\nSajjad Ali Shah, D.A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FATIMA ENTERPRISES LTD. \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 518 = 2003 SLD 518 = 2003 PTD 2798", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSuspension of a private warehouse license.\n•\nDetails: The Collector failed to record reasons for the suspension as required by law.\n•\nHeld: Suspension was set aside, but proceedings under the show-cause notice continued.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=13", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1024 of 2003, decision dated: 2-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S.A. SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Navin Merchant for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS A.H. INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 519 = 2003 SLD 519 = 2003 PTD 2807", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDescription of imported goods in the Bill of Entry.\n•\nDetails: Alteration in the description of goods led to a dispute. The Tribunal found the alteration invalid due to lack of original records.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed, as concurrent findings of fact did not warrant High Court interference.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. 251 to 253 of 2001, heard on 9-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Izharul Haq for Appellant.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE \nVS\n MESSRS WARIS & CO., LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 520 = 2003 SLD 520 = 2003 PTD 2809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCRF certificates and valuation of imported goods.\n•\nDetails: CRF certificates serve as assessed value under the Customs Act. Customs authorities retain the power to verify values in these certificates.\n•\nHeld: The Court upheld the authority of Customs to ascertain valuation under CRF and reiterated procedural rules for inspection and valuation.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Inspection, Valuation and Assessment of Imported Goods Rules, 1994=2", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1020 of 1996, decision dated: 17-03-2003, hearing DATE : 5-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sharif for Plaintiff.\nKhalid Rehman for Defendant No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DREAM WORLD LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\n MESSRS COTECNA INSPECTION S, A., KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 521 = 2003 SLD 521 = 2003 PTCL 480 = 2003 PTD 2821", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act – Assessment, Notional Seizure, and Maladministration\nDetails:\n(a) Assessment of duty, taxes, and release of goods under Ss. 32 & 223, Customs Act, 1969 does not involve quasi-judicial functions but is an executive act governed by Customs General Order No. 12 of 2002. Such directions are binding on Customs officials.\n(b) Misdeclaration charges under S. 32 were invalid as the goods were assessed per Customs General Order No. 12 of 2002, and actions such as non-release and show-cause notice issuance were unlawful.\n(c) Notional seizure under S. 168 occurs when importers are deprived of ownership rights without lawful communication under S. 171. Goods assessed but not released breached mandatory provisions, rendering subsequent show-cause notices invalid.\nHeld: Court ruled the actions of Customs officials illegal, directing immediate release of goods upon payment of assessed duties.\nCitations: Ilam Khan v. Government of Pakistan (1983 CLC 786), Haji Noor-ul-Haq v. Collector of Customs (1998 MLD 650).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-713 of 2003, decision dated: 21st August 2003", + "Judge Name:": "S.A. SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Petitioner.\nS. Zia-ud-Din Nasir. Standing Counsel assisted by S. M. Tariq Huda, Additional Collector of Customs, Wajid Ali, Deputy Collector of Customs and Wazir Rizvi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD RAZI \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 522 = 2003 SLD 522 = 2003 PTD 2835", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act – Confiscation or Redemption of Imported Goods\nDetails: Importers accused of misdeclaring goods as non-dutiable “yellow peas” faced confiscation or redemption fine. Importers opted against redemption, leaving the goods under Customs discretion.\nHeld: Customs authorities were free to manage the confiscated goods without charging redemption fine to the importers.\nCitations: PLD 1974 SC 5, PLD 1988 Lah. 177, PLD 1992 SC 291.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1322 of 1998, decision dated: 20-05-2000, hearing DATE : 20-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SAYEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem Ahmed for Petitioners.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal and Syed Zaki Muhammad, A.AG. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BRIGSTOCKE EDULJEE & CO \nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISING INTELLIGENCE BRANCH), GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 523 = 2003 SLD 523 = 2003 PTD 2840", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Special Customs Appeal – Maintainability\nDetails: Legal points not raised before the Tribunal or arising from its decision cannot be entertained by the High Court under S. 196, Customs Act, 1969.\nHeld: Appeal was dismissed due to lack of maintainability.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 28 of 1999, decision dated: 13-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE\nMUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Applicants.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CHIRAGH OIL PRODUCTS \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (EXAMINATIONS), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 524 = 2003 SLD 524 = 2003 PTD 2867", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Excess Duty on Aerated Water\nDetails: Claim for refund of excise duty, including chilling charges, was denied on grounds of passing the burden to consumers. The Federal Tax Ombudsman intervened, emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court precedents.\nHeld: Maladministration was identified; FTO directed reexamination of refund claims based on Chartered Accountant certification.\nCitations: Supreme Court directives cited; FTO recommendations issued.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-36 of 2003, decision dated: 12-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN MINERAL WATER BOTTLING PLANT, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 721 = 2004 SLD 721 = 2004 PTD 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "Allegations of Corruption – Inquiry and Maladministration\nDetails: Bribery allegations against Customs staff and clearing agents were inadequately investigated despite appellate direction.\nHeld: FTO identified maladministration and recommended prompt, impartial inquiry and accountability of responsible officers.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2", + "Case #": "Complaint No.454 of 2003, decision dated: 12-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Complainant in person.\nMs. Tayyeba Kayani, A.C. Customs, Lahore for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAJOR (RETD.) KH. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 722 = 2004 SLD 722 = 2004 PTD 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act – Jurisdiction in Takeover of Imported Goods\nDetails: Actions under S. 25-A, Customs Act, 1969, must be taken by the Additional Collector. In the absence of such authority, proceedings by other officers were void.\nHeld: Court declared proceedings null and void, directing release of goods at assessed duties.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1002 of 2003, decision dated: 25-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Petitioner.\nMiss Masooda Siraj for Respondent No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent. No. 2.\nM.G. Dastagir for Respondent No. 3.\nSyed Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SADRUDDIN ALLADIN\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 723 = 2004 SLD 723 = 2004 PTD 235", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Duty Drawback – Arbitrary Deductions and Delay\nDetails: Exporter duty drawback claims were arbitrarily reduced and delayed. Reasons for deductions were neither communicated nor justified, breaching procedural fairness.\nHeld: FTO condemned maladministration and directed measures for transparency and prioritized processing of claims.\nCitations: Customs General Order 2 of 1999; Federal Tax Ombudsman recommendations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=37", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1269-K of 2002, decision dated: 14-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Awais for the Complainant.\nFeroze Alam Junejo, Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS U.S. APPARELS AND TEXTILE (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 724 = 2004 SLD 724 = 2004 PTD 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Damaged Imported Goods and Duty Abatement\nDetails: The petitioner transported imported goods for warehousing, which were subsequently damaged in an unavoidable accident. The authority denied the petitioner’s claim for abatement of duty on the damaged goods.\nHeld: The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, they were entitled to relief. Directions were issued to the authority to proceed in accordance with Sections 108 and 27 of the Customs Act, 1969.\nCitations: Messrs Tata Textile Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector (Recovery Officer), Customs, PLD 2000 Lah. 286.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=27", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.228 of 1994, heard on 1st September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Nazir Azhar for Petitioner.\nKhurram M. Hashmi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS QUREL CASSETTES LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, ISLAMABAD \nVS\n ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, KARACHI AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 725 = 2004 SLD 725 = 2004 PTD 369", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of Imported Goods and Legal Safeguards\nDetails: A constitutional petition was filed challenging the seizure of imported goods by Customs Authorities, where allegations included counterfeit goods and misdeclaration.\nHeld:\n(a) The High Court refused to determine disputed facts regarding the seizure, limiting its review under Article 199 to whether actions taken by the department were lawful.\n(b) The court clarified that seizure under Section 168(1) involves the blockade of goods by an appropriate officer.\n(c) Sections 168(1), 168(2), and 171 must be read together.\n(d) Non-compliance with Section 171, requiring written grounds for seizure, renders the order under Section 168 ineffective.\n(e) Extension of the two-month period under Section 168(2) for issuing notices requires application of mind and written reasoning by the Collector. Failure to meet these requirements makes the extension invalid.\n(f) If duties and taxes are assessed and deposited, the Customs Authorities cannot retain the goods, and such retention is illegal.\nCitations:\n•\nSyed Muhammad Razi v. Collector of Customs (C.P. No. D-713 of 2003).\n•\nIlam Khan v. Government of Pakistan, 1983 CLC 786.\n•\nAbdul Zahir v. Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards, PLD 1990 Kar. 412.\n•\nMessrs Yousuf Re-Rolling Mills v. Collector of Customs, 1986 CLC 77.\n•\nOther cases as referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-781 of 2003, decision dated: 7-10-2003. dates of hearing: 7th; 26th August; 3rd and 9-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Ali Bin Adam Jafri for Petitioner.\nSyed Tariq Ali for Respondent No. 1.\nAshfaq Ali Khan, I.O. for Respondent.\nMohsin Inam for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ZEB TRADERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 726 = 2004 SLD 726 = 2004 PTD 417", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nValuation of Imported Goods\n•\nDetails: The importer declared the value of goods as $275 per unit, but after an investigation, the Adjudicating Officer assessed the value at $295 per unit. The importer appealed, arguing the assessment was arbitrary, and evidence in their favor was not considered.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed as the importer was given an opportunity to provide evidence but failed to substantiate their claim. The orders of the Adjudicating Officer and the Customs Appellate Tribunal were deemed non-arbitrary.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 25 & 196.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.258 of 2002, decision dated: 16-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nM. BILAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzada Mazhar for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS COOL FRIDGE (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH COMMERCIAL MANAGER \nVS\n CENTRAL EXCISE, SALES TAX AND CUSTOMS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS HOUSE, NABAH ROAD, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 727 = 2004 SLD 727 = 2004 PTD 449", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRegulatory Duty on Goods\n•\nDetails: A constitutional petition challenged the imposition of regulatory duty on goods imported under an exemption notification.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that all importers were liable to pay customs duty as applicable on the date the bill of entry was filed. The effect of the Al-Samrez case was nullified post-amendment.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 18, 30 & 31-A; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199; Al-Samrez's case (1986 SCMR 1917).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-2521 of 1995, decision dated: 6-06-2003, hearing DATE : 26-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amer Raza Naqvi for Petitioner.\nS. Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ATLAS CABLES (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\n FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 728 = 2004 SLD 728 = 2004 PTD 509", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure of Vessel as Derelict \n•\nDetails: Customs authorities seized a grounded vessel, declaring it derelict. A show-cause notice was issued, but the shipping agents filed a constitutional petition instead of responding to the notice.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled the petition was premature and not maintainable as the petitioners had not exhausted available remedies under the Customs Act.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 16, 23, 156(1)(9) & 168; General Clauses Act, S.24-A; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199; Al-Ahram Builders v. ITAT (1993 SCMR 29).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-863 of 2003, decision dated: 11-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Ahmed for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BULK SHIPPING & TRADING (PVT.) LTD\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 729 = 2004 SLD 729 = 2004 PTD 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDetention of Imported Betel Nuts\n•\nDetails: Customs authorities detained a consignment of betel nuts deemed unfit for human consumption. The petitioner claimed their rights were violated.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, stating the matter involved disputed facts requiring expert evidence, which could only be resolved through civil court proceedings.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Preamble; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 23, 24 & 199; Civil Procedure Code, S. 9; Ms. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=Preamble", + "Case #": "C.P. Nos. D-703, D-704, D-770, D-914, D-934, D-1132, D-1133 and D-1134 of 2003, decision dated: 7-10-2003. dates of hearing: 16th, 17th and 23rd, September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Babar Awan, Saadat Yar Khan and Mazhar Jafri, Muhammad Salim, Haider Iqbal Wahniwal and Raja Qureshi for Petitioners.\nNadeem Azhar Siddiqui, D.A.G. and Yawar Farooqui for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADEELUR-REHMAN AND OTHERS\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 730 = 2004 SLD 730 = 2004 PTD 559", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of RBD Palm Oil\n•\nDetails: Customs authorities confiscated palm oil unfit for human consumption and imposed penalties. The appellant contested only the penalty.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the decision, stating the misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry was proven. The penalty was distinct from criminal liability, and statutory liability under Customs Act did not require proof of mens rea.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 32, 156(1)(9)(14), 179 & 185; Pakistan v. Hardcastle (PLD 1967 SC 1); Kamrah Industries v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1996 Kar. 68); Al-Hamd Edible Oil v. Collector of Customs (2003 PTD 552).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeal No. 143 of 2001, decision dated: 14-11-2003, hearing DATE : 21st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaiq Osmany for Appellants.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.\nS. Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS IRAM GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE \nVS\n CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE, AND SALES TAX (APPELLATE) TRIBUNAL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 731 = 2004 SLD 731 = 2004 PTD 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption under Customs Act and withdrawal of duty exemption notification.\n•\nDetails: Goods were imported under an exemption notification, but the exemption was withdrawn by a subsequent notification before the goods arrived. The importer sought to claim exemption under the previous notification despite its withdrawal.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the importer could not claim exemption after the subsequent S.R.O. (Statutory Regulatory Order) had taken effect. The duty payable on the imported goods would be as per the new S.R.O.\n•\nCitations: Messrs M.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others 1998 SCMR 1404.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1061 and C.M.A No. 8208 of 2001, decision dated: 13-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Miss Munawar Sultana for Plaintiffs.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD., MULTAN THROUGH ACCOUNTANT AND ANOTHER \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 732 = 2004 SLD 732 = 2004 PTD 621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRestoration of appeal and maintainability of appeal involving concurrent factual findings.\n•\nDetails: The appellant’s appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant explained that the appeal was thought to be fixed along with a Constitutional petition. The appellant was unaware of the dismissal until the Customs Authorities revived their demand.\n•\nHeld: The court condoned the delay and restored the appeal based on the appellant's plausible explanation. However, the appeal was dismissed as it involved a question of fact, and the concurrent findings of the appropriate Tribunal were upheld.\n•\nCitations: C.P. No. D-1244 of 1997.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 66 of 1998, decision dated: 24-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Talib H. Rizvi for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FAUJI CEMENT CO. LTD. THROUGH ADDITIONAL MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAWALPINDI \nVS\n APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 733 = 2004 SLD 733 = 2004 PTD 641", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDuty drawback on export goods and inordinate delay in processing claims.\n•\nDetails: The claimant sought a duty drawback on the export of garments but faced inordinate delays due to non-issuance of claims despite having submitted the required documents. The department did not take any action, citing non-maintenance of an inventory register under the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the Customs Authorities had unjustifiably delayed the processing of the rebate claims for five years, despite all documents being submitted. The Ombudsman recommended the Central Board of Revenue to direct the Collector of Customs to resolve the claims within 30 days and take disciplinary action against the responsible officials within 60 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1014/K of 2003, decision dated: 13-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Awais for the Complainant.\nFeroze A. Junejo, Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AZIZ GARMENTS INDUSTRIES, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 734 = 2004 SLD 734 = 2004 PTCL 137 = 2004 PTD 646", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nClassification of imported Titanium Dioxide and misdeclaration.\n•\nDetails: Chinese origin Titanium Dioxide was imported under one classification (PCT Hdg. 3206.1100), but later reclassified under a different heading (PCT Hdg. 2823.0000) with a reduced duty rate. The Customs Authorities determined the misclassification was done with the intent to evade duties.\n•\nHeld: The Titanium Dioxide was correctly classified under PCT Hdg. 3206.1100. The misdeclaration was deemed an offence under Section 32(1) of the Customs Act, leading to the imposition of penalties. The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the recovery of short-paid customs duties and penalty.\n•\nCitations: Not specified, but references include various sections of the Customs Act (IV of 1969).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(3125)CU/IB/TRF of 2001(PB), decision dated: 30-08-2003. dates of hearing; 18th and 31st July, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nS.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)\nMUHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Issac Ali Qazi for Appellant.\nAl-Haj, D.R., Azam Khan, D.S. and Karamatullah, Inspector for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 735 = 2004 SLD 735 = 2004 PTD 696", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs and Central Excise Exemptions, Penalties, and Procedures\nDetails:\n•\nExemption from Duties (Customs Act, 1969 & Central Excise Act, 1944): Exemption applies to goods required for provisions and stores on conveyances heading to foreign destinations. The scope is limited to the goods loaded on or supplied to the conveyance before departure, and does not extend to meals or accommodation in hotels.\n•\nMeals and Accommodation in Hotels: These are not exempt from central excise duties under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1969, as they fall outside the scope of exemption.\n•\nC.B.R. Letter Interpretation: A letter from the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.) clarifies that exemptions apply to goods such as food and beverages served on conveyances but do not cover accommodations or meals at hotels.\n•\nPenalties and Non-payment of Duties: Failure to charge and pay excise duties on services such as meals in hotels is considered fraud, and penalties are imposed accordingly.\n•\nCentral Excise Penalty: The penalty for breach of Central Excise Rules (such as non-maintenance of accounts) is discretionary, but non-payment of excise duties is mandatory, even if duties were not billed or collected.\n•\nAdditional Duty under S.3-B: Applies to goods partially composed of dutiable articles, requiring the payment of additional duties.\n•\nRecovery of Duty: A show-cause notice regarding short-levied duties was issued within the limitations period, confirming the duty claim.\nHeld:\n•\nExemptions apply only to goods loaded on conveyances about to depart for foreign destinations.\n•\nC.B.R. clarification excludes hotel meals and accommodation from exemptions under Section 24.\n•\nFailure to pay excise duties on hotel services constitutes fraud, and penalties can be imposed.\n•\nThe duty assessment and recovery followed proper procedures, and penalties for breaches of Central Excise Rules were justified.\n•\nThe limitation for issuing a show-cause notice was valid.\nCitations: PLD 1991 SC 963 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=24", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. 7(223)ATIB of 1999 (PB), decision dated: 18-10-2003. dates of hearing: 17th January; 12th February; 17th, 18th September; 17th October; 5th November; 10th, 11-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nS.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellant.\nIshtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer, Fazal Amin, Senior Auditor, Hussain Muhammad, Senior Auditor, BakhteDauran, Senior Auditor, Abdul Khaliq, D.S., Wahid Gul, Auditor and AlHaj Gul, D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 736 = 2004 SLD 736 = 2004 PTCL 269 = 2004 PTD 710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Import Duty and Warehousing Procedures\nDetails:\n•\nS.R.O. 108(1)/95 and Warehousing of Goods: Ex-bond bill of entry can only be filed after goods are admitted to a licensed warehouse. Mis-declaring the warehousing date to avail benefits of a preferential duty rate led to the recovery of duties and sales tax.\n•\nEffective Rate of Duty: The rate of duty is determined by the date of filing a consumption bill of entry or the arrival of the conveyance carrying the goods, not by the date of import.\n•\nViolation of Customs Procedures: Filing an ex-bond bill of entry before the goods were admitted to the warehouse was not valid, and the appellant's attempt to use a mis-declared warehousing date was rejected.\nHeld:\n•\nThe ex-bond bill of entry filed before the goods' actual admission into the warehouse was invalid.\n•\nThe duty rate should be determined by the correct filing date, not the import date.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(872)CU of IB/2000(PB), decision dated: 15-11-2003. dates of hearing: 1st, 22nd July; 1st, 7th August; 1st, 7th, 14th October of 2002 and 21st August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nS. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qazi Waheed-ud-Din for Appellant.\nAlHaj Gul, D.R., Fazlur Rehman, D.R., Abu Nasar Shlija, A.C., Rashid Khan, Superintendent, Azam Khan, D.S. and Mir Zaman, Inspector for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 737 = 2004 SLD 737 = 2004 PTCL 579 = 2004 PTD 741 = 2004 SCMR 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration of Imported Goods\nDetails:\n•\nMis-declaration of Goods (Customs Act, 1969): The importer mis-declared the goods' description, and customs imposed penalties.\n•\nPenalty Reduction: The Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalty to 10% after finding that only 10% of the goods were physically inspected.\n•\nAppeal Dismissal: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and High Court, and the plea for amendment of the memorandum of appeal was dismissed.\nHeld:\n•\nThe penalty was appropriately reduced by the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nThe Supreme Court upheld the decision, declining to entertain the appeal.\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2573 of 2003, decision dated: 12-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nQAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. For Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MAKAMA STEEL CRAFTS (PVT.), LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 738 = 2004 SLD 738 = 2004 PTCL 196 = 2004 PTD 795", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment of Duty (Customs Act, 1969)\nDetails:\n•\nProvisional Assessment: Section 81 allows provisional duty assessment, with a time limit of one year for finalizing the assessment. If not finalized within that period, the provisional assessment becomes final.\n•\nBank Guarantees: In cases of provisional assessment, bank guarantees or additional payments may be required to secure the tentative duty amount.\n•\nFailure to Finalize Assessment: The department's failure to finalize the assessment within two years resulted in the provisional assessment becoming final. The taxpayer was entitled to the return of bank guarantees, with interest due to the delay.\nHeld:\n•\nThe provisional assessment became final after the expiration of the one-year period without final assessment.\n•\nThe taxpayer was entitled to the return of bank guarantees with interest.\nCitations: Chamber's 20th Century Dictionary, 1983 Edn. ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7865 of 2003, decision dated: 14-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Petitioner.\nDr. Sohail Akhtar for the Revenue.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FAROOQ WOOLLEN MILLS\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS DRYPORT, SAMBRIAL AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 739 = 2004 SLD 739 = 2004 PTD 817", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration and Penalties\nDetails:\n•\nMis-declaration by Importer: The importer mis-declared both the quantity and origin of goods, leading to penalties and a fine.\n•\nAppeal to High Court: The High Court declined to intervene in the Appellate Tribunal's discretion, affirming the penalty decision, which was based on the facts of the case.\nHeld:\n•\nThe High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, as no substantial question of law was raised.\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "C. As. Nos. 133, 134 and 135 of 2003, decision dated: 6-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Farani for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE \nVS\n MESSRS GULSHAN INTER TRADE, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 740 = 2004 SLD 740 = 2004 PTCL 184 = 2004 PTD 819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Retrospective Application of Executive Notifications\nDetails:\n•\nRetrospective Effect of Notification: The Central Authority's notification regarding the payment of fines in lieu of confiscation was applied retrospectively. However, retrospective application of detrimental notifications is not permissible under the principle of locus poenitentiae.\n•\nAppellate Tribunal's Decision: The tribunal's decision to allow the option of paying fines was upheld, and the central authority's notification could not be applied retrospectively in this case.\nHeld:\n•\nThe retrospective application of the notification was invalid, and the right to pay fines in lieu of confiscation was upheld.\nCitations: Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd v. Federation of Pakistan PTCL 1997 CL 260, Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 168 of 2003, decision dated: 17-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nBASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmer Bilal Soofi for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE \nVS\n SAHIB ULLAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 741 = 2004 SLD 741 = 2004 PTD 973", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act, 1969 – Exemption from Duty, Filing of Bill of Entry, and Iqra Surcharge\nDetails:\n•\nThe case deals with various provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, particularly concerning the filing of a Bill of Entry and the related duty exemptions and surcharges.\n•\nThe issue revolved around the filing of a Bill of Entry before the arrival of the conveyance and its implications under the Customs Act of 1969.\n•\nSpecific focus on sections 30, 79, and the first proviso to section 30.\nHeld:\n•\nThe law applicable is the one in force on the date when the tax is to be levied, not on the date of the hearing.\n•\nThe Bill of Entry was lawfully filed on June 23, 1993, with the permission of the appropriate officer, even though it was before the delivery of the manifest.\n•\nThe exemption from the Iqra surcharge was governed by the date the manifest was delivered (July 8, 1993), not the filing date of the Bill of Entry.\n•\nThe Tribunal's decision was overturned due to incorrect legal reasoning, and the Collector's orders for retrieval of short-levied taxes and penalty were upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Sections 30, 79\n•\nArt. 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No.10 of 1999, decision dated: 23rd December, 2003, hearing DATE : 2-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawaid Farooqi for Appellant.\nS. Mahmood Ali Askari for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISFMENT), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACH \nVS\n MESSRS SUNSHINING CLOTH LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 742 = 2004 SLD 742 = 2004 PTD 997", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act, 1969 – Amendment of Import Manifest and Ownership of Goods\nDetails:\n•\nThis case involves the refusal of the Customs Department to allow an amendment to the import manifest and the clarification of ownership of goods.\n•\nThe refusal was based on an alleged mis-declaration by the importer, which was not supported by sufficient evidence.\n•\nFocus on sections 45, 138, and general principles regarding ownership and amendments to import manifests.\nHeld:\n•\nThe request to amend the import manifest to correct an obvious error (change of consignee) was within the scope of section 45(2).\n•\nThe Customs Collector acted beyond his authority by denying the amendment and incorrectly defined the amendment as major rather than minor.\n•\nThe High Court directed the Collector to allow the amendment and release the consignments on payment of duties.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Sections 45, 138\n•\nArt. 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=45", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-766 and D-767 of 2003, decision dated: 8-01-2004. dates of hearing: 18th and 19-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Appellants.\nShakeel Ahmed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AVIA INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS\nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), APPRAISEMENT COLLECTORATE, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACH AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 743 = 2004 SLD 743 = 2004 PTD 1018", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act, 1969 – Exemption from Customs Duties on Compressors\nDetails:\n•\nThe case revolves around the withdrawal of customs duty exemption on compressors imported by a company.\n•\nThe exemption was removed on the assumption that compressors manufactured locally by the company rendered imported compressors ineligible for exemption under S.R.O. 504(I)/94.\n•\nThe court considered the validity of the exemption based on the condition of the compressors (knocked down vs. built-up).\nHeld:\n•\nThe mere establishment of a compressor plant for internal use does not automatically negate the customs duty exemption on imported compressors.\n•\nWithdrawal of the concession was deemed illegal without a proper technical distinction between knocked down and built-up conditions, which had not been notified by the Government.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, ordering that the customs duty exemption should apply.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Sections 19, 219\n•\nS.R.O. 504(I)/94\n•\nArt. 18, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973\n•\nUnited Refrigeration Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and another PTCL 2001 CL 423", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.K-1841 to K-1859 of 2001, decision dated: 22-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 744 = 2004 SLD 744 = 2004 PTD 1036", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Locally Assembled Oil Tanker\nDetails: The Customs Act 1969, Section 157, was invoked for the confiscation of an oil tanker due to non-payment of duties, despite the manufacturing company verifying the vehicle. The seizure of the locally assembled tanker was contested, as it was confirmed not to be of foreign origin.\nHeld: The confiscation was invalid because the vehicle was locally assembled, and the verification certificate from the manufacturer was deemed authentic. The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the seized vehicle be released to its lawful owner without any further conditions.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 157", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 1664/LB of 2001, decision dated: 6-02-2002, hearing DATE : 30-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER, JUDICIAL\nZAFAR-AL-MAJEED, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Aslam Khan Babar for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 745 = 2004 SLD 745 = 2004 PTD 1041", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duty Refund and Maladministration\nDetails: The Customs Department delayed the clearance of bonded milk powder goods, referring samples to the HEJ Laboratory despite prior certification from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. This caused the importer to pay a higher duty rate (25% instead of 20%) and led to a claim for a refund.\nHeld: The delay in clearance was deemed maladministration, as there was no need to refer the matter to HEJ Laboratory after obtaining the necessary certificates from the Ministry. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Central Board of Revenue examine the refund claim within 45 days.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 20, 30, 104; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=20", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1350-K of 2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Afzal Awan for the Complainants.\nNawabzadi Aliya Khanji, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS B.P. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 746 = 2004 SLD 746 = 2004 PTD 1046", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Locally Assembled Oil Tanker (Smuggling)\nDetails: An oil tanker was confiscated under Section 157 of the Customs Act on grounds of being smuggled, despite verification by the manufacturing company that confirmed it as a locally assembled vehicle.\nHeld: The confiscation was invalid, as the tanker was locally assembled and not of foreign origin. No grounds for imposition of penalty existed. The Appellate Tribunal directed the vehicle's release to its lawful owner without conditions.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 157", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157", + "Case #": "C. A. No.2351/LB of 2001, decision dated: 8-02-2002, hearing DATE : 31st January, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Babar for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 747 = 2004 SLD 747 = 2004 PTD 1077", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Goods and Past Customs Practices\nDetails: Disputes arose regarding the classification and assessment of duties on imported goods under the Customs Act, particularly where a change in practice or classification was proposed.\nHeld:\n•\n(a) The Customs Department must adhere to existing practices until a new ruling is issued by the Central Board of Revenue, with changes taking effect prospectively.\n•\n(b) The Collector of Customs should not alter duty assessments without obtaining higher authority’s approval.\n•\n(c) The Department must not reopen past transactions regarding duty assessments without clear errors.\n•\n(d) Procedural changes cannot affect past assessments.\n•\n(e) A long-standing practice, once established, cannot be arbitrarily changed, as it would unfairly disturb settled rights.\n•\n(f) Statutory interpretation must align with the law; any administrative order inconsistent with statutory provisions is invalid.\n•\n(g) The Customs Board's instructions bind officers, and any conflicting orders from subordinate officials are inoperative.\n•\n(h) In this case, the Adjudicating Officer acted prematurely while awaiting the Central Board of Revenue’s decision on the classification issue, leading to an unlawful order. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order for reconsideration.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 8, 25, 80, 202, 219, 233; General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 22; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 4", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.296 of 2003, decision dated: 26-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER, JUDICIAL\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Navin S. Merchant for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 748 = 2004 SLD 748 = 2004 PTD 1130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim Processing Delay\nDetails: A claim for a refund of excess customs duty was delayed for an inordinate amount of time, with the Customs Authorities demanding original challans after five years. The delay in processing the refund was accompanied by the failure to observe legal procedures regarding notices and service acknowledgment.\nHeld: The delay and maladministration in processing the refund claim were evident, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Deputy Collector Customs confirm the issuance of the refund within ten days. Additionally, the Member (Customs) was directed to ensure that refund claims are processed within seven days of filing and settled within three months.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 33; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1031-K of 2003, decision dated: 25-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yousuf for Complainant.\nSaeed Akram, D.C. (Customs) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSES FAROOQ GENERAL MERCHANTS, KARACHI\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 749 = 2004 SLD 749 = 2004 PTD 1132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Service Charges Under S. 18-B\nDetails: The legality of imposing 2% service charges under Section 18-B of the Customs Act via S.R.O. 1198(I)/1996 was challenged.\nHeld: The High Court, following the Supreme Court's ruling in 1999 SCMR 1402, declared the levy ultra vires and struck it down.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 18-B; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1956 of 1996, decision dated: 5-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Muhammad Akram for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MARGALA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REVENUE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 750 = 2004 SLD 750 = 2004 PTD 1189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Court Jurisdiction and Customs Act\nDetails: This case addressed the jurisdiction of Civil Courts over actions taken by Customs Authorities and the validity of such actions, particularly in situations involving jurisdictional overreach, mala fide actions, or violations of natural justice.\nHeld:\n•\n(a) Civil Courts can challenge actions taken in excess of jurisdiction or mala fide, even if a statute ousts their jurisdiction.\n•\n(b) The setting up of a Bonded Warehouse does not make the license irrevocable.\n•\n(c) A mis-declaration under Section 32, such as under-invoicing to import excess quantities, falls under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\n(d) The Adjudicating Officer has the authority to decide whether mis-declarations are within the knowledge of the importer.\n•\n(e) No penalty or confiscation can be imposed without due process, including notice and the opportunity for a hearing.\n•\n(f) The distinction between adjudication and cancellation proceedings under the Customs Act was clarified.\n•\n(g) Orders regarding the cancellation of licenses or refusal to issue import permits, without proper findings, are subject to challenge in Civil Court.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s)(ii), 13, 32, 156, 179, 180, 180; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No. 88 of 2003, decision dated: 10-10-2003. dates of hearing: 20th, 28-08-2003, 2nd and 3rd September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMAD, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Tariq Ali and Ashfaq Hussain for Appellants.\nMrs. Navin Merchant for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS \nVS\n MESSRS SAMAN DIPLOMATIC BONDED WAREHOUSE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 751 = 2004 SLD 751 = 2004 PTD 1222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim Delays and Processing\nDetails: A refund claim related to customs duty was delayed for six years, despite the complainant submitting the claims in a timely manner after the final Clean Report of Findings. The Department objected to the use of photocopies and the delay in responses, but there was no justification for the long pending status of the claim.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Central Board of Revenue instruct the Collector to resolve the refund claims within thirty days, as the claims had been filed within reasonable time after the Clean Report of Findings.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 33; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complainant No. 1029-K of 2003, decision dated: 30-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor. Muhammad Yousuf, Proprietor.\nAshhad Jawwad, Deputy Collector of Customs, (Appraisement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNIQUE INTERNATIONAL\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 752 = 2004 SLD 752 = 2004 PTCL 205 = 2004 PTD 1324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Issue of show-cause notice before confiscation of goods or imposition of penalty\nDetails:\nUnder Section 180 of the Customs Act, 1969, three mandatory conditions must be fulfilled before confiscating goods or imposing a penalty:\n1.\nThe owner of the goods must be informed in writing of the grounds for the proposed action. Alternatively, verbal communication is allowed if the owner consents in writing.\n2.\nThe owner must be given an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed action, either in writing or verbally with written indication of choice.\n3.\nThe representation must be made within a reasonable time specified by the Adjudicating Officer, who must provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing.\nHeld:\nThe Adjudicating Officer failed to issue the required show-cause notice as stipulated under Section 180. Therefore, the order for confiscation and imposition of penalties was invalid. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order, directing the release of seized goods upon payment of applicable duty and taxes, and remitted the fines and penalties.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=180", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus.434/PB of 2003, decision dated: 13-12-2003, hearing DATE : 20-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arbab Saiful Kamal for Appellant.\nFazal-ur-Rehman, D.S./D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 753 = 2004 SLD 753 = 2004 PTD 1455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund and maladministration in processing refund claims\nDetails:\nAn application for a refund of amounts unlawfully adjusted towards additional duties and penalties was delayed. The Department failed to take action despite a Tribunal ruling in favor of the complainant, and records were mishandled during the transfer of jurisdiction to the Large Taxpayers Unit.\nHeld:\nMaladministration was proven on part of both the Collectorate and the Large Taxpayers Unit officials. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended ensuring the refund by September 30, 2003, and that the concerned officers be identified and action be taken against them under the relevant rules.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=11", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 891-K of 2003, decision dated: 8-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taha Ali Zia and Aurangzaib Amir for the Complainant.\nS.M. Shoaib, Deputy Collector for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED., KARACHI\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 754 = 2004 SLD 754 = 2004 PTD 1482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of penalty for not intimating subsequent enhancement in the price of goods\nDetails:\nCustoms authorities imposed a penalty for failing to inform them of a price increase after the goods had been imported. However, no law required the importer to inform authorities of price changes or to get enhanced Import Transaction Price (ITP) approved.\nHeld:\nThe imposition of penalty was not justified as the importer had declared the correct enhanced value in the Bill of Entry. The penalty was set aside by the High Court, and the principles of double jeopardy were discussed with respect to short tax levies.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No.38 of 1999, decision dated: 24-02-2004, hearing DATE : 27-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zamir-ud-Din Ahmed, for Appellant.\nJawaid Farooqui for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MEHRAN MOTOR CAR CO. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 755 = 2004 SLD 755 = 2004 PTD 1530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in assessment and charge of demurrage\nDetails:\nThe Customs Authorities delayed the assessment of goods, leading to additional demurrage charges. The delay in assessment was admitted to be unjustified, and the Port Trust did not honor the delay and detention certificate.\nHeld:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the issuance of a revised delay and detention certificate, along with the remission and refund of demurrage charges to the complainant.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=14", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-988-K of 2003, decision dated: 30-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Petitioner.\nZahid Habib, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) and Abdul Qayum, Appraiser", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ATTA ULLAH ZIA \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 756 = 2004 SLD 756 = 2004 PTD 1559", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration of goods and penalty imposition\nDetails:\nAn exporter mis-declared the composition of a fabric in the export documents, which led to a penalty. The exporter argued the mis-declaration was minor and did not affect the quality of goods.\nHeld:\nThe Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalty, but upheld the imposition of penalty. The Federal Tax Ombudsman found no case of maladministration but criticized the exporter's lack of care in ensuring compliance with regulations.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 979-K of 2001, decision dated: 27-09-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. A. Nasser, Dealing Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MEHTABI TOWELS MILLS. LTD \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 757 = 2004 SLD 757 = 2004 PTD 1769", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Notional price and release of detained goods\nDetails:\nThe Customs Authorities detained goods, applying a notional price under Section 25-B of the Customs Act. The importers challenged the detention, arguing the customs valuation was unlawful.\nHeld:\nThe High Court ruled in favor of the importers, stating the customs authorities could not detain goods based on the notional price. The detained goods were to be released after the payment of applicable duties, and Delay and Detention Certificates were to be issued.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C. Ps. Nos.D-1672, 2134 of 1994, D-30, 31 and 152 of 1995, decision dated: 28-08-2003, hearing DATE : 7-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Iraq Nawaz Khan for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal and Shakeel Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 2 & 3.\nS. Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GHULAM MUHAMMAD DOSSUL & CO\nVS\n C.B.R. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 758 = 2004 SLD 758 = 2004 PTD 1804", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of vehicle and failure to issue timely notice\nDetails:\nA vehicle was seized by Customs Authorities, and a notice under Section 168(2) of the Customs Act was issued after the prescribed two-month period. The vehicle's chassis number was altered, leading to doubts about the vehicle's status.\nHeld:\nThe Appellate Tribunal found the notice issued after the prescribed time was time-barred and invalid. The seized vehicle was ordered to be returned to its rightful owner. The Tribunal also directed an inquiry into fraudulent post-dating of seizure documents by the Customs Authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus.273/PB of 2003, decision dated: 27-02-2004, hearing DATE : 10-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irshad Ahmad Durrani for Appellant.\nFazal-ur-Rehman, D.S./D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 759 = 2004 SLD 759 = 2004 PTD 1837", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Tariff Classification and Seizure of Goods\nDetails:\n•\nIssue 1: Classification of soap under the Customs Act. The soaps were not a notified item under the Act and thus, were excluded from the Chapter for Perfumery and Cosmetics. They were classified under Chapter 34 for soap and organic surface-active agents, with customs duties set at 55% ad valorem.\n•\nIssue 2: Smuggling of foreign soaps and used tyres. The goods were seized but the appellant proved they were locally purchased. The adjudication officer did not offer the opportunity for payment in lieu of confiscation for goods with a value less than Rs. 50,000.\nHeld:\n•\nIssue 1: Soap was classified under Heading 3401.1120 under Chapter 34, not under Chapter 33 for Perfumery.\n•\nIssue 2: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the goods should be released unconditionally as they were locally purchased and no proper procedure for confiscation was followed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus.493/PB of 2003, decision dated: 30-03-2004, hearing DATE : 26-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ajoon Khan for Appellant.\nFazal-ur-Rehman, D.S./D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 760 = 2004 SLD 760 = 2004 PTD 1847", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Customs Adjudicating Officer\nDetails:\n•\nThe import of banned items, specifically Zinc Dust from India, was conducted by the Deputy Collector of Adjudication, violating the jurisdictional requirements under S.R.O. 448(1)/2000.\nHeld:\nThe Deputy Collector acted without jurisdiction, and the Appellate Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.338 and 339 of 2002, decision dated: 22-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "YASIN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghafar A.R. for Appellant.\nAli Akbar, A.O./D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 761 = 2004 SLD 761 = 2004 PTD 1879", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Payment of Duty Drawback\nDetails:\n•\nA delay in payment of sanctioned duty drawback was caused by mala fide intentions, failure to issue proper notices, and issuance of a defective cheque. The complainant was aggrieved by the delay and lack of resolution.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended an inquiry into the delay and actions of the officials involved, and strict disciplinary measures were advised.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=37", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1155-K of 2003, decision dated: 27-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Awais for the Complainant.\nFeroze A. Junejo, Deputy Collector of Customs for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CENTURY INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 762 = 2004 SLD 762 = 2004 PTD 1911", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Remission of Duty for Damaged Goods\nDetails:\n•\nImported goods were damaged by fire before reaching the bonded warehouse. The importer requested remission of duty. However, the Revenue Department raised a demand without conducting a joint inspection.\nHeld:\n•\nThe High Court ruled in favor of the importer, stating that the damaged goods should not be liable for customs duty, and that Revenue’s failure to inspect the damage was improper.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=27", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.98 of 2003, decision dated: 29-03-2004, hearing DATE : 10-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja for Appellant.\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SARGODHA JUTE MILLS LTD. \nVS\n COLLECTOR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 763 = 2004 SLD 763 = 2004 PTD 1919", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Export of Cotton and Constitutional Challenge\nDetails:\n•\nPrivate Sector Exporters were allowed to export raw cotton under certain conditions, which petitioners had agreed to. They later challenged the conditions under the principle of approbate and reprobate.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Court ruled that by agreeing to the conditions, the petitioners waived their right to challenge them later. The constitutional petition was not entertained.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-1546 of 1991, decision dated: 11-09-2003, hearing DATE : 8-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rasheeda M.H. Patel for Petitioner.\nSajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel and S. Mamnoon Hasan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HAJI DOSSA LIMITED \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 764 = 2004 SLD 764 = 2004 PTD 1929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excise Duty on Ship Breaking\nDetails:\n•\nDispute regarding the recovery of central excise duty on shipbreaking, with reference to the date of filing the bill of entry and the applicability of certain S.R.O.s.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, confirming that the benefit of the relevant S.R.O. applied and no recovery could be made based on the bill of entry date.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1804 and 163/K OF 1997, decision dated: 1st April, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nJAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Irshad, Deputy Attorney General and Ahhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1804 of 1997).\nMirza Muhammad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in Civil Appeal No 1804 of 1997).\nMuhammad Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Civil Petition No. 163K of 1997).\nNemofor Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER \nVS\n TARIQ SULTAN AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 765 = 2004 SLD 765 = 2004 PTD 1934", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQ1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Duty on Goods Shipped\nDetails:\n•\nThe authority refused the refund on the ground that the mate’s receipt was issued after the deadline, even though shipment and relevant documents were completed before the deadline.\nHeld:\n•\nThe High Court ruled that the word shipped referred to the physical delivery of goods to the carrier, not the mate’s receipt date. The refund claim was justified, and the authority was directed to pay the refund.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-666 of 1991, decision dated: 25-09-2001, hearing DATE : 14-09-2001.", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALVI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.H. Zaidi for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS QUETTA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI \nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 766 = 2004 SLD 766 = 2004 PTD 1944", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 196\n•\nAppeal - Questions of Fact\n•\nDetails: The case involved a dispute over whether certain machines were typewriters or type-setting machines. Both the Order-in-Original and the appellate order concluded that the machines could function as typewriters as well. The High Court dismissed the appeal, not interfering in the factual findings.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the orders, as the questions raised were factual in nature.\n•\nCitations: N/A\n(b) Limitation\n•\nLimitation Period\n•\nDetails: The issue of limitation can be raised at any forum, even if not previously raised in lower courts. The Supreme Court ruled that limitations can be agitated at any stage.\n•\nHeld: The limitation issue was not barred, even though it had not been previously raised.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Faran Enterprises v. The Appellate Tribunal, Customs, Excise and Sales Tax 1999 CLC 735; Messrs Baba Khan v. Collector of Customs, Quetta 2000 SCMR 678\n(c) Administration of Justice\n•\nNon-Pleading of Legal Issues\n•\nDetails: A higher forum has the duty to address legal issues, even if not pleaded before lower forums, as it is responsible for ensuring justice.\n•\nHeld: Legal issues can be addressed by higher forums, regardless of whether they were initially raised.\n•\nCitations: N/A\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nShow-Cause Notice - Limitation\n•\nDetails: The case involved the timeliness of a show-cause notice issued to an importer. The Tribunal found the case did not involve intentional misdeclaration, but the High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal to decide if the notice was issued within the proper timeframe.\n•\nHeld: The case was remanded for further consideration regarding the timeliness of the show-cause notice.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Spl. Custom Appeal No. 26 of 2000, decision dated: 13-04-2002, hearing DATE : 4-04-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "ATA-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sattar Silat for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNIVERSAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIV \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 768 = 2004 SLD 768 = 2004 PTD 1957", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) - S. 4\n•\nExpiry of Limitation During Vacation\n•\nDetails: The appeal was filed on the first day after the High Court's summer vacation, despite the limitation period expiring during the vacation. The Court ruled that the appeal was within time, as the notification regarding court closures did not override the Limitation Act.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was within time.\n•\nCitations: Fateh Ali Khan v. Subedar Muhammad Khan 1970 SCMR 238; Jumma v. Maulvi Mubarak 1971 SCMR 779; Lehar Khan v. Amir Hamza 1999 SCMR 108; Nooruddin and 3 others v. Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan 2000 SCMR 354\n(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) - S. 4\n•\nExclusion of Time for Court Closure\n•\nDetails: The provision of S.4 of the Limitation Act ensures that the period during which the court is closed is excluded from the limitation period.\n•\nHeld: The exclusion of time is in favor of the party concerned.\n•\nCitations: N/A\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 196\n•\nMaintainability of Appeal\n•\nDetails: The Director of the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) filed an appeal against the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that since the Director was not an aggrieved person, the appeal was not maintainable.\n•\nHeld: Appeal was dismissed as the Director was not authorized to file the appeal.\n•\nCitations: Spl. Customs Appeals No. 282 of 2002 and 283 of 2002", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Spl. Customs Appeals Nos. 140 and 141 of 2002, decision dated: 18-12-2003, hearing DATE : 4-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Appellants (in both appeals).\nKhawaja Naveed Ahmed and Mrs. Ismat Mehdi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE, KARACHI \nVS\n MESSRS TESSORI TRADING CO., (PVT.) LTD. AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 769 = 2004 SLD 769 = 2004 PTD 1979", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art. 199\n•\nConstitutional Petition - Alternate Remedy\n•\nDetails: The High Court can entertain a constitutional petition even if the aggrieved party did not avail alternative remedies, particularly if the impugned action is illegal or void ab initio.\n•\nHeld: Constitutional petition was maintainable despite the non-availment of alternative remedies.\n•\nCitations: Fecto Cement Limited v. The Collector of Customs Appraisement and another 1994 MLD 1136\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 32 & 81\n•\nNotice Issuance after Expiry of Provisional Assessment Period\n•\nDetails: The Court ruled that if goods do not match the description in documents, notice must be issued before the provisional assessment period expires. Otherwise, the assessment becomes final.\n•\nHeld: Provisional assessment becomes final if no notice is issued within the required period.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Abdul Aziz Ayoob v. Assistant Collector of Customs and 3 others PLD 1990 Kar. 378", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Petition No.3047 of 1992, decision dated: 25-03-2004, hearing DATE : 11-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Petitioners.\nSajjad Ali Shah for Respondent No. 1.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HASSAN TRADING COMPANY THROUGH MANZOOR HUSSAIN \nVS\n CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD THROUGH, CHAIRMAN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 770 = 2004 SLD 770 = 2004 PTD 1991", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 18 & 19\n•\nCustoms Duty on Agricultural Tyres\n•\nDetails: The case concerned the release of tyres for agricultural tractors without customs duty. The High Court directed the case be remanded for further consideration based on a previous judgment.\n•\nHeld: The case was remanded to the adjudicating officer for decision.\n•\nCitations: Customs Appeal No.43 of 1998", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "C. P. No. D-3378 of 1993, decision dated: 18-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners.\nNadeem Azhar, D.A.G. and Raja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAFIQ & CO. THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER \nVS\n CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 771 = 2004 SLD 771 = 2004 PTD 2014", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Duty Drawback Claim - Time-Barred\n•\nDetails: The claimant sought a customs duty drawback, but the claim was rejected as time-barred because the exporter did not file the claim within the stipulated 210 days from the shipment of goods or 15 days from receiving the Bank Credit Advice. The exporter also failed to justify a 55-day delay.\n•\nHeld: The High Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay and concluded that the discretion exercised by the subordinate Tribunal was neither arbitrary nor fanciful. The constitutional petition was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Kalani Textiles v. Central Board of Revenue (Constitutional Petition No.D-25 of 1994)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=41", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-1522 of 1995, decision dated: 25-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Petitioner.\nSyed Sajjad Ali Shah, Federal counsel for Respondent.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for the Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ROCKLAND, KARACHI THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR, SIKANDAR BUTT \nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 772 = 2004 SLD 772 = 2004 PTD 2187 = 2005 PTCL 151", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nOption to Pay Fine in Lieu of Confiscation under the Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The case considered whether under Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969, the Collector of Customs is obligated to offer an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscated goods.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court clarified that the option to pay a fine is discretionary under Section 181 of the Customs Act. This contrasts with mandatory provisions in other laws such as the Central Excises Act and the Sea Customs Act. The Court noted that the discretion must be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily.\n•\nCitations: Kshetra Nath v. Collector, Land Customs AIR 1959 Cal. 356 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1574 of 2001 and 921 of 2002, decision dated: 20-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in both cases).\nA. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in both cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABU BAKAR SIDDIQUE AND OTHERS\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 773 = 2004 SLD 773 = 2004 PTD 2211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of Vehicle Based on Forensic Report\n•\nDetails: A vehicle was confiscated based on a forensic report that verified the replacement of its chassis number. However, the report was signed 34 days after its preparation, and the High Court ruled that the report was inadmissible.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding the appeal on factual matters and directed the case to be remanded to the Tribunal for the recording of evidence from the Laboratory representative to prove the contents of the report.\n•\nCitations: None provided", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 17-P of 2003, decision dated: 8-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamid Farooq Durrani, Dy. A.G. and Tasleem Hussain Advocate-on-Record (Absent) for Petitioners. Abdul Rashid Awan. Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Nemo for Respondents No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS \nVS\n ZARSHAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 774 = 2004 SLD 774 = 2004 PTCL 191 = 2004 PTD 2243 = 2005 SCMR 1022", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Duty Refund Claim by Purchaser\n•\nDetails: An importer sold goods under an agreement where the purchaser paid customs duties. The goods were exempt from customs duties, and the purchaser sought a refund directly from Customs.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court ruled that only the importer can claim a refund. The purchaser, despite paying the duties, could not claim the refund in their own right unless recognized as the importer by the Customs authorities. Any loss could be recovered from the importer through a separate legal suit.\n•\nCitations: None provided", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.511 of 1998, decision dated: 4-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR A. SHEIKH, JUSTICE\nIFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nRaja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.\nRemaining Respondents Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "VS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 775 = 2004 SLD 775 = 2004 PTD 2278", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProtection of Action Under Customs Act, 1969 (Frustrated Cargo)\n•\nDetails: The plaintiff filed a suit against the Customs Department for possession, declaration, and permanent injunction concerning a consignment, alleging inactions contrary to section 138 of the Customs Act, 1969. The consignment had been shipped in error, and efforts for reshipment were made without delay. The case focused on whether the consignment, which had not been cleared through the proper customs procedures, could benefit from section 138, which covers frustrated cargo.\n•\nHeld: The suit was allowed in favor of the plaintiff, granting permission for the reshipment of the consignment within seven days, contingent on the plaintiff providing a Rs. 20,00,000 bank guarantee. The provisions of section 138 of the Customs Act, 1969, were deemed applicable for this scenario, and the disowning of the consignment by the Embassy did not invalidate the provisions that allow for reshipment.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 138, 217; Tahir A Khan v. Central Board of Revenue 2003 PTD 1155; S.M. Shafi Zaidi v. Hassan Ali Khan 2002 SCMR 338; Dewan Scrap (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2003 PTD 2127.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=138", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1073 of 2003, decision dated: 12-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Plaintiff.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendants Nos.2 and 3.\nMansoor Shaikh for Defendant No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MICHEAL DSOUZA\nVS\n SAGEERUDDIN KHAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 776 = 2004 SLD 776 = 2004 PTD 2290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure of Goods Liable to Confiscation (Remote Control Instrument)\n•\nDetails: The appellant challenged the confiscation of remote controls imported without the required brand, marks, and numbers on the bill of entry. The confiscated remote controls carried a brand name and model, but these details were absent from the documents provided by the appellant.\n•\nHeld: The confiscation was upheld as the documents relied upon by the appellant did not correspond with the actual remote controls. The order by the Appellate Tribunal was valid, as it complied with the legal requirements for a valid order.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 168; Customs Tariff Rules, Chapters 84 & 87.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "C. A. No.2353/LB of 2001, decision dated: 23rd January, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nImran Tariq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 483 = 2005 SLD 483 = 2005 PTCL 158 = 2005 PTD 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nQuantum of Customs Duty and Sales Tax on Terminal Tractor\n•\nDetails: A dispute arose regarding the classification of a terminal tractor imported for use in a container terminal. The petitioner sought concessional rates of duty as per a prior notification, while the respondents insisted on classifying the tractor as a vehicle, subject to higher duties and taxes.\n•\nHeld: The case was remanded to the Collector for adjudication, as no formal order had been passed to determine the quantum of duty. The High Court clarified that constitutional jurisdiction could not be used to decide the classification, which required an adjudicatory process.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 168, 207; S.R.O. 28(I)/98.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Customs Tariff Rules=84", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1162 of 2000, decision dated: 2-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaiq Usmani for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2.\nNadeem Azhar, Dy. A.G. for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS QASIM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINERS TERMINAL LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 484 = 2005 SLD 484 = 2005 PTD 10", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPenalty on Customs Agent for Mis-declaration\n•\nDetails: A customs agent was penalized for mis-declaring the description and value of imported goods. The agent argued that he had no knowledge of the mis-declaration and had filed the documents based on those provided by the importer.\n•\nHeld: The penalty imposed on the agent was set aside, as there was no evidence to suggest that the agent was involved in the mis-declaration. The agent's responsibility was to prepare the bill of entry based on the provided documents, and no collusion with the importer was found.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 194, 194-A, 207, 209.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-543 of 2001, decision dated: 12-05-2004, hearing DATE : 16-02-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER (JUDICIALII)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 485 = 2005 SLD 485 = 2005 PTD 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDetermination of Value of Goods under Customs Act, 1969\n•\nDetails: The appellant contested the reliance on advice from a Traders Association for the valuation of imported goods, arguing that the Customs Department should adhere strictly to the procedure set out in Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nHeld: The High Court remitted the case to the Deputy Collector for proper valuation as per the prescribed procedure under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, and clarified that while the Traders Association's advice could be considered, it should not be the sole basis for valuation.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 25, 30.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 21 of 2002, heard on 20-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE\nRUSTAM ALI MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Qazi for Appellant.\nM.D. Shahzad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS YOUSAF ENTERPRISES\nVS\n COLLECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 486 = 2005 SLD 486 = 2005 PTCL 500 = 2005 PTD 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure of Goods and Jurisdiction of Customs Officers\n•\nDetails: The case involved the seizure of goods that had already been cleared by appraisement officers. The petitioner challenged the detention of goods by the Intelligence and Investigation Directorate, arguing that the Appraising Officer had no jurisdiction to re-examine and detain goods once cleared.\n•\nHeld: The High Court quashed the seizure, ruling that the Intelligence and Investigation Directorate had no authority to detain or seize goods already cleared by appropriate officers. The petitioner had acquired a vested right for clearance, and any deprivation of this right required valid reasons and proper procedures.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 168, 171, 186; S.R.O. 388(I)/82.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-817 of 2004, decision dated: 7-09-2004. dates of hearing: 17th and 18th, August 2004.", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ismat Mehdi for Petitioner.\nSyed Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.\nRespondent No. 3 in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHZAD AHMED CORPORATION THROUGH SHAHZAD AHMED \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 784 = 2002 SLD 784 = 2002 SCMR 698", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeniority in Civil Service\n•\nDetails: The case involves an employee who held an ad hoc post but was later appointed as a regular employee by the Federal Public Service Commission. The issue was whether the seniority should be reckoned from the date of appointment through the Public Service Commission or the date the employee was appointed to the ad hoc post.\n•\nHeld: Seniority should be counted from the date of the Public Service Commission's recommendation, not from the date the employee was appointed to the ad hoc post. An employee appointed through the Commission is considered in permanent service from that date.\n•\nCitations: ESTACODE, 1989 Edn. p.227.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.507 of 2001, decision dated: 30-01-2002.(On appeal from judgment/order dated 23-12-2000 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No.2095-R of 1999)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nSARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muhammad Asghar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. \nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAMI ULLAH GHAURI, RESEARCH OFFICER, ISLAMABAD \nVS\n SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 487 = 2005 SLD 487 = 2005 PTD 67 = 2005 PTR 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Valuation of Goods\n•\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the issuance of valuation advice by Customs without any accompanying data, arguing it violated Section 25 of the Customs Act. The department failed to show compliance with legal requirements.\n•\nHeld: The valuation advice issued without a notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act has no legal effect. A notification is required for fixing the minimum custom value.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Siddique International v. Assistant Collector (Customs) Writ Petition No.7752 of 2004, Messrs Al-Huda Enterprises v. Central Board of Revenue, and Wasim Khan v. Additional Collector of Customs Writ Petition No.4319 of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,81, ScheduleI,IIConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13655 of 2004, heard on 14-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Naeem Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SOHRAB GLOBAL MARKETING (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 488 = 2005 SLD 488 = 2005 PTD 69", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProvisional Assessment and Customs Valuation\n•\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the valuation advice from the Customs Valuation Department, arguing it could not be used for final assessment without following the procedure under Section 25 of the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: The final assessment must follow the procedure under Section 81(2) and 25, where the Customs Department will consider all available evidence and not treat the valuation advice as conclusive.\n•\nCitations: Fine Traders v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement) and others C.P. NO.D-718 of 2004, Messrs Kings Pen Company v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement) and others C. P. No.D-528 of 2004.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-964 of 2004, decision dated: 26th October 2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HABIB-UR-REHMAN & COMPANY THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 489 = 2005 SLD 489 = 2005 PTD 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Limitation and Appeal\n•\nDetails: The appellant filed appeals against the impugned order, arguing that the show-cause notices were time-barred and questioned the limitation period under the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: The appeals were not time-barred as they were filed within 30 days of the impugned order, and the limitation issue could be raised as a legal question even before the Supreme Court.\n•\nCitations: Thatta Cement Company v. Customs, Central, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2003 PTD 1899, Rana Brothers Oil Mills v. A.C. Sales Tax 2002 PTD 2526.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeals Nos. 210 of 2001, 170 to 254 of 2002 and 118 to 161 of 2003, decided 3rd August, 2004. dates of hearing: 2nd, 28th and 29-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Zahid for Appellant.\nRaja Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\n CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH III, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 490 = 2005 SLD 490 = 2005 PTD 86", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Legal Effect of Valuation Advice\n•\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the legality of valuation advice issued without a notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: Valuation advice has no legal effect as it is not a notification. Only a notification under Section 25 is legally valid for fixing the minimum customs value.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Siddique International v. Assistant Collector (Customs) Writ Petition No.7752 of 2004, Messrs Al-Huda Enterprises v. Central Board of Revenue, and Wasim Khan v. Additional Collector of Customs Writ Petition No.4319 of 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9146 of 2004, heard on 16-09-2004, hearing DATE : 6-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nSultan Mahmood for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PUNJAB ARMS CO., LAHORE THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (GROUP-IV), LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 491 = 2005 SLD 491 = 2005 PTCL 161 = 2005 PTD 90", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Information Requirement for Import\n•\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the conditions imposed by the Customs regarding the production of original documents for the import of second-hand dump trucks.\n•\nHeld: The requirement for the production of such documents was not mandatory but within the competence of tax officials for legal verification.\n•\nCitations: Civil Petition Nos. 774-K & 784-K of 2001 fol., Super Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue 2002 PTD 955, and Messrs Colgate Palmolive (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2004 PTD 2516.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=26", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-934 of 2004, decision dated: 9-10-2004, hearing DATE : 6-10-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioners.\nKhalid Anwer and Bilal Shaukat for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAHANZEB KHAN BURKI AND ANOTHER\nVS\n PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 492 = 2005 SLD 492 = 2005 PTD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Valuation of Imported Marble Slabs\n•\nDetails: The valuation of imported marble slabs was challenged as it was done without considering a supporting letter from Pakistan's Embassy.\n•\nHeld: The failure to consider the letter resulted in an arbitrary order. The matter was remanded for a fresh assessment in accordance with the law.\n•\nCitations: Mohsin Tea Stores v. Federation of Pakistan 1999 CLC 753.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.363 of 1991, decision dated: 21st September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioner.\nSajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MAHBOOB ENTERPRISES, KARACHI THOUGH PARTNER, MAHBOOB ALI \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 493 = 2005 SLD 493 = 2005 PTD 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProvisional Assessment of Duty under Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The petitioner was aggrieved by the provisional assessment of duty on their consignment, with the final assessment yet to be conducted. The letter from the Controller of Customs Valuation was advisory in nature and did not bind the final assessment. The constitutional petition was disposed of with instructions for the Collector of Customs Appraisement to consider all available evidence during final assessment, which must be made after allowing the petitioner to present supporting material.\n•\nHeld: The final assessment should be made in accordance with Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, after considering the available evidence and giving the petitioner an opportunity to provide supporting documentation.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.25, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-718, 747, 748, 888 and 994 of 2004, decision dated: 14-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KINGS PEN COMPANY THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR NOORUDDIN \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 494 = 2005 SLD 494 = 2005 PTD 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Duty Assessment and Valuation\n•\nDetails: The petitioner contested the Customs Authorities' valuation of imported goods based on values from three years prior, rather than the prevailing value at the time of importation. According to Sections 25 & 30 of the Customs Act, the valuation should reflect the price at the time of import.\n•\nHeld: The case was remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for reassessment based on the price prevailing at the time of import, in accordance with the law.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25 & 30, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-129 of 1995, decision dated: 29-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Wajid Wyne for Petitioner.\nNadeem Azhar, Dy. A.G. for Respondent No. 1.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent No. 2.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IMPERIAL COMMERCIAL AGENCIES, KARACHI \nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 777 = 2004 SLD 777 = 2004 PTCL 551 = 2005 PTD 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPower to Require Documents under Customs Act and Natural Justice\n•\nDetails: Section 26 of the Customs Act empowers authorities to request information to determine the legality of imports/exports, but this must not be a vague or exploratory inquiry. Authorities must specify the purpose of any document or information request, failing which, it may be deemed as a roving or fishing inquiry.\n•\nHeld: The authority must disclose the purpose for requesting information or documents, and any vague inquiry without such disclosure would violate principles of natural justice.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.26, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.4, Art. 199, Assistant Director, Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs B.R. Herman PLD 1992 SC 485 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=26", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-779 of 2004, decision dated: 20th, September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Muneer Bajwa for Appellant.\nAbdul Rasheed, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 495 = 2005 SLD 495 = 2005 PTD 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Valuation and Public Health Concerns\n•\nDetails: The importers sought the release of betel nut consignments despite them being infested and unfit for human consumption, arguing that the infestation could be removed. Authorities rejected the consignment due to health risks, and the importers attempted to circumvent the process with questionable reports.\n•\nHeld: The importers’ attempts to bypass regulations were deemed improper, and the consignments were not released due to public health concerns. The court upheld the authorities’ decision, stressing the importance of public safety and the wide interpretation of the word “life” under Article 9 of the Constitution.\n•\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 9, Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(e), Messrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil P. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2003 PTD 552 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=129", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.2648 to 2650 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.3165 and 3167 of 2003 in Civil Petition No. Nil of 2003, decision dated: 17-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nJAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. Ps. Nos. 2648 to 2650 of 2003).\nSyed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Applicants (in C.M.As. Nos.3165 and 3167 of 2003).\nAbdul Hafeez Prizada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.\nMs. Naheeda Mehboob Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADEELUR-REHMAN AND OTHERS \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 496 = 2005 SLD 496 = 2005 PTD 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRetrospective Effect of Notifications, Valuation of Goods, and Customs Duty\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the retrospective application of notifications imposing liabilities, especially in relation to Customs Act, 1969, where import tariff prices are fixed and assessed based on notifications published by Customs Authorities. The assessment of duty would apply based on the prevalent price report and published tariffs, considering the timing of the notification publication.\n•\nHeld: Notifications imposing tariffs cannot have retrospective effect. Duty on goods is assessed based on the rate in the published notification and cannot be applied to goods processed before its publication.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 25-B, R.9; Province of East Pakistan v. Hassan Askari PLD 1971 SC 82; Muhammad Ishaq v. Chief Administrator Auqaf PLD 1977 SC 639.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions. Nos. D-446 & D-520 of 1994, heard on 27-08-2004. dates of hearing: 24th, 26th and 27-08-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar and Munib Akhtar for Petitioner (in C. P. No. D-520 of 1994).\nMuhammad Anwar Tariq for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D.446 of 1994).\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal and Nadeem Azhar, Dy. A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TARIQ BROTHERS THROUGH, PARTNER MIAN EJAZ AHMED \nVS\n CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 497 = 2005 SLD 497 = 2005 PTD 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLiability of Customs Agent and Misdeclaration Allegations\n•\nDetails: The appellant, a Customs Clearing Agent, was charged for misdeclaration in the customs process, though the goods were cleared under the first appraisement system. A later re-examination revealed short-assessed duties, but the agent was not found to have made any untrue statements or misdeclaration.\n•\nHeld: The agent could not be penalized under the provisions of S.32 for misdeclaration, as no untrue statement had been made. The liability lay with the assessing officer for the incorrect assessment.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32, 194-A, 207, 208, 209.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-198 of 2004, decision dated: 30-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Silat for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 498 = 2005 SLD 498 = 2005 PTD 247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Officers' Authority and Discretion\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the scope of authority of Customs officers in following directions issued by the Central Board of Revenue under S.223 of the Customs Act, 1969. It emphasizes that officers must maintain discretion in quasi-judicial functions, including assessing and classifying goods, without undue influence from the Board’s administrative directions.\n•\nHeld: Customs officers must follow the Board's directions, but only for administrative matters and not those related to their quasi-judicial duties. The officers' decisions in quasi-judicial matters are independent.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 223, 25; M.A. Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 695; Central Insurance v. Central Board of Revenue 1993 PTD 766.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=223", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 1533, 2783 of 1993, 3020 of 1992 and 1940 of 1996, decision dated: 9-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "I. H. Zaidi for Petitioner. \nShakeel Ahmad, Raja Muhammad Iqbal and S. Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGLISH SWEETS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVS\n PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 499 = 2005 SLD 499 = 2005 PTD 251", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProvisional Assessment of Duty and Final Valuation\n•\nDetails: This case involves a provisional assessment of Customs duty under S.25-B of the Customs Act, 1969, with the final assessment subject to evidence review. The Collector of Customs (Appraisement) is expected to consider all available evidence before finalizing the assessment.\n•\nHeld: Final assessment should be conducted based on the evidence and after providing the importer an opportunity to submit relevant material. Provisional assessment is not conclusive.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25-B & 25; C.P. No.D-964 of 2004.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1070 and D-1076 of 2004, decision dated: 10-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KUMAIL STEEL TRADERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS (GROUP-V), APPRAISEMENT COLLECTORATE, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 500 = 2005 SLD 500 = 2005 PTD 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nValuation under S.25-B of the Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The case deals with the valuation of goods under S.25-B, as opposed to S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Department had discretion to set the value, irrespective of S.25’s provisions. Evidence was not required to establish a transaction value, as S.25-B allowed for discretionary fixing of the value.\n•\nHeld: Valuation under S.25-B does not require strict proof of a connection with the transaction value under S.25. The discretion should be exercised reasonably.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25-B & 25.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2962 of 1992, decision dated: 28-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Petitioner.\nFaisal Arab, Standing Counsel and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KALOODI INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVS\n CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS VALUATION, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 501 = 2005 SLD 501 = 2005 PTD 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMisdeclaration and Duty Drawback under Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The case involves the misdeclaration of fabric under the Customs Act, 1969, where the exporter claimed a duty drawback of 5.80% FOB, while the physical examination of the fabric revealed it was entitled only to a 2.80% drawback as per the S.R.O. 172(I)/99.\n•\nHeld: The fabric attracted the provisions of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969, as it was found that the claimed duty drawback percentage was incorrect.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.32; S.R.O. 172(I)/99 dated 22-3-1999.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Spl. Customs Appeal No. 65 of 2002, decision dated: 5-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD, KARACHI \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 502 = 2005 SLD 502 = 2005 PTD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption from Customs Duty under S.R.O. 349(I)/85\n•\nDetails: The case concerns the exemption of raw material imports under the Drugs Act, 1976, and whether the imported goods were specified in the annex of S.R.O. 349(I)/85 for exemption under S.19 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nHeld: The exemption could only be claimed if the imported goods were specifically mentioned in the annex to S.R.O. 349(I)/85 and were registered under the Drugs Act, 1976.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.19; S.R.O. 349(I)/85 dated 15-4-1985; Pfizer Laboratories v. Federation of Pakistan (Civil Appeals Nos.350 and 351 of 1993).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1281 of 1992, heard on 30-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.I.H. Zaidi for Petitioner.\nJawed Farooqui and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RECKITT & COLMAN OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI \nVS\n PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 503 = 2005 SLD 503 = 2005 PTCL 330 = 2005 PTD 449", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPossession of Foreign Currency under Protection of Economic Reforms Act\n•\nDetails: The case examines whether there is a bar on possessing foreign currency not purchased through prescribed sources under S.4(2) of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, as amended.\n•\nHeld: No bar exists on the possession of foreign currency purchased from unauthorized sources. The onus is on the department to establish a breach, and the benefit of the doubt goes to the individual.\n•\nCitations: Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992), S.4(2); Irshad Ahmad Shaikh v. The State 2000 SCMR 814.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos. 12 to 20 of 2004, heard on 28-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE\nRUSTAM ALI MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Athar Minallah for Appellant.\nMajeeb-ur-Rehman Warraich for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZIR MUHAMMAD\nVS\n CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX (APPELLATE) TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 504 = 2005 SLD 504 = 2005 PTCL 475 = 2005 PTD 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPrevailing Provisions in Conflict with Protection of Economic Reforms Act\n•\nDetails: The provisions of S.19(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 (amended by the Customs (Amendment) Ordinance 2002) supersede the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, and nullify its effect regarding currency possession.\n•\nHeld: The new provisions under S.19(3) of the Customs Act take precedence over the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, which was intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Fecto Balarus Tractors Ltd. v. Pakistan.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.19(3); Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992); Fecto Balarus Tractors Ltd. v. Pakistan 2001 PTD 1829.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-842, D-843, D844, D-920, D-921, D-1142 of 2003, D-54 and D-222 of 2004, heard on 23rd November, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Jawaid and Tasawar Ali Hashmi for Petitioner.\nFaisal Arab, Standing Counsel.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal, Haider Iqbal Wahniwal, Nadeem Qureshi, Shakeel Ahmed and Ahmed Khan Bugti for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NISHAT MILLS LIMITED \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, FEDERAL SECRETARIAT AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 505 = 2005 SLD 505 = 2005 PTCL 473 = 2005 PTD 501", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nInvalid Grounds for Dismissal of Appeal under Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the dismissal of an appeal based on an outdated provision of S.194-A(b) of the Customs Act, 1969, which had been omitted prior to the Tribunal's ruling.\n•\nHeld: The dismissal was improper, and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 194-A(b) & 196.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Spl. Custom Appeal No. 9 of 2003, decision dated: 29-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Shaikh for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HUSSEIN INDUSTRIES, KARACHI\nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) REBATE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 506 = 2005 SLD 506 = 2005 PTCL 452 = 2005 PTD 601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRe-adjudication and Import Concessions under S.R.O. 502(I)/94\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the re-adjudication of a Customs case after remand by the Appellate Tribunal, where new charges could not be framed. It also examines the import of deleted agricultural tractor parts under both Unit Specific Development Programme (USDP) and Industry Specific Deletion Programme (ISDP).\n•\nHeld: New charges could not be added during re-adjudication. The importer was entitled to claim concessions under the USDP, having surpassed the deletion target under ISDP.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 179 & 194-B; S.R.O. 502(I)/94 dated 9-6-1994.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 285/LB and 394/LB to 516/LB of 2004, decision dated: 29-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nSARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nSARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 507 = 2005 SLD 507 = 2005 PTD 617", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act, Transaction Value of Similar Goods, and Assessment of Imported Goods\nDetails:\n•\nThe Customs officer had reservations regarding the declared transaction value and was obligated to inform the importer in writing and provide an opportunity to justify the price difference.\n•\nIf the importer failed to justify, the transaction value of identical goods would apply sequentially followed by deductive value, computed value, and fall-back methods.\n•\nThe mandatory compliance with S. 25(10) of the Customs Act, 1969 was emphasized, stating that transaction value of similar goods could not be used without fulfilling the requirements of S. 25(4).\n•\nThe grievance of the importer regarding assessment is also addressed, with the Collector Adjudication being the competent officer.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Customs officer must provide the importer with an opportunity to justify the price difference.\n•\nFailure to do so invalidates the application of similar goods’ transaction value.\n•\nThe Collector Adjudication has the authority to handle grievances against assessments.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. 1668/LB and 1669/1-13 of 2002, decision dated: 24-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nSARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.B. Tahir, S.D.R. for Appellant.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nSARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 508 = 2005 SLD 508 = 2005 PTD 634", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Duty and Tax Remission for Exports, Constitutional Petition\nDetails:\n•\nThe petitioner, involved in vegetable ghee manufacturing and export, entered into an agreement with foreign importers under the Duty and Tax Remission for Export Scheme.\n•\nThe scheme allowed duty and tax-free import of raw materials, but a notification (S.R.O. 176/2004) later amended the rules, making the remission inapplicable to vegetable ghee exporters.\n•\nThe petitioner claimed that the withdrawal of exemption violated the principles of promissory estoppel and vested rights.\nHeld:\n•\nThe doctrine of promissory estoppel was not applicable as no Letter of Credit had been opened before the amendment.\n•\nThe exemption granted to the petitioner could be withdrawn under the S.R.O. 176/2004.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=31", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-774 of 2004, decision dated: 14-12-2004, hearing DATE : 4-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioner.\nS. Zia-ud-Din Nasir; Standing Counsel fur Respondent No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KARIM GHEE AND OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 509 = 2005 SLD 509 = 2005 PTD 665", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman and Refund Claims\nDetails:\n•\nThe Ombudsman has the jurisdiction to address grievances regarding maladministration.\n•\nThe complainant's refund case was delayed due to the loss of the case file, and the department had failed to act despite multiple requests.\n•\nThe Ombudsman recommended that the department decide the case on merits and investigate the causes of file loss.\nHeld:\n•\nInordinate delay in refund claims due to administrative errors is considered maladministration.\n•\nThe Ombudsman recommended that the department address the case promptly and investigate the causes of delay.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1488-L of 2003, decision dated: 24-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Elahi for the Complainant.\nZahra Haider, A.C. for Respondents. Muhammad Akbar, (Advisor) Dealing Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "CRESCENT ART FABRICS (PVT.) LTD\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 510 = 2005 SLD 510 = 2005 PTD 673", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Non-compliance with Appellate Tribunal Orders\nDetails:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal directed the department to refund a differential amount of duty and taxes, subject to the complainant’s guarantee.\n•\nThe department failed to comply without providing a valid reason, causing unnecessary delays and hardship.\nHeld:\n•\nThe department’s delay in complying with the Tribunal's order was marked by mala fides.\n•\nThe Ombudsman recommended compliance with the Tribunal’s order within a specified timeframe.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1489-L of 2003, decision dated: 23rd December, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Anwar Elahi for the Complainant.\nZahra Haider, A.C. for Respondents.\nMuhammad Akbar, (Advisor) Dealing Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "CRESCENT ART FABRICS (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 511 = 2005 SLD 511 = 2005 PTD 709", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Short Orders by Appellate Tribunal and Appeal Limitations\nDetails:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal passed a short order without providing reasons initially, which is not authorized under the relevant laws.\n•\nThe issue of limitation in filing appeals was discussed, with the principle that limitation laws should be strictly interpreted.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal was not empowered to pass short orders without recording reasons.\n•\nLimitation laws must be interpreted strictly to ensure cases are heard on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Spl. Custom Appeals Nos. 253 to 315 of 2004, decision dated: 21st December, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taha Ali for Appellants.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal along with Muhammad Rais, S.P.O. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 478 = 2004 SLD 478 = 2004 PTCL 470 = 2005 PTD 712", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of Vehicle and Misdeclared Chassis Number\nDetails:\n•\nA vehicle was seized by Customs due to discrepancies in the chassis number, allegedly modified.\n•\nThe appellant proved that the vehicle had been cleared previously by customs and registered, despite the Customs' forensic findings.\nHeld:\n•\nThe appellant’s evidence was not properly considered, and the vehicle's identity was confirmed.\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal ordered the release of the vehicle, as the Customs department failed to prove any misdeclaration.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 108/LB of 2004, decision dated: 23rd September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR, MEMBER, JUDICIAL\nSARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Razzaq Toor, A.R. for Appellant.\nM.B. Tahir, S.D.R. assisted by Ch. Muhammad Akram Deputy Superintendent for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR, MEMBER JUDICIAL\nSARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 512 = 2005 SLD 512 = 2005 PTD 729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Duty under the Customs Act\nDetails:\n•\nThe provision in S. 19(3) of the Customs Act, as amended by the Customs (Amendment) Ordinance, 2002, prevents exemptions based on promissory estoppel, irrespective of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act or other laws.\nHeld:\n•\nExemption based on promissory estoppel cannot be obtained, as explicitly stated in S. 19(3).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-1631 of 2001, heard on 24-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana M. Shamim for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 1.\nFaisal Arab, Standing Counsel, for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SITARA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), PMBQ, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 479 = 2004 SLD 479 = 2004 PTCL 519 = 2005 PTD 753", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Misclassification of Imported Goods and Duty\nDetails:\n•\nThe appellant misclassified refractory bricks in a lower PCT heading to evade higher duties. The Customs department relied on incorrect reports regarding the goods’ properties and classed them wrongly.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Appellate Tribunal concluded that the goods were correctly classified under the lower duty rate PCT headings.\n•\nThe appeal was accepted, and the Collector’s decision was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 332 of 2002, decision dated: 12-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) /CHAIRMAN,\nRAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL) \nSYED MOHSIN ASAD, MEMBER TECHNICAL)\nMUHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) /CHAIRMAN\nRAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nSYED MOHSIN ASAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid A. Qureshi for Appellant.\nMuhammad Rashid Superintendent and Zahoor Ahmad Mughal, Deputy Superintendent for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 513 = 2005 SLD 513 = 2005 PTD 778", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Value of Goods under the Customs Act\nDetails:\n•\nOnce goods are cleared and payment is received, the letter of credit loses its validity. Any subsequent amendment made for claiming a discount at a higher rate has no legal effect.\nHeld:\n•\nNo legal sanctity can be given to amendments in the letter of credit once goods are cleared and payment is received.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-566 of 1991, heard on 8-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zamir-ud-Din for Petitioner.\nFaisal Arab, Standing Counsel and Rata Muhammad Iqbal.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AUTO CENTRE THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER\nVS\n CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 480 = 2004 SLD 480 = 2004 PTCL 509 = 2005 PTD 779", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act - Seizure and Confiscation of Goods\nDetails: Goods seized by Customs authorities were subject to a show-cause notice issued 2 months and 11 days post-seizure without the statutory extension. Secondhand VCRs and VCPs, banned under the Import Policy Order 2000, were confiscated but not subject to outright confiscation per the policy. These goods were imported through a notified route and Customs Station, making them not smuggled goods. \nHeld: Show-cause notice was time-barred; confiscation was overturned. Goods were ordered released on payment of duties, taxes, and redemption fine.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Import Policy Order, 2000, S.R.O. 1374(1)/1998, S.R.O. 374(1)/2002.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Appeal No.55 of 2003, decision dated: 12-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/CHAIRMAN\nAL-HAJ FIROZ-UD-DIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahoor Ahmad Mughal, Deputy Superintendent for Appellant.\nS.K.M. Kiani for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 514 = 2005 SLD 514 = 2005 PTD 884", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Auctioned Goods - Withholding of Delivery\nDetails: The petitioner, the highest bidder in an auction, was denied delivery of goods based on departmental directions pending a decision by Customs. R.24 of Auction Procedure Rules allows rejection of bids before delivery.\nHeld: Directions were lawful; the case was remanded to the Collector of Customs to decide within six weeks.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), R.24 Auction Procedure Rules, 1980.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=219", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. 2337 of 1993, decision dated: 22-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Naveed for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\nSajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNUS THROUGH ATTORNEY\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI AND 5 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 515 = 2005 SLD 515 = 2005 PTD 885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Vehicle on Allegation of Smuggling\nDetails: The vehicle was confiscated due to alleged smuggling without evidence of import documents. The appellant proved lawful ownership through registration and other corroborative evidence.\nHeld: Confiscation was set aside; the case was remanded for reassessment.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156(1)89/90 & 194-A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.714/LB of 2004, decision dated: 26-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Atta-ul-Mustafa Shiraz for Appellant.\nGulzar Ali, S.I.O, for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD JAHANGIER, JUDICIAL MEMBER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 516 = 2005 SLD 516 = 2005 PTD 917", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Imported Goods - Securities Release\nDetails: The department refused to release securities provided by the importer, despite no appeal against the Appellate Tribunal's judgment on goods classification.\nHeld: Department lacked authority to withhold securities; High Court directed their release.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 193-B(4) & 196, Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-517 of 2000, heard on 14-09-2001, hearing DATE : 21st August, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MEHAR BROTHERS THROUGH PROP. ZAHEER AHMED\nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRISEMENT-II), KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 517 = 2005 SLD 517 = 2005 PTD 923", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Export Duty Refund - Misdeclaration Allegation\nDetails: Exporter sought a refund claiming wrongful duty application. Alternately argued goods were exempted under S.R.O. 738(I)/90. The department alleged misdeclaration.\nHeld: Alternate pleas did not constitute misdeclaration; penalty and show-cause notice were set aside.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32 & 33, Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos.D-1226, D-1227 and D-1228 of 1994, decided 21st January, 2003, hearing DATE : 16-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rasheed A. Akhund for Petitioner.\nNadeem Azhar Siddiqui for Respondent No. 1.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 518 = 2005 SLD 518 = 2005 PTD 935", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Amnesty Scheme - Smuggled Vehicles\nDetails: Petitioner's failure to produce a vehicle for assessment within the Amnesty Scheme period invalidated their claim.\nHeld: Petition dismissed; post-expiry production was inconsequential.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 25, Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 8 of 2002, decision dated: 25-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nAZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Naved Ahmed for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD MOINUR REHMAN THROUGH ATTORNEY\nVS\n CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 519 = 2005 SLD 519 = 2005 PTD 940", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim - Retrospective Effect of Notifications\nDetails: Petitioner claimed a refund based on a rectified notification effective after duty payment.\nHeld: Beneficial notifications can have retrospective effect; refund granted.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25, 25-B & 33; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-2611 of 1993, decision dated: 9-02-2002, hearing DATE : 31st January, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Qasit Nawaz for Petitioner.\nZia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UDL INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPEALS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 520 = 2005 SLD 520 = 2005 PTD 972", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim - Belated Objections by Customs\nDetails: Customs delayed refund by raising belated objections on goods' origin.\nHeld: Objections were not bona fide; High Court directed a refund with indemnity bond return.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 19 & 33, Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 963 of 2000, decision dated: 30-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan and Miss Danish Zuberi for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal alongwith Khalid Mehmood for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MACPAC FILMS LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, FEDERAL SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 521 = 2005 SLD 521 = 2005 PTD 981", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Duty-Free Import - Continued Use of Rig\nDetails: A drilling rig, duty-free imported for a government contract, was later used for other official projects. Customs issued a show-cause notice for unpaid duties.\nHeld: Rig use under the original contract was lawful; show-cause notice was invalid.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 16 & 20, Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan (1973).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.874 of 1993, decision dated: 8-02-2002, hearing DATE : 24-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid F. Ebrahim for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "OCCIDENTAL OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD\nVS\n COLLECTOR (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 522 = 2005 SLD 522 = 2005 PTD 990", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim - Erroneous Issuance of Show-Cause Notice\nDetails: Refund application was treated as a case of erroneous duty payment under S.32 instead of being decided outright.\nHeld: Notice issuance was unlawful; refund claim could simply be rejected or accepted.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32 & 33.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-480 of 1995 and D-2180 to D-2187 of 1994, decision dated: 9-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rashed A. Akhund for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 523 = 2005 SLD 523 = 2005 PTD 1010", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Alternate Remedy and Constitutional Jurisdiction\nDetails: A petitioner sought High Court intervention despite statutory remedies being available under Customs law.\nHeld: Constitutional jurisdiction cannot override statutory remedies; the petitioner must exhaust statutory options.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.168, Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan (1973); The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs N.V. Philips PLD 1993 SC 434.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-37 of 2000, decision dated: 8-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nWAHID BUX BROHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.M. Tariq for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. ZAHIDA HASNAIN\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH FINANCE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CENTRAL CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DIVISION PAK-SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 524 = 2005 SLD 524 = 2005 PTD 1029", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act - Review Application\nDetails: A review application under O.XLVII, R.1, C.P.C. was dismissed as the factual controversy had already been resolved by findings from the Collector of Customs and the Appellate Tribunal. The claimant failed to provide adequate documentation for his claims regarding confiscated contraband goods (betel-nuts).\nHeld: The review application lacked merit and was dismissed.\nCitations: Messrs Baghpottee Services (Pvt.) Limited v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2001 CLC 1363; The State v. Umer Hayat PLD 1992 SC 393; State v. Banda Gul 1993 SCMR 311.\n(b) Validity of FIR Registration under Customs Act\nDetails: The appellant argued that the FIR was registered at an unauthorized location. The court referenced S.161 of the Customs Act, which provides the legal framework for such situations, rendering the appellant's contention invalid.\nHeld: FIR registration was upheld as valid.\nCitations: Same as above.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 107 of 2000, decision dated: 1st November, 2004, hearing DATE : 22-09-2004, Review Application No.8 of 2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Applicant.\nFarid-ud-Din for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGHA MUHAMMAD\nVs\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 525 = 2005 SLD 525 = 2005 PTCL 555 = 2005 PTD 1069", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Determination of Customs Value of Goods\nDetails: A Principal Appraiser issued an ultra vires notice under S.25-A of the Customs Act, a function designated to the Additional Collector. The takeover of goods based on the invalid notice was deemed illegal.\nHeld: The notice and subsequent actions were void; the department was directed to treat the importer as others in similar cases.\nCitations: Messrs Baghpottee Services (Pvt.) Limited v. Allied Bank of Pakistan 2001 CLC 1363; The State v. Umer Hayat PLD 1992 SC 393; State v. Banda Gul 1993 SCMR 311.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes\nDetails: The court emphasized that statutory provisions must be interpreted in the context of the entire legislative scheme, not in isolation. The principle of find was scrutinized in S.25-A, highlighting the need for transparency and due inquiry in customs valuation.\nHeld: Proper procedures must be followed in customs valuation; decisions taken without importer participation were invalid.\nCitations: Chambers 20th Century Dictionary; Black's Law Dictionary.\n(c) Rules for Imported Goods Valuation\nDetails: The court clarified the roles of the Appropriate Officer and procedural safeguards for valuation under S.25-A. Rules such as S.R.O. 487(I)/2003 specify the range of understated values justifying the takeover of goods.\nHeld: Actions contrary to rules and without proper inquiry are invalid.\nCitations: Customs Act S.25-A; Customs Rules 2001 Ch.IX; S.R.O. 371(I)/2002; S.R.O. 487(I)/2003.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-1141 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nShakeel Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\nSyed Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SOHAIB KHAN\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 526 = 2005 SLD 526 = 2005 PTD 1115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption and Promissory Estoppel under Customs Act\nDetails: The exemption under S.R.O. 484(I)/92 expired naturally on 30-6-1995. A bill of entry filed on 29-7-1995 was subject to new tax rates. The claim for exemption under the expired S.R.O. was denied.\nHeld: The importer was liable for sales tax and demurrage charges; the doctrine of promissory estoppel was inapplicable.\nCitations: Collector of Customs v. Ravi Spinning Mills Ltd. 1999 SCMR 412; Pakistan v. Fecto Belarus Tractors PLD 2002 SC 208; Hashwani Hotels Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (2004) 90 Tax 158", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=31", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-373 of 2004, decision dated: 18-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Rafiq Rajwana for Petitioner.\nNasrullah Awan for Respondent No. 3.\nAhmed Khan Bugti for Respondents Nos.1 & 2.\nArif Khan for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FATIMA SUGAR MILLS LTD., MULTAN\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 527 = 2005 SLD 527 = 2005 PTD 1120", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Auction Sale Price Due to Maladministration\nDetails: The complainant purchased a car through an auction conducted by the Customs Dryport. Later, the car was seized by the police as it was reported stolen. The complainant faced delays in getting a refund of the sale price.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman declared the delay in refund as maladministration and recommended the competent customs authority refund the sale price.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S.33), Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (S.2(3)).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 380-L of 2004, decision dated: 5-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fayyaz Athar Siddiquie for the Complainant.\nMs. Munazza Majeed, D.C. Customs (Law) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHUJAH\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 528 = 2005 SLD 528 = 2005 PTD 1126", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Against Sale of Tax-Free Vehicle by Diplomat\nDetails: A foreign diplomat sold a duty-free imported vehicle after losing diplomatic status. The buyer was willing to pay customs duties, but the diplomat's appeal raised questions of law, which were deemed factual disputes beyond the scope of the Customs Act, 1969 (S.196).\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the appeal, citing abuse of diplomatic privileges.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S.196), S.R.O. No. 506(I)/88, General Manifest No. 1781/95.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "C.A. 69 of 2004, decision dated: 28-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muzammal Akhtar Shabbir for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSA KHAN\nVS\n DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (ASO), SARGODHA AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 529 = 2005 SLD 529 = 2005 PTD 1128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification Application Versus Review Application\nDetails: The application claimed rectification of mistakes in a tribunal order. However, it was found to seek a review instead.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the application was not maintainable as the tribunal lacked review jurisdiction.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss.194-B(2), 196), CIT v. Qureshi Brothers (1986 PTD 100), CIT v. National Food Industries (1992 PTD 570), Baqar v. Muhammad Rafique (2003 SCMR 140).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No.100 of 2003, decision dated: 17-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taha Alizai for Appellant, Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 530 = 2005 SLD 530 = 2005 PTD 1137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Smuggled Goods\nDetails: Smuggled goods, including carpets and cycle parts, were confiscated. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine but upheld confiscation due to lack of proof of lawful import.\nHeld: The High Court reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 150,000 while upholding confiscation.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss.156(1)(8), 181, 196).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.539 of 2003, decision dated: 27-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ghafoor Khatak for Appellant.\nDr. Sohail Akhtar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MEERA JAN\nVS\n THE STATE THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, ANTISMUGGLING ORGANIZATION, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 531 = 2005 SLD 531 = 2005 PTD 1139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Improper Adjudication of Confiscated Goods\nDetails: Seized goods were confiscated and auctioned without proper adjudication or evidence of smuggling. The ex parte orders were deemed procedurally flawed.\nHeld: The High Court set aside the orders and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss.156(1)(8), 180, 194-A, 215).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-793 of 2002, decision dated: 3rd January, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Muneer Bajwa for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 532 = 2005 SLD 532 = 2005 PTD 1164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction in Determining Customs Value of Goods\nDetails: Customs value was disputed as the goods were released from Lahore, and Karachi customs lacked jurisdiction. The court ruled departmental orders void due to procedural flaws.\nHeld: Orders were declared unlawful, with a directive for lawful proceedings if necessary.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss.25, 32, 179), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Art.199), Latif Brothers v. Government of Pakistan (1992 SCMR 1083).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1388 of 1995, heard on 27-01-2005. dates of hearing: 25th and 27-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioner.\nFaisal Arab, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALI TRADE LINKERS, LAHORE\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 533 = 2005 SLD 533 = 2005 PTD 1169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Effect of SRO Issuance Date on Customs Duty Refund\nDetails: Goods cleared before the publication of S.R.O.116(I)/2000 were exempt from customs duty under its provisions.\nHeld: The importer was entitled to a refund as the SRO took effect after the clearance date.\nCitations: Finance Act, 1999 (S.18(7)), Customs Act, 1969 (Ss.19(2), 30), 2002 CLC 1275.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "C.As. Nos. 543 to 545 of 2003, heard on 7-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal for Appellant.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, NABHA ROAD, LAHORE\nVS\n GHULAM BARI AKBAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 534 = 2005 SLD 534 = 2005 PTD 1172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Duty Assessment and Untrue Statement Allegations\nDetails: Customs alleged misclassification of teakwood imports. The court found procedural gaps and ruled in favor of the importer.\nHeld: Goods were declared exempt from customs duty under Heading 4407.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss.80, 32), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Art.199), Collector of Customs v. S.M. Ahmad (1999 SCMR 138).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1860 and 1961 of 1994, decision dated: 10-02-2005. dates of hearing: 3rd, 8th and 10-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Navin S. Merchant and Junaid Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nSajjad Ali Shah, D.A.G., Faisal Arab, Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel along with Muhammad Farooq Khan, Law Officer for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAHNAWAZ ENTERPRISES\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 535 = 2005 SLD 535 = 2005 PTD 1176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Payment of Wharfage on Confiscated Goods\nDetails: The court directed customs authorities to resolve disputes over wharfage fees for goods stored at dry ports.\nHeld: Customs was ordered to review audit objections and submit findings within two months.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss.82, 82-A, 203, 201, 169(5)), Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Art.199).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=82", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.14260 of 2004, heard on 17-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nSarfraz Ahmed Cheema for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAISALABAD DRY PORT TRUST, THROUGH MANAGER (ADMN. & LEGAL)\nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 637 = 2006 SLD 637 = 2006 PTD 674", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Valuation Procedures\nDetails: Fixed valuation advice contradicted Section 25, requiring valuation based on transaction value or rules.\nHeld: Customs authorities must adhere to Section 25 for valuation, disregarding fixed valuation advice.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (Ss.25, 25-A), relevant precedents from 2005 PTD and others.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Suit No. 551 and C.M.As. Nos. 7812, 7813, 2940, 6306, 6048 and 9932 of 2005, decision dated: 6-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi for Plaintiff.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Defendants Nos.2, 3 and 5.\nJawed Farooqui for Defendant No. 4.\nShafi Siddiqui for Defendants Nos.6 and 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN DRY BATTERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH VICECHAIRMAN AND ANOTHER\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND 9 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 638 = 2006 SLD 638 = 2006 PTD 710", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Car Purchased by Ex-Diplomat\nDetails: A car purchased by an ex-diplomat was confiscated despite the respondent having owned it for five years after its original purchase, during which no government dues or taxes were payable under S.R.O. 506(I)/88. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed the sale permission. Benefits regarding the car's purchase and maintenance accrued to the respondent under the applicable law due to the completion of the prescribed period.\nHeld: The car was restored to the respondent, as the law could not be misinterpreted to deprive them of accrued benefits.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 19 & 32; S.R.O. 506(I)/88, dated 26-6-1988.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No.44 of 2005 with C.M. No. 372 of 2005(M), decision dated: 13-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nSALIM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Waqar Ahmad Seth for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR \nVS\n MAJ. GENERAL MEHRABUDDIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 639 = 2006 SLD 639 = 2006 PTD 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Punishment for Customs Offenses and Redemption Fine\nDetails: The first appellate authority ordered the release of seized goods on payment of a 35% redemption fine of the appraised value in addition to duty and taxes, with a 5% penalty on each owner. The redemption fine imposed at 35% was deemed higher than the usual 25%.\nHeld: The appellate tribunal reduced the redemption fine from 35% to 25% and remitted the personal penalty of 5%.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156(1)(8)(89), 157, 2(s), & 16; Import and Export (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 2/PB of 2006, decision dated: 31st January, 2006, hearing DATE : 25-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naseem for Appellant.\nJehanzeb Mahmood, D.R. and Pir Izhar-ul-Haq, D.S. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 640 = 2006 SLD 640 = 2006 PTD 824", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of Vehicle with Disputed Chassis Number\nDetails: A vehicle was seized as its 8-digit chassis number conflicted with the report from its dealer, which indicated a 14-digit number. The Appellate Tribunal overturned the original order, relying on an auction voucher. The High Court found the tribunal's reliance misplaced due to forensic evidence.\nHeld: The High Court set aside the tribunal's decision and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 168.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal 38 of 2004, heard on 26-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE\nUMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Sagheer Ahmed for Appellant.\nC.M. Sarwar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MULTAN \nVS\n MOLA BAKHSH AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 641 = 2006 SLD 641 = 2006 PTD 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Natural Justice vs. Confiscation of Unfit Goods\nDetails: Imported goods found unfit for human consumption were deemed non-releasable even after segregation of the infected portion. Customs officers were authorized to act under the negative list provisions. The principles of natural justice prevailed over technical jurisdiction disputes.\nHeld: The plea for segregation and partial release of the goods was rejected.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 4, 8, 9, 18, 23, 24, & 25; Import and Trade Procedure Order, 2000, Cl. HI of Negative List; S.R.O. 489(I)/2000, dated 17-7-2000. Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693 ref.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, (IV of 1969)=", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-895 of 2004, decision dated: 4-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "YASMIN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Harnand Rai Harbhagat Rai", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 642 = 2006 SLD 642 = 2006 PTD 909", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Sequential Valuation and Provisional Release of Imported Goods\nDetails: The determination of customs value under S.25 Customs Act, 1969, and associated rules must follow a sequential methodology. Each step must be recorded, and valuation methods can only progress to subsequent subsections upon completion of prior methods. The importer is entitled to provisional release under S.81 upon disputed valuation.\nHeld: Customs authorities must follow the sequential process strictly, and the importer has a right to provisional release under S.81. Any enhancement in value requires sufficient evidence.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25, 79, 80, 81, & 25(7); Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 108 to 122; Sohaib Khan v. Collector of Customs Appraisement 2005 PTD 1069; Collector of Customs Appraisement Karachi v. Messrs H.M. Abdullah 2004 PTD 2993; Messrs Dawlance Private Limited v. Collector of Customs 2002 PTD (Trib.) 3077.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1483 of 2005, decision dated: 30-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ali Bin Adam Jafri for Petitioner.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "REHAN UMAR\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 643 = 2006 SLD 643 = 2006 PTCL 456 = 2006 PTD 1171", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Tax and Provisional Assessment under the Customs Act\nDetails:\n(a) Levy of Tax: Any agreement for payment of a tax not recoverable under a tax statute is repugnant to Article 77 of the Constitution and deemed void.\n(b) Provisional Assessment and Limitation: Goods imported were provisionally assessed on 27-10-1996, with assessment secured by a bank guarantee. Authorities issued a show-cause notice on 14-2-2005 for recovery of short-levied duty. The importer argued that the demand was time-barred.\nHeld: The court found that after nine years, neither final assessment could be made under S.81 of the Customs Act, nor recovery under S.32(2) could be initiated. The recovery notice was declared time-barred and without lawful authority. Petition allowed.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 77; Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32(2) & 81(2).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-1581 of 2005, decision dated: 17-03-2006, hearing DATE : 7-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nALI SAIN DINO METLO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Navin Merchant for Petitioner.\nMehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL SATTAR \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 644 = 2006 SLD 644 = 2006 PTCL 137 = 2006 PTD 1180", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Non-renewal of License for Private Bonded Warehouse\nDetails: A private bonded warehouse’s license was canceled, and establishment charges were demanded on grounds of non-renewal and non-payment. The department could not prove that the warehouse received goods after license expiry or that the law mandated renewal and charges for expired licenses.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal set aside the department's orders, finding no legal basis for the demands.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.13(3).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=13", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 430 of 2005, decision dated: 14-01-2006, hearing DATE : 9-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imran for Appellant.\nSanuallah for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER (JUDICIALI)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 645 = 2006 SLD 645 = 2006 PTCL 417 = 2006 PTD 1387", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Underdeclared Value of Imported Goods and Attempted Evasion\nDetails: Importers were accused of underdeclaring the value of goods to evade duties and taxes. The goods were confiscated with an option for release upon payment of a redemption fine and penalties. Importers failed to rebut evidence presented by the department.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the departmental findings, concluding that they were based on sufficient material and could not be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.32; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-16 of 1993, decision dated: 17-03-2006, hearing DATE : 17-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nALI SAIN DINO METLO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sattar Silat for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.\nMehmmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CHEMITAX INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 646 = 2006 SLD 646 = 2006 PTCL 564 = 2006 PTD 1566", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Used Dumper Trucks and Executive Orders under Customs Act\nDetails:\n(a) Pakistan Customs Tariff Schedule: The Schedule forms part of the Customs Act, 1969.\n(b) Used Dumper Trucks: Importers sought release of trucks at a 5% duty rate per Item No. 8704.1010 of the Schedule. Authorities refused release without clearance from the Central Classification Committee, citing Customs General Order No.18/2005.\nHeld: The court held that statutory rights under the Schedule could not be curtailed by an executive order unless permitted by the statute. The committee was not mandated to examine each consignment. The appraisers must determine duty based on physical attributes and legal requirements.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.223; Customs General Order No.18 of 2005; Pakistan Customs Tariff Schedule, PCT Headings 8704.1010.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=223", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-31 and 32 of 2006, decision dated: 13-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMRS. QAISER IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Petitioners.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 1.\nJaved Farooqi for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR BHUNDI\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7562", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 647 = 2006 SLD 647 = 2006 PTD 2111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Expert Reports and Ban on Import of Lard Oil\nDetails:\n(a) An expert’s statement going beyond the scope of their report renders the report inadmissible.\n(b) A ban on importing lard oil applies only to its purest edible form. Blended forms, unfit for human consumption and usable only for industrial purposes, are excluded from the ban.\nHeld: The expert report was discarded, and the ban on lard oil was held inapplicable to the blended, industrial-use form.\nCitations: Qanun-e-Shahadat (Arts. 59 & 60); Customs Act (S. 16).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.702/LB and 703 of 1999, decision dated: 18-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN, \nMIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nFALAK SHER, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nMs. Rukhsana Yasim, D.R. along with Maqsood Javed, Appraiser for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7563", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 648 = 2006 SLD 648 = 2006 PTD 2167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Court Jurisdiction and Import of Used Vehicle\nDetails:\n(a) Jurisdiction of civil courts is barred only if the impugned action is within the statute, not mala fide, and not without jurisdiction.\n(b) In a suit concerning a used vehicle imported under the Transfer of Residence Scheme, the vehicle’s confiscation was upheld due to its non-compliance with customs rules, and the remedy was limited to statutory appeals.\n(c) Actions under S.217(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, are protected from challenges before civil courts regardless of good faith.\n(d) Statutory provisions barring civil courts do not apply to constitutional petitions.\nHeld: The suit was dismissed as non-maintainable, and jurisdictional protections were upheld.\nCitations: Customs Act (Ss. 16, 17, 156(9)(14), 169 & 217); Constitution of Pakistan (Art. 199).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=9", + "Case #": "Suit No. 914 of 1999, decision dated: 12-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam for Plaintiff.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal.for Defendants Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD SAEED\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7564", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 649 = 2006 SLD 649 = 2006 PTD 2354 = 2006 SCMR 1648 = 2007 PTCL 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment and Determination of Transaction Value\nDetails:\n(a) Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to review factual disputes in customs assessments and determine the scope of S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n(b) Importers cannot claim lower assessments after import, even if market prices decline.\n(c) S.81’s 180-day finalization requirement does not apply to provisional assessments arising from interim court orders.\nHeld: Provisional assessments tied to court orders were valid, and importers’ claims for lower assessments were dismissed.\nCitations: Customs Act (Ss. 25, 80, & 81).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.68 to 88 of 2003, decision dated: 25-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FLYING BOARD AND PAPER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7565", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 650 = 2006 SLD 650 = 2006 PTD 2450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Imported Goods\nDetails: Confiscated goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of duties and fines. The High Court reversed outright confiscation, holding that government revenue interests are better served through proper valuation and clearance.\nHeld: Redemption was allowed, and outright confiscation was set aside.\nCitations: Customs Act (Ss. 16, 156(1)(a), 196); Imports and Exports (Control) Act (S.3(1)).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Spl. Customs Reference Application No.155 of 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Spl. Customs Reference Application No. 155 of 2005\nCh. Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL AZIZ\nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7566", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 651 = 2006 SLD 651 = 2006 PTD 2551 = 2007 PTCL 598", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation Rulings for Imported Goods\nDetails: Valuation rulings by Customs Authorities, lacking contemporaneous evidence, were declared invalid. The court remanded the case for reassessment in compliance with S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969.\nHeld: Valuation ruling was void, and reassessment was ordered.\nCitations: Customs Act (S.25); Constitution of Pakistan (Art. 199).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.16052 of 2005, heard on 15-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner.\nIzhar-ul-Haq and Mian Shahid Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TOKYO AUTOMOBILE THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CFS, NLC THOKAR NIAZ BAIG, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7567", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 652 = 2006 SLD 652 = 2006 PTD 2562", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Tenanted Property for Wealth Tax\nDetails: The High Court upheld that tenanted properties should be valued based on Annual Lease Value, per Wealth Tax Rules, rather than district collector rates.\nHeld: The tribunal’s decision favoring the taxpayer was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.\nCitations: Wealth Tax Act (S.27); Wealth Tax Rules (R.8(3)).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.543 and 544 of 1998, decision dated: 6-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/WEALTH TAX, COMPANIES Zone-II, LAHORE \nVS\n MRS. FARIDA HUSSAIN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7568", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 653 = 2006 SLD 653 = 2006 PTD 2572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Goods for Export\nDetails: The exporter misdeclared the weight of goods, but no revenue loss was caused. The court ruled that such misdeclaration, even if intentional, did not warrant action under S.32 of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The show-cause notice was declared illegal.\nCitations: Customs Act (Ss. 32 & 156(1)(14)).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Spl. Custom Appeal No.66 of 2002, decision dated: 14-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALKAWKAB ALFIDDI TRADING THROUGH PARTNER \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7569", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 654 = 2006 SLD 654 = 2006 PTD 2587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act – Procedural Impropriety and Reasonable Opportunity\n•\nDetails: An ex parte order was passed regarding recovery of enhanced duty rates (30% to 40%) under S.R.O. 502(I)/94 and S.R.O. 225(I)/97. The appellant was denied an adjournment on a flimsy ground, leading to procedural impropriety. Reasonable opportunity requires a taxpayer to have a real chance to persuade the authority. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded with directions to provide a fair opportunity and determine whether the demand was time-barred and the validity of the ex-bond bill of entry.\n•\nHeld: The order was set aside, and the case remanded for reconsideration with a fair opportunity.\n•\nCitations: Farid Son's case PLD 1961 SC 537", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. K-530 and K-531 of 2001, decision dated: 29-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER, JUDICIAL \nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7570", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 655 = 2006 SLD 655 = 2006 PTD 2742", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMisdeclaration by Clearing Agent – Penalty Struck Down\n•\nDetails: A clearing agent filed a Bill of Entry based on importer-provided documents and a Pre-shipment Inspection Report. Subsequent examination revealed undeclared goods. The agent denied involvement or connivance.\n•\nHeld: The penalty imposed on the agent was struck down due to lack of evidence of connivance.\n•\nCitations: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeal No. 80 of 2000, decision dated: 10-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Appellant.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADQUAIN \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7571", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 656 = 2006 SLD 656 = 2006 PTD 2752", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSuspension of Customs House Agent License – Natural Justice\n•\nDetails: The petitioner’s customs house agent license was suspended without prior notice, violating R.103 of the Customs Rules, 2001. The High Court found the authority's action arbitrary, vague, and violative of natural justice principles.\n•\nHeld: Suspension was declared illegal, with authorities directed to proceed lawfully if allegations persisted.\n•\nCitations: W.P. No. 16269 of 2002", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=103", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4172 of 2006, decision dated: 18-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Khalid Ch. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS T.N. INTERNATIONAL THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS (CHAIRMAN LICENSING) DRY PORT, SIALKOT AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7572", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 657 = 2006 SLD 657 = 2006 PTD 2762", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAppellate Tribunal Jurisdiction – Fact and Law\n•\nDetails: The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide both factual and legal questions raised before it under the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: Jurisdiction confirmed for questions of fact and law.\n•\nCitations: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Special Customs Tax Reference Application No.29 of 2006, decision dated: 9-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nZIA PERWAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farogh Naseem and Sardar Ejaz for Petitioners.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal and Akhtar Ali Mahmud, Deputy A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DEWAN CEMENT LTD. THROUGH CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7573", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 658 = 2006 SLD 658 = 2006 PTD 2780", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAbatement of Duties for Damaged Goods – Procedural Requirements\n•\nDetails: Importer sought abatement of duties for damaged goods but failed to inform customs authorities at the import stage. Customs Appellate Tribunal found the claim non-compliant with S.27 of the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: Claim rejected as the importer failed to follow the prescribed process.\n•\nCitations: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=27", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No.73 of 2002 and Customs Appeal No.87-K of 2000, decision dated: 22-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Appellant.\nS. Ashfaq Hussain for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS K & NS POULTRY FARMS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7574", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 984 = 2007 SLD 984 = 2007 PTD 45 = 2007 PTR 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMisdeclaration in Bill of Export – Tribunal's Decision\n•\nDetails: High Court dismissed a reference as the Tribunal did not decide a question of law regarding whether the entire consignment or a portion was weighed.\n•\nHeld: Reference dismissed in limine.\n•\nCitations: Not provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32(1),196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No. 82 and C.M.A. No.1175 of 2006, decision dated: 25-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Iqbal for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI\nVS\n MESSRS ORIENTAL EXPORT INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7575", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 985 = 2007 SLD 985 = 2007 PTD 51", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLimitation Period for Recovery – Procedural Compliance\n•\nDetails: Case reopened for enhanced duty recovery on goods cleared earlier. The show-cause notice was issued after the limitation period under S.32 of the Customs Act, prevailing over S.195.\n•\nHeld: Reassessment order set aside due to limitation expiry, and original order remained in force.\n•\nCitations: Syed Wasey Zafar v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 621, Messrs Muhammad Hussain v. The Collector of Customs (Preventive) 1991 MLD 1959, and others.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=195", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-371 of 2000, decision dated: 23rd October, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK A. R. ARSHAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nKHALIL MASOOD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Sheikh for Appellant.\nGhayass-ud-Din Shaikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7576", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 986 = 2007 SLD 986 = 2007 PTCL 355 = 2007 PTD 60 = (2007) 95 TAX 244 = 2007 PTR 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption for Machinery Components – Interpretation of S.R.O.\n•\nDetails: Fibre Cans and Roving Bobbins, imported separately after the main machinery, were denied exemption under S.R.O. 484(I)/92. The High Court ruled that these items fell under the definition of machinery components and qualified for exemption.\n•\nHeld: Exemption allowed for items imported during the subsistence of the S.R.O.\n•\nCitations: Webster's International Dictionary, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, and other cases referenced.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19Sales Tax Act, 1990=13(1)", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-154 and D-737 of 1995, decision dated: 29-09-2006, hearing DATE : 29-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Siddiqui for Appellant.\nSyed Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MORO TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED THROUGH CHAIRMAN \nVS\n CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7577", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 987 = 2007 SLD 987 = 2007 PTCL 472 = 2007 PTD 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and Limitation under the Customs Act\nDetails: The case revolved around a dispute regarding the assessment of duty on imported goods and the subsequent issuance of a show-cause notice for short-levied duty. The High Court examined its advisory jurisdiction, which is confined to addressing questions of law arising from the Tribunal's orders. The issue was whether a show-cause notice issued after the limitation period prescribed under the Customs Act was valid, especially considering extensions allowed by subsequent legislation.\nHeld: The show-cause notice was barred by limitation. Any subsequent legislation extending limitation periods cannot be applied retrospectively to reopen cases that were finalized before the amendments.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 32(2)), Finance Act, 2000, S.R.O. 225(I)/1997, S.R.O. 563(I)/2005.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=169", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.157 of 2005, decision dated: 22-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHANDHARA NISSAN DIESEL LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7578", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 988 = 2007 SLD 988 = 2007 PTD 127", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation in Adjudication and Recovery Proceedings\nDetails: The petitioners challenged the adjudication delay under the Customs and Sales Tax Acts, arguing that the proceedings were initiated after the statutory period of five years. A recovery notice was subsequently issued well after this period. The court had to decide whether the delay in adjudication rendered the proceedings invalid and whether recovery notices issued beyond the statutory period could be enforced.\nHeld: The statutory limitation provisions were deemed directory rather than mandatory. Therefore, a delay in adjudication did not vitiate the proceedings. However, recovery notices issued after the limitation period were declared invalid.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 179, S. 32(2)); Sales Tax Act, 1990 (S. 36); PLD 2006 SC 209.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.344/LB of 2006, decision dated: 26-07-2006, hearing DATE : 25-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz-ul-Hassan A.R. for Appellant.\nMehmood-ul-Hassan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7579", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 989 = 2007 SLD 989 = 2007 PTCL 489 = 2007 PTD 131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Issuance of Show-Cause Notice Post-Seizure\nDetails: The petitioner contested the non-issuance of a show-cause notice within two months of the seizure of goods as required by law. This delay raised concerns about the validity of the seizure and the petitioner’s entitlement to the return of the seized goods.\nHeld: The court held that the failure to issue a show-cause notice within the prescribed period entitled the holder of the seized goods to their return. However, this procedural lapse did not invalidate subsequent proceedings regarding the adjudication of the case.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 168(2), S. 180).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Application No.145 of 2005, decision dated: 13-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wajiha Mehdi for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHURRAM JAMAL \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7580", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 990 = 2007 SLD 990 = 2007 PTCL 467 = 2007 PTD 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court's Jurisdiction in Reference Applications\nDetails: The petitioners raised objections to the Tribunal's findings of fact, which were challenged in the High Court under its advisory jurisdiction. The key issue was whether the High Court could entertain factual disputes under reference applications.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the reference, stating that its jurisdiction was limited to questions of law and did not extend to re-examining or overturning the Tribunal's findings of fact.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 194-B(2), S. 196).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.83 and C.M.A. No. 1163 of 2006, decision dated: 25-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Iqbal for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS \nVS\n MESSRS NOMAN CHUGTAI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7581", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 991 = 2007 SLD 991 = 2007 PTCL 437 = 2007 PTD 157 = 2007 SCMR 68 = 2007 PTR 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Auction and Assessment of Confiscated Goods\nDetails: Confiscated wristwatches were auctioned at prices significantly below their market value, prompting the petitioners to challenge the auction process as illegal and arbitrary. They sought restoration of the goods or compensation.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that once the goods had been auctioned, they could not be restored to the petitioners. The petitioners were advised to seek remedy through a civil court to address their grievances regarding the auction's fairness.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 201, S. 181); Customs Auction Rules, 1996; PLD 1997 SCMR 1833.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.17-Q of 2006, decision dated: 14-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nRAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Ghulam Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and Gohar Yakub Yousufzai, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI REHMATULLAH AND ANOTHER\nVS\n COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, QUETTA AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7582", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 992 = 2007 SLD 992 = 2007 PTD 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Disputed Customs Duty Rates\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the imposition of a 30% customs duty rate on imported goods, claiming the applicable rate was 25%. The dispute arose over the interpretation of relevant notifications and tariff headings.\nHeld: The court directed the petitioner to pay the duty at the 30% rate. However, the petitioner was allowed to deposit the difference between 25% and 30% under protest, pending the outcome of their appeal. Any excess duty collected would be refundable if the appeal succeeded.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 19), S.R.O. 575(I)/2006.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1041, 1147, 1169 and Miscellaneous Nos. 5488, 5524 and 4731 of 2006, decision dated: 20-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Faisal Siddiqui for Petitioners (in all the three petitions).\nSalman Akram Raja for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D-1041 of 2006).\nAsghar Farooqui Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD. THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7583", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 993 = 2007 SLD 993 = 2007 PTD 284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Removal of Goods from Bonded Warehouse\nDetails: The case involved goods that were illegally removed from a bonded warehouse without payment of customs duty. The issue concerned the applicable duty rate and whether recovery claims were time-barred. The petitioner argued against the validity of the recovery notice issued years later.\nHeld: The court upheld the application of the highest duty rate prevailing at the time of removal. The recovery claim was deemed valid despite being time-barred, as the petitioner had provided a written acknowledgment of liability.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 30, S. 33, S. 156); 2003 PTD 1791.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Special Custom Reference Application No.152 of 2005, decision dated: 19-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Kamal Qazi for Applicant.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WEST PAKISTAN TANKS TERMINAL (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHAIRMAN \nVS\n COLLECTOR (APPRAISEMENT), APPRAISEMENT COLLECTORATE, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7584", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 994 = 2007 SLD 994 = 2007 PTD 643 = (2006) 94 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggling and Seizure Procedures\nDetails: Gold was seized on allegations of smuggling, with the accused challenging the procedural validity of the seizure, including the lack of independent witnesses during the recovery. The burden of proof for the legitimacy of the seized gold became a central issue.\nHeld: The court ruled that the burden of proof rested on the accused to establish the lawful origin of the goods. Procedural lapses, such as the absence of independent witnesses, did not invalidate the seizure or recovery proceedings.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 156); Criminal Procedure Code (S. 103).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2(s),16,156(1),Cls.(8)&(89),157(2),178Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947=8(1),8(2),8(3)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=103Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3(1),3(3)", + "Case #": "Appeal No.69/LB of 1998, decision dated: 28-06-2006, hearing DATE : 29-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RECD.) MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER, JUDICIAL\nHAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nMehmood Hassan, D.R. assisted by Idrees Saeed, D.S. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER TECHNICAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7585", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 995 = 2007 SLD 995 = 2007 PTD 1005", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Regulatory Duty on Imported Goods\nDetails: A regulatory duty imposed on edible oil was challenged by the importer, who argued that the duty was confiscatory and applied to goods imported before the notification date. The court examined whether the duty imposition was lawful and equitable.\nHeld: The court upheld the validity of the regulatory duty, noting that such duties are incidental to market fluctuations and the inherent risks of international trade. Losses arising from such duties were deemed business risks.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 18); PLD 1997 SC 582.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-364, 389, 390, 391, 415, 429; 431, 432, 436, 437, 439, 468, 473, 485, 491, 515, 516, 542, 564, 567, 576 and 579 of 1986, decision dated: 15-02-2007. dates of hearing: 16-12-2005 and 12-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Dr. Farogh Naseem and Abdul Sattar Osman for Petitioners.\nMehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MOLASSES TRADING AND EXPORT CO. (PVT.) LIMITED AND OTHERS\nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7586", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 996 = 2007 SLD 996 = 2007 PTD 1213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Value for Imported Teak-Wood\nDetails: The dispute concerned the classification of teak wood and the applicable customs duty rate. The petitioner argued that the goods fell under a lower-duty tariff heading, while customs authorities classified them under a higher-duty heading.\nHeld: The court ruled that the imported teak wood fell under P.C.T. Heading 4403.1010 and was not liable to duty under Heading 4407.2110. This classification resulted in a lower duty rate for the petitioner.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (S. 25).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C.P.As. Nos.305-K and 306-K of 2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nNavin Merchant, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER \nVS\n SHAHNAWAZ ENTERPRISES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7587", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 997 = 2008 SLD 997 = 2008 PTCL 273 = 2008 PTD 246 = (2008) 97 TAX 218", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) -- Ss. 25-C & 155-H — Freedom of Information Ordinance (XCVI of 2002), Ss. 3, 8 & 15\nDetails:\nThis case revolves around the issue of under-invoicing of imported goods. The court examined whether customs authorities were required to disclose specific information about imported goods to interested parties, such as the description, quantity, quality, port of export, country of origin, and value declared. Customs authorities claimed immunity from disclosure under section 155-H of the Customs Act, 1969, which bars divulging information about imported goods to third parties.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that withholding such information would defeat the purpose of Section 25-C of the Customs Act, which aims to detect under-invoicing and prevent the evasion of customs duties. The court emphasized that the information required for making an offer under Section 25-C should be disclosed to an interested party, as this would facilitate detection of under-invoicing. The disclosure of information was deemed essential to prevent financial loss to the exchequer. The court also referred to the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002, which guarantees access to public records, overriding any claims of immunity under Section 155-H.\nCitations:\nKashif Naseem v. Federation of Pakistan and others, 2007 PTD 2250.\nFreedom of Information Ordinance, 2002, Ss. 3, 8, 15.\n________________________________________\n(b) Freedom of Information Ordinance (XCVI of 2002)\nDetails:\nThis part of the case addresses the principles governing access to information under the Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002. The court discussed the public's right to know and the need for transparency in government actions. The ordinance is designed to ensure that citizens have access to public records, which can help curb corruption and oppression.\nHeld:\nThe court acknowledged that while the right to access information is fundamental, it must be balanced against the potential harm that disclosure could cause. In cases where the harm of disclosing information outweighs the public interest, the disclosure may be restricted. However, in the absence of such harm, public information should be disclosed as a rule.\nCitations:\nFreedom of Information Ordinance, 2002, Ss. 3, 8, 15.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2326 of 2006, heard on 11-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haseeb Jamali for Petitioner.\nRizwan Ahmed Siddiqi, D.A.G., Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi and Ghulam Ahmed Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUS BATTERY INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7588", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 998 = 2008 SLD 998 = 2008 PTD 345", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976) — S. 3(g) — Word Suture — Meaning\nDetails:\nThe court examined the meaning of the term suture under the Drugs Act, 1976, specifically in relation to whether it could be considered a drug. Suture is defined as a stitch used to join the edges of a wound, and it is commonly used in surgical procedures.\nHeld:\nThe court held that a suture could be classified as a drug under the Drugs Act, 1976, as it is used for the restoration of organic functions and is employed for medical treatment.\nCitations:\nDrugs Act, 1976, S. 3(g).\n________________________________________\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) — PCT Heading 30.03 & 30.05 — Drugs Act (XXXI of 1976), S.3(g) — Suture — Classification\nDetails:\nThis part deals with the classification of suture material under the Customs Act and the Drugs Act. The court examined whether suture material, specifically referred to in PCT Heading 30.05, should be classified as a medicament under PCT Heading 30.03.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that suture material should be classified under PCT Heading 30.05, which specifically refers to such material. It could not be treated as a medicament under PCT Heading 30.03, as the classification was determined based on specific references in the tariff.\nCitations:\nGlaxo Laboratories Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1992 SC 455.\n________________________________________\n(c) Administration of Justice\nDetails:\nThe court discussed the principle that courts do not generally approve deviations from established practices unless both interpretations of relevant rules are possible.\nHeld:\nThe court stated that administrative departments cannot disregard legal provisions and choose to follow a consistently wrong practice.\nCitations:\nRadhaka Corporation v. Collector of Customs, 1989 SCMR 353.\n________________________________________\n(d) Notification\nDetails:\nThe case clarified that notifications cannot be given retrospective effect unless explicitly stated in the notification itself.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that a notification can only be given retrospective effect if it specifically states so in the text of the notification.\nCitations:\nN/A.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.P.D. No.157 of 1993, heard on 24-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.I.H. Zaidi for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Akram Zuberi for Respondent.\nSajjad Ali Shah for standing counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "JOHNSON AND JOHNSON PAK (PVT.) LTD \nVS\n PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7589", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 999 = 2008 SLD 999 = 2008 PTCL 320 = 2008 PTD 362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) — Ss. 18, 25, 27 & 32 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 — Constitutional Petition\nDetails:\nThis case involved an importer who challenged the contravention report prepared by the Customs Appraiser. The importer had declared the goods as old and used computer systems and offered payment of duties as per Sections 18 and 27 of the Customs Act. The department ignored the request for proper appraisement and instead prepared a contravention report.\nHeld:\nThe court held that the Customs Department should not have initiated proceedings at this stage, as the circumstances did not establish criminal intent on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner's request for normal appraisement should have been considered, and the contravention report was set aside. The Customs Authorities were directed to appraise the value of the goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act.\nCitations:\nN/A.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11998 of 2007, heard on 10-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abid Ahmad for Appellant.\nRana Abdul Hamid, Addl. A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALM TRADERS THROUGH MANAGER\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7590", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1000 = 2008 SLD 1000 = 2008 PTCL 255 = 2008 PTD 364", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Administrator of Justice\nDetails:\nThe court reiterated that a party who fails to avail an opportunity to be heard cannot blame anyone but themselves.\nHeld:\nThe court upheld the principle that failure to make use of available opportunities for a hearing is the party's responsibility.\nCitations:\nN/A.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) — S. 223 — Importer's Right to be Heard by Central Board of Revenue (CBR)\nDetails:\nThis case concerned the interpretation of Section 223 of the Customs Act, which gives the Central Board of Revenue (CBR) the power to issue directions to Customs officers. The petitioner argued that they should be heard before such directions were issued.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that the CBR is not legally bound to hear the importer before issuing directions under Section 223. The directions issued are not binding on Customs officers when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.\nCitations:\nM.A. Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1988 SC 695; Central Insurance v. Central Board of Revenue, 1993 PTD 766.\n________________________________________\n(c) Administration of Justice\nDetails:\nThe court reiterated that no action detrimental to a person's interest can be taken without first hearing the person affected.\nHeld:\nThe court maintained that the principle of natural justice mandates that no detrimental action should occur without a fair hearing.\nCitations:\nN/A.\n________________________________________\n(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) — Art. 199 — Constitutional Petition\nDetails:\nThe petitioner claimed that a revision was made without hearing them.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that the petitioner’s claim was invalid, as the Revisional Authority had heard the petitioner before upholding the impugned order.\nCitations:\nCollector Sahiwal v. Muhammad Akhtar, 1971 SCMR 681; Government of Pakistan v. Indo-Pakistan Corporation, PLD 1979 SC 723; Collector of Customs v. New Electronics, PLD 1994 SC 363.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=223", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 3020 of 1992, 1533, 2783 of 1993 and 1940 of 1996, heard on 9-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE\nARIF HUSSAIN KHILJI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "I. H. Zaidi for Petitioner. \nShakeel Ahmad, Raja Muhammad Iqbal and S. Zia-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "B.P. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVS\n PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7591", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1001 = 2008 SLD 1001 = 2008 PTD 373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption from Customs Duty and Sales Tax\n•\nDetails: The case concerns the importation of goods in 1992 under S.R.O. 882(I)/92, which exempted such goods from customs duty and sales tax. However, the goods arrived after the insertion of S.31-A in the Customs Act (1969) in 1988, which affected the applicability of the exemption. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was deemed inapplicable due to the amendments, and the importer was unable to claim the exemption.\n•\nHeld: The importer could not claim the benefit of the exemption due to the amendments to the Customs Act, and the claim for exemption was denied.\n•\nCitations: Al-Samrez Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917; Molasses Trading and Export v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1905; M.Y. Electronics Industries v. Government of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1404", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "C. Ps. Nos. 3278 to 3281 of 1993, heard on 18-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE\nARIF HUSSAIN KHILJI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "I.H. Zaidi for Petitioner.\nNadeem Azhar, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUS MOTORS COMPANY LTD. \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7592", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1002 = 2008 SLD 1002 = 2008 PTD 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNon-settlement of Supplementary Claims\n•\nDetails: The complainant’s supplementary claims from 1992-1994 were pending settlement. The Deputy Collector had assured the complainant that the claims would be processed soon. The Federal Tax Ombudsman intervened to ensure that the claims were decided promptly.\n•\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended that the Central Board of Revenue direct the Collector of Customs to resolve the supplementary claims within 30 days and compile a list of all pending claims within two months.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1249-K of 2003, decision dated: 20-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Dealing Officer.\nAleem Khan, Advocate. Ms. Zeba Ahmed, Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ZAVERIA ENTERPRISES, KARACHI\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7593", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1003 = 2008 SLD 1003 = 2008 PTCL 300 = 2008 PTD 459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction of Tribunal in Valuation of Goods\n•\nDetails: The appellant’s appeal regarding the valuation of goods was dismissed by a Single Member of the Tribunal due to lack of jurisdiction. The appellant argued that, under the amended Customs Act, the Tribunal could hear the case despite jurisdictional defects.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the amendment had no retrospective effect. It remanded the case back to the Tribunal for re-hearing, as the Single Member now had jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "SPl. Cus. Ref. A. No.295 and C.M.A. No. 1374 of 2007, decided 28-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AMAN & AMIN TRADING CO. THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, APPRAISING INTELLIGENCE BRANCH, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7594", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1004 = 2008 SLD 1004 = 2008 PTD 462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRelease of Goods and Provisional Assessment\n•\nDetails: The case involved the release of goods after provisional assessment, under the Pre-Shipment Inspection Scheme, and the issuance of a recovery notice after the assessment was finalized. The complainant argued that the recovery notice lacked legal validity because the assessment was not finalized within the mandatory timeframe.\n•\nHeld: The Ombudsman ruled that the recovery notice was issued without legal authority and recommended its cancellation and refund to the complainant.\n•\nCitations: 2002 MLD 1098", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1580-K of 2003, decision dated: 29-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Dealing Officer.\nMuhammad Junaid Ghaffar, Advocate.\nDr. Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement).\nNaseem Ahmed Nisar, Examining Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS OWAISCO, KARACHI\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7595", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1005 = 2008 SLD 1005 = 2008 PTCL 382 = 2008 PTD 525", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure of Vehicle and Ownership Dispute\n•\nDetails: The vehicle was seized on suspicion of being smuggled. The complainant provided evidence of registration, but lacked import documents. Customs authorities failed to prove that the vehicle was smuggled.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the complainant’s ownership evidence was sufficient and set aside the seizure order.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Special Custom Reference Application No.281 of 2007, decision dated: 29-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE\nDR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant.\nRafi Kumboh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI \nVS\n GHULAM MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7596", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1006 = 2008 SLD 1006 = 2008 PTD 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nForfeiture of Earnest Money in Auction\n•\nDetails: The complainant's earnest money was forfeited for not paying the balance amount after bidding in an auction. The auction rules required the application under Rule 73 to be decided before forfeiture could occur. The application was ignored.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration, as the application was neglected. The Ombudsman recommended that the Collector of Customs cancel the forfeiture order and ensure compliance with the statutory requirements.\n•\nCitations: Complaint No. 1472-L of 2003 and Complaint No. 329 of 2004", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=69", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 400 of 2004, decision dated: 11-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. M. Sibtain, Adviser (Dealing Officer).\nIrshad Ahmad Durrani, Advocate for the Complainant.\nMuhammad Arshad Khan, D.C. and Ms. Husna Jamil, A.C. Auction, Collectorate of Customs, Peshawar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "POR DIL KHAN\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7597", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1007 = 2008 SLD 1007 = 2008 PTCL 297 = 2008 PTD 558 = (2008) 97 TAX 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRefund of Service Charges\n•\nDetails: The case concerns the entitlement of an assessee to claim a refund for service charges after providing evidence that the charges were not passed on to the consumer.\n•\nHeld: The complainant was entitled to the refund upon submitting the required documentary evidence.\n•\nCitations: I.C.I. Pakistan Ltd. v. Pakistan 2005 PTD 719; Pak Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd. v. Secretary Revenue 2007 PTD 501", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No. 371 of 2007, decision dated: 8-02-2008, hearing DATE :24-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMEEN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nFARRUKH ZIA SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, APPRAISEMENT COLLECTORATE, KARACHI \nVS\n MESSRS NEW LIGHT HOUSE (PVT.) LTD, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7598", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1008 = 2008 SLD 1008 = 2008 PTD 565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nImport of Textile Weaving Machinery and Exemption from Duties\n•\nDetails: The complainant sought relief for the attachment of a textile unit due to non-payment of taxes related to imported machinery, claiming that the relevant exemptions had been violated. The revision petition was pending due to jurisdictional issues arising from the creation of the Customs Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the case be treated as a hardship case under the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, and action be taken to resolve the matter.\n•\nCitations: S.195C of the Customs Act, 1969", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=195", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 506/L of 2004, decision dated: 16-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. A. Zuberi, Advisor (Dealing Officer).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS QUALITY WEAVING MILLS LTD., MULTAN \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7599", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1009 = 2008 SLD 1009 = 2008 PTD 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Confiscated Goods and Maladministration in Customs Procedures\nDetails:\n•\nA vehicle was seized under Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969, and the Customs authorities sought to sell it according to Section 169(4), pending adjudication.\n•\nHowever, the vehicle was not formally confiscated as required under Section 169(4) of the Customs Act, which would have allowed it to be sold without issuing notices under Section 201.\n•\nMaladministration was found due to delays in finalizing assessments and failing to adhere to legal procedures for handling seized goods.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman determined that maladministration occurred due to the failure to formally confiscate the vehicle and the improper sale procedure.\n•\nWhile no financial relief could be given to the complainant due to the lack of balance after duties and taxes, remedial measures were recommended.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 169(4), 168, 201\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=169", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 454-L of 2005, decision dated: 18-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, Dealing Officer.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for the Complainant. Abbas Ali Babar, A.C. Customs, Dryport for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAMS-UZZAMAN BUTT THROUGH ATTORNEY\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7600", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1010 = 2008 SLD 1010 = 2008 PTD 585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Auction of Goods in Defiance of Court Orders\nDetails:\n•\nCustoms authorities auctioned goods without reassessment, despite a High Court order.\n•\nThe importer did not pursue reassessment for over a year, and the goods were sold at a much lower price than the reserve value.\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman raised concerns about possible collusion between the importer and customs staff.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Ombudsman recommended an investigation by the Director General of Inquiries into the failure to reassess the goods and the low auction price.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 82, 25\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)(i)(b)(c)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=82", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-112-K of 2005, decision dated: 22-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor, Dealing Officer.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for the Complainant.\nSalamat Ali, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CRYSTAL MOVING SYSTEM THROUGH MIAN ABDUL GHAFFAR \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7601", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1011 = 2008 SLD 1011 = 2008 PTD 617", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Seized Vehicle with Tampered Chassis Number\nDetails:\n•\nA vehicle, seized for smuggling, was auctioned after all formalities were completed.\n•\nLater, the vehicle's chassis number was found to be tampered, leading to its seizure by the police.\n•\nThe complainant, who had purchased the vehicle, sought compensation for the expenses incurred.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman found that customs authorities failed to verify the vehicle’s status through forensic tests before auctioning it, which constituted maladministration.\n•\nThe Ombudsman recommended the refund of the auction price to the complainant.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 201(1), 168, 169\n•\nCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 550\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=201", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 504 of 2004, decision dated: 17-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Safdarullah and Muhammad Bakhtiar for the Complainants.\nMuhammad Arshad Khan, DC, Customs, Abdul Razzaq, Inspector, Anti Car Lifting Cell and Asrar Hussain Rizvi for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAFDRULLAH AND ANOTHER \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7602", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1012 = 2008 SLD 1012 = 2008 PTD 626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for Vehicle Transfer\nDetails:\n•\nA vehicle, temporarily imported, was sold after payment of duty, but the complainant could not transfer the title due to the lack of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from customs.\n•\nAfter seven years, the Customs authorities still had not issued the NOC despite the complainant’s repeated requests.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman determined that the delay and neglect by the department were due to maladministration and recommended that the NOC be issued within 30 days.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 18\n•\nImports and Exports Control Act (XXXIX of 1950)\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-267-K of 2004, decision dated: 17-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aleem Khan for the Complainant.\nAbid Hakro, Assistant Collector and Saleem Akhtar, Examiner for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL GHAFOOR THROUGH MUHAMMAD ALEEM KHAN, ADVOCATE \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7603", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1013 = 2008 SLD 1013 = 2008 PTD 649", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Goods and Arbitrary Customs Actions\nDetails:\n•\nThe department issued a show-cause notice for misdeclaration of goods, but failed to provide sufficient evidence or proper documentation to support the claim.\n•\nThe Ombudsman found that the department's actions were based on irrelevant and insufficient grounds.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that the show-cause notice was illegal and the goods should be released. The Ombudsman also ordered the withdrawal of the notice and noted that the customs actions constituted maladministration.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25, 32(1a), 156(1), 14\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3)(i)(b)(c), 9(b)\n•\nAssistant Collector of Customs v. Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1569 of 2003, decision dated: 14-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant, Dealing Officer.\nMuhammad Ashraf Hashmi for the Complainant.\nMuhammad Asif, Assistant Collector (Imports), Faisalabad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS M.A. IMPEX, FAISALABAD\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7604", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1014 = 2008 SLD 1014 = 2008 PTD 672", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) – Confiscation of Vehicle\nDetails: The vehicle was confiscated on the allegation that its chassis number was not original. However, the department did not obtain an expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory to confirm this. The vehicle had been auctioned and was identified in government records. The department argued that the vehicle’s description in the auction voucher differed, but this was not substantiated with solid proof. The First Appellate Authority upheld the order, and the Appellate Tribunal rejected the departmental appeal, finding no merit.\nHeld: The confiscation order was invalid due to the failure of the department to establish that the chassis number was not genuine.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969; Appellate Tribunal decisions.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Appeal C. A. No.22/LB of 2007, decision dated: 8-11-2007, hearing DATE : 6-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mahmood, I.O. for Appellants.\nSyed M. Mohsin Hamdani for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER TECHNICAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7605", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1015 = 2008 SLD 1015 = 2008 PTD 742 = 2008 PTCL 385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition – Misdeclaration by Clearing Agent\nDetails: The Customs Department imposed a penalty on a clearing agent for misdeclaration of goods. The clearing agent contended that the penalty was unjust as the misdeclaration was based on information from the exporter. The case against the agent was pending in a criminal court. The agent filed a constitutional petition arguing that misdeclaration charges could not apply.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition as it was not maintainable without including the Federation of Pakistan as a necessary party. The pending criminal case was a factor in the dismissal.\nCitations: Rahat Hussain v. Collector of Customs (Prev.), 2003 CLC 1860.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-294 of 2007, decision dated: 27-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nQAMARUDDIN BOHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ammar Yasir for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.\nRizwan Ahmed Siddiqui, DAG", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BABA AGENCIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n SECRETARY REVENIJE DIVISION FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7606", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1016 = 2008 SLD 1016 = 2008 PTD 814", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963) – Exemption on Shares\nDetails: The assessee sought exemption on shares received in lieu of machinery brought from abroad. The exemption was denied, claiming that once the machinery was converted to shares, the exemption was not applicable. The assessee argued that the assets were never disposed of, and the exemption should still apply.\nHeld: The exemption was upheld since there was no evidence that the assessee changed the status of the assets. The Appellate Tribunal directed that the exemption be granted.\nCitations: Wealth Tax Act, 1963; C.B.R. Circular No.3(2)/PT-III/90.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=5", + "Case #": "W.T.As. Nos. 451/LB to 457/LB of 2006, decision dated: 1st December, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nKHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zulfiqar Ali Sheikh, I.T.P. and Asim Zulfiqar, C.A. for Appellant.\nMehboob Alam, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nKHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7607", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 575 = 2000 SLD 575 = 2000 PLC 172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Burden of Proof and Worker Status\nDetails: A worker was not granted permanent status because his work had been intermittent. He was working as a Badli (temporary) worker, and his termination did not require notice under the Standing Orders.\nHeld: The employee’s status was confirmed as Badli worker, and the termination did not require notice.\nCitations: Qanun e Shahadat, 1984; Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application No.HYD 229 of 1998, decision dated: 30-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Devdas M. Udeshi, Law Officer for Applicant.\nShaikh Wahid Bux for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DISTRICT MANAGER, S.R.T.C., BADIN DISTRICT\nVS\n GHULAM MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7608", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 576 = 2000 SLD 576 = 2000 PLC 175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Workman Status and Grievance Petition\nDetails: Computer Operators employed by a foreign company were considered 'workmen' under the Standing Orders Ordinance. A grievance petition was filed against a Pakistani company, but it was ruled that the foreign company was their employer, and the petition was not maintainable.\nHeld: Grievance petition against the Pakistani company was dismissed as the employees were not employed by the Pakistani company.\nCitations: Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; PLD 1974 Kar. 25; PLD 1984 Kar. 292.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. KAR 376 to KAR 379 of 1998, decision dated: 2-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.L. Shahani for Appellants.\nMuhammad Tasnim for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SGS PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LTD\nVS\n MUHAMMAD NOORULLAH KAZI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7609", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1017 = 2008 SLD 1017 = 2008 PTD 885", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) – Rejection of Accounts\nDetails: The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s accounts and made disallowances on various expenses without giving reasons or requesting further evidence. The Appellate Tribunal directed that the Assessing Officer accept the receipts and remove the disallowances.\nHeld: The disallowances were deleted, and the assessment was revised.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; PTD references.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos. 1099/LB and 1100/LB of 2006, decision dated: 1st September, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nCH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ali Bhatti for Appellant.\nRai Tallat Maqbool, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nCH. NAZIR AHMAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7610", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1018 = 2008 SLD 1018 = 2008 PTD 905", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) – Constitutional Jurisdiction\nDetails: The petitioner contested an assessment order under S.81 of the Customs Act, claiming it was made without notice. The authorities argued that constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked under S.25-D of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that constitutional jurisdiction could not be barred, and directed the reassessment of the customs duty.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969; Art. 199 of the Constitution; SCMR 1357.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.909 of 2008, decision dated: 6-02-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawad Hassan and Syed Imran Ali for Petitioner.\nKhawar Ikram Bhatti and Izhar-ul-Haq, Legal Advisors for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FASTLINE (PVT.) LTD\nVS\n COLLECTOR CUSTOMS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7611", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1019 = 2008 SLD 1019 = 2008 PTCL 397 = 2008 PTD 950", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) – Refund of Excess Duty\nDetails: The petitioner sought a refund for excess duty paid, but the claim was delayed by more than a decade. The High Court dismissed the petition on grounds of laches.\nHeld: The constitutional petition was dismissed due to excessive delay.\nCitations: S.R.O. 563(I)/88, dated 1-7-1988; PLD 1998 SC 64.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-131 of 2004, decision dated: 11-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE\nGHULAM DASTAGIR SHAHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioner.\nMs. Soofia Saeed Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI \nVS \n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7612", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1020 = 2008 SLD 1020 = 2008 PTCL 388 = 2008 PTD 996", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of Single Member of Appellate Tribunal\nDetails: A case involving the valuation of goods under the Customs Act, 1969. The issue of jurisdiction arose as the single member of the Appellate Tribunal had handled the valuation of goods prior to an amendment to Section 194-C of the Act, which permitted such actions only after July 1, 2007.\nHeld: The order passed by the single member before the amendment was without jurisdiction and was set aside. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for de novo trial.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S. 194-C (3)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Application No.63 of 2007, decision dated: 11-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE\nGHULAM DASTAGIR SHAHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant/Petitioner.\nNone for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI \nVS\n MESSRS FAPORT INTERNATIONAL, SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7613", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1021 = 2008 SLD 1021 = 2008 PTD 1002", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Refund Claim of Pre-shipment Inspection Charges\nDetails: A claim for the refund of pre-shipment inspection charges was rejected by the authorities on grounds of being time-barred. The charges were declared unlawful by superior courts.\nHeld: The claim for refund was not governed by Section 33 of the Customs Act, as it did not relate to customs duties or charges. The rejection of the refund claim on a technical ground was arbitrary and discriminatory. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the claim be processed subject to verification.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 18-A & 33(1); S.R.O. No. 1198(I)/96, dated 22-10-1996; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 9 & 11; PTCL 1999 CL 752; Ghulam Abbas v. Member Judicial PTCL 1998 CL 350", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Complaint No.30-L of 2004, decision dated: 20-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nAshraf Ali for the Complainant.\nIrfan Javed D.C. Sambrial for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INAM ALI BHATTI\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7614", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1022 = 2008 SLD 1022 = 2008 PTD 1029 = 2009 PTCL 224", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Valuation and Exemption from Sales Tax\nDetails: The assessee imported choline chloride and declared its P.C.T. heading as 2309.9000 with 25% customs duty. Later, the assessee sought to amend it to 2923.1000 for a 10% duty.\nHeld: The issue regarding the correct P.C.T. heading was considered academic. The assessee could not change the declared heading to benefit from a lower duty rate, as their earlier declaration was not contested. The reference to the High Court was rejected.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 9, 25, 59 & 196", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=9", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.61 of 2007, decision dated: 11-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nQAMARUDDIN BOHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ammar Yasir for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS A-ONE FEEDS THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER\nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR, ADJUDICATIONI, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7615", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1023 = 2008 SLD 1023 = 2008 PTD 1066", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Allegations of Maladministration and Embezzlement\nDetails: A customs clearing agent complained of embezzlement, fraudulent encashment of pay orders, and destruction of records by customs officials.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found evidence of bias, inattention, and delay by customs officials in processing the complaint and the clearance of consignments. Maladministration was established. The Ombudsman recommended corrective action and prompt investigation into the matter.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 2(s), 16, 32, 79, 192, 156(1), & Cl. (89), (90); Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Complaint, No.801-K of 2003, decision dated: 31st January, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Sibtain, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nArshad Jamal for the Complainant.\nWajid Ali, D.C. Customs (Appraisement) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARSHAD JAMAL \nVS\n ABDUL WAHID KHAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7616", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1024 = 2008 SLD 1024 = 2008 PTD 1083", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Release of Seized Goods\nDetails: Goods seized by the Frontier Corps were ordered for release by the Adjudicating Authority. The Frontier Corps officers, being delegated powers under the Customs Act, 1969, were obliged to follow the order.\nHeld: The order of the Adjudicating Authority was binding on the Frontier Corps officers.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 6, 171 & 179; S.R.O. No. 1017(I)/74, dated 26-7-1994", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=6", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1208-P of 2003, decision dated: 21st November, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser (Dealing Officer).\nKhan Zeb, AR for the Complainant. Yusuf Haider Orakzai, Deputy Collector (Adjudication) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MISAL KHAN \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7617", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1025 = 2008 SLD 1025 = 2008 PTD 1094", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Delegation of Powers in Hearing Appeals\nDetails: The Collector of Customs (Appeals) delegated the authority to hear an appeal to an Assistant Collector (probationer).\nHeld: The delegation of the power to hear appeals was invalid. The order passed by the Assistant Collector was deemed arbitrary and in violation of legal norms. Maladministration was identified. The Ombudsman recommended the case be reconsidered by an appropriately authorized officer.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 193 & 193-A; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Complaint No.1270-K of 2003, decision dated: 14-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nS. A. Wasti, Consultant. S.T.R. Zaidi, Additional Collector (Adjudication).", + "Petitioner Name:": "S.A. WASTI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7618", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1026 = 2008 SLD 1026 = 2008 PTD 1113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Force of Special Judge’s Decision\nDetails: The adjudicating authority disagreed with the decision of the Special Judge on merits of the case, despite the judge's ruling.\nHeld: The decision of the Special Judge on the same evidence should generally be respected, but if material evidence was omitted, the Adjudicating Officer could review the case with valid justification. The Ombudsman emphasized the need for proper examination in cases where the Special Judge's decision was based on incomplete evidence.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 179, 179-A [as omitted by Finance Ordinance (XXX of 1979)] & 185-A; PLD 1969 SC 446; 1988 PCr.LJ 213; 1993 PCr.LJ 1922", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Complaint No.842 of 2003, decision dated: 22-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Pervez for the Complainant.\nCh. Muhammad Javaid, AC (Adjudication) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASLAM\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7619", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1027 = 2008 SLD 1027 = 2008 PTD 1216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Maintainability of Constitutional Petition for Refund Claim\nDetails: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition regarding a refund of differential duty after provisional assessment under the Customs Act.\nHeld: The proper forum for seeking relief regarding refund claims was the Customs Appellate Tribunal. Constitutional petitions before the High Court were not maintainable for such cases.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 25(1), 35, 81 & 194-A; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C.P. No.2254 of 2006, decision dated: 25-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nQAMARUDDIN BOHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FACO TRADING THROUGH ATTORNEY\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7620", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1028 = 2008 SLD 1028 = 2008 PTD 1223", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDuty Drawback and Delay in Payment\n•\nDetails: The complainant submitted an application for a duty drawback in 1987. Despite submitting missing documents, the rebate was not paid. The department's claim that the case was old and the complainant had not supplied required documents was found untenable. The delay was attributed to maladministration, blocking the complainant's capital and showing indifference towards the claim.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended an inquiry by the Central Board of Revenue to determine the reasons for the delay and take administrative action.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=37", + "Case #": "Complaint No.647-L of 2005, decision dated: 1st August, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor, (Dealing Officer).\nInayat-ur-Rehman for the Complainant.\nFayyaz Rasool, D.C. (Export), Karachi", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS H.M. IQBAL & CO., MULTAN\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7621", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1029 = 2008 SLD 1029 = 2008 PTD 1239", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSmuggled Vehicle with Non-Tampered Chassis\n•\nDetails: Vehicles were confiscated for being smuggled, but the applicants argued that the chassis were not tampered, thus they should be released after payment of duties and taxes. The issue involved a mixed question of law and fact.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the reference, agreeing that the applicants were guilty of negligence or tax fraud. The vehicles, being smuggled with tampered chassis, posed a national security threat.\n•\nCitations: Abu Bakar Siddique and others v. Collector of Customs, Lahore and another 2004 PTD 2187; Messrs Imtiaz Ahmad v. Collector Customs, Peshawar 2007 PTD 789.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Applications Nos. 4 and 7 of 2007, decision dated: 1st April, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nS. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Petitioner.\nSyed Khalid Javede Bokhari, Advocate. Ahmad Raza, for Respondent No. 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CH. MAQBOOL AHMED\nVS\n CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7622", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1030 = 2008 SLD 1030 = 2008 PTCL 457 = 2008 PTD 1250 = (2008) 98 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDetermination of Customs Value\n•\nDetails: Customs authorities failed to follow the prescribed procedure for determining the value of imported goods as per Section 25 of the Customs Act. They made a ruling without reasoning and without providing an opportunity for the affected parties to be heard.\n•\nHeld: The High Court set aside the ruling and directed the customs authorities to follow the proper procedure within two months and re-evaluate the goods' value.\n•\nCitations: Rehan Umar v. Collector of Customs 2006 PTD 909; Khan Trade International v. Assistant Collector Customs 2006 PTD 2807; Karachi Bulk Storage v. Collector of Customs 2004 PTD 2592.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C.Ps.Nos.D-93, 360, 417, 773, 791, 902, 957, 1032, 1050, 1095, 1096, 1097 and 1389 of 2007, decision dated: 14-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE\nGHULAM DASTAGIR SHAHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salah-ud-Din Ahmed along with Nadeem Ahmed and Rajender Chaberia for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal and Haider Shaikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NAJAM IMPEX, LAHORE THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR\nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7623", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1031 = 2008 SLD 1031 = 2008 PTD 1264", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure of Goods Brought as Passenger's Baggage\n•\nDetails: The appellant’s goods were seized on the basis that bringing them as baggage was restricted without proper authorization. The appellant claimed the goods were brought for re-export.\n•\nHeld: The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Officer to decide afresh, as the seizure report indicated the goods were not for consumption in Pakistan.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "Special Custom Reference Application No.56 of 2006, decision dated: 5-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nNADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUSAF \nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7624", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1032 = 2008 SLD 1032 = 2008 PTD 1284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAdditional Duty on Released Goods\n•\nDetails: The petitioner’s goods were released by the Customs Authority but subsequently, additional duties were demanded without legal provision. The parties agreed to have the matter reconsidered by the department.\n•\nHeld: The High Court disposed of the case, directing the department to determine the value of goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.873 to 878 of 2007, decision dated: 14-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE\nGHULAM DASTAGIR SHAHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Bin Adam Jafri for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for the Respondent along with Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SOBIA SOHAIL JAFRANI\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7625", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1033 = 2008 SLD 1033 = 2008 PTD 1296", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMaintainability of Reference\n•\nDetails: The department contested the maintainability of a reference under Section 196 of the Customs Act, arguing the petitioner had no privity of contract.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the reference on the grounds that the petitioner company was not an aggrieved party.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.236 of 2006, decision dated: 11-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE\nGHULAM DASTAGIR SHAHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAROOF OIL COMPANY THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7626", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1034 = 2008 SLD 1034 = 2008 PTD 1472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRemoval of Goods Without Payment of Duty\n•\nDetails: The importer was charged a penalty for removing goods without payment of duty. Despite paying duties, additional taxes were demanded, leading to a dispute over penalties.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the provisions of Section 156(1)(62) were applicable, not those of Section 156(1)(90), and allowed the importer’s appeal.\n•\nCitations: Collector Customs Pesh. v. Messrs Paper International (Pvt.) Ltd. 2007 SCMR 195.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference No. 4 of 2006, decision dated: 29-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nSYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.\nShoukat Ali Qureshi for Respondent.\nSoofia Saeed, learned Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INDUS STEEL PIPE LTD\nVS\n COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7627", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1035 = 2008 SLD 1035 = 2008 PTD 1475", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nClassification of Goods for Customs Duty\n•\nDetails: The petitioner disputed the classification of goods under the Customs Act. The department assessed a higher duty under an incorrect PCT Heading.\n•\nHeld: The High Court found the department's actions unjustified and discriminatory, allowing the petitioner's constitutional petition.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Radaka Corporation and others v. Collector of Customs 1989 SCMR 353; 2002 PTD 955; 2004 PTD 2516.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-504 of 2006, decision dated: 13-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nDR. QAMMARUDDIN BOHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nSyed Tariq Ali for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL GHAFFAR BHUNDI THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS\n FEDERATION OF, PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7628", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1036 = 2008 SLD 1036 = 2008 PTD 1478", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Value Determination and Provisional Assessment Duty\nDetails: The petitioner imported goods that were released under a provisional assessment, requiring payment based on the declared value of the goods, along with an indemnity bond and post-dated cheque for any potential difference in value. The authorities finalized the provisional assessment due to the importer's failure to substantiate the declared price.\nHeld: The court ruled that the authorities failed to demand the necessary proof from the importer as required by Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, and Rule 109 of the Customs Rules, 2001. No evidence was provided to support the higher value claimed by the authorities. Therefore, the importer could not be penalized based on the disputed valuation.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Farooq Woollen Mills v. Collector of Customs, 2004 PTD 795\n•\nMessrs Trade International v. Deputy Collector of Customs, 2005 PTD 1968\n•\nCollector of Customs v. Messrs Auto Mobile Corporation, 2005 PTD 2116\n•\nMessrs Dewan Farooque Motors v. Customs, Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, 2006 PTD 1276", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3726 of 2006, decision dated: 1st December, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nIzhar-ul-Haque Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAZAL ILLAHI & SONS THROUGH REGISTRAR\nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7629", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1037 = 2008 SLD 1037 = 2008 PTCL 358 = 2008 PTD 1481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Enhancement of Customs Valuation\nDetails: The department argued that the valuation of an imported consignment was lawfully enhanced based on the importer's voluntary payment of the higher assessed value without protest.\nHeld: The court found that even if the payment was voluntary, the importer still had the right to request an assessment in line with the legal requirements. A mistaken belief about the payable amount does not negate the importer's legal right.\nCitations: None.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 22067 of 2001, decision dated: 28-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shan Gull for Petitioner.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.\nSardar Manzoor Ahmed, Deputy Superintendent Customs, Samrial", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAFIQUE & COMPANY THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7630", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1038 = 2008 SLD 1038 = 2008 PTCL 492 = 2008 PTD 1482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Assessment of Imported Vehicle Value\nDetails: The petitioner contested the customs authorities' assessment of an imported vehicle, which was sold by a diplomat. The authorities enhanced the vehicle’s value for duty and taxes purposes.\nHeld: The court ruled that the authorities could not reject the declared value supported by proper documents, and there was no justification to enhance the value. The vehicle should be released after charging 100% duties and taxes based on the declared value at the time of import.\nCitations: Syed Waqar Ashraf v. Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Writ Petition No. 17292 of 2005", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No. 6 of 2007, decision dated: 20-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nKH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nIzhar ul Haq Sheikh for Revenue.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TRADECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (FINANCE) \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CFS DRY PORT AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7631", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1039 = 2008 SLD 1039 = 2008 PTCL 409 = 2008 PTD 1494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Procedure for Customs Valuation and Interpretation of Fiscal Statutes\nDetails: The court examined the procedure under Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969, and clarified that it mandates adherence to the sequence outlined in Section 25 when determining the value of imported goods. It also elaborated on the interpretive principles for fiscal statutes.\nHeld: The sequential order under Section 25 of the Customs Act is mandatory. Any advice issued disregarding this procedure was illegal. The petitioner’s constitutional petition was accepted.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Volkervam (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Sindh Employees’ Social Security Institution, PLD 1985 Kar. 37\n•\nArif Hussain Shah v. Electric Equipment Manufacturing Co. Ltd., PLD 1979 Lah. 603\n•\nMuhammad Sadiq v. Federation of Pakistan, 1991 MLD 1\n•\n2002 PCR (Kar.) 1718\n•\nRehan Umar v. Collector of Customs, Karachi, 2006 PTD 909", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition Nos. 2415/07, 605/07, 544/07, 834/07, 1001/07, 1002/07, 1046/07, 1206/07, 1212/07, 1443/07, 1523/07, 5346/08 and 5536/2007, decision dated: 23rd May, 2008. dates of hearing: 15th, 18th and 21st April, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem-ud-Din Malik, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent.\nMuhammad Nawaz Waseer, Federal Counsel.\nNadeem-ud-Din Malik, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent\nMuhammad Nawaz Waseer, Federal Counsel.\nAhmer Bilal Sufi for respondent-Director Customs Valuation and PCA Customs House, Karachi.\nIzharul Haque Sheikh, Muhammad Nawaz Cheema, Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Zahoor Ali Nasir Tagha, Afzaal Ahmad Hashmi, Irteza Ali Naqvi, Ehsan Ullah Cheema, Khawar Ikram Bhatti, and Kausar Parveen for Customs Department", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TOYO INTERNATIONAL MOTORCYCLE THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, (REVENUE DIVISION) CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7632", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 577 = 2000 SLD 577 = 2000 PLC 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal on Allegation of Theft\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the departmental action taken against him after his acquittal in a criminal case for theft. The employer had initiated both criminal proceedings and departmental action.\nHeld: The court ruled that criminal proceedings and departmental actions could proceed simultaneously, even with differing results. The employee’s acquittal did not invalidate the departmental action.\nCitations:\n•\n1991 SCMR 209\n•\n1999 SCMR 316\n•\nPLD 1970 SC 39\n•\n1981 SCMR 758", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12971 of 1994, heard on 3rd November, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IJAZ AHMAD., JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Hussain Qadri for Appellant.\nMunawar A. Javed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAROON UR RASHEED ER\nVS\n RAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS CO. LTD. THROUGH THE PERSONNEL/FACTORY MANAGER, FAISALABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7633", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1040 = 2008 SLD 1040 = 2008 PTD 1535", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nS. 156—Punishment for offences\n•\nIssue: Importation of goods in contravention of the Import Policy; re-exportation of goods allowed with minimum value addition.\n•\nHeld: The department's reasoning that the goods were of Indian origin based on labels like Ferozi, Rani, etc., was speculative. Re-exportation was allowed as there was no conclusive proof to support that the goods were of Indian origin. The appeal against the departmental decision was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: No relevant citations provided.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nS. 156—Import\n•\nIssue: Validity of certificate regarding the origin of Polyester from China.\n•\nHeld: The customs authorities failed to verify the certificate from the Chinese company, and it could not be conclusively stated that the polyester was exclusively of Indian origin.\n•\nCitations: No relevant citations provided.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nS. 156—Public notice\n•\nIssue: Legality of public notice issued by the Collector regarding importation of Polyester Fabrics.\n•\nHeld: The public notice lacked legal sanctity as it was not proven that the notice had been brought to the attention of the importer.\n•\nCitations: No relevant citations provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "C.A. No.323/LB of 2007, decision dated: 21st May, 2008, hearing DATE : 30-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat, Inspector for Appellant.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7634", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1041 = 2008 SLD 1041 = 2008 PTD 1539 = 2009 PTCL 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs. 32(3) & 223—Misdeclaration—Time-barred show-cause notice\n•\nIssue: Imposition of penalty on the importer for exceeding the sanctioned quantity under S.R.O. 587(I)/1990, and timeliness of the show-cause notice.\n•\nHeld: The notice issued after six months was time-barred. The directives of the Central Board of Revenue were binding, and any proceedings initiated against the importer after this period were without jurisdiction. The order against the importer was set aside.\n•\nCitations: Union Sport Playing Cards Co. v. Collector of Customs (2002 MLD 130), Messrs Lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd. v. Customs (2005 PTD 2462).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Spl. Customs Reference Application No.215 of 2006, decision dated: 13-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nQAMMARUDDIN BOHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GLAXO LABORATORIES LTD., LAHORE\nVS\n COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX ADJUDICATION1, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7635", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1042 = 2008 SLD 1042 = 2008 PTD 1542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs. 181 & 156(1)(14)—Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscated goods\n•\nIssue: Misclassification of goods and denial of re-export permission by Ministry of Commerce.\n•\nHeld: The case was not one of wilful misdescription, and after the Ministry of Commerce initially granted permission for re-export, the order was hastily withdrawn. The appeal was accepted, and the goods were allowed for re-export.\n•\nCitations: 2002 YLR 2651.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "C.A. No.10/LB of 2008, decision dated: 21st April, 2008, hearing DATE : 27-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nAhtesham for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7636", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1043 = 2008 SLD 1043 = 2008 PTCL 356 = 2008 PTD 1551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs. 25 & 33—Constitutional Petition\n•\nIssue: Refund for short levied duties on goods.\n•\nHeld: The customs authorities should have issued a notice before collecting additional duties. The importer should file for a refund application, which should be processed promptly.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps v. Assistant Collector Customs (1996 CLC 1365).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10942 of 2000, decision dated: 15-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nKhan Muhammad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KING TRADERS\nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7637", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1044 = 2008 SLD 1044 = 2008 PTCL 571 = 2008 PTD 1553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs. 25 & 81—Customs value of goods—Constitutional Petition\n•\nIssue: Dispute regarding the valuation of goods.\n•\nHeld: Authorities were directed to dispose of the petitioner's representation within a specified period, following the acceptance of all parties involved.\n•\nCitations: No relevant citations provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos.D-401 to 430 of 2008, decision dated: 28-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nDR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners.\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondent No. 4.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 3 Haider Iqbal Wahniwal.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS JAMIL AKHTAR TRADING CO., THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT GROUP-III), KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7638", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1045 = 2008 SLD 1045 = 2008 PTD 1578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\n•\nSs. 9 & 2(3)—Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\n•\nIssue: Jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman to investigate maladministration.\n•\nHeld: The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to investigate maladministration irrespective of other remedies available.\n•\nCitations: 2002 PTD 2984.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nS. 16—Confiscation of vehicle\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of vehicle based on non-production of import documents.\n•\nHeld: The S.R.O. of 2004 could not apply to the vehicle registered in 1994. The confiscation was invalid, and the vehicle should be returned to its lawful owner.\n•\nCitations: 1992 SCMR 1898, 2003 PTD 2118.\n(c) Interpretation of statutes\n•\nIssue: Presumption that official acts are lawful unless proven otherwise.\n•\nHeld: All official acts are presumed to be done according to law unless proved otherwise.\n•\nCitations: No relevant citations provided.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs. 16, 32(2)(3), 156(1), Cl. (89)(90), 168(2), 180, 186, 187 & 211—Import Trade and Procedure Order, 2004, Appendix-C, S.No.10\n•\nIssue: Confiscation of vehicle after ten years due to non-production of import documents.\n•\nHeld: Since the vehicle was registered with a valid registration book, the confiscation was invalid. The vehicle should be returned to the lawful owner.\n•\nCitations: No relevant citations provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-313-K of 2005, decision dated: 11-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant.\nDr. A. Rehman Rind, Deputy Collector of Customs.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RANA MUHAMMAD NAEEM\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7639", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1046 = 2008 SLD 1046 = 2008 PTD 1787", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Filing of tampered/forged import authorization\nDetails: A Customs Clearing Agent presented a forged import authorization to clear goods, changing the amount from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 50,00,000. Upon verification, the Ministry of Commerce confirmed the authorization was forged. Consequently, the Customs authority confiscated the goods, revoked the agent’s license, and imposed a penalty.\nHeld: The Customs Department rightfully confiscated the goods, as the forged authorization was invalid. The revocation of the agent’s license and forfeiture of the deposit were justified under the Customs Act and Customs Agents Licensing Rules.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil (P.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2003 PTD 552\n•\nFederation of Pakistan v. Saman Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse 2004 PTD 1189\n•\nMessrs A. R. Hosiery Works Karachi v. Collector of Customs 2004 PTD 2977", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "C.No.73/CU/IB of 2008, decision dated: 23rd May, 2008, hearing DATE : 29-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER, JUDICIAL/CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nImran Chaudhry, Deputy Collector/D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER JUDICIAL/CHAIRMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7640", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1047 = 2008 SLD 1047 = 2008 PTD 1875", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Withdrawal of customs duty concession for disabled persons\nDetails: A disabled person imported a vehicle under the concessionary scheme, but the concession was withdrawn on the same day the bill of entry was filed. The complainant was asked to pay full duty.\nHeld: The withdrawal of the concession on the day the bill was filed was not justified, particularly considering the hardship it caused to the disabled person. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the case be reconsidered for exemptions based on the timing of the L.C. opening.\nCitations:\n•\nS.R.O. 358(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002\n•\nS.R.O. dated 22-10-2002", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1243 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd November, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser (Dealing Officer).", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL WAHEED, ISLAMABAD \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7641", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1048 = 2008 SLD 1048 = 2008 PTD 1882 = 2009 PTCL 17", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of customs value of goods\nDetails: The appellant assumed a reduced duty based on a letter but did not appeal the assessment. The authorities contended that the actual assessed amount was clearly stated in the assessment order.\nHeld: The appellant's assumption was incorrect, and no action was taken to challenge the assessment. The appeal was dismissed, confirming that the duty demand was valid.\nCitations:\n•\nLaw Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Inter-Court Appeal No.241 in Writ Petition No.8388 of 2008, heard on 5-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nSAIF-UR-REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shehzada Mazhar for Appellant.\nAfzaal Ahmed Hashmi for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ISLAM TRADING COMPANY THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, SAMBRIAL, SIALKOT AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7642", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1049 = 2008 SLD 1049 = 2008 PTD 1925 = (2008) 98 TAX 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of the origin of goods\nDetails: The appellant misdeclared the origin of goods imported, claiming them to be from China when they were from Korea, to avoid a higher duty.\nHeld: The misdeclaration of the goods' origin was detected, and the appellant's penalty was reduced from Rs. 5,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000.\nCitations:\n•\nImport Trade Order 2003-2004", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C.A. No.201/LB of 2004, decision dated: 10-10-2007, hearing DATE : 13-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUS SALAM KHAWAR, CHAIRMAN/(MEMBER), JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Iqtidar Alam, C.A. for Appellant.\nHabib Bhatti, Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7643", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1050 = 2008 SLD 1050 = 2008 PTD 1928", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of smuggled vehicle\nDetails: The applicant's vehicle was confiscated for being a smuggled vehicle with a tampered chassis. The applicant argued it should be allowed to pay a fine instead of confiscation.\nHeld: The vehicle's tampered chassis confirmed it as a smuggled vehicle. No option for redemption was available under S.R.O. 255(I)/2007, and the confiscation was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nS.R.O. 255(I)/2007, dated 17-3-2007\n•\nProvincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), S.33", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Custom Reference No.9 of 2007, decision dated: 16-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nMALIK SAEED EJAZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ameer Bhatti for Petitioner.\nAhmad Raza for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAWAR SHABBIR\nVS\n MEMBERS JUDICIAL/TECHNICAL, CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7644", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1051 = 2008 SLD 1051 = 2008 PTD 1950", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Final determination of duty\nDetails: The appellant challenged the demand notice, arguing the final determination was not issued within the required timeframe. Customs authorities contended that an electronic message served as the final determination.\nHeld: The electronic message did not constitute the final determination, and the demand notice was issued after the statutory period. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended quashing the demand notice and returning the post-dated cheque.\nCitations:\n•\nS.81, Customs Act, 1969\n•\nCustoms General Order No. 12 of 2002", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1112-K of 2008, decision dated: 30-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor, (Dealing Officer). M. Afzal Awan for the Complainant.\nMuhammad Anwar, Deputy Collector of Customs (PACCS).\nTaslim Akhtar, Assistant Director of Customs Valuation.\nAltaf Ahmad, Principal Appraiser, Valuation", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS B.P. INDUSTRIES LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7645", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1052 = 2008 SLD 1052 = 2008 PTD 2003 = 2009 PTCL 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of gold\nDetails: The petitioner’s vehicle, carrying 3,000 tolas of gold, was seized, and penalties were imposed. The petitioner argued that the search was unlawful due to lack of proper authorization for the officer conducting the search.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the appeal, but leave was granted to consider the legal questions raised by the petitioner regarding the authority of the officer and procedural violations.\nCitations:\n•\nSs. 6, 156(1)(8)(89), 168(2), 171 & 180, Customs Act, 1969\n•\nArt. 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan (1973)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=6", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.893-K and 894-K of 2003, decision dated: 16-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. A.S.K. Ghori Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.3 and 4 (in Civil Petitions Nos.893-K and 894/K of 2003). Akhtar Ali Mehmood, D.A.G. on Court notice", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAZALUR-REHMAN HANIF \nVS\n STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALUKA POLICE STATION, MIRPURKHAS AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7646", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1053 = 2008 SLD 1053 = 2008 PTD 2009", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Provisional Assessment of Duty & Blocking of Goods Declarations\nDetails: The case revolves around the blockage of electronic filing of Goods Declarations without prior notice to the importer for outstanding dues. The blockage was enforced in January 2008, but the order-in-original was passed in May 2008. The blockage occurred before the final determination of outstanding dues and without issuing any notice to the importer.\nHeld: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue issue appropriate instructions to modify the procedure for blocking Goods Declarations, ensuring that such actions are only taken after provisional assessments and after issuing a notice to the importer.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 81(3), 80, 79, 25D, 193 & 21, Customs Rules (2001) - Rr. 440 & 441, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000) - S.2(3).\n(b) Non-Finalization of Provisional Assessment\nDetails: The complainant argued that the assessment of the declared value should have attained finality, and the post-dated cheque should be returned. The Customs authorities had not finalized the provisional assessment within the time frame, and the demand-cum-show-cause notice was legally invalid.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the authorities finalize the provisional assessment in a timely manner and communicate the assessment to the importer under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S.81, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000) - S.2(3).\n(c) Transaction Value System & GATT Code of Valuation\nDetails: The complaint highlighted that Customs officials failed to determine the value of imported goods in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Customs Act. The transaction value system prescribed by GATT Code of Valuation should have been followed.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman reaffirmed the duty of Customs officials to follow the methods laid out in Section 25 of the Customs Act and to apply GATT principles for valuation.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S.25, Finance Act (III of 1998) - Preamble, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000) - S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-422-K of 2008, decision dated: 31st July, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nM. Afzal Awan for the Complainant\nAgha Saeed Ahmed, Deputy Collector of Customs (Law), Port Qasim and Muhammad Amir, Deputy Collector of Customs, PACCS for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS WESTERN COMPUTER (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7647", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 656 = 2009 SLD 656 = 2009 PTD 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Duty and Tax Demand for Violation of Indigenization Program\nDetails: The complainant failed to meet the required deletion program for components imported under concessionary duty rates for motorcycle manufacturing, leading to the imposition of statutory duties and taxes.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman disposed of the complaint with the observation that the complainant could pursue the pending appeal before the Collector of Appeals, who would decide the matter based on the law and facts.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 32(3A), 179(3), 206, S.R.O. 436(I)/01, S.R.O. 434(I)/01, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000) - S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Complainant No.344-L of 2006, decision dated: 12-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nAkhtar Javed, Omar Arshad Hakeem and Waseem Ahmad for the Complainant.\nM. Mohsin Rafiq, D.C., Customs, Lahore for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN CYCLE INDUSTRIES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, LAHORE \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7648", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 657 = 2009 SLD 657 = 2009 PTCL 427 = 2009 PTD 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure and Confiscation of Smuggled Vehicle\nDetails: A vehicle was seized under suspicion of smuggling. The issue arose over the non-service of the notice required under Section 171 of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that while there was a non-compliance with the notice requirement, it was not deemed fatal since the owner was aware of the charges, and no prejudice was caused. The complaint was disposed of.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 171 & 187, 1980 SCMR 114, 1993 SCMR 311.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=171", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.25 of 2007 and C.P. No. 101 of 2008, decision dated: 10-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI CHIEF, JUSTICE\nAKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellants.\nQahir Shah for Respondent.\nCh. Mumtaz, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAZAL QADIR QALBANI AND OTHERS\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7649", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 658 = 2009 SLD 658 = 2009 PTD 1128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Provisional Assessment of Duty & Delay in Goods Testing\nDetails: The complainant’s goods were delayed for over a month for testing, causing unnecessary demurrage charges. The Department did not release the goods provisionally as per Section 81 of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman concluded that the undue delay of one month in dispatching samples for testing amounted to maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended issuing a delay and detention certificate to enable the complainant to request a waiver of demurrage.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 80(1) & 25(1), Customs Rules (2001) - R.109(3), Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000) - S.2(3).\n(b) Valuation of Goods & Lack of Evidence for Duty Enhancement\nDetails: The complainant contested the enhancement of the goods' value by Customs without providing evidence for the determination. The complainant paid duties under protest and requested the department to disclose evidence for the valuation.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Customs issue a reasoned order with the basis for valuation, including reference to similar imported goods, to allow the complainant to challenge the assessment if desired.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 25(1) & 80(1), Customs Rules (2001) - R.109(3), Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000) - S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 186 of 2005, decision dated: 19-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar, Advisor (Dealing Officer) Mian Abdul Bari Rashid for the Complainant.\nMs. Farah Farooq, A.C. Dryport, Lahore for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHZADUR-REHMAN \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7650", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 659 = 2009 SLD 659 = 2009 PTD 1144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Goods Meant for Export & Waiver of Demurrage\nDetails: Goods intended for export were detained due to non-compliance with the Export (Quality Control) Order. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation order, but the authority refused to allow the removal of goods, leading to deterioration and loss in value.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the wrongful detention of goods was detrimental to the exporter’s interests and constituted maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended remission of demurrage charges and urged Customs to decide on the container rent and loss of value after hearing the complainant.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 32(1), 168 & 186, Export (Quality Control) Order, 1973, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (2000) - Ss. 9 & 11.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1545-K of 2003, decision dated: 25-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nAmmar Yasser for the Complainant.\nNadeem Ahmad Mirza, Consultant.\nMs. Zeba Bashir Ahmed, Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports).\nFeroze Alam Junejo, Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS M.K. INTERNATIONAL WHO, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7651", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 660 = 2009 SLD 660 = 2009 PTD 1254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S.168 - Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3) - Seizure of things liable to confiscation - Release of vehicle after 18 days from the date of delivery of certified copy of court's order - Validity - The delay in releasing vehicles after the High Court's decision declaring the department's actions illegal, without a stay order, caused inconvenience and harassment to the complainants. The inaction and delay in processing some applications amounted to maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended an inquiry into the causes of delay and misconduct of staff to pinpoint responsibility for the delay in the vehicle's release.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 216 & 168 - Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3) - No compensation for loss or injury except on proof of neglect or wilful act - Release of vehicle - The complainants alleged loss during detention of vehicle, including removal of parts like suspensions, gearboxes, and tyres. The department's actions in detention and failure to comply with the Court's orders led to the complainant's financial losses. However, the Ombudsman advised that complainants needed to prove the loss and its wilful cause. In relation to the delay, the Ombudsman recommended that the D.G. (Inquiries) investigate the delay in releasing the vehicles, which was found to be illegal, and take action against the officials responsible for the delay.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S.216 - Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3) - For loss claims related to parts replacement or pilferage, the complainants should have identified the missing parts and proven the loss to Customs before taking possession of the vehicles.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 505 of 2004, decision dated: 19-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akbar (Advisor) (Dealing Officer).\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for the Complainants.\nMuhammad Talib Hussain, A.C. AFU, Multan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD FAROOQ THROUGH ATTORNEY AND ANOTHER \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7652", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 661 = 2009 SLD 661 = 2009 PTD 1305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S.156(1), Cl.(89) - Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3 - Cancellation of import authorization by Minister of Commerce after goods reached Pakistan - Effect - The importer's right to import such goods was unaffected by the cancellation of authorization.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Miscellaneous Application No.6/CU/IB of 2009, decision dated: 11-03-2009, hearing DATE : 3rd March, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL SALAM KHAWAR, MEMBER, JUDICIAL/CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate Assisted by Sheryar Sheikh for Applicants.\nAdnan Iqbal Sawati, D. C./D. R for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7653", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 662 = 2009 SLD 662 = 2009 PTD 1541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJpND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of statutes - While interpreting fiscal instruments, the benefit of the same must go to the subject.\n(b) Personal Baggage, Transfer of Residence and Gift Scheme Import of Vehicles Rules, 2007 - R.3(i) - Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 - Constitutional petition - The petitioner’s vehicle was booked for import when it was not more than three years old. However, by the time it arrived in Pakistan, three years had elapsed. The Court directed the authorities to calculate the vehicle's age from the manufacturing date to shipment date. If the vehicle's age was not more than three years on the shipment date, it should be released after verification.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, (IV of 1969)=", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6104 of 2009, heard on 24h April, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN QADIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghafoor for Petitioner.\nMiss Kalmar Parveen for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAHID \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7654", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 663 = 2009 SLD 663 = 2009 PTD 1763 = 2010 PTCL 536", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S.187 - The person in possession of a vehicle must prove that the vehicle was legally imported and Customs duty and taxes were paid.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss.168 & 196 - Seizure of things liable to confiscation - Issuance of notice - The High Court upheld the issuance of notice by Customs authorities within two months after receiving a vehicle from the police.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=187", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Application No.16 of 2006, decision dated: 30-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHLI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Qahir Shah for Applicant.\nChaudhry Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel assisted by Muhammad Azam, Law Officer, Customs Department for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SYED MUHAMMAD QASIM \nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION) AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7655", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 664 = 2009 SLD 664 = (2010) 101 TAX 43 = 2009 PTD 1799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Rules, 2001 - Rr. 302-A & 307-B - S.R.O.450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001 - Refund or input adjustment of Sales Tax - Scope - DTRE approved persons are entitled to claim refund or input adjustment of Sales Tax paid on packing materials and chemicals under Rule 302-A, not under Rule 307-B.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 196, 194-A, 179, 193 & 195 - Appeal - The Assistant Collector, with approval from the Collector or Additional Collector, can be considered an aggrieved person and file an appeal on behalf of the Customs.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=302", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Reference No.55 of 2007, decision dated: 2-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nDOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Qayum Khattak for Petitioner.\nIsacc Ali Qazi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR SALES TAX \nVS\n MESSRS ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7656", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 699 = 2010 SLD 699 = 2010 PTCL 418 = 2010 PTD 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 25, 194-A & 196 - Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 - Constitutional petition - The petitioner, after appealing to the Appellate Tribunal against the enhancement of declared value of imported goods, could not pursue the same case in a constitutional petition. The Tribunal's order merged with the original order, and the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file a reference application or seek restoration, as the constitutional petition had become infructuous.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. 735 of 2002, decision dated: 8-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Petitioner.\nRaja Mohammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARSHAD HUSSAIN\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7657", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 700 = 2010 SLD 700 = 2010 PTD 1183", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCondonation of Delay in Reference Application\n•\nDetails: The issue concerns the delay of 180 days in filing a reference application under the Customs Act (1969). The Appellate Tribunal had released gold weighing 3400 grams, which the Revenue claimed was done in violation of statutory provisions, thus rendering the impugned order void. The Tribunal had concluded that the respondent did not attempt to conceal the gold, and no laws or circulars were violated.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the reference application as it was barred by limitation. No limitation applies to a void order, and after the limitation period, vested rights were created in favor of the respondent, which could not be undone.\n•\nCitations: 2001 SCMR 19; 2003 SCMR 83; 2002 MLD 296; PLD 2005 SC 461; PLD 1975 SC 331; 2008 SCMR 240; PLD 1997 SC 351; PLD 2005 SC 461.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.43 and C.M.As. Nos. 487 and 488 of 2009, decision dated: 10-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant.\nKhalid Javed Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), MCC OF PREVENTIVE, KARACHI \nVS\n SHAIKH NASIR ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7658", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 886 = 2011 SLD 886 = 2011 SCMR 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nReappraisal of Evidence in Criminal Case\n•\nDetails: This case deals with the reappraisal of evidence in a cross-version criminal case involving multiple offenses, including qatl-e-amd and self-defense. The trial court convicted the accused and the High Court upheld the conviction. However, the accused argued self-defense, which was not raised during trial.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reconsider the entire evidence. In a cross-version case, the court must determine the aggressor and assess the right to private defense. The plea of self-defense, though not raised during trial, could be inferred from evidence, and both versions of the incident should be examined.\n•\nCitations: Ghulam Farid v. The State 2009 SCMR 929; Wazid Moral v. State 1970 SCMR 256.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2009 out of Criminal Petition No. 286 of 2009, heard on 9-03-2010.hearing DATE : 5-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE\nRAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE\nTARIQ PERVEZ KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Talat Mehmood Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7659", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 701 = 2010 SLD 701 = 2010 PTCL 1061 = 2010 PTD 1216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Quashing of FIR for Customs Offenses\nDetails: The petitioner sought to quash an FIR lodged for concealing the contents of imported goods and providing false declarations to evade customs duties. The FIR implicated customs officials who allegedly facilitated the clearance of goods at a lower duty. However, the petitioner had no direct involvement in the FIR, having already been arrested in a separate case related to customs evasion. The goods in question were still in the customs area, and the allegations were not dismissed outright, as they involved factual controversies.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, as the FIR's allegations were not false on their face, and the factual issues could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The case involved matters requiring investigation and evidence gathering, which the High Court could not undertake.\nCitations: Bridg. Imtiaz Ahmad's case 1994 SCMR 2142", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17108 of 2009, decision dated: 24-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for the Petitioner.\nKhawar Ikram for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIRZA QAYYUM BAIG AND ANOTHER \nVS\n DILSHAD AHMAD KHAN AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7660", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 702 = 2010 SLD 702 = 2010 PTCL 1037 = 2010 PTD 1225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal to Appellate Tribunal under Customs Act\nDetails: The petitioner filed a review application against the dismissal of a constitutional petition. The Single Bench of the High Court had dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner could have appealed before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 194-A of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner contended that this remedy was not applicable as the order in question was not appealable.\nHeld: The High Court allowed the review application, recognizing that the remedy of appeal before the Tribunal was not available for the order passed by the Customs officer. The constitutional petition was considered to be pending for further consideration by the Single Bench.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-304 of 2008 and C.M.A. No. 8804 of 2009, decision dated: 21st December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Yousuf Alvi for the Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KHATRI BROTHERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION AND CHAIRMAN FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7661", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 703 = 2010 SLD 703 = 2010 PTD 1233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts in Customs Disputes\nDetails: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition to quash proceedings based on actions originating in location L . The petitioner argued that the appropriate forum for challenging these actions should be at location L , not at location K , where the petition was filed.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, agreeing that the appropriate forum for challenging the actions was location L , where the cause of action had arisen, and proceeding at location K would unnecessarily complicate the investigation.\nCitations: Al-Iblagh Limited v. Copyright Board 1985 SCMR 758; Ibrahim Fibres Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2009 PTD 248; New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 1995 SCMR 1535", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=162", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-542 of 2009, decision dated: 17-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZEEHEER, JAMALI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Haider and Siddiq Mirza for the Petitioners. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4\nS.M. Abbas Jafri, I.O. of the case, Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General, Intelligence and Investigation, F.B.R., Lahore", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. ROHI CHAUDHRY AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7662", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 704 = 2010 SLD 704 = 2010 PTD 1293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Acceptance of Importer's Assessment of Goods\nDetails: The importer filed a declaration for the assessment of imported goods, which was rejected by the Customs Officer, leading to a re-assessment. The importer filed a review against the re-assessment, which was also dismissed. The importer challenged both orders through a constitutional petition.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the dismissal of the review application had merged with the re-assessment order. The importer had a remedy of appeal against the re-assessment order, making the constitutional petition not maintainable.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-219 and C.M.As. Nos.1678 - 1204 of 2010, decision dated: 18-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zain A. Jatoi for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS P.M. INTERNATIONAL THROUGH SPECIAL ATTORNEY \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION (F.B.R.) AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7663", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 705 = 2010 SLD 705 = (2010) 102 TAX 32 = 2010 PTD 1311 = 2010 PTD 2101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Misprinting in Customs Duty Reduction Notice\nDetails: The Federal Government issued an S.R.O. reducing the excise duty on imported mineral greases from 50% to 25%. However, Customs Authorities later issued a notice claiming the reduction was a misprint and sought to recover the short-levied duty. The petitioners argued that they were following the correct S.R.O. when they imported the goods.\nHeld: The High Court accepted the petition, ruling that the clarification by Customs could only be applied prospectively. Since the petitioners had already sold the goods, the clarification was not retroactively applicable, and the recovery notices were set aside.\nCitations: PLD 1997 SC 503; 1992 SCMR 1652; PLD 1997 SC 582; 1999 SCMR 139", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12818 of 2004, heard on 1st April, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners.\nCh. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS A.A. BROTHERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (REVENUE DIVISION), ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7664", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 706 = 2010 SLD 706 = 2010 PTD 1315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Goods under Customs Act\nDetails: The case involved an importer who had allegedly mis-declared the PCT (Pakistan Customs Tariff) code for goods, triggering an investigation. The Customs Authorities contended that the mis-declaration led to duty evasion, while the importer claimed no intent to defraud and pointed out errors in the valuation and classification of goods.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that incorrect citing of the PCT code in the Bill of Entry did not constitute a mis-declaration, as this was an issue of classification handled by Customs. No evidence of intentional fraud was presented, and the penalty for mis-declaration was not applicable under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969.\nCitations: 2003 PTD (Trib.) 293", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. K-405 of 2009, decision dated: 16-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Consultant for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7665", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 707 = 2010 SLD 707 = 2010 PTD 1333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act – Confiscation of Vehicle\nDetails: The appellant’s vehicle was detained by Customs authorities for allegedly bearing a tampered chassis plate/number and for being smuggled into the country without paying customs duties. The Customs Tribunal ordered the outright confiscation of the vehicle.\nHeld: The mere refitting of the chassis number, without any evidence indicating that another vehicle was operating with the same number, was insufficient to justify the seizure or confiscation. The decision of the Appellate Tribunal was set aside, and the vehicle was ordered to be released unconditionally.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "S.A.O. (Customs) No. 4 of 2006, decision dated: 21st April, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE\nIMTIAZ ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Haroon Iqbal for Appellant.\nGhulam Shoaib Jalkay for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUDEER\nVS\n COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7666", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 887 = 2011 SLD 887 = 2011 SCMR 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Land Acquisition Act – Compulsory Acquisition Charges\nDetails: The appellant’s land was acquired for the construction of a grid station by the Water and Power Development Authority. The appellant contended that she was entitled to compulsory acquisition charges at 25% per annum on the market value of the land.\nHeld: The Water and Power Development Authority was considered a company under Section 3(e) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to compulsory acquisition charges at 25%, not 15% as awarded by the High Court. The High Court’s judgment was modified to grant the higher rate of compulsory acquisition charges.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 553 of 2003, decision dated: 7-10-2010.(On appeal from the judgment dated 9-10-2002 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in R.F.A. No. 71 of 2001)", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nS. Arshad Hussain Shah, Additional Advocate-General and Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. SUMAIRA GUL \nVS\n LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR G.S.C. WAPDA, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7667", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 708 = 2010 SLD 708 = 2010 PTD 1411 = 2011 PTCL 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act – False Declaration and Fictitious Bills of Entry\nDetails: The appellant, a clearing agent, was accused of removing liquor from a Bonded Warehouse using fake records. Despite the appellant's claim of being unaware of the fraudulent activity, the Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to provide adequate evidence to support their defense.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the penalty imposed on the appellant, citing that they played a significant role in facilitating the illegal actions and failed to prove their innocence. The reference application was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2,156(1)(14),194B(3)", + "Case #": "Spl. Customs Reference Applications Nos.59 and 60 of 2009, decision dated: 4-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Junaid Ghaffar for Applicants.\nMohsin Imam for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS T.M. ENTERPRISES THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY \nVS\n DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7668", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 709 = 2010 SLD 709 = 2010 PTD 1703 = 2011 PTCL 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act – Confiscation of Banned Goods\nDetails: The importer admitted to the import of banned goods and expressed willingness to pay a fine equal to 25% of the ascertained value instead of having the goods confiscated. A typographical error in the show-cause notice was rectified after providing the importer a hearing.\nHeld: The rectification of the typographical error and the opportunity for the importer to be heard complied with principles of natural justice. The order to rectify the error was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156Customs Rules, 2001=110,125", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 354 of 2007, decision dated: 16-06-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Malik for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SUPREME TUBE INDUSTRIES, KARACHI \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, (ADJUDICATIONI) AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7669", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 888 = 2011 SLD 888 = 2011 PTCL 529 = 2011 PTD 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act – Misdeclaration of Imported Goods\nDetails: The importer was found guilty of misdeclaring the weight of the imported goods, resulting in the confiscation of the goods. However, the department failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the misdeclaration.\nHeld: The department failed to prove the misdeclaration of weight and value. As the discrepancy in the weight could have been a procedural mistake, the orders of confiscation were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-170 of 2008, decision dated: 14-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, JUDICIAL (MEMBER-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellant.\nShahid Dasti A.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS H.H. BROTHERS, LAHORE \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7670", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 889 = 2011 SLD 889 = 2011 SCMR 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 – Burden of Proof\nDetails: The case involves the application of Section 14(c) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, which concerns the shifting of the burden of proof. The prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence regarding the accused's income sources and assets. The accused provided detailed evidence of his financial transactions, supported by witnesses and documentary evidence. The prosecution could not prove that the accused's assets were disproportionate to his known sources of income.\nHeld: The conviction of the accused was set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges as the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof.\nCitations: Hakim Ali Zardari v. State 2007 MLD 910; Farrukh Javed Ghumman v. State PLD 2004 Lah. 155; State of Maharashtra v. Wasudeo Ramchandra AIR 1981 SC 1186.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos. 361 and 362 of 2001, decision dated: 5-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nRAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE\nTARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2001\nWasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2001). \nDr. Asghar Rana, Additional Prosecutor-General for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2001). \nDr. Asghar Rana, Additional Prosecutor-General for Respondent (in Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 2001) \nWasim Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in Criminal Appeal No. 362 of 2001).\nCriminal Appeal No. 362 of 2001", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALID AZIZ \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7671", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 890 = 2011 SLD 890 = (2011) 103 TAX 116 = 2011 PTCL 491 = 2011 PTD 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Exemption Claim\nDetails: The petitioner, an importer of communication equipment, sought exemption from customs duty under a notification (S.R.O. 575(I)/2006). The customs authorities refused the exemption, citing that the equipment was subscriber equipment. The petitioner argued that this exclusion was incorrectly applied, as the notification did not impose such a restriction.\nHeld: The refusal of exemption was invalid, and the petitioner was entitled to the exemption under the notification.\nCitations: No specific case law cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=59", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1975 and Miscellaneous No. 7976 of 2010, decision dated: 25-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nZain A. Jatoi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WORLDCALL TELECOM LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, (REVENUE DIVISION) ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7672", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 891 = 2011 SLD 891 = 2011 SCMR 145", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Penal Code – Qatl-e-amd (Murder)\nDetails: The accused committed three murders. The complainant and other eye-witnesses testified, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of a blood-stained weapon. The accused had no prior enmity with the victims, and the evidence was consistent and reliable.\nHeld: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and leave to appeal was declined.\nCitations: No specific case law cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Jail Petition No. 189 of 2009, decision dated: 12-11-2009.(On appeal against the judgment dated 9-3-2009 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2003)", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE\nRAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM \nVS \n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7673", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 892 = 2011 SLD 892 = 2011 PTD 43", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act – Determination of Customs Value\nDetails: The case addresses the determination of customs value under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969. The court highlighted the difference between transaction value (real/actual value) and normal value (notional value) under international trade law. It also outlined the burden of proof and procedural requirements for the customs authorities when challenging the declared value of goods.\nHeld: The customs authorities failed to follow the correct procedures and provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of undervaluation. The court emphasized the importance of proper documentation and adherence to legal provisions.\nCitations: Rehan Umer's case 2006 PTD 909.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-118 of 2008, decision dated: 5-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Daniyal Muzaffar for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin, A.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ABDUL WAHID & CO\nVS\n ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7674", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 893 = 2011 SLD 893 = 2011 SCMR 148", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Guardians and Wards Act – Custody of Minor\nDetails: The mother of a minor, after divorcing, remarried and moved to the United States, leaving her child in Pakistan with the maternal grandparents. The court found that the mother had no valid reason for seeking the child’s removal to the U.S. The father, who had not remarried, sought custody of the child.\nHeld: The father was granted custody in the best interest of the minor, as the mother’s circumstances were not deemed suitable for custody.\nCitations: No specific case law cited.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1854 of 2010, decision dated: 20-10-2010.(On appeal from the judgment dated 25-8-2010 in W.P. No.1530 of 2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE\nKHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Qamar Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.Respondent No. 1 in person.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. AMMARA WASEEM\nVS \n SYED KHAWAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7675", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 894 = 2011 SLD 894 = 2011 PTCL 269 = 2011 PTD 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969) - Misdeclaration and Misclassification of Export Goods\n•\nDetails: An exporter electronically filed a goods declaration, self-assessing duty liability at 0%. The declaration was marked for examination, revealing a deliberate misdeclaration and misclassification of goods. The key issue was whether citing the wrong PCT heading could be deemed an act of misdeclaration under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969. The exporter contended that the determination of PCT heading was solely the responsibility of Customs Officers, not the exporter.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the citation of a wrong PCT heading by the exporter did not constitute misdeclaration as defined under Section 32 of the Customs Act. It was clarified that the determination of PCT heading was a duty of the Customs officers, and exporters merely assist in suggesting it. No false statement or collusion with Customs officers was found. The allegation of misdeclaration was unwarranted.\n•\nCitations: 2007 PTD 1804; Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax, Gujranwala 2008 PTD 60; Messrs Hanif Strawboard Factory v. Additional Collector (Adjudication) Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Gujranwala 2008 PTD 578; Syed Muhammad Razi v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement) Karachi 2003 PTD 2821, PLD 1996 Kar. 68, PLD 1989 Lah. 47", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal No.K-630 of 2009, decision dated: 9-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellant.\nShahid Dasti Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FAZAL ELLAHI PROP. OF TRADING KING, KARACHI \nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI AND ANOTHER CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7676", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 895 = 2011 SLD 895 = 2011 SCMR 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExecution of Power of Attorney During Marz-ul-Maut & Sale of Land by Attorney\n•\nDetails: A plea was made claiming that a deceased had executed a power of attorney during Marz-ul-Maut (dying illness). No independent witness, medical practitioner, or documentary evidence was produced to support the claim of hospitalization at the time of execution. The deceased executed the power of attorney 10 months before death.\n•\nHeld: The plea was rejected due to lack of evidence and the time gap between the power of attorney's execution and the death. The sale of land by the attorney was challenged on the basis of non-rendering of accounts.\n•\nCitations: Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan (deceased) PLD 1985 SC 341; Jamil Akhtar v. Las Baba PLD 2003 SC 494", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1621, 1657 of 2003 and Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2004, decision dated: 6-10-2010. (Against the judgment dated 8-7-2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in R.F.A. No. 19 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE\nKHIIJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Gul Zarin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1621 of 2003). \nM.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2, 3, 10 (in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2004). \nAjam Naz Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 1657 of 2003). \nMunir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2004). \nAbdul Rashid Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1, 6 and 9 (in Civil Appeals Nos. 1621 and 1657 of 2003).Abdul Rashid Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 (in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2004).Ex parte for Respondents Nos. 4 and 10.Ex parte for Respondents Nos. 2, 4, 10. \nNemo for Respondent No. 5 (in Civil Appeal No. 1621 of 2003).Nemo for Respondent No. 3 (in Civil Appeal No. 1657 of 2003).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ISLAMABAD FARMING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND OTHERS \nVS\n GHULAM ABBAS KHAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7677", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 896 = 2011 SLD 896 = 2011 PTCL 333 = 2011 PTD 110 = 2011 PCTLR 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969) - Classification Rulings and Public Notices\n•\nDetails: Dispute over the classification of imported goods under the Customs Act, focusing on the validity of letters from Customs authorities as classification rulings. The Classification Centre failed to follow procedures, and past practices were not considered. The issue also extended to the recovery of advance income tax on imports.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that letters from the Customs authorities could not be considered valid classification rulings. Past practices were to be adhered to unless changed by a Public Notice after proper procedures. Customs officers' non-compliance with the Classification Order was addressed under Section 223 of the Customs Act. The Department was not authorized to recover escaped assessments of advance tax without a determination by the Commissioner of Income Tax.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Dada Soap Factory Ltd. v. Pakistan PLD 1984 Kar. 302; Messrs Marine Food Industries v. Deputy Collector, MCC, PaCCS, Karachi Customs Appeal No.K-9 of 2009", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-366 of 2009, decision dated: 24-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.M. Kazimi, Consultant for Appellant.\nTariq Aziz, A.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AGP (PVT.) LTD\nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7678", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 897 = 2011 SLD 897 = 2011 SCMR 165", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----S. 497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Possession of narcotic drug etc.---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Heroin weighing 1.530 kilogram was recovered from the suit-case of co-accused at the airport---According to said co-accused the suit-case belonged to present accused---Trial Court had granted bail to accused, which had been recalled by High Court vide impugned order---Held, Trial Court had allowed bail to accused after proper examination and appreciation of the facts and the evidence available on record and rightly concluded that the matter required further inquiry--No exception could be taken to the observation so made by the Trial Court---High Court had cancelled the bail violating the principles embodied in S.497(5), Cr. P. C. and the guidelines laid down by Supreme Court relating to cancellation of bail---Order passed by High Court was arbitrary and whimsical and was set aside---Bail was allowed to accused accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No. 116 of 2008, decision dated: 5-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, JUSTICE\nSYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aftab Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record and Syed Muhammad Ali, Inspector Customs for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SALMAN SHAFIQUE \nVS \n THE STATE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7679", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 898 = 2011 SLD 898 = (2011) 103 TAX 211 = 2011 PTCL 519 = 2011 PTD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Import Policy Order, 2005-06 and Constitutional Petition for Vehicle Import under Gift Scheme\nDetails:\n•\nThe petitioner sought to import a vehicle under the Gift Scheme, which was eligible under the Import Policy Order 2005-06. The vehicle arrived 18 days before the policy's effectiveness.\n•\nThe authorities had not yet acted on the importability of the vehicle at the time of policy promulgation.\n•\nThe High Court ruled that the beneficial policy should apply retroactively to the petitioner’s case as the importation proceedings were still pending.\nHeld:\n•\nThe High Court declared that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits under the Import Policy Order 2005-06 for the import of the vehicle.\n•\nThe Constitutional petition was deemed the appropriate remedy.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs World Traders v. Collector of Customs, Lahore\n•\nEllahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 587\n•\nMessrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18251 of 2005, decision dated: 17-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Petitioners.\nSultan Mahmood and Izharul Haque for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. SHAHIDA ANWAR\nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7680", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 899 = 2011 SLD 899 = 2011 SCMR 168", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Conviction under Qatl-e-Amd and Causing Disappearance of Evidence\nDetails:\n•\nThe accused was convicted for Qatl-e-Amd and causing the disappearance of evidence. The case was circumstantial, with insufficient direct evidence to prove the guilt.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the accused to review the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nFazal Dad v. Ghulam Muhammad Malik PLD 2007 SC 571", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Jail Petition No. 774 of 2009, decision dated: 28-05-2010.(On appeal against the judgment dated 14-7-2009 passed by High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 25 of 2007 and Murder Reference No. 9 of 2007)", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Haq Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAHID \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7681", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 900 = 2011 SLD 900 = 2011 PTD 174 = 2011 PTCL 423 = 2011 PCTLR 361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration and Seizure of Goods under the Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\n•\nThe appellant was charged with misdeclaration of goods under S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, and subsequent seizure by Customs authorities.\n•\nThe appellant argued that the officials lacked authority to act, as they failed to obtain a search warrant.\nHeld:\n•\nThe seizure was found to be illegal as proper procedures under S. 162 and 163 of the Customs Act were not followed.\n•\nThe High Court set aside the seizure and the subsequent proceedings.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Haji Ismael and Company v. Customs Excise Tribunal SBLR 2008 Sindh 1699", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,162,163,168,194A", + "Case #": "C.A. No.43/LB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd May, 2010, hearing DATE : 12-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nMunir Ahmad, I.O. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GLOBAL TRADERS, MULTAN \nVS\n ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, F.B.R., MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7682", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 901 = 2011 SLD 901 = 2011 SCMR 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Pre-Arrest Bail and Criminal Procedure\nDetails:\n•\nThe accused was denied pre-arrest bail despite ample evidence connecting them to the crime under S. 302/34 PPC.\nHeld:\n•\nThe refusal for pre-arrest bail was upheld as the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish prima facie guilt.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal P.L.A. No. 9-K of 2010, decision dated: 22-03-2010.(On appeal from order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 20-1-2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 315 of 2009)", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Kazi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MALIK AQEEL \nVS\n THE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7683", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 902 = 2011 SLD 902 = 2011 PTCL 402 = 2011 PTD 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQVNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration, Smuggling, and Confiscation of Goods\nDetails:\n•\nThe appellant was accused of misdeclaring petroleum liquid and was penalized for smuggling.\n•\nThe prosecution failed to establish that the goods were smuggled.\nHeld:\n•\nThe confiscation order was set aside as the prosecution could not prove the smuggling charge, and further investigation was necessary before determining the actual nature of the goods.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "C.A. No.32/LB of 2010, decision dated: 3rd May, 2010, hearing DATE : 12-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nMunir Ahmad, I.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AHMAD TRADERS, MULTAN \nVS\n ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, F.B.R., MULTAN AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7684", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 903 = 2011 SLD 903 = 2011 PTD 235 = 2011 PTCL 575 = (2011) 103 TAX 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment and Limitation under Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\n•\nVehicles were released on provisional assessment, and after nine months, the authorities attempted to issue a valuation advice and initiate proceedings for additional payment.\nHeld:\n•\nThe authorities failed to extend the time for final determination, and thus the provisional determination became final after the nine-month period.\n•\nThe petitioner had no further liability, and the Constitutional petition was allowed.\nCitations:\n•\nHassan Trading Company v. C.B.R. 2004 PTD 1979", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-1285 and C.M.A. No. 6260 of 2008, decision dated: 12-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 3.\nMs. Cookie Rawat, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUS MOTORS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7685", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 904 = 2011 SLD 904 = (2011) 103 TAX 191 = 2011 PTD 301", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference to High Court and Seizure of Goods\nDetails:\n•\nThe dispute concerned the classification of goods and the subsequent seizure for non-declaration under Customs law.\n•\nThe Revenue raised a new plea not stated in the show-cause notice.\nHeld:\n•\nThe High Court found that issues of fact should be resolved by the Adjudicating Authority, not the High Court.\n•\nThe Revenue’s new plea was rejected as it was not part of the original show-cause notice.\nCitations:\n•\nAbdul Majeed v. Collector Customs 2009 PTD 119", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "S.A.Os. Nos.2, 3 and 19 of 1999, decision dated: 15-10-2010, hearing DATE : 15-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "ZIA UR REHMAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nYAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isac Ali for Appellant.\nS. Mudassir Amir for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHERZADA\nVS\n COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7686", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 905 = 2011 SLD 905 = 2011 PTCL 549 = 2011 PTD 495 = (2011) 103 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration and Classification of Goods under the Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\n•\nBaby diapers were misdeclared under the wrong PCT heading, with the importer arguing that there was a past practice of clearing them under an incorrect tariff heading.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Tribunal’s reliance on past practice was overruled as incorrect. The goods were to be classified correctly under the appropriate PCT heading.\n•\nThe shortfall in duty due to the mis-declaration was not considered as intentional, and no penalty was imposed.\nCitations:\n•\nDirector v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries 2006 SCMR 129", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,79(1)(b),196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Applications Nos. 90, 91 and 92 of 2009, decision dated: 23rd November, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Hyder Shaikh for Applicant.\nJunaid Ghaffar for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVS\n SHAIKH SHAKEEL AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7687", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 906 = 2011 SLD 906 = (2011) 103 TAX 304 = 2011 PTD 561 = 2011 PTCL 721", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 195\n•\nConstitutional petition regarding customs duty exemption under Free Trade Agreement (FTA).\n•\nDetails: Petitioner, an importer of ceramic tiles and sanitary goods, challenged the validity of a report determining the origin of goods. Petitioner claimed exemption from customs duties under the 2006 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with a neighboring country. The authorities found the FTA certificate presented by the petitioner to be false, leading to the imposition of enhanced customs duties and regulatory duties. The authorities exercised powers under Section 195 of the Customs Act, 1969 to re-assess the matter.\n•\nHeld: Constitutional petition was dismissed. The authorities' actions were lawful, as the FTA certificate was deemed bogus, and the importation of glazed porcelain tiles was not covered by the FTA.\n•\nCitations:\no\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\no\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 195\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 195\n•\nMaintainability of constitutional petition.\n•\nDetails: Petitioner filed a constitutional petition without availing the alternative remedies under the Customs Act, 1969. The dispute involved a factual question about the FTA certificate.\n•\nHeld: Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine for being premature and for failing to exhaust alternate remedies available under the Customs Act.\n•\nCitations:\no\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\no\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 195", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=195", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 22173 of 2010, decision dated: 4-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.\nSarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Customs-Department/respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MAW AND COMPANY THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7688", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 907 = 2011 SLD 907 = (2011) 103 TAX 309 = 2011 PTCL 660 = 2011 PTD 569", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 19, 193 & 194-A\n•\nConstitutional petition regarding exemption claims for imported goods.\n•\nDetails: The petitioner sought exemption from customs duties under a relevant S.R.O. The Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and Collectorate of Customs rejected the exemption claims. The petitioner contended the goods qualified for exemption under the relevant S.R.O.\n•\nHeld: The petition was deemed maintainable due to the complex question of interpretation of the S.R.O. and the absence of an alternative remedy.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 19, 193 & 194-A\no\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199\n•\nScope of constitutional jurisdiction.\n•\nDetails: High Court may exercise constitutional jurisdiction based on facts and circumstances.\n•\nHeld: High Court has discretion to decide when to exercise jurisdiction.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 19 & S.R.O. 575(I)/2006\n•\nExemption on imported pre-fabricated buildings/sheds.\n•\nDetails: The petitioner sought exemption on imported pre-fabricated buildings for setting up a new industry under S.R.O. 575(I)/2006. The authorities refused the exemption, but the court found that the goods met the criteria for exemption as per the S.R.O.\n•\nHeld: The High Court directed the authorities to grant the exemption as the imported goods were covered under the S.R.O.\n•\nCitations:\no\nS.R.O. 575(I)/2006\no\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 19\no\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos. D-2330 of 2008 and 308 of 2009, decision dated: 16-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D-308 of 2009). Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioner (in C.P. No. D-2330 of 2008).\nZain A. Jatoi and Ghulam Hyder Shaikh for Respondents No. 3/Collector of Customs (in C.P. No. D-2330 of 2008).\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 3 (in C.P. No. D-308 of 2009). S. Mohsin Imam for Respondent (in C.P. No. D-308 of 2009).", + "Petitioner Name:": "AISHA STEEL MILLS LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR, KARACHI AND OTHERS \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7689", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 908 = 2011 SLD 908 = (2011) 103 TAX 337 = 2011 PTCL 747 = 2011 PTD 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 19, 30, 31-A & 196\n•\nExemption on imported machinery.\n•\nDetails: The importer sought exemption from customs duty on imported gas generator sets. The Customs, Excise, and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had failed to consider whether the applicable list of locally manufactured goods at the time of placing the order or the time of arrival of goods was to be followed.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal, ruling that the list applicable at the time of placing the order should apply, and the subsequent modification to the list did not affect the vested right of the importer.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 19, 30, 31-A & 196\no\nMaple Leaf Cement Factory Limited v. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Faisalabad, 2000 MLD 1989", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,30,31A,196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Application No.41 of 2010, decision dated: 7-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Ahmed for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nRoshan Lal Haseja, Deputy Manager, and K.B. Ali, DGM (Tech and Tariff-II) Engineering Development Board, Karachi.\nMuhammad Ilyas Ehsan Khan Appraising Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AMTEX LIMITED\nVS\n CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7690", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 909 = 2011 SLD 909 = 2011 PTCL 708 = 2011 PTD 690 = (2011) 103 TAX 249", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 25\n•\nDispute over customs value of goods.\n•\nDetails: The respondent company imported goods, but the customs authorities disagreed with the declared value and applied a different PCT heading. The High Court initially ruled in favor of the respondent, but the Supreme Court found that an inquiry was needed to resolve the dispute regarding the PCT heading.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court converted the case into an appeal, which was allowed, stating that the determination of the correct PCT heading required further inquiry.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 25\no\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition Nos. 377-K, 398-K and 399-K of 2010, decision dated: 13-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE\nKHALIL UR REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in all cases).\nShahzad Saleem, Executive Officer for Respondent No. 1 (in all cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, F.B.R. AND OTHERS\nVS\n MESSRS MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, KARACHI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7691", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 910 = 2011 SLD 910 = 2011 PTD 1007", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000) - Ss. 11 & 52\n•\nImposition of Anti-Dumping Duty.\n•\nDetails: Petitioners challenged the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on imported tiles. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the authorities/commission for a fresh review. The petitioners now sought a refund of the Anti-Dumping Duty.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the case was still pending before the authorities and the Supreme Court had not made a final decision. The petitioners could pursue the claim for a refund before the authorities/commission.\n•\nCitations:\no\nAnti-Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000), Ss. 11 & 52\no\nNational Tariff Commission Act (VI of 1990), S.11\no\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Anti Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)=11", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2000 of 2010, decision dated: 1st February, 2011, hearing DATE : 27-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muhammad Athar and Shafqat Mahmood Chohan for Petitioners.\nSalman Farooq and Shafi Muhammad Chandio, Deputy Attorney General for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HOME LIFE THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER AND 10 OTHERS \nVS\n NATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION THROUGH CHAIRMAN, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7692", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 911 = 2011 SLD 911 = 2011 PTD 1228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 168, 169 & 181\n•\nRelease of confiscated vehicle.\n•\nDetails: The complainant sought the release of a confiscated vehicle by paying duties and taxes. The vehicle had been imported duty-free and later seized for non-payment of taxes.\n•\nHeld: Recommendations were made for the complainant to use the vehicle under a security instrument while the first buyer/evader of taxes was identified. Amendments were suggested to the relevant S.R.O. to ensure proper duty payment before registration.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 168, 169 & 181\no\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 9 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Complaint No.107/LHRICUS(05)/206/2010, decision dated: 14-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL WAHEED\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7693", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 912 = 2011 SLD 912 = 2011 PTD 1237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 21, 35 & 41\n•\nDenial of duty drawback claim.\n•\nDetails: The complainants exported Vegetable Ghee and filed duty drawback claims. The claims for some consignments were rejected based on late filing.\n•\nHeld: The Customs' rejection of claims on the grounds of time limitation was ruled as maladministration, and recommendations were made to allow the claims and condone the delay.\n•\nCitations:\no\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 21, 35 & 41\no\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3)(i)(b)(d)(ii), 9 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=21", + "Case #": "Complaint No.248/KHI/CUS(72)/743 of 2009, decision dated: 13-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DURRANI TRADERS, QUETTA\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7694", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 913 = 2011 SLD 913 = 2011 PTD 1242", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Payment of Duty Drawback Claims\nDetails: The complainant was aggrieved by the delay (2-3 years) in processing their duty drawback claims, which undermined the export rebate incentive scheme. The claim was prioritized only when a writ or complaint was filed, highlighting inefficiency and maladministration in handling the matter.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue direct the Chief Collector to settle the claim within 30 days, form a committee to address delays in processing claims, and settle all pending refunds within three months.\nCitations: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.2(3), 9 & ", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=455", + "Case #": "Complaint No.233-KHI/Cus(70)/708 of 2009, decision dated: 17-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Ahmad Advisor, Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SULTEX INDUSTRIES\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7695", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 914 = 2011 SLD 914 = 2011 PTD 1254", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Refusal to Refund Duty and Taxes\nDetails: The complainant's consignment was intercepted, and additional duties and penalties were imposed. Despite the Appellate Tribunal and Supreme Court ruling in favor of the complainant, the Customs department failed to process the refund claims from 2003 to 2006. The complainant also challenged the retrospective application of Section 19-A.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended initiating disciplinary proceedings against officials and instructed the Customs department to settle the claims as per the law.\nCitations: Fecto Belarus Tractor v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2005 SC 605", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Complaint No.110/Khi/Cus(54)/521/2010, decision dated: 12-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MONDAY BABA, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7696", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 915 = 2011 SLD 915 = 2011 PTD 1266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Charges by Shipping Companies\nDetails: The complainant alleged that shipping agents were levying illegal charges, increasing the cost of import business. The Collector of Customs had failed to regulate these shipping agents.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue direct the Collector of Customs (Preventive) to regulate shipping agents, formulate a strategy to address unlawful charges, and suggest amendments to the Licensing Rules.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss.19-A, 33 & 81; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.2(3)(i), 9 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos.462-K to 469 of 2009, decision dated: 12-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MALIK PAPER MART, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7697", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 916 = 2011 SLD 916 = 2011 PTD 1281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Denial of Refund Claim for Import Duties\nDetails: The complainants imported several consignments under a government notification exempting duties. Despite the Appellate Tribunal ruling in favor, the Customs authorities failed to process the refund claims from 1997 to 2005.\nHeld: The Ombudsman directed the Customs authorities to process and sanction the claims within 30 days, investigate the delays, and take action against officers responsible for the maladministration.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.33; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.9 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No.175/ISD/CUS/(20)/662 of 2009, decision dated: 2-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor, Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GHAZIBAROTHA CONTRACTORS, ISLAMABAD \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7698", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 917 = 2011 SLD 917 = 2011 PTD 1286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Discriminatory Issuance of Valuation Advice\nDetails: The complainant challenged the discriminatory valuation advice issued only for the Hyderabad Collectorate, which was detrimental to local manufacturers of a brand of motorcycles.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue direct the Hyderabad Collectorate not to apply the discriminatory advice, ensure fair assessment across all Collectorates, and expedite the issuance of a uniform valuation ruling.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss.25 & 25-D; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.2, 9 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No.328/Khi/Customs(137)1221, Complaint No.329/Khi/ Customs (138)1222 and Compliant No.340/Khi/Customs (143)1270 of 2010, decision dated: 21st December, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS D.S. MOTORS AND 2 OTHERS \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7699", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 918 = 2011 SLD 918 = (2011) 104 TAX 28 = 2011 PTCL 801 = 2011 PTD 1290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Suspension of Recovery Notice\nDetails: The petitioner contested the suspension of a notice requiring immediate payment of government dues, as their appeal was pending before the Customs Appellate Tribunal.\nHeld: The Ombudsman directed the Customs Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal within two months and suspended any recovery actions until the decision was made.\nCitations: Sunrise Bottling Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 535; Z.N. Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector Sales Tax 2003 PTD 1746", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=202", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3114 of 2011, decision dated: 21st February, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Raza Ahmad Cheema for Petitioner.\nCh. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAIGOL QINGQI MOTORS LTD \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7700", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 919 = 2011 SLD 919 = 2011 PTD 1293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-Sanctioning of Supplementary Rebate Claims\nDetails: Despite repeated reminders, the complainant’s supplementary rebate claims from 1991 to 1994 were not sanctioned due to departmental inefficiency.\nHeld: The Ombudsman directed the Federal Board of Revenue to resolve the outstanding claims and take action against officials for the delays.\nCitations: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.9 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-537-K of 2009, decision dated: 23rd December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Barkat Ali Bukhari, Dealing Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PEARL INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7701", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 920 = 2011 SLD 920 = 2011 PTD 1300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure and Confiscation of Goods\nDetails: Despite a favorable ruling from the Appellate Tribunal, the Customs department withheld the refund of redemption fine for over two years and auctioned the motorcycle parts.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended the Federal Board of Revenue to refund the redemption fine within seven days, investigate the delay, and take disciplinary action against the responsible officers.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss.2(s), 16, 157(2) & 168; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.2(3), 9 & 10", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Complaint No.32/KHI/CUST(20)/192 of 2010, decision dated: 11-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED HABIB NOOR AND ANOTHER \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7702", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 921 = 2011 SLD 921 = 2011 PTD 1339", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Refund Claims for Sales Tax\nDetails: The complainant, a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products, had refund claims for sales tax that were rejected due to incomplete documentation and time-barred claims.\nHeld: The Ombudsman directed the Customs authorities to treat the claims as pending, reconsider the refund claims in accordance with the law, and ensure a decision within 21 days.\nCitations: 2005 PTD 2286; Fecto Belarus Tractors Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 2005 PLD 605", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Complaint No.218/Khi/Cus9107)/894 of 2010, decision dated: 21st September, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GEOFMAN PHARMACEUTICALS, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION; ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7703", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 922 = 2011 SLD 922 = 2011 PTD 1344", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Withholding of Rebate Claims\nDetails: The complainant's 84 rebate claims from 2007 and 2008 were withheld without justification. The department failed to issue necessary notices or objections prior to the complaint.\nHeld: The Ombudsman directed the Federal Board of Revenue to settle the claims within 15 days and take action against officials responsible for non-compliance with recommendations.\nCitations: Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.12 & 16", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35", + "Case #": "Complaint No.205/Khi/CUS(103)815 of 2010, decision dated: 21st September, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ADMJEE ENTERPRISES, KARACHI \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7704", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 923 = 2011 SLD 923 = 2011 PTD 2205", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Value of Imported Goods & Misdeclaration\nDetails:\nThe case involved the importation of goods declared as Silicon Electrical Sheet under PCT heading 7225.1900, attracting zero percent customs duty. However, a scrutiny revealed that the goods were actually Electrolytic Tin Plate under PCT heading 7210.1210, which attracted 20% customs duty. The Additional Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation of the goods and gave the importers an option to redeem them by paying the customs duties and taxes, along with a redemption fine of 50% of the value of the goods. A penalty of Rs.100,000 was also imposed. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision.\nThe appeal was made to the Appellate Tribunal, which found the confiscation and redemption fine to be incorrect, as the fine was supposed to be based on the duty and taxes attempted to be evaded, not on the whole consignment value. The Tribunal modified the orders and determined the redemption fine based on the duty and taxes attempted to be evaded.\nHeld:\nThe Appellate Tribunal modified the earlier decisions by recalculating the redemption fine based on the evaded duties and taxes instead of the whole consignment value.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Weave and Knit (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi v. Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Karachi 2004 PTD 2981", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. K-236 of 2008 and K-1168 of 2010, (Old No. K-235 of 2008), decision dated: 22-02-2011, hearing DATE : 7-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II\nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Munir Bajwa for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS A.S. STEEL, KARACHI AND ANOTHER\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOM (APPEALS), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7705", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 924 = 2011 SLD 924 = 2011 PTD 2211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Reopening of Case Based on Under Valuation\nDetails:\nThe case involved consignments of textile-coated fabrics imported under PTC heading 5907.0019, which were reportedly under-invoiced. The declared value was $1.60 per kg, but the actual value was $3.00 per kg. The Customs Department assessed the goods at the correct value and demanded payment of the shortfall in duties and taxes. The importer argued that the value declared was accurate as per transactional value under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.\nThe Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, finding that the Customs Department had accepted the declared value based on the commercial invoice and other supporting documents, and no misdeclaration had occurred.\nHeld:\nThe appeal was accepted, and the Tribunal set aside the previous orders. The value declared by the appellant was accepted as the correct transactional value under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs A.S. International v. Collector of Customs Lahore Writ Petition No.8400 of 2008; 2009 PTD 281; 2009 PTD 467\n•\nMessrs Nishat Mills Ltd. v. Collectorate of Customs Karachi 2006 PTD 2726", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C.As. Nos.117/LB to 120/LB of 2010, decision dated: 8-09-2010, hearing DATE : 6-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Basit for Appellant.\nAhmad Kiamal, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NOVELTY TRADERS, MULTAN AND OTHERS \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, MULTAN AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7706", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 925 = 2011 SLD 925 = (2011) 104 TAX 155 = 2011 PTD 2220 = 2011 SCMR 1279 = 2012 PTCL 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Scope and Procedure under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\nThis case dealt with the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 for short levy or erroneous refund of customs duties. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal on similar issues raised in other cases. It examined the limitations under Section 32(3), where a notice must be issued within a prescribed time if there is a short levy or erroneous refund, unless the case involves fraud or forgery.\nThe court found that any delay beyond the prescribed time was not permissible, even in cases where negligence was involved. The Court also directed that action be taken against relevant Customs officers for their negligence, leading to a loss of revenue.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the timelines set under Section 32(3) and directed action against negligent Customs officials. It declined interference in the factual determination made by the Customs Tribunal in relation to the manifested quantity of oil.\nCitations:\n•\nCollector of Customs and another v. Messrs Fatima Enterprises Ltd. and others 2005 SCMR 1493\n•\n2007 PTD 1608", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 432 to 485 of 2009, decision dated: 21st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nRAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nAziz A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI\nVS\n PAKISTAN STATE OIL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7707", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 926 = 2011 SLD 926 = 2011 PTD 2480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Goods and Adjudication in Customs Act, 1969\nDetails: This case involves multiple issues concerning the valuation and assessment of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1969, specifically addressing sections related to valuation rulings, application of customs value determination methods, mis-declaration, and the adjudication process.\n1.\nValuation Ruling Validity (a):\no\nThe Customs Act's provisions were examined to determine the validity of a valuation ruling issued before July 1, 2009, which had a 90-day validity period. The amendment in the Finance Act 2009 extended the validity beyond this period.\no\nThe court ruled that a valuation ruling issued prior to July 1, 2009, was not valid beyond the prescribed 90 days, and this was upheld by subsequent amendments.\n2.\nApplication of Valuation Ruling to Past Consignments (b):\no\nIt was contested whether a valuation ruling issued after a consignment’s clearance could be applied retroactively to reassess the consignment. The ruling stated that such an application was invalid, as the initial appraised assessment could not be canceled based on a later-issued ruling.\n3.\nFall-Back Method for Valuation (c):\no\nThe application of the Fall-Back Method under S.25(9) was scrutinized, with the court finding that the Directorate General of Customs Valuation did not exhaust all primary and secondary valuation methods before resorting to the Fall-Back Method, rendering their use arbitrary and unlawful.\n4.\nMarket Inquiry in Deductive Method (d):\no\nThe Deductive Method, as outlined in S.25(7), was violated during market inquiries, as the necessary criteria concerning the quantity of goods sold and the period of sale were not adhered to, rendering the inquiry and valuation null and void.\n5.\nMis-declaration and Provisional Assessments (g):\no\nMis-declaration issues arose during the provisional assessment process. The court ruled that once a provisional assessment is made under S.81, any discrepancies found should be handled within that process, and the Customs authorities could not issue a mis-declaration notice under S.32 unless a final assessment had been made.\n6.\nAdjudication and Limitation (nn):\no\nThe court ruled on the mandatory limitation period for adjudication under S.179(3), stating that if the adjudication process exceeds 120 days from the date of the show-cause notice, the order becomes time-barred unless a valid extension is granted. In this case, the order was issued beyond the allowed time, making it invalid.\n________________________________________\nHeld:\n•\nThe Court found that valuation rulings prior to July 2009 had a limited validity of 90 days.\n•\nValuation rulings could not be applied retroactively to already cleared consignments.\n•\nThe use of the Fall-Back Method was deemed unlawful as the customs authorities had not followed all required steps.\n•\nMarket inquiries for deductive valuation were deemed invalid due to procedural violations.\n•\nThe provisional assessment procedure under S.81 could not be used to later issue notices for mis-declaration.\n•\nThe adjudication order was time-barred as it was issued beyond the statutory period of 120 days.\n________________________________________\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Shahzad Ahmed Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan, 2005 PTD 23\n•\nMessrs S.T. Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan, 2009 PTD 467\n•\nRaunaq Ali's case, PLD 1973 SC 236\n•\nAjay Exports v. Collector of Customs, 1986 ELT (26) 8731\n•\n2008 PTD 1968", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.K-638 to K-659, K-724 to K-727 of 2010, decision dated: 30-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)\nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Pervaiz Iqbal Kasi for Appellants.\nAgha Saeed Ahmed Deputy Director Valuation, Ghulam Yasin Appraising Officer and Abdul Rasheed, I.O. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MALIK VETRO DESIGNI AND 25 OTHERS\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7708", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 927 = 2011 SLD 927 = 2011 PTD 2577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Seizure and Mis-declaration of Goods\n•\nTime Limit for Show Cause Notice after Seizure for Mis-declaration and Short Payment of Tax\n•\nDetails: The importer contended that the show-cause notice issued 76 days after the seizure of goods for mis-declaration and short-levy of duty was time-barred as it should have been issued within two months of the seizure.\n•\nHeld: Two separate consequences arise from mis-declaration: (1) recovery of short/non-levied duty, and (2) civil/criminal liability, including confiscation and penalty. Under Section 32, the notice for recovery of short duty was issued timely. Section 180 permits issuance of a show-cause notice for civil liability without a time limit. The notice was not time-barred.\n•\nCitations: Mrs. Afroz Shah v. Pakistan (2007 PTD 167), Zeb Traders v. Federation of Pakistan (2004 PTD 369), Muhammad Razi v. Collector of Customs (2003 PTD 2821).\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Mis-declaration and Inadvertence\n•\nDetermining Mis-declaration and Claim of Inadvertence\n•\nDetails: Mis-declaration under Section 32(1) requires that false or misleading statements be found, negating the importer's claim of inadvertence or misdirection.\n•\nHeld: The factual inquiry must establish whether the importer's knowledge or belief about the mis-declaration is false.\n•\nCitations: None cited.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Reference to High Court\n•\nScope of Challenge in High Court\n•\nDetails: The importer attempted to challenge the findings of fact.\n•\nHeld: Findings of fact cannot be challenged before the High Court.\n•\nCitations: None cited.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.39 of 2010, decision dated: 7-01-2011, hearing DATE : 20-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nZAHID HAMID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Ahmed along with Ilyas Ahsan for Applicants.\nZia-ul-Hasan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI \nVS\n MAZHAR-ULISLAM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7709", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 928 = 2011 SLD 928 = 2011 PTD 2624", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Valuation of Imported Goods\n•\nBurden of Proof in Disputing Declared Value\n•\nDetails: The importer declared the value without an L/C, and the Customs Department failed to follow procedures to dispute the declared value.\n•\nHeld: The Department did not meet its burden of proof to dispute the declared value. The customs value declared by the importer was deemed correct.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Mughal Tobacco Limited v. Collector of Customs (1986 MLD 790), Messrs Kamran Industries v. The Collector of Customs (1996 PLD Karachi 68).\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Sequential Valuation Process\n•\nSequential Application of Valuation Methods\n•\nDetails: The Customs Department incorrectly used secondary valuation methods without exhausting the sequential methods prescribed in Section 25.\n•\nHeld: The valuation should follow the prescribed sequence in Section 25, and arbitrary assessment based on secondary methods was void.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Toyo International Motorcycle v. Federation of Pakistan (2008 PTD 1494).\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Methods of Valuation\n•\nValidity of Simultaneous Use of Deductive and Transaction Value Methods\n•\nDetails: The Customs Department applied both deductive and transaction value methods to determine the customs value.\n•\nHeld: Using both methods simultaneously rendered the assessment contradictory and invalid.\n•\nCitations: None cited.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Market Inquiry for Valuation\n•\nParameters for Market Inquiry\n•\nDetails: Market inquiry for valuation must be based on the unit price of identical or similar goods.\n•\nHeld: The inquiry should be based on actual prices for similar goods sold in the same state at the time of importation.\n•\nCitations: None cited.\n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Simultaneous Invocation of Valuation Methods\n•\nApplication of Deductive Method for Assessment\n•\nDetails: The deductive method was used in a manner that contradicted the provisions of Section 25 of the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: The assessment using the deductive method was not valid, as it was not consistent with the prescribed valuation sequence.\n•\nCitations: None cited.\n(f) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Discrimination in Valuation\n•\nDiscriminatory Treatment in Customs Valuation\n•\nDetails: The assessment was discriminatory, as some imports were cleared without using the deductive method while others were not treated equally.\n•\nHeld: Such discrimination violated the constitutional principles of equality before the law and was thus void.\n•\nCitations: 2005 SCMR 492; 2010 SCMR 431.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-273 of 2008, decision dated: 8-04-2011, hearing DATE : 5-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)\nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin, Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS H.H. BROTHERS, LAHORE\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7710", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 707 = 2012 SLD 707 = (2012) 105 TAX 55 = 2011 PTD 2760", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Regulatory Duty on Exported Goods\n•\nImposition of Regulatory Duty After Amended Declaration\n•\nDetails: A regulatory duty was imposed after an amended declaration for the export of copper and aluminum scrap.\n•\nHeld: The amended declaration, made due to a change in the shipment vessel, did not affect the imposition of duty, as no material changes were made. The demand for regulatory duty was quashed.\n•\nCitations: Al-Samrez Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1917).\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Conflict between Provisions of Section 18\n•\nImposition of Regulatory Duty under Section 18\n•\nDetails: A conflict existed between the provisions of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) regarding the imposition of regulatory duty.\n•\nHeld: Section 18(2) prevails over Section 18(3), limiting the Federal Government's power to impose duty if an exporter alters their position before the duty is applied.\n•\nCitations: None cited.\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes - Fiscal Statutes\n•\nLiability to Pay Tax Under a Fiscal Statute\n•\nDetails: A taxpayer’s liability to pay tax must be clearly defined within the charging section.\n•\nHeld: If the liability is not explicitly included, there is no obligation to pay the tax.\n•\nCitations: None cited.\n(d) Interpretation of Statutes - Statutory Redundancy\n•\nRedundancy in Statutory Provisions\n•\nDetails: Statutory redundancy should not be assumed lightly, and provisions should be interpreted to give them meaning.\n•\nHeld: The statutory provisions should be harmoniously interpreted.\n•\nCitations: None cited.\n(e) Estoppel - Promissory Estoppel\n•\nDoctrine of Estoppel in Taxation\n•\nDetails: The doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied against statutory provisions.\n•\nHeld: Estoppel does not apply where statutory provisions are involved.\n•", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18(2),18(3),31,31A,131,131|(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1337 and C.M.A. No.5271 of 20.10, decision dated: 8-08-2011. dates of hearing: 19-08-2010 and 9-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amer Raza Naqvi for Petitioner.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAIFUDDIN\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7711", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1083 = 2013 SLD 1083 = (2013) 107 TAX 333 = 2012 PTCL 524 = 2012 PTD 44", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nReference to High Court under Customs Act\n•\nDetails: Petitioner/importer filed appeals against orders of confiscation of goods, initially released with unconditional directions. The Director General Intelligence appealed the release, and the Customs Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a Reference to the High Court.\n•\nHeld: The Reference was deemed not maintainable as it involved no question of law, only a factual dispute. The confiscation of goods was upheld, with no violations of the Customs Act found. The Reference was answered in the negative.\n•\nCitations: Collector of Customs, Karachi v. Messrs Ali Enterprises, Karachi 2006 PTD 651, Collector of Customs, Customs House, Peshawar v. Waheed Gul 2010 PTD 1781", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Custom Reference No.4 of 2011, heard on 12-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ishfaq Hussain Naqvi for Petitioner.\nQazi Ghulam Dastgir for Respondents.\nTaqi Mirza, Law Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAKHAR-EALAM KHAN\nVS\n CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7712", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 708 = 2012 SLD 708 = 2012 PTCL 180 = 2012 PTD 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLimitation and Evidence in Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The Customs authorities issued a show-cause notice on 30-9-2008, and the order was issued on 5-5-2010, which was time-barred by 112 days. Additionally, the department failed to counter the affidavits of the appellant, which should be accepted as true.\n•\nHeld: The order was time-barred, and the department did not fulfill its legal burden of proof, failing to dispute the affidavits. The actions were deemed compliant with the Customs Act in terms of search and seizure, but the adjudicating officer's assignment of jurisdiction was invalid due to procedural failure.\n•\nCitations: Super Asia Muhammad Din and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax Gujranwala 2008 PTD 60, Nagina Silk Mills Lyalpur v. The Income Tax Officer PLD 1963 SC 322, Messrs Kamran Industries v. The Collector of Customs, Exports PLD 1996 Kar. 68", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "C.A. No.327/LB of 2010, decision dated: 5-08-2011, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID MAHMOOD BHATTI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellants.\nAhmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondents.\nZaheer Ahmad, for D.S", + "Petitioner Name:": "IRSHAD AHMAD AND ANOTHER\nVS\n FIAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (AIB), LAHORE AND 6 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7713", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 709 = 2012 SLD 709 = (2012) 105 TAX 175 = 2012 PTCL 551 = 2012 PTD 71", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlFpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Confiscation and Release of Goods\n•\nDetails: The petitioner imported mobile phones under the Pak-China Free Trade Agreement. After discrepancies in the consignment were detected, the goods were confiscated. The petitioner paid the required taxes and duties for release, but release was denied due to outstanding liabilities at another customs office.\n•\nHeld: Since the petitioner had paid all taxes and duties and the liability at Quetta was pending adjudication, the release of the goods at Islamabad should not have been refused.\n•\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168,179,193Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.112 of 2011, decision dated: 24-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Qazi for Petitioner.\nQazi Ghulam Dastgir for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BUSINESS IMPEX THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\n DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7714", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 710 = 2012 SLD 710 = (2012) 105 TAX 121 = 2012 PTCL 415 = 2012 PTD 90 = 2012 SCMR 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSmuggled Vehicle Detention\n•\nDetails: The respondent's vehicle was detained on the suspicion of being smuggled. However, the vehicle was imported legally through a foreign consulate, and the sale was authorized by the Government of Pakistan.\n•\nHeld: The detention order was set aside, as the vehicle had been legally imported, and all required taxes had been paid. The Supreme Court declined to intervene.\n•\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=171", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 805-K of 2010, decision dated: 5-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Ali Mehmoodi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION F.B.R., KARACHI\nVS\n MUHAMMAD JAMAL RIZVI AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7715", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 711 = 2012 SLD 711 = 2012 PTD 102", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Duty Drawback Claims and Maladministration\n•\nDetails: The complainant's customs duty drawback claims for 2004 and 2005 were rejected due to late filing. Despite recommendations for condoning the delay, the Federal Board of Revenue rejected the committee's suggestion, and the complainant filed a complaint alleging maladministration.\n•\nHeld: The rejection of the delay condonation was arbitrary, and the Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue condone the delay and decide the cases within 21 days.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. v. The Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 64", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35", + "Case #": "Complaint No.507/Lhr/Cus(29)/1028 of 2011, decision dated: 10-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Akhtar, Advisor for Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS STARPAK MARTIAL ARTS (PVT.) LTD\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7716", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 712 = 2012 SLD 712 = 2012 PTD 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of Smuggled Goods\nDetails: The Customs authorities seized tyres that were allegedly smuggled. Two separate seizure reports were made for tyres claimed by different owners, but one show-cause notice was issued. 38 tyres were claimed by three individuals, and the authorities observed the practice of smuggling goods in small shipments to evade detection. The involvement of a financier controlling the smuggling was noted. The appeal's decision was upheld, emphasizing the need to prevent such smuggling practices.\nHeld: The court upheld the order in the appeal, stressing the need to curb smuggling and avoid leniency in the matter.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) Ss. 2(s), 168 & 194-A", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Appeal No.28/CU of 2010, decision dated: 10-05-2011, hearing DATE : 13-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUSARRAT, JABEEN, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoukat Zaman for Appellants.\nBahadur DC/DR with Aga Sabbir SIO and Qazi Ghulam Dastgir for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAZADA WAQAR ULLAH KHAN AND OTHERS\nVS\n COLLECTOR CUSTOMS APPEALS, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7717", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 713 = 2012 SLD 713 = 2012 PTCL 437 = 2012 PTD 275", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 13333\nConfiscation of Smuggled Vehicle\nDetails: A vehicle with a tampered chassis number was seized, and the petitioner failed to prove its legal importation. The reference to the High Court was made after 10 months, which was time-barred. The High Court did not entertain the reference due to the delay and found no reason to interfere with the appellate decision.\nHeld: The reference to the High Court was dismissed due to the delayed filing and lack of substantial grounds for interference.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) Ss. 2(s), 16, 156(1)(8)(89), 168(i) & 196, Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.31", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.1 of 2010, decision dated: 18-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE\nAZMATULLAH MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Ali for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAZALUR-REHMAN\nVS\n APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7718", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 714 = 2012 SLD 714 = (2012) 105 TAX 186 = 2012 PTCL 645 = 2012 PTD 302", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Regarding Customs Act Amendment\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the amendment to S.79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, which restricted the first examination to importers of used goods only. The petitioner argued this violated the principle of equality. The High Court held the amendment was discriminatory and ordered the deletion of the words in case of used goods. \nHeld: The amendment was found unconstitutional to the extent it discriminated against importers of new goods, and the High Court directed its deletion.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) S. 79(1) [as amended by Finance Act, 2010], Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 25 & 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2486 and Miscellaneous No. 9994 of 2010, decision dated: 27-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nZain A. Jatoi for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.\nMuhammad Ilyas Ehsan, Appraising Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALEEM RAZA, PROPRIETOR GHAZI AND COMPANY, KARACHI \nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7719", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 715 = 2012 SLD 715 = 2012 PTD 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Auction of Misrepresented Vehicle\nDetails: A vehicle was auctioned by the Customs Department as a 1998 Mercedes Benz, but it was later found to be a 1992 model. The complainant, who bought the vehicle based on wrong information, requested the auction be canceled. The Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that the auction should be canceled and the buyer refunded, as the auction details were misleading.\nHeld: The auction was canceled, and the buyer was refunded due to misleading information provided by the auctioneer.\nCitations: Customs Rules, 2001 R.65(ii), Contract Act (IX of 1872) S.20, Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000) Ss. 2(3)(i)(b) & 10(4)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=65", + "Case #": "Complaint No.492/LHR/CUST(26)984 of 2011, decision dated: 1st November, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Akhtar, Advisor Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASHIM SABIR RAJA \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7720", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 716 = 2012 SLD 716 = (2012) 105 TAX 157 = 2012 PTD 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration of Goods under PACCS\nDetails: Importers mis-declared goods to evade customs duties by providing wrong HS Codes. The authorities issued show-cause notices and imposed penalties. The High Court upheld the findings of fact by the Customs authorities, ruling that the importers had deliberately mis-declared goods. It was also clarified that the High Court can only examine questions of law, not fact, under reference proceedings.\nHeld: The reference to the High Court was disposed of, and the decisions of the Customs authorities were upheld.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) Ss. 29, 32, 32-A, 179 & 196, 194-B(1), proviso", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Applications Nos.159 to 225 of 2010, decision dated: 23rd December, 2011, hearing DATE : 2-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan for Applicants (in Spl. Cust.\nRef. As. Nos.177 of 225 of 2010).\nGhulam Haider Sheikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GOLD TRADE IMPEX THROUGH PARTNER AND ANOTHER \nVS\n APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX THROUGH COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7721", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 717 = 2012 SLD 717 = 2012 PTD 416", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Inordinate delay in verification of customs N.O.C.\nDetails: Complainant alleged maladministration by Customs for delay in verifying the no objection certificate (N.O.C.) for vehicle registration, causing the cancellation of a vehicle sale. The complainant had undertaken to pay any short-levied duty. Customs incorrectly applied the Federal Board of Revenue's Guidelines, resulting in an erroneous calculation of duties and taxes.\nHeld: The Ombudsman found maladministration due to the delay and improper application of guidelines. The Federal Board of Revenue was directed to confirm the N.O.C., recover the short-levied duties, and discipline those responsible for the unlawful guidelines.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.30, S.R.O. 574(I)/2005.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Complaint No.26/Isd/Cus(03)/206 of 2011, decision dated: 19-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior, Advisor Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AFSAR KHAN \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7722", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 718 = 2012 SLD 718 = 2012 PTCL 420 = 2012 PTD 428", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggling and onus of proof\nDetails: Three oil tankers containing High Speed Diesel were confiscated on suspicion of being smuggled. A laboratory report showed the diesel was not of foreign origin, leading the Appellate Authority and Customs Appellate Tribunal to overturn the initial order.\nHeld: The appellate forums correctly held that the authorities failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove smuggling, as the respondents had disproved the allegation with proper documentation.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 2(s), 16, 152(2), 168, 187, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, Ss. 3(1), 156(1)(89), Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, Arts. 117, 120, Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs PLD 1996 Kar. 68 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Spl. Custom R.As. Nos.128, 129 and 130 of 2011, decision dated: 16-12-2011, hearing DATE : 18-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMAD ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mohsin Imam for Applicant.\nNawab Mirza for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, HYDERABAD \nVS\n MESSRS KHUDA RAHEEM AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7723", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 719 = 2012 SLD 719 = 2012 PTD 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Non-refund of earnest money\nDetails: Complainant participated in an auction and deposited Rs. 600,000 as earnest money. However, the auction authorities forfeited the amount despite the complainant being the highest bidder, and failed to issue a receipt.\nHeld: The Federal Board of Revenue was directed to refund the forfeited earnest money and ensure compliance with auction rules. The omission and failure to issue a receipt were deemed maladministration.\nCitations: Customs Rules, 2001, R.67, Establishment of Office of Federal Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=67", + "Case #": "Complaint No.125/ISD/CUS(21)1158 of 2011, decision dated: 30-12-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer.\nAamir Riaz for the Complainant (in person).", + "Petitioner Name:": "AAMIR RIAZ\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7724", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 720 = 2012 SLD 720 = 2012 PTD 541 = (2012) 105 TAX 299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs duty on machinery import\nDetails: A machinery import under an exemption notification was challenged for being manufactured locally, which would make it subject to customs duty. The department issued a show-cause notice demanding duty.\nHeld: The Supreme Court directed the respondent to reply to the show-cause notice and proceed in accordance with the law, dismissing the High Court's order.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 19, 193, S.R.O. No. 484(I)/94.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,193", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1946, 1258 of 2000, 1307 of 2001 and 1802 of 2005, decision dated: 21st December, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nMIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nEJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haq, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 1946 of 2000 and 1307 of 2001).\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 1258 of 2000 and 1307 of 2001).\nM. Bilal, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. 1258 of 2000 and 1307 of 2001).\nCh. Aitzaz Ahsan, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. 1802 of 2005).\nMehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. 1946 of 2000)\nGohar Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.A. 1802 of 2005).\nSalman Akram Raja, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (in C.A. 1946 of 2000).\nKhawaja Muhammad Farooq, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. 1258 of 2000).\nSalman Aslam Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. 1307 of 2001)\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. 1802 of 2005).\nAkhtar Ali Mahmud, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. 1802 of 2005).\nSharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. 1307 of 2001)", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER \nVS\n MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD. AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7725", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1084 = 2013 SLD 1084 = (2013) 107 TAX 172 = 2012 PTD 561", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration of petroleum products\nDetails: Pakistan Navy was charged customs duty on petroleum products supplied by a company, which had declared them as duty-free under S.106 of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the non-payment of duty was intentional or due to a long-standing practice exempting such supplies from customs duty.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 32, 106, Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=106", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1965 to 1970 of 2007, decision dated: 29-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nMAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nRAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajid Zahid Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak Advocate-on-Record for Appellants.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7726", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 721 = 2012 SLD 721 = 2012 PTD 629", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of gold by Pakistan Coast Guards\nDetails: Gold seized by the Pakistan Coast Guards was ordered to be released by an adjudicating officer. An appeal by the Coast Guards was dismissed due to filing by an incompetent officer.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, clarifying that Coast Guards officers are not considered Customs officers, and their appeal was not competent.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 2(o), 3, 193, 196, Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973, Ss. 2(9), 3, 4, 14, Sultan Muhammad v. Commandant Pishin Scouts, PLD 1991 Quetta 36.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Spl. Custom Ref. Application No.36 of 2010, decision dated: 23rd January, 2012, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMAD ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nisar Ahmed Tarar for Applicant.\nMs. Firdoos Farride for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND ANOTHER\nVS\n DIRECTOR-GENERAL PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS, KARACHI AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7727", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 173 = 1984 SLD 173 = 1984 PTCL 204 = (1984) 49 TAX 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition, Tax on Income\nDetails: The petition was related to various issues of liability, capital gains, revaluation, dividends, and tax assessments. The petitioner argued the process was ultra vires and unconstitutional.\nHeld: The petition was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and failure to provide sufficient grounds for appeal.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan, various tax and income laws.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1922=2(5A),46(5A),66(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=32,226", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. D-42 of 1980, 9-08-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PROVINCIAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.\nVS\nPAKISTAN AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7728", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 722 = 2012 SLD 722 = 2012 PTD 836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Drawback on exported goods\nDetails: Complainant filed a complaint against delays in processing duty drawback claims. Despite repeated directions from the Federal Tax Ombudsman, claims continued to pile up.\nHeld: The Federal Board of Revenue was directed to ensure timely processing and payment of all pending claims and report on progress regularly.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.37.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=37", + "Case #": "Complaint Nos.651-655/LHR/CUST(35-39)1370-1374 of 2011, decision dated: 7-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Nadir Khan, Advisor for Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS E.M. INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., SIALKOT AND 4 OTHERS\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7729", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 424 = 2014 SLD 424 = (2012) 106 TAX 205 = 2012 PTD 898 = 2014 PTCL 586 = 2012 SCMR 617", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of customs value\nDetails: The petitioners challenged the use of Section 25A of the Customs Act for determining the value of goods instead of Section 25, arguing the latter was exhaustive.\nHeld: The petition was dismissed as time-barred and without merit, as the case had been sent back for determination without causing harm to the petitioners.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 18, 25, 25A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,25&25AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.813 to 816 of 2011, decision dated: 24-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nIJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shehzada Mazhar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in all cases).\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SADIA JABBAR AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\n FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7730", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 723 = 2012 SLD 723 = 2012 PTD 1026", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration & Confiscation of Imported Goods\nDetails: The customs examination revealed 25,200 yards of imported polyester fabric in excess of the declared quantity, violating Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1969, and triggering Section 32. The Deputy Collector ordered confiscation of the excess goods, which was modified by the Collector Appeals to allow redemption on payment of fine.\nHeld: The discrepancy was based on yardage rather than weight, and no misdeclaration was established. No illegality was found, as the goods' description, weight, and number of packages matched the declaration. Since no restriction or ban was imposed on the goods, the provisions under Sections 128 and 129 did not apply. The order was set aside and penalties and fines were remitted.\nCitations: Customs Act (1969) Ss. 32, 129, 181, 193-A & 194-A", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 101/PB of 2011, decision dated: 27-12-2011, hearing DATE : 27-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Danish Ali Qazi for Appellants.\nNaseer Khan, Deputy Superintendent Customs for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SALLM SERUJ LTD., AFGHANISTAN AND ANOTHER\nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, TFS, NLC, NOWSHERA AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7731", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 724 = 2012 SLD 724 = 2012 PTD 1459", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of Duty & Taxes on Damaged Goods\nDetails: The liability of duties on imported goods that were damaged or destroyed was discussed, noting that duties accrue upon importation but can be remitted if the goods are destroyed under unavoidable circumstances. Additionally, the liability for damage during transit by carriers was addressed.\nHeld: The carrier was not liable for damage caused by unavoidable accidents or incidents not involving criminal intent. The duty on damaged goods could be remitted in cases of natural decay or accidental destruction.\nCitations: Customs Act (1969) Ss. 18, 32, 79, 80, 104, 209, & 194-A; Customs Rules 2001 R. 566", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2-CU/IB of 2011, decision dated: 31st January, 2012, hearing DATE : 17-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS VENUS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD\nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, DTRE, AFU, BBI, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7732", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1085 = 2013 SLD 1085 = (2013) 108 TAX 410 = 2012 PTD 1116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggling & Conviction of the Petitioner\nDetails: The petitioner was convicted for smuggling and transporting charas, but the case was based on insufficient evidence. Only 4 grams from a large quantity were examined, and the prosecution failed to prove the goods were of foreign origin.\nHeld: The conviction was overturned, and the petitioner was acquitted. The elements of smuggling were not proven, and the constitutional petition was allowed.\nCitations: Customs Act (1969) Ss. 156(1)(89), 159(9), 2(s)(a); Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.672 of 2001, decision dated: 9-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIFTAH UD DIN KHAN, JUSTICE\nMIAN FASIH UL MULK, JUSTICE\nSARTAJ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Asif Khan for Appellant.\nMuzamil Khan DAG for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7733", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 725 = 2012 SLD 725 = 2012 PTD 1195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration & Imposition of Penalty\nDetails: The importer was penalized for declaring goods under a different PCT heading, which resulted in a higher customs duty. However, the authorities could not establish that the misdeclaration was intentional.\nHeld: The penalty and fine were not justified as no evidence of intentional misdeclaration was found. The impugned order was set aside.\nCitations: Customs Act (1969) Ss. 32, 156(1)(14), 81, 181 & 194-A", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.742 of 2007, decision dated: 2-02-2010, hearing DATE : 2-02-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Awan and Imran Jawaid, Consultant for Appellant.\nMuhammad Raza, Deputy Collector for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SUBHANULLAH TRADERS, KARACHI\nVS\n COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7734", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 726 = 2012 SLD 726 = 2012 PTD 1211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Valuation of Goods & Misdeclaration\nDetails: The importer mis-declared the origin and weight of imported goods. The goods were assessed with a higher value due to the origin being falsely stated as England instead of China. \nHeld: The appellate authority's decision to remit the redemption fine and penalty was upheld, as no mens rea was proven. The appeal of the department was disallowed.\nCitations: Customs Act (1969) Ss. 25, 79(1), 80(3), 181, 193, 156(1); Customs Rules 2001; S.R.O. 499(1)/2009", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.K-409 of 2011, decision dated: 14-04-2012, hearing DATE : 1st February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MS. KAUSAR SULTANA HUSSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Jawad Zafar, Assistant Collector, and Ghulafn Yaseen, A.O. for Appellants.\nM.H. Awan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI\nVS\n MESSRS AAZMIR ENTERPRISES, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7735", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 727 = 2012 SLD 727 = (2012) 106 TAX 83 = 2012 PTCL 441 = 2012 PTD 1293", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Increase in Customs Duty under Pak-China FTA\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the increase in customs duty for goods imported from China, arguing that the rate should have remained static at 25% under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA).\nHeld: The FTA did not hold the status of law and thus did not alter Pakistan's customs laws. The constitutional petition was dismissed due to the availability of an alternate remedy.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199; PLD 1988 SC 670", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.3412 3336, 2088, 2089 and 2096 of 2009, 1159, 1495, 1588, 1618, 1643, 1661, 1709, 1866, 2030, 2088, 2341, 2401, 2483, 2550, 2804, 2914, 3056, 3182, 3272, 3426 of 2011 and 26, 141, 369, 416, 543, 941, 958 of 2012, decision dated: 27-04-2012. dates of hearing: 19th, 23rd April, 2012 and 26-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Safqat Mahmood Chohan, Monem Sultan, Niaz Ullah Khan Niazi, Barrister Umer Riaz, Ch. Muhammad Bashir, Mirza Tazeem Baig and Danish Afzaal for Petitioners.\nDr. Rana M. Shamim, Hafiz Munawar Iqbal, Binyamin Abbasi, Riaz Hussain Azam, Mrs. Naziran Malik, Raja M. Iqbal, and Mojeeb-ur-Rehman Warriach for Respondents.\nJavaid Iqbal Butt, Standing Counsel Barrister Yousaf Khosa and Barrister Saad Shoaib Wyne for Respondents (in Writ Petitions Nos.3412, 3336, 2088, 2089 and 2096 of 2009)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INDUS RAGS THROUGH PROPRIETOR AND 3 OTHERS\nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7736", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 929 = 2011 SLD 929 = 2011 PTCL 687 = 2012 PTD 1346", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Importer’s Misuse of Exemption Notification\nDetails: The importer falsely declared components that were locally manufactured to evade customs duties under a concessionary notification.\nHeld: The importer's action was deemed a violation of the notification and the Customs Act, 1969. The importer was directed to pay the evaded duties. The case was remanded for further consideration, taking into account clarifications provided by the Engineering Development Board (EDB) and the Federal Board of Revenue.\nCitations: Customs Act (1969) Ss. 32, 19, 156(1)(10-A), 14; S.R.O. 502(I)/1994, Customs General Orders No.7/98 and 9/92", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.422 of 2008, decision dated: 2-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "ZIAULLAH KAYANI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)/CHAIRMAN, \nMUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waleed Khalid for Appellant.\nSultan Mehmood and Arshad Majeed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HONDA ATLAS CARS (PAKISTAN) LTD., LAHORE\nVS\n COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7737", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 728 = 2012 SLD 728 = 2012 PTD 1365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Unlawful Disposal of Falcons by Customs and Wildlife Department\nDetails: The complainants, identified as Commercially Important Persons (CIPs), imported falcons into Pakistan. Upon arrival at the airport, they provided all necessary documentation, including passports, falcon tags, and health certificates, to the customs authorities. However, customs officials declared the falcons as 'unclaimed' despite being informed that the owners were waiting at the airport for clearance. The falcons were subsequently handed over to the Punjab Wildlife Department and released in a forest after obtaining a Magistrate’s order. The complainants contended that the falcons were wrongfully declared unclaimed and unlawfully disposed of, despite having followed the necessary procedures. Customs officials claimed that they lacked facilities to hold the falcons, but the procedure followed was illegal, mala fide, and deprived the complainants of their high-value possessions.\nHeld: The entire process, including the declaration of falcons as unclaimed, was deemed illegal. Customs and Wildlife officials had no authority to dispose of the falcons in such a manner. The Ombudsman recommended that the Revenue Division either return the falcons to the complainants or pay them Rs. 35 million as compensation, along with Rs. 1 million for the distress caused.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969: Ss. 138, 139, 168, 169, 179, 180, 181\n•\nPunjab Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Act, 1974\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000: Ss. 2(3), 22", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=138", + "Case #": "Complaint No.33/ISD/CUS(04)/339 of 2012, decision dated: 30-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir Senior Advisor and Hafiz Ahsan Ahmed Khokhar, Advisor Dealing Officers.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEIKH M. SULTAN AHMED MUALLA RULER IN ABU DHABI AND ANOTHER\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7738", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 729 = 2012 SLD 729 = 2012 PTD 1406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggling Allegations and Seizure of Livestock\nDetails: The customs authorities seized 39 animals allegedly being smuggled to Afghanistan. The owner of the livestock was identified, but failed to produce documentation of legal export/import. The livestock was confiscated under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant contended that the seizure was unlawful because there was no evidence supporting the smuggling charge, the troops lacked authority to make the seizure, and the animals were auctioned without proper legal process.\nHeld: The seizure of livestock was declared illegal due to lack of authority and insufficient evidence of smuggling. The appeal was accepted, and the auction proceeds were ordered to be refunded to the appellant.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969: Ss. 2(s), 9, 10, 16, 168, 171, 156(1) & Cls. (8), (89)\n•\nImports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950: S.3(1)\n•\nPLD 1977 Lah. 300", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 53/PB of 2011, decision dated: 16-05-2012, hearing DATE : 10-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irshad Ahmad Durrani for Appellants.\nNaseer Khan, Deputy Superintendent Customs for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RASOOL KHAN THROUGH WARIS KHAN\nVS\n COLLECTOR APPEAL CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7739", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 730 = 2012 SLD 730 = 2012 PTD 1471", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Against Withholding of Import Authorization Permit\nDetails: The petitioner, holding an import authorization permit for ammunition, faced a show-cause notice for exceeding the quota and using multiple National Tax Numbers (NTNs). The petitioner argued that only the Ministry of Commerce had the authority to address issues related to the import status of items, and that customs officers exceeded their jurisdiction in withholding the permit.\nHeld: The constitutional petition was deemed maintainable as the remedy under the Customs Act was not adequate. The Ministry of Commerce set the quotas for ammunition imports, but the customs authorities retained the jurisdiction to investigate and withhold the permit. Therefore, the withholding of the permit was in line with the law.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969: Ss. 168, 179, 180, 16\n•\nImport Policy Order, 2009\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan: Art.199\n•\nPLD 2008 SC 779; PLD 2010 SC 969", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9895 of 2012, heard on 29-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AYESHA A MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Adnan Ahmad Khawaja for Petitioner.\nGhulam Ali Raza with Miss Naeema Batool, Deputy Collector Custom and M. Naveed Chishti for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAMAL SALAM \nVS\n DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7740", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 731 = 2012 SLD 731 = 2012 PTD 1491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Short Payment of Duties and Taxes and Penalty Imposition\nDetails: The importer was found guilty of under-declaring the customs value of an imported vehicle, leading to short payment of duties and taxes. The penalty imposed was Rs. 200,000. The importer challenged the penalty, stating that the goods had been cleared in good faith based on the assessment of a similar vehicle. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the decision, but the matter was not appealed to the Appellate Tribunal.\nHeld: The penalty was upheld as the importer was found to have evaded taxes by misdeclaring the vehicle’s description and make. No evidence of mala fide intent was found. The Collector's decision was correct.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969: Ss. 32, 32-A, 80, 81, 83, 194-A\n•\nPLD 1971 SC 184; 1992 ALD 449(1); PLD 2001 SC 514", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-1180 of 2011, decision dated: 14-05-2012, hearing DATE ; 1st February, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MS. KAUSAR SULTANA HUSSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III), KARACHI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Muhammad Jokhio, A.O. for Appellant.\nNadeem Mirza for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI \nVS\n MESSRS ALFAJER ASSOCIATES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7741", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 732 = 2012 SLD 732 = (2012) 106 TAX 210 = 2012 PTD 1503", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Exclusion of Area from Fiscal Benefits under Rehabilitation Plan\nDetails: Under the Prime Minister's Rehabilitation Plan for industries in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) issued an S.R.O. that exempted certain areas from fiscal benefits for ghee industries. The petitioners’ ghee industries located in the excluded area of Hattar contended that this exclusion created a monopoly for a private respondent and was a violation of their constitutional rights.\nHeld: The exclusion of Hattar from fiscal benefits was ruled unconstitutional as it violated the principles of free competition and equal protection under the Constitution. The fiscal benefits should either be extended to the Hattar area or revoked entirely.\nCitations:\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan: Art. 18, 25, 199\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969: Ss. 37, 219\n•\nPLD 2005 SC 193; PLD 1990 SC 57; PLD 1997 SC 4", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=37", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.51, 224 and 1127 of 2011, decision dated: 27-04-2012, hearing DATE : 17-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Qamar Afzal for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos. 51 and 224 of 2011).\nIssac Ali Qazi for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 1127 of 2011).\nMuhammad Abid Raja, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 1.\nRao Abdul Ghaffar, Standing Counsel.\nMuhammad Nasir-ud-Din Mahboob and Ms. Farhat Zafar for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAFEEZ IQBAL OIL AND GHEE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED AND OTHERS \nVS\n GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, M/O COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7742", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 733 = 2012 SLD 733 = 2012 PTD 1513", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Pakistan Customs Tariff, 2011-12--Heading 87.02 & 87.03---Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 10(4) & 9(2)(b)---Complaint against non-refund of additional amount of duties and taxes collected by the Customs due to alleged arbitrary classification of a limousine-car under Pakistan Customs Tariff, heading 87.03 instead of 87.02---Jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman to investigate said complaint---Scope---Contentions of the complainant were that he imported the limousine car in question and filed Goods Declaration at the dry port, where the Customs instead of accepting the declared classification under Pakistan Customs Tariff, heading 87.02 (chargeable to 20% duty), arbitrarily determined classification under heading 87.03, chargeable to 100% customs duty and 50% regulatory duty, and that the Customs disregarded an earlier ruling of the Classification Committee and the recommendation of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat in a previous complaint---Validity---Reading of Pakistan Customs Tariff heading 87.02 and 87.03 was indicative of lack of clarity in the two headings---Office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman had already directed the Federal Board of Revenue to remove the said confusion through addition of an appropriate amendment/explanation in the Pakistan Customs Tariff Code---Although the matter of classification fell under S.9(2)(b) of the Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, but the issue with which the office of the Federal Tax Ombudsman was seized of was lack of clarity under classification headings 87.02 and 87.03, leading to avoidable confusion/litigation---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the Federal Board of Revenue to decide the matter of classification of the limousine car in question as per law, and to consider setting up a separate Classification Directorate, on the pattern of Valuation Directorate, to make the classification rulings more authoritative and binding for all Customs stations across the country or to alternatively entrust classification disputes to the Valuation Directorate.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=10", + "Case #": "Complaint No.149/ISD/Cus(27)1318 of 2011, decision dated: 13-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHID MUHAMMAD SWABI\nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7743", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 734 = 2012 SLD 734 = 2012 PTD 1542", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S.194-A---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Natural justice, Principle of---Applicability---Before taking any punitive action against any person, he was required in the first instance to be served with a show-cause notice confronting the material available on record in support of the charge; any action which was in violation of such principle of natural justice, 'audi alteram partem', the same would be void ab initio.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. K-251 of 2007, decision dated: 13-01-2010, hearing DATE : 13-01-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)\nJAVED KAZI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-1)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Haider Pirwani, Appraising Officer for Appellant.\nNadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant, for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), KARACHI \nVS\n MESSRS ABDULLAH GARMENTS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7744", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 735 = 2012 SLD 735 = 2012 PTD 1586", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDelay in processing duty-drawback claims\n•\nDetails: The complainants had filed their duty-drawback claims using the Micro Clear software, which was closed on 28-02-2012 and replaced by a new system, Standalone, from 01-03-2012. However, data from the old software had not yet been transferred, causing delays in processing the claims.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman concluded that the inefficiency in transferring data from the old system to the new one amounted to maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended the Federal Board of Revenue expedite the retrieval and transfer of data and prioritize the clearance of pending claims.\n•\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3), Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.35", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 92/Khi/Customs(35)270, 126/Khi/Customs(43)347, 127/Khi/Customs(44)348, 168/Khi/ Customs(49)510, 178/Khi/Customs-(51)540 of 2012, decision dated: 12-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NADIA TEXTILES INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LAHORE AND 4 OTHERS \nVS\n SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7745", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 736 = 2012 SLD 736 = 2012 PTD 1589", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAppeal to Appellate Tribunal regarding arbitrary decision and violation of Customs Act provisions\n•\nDetails: The appellant argued that the Customs authorities had arbitrarily decided the case without considering the legal and factual disputes, using the principle of mutatis mutandis. The appellant contended that separate orders were required for each case.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Customs authorities had violated S.194-B(1) of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant established a prima facie case, and no coercive action should be taken against the appellant until the next hearing.\n•\nCitations: 2011 PTD 2849, Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 194-A & 195-B", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-233 of 2012, decision dated: 26-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)\nGHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan and Imran Iqbal for Appellants.\nGhulam Yasin for Respondent No. 2. Nemo for Respondents No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ARABIAN TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7746", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 737 = 2012 SLD 737 = 2012 PTD 1618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "V", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus.551/PB of 2007, decision dated: 4-01-2010. dates of hearing: 27-01-3rd March, 30-03-13-04-6-05-1st June, 16-06-22-06-29-06-18-08-29th September and 20-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nHUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDRI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Razaq, Additional Collector, Muhammad Zahid, Superintendent, Muhammad Azam, Superintendent, Gul Said, Deputy Superintendent and Ziaullah, Appraiser for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAKIRULLAH SHINWARI TRADING COMPANY, PESHAWAR \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PESHAWAR AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7747", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 738 = 2012 SLD 738 = 2012 PTCL 347 = 2012 PTD 1650", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAllegation of misdeclaration and determination of customs value\n•\nDetails:\no\n(a) The importer submitted all required commercial documents, but discrepancies were found between the declared goods and the ones retrieved from the container.\no\n(b) Examination reports did not match the description in the customs declaration, but the Customs Authority failed to establish the misdeclaration.\no\n(c) The misdeclaration charge was not substantiated since the Customs could not produce sufficient evidence or prove that the importer had made false statements.\no\n(d) Customs failed to follow the proper procedures for determining the goods' customs value, relying on irrelevant documents.\no\n(e) The retrieved invoice could not be used as conclusive evidence for enhancing the declared price.\no\n(f) The issuance of a show-cause notice was mandatory, but none was issued.\no\n(g) The order-in-appeal was barred by limitation.\no\n(h) The Collector's order was not definitive and violated the principles of natural justice.\no\n(i) The appellant faced discriminatory treatment in violation of constitutional rights.\no\n(j) Administration of justice required following legal procedures as prescribed.\no\n(k) Statutes must be followed as prescribed, and non-compliance invalidates actions.\no\n(l) The High Court had no jurisdiction to question the legitimacy of a filing officer under S.196 of the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: The Customs' actions were ruled unlawful due to violations of procedural and legal requirements. The appellant’s rights were violated, and the proceedings were remanded for proper adjudication.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25, 32, 36, 193 & 193-A, Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 25", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 322 of 2010, decision dated: 2-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID MEHMOOD BHATTI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Najib Choudhary for Appellant.\nAhmed Kamal D.R., and Masud Javed for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAK ELEKTRON LIMITED, LAHORE\nVS\n ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, LAHORE AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7748", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 739 = 2012 SLD 739 = 2012 PTD 1697", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Sections 156, 168, 179, 193 & 194-A\n•\nCriminal proceedings vs. Confiscation/Recovery proceedings\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the distinction between criminal proceedings before the Special Judge, Customs and the confiscation/recovery proceedings before the adjudicating or Appellate Authority. These proceedings are independent, concurrent, and mutually exclusive. Adjudication for confiscation or recovery of duties/taxes does not involve criminal prosecution or punishment.\n•\nHeld: The proceedings are independent and neither can be suspended for the other.\n•\nCitations: Adam v. Collector of Customs PLD 1969 SC 446\n(b) Administration of Justice\n•\nSpeaking Order Requirement\n•\nDetails: The requirement for a speaking order, which should be based on sound and reasonable grounds, is a principle of natural justice. The adjudicating officer's order must reflect their application of mind and reasoning.\n•\nHeld: The adjudicating officer must pass a speaking order with proper reasoning.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Engro Chemical Pakistan Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs 2003 PTD 777\n(c) General Clauses Act (X of 1897) - Section 24-A\n•\nStatutory obligation of judicial/quasi-judicial authorities\n•\nDetails: Judicial or quasi-judicial authorities are required to pass speaking orders, demonstrating that they applied their judicial mind to the case. An order without reasoning is unsustainable.\n•\nHeld: A non-speaking order is invalid.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Engro Chemical Pakistan Ltd. v. Additional Collector of Customs 2003 PTD 777\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Sections 97 & 98\n•\nWarehousing Period\n•\nDetails: The maximum period for storing goods in a warehouse is one year, with an extension possibility. For perishable goods, the period is three months.\n•\nHeld: Goods must be cleared or transferred within the prescribed periods, with possible extensions.\n•\nCitations: Duty Free Shop Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue 2002 PTD 1167\n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Sections 32 & 180\n•\nUntrue statement and show-cause notice\n•\nDetails: Show-cause notices must specify the legal provisions under which they are issued and detail the facts for allegations such as misdeclaration or fraud. Failure to do so renders the notice invalid.\n•\nHeld: Show-cause notices must clearly specify charges and legal basis.\n•\nCitations: D.G. Khan Cement Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Multan 2003 PTD 1797\n(f) Words and Phrases - Mistake \n•\nLegal meaning of Mistake \n•\nHeld: Refer to Black's Law Dictionary.\n(g) Words and Phrases - Corrigendum \n•\nLegal meaning of Corrigendum \n•\nHeld: The term corrigendum refers to a correction or modification, typically issued to rectify errors in a document.\n(h) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Section 180\n•\nShow-cause notice and corrigendum\n•\nDetails: Issuing a corrigendum to revise a show-cause notice beyond its scope violates principles of natural justice.\n•\nHeld: Issuing a corrigendum enlarging the scope of a show-cause notice is illegal if it affects the original notice's basis.\n•\nCitations: Hassan Associates v. Additional Collector of Customs Adjudication 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1489\n(i) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Sections 18, 30(b), 32 & 104\n•\nLevy of Customs Duty\n•\nDetails: The levy of customs duty is determined at the time of import/export, with the collection of any non-levied taxes as a separate matter.\n•\nHeld: Customs officers have the authority to recover any short or non-levied taxes.\n•\nCitations: Duty Free Shop Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue 2002 PTD 1167\n(j) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Sections 32, 32-A, 97 & 156\n•\nImposition of penalty for mis-declaration\n•\nDetails: Penalty for mis-declaration can only be imposed when there is willful evasion of duties. Heavy penalties are not justifiable in cases of technical breaches or genuine mistakes.\n•\nHeld: Penalty is not justifiable in the absence of willful breach or fraud.\n•\nCitations: Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs (Exports) PLD 1996 Kar. 68", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus.537/PB of 2007, decision dated: 5-01-2010. dates of hearing: 11-02-30-03-21st April, 20-05-22-06-6-07-17-08-28-09-30th September and 13-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nHUMAYUN KHAN SIKANDARI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ishtiaq Ahmad for Appellant.\nMuhammad Azam, Superintendent, Taj Malook, Superintendent and Naseer Khan, D.S. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAHZAD GHEE MILLS LTD., GADOON AMAZI \nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7749", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 740 = 2012 SLD 740 = 2012 PTD 1754", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Sections 32(3A), 26(A) & 25A\n•\nApplication of Valuation Ruling and Fiscal Fraud\n•\nDetails: The case involves the application of a Valuation Ruling issued after the filing of the goods declaration (GD). The Appellate Authority's decision was based on a Valuation Ruling issued post-GD filing, which was contested by the importer.\n•\nHeld: The Valuation Ruling cannot be applied retrospectively, and the show-cause notice was issued improperly, as it was based on a ruling not applicable at the time of the GD filing.\n•\nCitations: Messrs S.T. Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan (in Writ Petitions Nos. 15767 to 15776 of 2008)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.323/LB of 2011, decision dated: 26-04-2011, hearing DATE : 17-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IMRAN MASOOD, MEMBER, JUDICIAL, JUSTICE\nUMAR FAROOQ, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khubaib Ahmad for Appellant.\nDr. Aitzaz Ahsan, D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NAVEED ENTERPRISES, FAISALABAD\nVS\n COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7750", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 741 = 2012 SLD 741 = (2012) 106 TAX 183 = 2012 PTD 1758", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Against Customs Adjudication Order\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the adjudication order of the Collector of Customs, which demanded duties and taxes after an exemption under S.R.O. 989(I)/1997 was rescinded by S.R.O. 989(I)/1998. The Lahore High Court's jurisdiction over the matter was questioned as the Collector of Customs was located in Karachi.\nHeld: The constitutional petition was not maintainable in the Lahore High Court because the adjudication order fell under the territorial jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court. The petition was dismissed.\nCitations: Art. 199, Constitution of Pakistan; S.R.O. 989(I)/1997; S.R.O. 989(I)/1998", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "W.P. No.19300 of 2000, decision dated: 6-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Abdullah Dogar for Petitioner.\nCh. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALAMDAR ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7751", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 742 = 2012 SLD 742 = 2012 PTD 1788", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation for Finalizing Customs Adjudication\nDetails: The petitioner contested the delay in passing an adjudication order beyond the time limits prescribed in Section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, arguing that the orders were passed after the legal time frame.\nHeld: The adjudication orders were deemed null and void due to violations of the time limits prescribed in Section 179(3), and the appeal was decided purely on legal grounds. The orders were set aside.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 156, 168, 179(3); Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax Gujranwala, 2008 PTD 60", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.312/LB of 2011, decision dated: 19-05-2012, hearing DATE : 6-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "SHAHID MAHMOOD BHATTI MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nCH. IMRAN MASOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar along with Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellants.\nDr. Aetizaz Ahsan, D.R. along with Ali Rizvi, D.S. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS YASIR ENTERPRISES, MULTAN and 2 others\nVS\nDEPUTY/ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MULTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7752", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 130 = 1980 SLD 130 = 1980 PCRLJ 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Penal Offenses and Civil Penalties under Customs Act\nDetails: Interpretation of various sections of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding penalties for smuggling, failure to declare baggage contents, and the burden of proof in smuggling offenses.\nHeld: Sections 156(1) and 139 of the Customs Act create civil penalties and criminal offenses depending on the circumstances. Smuggling involves failure to declare or overt acts of concealment. The burden of proof lies with the accused.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 139, 156, 2(s); P.L.D. 1973 S.C. 439", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1979, decision dated: 9-05-1979", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muzaffar Hussain for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAFIQ\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7753", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 131 = 1980 SLD 131 = 1980 PCRLJ 663", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Passenger's Rights and Bail in Customs Smuggling Cases\nDetails: The case involved a passenger who claimed to have brought goods into Pakistan with the intention of declaring them but was arrested before he could make the declaration.\nHeld: The passenger was granted bail as the facts of whether he was allowed to make the declaration were not clear at the bail stage. Further inquiry was necessary.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 139, 142, 156; Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S. 497", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Bail Application No. 27 of 1979, decision dated: 3rd October, 1979", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEROZUR RAHMAN BATLA\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7754", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 191 = 1984 SLD 191 = 1984 CLC 490", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment of Duty and Recovery of Short-Levied Duty\nDetails: The case concerned the validity of demands for short-levied duties after a final assessment was made, with notices issued beyond the prescribed time limit.\nHeld: As the provisional assessment procedure was not followed, and the notices for short-levied duties were issued after the statutory period, the demands were deemed invalid and could not be recovered.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 32, 81, 202", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-491 to 494 of 1982, decision dated: 5-09-1983", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE\nHAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Tariq A. Hussain for Petitioner.\nS. Inayat Ali, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "YAKOOB TIMBER MART\nVS\nCOLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7755", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 179 = 1984 SLD 179 = 1984 PCRLJ 1133 = 1984 PTCL 29", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Attempt to Smuggle under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\nAbdul Salam was convicted by the Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, for attempting to smuggle 51 kilograms of silver (in the form of 5 bars) while departing for Dubai from Lahore Airport. The silver was found during routine baggage inspection at the customs counter, after the appellant had checked in and received his boarding pass. The prosecution did not produce evidence that the appellant was asked to make a declaration under Section 139 of the Customs Act, nor that he made a false declaration or concealed the silver. The appellant claimed he had inquired with Customs whether he could take the silver with him, and was willing to return it if disallowed. This claim was denied by the prosecution witnesses. No written or verbal declaration was obtained, and the silver was not hidden in a manner to avoid detection. The trial court convicted him, holding it to be an attempt to smuggle.\nHeld:\nThe Lahore High Court held that mere possession or recovery of dutiable or restricted items, without evidence of concealment, false declaration, or refusal to declare, does not amount to an attempt to smuggle. The act must be an overt act closely connected with the offence. As there was no such evidence against Abdul Salam, his conviction was set aside. The Court ordered his release and directed the return of the seized silver.\nCitations:\nCrown v. Muhammad Rafique Safdar, PLD 1952 Sind 28\nSection 511, Pakistan Penal Code\nWrit Petition No. 10296 of 1980 (LHC)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2(s),139,142,156(1),156(8)Penal Code (XLV of 1860)=511", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 162-C of 1981, decision dated: 18-05-1981", + "Judge Name:": "M.S.H. QURAISHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL SALAM\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7756", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 242 = 1986 SLD 242 = 1986 CLC 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Re-assessment of Duty on Warehouse Goods\nDetails: The case dealt with whether goods in a warehouse could be reassessed for duty when duty rates had changed.\nHeld: The reassessment was valid, and the enhanced duty could be charged at the time of clearance, as the goods were still within the warehouse.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 80, 109; P.L.D. 1973 S.C. 439", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-420 of 1983, decision dated: 24-09-1985. dates of hearing: 22nd. August; 2nd, 3rd and 4-09-1985", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nMUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rasheed A. Akhund for Petitioner.\nLiaquat Merchant, Dy. A.G. with Abdul Sattar Pingar and Abdul.\nRashid Nizamanifor Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GLOBAL PRODUCE LTD\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7757", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 243 = 1986 SLD 243 = 1986 MLD 970", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction in Customs Cases\nDetails: The court considered the legality of the seizure of goods and adjudication orders based on findings of fact.\nHeld: The findings of fact in the Tribunal's decision could not be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction, and the claimant's case was dismissed for lack of clean hands.\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199; Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 10(b), 16, 17, 129", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=10", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-854 and D-770 of 1984, decision dated: 12th, hearing DATE : 18th September 1985", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN, JUSTICE\nK. A. CHANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. H. Shah and Raja Sher M. Khan for Petitioner. \nSami-ud-Din Sami for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "YOUSUF ALI \nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7758", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 244 = 1986 SLD 244 = 1986 SCMR 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Import of Goods for Transit Trade with Afghanistan\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the Customs authorities' refusal to allow the transit of goods to Afghanistan without a letter of credit, citing a bilateral agreement between the two countries.\nHeld: The case raised points of general importance regarding the authority of Customs to impose such requirements and the legality of actions taken in violation of the bilateral transit agreement. Leave to appeal was granted.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 26, 129, 219; Standing Order No. 22 of 1960; Karachi Port Trust Manual Rules 98", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=26", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 66-K and 97-K of 1984, decision dated: 29-05-1985", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, JUSTICE\nZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahir-ud-Din Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, with M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for the Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7759", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 245 = 1986 SLD 245 = 1986 SCMR 1437", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure of Goods under the Customs Act\n•\nDetails: Goods seized by Customs Authorities were deposited for adjudication under the Customs Act, 1969. A constitutional petition challenging the seizure was pending, with a stay order in place, halting further adjudication. The legality of the seizure remained unresolved.\n•\nHeld: The matter was not pursued before the Supreme Court, and the appeal was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 153, Items 8 & 9.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=153", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1973 and Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1974, decision dated: 24-06-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD HALEEM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, JUSTICE\nSHAFIUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.\n Munir A. Sheikh, Deputy Attorney General and Ch. Fazali-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MODerN COMFORTS and others\nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7760", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 134 = 1987 SLD 134 = 1987 CLC 1194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDouble Recovery of Customs Duty and Tax\n•\nDetails: The Customs Department had collected customs duty, excise duty, and sales tax on machinery that had already been levied and paid. The double recovery was contested as illegal.\n•\nHeld: Double recovery of the duties and taxes was deemed unlawful, and the amount unlawfully collected was ordered to be refunded.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32 & 83.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Regular First Appeal No. 142 of 1975, decision dated: 2-02-1987", + "Judge Name:": "ABAID ULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE\nAKHTAR HASSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdur Rashid for Appellant.\nSheikh Maqbool Ahmad for Respondents Nos 1 and 2. \nSheikh Ahmad Fazal for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MOTHERCAT LTD.\nVS\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7761", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 135 = 1987 SLD 135 = 1987 MLD 1519", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSuspension of Driving Licence\n•\nDetails: The licence of a driver was suspended following a fatal accident. No evidence existed showing that the driver’s conduct posed a danger to the public.\n•\nHeld: The suspension was deemed unjustified and the licence was restored.\n•\nCitations: West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), S.16(1)(c); Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 304-A.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965)=16", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-223 of 1985, decision dated: 29-01-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nNASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Latif for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Ibrahim Memon, Addl. A.G. (Sind) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED HILAL AKHTAR KALIM\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE HOME SECRETARY, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7762", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 136 = 1987 SLD 136 = 1987 MLD 1953", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMurder Conviction and Sentencing\n•\nDetails: The prosecution established that the deceased was murdered by the accused, with corroborative evidence from eyewitnesses and recovered items. The accused was under fifteen years old at the time and acted under his uncle's influence.\n•\nHeld: The conviction for murder was upheld, but the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment due to the accused’s age and the context of family honor.\n•\nCitations: Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34, 324 & 323.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.97 of 1983 and Murder Reference No.3 of 1984, decision dated: 6-05-1987", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, JUSTICE\nLEHRASAP KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghous Muhammad Chaudhry for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SANAULLAH and others\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7763", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 137 = 1987 SLD 137 = 1987 MLD 3192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPre-arrest Bail in Corruption Case\n•\nDetails: The accused, Chairman of Zila Council, was alleged to have misused his position in approving a contractor’s rebate application. No evidence of criminal misconduct or financial benefit to the accused was found.\n•\nHeld: Pre-arrest bail was confirmed, and no criminal misconduct was proven.\n•\nCitations: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 498; Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409; Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=498", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1935/B of 1987, decision dated: 4-07-1987", + "Judge Name:": "KHIZAR HAYAT, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Sultan Ahmad for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "SARDAR KHALID OMER\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7764", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 138 = 1987 SLD 138 = 1987 PCRLJ 959", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRevision Against Acquittal\n•\nDetails: The complainant had initially asked the police not to register a case but pursued an inquiry against the accused. The behavior of the complainant created doubts about the case.\n•\nHeld: The acquittal was maintained due to inconsistencies in the complainant's actions.\n•\nCitations: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=439", + "Case #": "Criminal Revision No.320 of 1986, decision dated: 7th February,1987", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR-UL-HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Talib H. Rizvi for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARZAND ALI \nVS \nASHRAF ALIAS ACHHU and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7765", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 139 = 1987 SLD 139 = 1987 PCRLJ 1464", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRegistration of Counter-case\n•\nDetails: The accused party alleged injuries caused by the complainant but was refused a counter-case by the Investigating Officer.\n•\nHeld: The High Court directed police authorities to properly investigate and register the counter-case.\n•\nCitations: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 to 156; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=154", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4394 of 1985, decision dated: 28-10-1985", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Aslam Riaz for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNAS\nVS\nSENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7766", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 169 = 1988 SLD 169 = 1988 CLC 1381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nBailee’s Liability and Proof of Negligence\n•\nDetails: A bailee is required to take reasonable care of goods entrusted to him. In case of loss or damage, the burden of proof is initially on the bailee to show they discharged their duties.\n•\nHeld: The warehouse keeper was held responsible for the safe custody of goods, and the burden shifted to the owner of the goods to prove negligence.\n•\nCitations: Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 151, 226; Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 106 & 116; Torts (Edn. XIII), p. 451.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Suits Nos. 781 of 1981 and 32 of 1982, decision dated: 27-02-1988, hearing DATE . 22-12-1987", + "Judge Name:": "AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mammoon Aslam and Amanullah Khan for Appellant.\nNasim Farooqui for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MASTERSONS THROUGH ITS PARTNER\nVS\nMESSRS EBRAHIM ENTERPRISES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7767", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 170 = 1988 SLD 170 = 1988 PCRLJ 1573", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Narcotics Smuggling and Customs Offence\nDetails:\n•\nAccused apprehended by a picketing party with a car containing a large quantity of Charas, opium, and Charas Burada.\n•\nThe witnesses to the arrest had no enmity against the accused and their testimonies were credible.\n•\nThe arrest and seizure of narcotics were conclusively proven.\nHeld:\n•\nThe apprehension of the accused with narcotics was valid and conclusively proved under the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nHowever, there was no evidence proving the narcotics to be of foreign origin or that duty was evaded, which led to the failure of the charge under Section 156(1) & 89.\nCitations:\nTaza Khan and another v. The State, 1984 P Cr. L J 1808", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.134/C of 1980, decision dated: 19-03-1988. dates of hearing: 9th, 12th and 13-03-1988", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Ijaz Ahmad Khan for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GUL NABI and others\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7768", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 171 = 1988 SLD 171 = 1988 PCRLJ 303", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail in Narcotics Smuggling Case\nDetails:\n•\nA raid led by Rangers resulted in the apprehension of the accused, suspected of smuggling goods across the border.\n•\nNo evidence was presented that the raiding party knew the accused beforehand, raising doubts about the identification of the accused.\nHeld:\n•\nThe possibility existed that the accused were not involved in smuggling.\n•\nBail was granted due to the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the crime.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26/C-B of 1987, decision dated: 3rd November, 1987", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Ijaz Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HASHMAT ALI ALIAS KALA\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7769", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 172 = 1988 SLD 172 = 1988 PCRLJ 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Bail in Narcotics Seizure Case\nDetails:\n•\n160 bags of pulses were seized, with 4 bags containing heroin. The accused was not the owner of the premises from which the goods were seized.\n•\nNo notice was served under Section 171 of the Customs Act.\n•\nThe case was found to warrant further investigation.\nHeld:\n•\nBail was granted due to the need for further inquiry.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Bail Application No. 62 of 1987, decision dated: 2-08-1987", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana M. Shamim for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN ABDUL WAHEED\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7770", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 173 = 1988 SLD 173 = 1988 PCRLJ 435", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Definition of Smuggled Goods\nDetails:\n•\nGoods such as gloves and woolen chadars were recovered, but these were not listed as smuggled goods under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act.\n•\nThere was no indication that these goods were brought in through unauthorized routes or without paying the required duties.\nHeld:\n•\nThe goods could not be classified as smuggled goods due to the lack of evidence for unlawful importation.\nCitations:\n1981 P Cr. L J 66", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 1236-C of 1980, heard on 20-12-1987", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Sharif for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM ABBAS\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7771", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 174 = 1988 SLD 174 = 1988 PCRLJ 1467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail in Customs Case\nDetails:\n•\nThe investigation was completed, and the accused had been in jail for 11 months.\n•\nThe offence did not carry the maximum penalty provided by law.\nHeld:\n•\nBail was granted in light of the fact that the investigation was complete and the penalty for the offence was not severe.\nCitations:\nMuhammad Altaf v. Nasir Ahmad, PLD 1975 Lah. 568\nAbdul Hay-uz-Zafar v. The State, 1983 P Cr. L J 2010", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4/B-C of 1988, decision dated: 29-02-1988", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Nazar Hussain for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL SATTAR\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7772", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 175 = 1988 SLD 175 = 1988 PCRLJ 1572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Bail in Smuggling Case\nDetails:\n•\nThe first information report and the Mashirnama did not provide evidence that the accused was given an opportunity to declare the goods under Section 139 of the Customs Act.\nHeld:\n•\nThe case required further inquiry, and bail was granted.\nCitations:\nFerozur Rehman Batla v. The State, 1980 P Cr. L J 663", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497", + "Case #": "Criminal Bail Application No.112 of 1981, decision dated: 14-12-1987", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Sami Ahmed for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAHIR\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7773", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 258 = 1989 SLD 258 = 1989 MLD 1398", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Goods Under Customs Act\nDetails:\n•\nThe importer declared uncoated Duplex Paper Board but was later subjected to a higher duty based on a chemical test. Goods were partially detained, and a penalty was imposed based on conflicting reports from two different laboratories.\nHeld:\n•\nThe Customs Authorities could not rely on conflicting chemical reports and the", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 631 of 1979, decision dated: 16-08-1959, hearing DATE : 16-08-1988", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE\nSALEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manosorul Arfin for Petitioner.\nS. Inayat Ali for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS. MUHAMMAD YUSUF IQBAL AHMAD \nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7774", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1989 259 = 1989 SLD 259 = 1989 MLD 2322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Import Contravention Allegation\nDetails:\n•\nAllegation of contravention of law during the import of goods transhipped to Lahore Dry Port.\nHeld:\n•\nThe High Court ordered that if the Customs Department had prior information about contravention, they should have conveyed it to the Port Authorities for further examination.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=121", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1228 of 1988, decision dated: 21st December, 1988", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nABDUL RAHIM KAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Afser Abidi for Petitioners.\nAbdus Sattar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSERS FAMOUS CORPORATION \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7775", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 268 = 1991 SLD 268 = 1991 MLD 1277", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Dues Under Customs Act\nDetails:\n•\nThe claim of dues under the Customs Act was subject to the recovery procedure under the Land Revenue Act. The customs authorities failed to issue a certified statement of account or show-cause notice before recovery actions were taken.\nHeld:\n•\nRecovery actions were invalid due to the failure of the Customs Authorities to comply with the mandatory legal procedures for issuing the required notices and certificates.\nCitations:\nMiss Shamsunnisa and another v. Karachi Road Transport Corporation, PLD 1975 Kar 914\nAbdul Latif v. The Government of West Pakistan, PLD 1962 SC 384\nPLD 1969 Pesh. 324", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-349 of 1983, decision dated: 21st March, 1991. dates of hearing: 23rd and 24-04-1990", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nIMAM ALI G. KAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar for Petitioners.\nNazar Akbar and A.A. Muhammadally, AA.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. RAZIA AIZAZUDDIN AND ANOTHER\nVS\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SOUTH, MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7776", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 269 = 1991 SLD 269 = 1991 PCRLJ 644", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)\nS. 265-K\n•\nPower of Court under Section 265-K, Cr.P.C.\n•\nDetails: The Court has the authority to acquit the accused under Section 265-K of the Criminal Procedure Code even if the witnesses have not been examined. If the evidence available on record suggests that a criminal charge cannot be sustained and there is no likelihood of the accused being convicted, the Court may acquit the accused without further trial.\n•\nHeld: Court has the power to acquit the accused based on the available evidence, even if no witnesses are examined.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Rafiq v The State 1980 P Cr. L J 318 ref.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nS. 139\n•\nDeclaration of Baggage Contents\n•\nDetails: Section 139 of the Customs Act requires passengers or members of the crew to make a verbal or written declaration of the contents of their baggage in the prescribed manner. A failure to make the declaration or to answer questions or produce baggage for examination can lead to penalties, including confiscation of goods. However, it is essential to note that the declaration must comply with prescribed rules, which are set out in the Passengers (Non-Tourist) Baggage (Import) Rules, 1983.\n•\nHeld: Failure to declare contents or cooperate with customs officers can result in confiscation of goods and penalties.\n•\nCitations: Ferozur Rahman Batla v The State 1980 P Cr. L J 663; Abdul Salam v The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1137 and Masood v The State 1987 M L D 1602 ref.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSs. 139 & 158\n•\nSearch by Appropriate Officer\n•\nDetails: Under Section 158, customs officers can search any person onboard if they suspect that the person is carrying goods liable for confiscation or documents related to smuggling. The smuggling offence is not complete until the goods are brought to customs barriers and a declaration is made as required by Section 139.\n•\nHeld: The smuggling offence is not complete until the goods are declared at customs barriers.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Rafiq v The State 1980 P Cr. L J 318 ref.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSs. 139 & 142\n•\nMere Possession of Dutiable Goods\n•\nDetails: Possessing dutiable or prohibited goods is not an offence unless a true declaration is made under Section 139 of the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: Mere possession of prohibited goods without failure to declare them under Section 139 does not constitute an offence.\n•\nCitations: Ferozur Rahman Batla v The State 1980 P Cr. L J 663; Abdul Salam v The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1137 ref.\n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSs. 139 & 156(1)(8)\n•\nConviction under Section 156(1)(8)\n•\nDetails: Mere presence of prohibited goods in baggage without an opportunity to make a declaration under Section 139 is insufficient to warrant conviction under Section 156(1)(8) for smuggling.\n•\nHeld: Goods found in baggage without allowing declaration under Section 139 do not suffice for conviction under Section 156(1)(8).\n•\nCitations: Ferozur Rahman Batla v The State 1980 P Cr. L J 663; Abdul Salam v The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1137 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "Criminal Revision Application No.9 of 1990, decision dated: 6th February 1991, hearing DATE : 9th January 1991", + "Judge Name:": "QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Sami Ahmed for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAHIR \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7777", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 270 = 1991 SLD 270 = 1991 SCMR 1951", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSs. 85(f) & 156\n•\nSeizure and Confiscation of Vehicle\n•\nDetails: The vehicle used to transport contraband goods (Charas) was seized and confiscated. Despite the petitioner's appeal and constitutional petition against the confiscation, the Court ruled that the petitioner was vicariously liable for the acts committed by his driver, who used the vehicle on the petitioner's behalf.\n•\nHeld: Constitutional petition dismissed, and confiscation of the vehicle upheld due to the petitioner's vicarious liability.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.93-Q of 1990, decision dated: 4-06-1991", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and SA.M. Quadri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED ADIL AHMED (MINOR)\nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7778", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 270 = 1993 SLD 270 = 1993 MLD 379", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nS. 156(1)(8)/89\n•\nAppreciation of Evidence\n•\nDetails: The prosecution's case was supported by witnesses who had no enmity towards the accused, and the case against the accused was found to be fully proved.\n•\nHeld: The case was maintained against the accused.\n•\nCitations: None provided.\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969)\nS. 156(1)(8)/89\n•\nSentence Reduction\n•\nDetails: The accused were not habitual offenders, and they had already served over two years of imprisonment. The sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment was reduced to the period already served.\n•\nHeld: Sentence reduced to the time already served by the accused.\n•\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. A6Q-C of 1991, heard on 26-05-1992", + "Judge Name:": "RASHID AZIZ KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Mahmood Akhtar for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHAB DIN and others \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7779", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 271 = 1993 SLD 271 = 1993 PCRLJ 1199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSs. 139, 156 & 168\n•\nConstitutional Jurisdiction and Release of Goods\n•\nDetails: The petitioner claimed that a consignment of spectacle frames was seized mistakenly at Karachi, although it was supposed to be transit luggage meant for Bangkok. The authorities found that the consignment was actually intended for Karachi.\n•\nHeld: The petitioner's plea was rejected, and the goods were not released due to the offence of smuggling under Section 156(1)(9).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-859 of 1990, decision dated: 19-03-1992, hearing DATE : 17-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE\nMUKHTAR AHMED, JUNEJO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amer Raza Naqvi for Petitioner.\nAbdul Ghaffar Siddiqui for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASLAM \nVS\nTHE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7780", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 272 = 1993 SLD 272 = 1993 SCMR 1982 = 1994 PTCL 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSections: 25, 80, & 30\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)\nIssue: Examination of whether an importer can request a re-examination of warehoused goods to adjust the price based on the verified quality.\nHeld: Leave to appeal granted to review whether an importer, against the import documents, can request re-examination of the quality and price of warehoused goods.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSection: 80\nIssue: Whether an importer can claim a reduction in duty based on a deficiency in the quality of goods after paying customs duties according to import documents.\nHeld: The importer, who has already paid full price to the supplier and has no pending claims, cannot seek a reduction in duty. The market value of goods remains unchanged despite their quality. No legal right to a reduction exists under the circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,30,80Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 440-K of 1990, decision dated: 13-01-1993", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurshid Anwar Sheikh, Advocate instructed by M. Shabbir Ghaury, Advocate -on-Record (absent) for Appellant.\nS.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GUL AHMED TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7781", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 284 = 1994 SLD 284 = 1994 CLC 1198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSections: 111 & 81\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199\nIssue: Whether the surcharge for failure to clear goods is legal when the delay is due to the pendency of a valuation question.\nHeld: The surcharge is illegal because the petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay caused by the authorities' delay in finalizing the assessment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=111", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 10108 of 1991, decision dated: 15-12-1993", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farooq Amjad Mir with Malik Arshad Hameed for Petitioner.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ADAM HOLDING LTD.\nVS\nA.C., CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7782", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 267 = 1996 SLD 267 = 1996 SCMR 727 = 1996 PTCL 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nSections: 16, 129 & 171\nCustoms Export Transit Rules, 1974\nAfghan Transit Trade Agreement (1965), Art. X\nIssue: Whether goods transiting through Pakistan to Afghanistan under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement can be detained or seized by Customs Authorities due to non-production of a Letter of Credit.\nHeld: Customs Authorities have no authority to detain or restrict transit goods under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement. The goods, though crossing customs barriers in Pakistan, are in transit to Afghanistan and should be allowed without duties or restrictions. The Customs Authorities' actions were unlawful, and the High Court's directive to issue a delay/detention certificate was justified.\n(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)\nSections: 3 & 5\nSupreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXIII, R.31\nIssue: Whether the delay in filing for leave to appeal can be excused by the government.\nHeld: The government must explain each day of delay in filing. The claim that the delay was due to routine departmental processing is not a satisfactory explanation. The delay was not condoned. The government is treated like any other litigant in such matters.\n________________________________________\n•\nDeferment of Import Duty Rules and Implied Penalties\n•\nDetails: The Customs Act (1969) provisions relating to the recovery of dues through a surcharge (if payment is not made within 30 days of Bill of Entry return) were not applicable since the Bill of Entry had not been returned in this case. The imposition of an additional penalty (such as a mark-up) was also ruled out.\n•\nHeld: The authorities could not impose penalties that were not explicitly authorized by the law. The claim for the recovery of a mark-up was declared void.\n•\nCitations: 1973 SCMR 445; PLD 1988 SC 370; PLD 1990 SC 68; 1992 SCMR 663.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16,129,171Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=X", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 361, K-520 and 521 of 1993, decision dated: 12-07-1995. dates of hearing: 11th and 12-07-1995", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, JUSTICE\nSHEIKH RIAZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Bashir, Deputy Attorney-General with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. No. 361 of 1993).\nMushtaq Memon, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 361 of 1993).\nRaja M. Bashir, Deputy Attorney-General for Appellants (in C.A No. K-520 of 1993).\nFakhar-ud-Din G. Ibrahim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Mushtaq Memon, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent. No. 1 (in C.A. No. K-520 of 1993).\nS. Hamid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. K-520 of 1993).\nS. Hamid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.P. No. 521 of 1993).\nMushtaq Memon, Advocates Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 521 of 1993).\nRaja M. Bashir, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents Nos.2 to 5 (in C.P. No. 521 of 1993).", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 5 others\nVS \nJAMALUDDIN and others\nCIVIL APPEAL No. K-520 of 1993\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHER \nVS \nCIVIL NO. 521 of 1993\nBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI \nVS \nMESSRS NAJIB ZARAB LIMITED and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7783", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 358 = 1997 SLD 358 = 1997 MLD 3161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViQlNTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---- Fiscal statute imposing penalties has to be construed strictly---Where statute itself did not contain any express provision for recovery of penalty, it would not be advisable to presume by implication, that on account of failure in payment of outstanding dues, such and such penalty could be imposed.\n \n1973 SCMR 445; Messrs Biswill Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs Circle, Sheikhupura and another PLD 1988 SC 370; Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edn., p.256; Government of Pakistan v. Hashwani Hotel Limited PLD 1990 SC 68; Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1921) 1 KB 65; 1992 SCMR 663; The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, East Bengal v. B.W.M. Abdur Rahman, Manager, Taki Bara Taraf Wards Estate 1973 SCMR 445 and Tenant v. Smith 1892 AC 150 rel.\n \n1973 SCMR 445; PLD 1988 SC 370; PLD 1990 SC 68; 1992 SCMR 663 and 1994 SCMR 1393 ref.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 83(2)---Deferment of Import Duty (On Ships for Scrapping) Rules, 1993, R.5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--­Penalty to recover mark-up---Essentials ---Provision of S.83(2), Customs Act, 1969, indicated that if on return of Bill of Entry within period of 30 days, outstanding dues had not been paid, Department could claim surcharge at specified rate---Bill of Entry, so far having not been returned to petitioner, Department could not invoke impliedly such provision of law, except deterring petitioner not to carry out ship-breaking and declining him in future not to avail facility of Deferment Rules---No other penalty to recover specified mark-up dues could be charged from petitioner---Authorities were not competent to incorporate such penal clause (recovery of mark-up) in R.5, Deferment of Import Duty (On Ships for Scrapping) Rules, 1993---Action of Authorities claiming specified mark-up from petitioners being not sustainable in law, was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=83", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.97 of 1997, decision dated: 8-05-1997, hearing DATE : 29-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nRAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Saeed, H. Shakil, Akhtar Ali Mehmood and Zahid Alvi for Petitioner.\nM.S. Rakshani, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS USMAN ENTERPRISES\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7784", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 560 = 1998 SLD 560 = 1998 PCRLJ 1477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):\n•\nBail Grant Due to Mistaken Identification\n•\nDetails: In the case of mistaken identification, where the name and details of the accused were incorrectly mentioned in the FIR, bail was granted as the case lacked clear evidence, and the accusation was not strong enough to justify the detention.\n•\nHeld: The accused was entitled to bail as the case against him did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497 Cr.P.C., and further inquiry was necessary.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Zubair v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1986 Pesh. 186; Sikandar Khan v. State 1995 SCMR 387.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969):\n•\nBurden of Proof in Customs Offenses\n•\nDetails: If goods are freely available in the market and the purchaser has satisfied himself of the lawfulness of their import, the burden of proving that duty was unpaid rests with the prosecution.\n•\nHeld: As the goods were freely available and not restricted, the accused could not be held liable for unpaid duties unless the prosecution proved the failure to pay.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Zubair v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1986 Pesh. 186.\n(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898):\n•\nBail and Conditions of Detention\n•\nDetails: Bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment, and there must be sufficient grounds to deny it.\n•\nHeld: Bail was granted as there was no sufficient cause to detain the accused.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=13", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Bail Application No.43 of 1997, decision dated: 16-12-1997", + "Judge Name:": "ZAKIR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Ismat Mehdi for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZIAULLAH KHAN \nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7785", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 691 = 1999 SLD 691 = 1999 CLC 403", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Interpretation of Statutes:\n•\nDefinition of Expressions\n•\nDetails: Unless a term is explicitly defined in a statute, it should be given its ordinary dictionary meaning. A definition in one statute cannot automatically apply to another unless the statutes are related.\n•\nHeld: The meaning of a term must be derived from its ordinary usage unless the context dictates otherwise.\n•\nCitations: Kazi Abdul Majeed v. Province of Sindh PLD 1976 Kar. 600.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969):\n•\nWarehouse Keeper's Liability\n•\nDetails: A warehouse keeper holds goods in trust for the owner, with beneficial interest remaining with the owner. The case involved the interpretation of the warehouse keeper's responsibilities under equity and statutory law.\n•\nHeld: The warehouse keeper’s liability is governed by the rules of equity, not merely by the general law of bailment.\n•\nCitations: AIR 1942 Cal. 251; AIR 1973 Cal. 401; Allah Wasaya v. Sardar Shah PLD 1984 Lab. 59.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969):\n•\nBailment and Limited Liability of Warehouse Keeper\n•\nDetails: While the Customs Act limits the liability of warehouse keepers, this liability must be assessed with reference to the provisions of the Contract Act (1872) rather than general bailment law.\n•\nHeld: The liability of the warehouse keeper is confined to the specific provisions of the Customs Act.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=116", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.64 of 1988 connected with Nos.73; 88 and 89 of 1988, decision dated: 13-07-1998, hearing DATE : 28-04-1998", + "Judge Name:": "ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, JUSTICE\nSABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amanullah Khan (in H.C.As. Nos.64 and 73 of 1988) and Iqbal Akhtar for Appellants (in H.C.As. Nos.88 and 89 of 1998).\nIqbal Akhtar for Respondent No. 1 (in H.C.As. Nos.64 and 73 of 1988). Amanullah Khan for Respondent No. 1 (in H.C.As. Nos.88 and 89 of 1988). Yawar Farooqui for Respondent No. 2 (in all Appeals)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MASTER SONS\nVS\nMESSRS EBRAHIM ENTERPRISES and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7786", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 692 = 1999 SLD 692 = 1999 CLC 939", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969):\n•\nSeizure of Smuggled Goods\n•\nDetails: The accused was apprehended at the Departure Lounge with emeralds and foreign currency. The goods were confiscated by Customs Authorities. The validity of the confiscation was challenged on procedural grounds under S.139 of the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: The accused’s actions constituted an attempt to smuggle, and the confiscation of goods was legally valid despite the lack of a formal declaration under S.139.\n•\nCitations: Abdul Salam v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 1133.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969):\n•\nSmuggling and Confiscation of Goods\n•\nDetails: Despite the failure to issue a statutory notice under S.171 of the Customs Act, the accused was informed of the grounds for his arrest and seizure. The confiscation of goods was upheld.\n•\nHeld: Procedural non-compliance was deemed not to invalidate the seizure and confiscation since the purpose of informing the accused was fulfilled.\n•\nCitations: Abdul Rauf v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 19; Ghufran Ahmad and another v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 620.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969):\n•\nConfiscation of Emeralds and Currency\n•\nDetails: The accused was carrying emeralds, and while the export of emeralds was not prohibited, it required State Bank clearance. The currency was subject to restrictions.\n•\nHeld: Confiscation of the emeralds was set aside, but the confiscation of currency was upheld due to the restrictions in place.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-117 of 1992, decision dated: 21st October, 1998, hearing DATE : 21st August, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. MAJIDA RAZVI, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSINANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zamir-ud-Din Ahmad for Petitioner.\nS. Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR\nVS \nTHE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7787", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 693 = 1999 SLD 693 = 1999 MLD 1022", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969):\n•\nSmuggling Evidence and Conviction\n•\nDetails: The accused was convicted for smuggling gold based on the testimony of the raiding party and other evidence that was unchallenged in cross-examination. The prosecution was justified in not producing public witnesses due to the influence of the accused.\n•\nHeld: The conviction was upheld as the evidence against the accused was sufficient and unchallenged.\n•\nCitations: Muhammad Ajmal v. The State KLR 1994 Lah. Crl. C. 238.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.490/C of 1996, heard on 10th December 1997", + "Judge Name:": "IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aslam Zar for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM HAIDER \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7788", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 694 = 1999 SLD 694 = 1999 PTD 1892", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990):\n•\nInput Tax Adjustment\n•\nDetails: The manufacturer was entitled to adjust input tax from output tax for the purchase of accessories and spare parts, as these were not included in the definition of goods for tax purposes.\n•\nHeld: The adjustment of input tax was allowed, as the Federal Government had not included accessories and spare parts under S.8(1)(b).\n•\nCitations: S.R.O. No.1111(1)/90, dated 1-11-1990.\n(b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990):\n•\nDefinition of Stock in Trade \n•\nDetails: Accessories and spare parts for plant maintenance were not considered stock in trade, as per the dictionary meaning, and therefore could not be classified as such under the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nHeld: The parts could not be considered stock in trade as per the dictionary definitions.\n•\nCitations: Black's Law Dictionary; The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary.\n(c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990):\n•\nMala Fide Demand for Tax\n•\nDetails: The authorities showed undue haste in issuing a tax demand for deductions, which was considered mala fide as it was not in accordance with the law.\n•\nHeld: The demand was dismissed as being made in bad faith and contrary to the law.\n(d) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990):\n•\nConstitutional Jurisdiction in Sales Tax Matters\n•\nDetails: The absence of a constituted Appellate Tribunal meant the petitioner had no other adequate remedy, justifying the High Court’s exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.\n•\nHeld: The Constitutional petition was maintained.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others 1993 SCMR 1232.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 929 of 1995, decision dated: 4-03-1999", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSH. RIAZ AHMED, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fatehali W. Vellani, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Shabbir Ghouri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.\nYawar Ali, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PRESENT:\nATTOCK CEMENT PAKISTAN LTD\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, QUETTA and 4 others\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax\nVS\nSRI RAMALINGA CHOODAMBIGAI MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7789", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 803 = 2001 SLD 803 = 2001 PTD 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax—Business expenditure—Damages paid for cancellation of contracts\nDetails: The assessee had entered into contracts for purchasing cotton for yarn production. Two contracts were cancelled due to a decision to produce higher-count yarn, leading to the payment of Rs. 40,687 as damages. The assessee claimed this as a revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed it, considering the payment a speculation loss. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal ruled that the contracts were part of the ordinary business and the cancellation was not speculative.\nHeld: The damages paid were not speculative losses but legitimate business expenditure. The contracts were for securing raw materials in the normal course of business, and cancellation due to a change in production needs does not make it speculative.\nCitations: CIT v. Kamani Tubes Ltd. (1994) 207 ITR 298 (Bom.), CIT v. Shantilal (P.) Ltd. (1983) 144 ITR 57 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=28", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.162 of 1985 (Reference No.70 of 1985), decision dated: 19-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE\nN. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.\nNemo for the Assessee.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7790", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 804 = 2001 SLD 804 = 2001 PTD 1331 = (2000) 244 ITR 233", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth tax—Net wealth—Lottery prize\nDetails: The assessee claimed a lottery prize, but a dispute over ownership was pending before the High Court. An interim order allowed the assessee to withdraw half of the prize amount, with a bank guarantee pending the outcome of the case. The question arose whether the prize should be included in the net wealth.\nHeld: The prize money had not accrued to the assessee in the relevant year and was not includible in net wealth.\nCitations: CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. (1986) 161 ITR 524 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Tax Case No. 684 of 1988 (Reference No. 523 of 1988), decision dated: 28-11-1998", + "Judge Name:": "R., JAYASIMHA BABU, JUSTICE\nMRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.\nNemo for the Assessee.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\nVS \nN. NAZEERUDEEN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7791", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 805 = 2001 SLD 805 = 2001 PTD 2234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act & Customs Act—Exemption of sales tax and customs duty\nDetails: Petitioners imported electricity-generating units and claimed exemptions from sales tax and customs duty under various notifications. The exemption from customs duty was amended, and the petitioners sought the higher level of exemption under the original notification.\nHeld: Petitioners were entitled to exemption from customs duty in excess of 10% of the applicable rate under Notification No. S.R.O. 585(I)/95 and from sales tax as per Notification No. 230(I)/97.\nCitations: Ittefaq Foundry v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1990 Lah. 121; Saeed-ud-Din v. Secretary, N.W.F.P., 1990 CLC 8; Messrs Willy Foods (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, 1997 PTD 63", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1847, 2037, 2558, 2723, 2867 of 1997, 5, 503, 1559, 1714, 1951 of 1998 and 7 of 1999, decision dated: 8-04-1997. dates of hearing: 6th, 7th and 8-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AMJAD ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Azid Nafees for Petitioners.\n Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Standing Counsel for Respondent.\nFarhat Nawaz Lodhi, Legal Advisor.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAPHIRE ENERGY LIMITED and 10 OTHERS \nVS\nPAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7792", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 785 = 2002 SLD 785 = 2002 CLC 616", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act—Date and rate of duty\nDetails: The question arose about the rate of customs duty for goods cleared from a bonded warehouse after the presentation of a Bill of Entry.\nHeld: The rate applicable for clearance of goods was the one in force on the day the Bill of Entry was presented for release or clearance from the bonded warehouse.\nCitations: National Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1989 Kar. 174", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 166 of 1999, decision dated: 22-10-2001, hearing DATE : 4-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMANSOOR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAIRA INDUSTRIES (PRIVATE BONDED WAREHOUSE) INDUSTRIAL AREA, KOT LAKHPAT, \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7793", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 786 = 2002 SLD 786 = 2002 CLC 1066", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act—Jurisdiction and powers of Customs authorities\nDetails: This case involved various issues related to the scope of jurisdiction for appeals, options for paying fines in lieu of confiscated goods, and the handling of undeclared gold in a passenger's baggage.\nHeld: The High Court declined to intervene in the Customs' discretion to allow or deny an option to pay a fine instead of accepting confiscation, as the exercise of discretion was based on the facts of each case.\nCitations:", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.26 of 1997, heard on 6-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nKhan Muhammad Virk for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABU BAKAR SIDDIQUE\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7794", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 787 = 2002 SLD 787 = 2002 MLD 1098 = (2002) 85 TAX 461", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act—Provisional and final assessment of duty\nDetails: Customs authorities assessed the value of imported goods provisionally, but a final assessment was not made within the time limit set under the Customs Act. The issue involved the non-refund of overpaid duty after the deadline passed.\nHeld: The provisional assessment could not be treated as final after the statutory period expired, and the concerned authorities were directed to finalize the assessment within a specified period.\nCitations:", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "New No.C-1464-K of 2001 and Old Complaint No.C-03-K of 2001-2002, decision dated: 20-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tejpar Maheshwary, Senior Manager (Import and Export)\nS.M. Haider Naqvi, Deputy Manager (Tax)\nS.M. Tariq Huda, Additional Collector of Customs (Preventive).\nSiddique Mirza, Assistant Collector of Customs (Preventive)\nRashid Jamil, Assistant Controller of Valuation.\nShamim Iqhal, Principal Appraiser Valuation\nRiaz Haider Principal Appraiser Valuation\nAli Nawaz, Valuation Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DYNO PAKISTAN LTD.\nVS \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7795", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 788 = 2002 SLD 788 = 2002 MLD 1592 = (2002) 85 TAX 446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act—Provisional assessment and bank guarantees\nDetails: In this case, the Customs Department failed to finalize the assessment of imported goods within the prescribed time limit, and the Bank Guarantee Cell wrongly encashed the guarantees without resolving the valuation disputes.\nHeld: The Customs authorities' actions were ruled invalid, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a reevaluation of the valuation process and a final assessment within six weeks.\nCitations:", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,81", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-44-K of 2001, decision dated: 15-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Nasir Khan, Assistant Collector of Customs.\nBarkat Ali Bukhari, Additional Collector of Customs.\nIrfanur Rahman, Deputy Controller of Valuation.\nAltaf Ahmad, Principal Appraiser.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS IMPERIALGLASS TILES CO.\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7796", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 789 = 2002 SLD 789 = 2002 PTD 257", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance—Market competition and business expenditure\nDetails: The assessee made payments to secure a competitive advantage in the market and prevent competition for a specified number of years. The Inspecting Additional Commissioner sought to amortize the expenditure over three years.\nHeld: The payment was not capital expenditure, as it did not result in the creation of enduring assets. The tribunal vacated the amortization order, ruling that such payments should not be treated as capital expenditure.\nCitations: 1998 PTD (Trib.) 1935; CIT, Bombay v. C.I.B.A. of India Limited 69 ITR 692 (SC India), 58 ITR 241", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=66", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 795/KB of 1999-2000, decision dated: 15-12-2000, hearing DATE : 9-12-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asif Ali Khan, A.C.M.A. and Muhammad Irshad, I.T.P. for Appellant.\nMuhammad Umer Farooq, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAMIL DAUD \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7797", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 477 = 2004 SLD 477 = 2004 PTD 2631", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-662 of 2004, dated 05/08/2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMAL, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7798", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 478 = 2004 SLD 478 = 2004 PTD 2630", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.A. No. 1-L of 2003 in C. A. No.178 of 2002, 08/07/2004", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE \nMUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7799", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 479 = 2004 SLD 479 = 2004 PTD 2618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C. P. No. 1712 of 1997, 08/03/2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LIMITED \nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTORII, SALES TAX (WEST), KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7800", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 480 = 2004 SLD 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nImport of Clover Seeds – Exemption from Customs Duty and Taxes\n•\nDetails: The importer sought exemption from customs duty, sales tax, and Iqra Surcharge on imported clover seeds, claiming they fell under the definition of Live plants and seeds of vegetables, fruits, and flowers, which were exempt. The Customs authorities argued that clover seeds did not qualify under this definition and were instead categorized differently under the Pakistan Customs Tariff (1992).\n•\nHeld: The petition was dismissed. Clover seeds were not considered live plants or seeds for vegetables, fruits, or flowers, and hence, did not qualify for exemption under the mentioned notifications. The exemption for clover seeds in earlier customs schedules had been removed, and the imported goods were liable to duty and taxes.\n•\nCitations:\no\nPakistan Customs Tariff (1992), Schedule\no\nS.R.O. 480(I)/92 dated 14-5-1992\no\nS.R.O. 481(I)/88 dated 26-6-1988\no\nS.R.O. 500(I)/88 dated 26-6-1988\no\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199\no\nEngineer-in-Chief Branch through Ministry of Defence and another v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207\no\nAbdul Haque Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Forest, Fisheries and Livestock Department, Karachi and 3 others 2000 SCMR 907", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,156(19A),202Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-2310 of 1994, decision dated: 25-05-2004, hearing DATE : 7-05-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners.\nSajjad Ali Shah and Raja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GANI & TAYUB (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI\nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH SECOND SECRETARY, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7801", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 790 = 2002 SLD 790 = 2002 PTCL 42 = 2002 PTD 2764", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSales Tax on Goods Supplied to Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK)\n•\nDetails: The assessee supplied goods to a government agency in AJK, claiming exemption from sales tax based on the argument that AJK was outside the territorial scope of Pakistan’s Sales Tax Act (1990). The authorities demanded sales tax payment, including additional tax and penalties.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed. Although the goods were supplied to AJK, the exportation rules under the Customs Act (1969) were applicable, and the assessees did not follow the proper export procedures, which led to the tax liabilities. The tribunal reduced the penalty but waived the penalty on the Chief Executive of the assessee company.\n��\nCitations:\no\nSales Tax Act (1990), Ss. 3 & 4\no\nCustoms Act (1969), S.131\no\nPLD 1985 SC (AJ & K) 62\no\nPLD 1966 SC 88\no\nPLD 1965 SC (AJ & K) 62\no\nMessrs Tehseen (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore v. Additional Collector of Customs Dry Port, Rawalpindi 1998 PTD 2561", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=131", + "Case #": "Appeal No.302/LB of 2000, decision dated: 26-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN\nSARFRAZ AHMED KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Dogar for Appellant.\nAmer Ahmed, D. R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7802", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 470 = 2004 SLD 470 = 2004 PTD 2658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=12(18),13(1)(a),62,66A,", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2812/LB and 2813/LB of 2003, dated 25/05/2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAZHAR FAROOQ SHIRAZI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7803", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 791 = 2002 SLD 791 = 2002 PTD 1267 = (2000) 241 ITR 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "Income-tax--Business expenditure---Gratuity\nDetails: The case dealt with the assessee's claim for a deduction related to the provision made towards the gratuity liability. It was held that the deduction cannot be allowed unless the conditions under Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are fulfilled. The deduction cannot be claimed under any other provision of the Act.\nHeld: The assessee is not entitled to the deduction without complying with the provisions of Section 40A(7).\nCitations: Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC) fol.", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=40", + "Case #": "Tax Case No.647 of 1981 (Reference No.302 of 1981), decision dated: 19-11-1997", + "Judge Name:": "N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, JUSTICE\nP. THANGAVEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "R. Meenakshisundacam for the Assessee.\nC.V. Rajan for the Commissioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "BALASUBRAMANIA FOUNDRY\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7804", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 792 = 2002 SLD 792 = 2002 PTD 1530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--S.13---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.31-A\nDetails: The petitioner sought benefit from a withdrawn notification related to customs duties and sales taxes, specifically concerning the date of opening the letter of credit. The case distinguished from the Supreme Court's judgment in the Collector of Customs v. Ravi Spinning Ltd., focusing on the applicability of the Customs Act provisions regarding the exemption date.\nHeld: Constitutional petition was disposed of, with reference to the date of opening the letter of credit in line with S.31-A of the Customs Act.\nCitations: Collector of Customs and others v. Ravi Spinning Ltd. and others 1999 SCMR 412 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=13", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 13135 an 13187 of 1996, heard on 28-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Petitioner.\nA. Karim Malik and Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ORIENT LABORATORIES (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7805", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 793 = 2002 SLD 793 = 2002 PTD 2085 = (2002) 85 TAX 317", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.37---Duty drawback on export of goods\nDetails: The complainant faced delay in the disposal of duty drawback claims on goods exported. The department failed to adjudicate the classification of the goods or offer a hearing for the complainant, leading to a recommendation for a committee to decide the classification of the goods.\nHeld: Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the formation of a committee to examine the samples, hold hearings, and decide classification within one month, with a ruling to finalize duty drawback claims within forty-five days.\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=37Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1585-K of 2001, decision dated: 26-01-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Dealing Officer.\nNadeem Ahmad Mirza, Attorney for the Complainant.\nFeroze Junejo, A.C. of Customs (Exports) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ESQUIRE GARMENTS\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7806", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 794 = 2002 SLD 794 = 2002 PTCL 192 = 2002 YLR 3172", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.32(2)(3), 97, 104\nDetails: The appellant faced a charge of customs duty and penal action for the sale of goods to passengers from their warehouse, claiming no collusion with customs staff. The appellant argued that customs duty responsibility lies with the passengers and not with them.\nHeld: The show-cause notice issued to the appellant was invalid, as no collusion was established, and the duty responsibility rested with the passengers. The order was set aside.\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal No.883/LB of 2001, decision dated: 28-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)\nMIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Adnan Ahmad for Appellant.\nNemo by Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DUTY FREE SHOPS (PVT) LTD., SAMBRIAL DRY PORT, SIALKOT \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, GUJRANWALA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7807", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 525 = 2003 SLD 525 = 2003 PTD 1215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--Input tax adjustment and credit\nDetails: The case involved the disallowance of an input tax adjustment for goods destroyed in a fire incident at a customs bonded warehouse. The input tax was adjusted against another bill of entry, but the Sales Tax Department disallowed the adjustment, imposing penalties.\nHeld: The action of the Customs Authorities to allow the adjustment was valid, and the Sales Tax Department's disallowance was incorrect. The Appellate Tribunal annulled the department's order.\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=7", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. 7(1412)CU/IB of 2001 (PB), decision dated: 18-01-2003. dates of hearing: 5th March; 2nd, 4th, April; 27th May; 16th 22nd, 31-10-and 26-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nS. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Qazi, A.K. Masud Kiyani, Qazi Waheed-ud-Din, Syed Nawab and Mr. Altaf for Appellant.\nIshtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer of the Collectorate, Al-Haj Gul, D.R., Hussain Muhammad, Senior Auditor and Alam Zaib Khan, Senior Auditor for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7808", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 490 = 2004 SLD 490 = 2004 PTD 2577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "No details available.", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1),clause102E ofPart-I oftheSecond Schedule", + "Case #": "I.T.A No.2306/KB of 2001, dated 11/05/2002", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIR UL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7809", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 526 = 2003 SLD 526 = 2003 PTD 602", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982--Receiver for business and immovable property\nDetails: The case addressed the appointment of a receiver to manage business and immovable property under the Income Tax Rules, 1982. The issue of the receiver's duties and liabilities, including actions taken against the family members of the assessee, was examined.\nHeld: The appointment of a receiver to manage immovable property was valid. The receiver's actions, including collecting dues from family members, were found to be beyond his authority. A recommendation was made to issue guidelines for the appointment of receivers.\nCitations: None", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Rules, 1982=158", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 518 of 2002, decision dated: 2-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad with Shakil Ahmad- for the Complainant.\nSajjad Haider Khan, I.A.C. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD TUFAIL\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7810", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 527 = 2003 SLD 527 = 2003 PTD 2241", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Refund claim and limitation\nDetails: The case concerned a claim for refund of customs duty and sales tax paid mistakenly. The petitioners sought to claim refunds outside the six-month limitation period stipulated under Section 33 of the Customs Act, 1969, citing a Constitutional petition for relief.\nHeld: The petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to pursue the matter diligently, and the inordinate delay of fifteen years in filing the petition was deemed a barrier to its maintainability.\nCitations: Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 64; Abdul Aziz Ayoob v. Assistant Collector of Customs PLD 1990 Kar. 378; Mushtaq Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 749", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1776 of 1993, decision dated: 10-04-2003, hearing DATE : 28-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J. AND GHULAM RABBANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7811", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 528 = 2003 SLD 528 = 2003 PTD 2355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of stoppage, search, and audit - Validity of actions and conduct of adjudicating officers\nDetails: The case discusses the authority under the Central Excises Act (I of 1944), Section 26, regarding audit powers, and the issue of repeated objections raised by auditors. It emphasizes that auditors and authorities should avoid repetitive objections and the audit process should not be unnecessarily prolonged, leading to constant harassment for taxpayers.\nHeld: It was ruled that auditors should refrain from repeating objections, and while there is no fixed timeframe for audits, unnecessary delays causing harassment are to be avoided. The adjudicating officer must handle cases impartially and inspire trust, ensuring a fair and unbiased environment. The officer promised to decide the case fairly within five days, and this was recommended by the Federal Tax Ombudsman.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 2(3); Central Excises Act (I of 1944), S. 26; S.R.O. 617(I)/2000 dated 2-9-2000.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=26", + "Case #": "Complaint No.222-K of 2003, decision dated: 21st April, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan for Petitioner. Abdul Hameed Memon, D.C. LTU. Saeed Jadoon, Deputy Collector Adj. (iii)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AERO ASIA INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7812", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 529 = 2003 SLD 529 = 2003 SCMR 1040", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Import of palm oil, classification, and legal challenge\nDetails: The case involves the importation of palm oil, initially classified as edible but later found to be inedible, as confirmed by laboratory tests. The High Court declared that the imported oil did not meet the criteria for edible oil and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.\nHeld: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, agreeing that the palm oil was not fit for human consumption in its imported state and therefore not eligible for the tax concession under the edible oil notification. The petition was dismissed.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.639-K of 2002, decision dated: 26-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ AHMED, MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "BATALA GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LTD.\nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7813", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 491 = 2004 SLD 491 = 2004 PTD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and authority of the Central Board of Revenue\nDetails: This case addresses the self-assessment scheme under the Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Sections 7, 8, and 59. The issue pertains to the fixation and extension of deadlines for audits, and whether such extensions create vested rights for the taxpayer.\nHeld: The extension of deadlines for audits, as issued by the Central Board of Revenue, does not confer any vested rights upon the taxpayer. The extension is purely administrative and aimed at providing more time to taxpayers. The Board’s directions to subordinate authorities were seen as within its discretion and did not infringe on taxpayer rights. The extension itself cannot be considered mala fide unless the original cut-off date or its extension was conducted in bad faith.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 59, 7 & 8; General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 23.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 9979, 4699, 6478, 3896, 6471, 929,- 2358, 4029, 4054, 4055, 4056, 4057, 4143, 4144, 4319, and 10328 of 2003, decision dated: 24-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain, Siraj-ud-Din Khalid,.Naeem Shah, Rana Muhammad Afzal, Shahbaz Butt, M. Iqbal Hashmi and Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioners. Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Shahid Jamil and Mian Yousaf Umar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAHIB TEXTILES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR, FAISALABAD \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7814", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 492 = 2004 SLD 492 = 2004 PTD 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of light dues for vessels calling at Port Bin Qasim\nDetails: This case discusses the payment of light dues for vessels that did not dock at the Port of Karachi but at Port Bin Qasim, where the complainant paid the dues again and requested a refund. The Customs Collectorate initially denied the refund claim on the grounds that light dues were not a customs levy.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Chairman of the Central Board of Revenue ensure that the Collector of Customs (Appraisement) closely monitor the situation and that the refund promised by the Assistant Collector be paid promptly to the complainant. The Ombudsman recognized the prompt action taken by the Assistant Collector.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 33; Light House Act (XVII of 1927), S. 19.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-514-K of 2003, decision dated: 7-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.,) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ismail, Managing Director.\nSajjad Raider Jhinjhin, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ARGONAFITS (PVT.) LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7815", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 743 = 2012 SLD 743 = 2012 SCMR 1860 = 2012 PTD 386 = (2013) 107 TAX 7 = 2013 PTCL 386", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Taxation\nDetails: In the absence of a stay or restraint order from a competent forum, the assessee is legally obligated to pay duties and taxes promptly. Delay in payment is deemed unjustifiable, and revenue authorities are urged to take necessary steps to recover outstanding amounts to aid the state's welfare.\nHeld: The tax is a duty owed by individuals and corporations, and failure to pay constitutes a crime against both the government and the state. Authorities should enforce recovery, and tax evaders should not be granted concessions.\nCitations: Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/O. Finance, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nDetails: The assessee imported machinery under an exemption (SRO 484(1)/1992) but shifted the machinery without approval. The Customs issued a show-cause notice demanding duties, taxes, and penalties, arguing that the claim was not time-barred despite the five-year limitation under S.32(2) of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The exemption granted to the assessee was contingent on complying with conditions, including the installation at a specified location. Failure to comply resulted in liability to pay taxes with no time limit for recovery. The Supreme Court upheld the recovery of duties, taxes, and penalties and directed the initiation of criminal proceedings.\nCitations: Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/O. Finance, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582\n(c) Fraud\nDetails: Fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings, indicating that fraudulent actions in this case could undermine the legal processes.\nHeld: Fraudulent conduct has the power to invalidate legal proceedings.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nDetails: The Ministry of Finance holds exclusive authority to issue exemptions under SRO, and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) cannot grant concessions contrary to the provisions of SRO.\nHeld: FBR has no authority to override the Ministry of Finance’s powers regarding concessions under SRO 484(1)/1992.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,19,32(2),32(3),83A,156(1)(Cl.10A),194A,196,202,202AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=185,187", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 673-K of 2009, decision dated: 29-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MR. CHIEF, JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY\nMR. JUSTICE SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record with Farooq Ahmed Adhemi, Dy. Secy/ Principal Officer for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court, Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, Advocate-on-Record, Manzoor Hussain Memon Collector, MCC and Iftikhar Ahmed, Additional Collector, MCC for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PARAMOUNT SPINNING MILLS LTD.\nVS\nCUSTOMS, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7816", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 493 = 2004 SLD 493 = 2004 PTD 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)\nDetails: A complaint regarding the valuation of imported goods was dismissed by the Customs Department based on the argument that the matter had been resolved through a proper hearing. The Federal Tax Ombudsman’s jurisdiction over such matters was questioned.\nHeld: The objection was dismissed as based on a misconception of the powers of Customs officials. The Ombudsman could address complaints of valuation issues, especially where the application of Customs laws was questioned.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nDetails: The valuation of imported rubber conveyor belts was found to be flawed, based on an incorrect inquiry from a local trader instead of the manufacturer/exporter. The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended a reevaluation of the goods’ value, ensuring the importer had an opportunity to present evidence.\nHeld: The Collector of Customs was directed to re-examine the valuation and finalize the assessment in a fair and impartial manner. The importer was entitled to remission of penal surcharge if the assessment was completed after two years.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-401-K of 2003, decision dated: 7-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aziz, Proprietor. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq, Consultant.\nZia-ul-Hassan for the Complainant.\nNur Muhammad, Advisor.\nAshhad Jawwad, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ANM TRADING CO., KARACHI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7817", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 494 = 2004 SLD 494 = 2004 PTD 161", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Details: A complaint for non-issuance of a sales tax refund on exported cotton waste, which had been disallowed in a post-sanction audit, was filed. The Customs Department had not refunded the sales tax despite tribunal decisions in favor of the complainant.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Customs Department provide details of the appeal filed with the High Court and inform the assessee of any pending proceedings before taking further action.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-64-K of 2003, decision dated: 10-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Iqbal, Manager Import.\nFeroze A. Junejo, Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS IHSAN COTTON PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7818", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 495 = 2004 SLD 495 = 2004 PTD 244", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)\nDetails: Assessment orders under S.126(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are considered cognizable evidence, and all details within them should be treated as correct.\nHeld: The assessment order serves as valid and conclusive evidence unless proven otherwise.\n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979)\nDetails: An assessment was re-opened on the basis of a change of opinion regarding the sale of property. The Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that the reopening was unlawful, as no new evidence had been obtained.\nHeld: The reopening of the assessment based on a change of opinion was improper, and the additional assessment proceedings should be dropped.\nCitations: 1997 PTD 47; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 580 and PLD 1997 SC 700", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=126", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1431-L of 2002, decision dated: 8-07-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for the Complainant.\nMuhammad Nadeem Arif (D-CIT) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FOOD CONCEPT (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7819", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 997 = 2007 SLD 997 = (2008) 97 TAX 451 = (2007) 290 ITR 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=127", + "Case #": "W. P. NO. 1657 OF 2006, JANUARY 22, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "SOUMITRA PAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "KUMAR KUMAR & BROTHERS\nVS\nUNION OF INDIA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7820", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 998 = 2007 SLD 998 = (2008) 97 TAX 454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=37(1),260", + "Case #": "T. C. (A) NO. 2693 OF 2006, JANUARY 2, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "P. D. DINAKARAN, JUSTICE\nMRS. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax\nVS\nINDIAN OCEAN GARNET SANDS CO. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7821", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 999 = 2007 SLD 999 = (2008) 97 TAX 458 = (2007) 290 ITR 300", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=68,260A", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2006, JULY 31, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JUSTICE\nRAJESH BINDAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.K. Mukhi for the Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUBHASH CHANDER SEKHRI\nVS\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, CENTRALII, JALANDHAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7822", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1000 = 2007 SLD 1000 = (2008) 97 TAX 431 = (2007) 290 ITR 196", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Delhi High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=35D,37(1)", + "Case #": "IT APPEAL NO. 850 OF 2005, DECEMBER 1, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "T.S. THAKUR, JUSTICE\nB.N. CHATURVEDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. P.L. Bansal and Vishnu Sharma for the Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax\nVS\nTHIRANI CHEMICALS LTD\nA. BALAKRISHNAN\nVS\nGENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7823", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1001 = 2007 SLD 1001 = (2008) 97 TAX 434 = (2007) 290 ITR 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Karnataka High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=2A(a),10(10)(c),173(1),89,139", + "Case #": "WRIT PETITION NO. 16447 OF 2006 (T- IT), FEBRUARY 1, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aravind Kumar and M.V. Seshachala for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7824", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 496 = 2004 SLD 496 = 2004 PTD 1964", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---\n \n----O.XLI, R. 33---Appeal against interlocutory order---Power of Appellate Court---Scope---Appellate Court would not substitute its own discretion for that of Trial Court, except where discretion was exercised arbitrarily, perversely, contrary to legal principles and on basis of assumption not borne out by record.\n \n(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------\n \n----S. 54---Directory injunction, grant of---Guidelines.\n \nDirectory injunction can be granted in a case, where the party has a strong case for trial, that is, it shall be of a higher standard than prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction; that it is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury, which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money; and that balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 138---Customs Rules, 2001, R. 86---Expression \"\"frustrated cargo\"\" as used in S. 138 of Customs Act, 1969 and R.86 of Customs Rules, 2001---Connotation---Re-shipment of such cargo, entitlement for--­Frustrated cargo is a cargo brought into a customs-station by reason of inadvertence or misdirection or where consignee is untraceable or has dishonoured his commitment and consignor wishes to have same re­ shipped---Collector of Customs can, subject to rules, allow export of such goods without payment of duties on application of person-in­ charge of conveyance which brought such goods or consignor thereof.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-----\n \n--Ss. 138 & 2(s)---Customs Rules, 2001, R. 86---Frustrated cargo--Proof---No document (like invoice, packing list or Bill of Lading) was placed on record to show nature of consignment, its destination for Zimbabwe and its advertent stuffing in container destined for Karachi--­Prohibited items attracting provisions of S.2(s) of Customs Act, 1969 were found in such container, for which proceedings had been initiated--­Held: Such consignment was not a \"\"frustrated cargo\"\".\n \nMuhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousuf Khan PLD 1969 SC 9 ref.\n \n(e) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-----\n \n---S. 54---Injunction, grant of---Principles---No injunction could be granted, where party could be compensated in terms of money.\n \nMuhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Pateshwari Parshad Singh AIR 1960 All. 252 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=138", + "Case #": "H.C.A. No. 10 of 2003, decision dated: 5-09-2003, hearing DATE : 22-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Navin S. Merchant for Appellants.\nSyed Tariq Ali for Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4.\nMiss Masooda Siraj for the Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EURO GULF TRADING FZOO\nVS\nDIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7825", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 403 = 2004 SLD 403 = 2004 PTD 2290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Details: A constitutional petition was filed to challenge the validity of S.25-B of the Customs Act and S.R.O. 610(I)/1988, which involved customs valuation.\nHeld: The provisions were deemed valid, and the constitutional petition was dismissed.\nCitations: Collector of Customs v. New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 1994 SC 363; Messrs Madina Traders v. The Federation of Pakistan 1999 SCMR 95 and Tajuddin Trading Company v. Controller of Customs Valuation and others in Constitutional Petition No. D-1748 of 1992", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "C.A. No.2353/LB of 2001, dated 23/01/2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Result. Appeal dismissed", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7826", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 536 = 2005 SLD 536 = 2005 PTCL 470 = 2005 PTD 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.25-B---S.R.O. 610(I)/1988, dated 30-6-1988---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Vires of S.25-B Customs Act, 1969 and S.R.O. 610(I)/1988, dated 30-6-1988--Provisions contained in S.25-B, Customs Act, 1969 and S.R.O. 610(I)/1988, dated 30-6-1988 and the valuation made thereunder were valid and legal--­Constitutional petition was dismissed. \n \nCollector of Customs v. New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 1994 SC 363; Messrs Madina Traders v. The Federation of Pakistan 1999 SCMR 95 and Tajuddin Trading Company v. Controller of Customs Valuation and others in Constitutional Petition No. D-1748 of 1992 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. 850 of 1992, decision dated: 29-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Petitioner.\nSirajul Haq and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.\nSajjad Ali Shah, Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NOORI TRADING CORPORATION (PRIVATE) LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\nCONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS VALUATION, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7827", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 537 = 2005 SLD 537 = 2005 PTD 929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction and functions of the Federal Tax Ombudsman\nDetails:\nThe Federal Tax Ombudsman addressed the jurisdiction and powers granted by the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Section 9. The Ombudsman dismissed a plea that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, stating that the complainant was not a party to the ongoing case. The Ombudsman also investigated maladministration in the customs clearance process, particularly the delay in releasing goods even after orders from higher authorities, concluding that the Customs Department exhibited gross maladministration.\nHeld:\nThe Ombudsman confirmed its jurisdiction to investigate maladministration, including delays in implementing orders from appropriate authorities and the courts. The Customs Department was directed to issue a delay and detention certificate and allow remission of container charges.\nCitations:\n•\nOffice of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 9\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 18", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 87-K of 2004, decision dated: 7-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ataur Rahman for the Complainant.\nSaeed Akram, Deputy Collector of Customs, AIB. Farooq Khan and Zahid Ahmad, Appraisers", + "Petitioner Name:": "IQBAL PYAR ALI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7828", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 428 = 2004 SLD 428 = 2004 PTD 2408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional petition on valuation of goods\nDetails:\nPetitioner challenged the use of valuation evidence from Germany for determining the transaction value of goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969. The department contended that the veracity of evidence could be determined during proceedings before the appropriate authorities.\nHeld:\nThe High Court ruled that the evidence accompanying the show-cause notice could not be used to initiate proceedings under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, and allowed the Constitutional petition.\nCitations:\n•\nLateef Brothers v. Deputy Collector of Customs 1992 SCMR 1083\n•\nKousar Trading Company v. Government of Pakistan 1986 CLC 612\n•\nNew Electronics v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 363", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 858-L of 2003, dated 05/11/2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) NADEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KARAT JEWELLERS and others \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7829", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 538 = 2005 SLD 538 = 2005 PTD 1132", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional assessment and bank guarantees\nDetails:\nPetitioners disputed provisional customs duty assessment under Sections 80, 81, and 223 of the Customs Act, 1969, arguing that the customs authorities failed to finalize assessments within the statutory period, despite extended bank guarantees.\nHeld:\nThe High Court ruled that the bank guarantees could no longer be encashed as no final assessment was made within the statutory period. The authorities were directed to finalize the assessment and return the guarantees.\nCitations:\n•\nM.A. Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan 1988 SCMR 691\n•\nCentral Insurance Company v. Central Board of Revenue 1993 PTD 766", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-1908 of 1996, heard on 28-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sattar Silhat for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal along with Altaf Ahmad, Law Officer/ Principal Appraiser and Ali Nawaz Khan, Appraiser for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CIBA GEIGY (PAK.) LTD\nVS\nDEPUTY CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS VALUATION, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7830", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 539 = 2005 SLD 539 = 2005 PTD 1299", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Extra customs duties and documentation\nDetails:\nThe petitioner challenged the charging of extra customs duties based on an increase in the value of goods. The authorities failed to provide specific orders for the increase in value.\nHeld:\nThe High Court disposed of the petition with instructions to the concerned authorities to issue a proper order for any value increase, after providing the petitioner with an opportunity for hearing.\nSLD #: 13447\nProvisional assessment and its finality\nDetails:\nThe case discussed the finality of provisional assessments under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, when the authorities fail to complete the final assessment within the prescribed period.\nHeld:\nThe provisional assessment became final on the declared value of the goods after the authorities failed to complete the final assessment within the statutory period.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Farooq Woollen Mills v. Collector of Customs 2004 PTD 795\n•\nHassan Trading Company v. Central Board of Revenue 2004 PTD 1979", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-1519 of 1994, heard on 21st September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Sana Minhas for Petitioner \nSajjad Ali Shah standing counsel for Respondents.\nAhmed Khan Bugti for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7831", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 540 = 2005 SLD 540 = 2005 PTD 1348", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional assessment and its finality\nDetails:\nThe case discussed the finality of provisional assessments under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969, when the authorities fail to complete the final assessment within the prescribed period.\nHeld:\nThe provisional assessment became final on the declared value of the goods after the authorities failed to complete the final assessment within the statutory period.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Farooq Woollen Mills v. Collector of Customs 2004 PTD 795\n•\nHassan Trading Company v. Central Board of Revenue 2004 PTD 1979", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No.D-1353 of 2004, decision dated: 17-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aijaz Ahmed for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents Nos.3 and 5.\nJawed Farooqui for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PROCTER & GAMBLE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7832", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 541 = 2005 SLD 541 = 2005 PTD 2116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal proceedings under the Customs Act\nDetails:\nThe department initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners based on an FIR that included allegations of stealing bank guarantees and issuing false release orders.\nHeld:\nThe High Court ruled that the FIR could not be initiated under the Customs Act, 1969, as no offense had occurred under the act. The F.I.R. was deemed void and without legal authority.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeals Nos.568, 574 and 575 of 2004, decision dated: 3rd May, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS. ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.\nMiss Danish Zuberi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS AUTO MOBILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7833", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 542 = 2005 SLD 542 = 2005 SCMR 1340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Double trial and violations of Constitutional rights\nDetails:\nAccused were directed to face a second trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after conviction by the Special Judge Customs. The High Court ruled the second trial violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.\nHeld:\nThe High Court dismissed the petition and preserved the petitioner's right to approach the Supreme Court in appropriate proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.1263/L and 1264/L, decision dated: 31st March, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JUSTICE\nKHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.M. Virk, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Afzal, Superintendent, Central Jail, Lahore for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVS\nMAEUDULELLE MANDLENKOSI JEROM @ AYUBA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7834", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 661 = 2006 SLD 661 = 2006 PCRLJ 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Quashing of criminal proceedings under the Customs Act\nDetails:\nCriminal proceedings were initiated based on an FIR related to customs violations, including fraud involving bank guarantees. The High Court found the FIR lacked legal foundation under the Customs Act.\nHeld:\nThe High Court declared the FIR invalid and the customs authorities were prohibited from investigating the petitioners under the act.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=161", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1272 of 2002, decision dated: 22-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nSALIM KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nWaqar Ahmad Seth for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DR. MAQBOOL ISLAM and others \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7835", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 662 = 2006 SLD 662 = 2006 PTD 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Importation of old and used industrial equipment\nDetails:\nThe appellant contested the confiscation of old industrial machinery and parts under the Customs Act, 1969. The goods were imported for the operation of a plant and claimed not to violate import policy.\nHeld:\nThe appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the release of goods upon payment of a redemption fine. The tribunal also clarified that no mis-declaration was made and no penalty was levied for under-valuation or mis-declaration.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 32, S. 80", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-514 of 2005, decision dated: 7-10-2005, hearing DATE : 3rd October, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIDA YASIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan, Consultant for Appellant.\nAbdul Rasheed, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7836", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 663 = 2006 SLD 663 = 2006 PTD 656 = 2006 PTCL 366", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment of Duty under Customs Act\nDetails:\nThe case involves the interpretation of the provisional assessment of duty under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Customs authorities did not finalize the assessment of duties within the stipulated period as per Section 81(2). The provisional assessment was considered to have attained finality based on the declared value of the goods by the assessee.\nHeld:\nThe Appellate Tribunal set aside the order, concluding that the provisional assessment had become final, as it was based on the declared value of the goods, in accordance with Section 81(1) of the Customs Act. The failure to finalize the assessment within the period outlined in Section 81(2) did not affect the provisional assessment.\nCitations:\nCustoms Act, 1969, Sections 81(1), 81(2), 81(4).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-982 of 2001, decision dated: 21st October, 2005, hearing DATE : 10-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL\nMRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan for Appellant.\nManzoor Hussain Memon along with Tariq Aziz, D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7837", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 664 = 2006 SLD 664 = 2006 PTD 1216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Sale of Car Imported under Diplomatic Exemption\nDetails:\nThe car was sold by an embassy without the required permission from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Central Board of Revenue, in violation of S.R.O. 506(I)/88, dated 26-6-1988. The Adjudication Officer had ordered the confiscation of the car and imposed a redemption fine. The dispute was whether the imposition of a penalty was in accordance with the law.\nHeld:\nThe Appellate Tribunal set aside the order, ruling that the car should be released after assessing legal dues and penalty under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, particularly Section 169(1).\nCitations:\nCustoms Act, 1969, Sections 19, 20, 21, 32(2), 156(1)(10-A)(11)(14)(19), 194-A, and S.R.O. 506(I)/88.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 543/LB of 2005, decision dated: 15-06-2005, hearing DATE : 9-06-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nTausif Ahmad, D.R. assisted by Khalid Rashid, S.I.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7838", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1002 = 2007 SLD 1002 = 2007 PLJ 912", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdiction of MCA and Undue Concentration of Economic Power\nDetails:\nThe case addresses the issue of undue concentration of economic power through a loan transaction between an investor company and its associated company. The MCA directed the companies to submit a time frame and method for repayment of the loan amount along with the market rate markup. The validity of MCA's jurisdiction in such cases was questioned.\nHeld:\nThe Court upheld the MCA's jurisdiction to act against undue concentration of economic power under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control & Prevention) Ordinance, 1970. It ruled that MCA could order repayment of the loan amount along with interest as per market rates.\nCitations:\nMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control & Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, Sections 2, 3, 4(b), 11, 12, and Companies Ordinance, 1984, Section 208.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "F.A.O. No. 358 & 359 of 2000, decided & hearing on 2.3.2007.", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Advocate for Appellants.\nMr. Asad Munir, DAG for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CRESCENT JUTE PRODUCTS LIMITED, FAISALABAD THROUGH ITS SECRETARY and others\nVS\nMONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7839", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1003 = 2007 SLD 1003 = 2007 PLJ 918", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "NOC for Alienation of Land in Border Areas\nDetails:\nThe case involves a land allotment where the allottee's heir attempted to alienate the land without obtaining the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the GHQ. The allotment was canceled due to non-compliance with the NOC requirement. The issue was whether the heir could alienate the land without the NOC.\nHeld:\nThe petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to apply for an NOC within 30 days from the competent authority. The petitioner would not be disturbed in possession of the land until the decision on the NOC application was made.\nCitations:\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973, Article 199, Border Area Regulations, 1959.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 127-R of 2006, heard on 5.6.2007", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Anwar and Rai Wali Muhammad, Advocates for Petitioners.\nMr. Amir Zahoor Chohan, Advocate for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASHIQ ALI CH and others\nVS\nMEMBER (CIVIL) BORDER AREA COMMITTEE, AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7840", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 665 = 2006 SLD 665 = 2006 PTD 1869", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Baggage Rules, 1998\nRelevant Sections: Customs Act (IV of 1969) Ss. 2(s), 16, 17, 32, 139 & 142; Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950) S.3(1); S.R.O. 570(1)/98, dated 12-6-1998\nConfiscation of goods imported by an Indian national\nDetails: An Indian national brought cloth into Pakistan but declared it in excess of what was permitted under baggage allowances. The goods were seized and the cloth was ordered confiscated. The issue was whether the goods could be returned or cleared upon payment of applicable duties.\nHeld: The cloth was not admissible for duty-free import as it was in commercial quantity, and there was no specific exemption for cloth in the baggage rules. The goods should be returned to the Indian national to take back to India or, if used in Pakistan, would be subject to customs duties and taxes.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Baggage Rules, 1998\n(b) Baggage Rules, 1998\nDefinition of commercial quantity for cloth brought from India\nDetails: The issue was the classification of cloth brought by an Indian passenger in a quantity that may be considered commercial. The baggage rules did not specify limits for cloth.\nHeld: The cloth was not defined as a commercial quantity under the Baggage Rules, so the passenger could either clear it upon payment of customs duties or return it. Any mistakes in declaration by the passenger were expected and should be treated accordingly.\nCitations: Baggage Rules, 1998, Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nRelevant Sections: S.139\nOral declaration of baggage\nDetails: A passenger made an oral declaration of baggage, and the customs officer did not record it in writing, which led to confusion and an unclear procedural record.\nHeld: An oral declaration is permitted under S.139 but must be documented in writing by the Customs officer to ensure transparency and proper record-keeping. The oral declaration alone was not sufficient for procedural clarity.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) S.139", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "Appeal No.525/LB of 2000, decision dated: 13-04-2005, hearing DATE : 22-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER, JUDICIAL\nMEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nAsad Farooq, Inspector for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7841", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 666 = 2006 SLD 666 = 2006 PTD 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nRelevant Sections: S.84, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199\nRefusal to grant warehouse facilities\nDetails: The Customs Department verbally refused the inbonding facility to the petitioner, leading to damage to goods. The petitioner sought judicial review of the refusal.\nHeld: The refusal of inbonding without a written order was arbitrary and in violation of law. The High Court allowed the constitutional petition, as no statutory remedy was available to the importer.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) S.84, PLD 1990 Kar. 412, PLD 1993 Lah. 141\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nRelevant Sections: S.115 & 84\nLoss or damage of warehoused goods\nDetails: The Collector of Customs failed to remit duty on goods that were lost or damaged due to refusal of inbonding facilities.\nHeld: The Collector had the authority to remit the duty for lost goods under S.115. The Customs Board's failure to exercise its powers led to a wrongful refusal of remission. The High Court issued a writ to address this.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) S.115, S.84\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nRelevant Sections: S.84, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199\nMaintainability of constitutional petition\nDetails: The importer sought a constitutional petition due to refusal of inbonding facility.\nHeld: The petition was maintainable as there was no formal written order of refusal, and the failure of the Customs Department to adhere to statutory procedures warranted judicial intervention.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) S.84, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.199", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=84", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No. 650 of 1997, heard on 2-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "M. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik for Appellant. \nMushtaq Ahmad Chaudhaty for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD THROUGH CHAIRMAN FOR 2 OTHERS\nVS\nMESSRS TRIPPLE EM (PVT.) LTD., THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7842", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 667 = 2006 SLD 667 = 2006 PTD 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)\nRelevant Sections: Ss. 27 & 35\nAppeal and mistake apparent on record\nDetails: The assessee filed a rectification application after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed his appeal, claiming a mistake apparent on the record.\nHeld: A deliberate finding by the Tribunal, even if potentially incorrect, does not constitute a mistake apparent on record. A mistake must be obvious and not require lengthy argument. The assessee’s right to appeal before the High Court was not exercised, and the rectification request was dismissed.\nCitations: Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963), S.35, (1999) 79 Tax 152 (Trib.)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=27", + "Case #": "Wealth Tax Appeals. Nos. 382, 383, 556, 557 of 2000, decision dated: 29-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Siraj for Appellant.\nJawaid Farooqi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. NIGHAT TARIQ \nVS\nDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and others\nMUHAMMAD SOHAIL and others \nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7843", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 668 = 2006 SLD 668 = 2006 PTD 375", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nRelevant Sections: Ss. 35 & 41\nRecovery of duty drawback and mis-declaration charge\nDetails: The petitioner alleged that an Order-in-Original was passed without providing copies of documents or opportunity for cross-examination.\nHeld: The record showed that the petitioner had been provided with the necessary opportunities to review documents and cross-examine witnesses, and the allegations lacked merit.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.1267 of 2003, decision dated: 22-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdullah Chandio for Petitioners.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7844", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 669 = 2006 SLD 669 = 2006 PTD 378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nRelevant Sections: Ss. 32 & 156(14)\nWithdrawal of rebate at a higher rate\nDetails: The Revenue lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner for allegedly claiming a rebate at a rate higher than legally permissible without proper adjudication.\nHeld: Penal provisions under the Customs Act apply only after adjudication proceedings where the petitioner is found to have acted dishonestly. The F.I.R. was quashed as it was filed without such proceedings.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) Ss. 32, 156(14)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11296 of 2005, heard on 15-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azim for Petitioner.\nDr. Sohail Akhtar and Muhammad Nawaz Cheema for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MICRO CORPORATION THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER \nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS, SIALKOT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7845", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 670 = 2006 SLD 670 = 2006 PTD 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Baggage of Passenger in Transit to Afghanistan\n•\nDetails: The case involved the detention and seizure of baggage of an Afghan national transiting through Pakistan, under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965. The baggage was initially detained, and later, it was seized, with conflicting reports issued by customs authorities. The issue was whether the baggage should be returned under Section 142 of the Customs Act or sold due to its confiscation under Section 201.\n•\nHeld: The Court ruled that the baggage was entitled to be returned under Section 142 as the essential conditions of the section were met. The contradictory reports raised doubts on the transparency of the proceedings, and the Afghan national was entitled to the return of the baggage upon leaving Pakistan.\n•\nCitations: Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965, Customs Act, 1969, Section 142, Section 201.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=126", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13663 of 2005, decision dated: 28-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nAhmar Bilal Sufi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ISHER SINGH\nVS\nSUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (TRAFFIC), ALLAMA IQBAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7846", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 671 = 2006 SLD 671 = 2006 PTD 395", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Jurisdiction for Penalty Imposition\n•\nDetails: The Assistant Collector imposed a penalty on the petitioner under Section 156(1)(14) of the Customs Act while finalizing an assessment under Section 81(2). The petitioner challenged the order, claiming it was issued without jurisdiction.\n•\nHeld: The High Court held that the order was void as it was passed without jurisdiction. The Court directed that any legitimate demand be raised through the lawful exercise of authority by a competent officer.\n•\nCitations: Abdul Zahir v. Director General Pakistan Coast Guards, PLD 1990 Kar. 412, Customs Act, 1969, Sections 81(2), 156(1)(14).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12478 of 2005, decision dated: 10th November 2005", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nDr. Sohail Akhtar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAHEEN TRADING CORPORATION THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (GROUPIII) and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7847", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 672 = 2006 SLD 672 = 2006 PTD 635", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Provisional Assessment of Goods\n•\nDetails: This case dealt with the validity of the provisional assessment made on imported goods at the rate calculated under Section 25(5) of the Customs Act. The invoices submitted were not incorrect, and no reason existed to deviate from the declared value for assessment.\n•\nHeld: The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, as the assessment based on the declared value was not legally justified.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 25.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1525 and Misc. No. 5748 of 2005, decision dated: 13-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Afzal Awan for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NAVEED BROTHERS THROUGH MANAGER, KARACHI \nVS\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF CUSTOMS VALUATION and POST CLEARANCE AUDIT, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7848", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 673 = 2006 SLD 673 = 2006 PTCL 152 = 2006 PTD 769", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Limitation in Demand Notices\n•\nDetails: The authorities issued a notice of demand for recovery of regulatory duty after two months of clearance, and the matter took years to reach a decision. The High Court had set aside the order due to unreasonable delay.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court ruled that the statutory notice was issued within the prescribed period and clarified that delays in proceedings did not necessarily invalidate the orders unless stated in the statute.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 32(3), S.R.O. 561(I)/88, 30-6-1988.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 2004, decision dated: 9-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE\nM. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.\nMushtaq Ahmad Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AFU, AIRPORT, \nVS\nMESSRS TRIPPLEM (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7849", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 674 = 2006 SLD 674 = 2006 PTD 978", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Misdeclaration and Jurisdiction for Proceedings\n•\nDetails: A show-cause notice was issued to the three sister concerns of an importer for misdeclaration under Section 32 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the absence of a notice invalidated the proceedings.\n•\nHeld: The Court ruled that the Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a valid notice under Section 32, making the entire proceedings void and inoperative.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 32.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeal No. 214 of 2003, decision dated: 13-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FORTE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVS\nDirector General INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS & EXCISE), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7850", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 675 = 2006 SLD 675 = 2006 PTD 1012", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Conditional Exemption from Customs Duty\n•\nDetails: This case involved a ship purchased for breaking, which had been exempted from customs duty while it was plying for commercial voyages. After its sale for breaking, the petitioner sought to claim continued exemption from duty.\n•\nHeld: The Court ruled that the exemption ceased after the sale of the ship for breaking, and the petitioner was liable to pay customs duty.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 19, Notification S.R.D. 320(I)/75.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-399 of 2002, decision dated: 3rd March, 2006, hearing DATE : 21st October, 2005.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Ali Ahmad for Petitioners.\nSajjad Ali Shah, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DEWAN SONS and others \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7851", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 676 = 2006 SLD 676 = 2006 PTD 1119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Determination of Value of Imported Goods\n•\nDetails: The case examined the use of valuation advice in determining the customs value of imported goods. The Customs Act mandates that the transaction value be considered, and valuation advice should not be the sole determining factor.\n•\nHeld: The Court clarified that customs authorities should determine the value of imported goods under Section 25, and valuation advice was not binding.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 25, 25-A.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "S. No. 551 of 2005, decision dated: 20-01-2006. dates of hearing: 17th, 18th, 19th and 20-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abid S. Zuberi for Plaintiff.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 5.\nJawed Farooqui Defendant No. 4.\nShall Siddiqui for Defendants Nos. 6 and 7.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN DRY BATTERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION THROUGH VICECHAIRMAN and others \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 9 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7852", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 677 = 2006 SLD 677 = 2006 PTD 1245 = 2006 PTCL 460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Exemption from Import Duty\n•\nDetails: The case concerned the eligibility for exemption from import duty on machinery under Notification S.R.O. 1284(I)/1990, which the authorities denied based on the requirement of an industrial license and machinery classification.\n•\nHeld: The Court ruled that the machinery in question qualified for exemption as it was not locally manufactured and was intended for use in an industrial process, overturning the authorities' denial.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 19, 30, 31-A, Notification S.R.O. 1284(I)/1990.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,196", + "Case #": "Spl. Customs Appeal No. 5 of 2001, decision dated: 7-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zamir-ud-Din Ahmed for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ROSE COLOR LABORATORIES and othersNAYAB NO.(1) (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CUSTOMS EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7853", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 278 = 2006 SLD 278 = 2006 PTCL 425 = 2006 PTD 1276", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Provisional Assessment and Delayed Finalization\n•\nDetails: The issue was the provisional assessment of imported goods where the authorities failed to finalize the assessment within the prescribed period. The importer had deposited the duty on the declared value, but the authorities did not finalize the assessment.\n•\nHeld: The Court ruled that as the assessment was not finalized within the statutory period, the provisional assessment became final, and the importer was entitled to a refund of the additional security deposit.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 79, 80, 81.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos.83 to 89 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain for Appellant.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DEWAN FAROOQUE MOTORS LTD., KARACHI \nVS\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7854", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 679 = 2006 SLD 679 = 2006 PTD 1473", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nWealth Tax Rules - Determination of Property Value\n•\nDetails: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the methodology for assessing the value of property under the Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, particularly in relation to exceptions for property size and locality.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was granted to determine whether the Tribunal's view was contrary to the provisions of the Wealth Tax Rules.\n•\nCitations: Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, Rule 8(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Rules, 1963=8", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.1158 to 1162 and 1178 to 1182 of 2004, heard on 22-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "IFFIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JUSTICE\nM. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, Attorney-General, Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax and WEALTH TAX, PESHAWAR \nVS\nHAJI MASOOD-UR-REHMAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7855", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 670 = 2006 SLD 670 = 2006 PTCL 572 = 2006 PTD 1609", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAgricultural Pesticide Ordinance and Customs Act - Import of Pesticides\n•\nDetails: The Director General refused to renew the certificate for pesticide import, citing a lack of registration abroad, and the Customs authorities withheld the consignment due to non-compliance.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that a fresh probe should be conducted into the matter, with the authorities considering all relevant documents and confronting the petitioner with information from foreign entities.\n•\nCitations: Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Poisons Act, 1919, Sections 3, 5.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 204 of 2006, decision dated: 9-03-2006, hearing DATE : 29-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSHAMSUDDIN HISBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner.\nSyed Tariq Ali for Respondents Nos.1 and 3.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "R.B. AVARI & CO. (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7856", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 671 = 2006 SLD 671 = 2006 PTD 2053", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act - Rebate Claim under Concessionary S.R.O.\n•\nDetails: The petitioner sought a rebate claim after the customs authority refused to accept it, stating that the rebate could only be claimed once the duty was paid within a certain time period.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the petitioner's rebate claim was valid, as it was filed within the time period outlined in the concessionary notification and was not subject to retrospective withdrawal.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 19, 30, 31-A, S.R.O. 350(I)/85, S.R.O. 496(I)/88.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-861 of 1992, decision dated: 7-06-2003, hearing DATE : 20-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner.\nNadeem Azhar Siddiqui, Dy. A.G. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CYNAMID PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7857", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 672 = 2006 SLD 672 = 2006 PTD 2209 = 2007 PTCL 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption on import of machinery for textile unit in rural area – Customs Act (IV of 1969) – S.R.O. clarifications\n•\nDetails: The case revolves around the issue of exemption from import duty on machinery for a textile unit in a rural area, which was later denied due to a change in the method of measuring distance from the Metropolitan Corporation. The petitioner had initially declared the machinery's installation site within the exemption criteria, but the authority later disputed the declaration based on new clarification that the distance should be measured horizontally instead of through the road.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the denial of the exemption was not justified since the change in interpretation was a matter of clarification rather than a misdeclaration. The importer was entitled to the exemption.\n•\nCitations: S.R.O.484(I)/92, S.R.O.1284(I)/90, C.B.R. Clarifications (27-1-1992 & 29-8-1994), General Clauses Act (I of 1897), S.11.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No.63 of 1999, decision dated: 2-06-2006, hearing DATE : 16-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farogh Naseem for Appellant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS IHSAN SONS (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7858", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 673 = 2006 SLD 673 = 2006 PTD 2435 = 2007 PTCL 411", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConstitutional petition - Failure to clear goods - Auction by Customs Authority - Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nDetails: The petitioner argued that he was unaware of his goods' arrival at the port and thus failed to clear them. As a result, the goods were auctioned. The petitioner contested the auction, claiming he hadn't received the necessary notice.\n•\nHeld: The court found that the notice required under section 82 of the Customs Act was duly sent, and therefore, the auction was valid. The case could not be reviewed in constitutional jurisdiction, but the petitioner was free to seek redress through other forums.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.82, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=82", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-463 and M.A. No.1780 of 2006, decision dated: 16-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nSAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Mushafey Ahmed for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents along with Tariq Aziz Appraising Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHARIF \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7859", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 674 = 2006 SLD 674 = 2006 PTD 2219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption from Sales Tax on imports - Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nDetails: The petitioner opened a Letter of Credit (LC) for importing goods before the new Sales Tax exemption withdrawal was announced. He argued that since no Sales Tax was applicable when the LC was opened, the new rules should not affect his transaction.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the petitioner acquired a vested right when the LC was opened, and the Sales Tax exemption could not be revoked retroactively based on the new notification.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.30 & 31-A, S.R.O.5000(I)/100, S.R.O.1105(I)/93, Al-Samrez v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917, Crescent Pa Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others PTCL 1990 CL 457.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1514 of 1994, decision dated: 28-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner.\nNadeem Azhar Siddiqui, DAG for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHANDHARA NISSAN (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS GROUP VIII THROUGH COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7860", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 675 = 2006 SLD 675 = 2006 SCMR 1648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms duty assessment – Mis-declaration and price decline in international market – Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nDetails: The case examines the petitioner's attempt to lower the assessed value of goods, claiming a decline in prices after the goods were purchased but before they were imported.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the importer could not lower the assessed value after declaring the price at the time of import, even if there was a price drop later. Additionally, provisions under section 81 of the Customs Act did not apply to provisional assessments made under an interim court order.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.25 & 80, S.81, Messrs Flying Board and Paper Products v. Deputy Collector, Customs 2004 PTD 2201.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.68 to 88 of 2003, decision dated: 25-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FLYING BOARD and PAPER PRODUCTS (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7861", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1004 = 2007 SLD 1004 = 2007 PTD 213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRevised return under Income Tax Ordinance (2001) – Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) - Amended assessment\n•\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the assessment of a revised income tax return filed under the Income Tax Ordinance (2001), arguing that it was improperly assessed under the previous law.\n•\nHeld: The court upheld the tax officer's action, confirming that the revised return was correctly handled under the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance (2001), which superseded the 1979 law.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.114(6), 122(3)(b), 239(1), Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), Ss.61, 62 & 57.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 5156/LB of 2004, decision dated: 6-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yawar Mehdi Naqvi for Appellant.\nMrs. Sabiha Mujahid, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7862", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1005 = 2007 SLD 1005 = 2007 PTD 2049", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms drawback claim rejection and penalty for mis-declaration – Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nDetails: The appellant contested the rejection of export duty drawback claims and the imposition of penalties for mis-declaration and over-invoicing, arguing that the adjudicating officer had acted unfairly in collecting evidence and influencing the case.\n•\nHeld: The court found that the adjudicating officer's involvement in collecting evidence was improper and remanded the case for fresh proceedings with proper impartiality.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1966 SC 536, PLD Pesh. 169, Black's Law Dictionary, Secretary to Government Transport Department v. Munuswamy AIR 1988 SC 2232.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 88/CU/IB of 2004, decision dated: 30-10-2006, hearing DATE : 2-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nDr. Kamal Azhar Minhas, Additional Collector/D.R, along with Sardar Manzoor Ahmed, Superintendent for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7863", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1006 = 2007 SLD 1006 = 2007 PTD 2194 = (2007) 95 TAX 281", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nStamp duty on goods clearance - Customs Act (IV of 1969) and Punjab Finance Act (IX of 1997)\n•\nDetails: The appellant contested the imposition of stamp duty on goods cleared for home consumption, arguing the legality of the Punjab Finance Act, 1997.\n•\nHeld: The court upheld the imposition of stamp duty, finding that the provisions under the Punjab Finance Act were valid and applicable for the period in question.\n•\nCitations: Stamp Act (II of 1899), S.40 & Sched.-I, Art.12-B, Punjab Finance Act (IX of 1997), Preamble, Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 86, 97 & 104.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2KKA,86,97,104=PreambleStamp Act, of 1899=40,Sched.I,Art.12B", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.564, 565, 1374 and 1376/LB of 2000, decision dated: 27-06-2006, hearing DATE : 12-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nHAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hashim Ali for Appellant.\nMehmood Hasan D.R. and Mehmood Ahmad, Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7864", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1007 = 2007 SLD 1007 = 2007 PTD 2230 = (2007) 96 TAX 385 = 2007 PTR 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms duty assessment – Short revenue on freight – Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nDetails: The case involves a dispute over short revenue recovery by customs authorities based on a claimed discrepancy in freight charges on imported goods.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the freight charge shown in the invoices was correct, and there was no evidence of suppression of import value. Therefore, the duty and tax assessments were made properly.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.25(a)(i), Customs Rules 2001, R.113(1), 2006 PTD 1876.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25(a)(i)Customs Rules, 2001=113(1)", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 113/CU/IB of 2006, decision dated: 5-03-2007, hearing DATE : 27-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Jawad Panni for Appellants.\nAmjud-ur-Rehman, Deputy Collector/D.R, for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7865", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1008 = 2007 SLD 1008 = 2007 PTD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction for mis-declaration adjudication – Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nDetails: The case dealt with the jurisdiction of customs authorities for initiating adjudication proceedings regarding mis-declaration at the port of entry.\n•\nHeld: The court found that the customs officials at the port of entry could not initiate adjudication proceedings, and the jurisdiction for such actions lay with the officials at the port of destination.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32(1), 121 & 196, Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 335 & 341, Baba Khan v. Collector of Customs, Quetta and 2 others 2000 SCMR 678.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No. 84 of 2006, decision dated: 10-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Iqbal for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVS\nMESSRS AYAZ AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7866", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1009 = 2007 SLD 1009 = 2007 PTCL 426 = 2007 PTD 501", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Service Charges under Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nDetails: The petitioner filed 128 refund claims for service charges, but they remained pending. The High Court directed the authorities to decide within two months, which was not followed. The Customs authorities rejected all claims, and the petitioner filed appeals. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the petitioner for three appeals, directing a decision within thirty days. The petitioner filed a constitutional petition after further delays in the resolution of claims.\nHeld: The petitioner's constitutional petition was dismissed for not following the statutory remedies before filing the petition. The Appellate Tribunal's quasi-judicial role and the lack of evidence supporting the petitioner's claims led to the dismissal. The order of the Additional Collector was upheld, and the petition was deemed not maintainable.\nCitations: Collector of Customs v. Shaikh Spinning Mills 1999 SCMR 1402; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. 1992 SCMR 1652; Gatron (Industries) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1999 SCMR 1072.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-534 of 2006, decision dated: 12-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner and Raja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAK SUZUKI MOTOR COMPANY LTD. THROUGH SR. GENERAL MANAGER (I&LP), KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MEMBER CUSTOMS, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7867", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1010 = 2007 SLD 1010 = 2007 PTCL 608 = 2007 PTD 523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment of Duty under Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nDetails: Petitioners challenged provisional duty assessments based on valuation ruling No.708/2006. The Customs department had provisionally assessed the goods instead of accepting the declared value and intended to finalize assessments based on this ruling. Petitioners argued that the valuation ruling was not binding.\nHeld: The constitutional petition was dismissed as premature since no final assessment had been made. The High Court directed the authorities to consider all evidence before finalizing assessments and not to rely solely on the valuation ruling.\nCitations: Rehan Umer v. Collector of Customs, Karachi 2006 PTD 909; Messrs Habib-ur-Rehman & Company v. Collector of Customs 2005 PTD 69.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitution Petitions Nos. D-1978 to D-1986 of 2006, decision dated: 16-11-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Javed Farooqui for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLIES CO. (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\nDEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMS VALUATION & P.C.A., KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7868", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1011 = 2007 SLD 1011 = 2007 PTD 526", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Customs and Regulatory Duty in Tribal Areas under Customs Act (IV of 1969)\nDetails: The petitioner contested the imposition of customs and regulatory duties in the Tribal Areas based on amendments not extended under Article 247(3) of the Constitution. The issue revolved around whether the amendments to the Customs Act were applicable to the Tribal Areas without presidential approval.\nHeld: The demand for excessive duties was deemed unconstitutional, as amendments to the Customs Act had not been extended to the Tribal Areas following the procedure outlined in Article 247(3) of the Constitution. The authorities were directed to refrain from demanding duties based on unapproved amendments.\nCitations: AIR 1986 SC 513; Sharbat Khan v. Haji Lal Gul 1984 PCr.LJ 411; Hazrat Muhammad v. The State PLD 1988 Pesh. 11.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.841, 869, 936, 1134, 1168, 1169, 1180, 1191, 1195, 1208, 1212, 1239, 1246, 1247, 1260, 1283 of 2004, 5, 6, 157, 158 of 2005, 222, 223, 50, 51, 844, 854 and 1845 of 2006, decision dated: 19-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SHAH, JEHAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nEJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Sardar Khan for Petitioner.\nSalah-ud-Din Khan D.A.G. and Abdul Latif Yousafzai for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GUL COOKING OIL and othersVEGETABLE GHEE (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN REVENUE DIVISION, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7869", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1012 = 2007 SLD 1012 = 2007 PTD 601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProvisional Assessment of Duty & Maladministration\n•\nDetails: The case involves consignments of motorcycle and truck parts released under bank guarantees with an undertaking to supply certificates from the Central Board of Revenue (CBR). While the certificates were provided, the bank guarantees were not released, and no response was given to multiple requests. The CBR’s provisional certificate, which only granted prospective benefits, was disputed by the complainant, who argued that delays in issuing the certificates and the restriction on retroactive concession were unfair.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration, citing delays, lack of justification for issuing prospective-only benefits, and failure to release the bank guarantees. The Ombudsman recommended releasing guarantees, issuing a final certificate, and reconsidering the production capacity for motorcycle assembly.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.81; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss. 2(3) & 22; S.R.O. 436(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-307-K of 2006, decision dated: 1st September, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Awan, Advocate.\nManzoor Ahmad, General Manager.\nImran Iqbal, Advocate.\nImran Javaid, Consultant.\nS.M. Shoaib, Secretary (I.I&T-III), C.B.R.\nIrfan Javed, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement).\nMs. Misbah Khatana, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DELTA INNOVATIONS LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENNUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7870", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1013 = 2007 SLD 1013 = 2007 PTCL 516 = 2007 PTD 878", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRefund of Redemption Fine & Suit for Declaration\n•\nDetails: Importers had paid a redemption fine and undertook not to claim a refund. They later sought a refund, but the customs authorities rejected their claim, and appeals were dismissed. The importers filed a suit in the High Court for a declaration, challenging the rejection of their refund application.\n•\nHeld: The court held that once importers accepted the redemption fine, they could not seek a refund. Additionally, the suit filed in the High Court was deemed incompetent as the matter had already been adjudicated through the statutory forums, including the Customs, Excise, and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 33, 168, 181, 217; Messrs Binaco Traders v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 1491; Malik Muhammad Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 2167", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Suits Nos. NIL of 2004 and NIL of 2005, decision dated: 17-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Ahmed Sheikh for Plaintiffs.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ROHI GHEE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD and others\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7871", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1014 = 2007 SLD 1014 = 2007 PTD 983", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure & Confiscation of Vehicle\n•\nDetails: The appellant, a bona fide purchaser, sought the release of a confiscated vehicle, arguing that he was not liable to pay duties and taxes as he had bought it in good faith. The Tribunal had ordered the release on payment of duties and taxes.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's order, emphasizing that the principle of bona fide purchaser does not apply to goods seized under the Customs Act. The appellant was required to pay the duties, taxes, and fines.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 156(89), 196; Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 41; Collector of Customs, Lahore v. Azeem Ahmad 2003 PTD 960", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.13 of 2004, decision dated: 12-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nIQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Shabbir Langrial for Appellant.\nCh. Saghir Ahmad for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AMAN ULLAH\nVS\n and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7872", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1015 = 2007 SLD 1015 = 2007 PTD 1211", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConstitutional Petition Against Show-Cause Notice\n•\nDetails: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging a show-cause notice under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, re-opening the assessment of imported goods. The goods were already released after payment of duties.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the petitioner should respond to the show-cause notice in the regular proceedings, as no final decision had been made yet. The constitutional petition was premature, and objections would be addressed in the ongoing proceedings.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 25, 32; Art. 199 of the Constitution; Messrs Sohrab Global Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Deputy Collector of Customs Lahore 2005 PTD 67", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.2111 to 2136 of 2007, decision dated: 6-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Nawaz Cheema for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ABDULLAH CORPORATION\nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7873", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1016 = 2007 SLD 1016 = 2007 PTD 1311 = (2005) 91 TAX 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRefund of Amount Realized through Bank Guarantee\n•\nDetails: The complainants' bank guarantee was encashed by Customs before the High Court’s final verdict, which ruled that no duty or sales tax was owed. Customs delayed the refund, citing pending clarification from the Law and Justice Division.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found maladministration due to the Customs Department's delay in paying the refund, despite a binding Supreme Court decision. The Ombudsman recommended that the refund be issued within 15 days.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 139, 142, 181; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3); Messrs Anoud Power Generation Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2001 SC 340", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-63-K of 2004, decision dated: 12-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Collector of Customs and Nawabzadi Aaliya Khanji, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS S.G. POWERS LIMITED, KARACHI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7874", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1017 = 2007 SLD 1017 = 2007 PTD 1384", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation & Release of Gold Bangles\n•\nDetails: A passenger’s gold bangles, declared upon entry, were confiscated by Customs. The complainant sought their release, claiming that the confiscation was unjustified as there was no proper adjudication or show-cause notice.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that the confiscation was unlawful, as the necessary legal procedures were not followed, including issuing a show-cause notice. The Ombudsman recommended that the bangles be allowed for re-export upon the complainant’s departure.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 139, 142, 181; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, S.2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-272-K of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azhar Iqbal for the Complainant.\nGulam Rabbani for Respondent.\nNisarul Haq, Chartered Accountant\n Aziz-ud-Din Ahmed Secretary (Legal), C.B.R. Syed Naeem Akhtar, Deputy Collector of Customs.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZHAR IQBAL\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7875", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1018 = 2007 SLD 1018 = 2007 PTD 1390", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duty Assessment, Jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman\nDetails: Complainants paid duty based on the quantity in the bill of lading, but Customs Authorities detained part of the consignment for being in excess of the declared quantity. The issue was whether the duty should be assessed based on the bill of lading quantity or the ullage report. \nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the detained quantity be released under a suitable guarantee, pending the Supreme Court's decision in the related case. The Ombudsman clarified that the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman was not barred, as the complaint was about discriminatory practices, not the duty assessment mechanics.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 80\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3), S. 9(2)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-54-K of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naved Ahmad Khan for Complainant.\nMuhammad Faisal Khan, Assistant Collector of Customs for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7876", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1019 = 2007 SLD 1019 = 2007 PTD 1412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Refund of Capital Value Tax\nDetails: The complainant sought a refund of Capital Value Tax, claiming exemption under a government order. The refund was denied because the importer did not plan to use the vehicle for hire, and the complaint was considered beyond the Federal Tax Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.\nHeld: The Ombudsman ruled that the refusal of the refund due to incorrect interpretation was maladministration, and the complainant should be refunded the Capital Value Tax.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 33\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S. 96\n•\nS.R.O. 648(I)/96 dated 4-8-1996\n•\nFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 9(2)(b)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 226 of 2004, decision dated: 18-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz-ul-Hassan Abid, A.R. for the Complainant.\nS. Inamur Rehman, DCIT for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "RANA ARIF HUSSAIN\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7877", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1020 = 2007 SLD 1020 = 2007 PTD 1440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration and Confiscation of Imported Goods\nDetails: Customs detained and confiscated Betelnuts imports due to misdeclaration and non-compliance with health standards. The complainants challenged the decision, arguing improper procedures.\nHeld: The Ombudsman determined that the matter was a public health concern, as the goods were declared unfit by a reputable lab. No maladministration was found in the customs process.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 16, 32, 33, 199(3)\n•\nEstablishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9(2)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-49 of 2004, decision dated: 14-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Miraz for the Complainants.\nAbid Hussain, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS IFTIKHAR CORPORATION THROUGH NADEEM & COMPANY, KARACHI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7878", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1021 = 2007 SLD 1021 = 2007 PTD 1862 = (2007) 96 TAX 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Period for Customs Duty Claims\nDetails: The case revolved around the limitation period for the recovery of duties that were short-levied due to an untrue statement or error.\nHeld: The Ombudsman explained that cases involving collusion for duty non-payment fall under a five-year limitation period, while those involving errors are subject to a three-year period. The case in question fell under the three-year limit.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), S. 32\n•\nPLD 1963 SC 322; PLD 1969 SC 187; PLD 2001 SC 38", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(1)(2),32(3),106,196(1)", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Applications Nos. 201 to 206 of 2006, decision dated: 20-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taha Ali Zai for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX (ADJUDICATIONII)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7879", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1022 = 2007 SLD 1022 = 2007 PTD 1977", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Refund of Customs Duty\nDetails: The complainant’s refund claim was delayed for over a year without notice or reminder. The Ombudsman investigated maladministration in the delay but rejected a compensation claim for the delay, citing the lack of legal provision.\nHeld: The Ombudsman confirmed that no compensation could be granted for the delay in the absence of an explicit provision in the Customs Act.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 33, 216\n•\nSales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 67\n•\nIncome Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 171", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-422-K of 2004, decision dated: 17-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GULISTAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7880", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1023 = 2007 SLD 1023 = 2007 PTD 2018 = (2007) 96 TAX 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Imported Goods and Show-Cause Notice\nDetails: Customs raised a duty demand based on a valuation formula that was not legally acceptable. The complainant challenged the lack of a proper show-cause notice.\nHeld: The Ombudsman ruled that the demand was invalid as it was made without following due process and without issuing a proper show-cause notice. The assessment must be made according to the Customs Act’s provisions, not influenced by unauthorized formulas.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25, 32\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,32Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.496 to 501 of 2007, heard on 21st May, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Athar Minallah for Petitioner.\nFarhat Zafar and Syed Anwar Ahmad Shah for Respondents Nos.1 to 4.\nFarhat Nawaz Lodhi for Respondent No. 5.\nRaja Muhammad Bashir (under instructions from C.B.R.)", + "Petitioner Name:": "WAHAJ ENTERPRISES THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR \nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7881", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1024 = 2007 SLD 1024 = 2007 PTD 2092 = (2007) 96 TAX 229", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment of Customs Duty\nDetails: The grievance involved an importer challenging the reduction of the final assessment period from one year to nine months following the Finance Act 2005. The Collector had the authority to extend the period, but the extension lacked the proper legal grounds.\nHeld: The reduced limitation became applicable to all pending provisional assessments from July 1, 2005. The Collector's extension power was restricted to exceptional circumstances, which were not adequately demonstrated in this case. The final assessment was deemed unlawful and without jurisdiction.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.81(2), Finance Act 2005, Art. 199 (Constitution of Pakistan).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81(2),Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6420 of 2006, decision dated: 24-05-2007, hearing DATE : 26-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzada Mazhar for Petitioner.\nRana Muhammad Arshad for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAFIQ TRADERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7882", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1025 = 2007 SLD 1025 = 2007 PTD 2119 = 2008 PTCL 177 = (2007) 96 TAX 237", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment and Customs Duty\nDetails: The importer’s goods were released under provisional assessment, and postdated cheques were obtained for the duty difference. The provisional assessment was to become final after one year but the authorities failed to substantiate a higher value.\nHeld: Since no corroborative demand was made by the authorities, the petitioner’s declared value became final after the one-year period.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 25(4), 81, Customs Rules, 2001, R. 109.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25(4),81,81(1),81(2),81(3),81(4)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Customs Rules, 2001=109", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.3726 of 2006, decision dated: 1st December, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nIzhar-ul-Haque Sheikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS S. FAZAL ILAHI &. SONS THROUGH REGISTRAR \nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7883", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1026 = 2007 SLD 1026 = 2007 PTD 2507", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViR1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Self-Assessment Scheme and Taxation\nDetails: The petitioners, involved in product dealership businesses, were denied the benefits of the Self-Assessment Scheme 2000-2001. They argued that this denial was discriminatory as they declared losses.\nHeld: The Court ruled that the Self-Assessment Scheme’s conditions, which excluded loss-declaring entities, were not discriminatory. Petitioners had to file a regular return as their declared loss disqualified them from the scheme.\nCitations: Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, Ss. 59, 62, 80-D, Second Schedule, Part IV, Cl. (32-D), Art. 199 (Constitution of Pakistan).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 19120 563 and 566 of 2002 and 24354 of 2000, decision dated: 9-10-2007, hearing DATE : 16-04-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Ilyas Zafar for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALHAJ GHULAM MUHAMMAD & SONS \nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH CHAIRMAN GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7884", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1027 = 2007 SLD 1027 = 2007 PTCL 469 = 2007 PTD 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Imported Goods\nDetails: The provisions of S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding the valuation of goods must be applied sequentially.\nHeld: The Court confirmed that the valuation method should follow the prescribed sequential steps.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S. 25.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-964 and Miscellaneous Appeal No.4469 of 2006, decision dated: 13-09-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7885", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1028 = 2007 SLD 1028 = 2007 PTCL 677 = 2008 PTD 36", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment and Customs Duty Recovery\nDetails: Show-cause notices were issued to appellants for short recovery of duties, based on untrue import documents. The notices were vague and self-contradictory.\nHeld: The notices were deemed invalid as they contained contradictions and incorrect facts. The appeals were allowed, and the case was dismissed.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 81(1)(2)(3)(4), 25(4), 25-B, 32 & 163, R. 109(3), Art. 199 (Constitution of Pakistan).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. 619, 620, 698, 700, 730, 731, 964 to 966 of 2004, decision dated: 10-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. ASHRAF, JEHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan, Haji Muhammad Yousuf, Muhammad Saleem Thepdawalla and Ms. Danish Zuberi, A.Rs. for Petitioners.\nHaider Iqbal, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7886", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1029 = 2007 SLD 1029 = 2007 PTCL 689 = 2008 PTD 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Vehicle under Customs Act\nDetails: A vehicle was confiscated on the grounds that its chassis number was allegedly self-punched/grinded. The authorities did not verify this claim through forensic analysis.\nHeld: The confiscation was deemed invalid as the authorities failed to prove the chassis number was fraudulent. The appeal by the department was rejected.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S. 156.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Appeal C.A. No.22/LB of 2007, decision dated: 8-11-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mahmood, I.O. for Appellants.\nSyed M. Mohsin Hamdani for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7887", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 578 = 2000 SLD 578 = 2000 PLC 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Payment of Wages Act and Employee Back Benefits\nDetails: Employees, reinstated with back benefits, filed under the Payment of Wages Act for unpaid salaries. The employer challenged this in a constitutional petition.\nHeld: The Court upheld that the order was appealable under S.17 of the Payment of Wages Act and was subject to revision under S.38(3a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.\nCitations: Payment of Wages Act, 1936, Ss. 15, 16, 17, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, S. 38(3a), Art. 199 (Constitution of Pakistan).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 9036 of 1990, decision dated: 9-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "C.M. Latif Rawn for Petitioner AND Ch. Abdul Latif for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TOWN COMMITTEE, CHOWINDA\nVS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7888", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 579 = 2000 SLD 579 = 2000 PLC 184", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Workmen’s Compensation and Appeal Procedures\nDetails: The employer failed to deposit the amount for workmen’s compensation as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and filed an appeal without meeting this requirement.\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed as non-maintainable due to the employer’s failure to deposit the necessary compensation amount.\nCitations: Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, S. 32.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. WCH 5 of 1998, & decided on 18-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A.K. Azmati for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KOTRI TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nVS\nTHE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN‘S COMPENSATION, HYDERABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7889", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 580 = 2000 SLD 580 = 2000 PLC 186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Revision of Labour Court Orders\nDetails: The employer's revision application against a charge framed by the Labour Court was dismissed, as the charge was not groundless.\nHeld: The revision was dismissed as the Labour Court’s charge was deemed valid.\nCitations: Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, Ss. 25 A(3), 38(3a).", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application No.KAR 261 of 1998, decision dated: 11-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Latif Saghar for Applicants.\nShafique Ahmed Qureshi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TARIQ IKRAM and 2 others\nVS\nNAEEMA BEGUM" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7890", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1054 = 2008 SLD 1054 = 2008 PTD 1621", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Import of Hydraulic Jacks and Customs Benefit\nDetails: The importer was denied the benefit of S.R.O. 575(I)/96 based on Customs General Orders. The importer argued that the denial was improper.\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer, allowing the benefit of S.R.O. 575(I)/96, as the item was excluded from the list of locally manufactured goods.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S. 19, 19-A, S.R.O. 575(I)/96, Customs General Orders No. 12 of 2002, No. 11 of 2007.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Appeal C.A. No. 475/LB of 2007, decision dated: 16-01-2008, hearing DATE : 15-01-2008.", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR UL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad for Appellant.\nSaud Imran Ahmad, D.R. and M. Akhtar Zaidi A/O for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7891", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1055 = 2008 SLD 1055 = 2008 PTD 133 = 2008 PTCL 264 = (2008) 97 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Value Determination\nDetails: The customs valuation of goods was challenged based on the discretion granted under S.25-B of the Customs Act, 1969.\nHeld: The Court upheld the discretion of the designated officer in determining the value of goods under S.25-B, rejecting claims for unjustified alteration.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 25, 25-B, Art. 199 (Constitution of Pakistan).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos. D-2215, 1029, 1144, 1145 and 3127 of 1992, heard on 29-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Merchant for Petitioners (in C.Ps. D. Nos.1029, 2215 and 3127 of 1992).\nMustafa Lakhani for Petitioners (C.Ps. D. Nos. 1144 and 1145 of 1992).\nNadeem Azhar, D.A.G. and Javed Farooqui for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NEW ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7892", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 581 = 2000 SLD 581 = 2000 PLC 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Employment Status Determination under Standing Orders\nDetails: The determination of whether employees were permanent or temporary was based on the nature of their work. The Court reviewed evidence of work duration and employment terms.\nHeld: The employees were deemed permanent workers as their work was of a permanent nature, despite being described as temporary in their appointment letters.\nCitations: West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, S.O. 1(b)(c), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, S. 38.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.489 and 490 of 1994, decision dated: 20-05-1999, hearing DATE : 13-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSH. IJAZ NISAR, JUSTICE\nKAMAL MANSURS ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farooq Zaman Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\nSh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate on-Record (absent) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IZHAR AHMED KHAN and others\nVS\nPUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7893", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1056 = 2008 SLD 1056 = 2008 PTD 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal to High Court—Maintainability of Appeal Against Recovery Notice\nDetails: The case concerned an appeal to the High Court challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order, which had found an appeal against a recovery notice to be non-maintainable. The recovery notice followed an order-in-original, creating a demand against the assessee.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the appeal against the recovery notice was not maintainable. The recovery notice was a step in furtherance of the original order, which could not be challenged before the Tribunal or the High Court under the relevant provisions of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No. 132 of 2007, decision dated: 17-01-2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nKH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmed Awan for Petitioner.\nIzharul Haq Sheikh for Revenue.", + "Petitioner Name:": "J.D. W. SUGAR MILLS LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FINANCE \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FINANCE and 9 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7894", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 582 = 2000 SLD 582 = 2000 PLC 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Dismissal from Service—Misconduct\nDetails: An employee was dismissed from service after an inquiry into allegations of fraud, theft, or dishonesty. The inquiry was conducted by an independent Inquiry Officer, who found the employee's actions to be misconduct under the relevant provisions.\nHeld: The dismissal was upheld by the Labour Court, and the decision was deemed proper. The inquiry was conducted fairly, and no exceptions were taken to the findings.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal NOXAR 288 of 1997, decision dated: 3rd May, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.M. Jeelar for Appellant AND Syed Qamar-ud-Din Hassan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "REHMATULLAH KHAN\nVS\nMESSRS SMITH KLINE and FRENCH OF PAKISTAN LTD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7895", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 583 = 2000 SLD 583 = 2000 PLC 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Revisional Jurisdiction of Labour Appellate Tribunal—Amendment of Trade Union Constitution\nDetails: The case involved the Registrar of Trade Unions approving an amendment to a trade union constitution. The amendment was made to prevent a no-confidence motion against the union’s leadership. The Registrar approved it without proper scrutiny, which was contested by the Labour Appellate Tribunal.\nHeld: The Labour Appellate Tribunal exercised its revisional jurisdiction and set aside the Registrar's approval, emphasizing the need for an independent inquiry and proper application of law before such amendments could be validated.", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, N.W.F.P.", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Revision Appeal No.11 with Civil Miscellaneous No. 40 of 1998, decision dated: 21st December, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rehman Qadir for Petitioner and Ghazan Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL GHANI\nVS\nREGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, HAZARA DIVISION AT HARIPUR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7896", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1057 = 2008 SLD 1057 = 2008 PTD 1676", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Import Valuation and Customs Duty—Maladministration Allegations\nDetails: The case involved a dispute over the customs valuation of Battery Operated Toys and Toys without Batteries. The complainant alleged that the Department unlawfully assessed the customs value, resulting in excessive duty and taxes.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the valuation was in line with the law and the revised values were determined based on proper consultations. However, the Ombudsman recommended a review of the delay in consignment examination and potential refunds of excess charges if customs examination was responsible for the delay.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-533-K of 2008, decision dated: 28-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor, Dealing Officer. M. Afzal Awan. Ameer-ud-Din and Muhammad Rashid Khan for KCIT. Zeba Bashir, Deputy Director of Customs Valuation. Syed Fawad Ali Shah, Deputy Collector of Customs PACCS", + "Petitioner Name:": "M.N. IMP. & EXP. COMPANY, KARACIH\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7897", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1058 = 2008 SLD 1058 = 2008 PTD 1777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Demand for Mark-up on Bank Guarantee—Contrary to Customs Law\nDetails: The dispute involved a 20% mark-up demanded by customs authorities against a bank guarantee, which was challenged as being contrary to the Customs Act.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that the 20% mark-up was unlawful and amounted to maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended that the surcharge be recovered as prescribed by law, and the bank guarantees be released after payment of the surcharge.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=83", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1438-K of 2005, decision dated: 13-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan (Advisor) Dealing Officer.\nImran Iqbal for the Complainant.\nIrfan Javed, Deputy Collector of Customs for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS YOUNUS TEXTILE MILLS \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7898", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1059 = 2008 SLD 1059 = 2008 PTD 1827", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nValuation of Goods and Application of Valuation Rulings\n•\nDetails: Customs authorities did not accept the declared value for goods and assessed them based on evidence under Section 25(5) of the Customs Act, 1969. The Valuation Ruling No.606 of 2006 was challenged as being outdated and not applicable due to the provisions of Rule 107-A of the Customs Rules, 2001.\n•\nHeld: The High Court had previously remanded similar cases for de novo valuation and issuance of fresh advices in compliance with the proper procedure under the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside the use of Valuation Ruling No.606 for the assessment of customs duties and remanded the case for a new valuation process consistent with the High Court’s directive.\n•\nCitations: Writ Petition No.2415 of 2007 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Appeal No.44/CU/IB of 2008, decision dated: 24-06-2008, hearing DATE : 16-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellants.\nImran Chaudhry, Deputy Collector/(D.R.) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7899", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1060 = 2008 SLD 1060 = 2008 PTCL 564 = 2008 PTD 1587", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProvisional Assessment of Duty and Bank Guarantee\n•\nDetails: The importer provided a bank guarantee for differential amounts after provisional assessment under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969. However, the assessment was not finalized within the stipulated 270 days, and a notice for encashment of the bank guarantee was issued.\n•\nHeld: Since the assessment was not finalized within the stipulated period, the encashment of the bank guarantee was deemed illegal. The importer was entitled to a refund.\n•\nCitations: Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi v. Messrs Auto Mobile Corporation, Karachi 2005 PTD 2116; Messrs Hassan Trading Company v. Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, 2004 PTD 1979.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-827 of 2006, decision dated: 16-05-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JUSTICE\nDR. QAMMARUDDIN BOHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CLOVER PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH GENERALMANAGER FINANCE \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7900", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1061 = 2008 SLD 1061 = 2008 PTD 1610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMisdeclaration and Concealment of Concession\n•\nDetails: The importer concealed a 2.5% concession provided by the principal. The Customs Department discovered this concealment and imposed penalties.\n•\nHeld: The importer failed to declare the 2.5% concession, and the department was within its rights to claim the concealed amount. The misdeclaration was considered an offence under Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nCitations: Pakistan State Oil Ltd. v. Collector of Customs E & ST (Adjudication-II) and others 2006 SCMR 425.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeals Nos.61 and 62 of 2002, decision dated: 1st July, 2008, hearing DATE : 26-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "DR. RANA M. SHAMIM, JUSTICE\nARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Appellants\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents.\nBadar Alam, D.A.G. for Federation.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHANDHARA NISSAN LTD., KARACHI \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPG), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7901", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1062 = 2008 SLD 1062 = 2008 YLR 2028", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nGrant of Bail on Humanitarian Grounds\n•\nDetails: The accused, aged 70 and suffering from Ischemic heart disease, was granted bail on humanitarian grounds after undergoing coronary angiography.\n•\nHeld: Bail was granted in consideration of the accused’s health and advanced age.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Bail Application No.432 of 2008, decision dated: 2-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "DR. QAMARUDDIN BOHRA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Imran Mehdi for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MIAN NASIR ALI \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7902", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 666 = 2009 SLD 666 = 2009 MLD 382", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRefusal of Bail in Customs Case\n•\nDetails: The accused was found to be in possession of 42,543 US dollars, but there was no endorsement in the passport regarding the possession of the currency at the time of entry into Pakistan.\n•\nHeld: Bail was refused as the matter required a deeper investigation into the facts and circumstances, which could not be determined at the bail stage.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1277-B of 2007, decision dated: 26-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nM. Khalid Chaudhry, Legal Advisor for Customs Department with Tariq Qayyum, Inspector Customs with record", + "Petitioner Name:": "IMTIAZ HUSSAIN \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7903", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 667 = 2009 SLD 667 = 2009 PCRLJ 1094", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nGrant of Bail After Prolonged Detention\n•\nDetails: The accused had been in detention for nearly 1.75 years without progress in the trial, and all co-accused had been granted bail.\n•\nHeld: Bail was granted as no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in detention due to the lack of trial progress.\n•\nCitations: N/A", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.912/B of 2009, decision dated: 30-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Mairaj Khalid for Petitioner.\nKh. Noor Mustafa, Dy. Attorney-General.\nSyed Muhammad Ali Rizvi, Deputy Superintendent Customs.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH \nVS\nTHE STATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7904", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 668 = 2009 SLD 668 = 2009 PTD 364 = (2008) 98 TAX 225", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMisdeclaration Based on Engineering Development Board Report\n•\nDetails: The appellant was issued a show-cause notice based on an Engineering Development Board report regarding indigenization shortfall. The appellant contested that the evidence was not disclosed.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal remanded the case for de novo consideration as the appellant had not been provided with the necessary evidence to defend the charges.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32(3A)", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.497 and 498/LB of 2007, decision dated: 26-07-2008, hearing DATE : 1st July, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "DR. RIAZ MAHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nSAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant.\nAmir Haider, Appraiser for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7905", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 669 = 2009 SLD 669 = 2009 PTD 1618", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Taxation Order and Jurisdictional Errors\nDetails: The First Appellate Authority annulled the assessment order as the Taxation Officer had passed the order under Section 180C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 without providing the proper opportunity for a hearing. Additionally, the order incorrectly cited Section 180C instead of Section 80C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The department argued that the error was a mere typographical mistake, and the order was passed under the correct section, 80C, and that notice was duly issued. The assessee contended that the Taxation Officer had acted beyond his jurisdiction and corrective action should have been taken under Sections 65 or 66-A. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision and dismissed the department's appeal.\nHeld: The First Appellate Authority's ruling was upheld, with the Appellate Tribunal agreeing with the assessee's arguments regarding jurisdiction and procedural errors.\nCitations: 2007 SCMR 262 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.462/KB and 463/KB of 2007, decision dated: 14-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID SIDDIQUI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Farooq Azam Memon., D.R. for Appellant.\nAbdul Tahir Ansari ITP for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7906", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 670 = 2009 SLD 670 = 2009 PTD 85", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Valuation and Maladministration\nDetails: The complainant alleged maladministration by the Collector of Customs, asserting that a Valuation Ruling was treated as an assessment order under Paragraph 66 of Customs General Order 12 of 2002. The provisional duty assessment had become final, but the security amount was not refunded, and the determination was delayed. The Federal Tax Ombudsman determined that the valuation had been finalized within nine months, but maladministration occurred due to the delay in issuing the demand-cum-show-cause notice. The Ombudsman recommended that the Federal Board of Revenue review the valuation and ensure the complainants were given an opportunity to present their case.\nHeld: Maladministration was established due to the excessive delay in issuing notices, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended corrective measures.\nCitations: No specific citation provided.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1106-K of 2008, decision dated: 31st July, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "[Dealing Officer; Mr. M. Mubeen Ashan, Advisor].\nM. Afzal Awan for the Complainant.\nAgha Saeed Ahmad, Deputy Collector of Customs (Law), Port Qasim for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS WESTERN COMPUTER (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7907", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 671 = 2009 SLD 671 = 2009 PTD 140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment Delays and Maladministration\nDetails: The complainant argued that provisional assessments were not finalized within the required period of one year, with the case remaining unresolved for nine years. The Federal Tax Ombudsman determined that the inaction and delay amounted to maladministration, and recommended the finalization of assessments and release of security.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended that the Collector of Customs finalize the assessment and release the bank guarantees within 15 days.\nCitations: Messrs Dewan Farooque Motors Limited v. Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2006 PTD 1276 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-1114-K of 2008, decision dated: 18-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nM. Afzaal Awan for the Complainant.\nImran Iqbal for Respondent.\nMasood Sabir, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DEWAN SALMAN FIBRE LTD \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7908", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 672 = 2009 SLD 672 = 2009 PTD 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Assessment and Post-Dated Cheque Dispute\nDetails: A post-dated cheque was issued by the complainant on the condition that if the declared value was correct, the cheque would be returned; otherwise, it would be encashed. The department failed to finalize the assessment and return the cheque. The complainant argued that the customs value should have been finalized within the statutory period, and the department's failure to return the cheque or issue a proper order was illegal.\nHeld: Maladministration was established, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the post-dated cheque be returned and the assessment finalized within 15 days.\nCitations: C.P. No.137 of 2006; Messrs Shakeel Enterprises Karachi v. C.B.R. Complaint No.474-K of 2002; Complaints No.1569-K/2008; Complaint No. 88-K/2007; Complaint No. 85-K of 2007 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1842-K of 2008, decision dated: 12-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Asghar Abbas, Adviser (Dealing Officer).\nAfzal Awan for the Complainant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GADOON TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7909", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 673 = 2009 SLD 673 = 2009 PTD 204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration in Provisional Assessment and Adjudication Delays\nDetails: Goods were cleared under Section 81 of the Customs Act but the assessment was not finalized within the prescribed period. The department issued an unlawful show-cause notice and failed to finalize the assessment for over five years. The Federal Tax Ombudsman found that the delay amounted to maladministration and recommended that the Board of Revenue take action to set aside the illegal adjudication order and finalize the assessment based on the original declarations.\nHeld: Maladministration was confirmed, and the Ombudsman recommended corrective action by the Federal Board of Revenue.\nCitations: Messrs Dewan Farooque Motors Limited v. Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2006 PTD 1276 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1829-K of 2008, decision dated: 11-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nAfzal Awan and Imran Iqbal, Advocates.\nHabib Ahmad, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ZHONGXING TELECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7910", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 710 = 2010 SLD 710 = (2010) 101 TAX 207 = 2009 PTD 1463 = 2010 PTCL 530", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Application of Sections 32 and 195 of the Customs Act\nDetails: The complainant argued that incorrect disclosure of the value of goods required the application of Section 32 of the Customs Act. The Ombudsman stated that the provisions under Section 32 could apply when goods' values were under-declared. However, information from external sources could not be used as the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 195 without proper record inspection.\nHeld: Section 32 applied to under-declaration cases, and the complainant had the opportunity to pursue alternate remedies through regular appellate channels.\nCitations: Messrs S.T Enterprises through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary (Revenue Division F.B.R.). Islamabad and 4 others 2009 PTD 467; Messrs Zibtec (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director and another v. Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collector and 3 others 2009 PTD 246; Messrs Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer, Circle XVIII South Zone, Karachi and others 1992 SCMR 250; Gatron (Industries) Limited v. Government of Pakistan and others 1999 SCMR 1072; Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited v. Collector, of Customs House, Faisalabad 2000 YLR 1989 and Messrs Toyo International Motorcycle through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary (Revenue Division) Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others 2008 PTD 1494 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 18776 to 18778 of 2008, heard on 6-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik M. Arshad for Petitioners.\nSh. Izharul Haq for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NAZMAFK (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH SECRETARY (REVENUE DIVISION/FBR) and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7911", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 584 = 2000 SLD 584 = 2000 PLC 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Misconduct Complaint Against Employer\nDetails: A Trade Union Propaganda Secretary, responsible for financial loss to the employer, was proceeded against under S.O. 15(3)(c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. However, the employee did not participate in the enquiry, and the Trade Union General Secretary filed a complaint against the employer's officers. The Labour Court dismissed the complaint against the employer based on a Cr.P.C. Section 249-A application, asserting the complaint was filed with mala fide intentions to protect the employee.\nHeld: The complaint against the employer was dismissed on the grounds of mala fide motive, and the order of acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was upheld.\nCitations: Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, S.O. 15(3)(c); Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S.249 A", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Revision Application NOXAR 263 of 1998, decision dated: 16-02-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. Bhatti for Applicant AND Umer Qureshi for the Accused", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YASEEN\nVS\nSHOAIB AHMED JAFFARI and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7912", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 585 = 2000 SLD 585 = 2000 PLC 310", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Forced Resignation\nDetails: An employee claimed to have been forced to resign after being detained for over two hours by the Security Officer at his employer's hotel. The employer denied the allegation, stating the employee voluntarily resigned due to health issues. The employee failed to provide any written complaint to the General Manager or other authorities.\nHeld: The grievance petition was dismissed, as the employee failed to provide sufficient evidence of the alleged forced resignation.\nCitations: Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, S. 25 A", + "Court Name:": "Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. KAR.177 of 1998, decision dated: 11-01-1999, hearing DATE : 24-12-1998", + "Judge Name:": "DR. TANZIL UR REHMAN, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.A. K. Azmati for Appellant.\nMehmood Abdul Ghani for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAFIQ AHMED\nVS\nMESSRS KARACHI SHERATON HOTEL THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE/GENERAL MANAGER and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7913", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 586 = 2000 SLD 586 = 2000 PLC 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Cost of Living Allowance and Provident Fund Contributions\nDetails: Amendments to the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, made the cost of living allowance part of wages for purposes such as provident fund and bonus contributions. Additionally, non-payment of contributions under the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act was discussed.\nHeld: Employers are required to pay contributions under the Employees' Old Age Benefits Act for the cost of living allowance.\nCitations: Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) Act, 1973, S. 7 (amended by Act XXVI of 1977); Employees' Old Age Benefits Act, 1976, S. 2(p), S.13", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1352 of 1985, decision dated: 17-09-1999, hearing DATE : 10-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Majid Khan and Hamid Khan for Petitioner.\nM.A. Hayee Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IMPERIAL ELECTRIC CO. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\nTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EMPLOYEES‘ OLD AGE BENEFITS THROUGH CHAIRMAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7914", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 674 = 2009 SLD 674 = 2009 PTD 1835 = 2011 PTCL 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duty Concession Notice\nDetails: The petitioner, after importing goods and filing for a customs duty concession under S.R.O. 410, was issued a notice for recovery of an outstanding amount. The notice lacked details regarding the amount due, leading to a constitutional petition for clarification.\nHeld: The notice was declared illegal, and the department was instructed to issue a new notice detailing the outstanding amount before proceeding with recovery.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 20, 25, 26; Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art.199", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=20", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4719 of 2009, decision dated: 20-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN QADIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Petitioner.\nMiss Kausar Parveen for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS YOUNAS GROUP OF INDUSTRIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SAMBRIAL, SIALKOT and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7915", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 675 = 2009 SLD 675 = 2009 PTD 1968", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-implementation of Provisional Assessment of Duty\nDetails: The complainant alleged that the Customs department failed to implement a High Court order concerning the provisional release of goods under bank guarantee, causing delays.\nHeld: The complaint was rejected as premature, and the complainants were advised to pursue the matter with the Federal Board of Revenue.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.81(2); Customs Rules, 2001, Rules 455 & 460; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.10 & 11", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-1893-K of 2008, decision dated: 9-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Mubeen Ahsan, Advisor (Dealing Officer).\nAfzal Awan for the Complainant.\nImran Iqbal for Respondents.\nShahid Jan, Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraisement)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, FAISALABAD \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7916", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 711 = 2010 SLD 711 = (2010) 101 TAX 161 = 2009 PTD 2213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Correction of Error in Import Manifest\nDetails: The appellant sought to amend an import manifest after the shipping agent mistakenly listed a different name than the appellant's. The request was denied by the Appellate Tribunal.\nHeld: The appeal was allowed, and the Appellate Tribunal was directed to amend the manifest to reflect the correct name, as required under S.45(2) of the Customs Act, 1969.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Ss. 45(2), 196; Aiva International v. Assistant Collector of Customs, 2004 PTD 997", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=45", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No.214 of 2004, decision dated: 23rd August, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIL HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for the Appellant.\nAhmed Khan Bugti for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "YAZDANI ENGINEERING INDUSTRY \nVS\nAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7917", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 676 = 2009 SLD 676 = 2009 PTD 2216", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Non-payment of Rebate Claims\nDetails: The complainant exporter filed a complaint regarding non-payment of rebate claims. The Customs department argued that cheques had been issued, but the complainant had not engaged electronically with the department to confirm receipt.\nHeld: The Customs department was advised to investigate the issue and establish a system for ensuring proper delivery and reconciliation of cheques, with the Federal Board of Revenue tasked with implementing a more efficient system.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.155-E; Customs Rules, 2001, Rules 455 & 460; Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Ss.10 & 11", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=155", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 414-K of 2009, decision dated: 18-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Barkat Ali Bukhari, Consultant (Dealing Officer)", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALOFT INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD\nIJAZ AHMAD BUTT \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7918", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 677 = 2009 SLD 677 = 2009 YLR 617", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail Refusal in Smuggling Case\nDetails:\nThe accused was apprehended while attempting to smuggle a large quantity of foreign-origin liquor. The defense argued that the liquor was planted by Customs officials, citing issues with the sample testing process. However, the recovery was made in the presence of witnesses with no ill-will towards the accused. The absence of a chemical examiner's report was deemed insufficient for granting bail. The court held that the accused's case fell under the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code due to the nature of the offense under S. 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.\nHeld: Bail application dismissed.\nCitations: Feroz Shah v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1470", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No.4172-B of 2007, decision dated: 9-10-2007", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz Khalil Ahmad for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Khalid Chaudhry, Legal Advisor to Customs Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7919", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 712 = 2010 SLD 712 = 2010 PTD 324", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Goods and Customs Duty Disputes\nDetails:\nVarious issues arose regarding the demand of customs duties and taxes for goods that were neither seized nor available. The Appellate Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty, ruling that the duty and taxes demanded were unjustified as no record of the goods' removal or seizure existed. The tribunal also noted that the adjudicating authority exceeded its scope by applying provisions not cited in the show-cause notice. Additionally, the claim regarding the late issuance of orders after the limitation period was found to be contrary to mandatory statutory requirements.\nHeld: Orders passed by the adjudicating authority were set aside in part.\nCitations: Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector Sales Tax Gujranwala and others 2008 PTD 60", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "C. A. No.638/LB of 2009, decision dated: 5-10-2009, hearing DATE 17-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MHER MUHAMMAD ARIF SARGANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nMIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellants.\nSaleem Ullah SIO and Mushtaq Ahmad, D.S. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7920", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 713 = 2010 SLD 713 = 2010 PTD 335", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation and Under-Invoicing in Export Goods\nDetails:\nThe appellant was accused of under-invoicing scrap metal exports to evade regulatory duty. The valuation was challenged based on discrepancies between declared values and similar exports. However, the Tribunal found no falsity in the contract or shipping documents and emphasized that no physical comparison of goods was conducted. The case was ruled as an unjustified exercise of jurisdiction, with the appeal accepted and the previous decisions overturned.\nHeld: Appeal accepted, prior orders set aside.\nCitations: Messrs S.T. Enterprises through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan 2009 PTD 281", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.409/LB to 413/LB of 2009, decision dated: 31st July, 2009, hearing DATE : 28-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellants.\nFayyaz Ahmad, D.S. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7921", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 714 = 2010 SLD 714 = 2010 PTD 460", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Goods' Value and Adjudication Authority Limitations\nDetails:\nThe appellants misdeclared the value of goods in a Goods Declaration, leading to under-invoicing and defrauding the Government of Rs. 101,356. Despite the misdeclaration being established, the Assistant Collector who adjudicated the case was not authorized to handle cases with taxes over Rs. 300,000. The appeal resulted in the modification of the redemption fine and penalties, as the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction over the matter.\nHeld: Redemption fine and penalties remitted; appeal disposed of.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Appeal No.2054 of 2009, decision dated: 30-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SHAUKAT ALI, MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhabbat Hussain Awan for Appellant.\nAbdul Hameed, Appraising Officer for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7922", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 715 = 2010 SLD 715 = 2010 PTD 794", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 13538\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 2(s), 32, 45, 48, 156, 192 & 194-A---Misdeclaration of description of goods---Imposition of penalty---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Allegation against the appellant who was the Agent of a foreign concern, was that he misdeclared the description of goods in question and a penalty of Rs.25,00,000 was imposed on him---Validity---Nothing had been brought on record by the department which could prima facie establish that the appellant, in any circumstances, was involved in misdeclaration of the goods on the bill of lading; and was acting in collusion with the importer---In case of misdeclaration the initial burden was on the department to prove the guilt of mis¬declaration against the person charged with the allegation---Not a single word was available on record to show that the appellant, in connivance and in collusion with the importer, misdeclared the description of the goods---Appellant clearly established from the contents of the bill of lading; and the disclaimer therein that the quality, quantity and nature of the cargo stuffed inside the container was unknown to the carrier, shippers load stow and count ---Nothing had been brought on record by the department to disprove that what was stated on the bill of lading was incorrect and the appellant was acting in connivance with and/or in collusion with the importer---Case was of gross miscarriage of justice on the part of the department which malafidely involved the appellants in the case despite the fact that they did not bring any incriminating evidence, either oral or documentary on record; and yet they chose to implicate the appellant along with the Importer---Imposition of penalty on the appellant was illegal and void ab initio---Impugned order imposing penalty was set aside, in circumstances.\nEastern Federal Union Insurance Company v. American President Lines Ltd., PLD 1992 SC 291; Messrs P & O Containers Pakistan v. The Collector of Customs, SBLR 2001 Kar. 93 and Messrs Tariq Sheikh International v. The Additional Collector of Customs, 2005 PTD (Trib.) 10 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-12 of 2009 (Old Customs Appeal No.K-1105 of 2004), decision dated: 29-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MORON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Appellant.\nZahid Ahmed, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7923", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 716 = 2010 SLD 716 = 2010 PTD 832", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25, 32, 79, 81, 168, 179 & 194-A---Customs Rules, 2001, R.107(a)---Order to deposit the short levied duty and taxes---Appeal against---Appellant imported consignment of System Sensor and sought clearance thereof declaring its total value---Declared value of said imported items were found to be on lower side---Goods, however were released provisionally under S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969 and case was referred to the Directorate General of Customs, which determined the customs value, which resulted into short levy of duty and taxes---Adjudication proceedings were initiated against the appellant and it was ordered to deposit the short levied duty and taxes---Validity---Department had not alleged any mis-declaration in respect of the particulars of the goods including description, quantity, quality, type and specification, which were required to be filed and declared correctly in terms of S.79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969---Only allegation in the show-cause notice was in respect of the declared value of the imported items which was found to be on lower side---Customs Authorities in the case had failed to finalize the assessment of the appellant within the stipulated period as provided by subsection (2) of S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969---Provisional assessment made by the Customs Authorities in terms of S.81(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, in circumstances, had attained finality on the basis of declared value of the goods by the appellant and not in any other manner---After making provisional assessment order-in-original final assessment was issued after lapse of the statutory period, which order was not in accordance with law---Valuation data for enhancement of declared price in terms of Rule 107(a) of the Customs Rules, 2001 was not brought on record before two forums below as well as before the Appellate Tribunal by the department's counsel and the departmental representative---Enhancement of the transaction value of the appellant without any supporting data of contemporaneous imports pertaining to ninety days valuation data, in circumstances was arbitrary and unlawful and against the settled law---Order-in-original issued beyond the stipulated limits of ninety days, was unlawful and coram non judice---Gross miscarriage of justice was done on the part of the department as they had failed to bring any incriminating evidence, either oral or documentary on record---Impugned orders were set aside being without jurisdiction and ab initio void.\nDewan Farooq Motors Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Karachi 2006 PTD 1276; PLD 1974 SC 284; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 601; PTCL 2005 CL 17; 2005 PTD 9; 2008 PTD 578; Collector Central Excise and Land Customs v. Rahm Din 1987 SCMR 1840; Kamran Industries' case PLD 1996 Kar. 68; 1994 SCMR 2232; Messrs Nishat Mills Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise Circle-II and others PLD 1989 SC 222; 2003 GST P-521; 2004 PTD 2977; 2003 PTD 1797; 2001 SCMR 838; 2003 PTD 1997, 2005 PTD 480; 2004 PTD 714; 2002 PTD 2780; 2000 PTD 1798; Messrs Mansab Ali v. Amir and 3 others PLD 1971 SC 124; Messrs Hassan Trading Company v. Central Board of Revenue and others 2004 PTD 1979; 2002 PTD 2957; 2004 PTD 2993; 2006 PTD 1876; 2007 SCMR 1357; 2006 PTD 232; 2007 PTD 1858; 2008 PTD 1250; 2009 SCMR 438; 2008 PTD 60; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1263; 2009 PTD 762 and 100-Tax 42 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-315 of 2008, decision dated: 9-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for Appellant.\nAhmed Khan Bugti assisted by Abdul Majeed V.O. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7924", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 717 = 2010 SLD 717 = 2010 PTD 847", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 2(s), 16, 32, 156, 187 & 194-A---Seizure and confiscation of vehicle alleged to be smuggled one---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Vehicle in question was confiscated on the ground that same had been smuggled into the country and had been got registered on the basis of fake and forged documents---Appellant was admittedly a bona fide purchaser of said vehicle and there was no allegation against him for the commission of any customs offence---Case of the department against the appellant was that the vehicle belonging to the appellant entered into the country through unauthorized route avoiding payment of duty and taxes leviable thereon and registered against false customs/bank documents---Appellant was the fourth owner of the vehicle having purchased same after due verifications from the Motor Registration Authority---Original documents regarding the import formalities and payment of customs dues were supposed to be with the Excise and Taxation Department---To bring the case under S.2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, it was a mandatory requirement of law that either the party concerned had tried to get the release of the vehicle without payment of customs duty and taxes or the goods had been brought in the country from a prohibited route or it was seized within the notified area but in the present case nothing of the sort had been alleged against the appellant---Even otherwise, the goods which were available in the market were presumed to have been brought in the country after payment of customs duty and taxes---Detention of vehicle 1992 model in the year July, 2005, was devoid of force because importers and exporters were bound to maintain record for a maximum period of five years---Evidence of legal import was substantiated by the registration of vehicle---Action of the department, in circumstances, was based on the presumptions and department's contention regarding application of S.187 of the Customs Act, 1969, carried no weight---Appellant purchased the vehicle from the open market which was got registered with the Motor Vehicle Registration Authority---All official acts were presumed to have been done in accordance with law and under authority vested in that regard, unless contrary was proved---Appellant who was the fourth purchaser of the vehicle, produced Registration Book of the vehicle, which was never doubted---Appellant, in circumstances, had discharged the burden cast upon him under S.187 of the Customs Act, 1969---Action taken by the department being not warranted by law, impugned orders suffering from illegality, were set aside, in circumstances.\n1995 SCMR 387, 389 and 407; PLD 1975 Kar. 482; PLD 1978 Kar.774; PLD 1979 Kar. 68; Wafaq-e-Pakistan v. Awamunas 1998 SCMR 2041; 2003 PTD 2118 and Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi v. Ghulam Muhammad 2008 PTD 525 ref.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.K-86 of 2006, decision dated: 2-06-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Shomaila Saghir for Appellant.\nJunaid Abdul Majeed, I.O. and Syed Azam Shah, A.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7925", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 678 = 2009 SLD 678 = 2009 PTCL 818 = 2010 PTD 996", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 32 & 161(1)(14)---Qanun-e-Shandat (10 of 1984)---Customs Clearing Agents Rules, 2001 Rr. 105, 106 & 107---S.R.O. 487(I)/2007 dated 18-8-2007---Untrue statement, error, etc.---Clearing agent---Mis¬declaration of goods and attempt to clear foreign origin mobile phones and accessories without payment of duty/taxes fraudulently under the garb of `calcium carbonate'---Adjudicating Officer concluded that the offence against the Clearing Agent had been established, his clearing agency licence was liable to be cancellation but taking a lenient view on account of his cooperation with the Customs Authorities for providing important leads towards the offenders, a penalty was imposed for failing to exercise due diligence in performance of his duties with the warning to improve his working performance with the customs department---Validity---No clear cut finding of involvement of appellant in the commission of offence had been adjudged while passing the order that the appellant was involved intentionally with the business of importer and even no direct or documentary evidence was brought by the Department against the appellant at the time of adjudication, but conduct of the appellant was appreciated on the given cooperation towards the importer---Unless collusion, intentional fraud, mens rea or active connivance was proved against the appellant/agent, or solid evidence had been brought or the charge or allegations were proved according to the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, until then he was absolved from any liability, responsibility and could not be penalized, punished, held responsible and charged on the assumed act of connivance and mis-declaration---No clear cut finding of involvement had been observed against the appellant in the order nor any evidence was brought on the record against the appellant on the collusion or connivance by the department, but the charge was made only on the assumed collusion and connivance with the importer---Charged levelled, against the appellant was not legal, justifiable and sustainable in the eyes of law.\nPorts Ways Custom House Agent and another v. Collector of Customs and another 2002 YLR 2651 and 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2264 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal C. No. 54/CU/ATIB of 2009, decision dated: 4-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "HAFIZ AHSAAN AHMAD KHOKHAR CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Qazi for Appellant.\nFaiz Ali, Dy. Collector/D.R. and Pervaiz Awan, Dy. Superintendent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7926", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 718 = 2010 SLD 718 = 2010 PTD 1049", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25, 32, 32-A, 33, 156(1)(45) & 194-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.25---Misdeclaration of description and quality of imported goods---Confiscation of goods---Discrimination---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Goods imported by the appellant/importer were confiscated on allegation that scrutiny of the goods declaration had revealed that the importer had misdeclared the description and quality of the goods in question---Order-in-original had revealed that the department had deviated from its long standing practice and Examination Manual---Examining Officer had not given a conclusive and fair examination report which had been normally given after examination of the consignment---Examination report was defective inasmuch as it did not confirm that goods were of secondary quality or prime quality, but the Customs Examining Officer had just jotted down his personal opinion without mentioning any parameters or criteria or yardstick to substantiate the same by saying that in my opinion the goods were of secondary quality ---Adjudicating Officer also acted in violation of principles of natural justice and departmental practice as he had not only ignored that the examination report was deficient, sketchy, vague, unspecific and incomplete, but he overlooked comments of the departmental representative, Principal Appraiser, who had endorsed that the commercial documents suggested that the goods were of prime quality---Adjudicating Officer in haste outrightly confiscated the consignment which had definitely deprived the appellant of his vested right to clear his goods---Facility allowed to one and denied to the other was discrimination---Every citizen was equal in the eyes of law and any deviation from that rule would bring in provisions of Art.25(1) of the Constitution to rescue such citizen---Element of inter discrimination had crept up into the body fabric of the impugned order-in-original in addition to other legal infirmities and discrepancies patently floating on its surface---Facility of release of identical consignments imported by other importers had been extended without adjudication proceedings, despite the fact that their import values were almost at the same level as of the appellant---Impugned orders were not maintainable since those were suffering from patent legal infirmities---Same were set aside and Collector was directed to release the goods of the appellant after realizing leviable taxes against transaction value to be determined in terms of S.25(5) of the Customs Act, 1969.\n2005 SCMR 492 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-237 of 2008, decision dated: 4-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Zahid Hussain Khan for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7927", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 719 = 2010 SLD 719 = 2010 PTD 1450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 13543\n(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 79 (1)(b), 80, 81, 45, 32, 32A, & 179(1)(b)---Pakistan Customs Computerized System Rules, Rr. 400, 401, 402, 406, 433, 434, 435, 437, 438 & 442---S.R.O. 704(I)/2007 dated 14-7-2007---Declaration and assessment of goods for home consumption or warehousing---On line amendments in the particulars of consignment---Department contended that the importer actually imported Wooden strips , and information was received about gross misdeclaration and attempt of evasion of duty and taxes---Consignment was examined, miscellaneous items were found instead of Wooden strips , and the matter was under examination when the initial importer in connivance with shipping agent made online amendments in the name of consignee and particulars of the consignment by using their users IDs; and the Importer in connivance with initial importer and shipping agent attempted to deprive the government of its legitimate revenue and had committed violation of various sections of law---Order in original was very firm and sound while the First Appellate Authority had passed order against the facts and law---Amendments were made in the VIR/carrier's declaration against the spirit of R.406 of Customs Rules, 2001 and S.45 of the Customs Act, 1969---Payment of duty and taxes in terms of Cl. (b) of S. 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, under the self-assessment scheme, did not absolve an importer form the charge of an attempt to defraud the government through a foul play---Validity---Shipping agents were allowed to amend authorized data field in Vessel Intimation Report online for all incoming and outgoing vessels--Carrier's agents were also allowed to clear their outstanding dues on the first and fifteenth of each month---Words used in R.401(1) of the Customs Rules, 2001 that the carrier or his agent shall be entitled to amend authorized data fields in the Vessel Intimation Report by using their IDs online showed that online amendments made by the carrier or his agent shall be allowed without any prior permission against the prescribed fee---Rule 401 of the Customs Rules, 2001 prescribed that or by making an amendment electronically ; and disputed amend¬ments were tirade online by the carrier's agent on the request of cargo booking agent which were not objected to by the Collectorate at any stage, as a result of which the name of new importer with new description appeared in the Customs data field-Till making such amendments, previous importer had not filed any goods declaration by declaring the description as Wooden Strips---Importer had filed goods declaration after amendments without showing any haste which was accepted by the Collectorate without any objection and Customs Reference Number was also allotted to goods declaration---Declaration made in goods declaration were scrutinized by the Assessing Officer and release message was also communicated electronically---Consignment was put on hold and a show-cause notice was electronically served upon the importer, initial importer and carrier's agent after a period of more than one month of the purported examination and amendments thereby completely ignoring the fact that the importer had filed goods declaration, making true and accurate declaration of particulars of goods without concealing actual goods and nowhere declaring the goods as Wooden strips ---Case till revolves around the amendment and particulars initially declared by the shipping agent in vessel Intimation Report and carrier's declaration---Department was arbitrarily ignoring his own action, the developments and changes which had precipitated after the arrival of vessel and online amendments made in Vessel Intimation Report/carrier's declaration---Neither the initial nor the respondent importer had declared the goods as Wooden Strips before Customs---Goods Declaration was filed after online amendments which was accepted, processed and cleared as well---Respondent importer prior to filing of goods declaration had also paid duties and other allied taxes in terms of S. 79(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1969---All the requirements envisaged under statutes and rules were duly fulfilled in all respects---Charging the respondent importer for misdeclaration of description on the basis of initial information contained in Vessel Intimation Report or carrier's declaration was neither understandable nor warranted by law---Appeal had basically been crafted on the edifice of Vessel Intimation Report and carrier's declaration which were duly amended as per existing provisions of law--- Goods Declaration was filed/submitted in terms of S. 79(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with R.433 of Pakistan Customs Computerized System Rules, declaring therein true particulars of goods without concealing actual goods, not only this, the amount of duty and other taxes were also paid---Order of First Appellate Authority was quite exhaustive having no legal flaw or infirmity---Appeal of the Department was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal having no merits and substance.\nMessrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2003 PTD 552 rel.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n----S. 79(1)(b)-Pakistan Customs Computerized System Rules, R.433---Declaration and assessment of goods for home consumption or warehousing---Declaration of an importer, before the customs, for clearance of his goods begins with the submission of goods declaration in terms of R.433 of Pakistan Customs Computerized System Rules, read with S.79 of the Customs Act, 1969, which stipulates that Goods Declaration shall be deemed to have been submitted to Customs only when duty and taxes leviable thereon, if any, had been paid in terms of cl. (b) of subsection (1) of S. 79 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n----Ss. 79, 80, 81, & 83--- Pakistan Customs Computerized System Rules, Rr.433, 434,435,437, 438 & 492---Declaration and assessment of goods for home consumption or warehousing---Bona fide or mala fide intention---Evasion of taxes by making misdeclaration of particulars was only possible through submission of incorrect goods declaration as the examination, the assessment, checking of goods declaration and release of goods by the Customs officer was only possible when a goods declaration under S.79 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with R.433 of Pakistan Customs Computerized System Rules, was submitted by the importer, otherwise, neither declaration of the importer could be checked or viewed nor goods could be assessed, examined and released by the Customs after satisfying themselves about the declarations and payment of leviable taxes---Before adjudging the bona fide or mala fide intentions of an importer, mechanism devised in the Law and Rules was to be kept in mind as a whole.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n----Ss.32 & 32A---False statement, error, etc.---Examination of goods without waiting the declaration of importer ---Penal action---Validity---Before invoking provisions of S.32 or S. 32A of the Customs Act, 1969, Adjudicating officer must satisfy himself that the case squarely fell within the ambit of Ss.32 and 32-A of the Customs Act, 1969---Importer should be allowed to follow the provisions of Rules and law before taking any penal action---Department, totally ignoring the whole scheme of Customs Act, 1969 and Customs Rules, 2001 proceeded to examine the goods without first waiting the declaration of the importer in undue haste; particularly when the goods were in their safe custody and there was no danger of their clandestine removal---Provision of S.32A of the Customs Act, 1969 has also been invoked against the importer on the basis of Vessel Intimation Report/carrier's declaration, without meeting condition laid down in the provision of law, which did not exist in the data field of Pakistan Customs Computerized System---On the contrary, the importer's declaration of imported goods as miscellaneous goods in the customs documents viz. Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice and Goods Declaration had been totally ignored by the Customs which had not resulted into any loss of revenue to invoke the provisions of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969.\nMessrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2003 PTD 552 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-482 of 2008, decision dated: 27-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Yasin, Appraising Officer and Shahnawaz, Examining Officer for Appellant.\nRana Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7928", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 720 = 2010 SLD 720 = 2010 PTD 1754 = 2011 PTCL 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMisdeclaration and Customs Duty in Import of Life Saving Equipment\n•\nDetails: The importer filed a declaration for the clearance of goods, which were exempt from customs duty and sales tax, but subject to advance income tax under S.148 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Goods were assessed on a revised value, which led to allegations of evading duty and taxes through untrue import documents. A redemption fine and penalty were imposed on the importer and clearing agent. The importer contested that the goods were life-saving equipment, exempt from customs duties, and that the income tax had been charged incorrectly.\n•\nHeld: The imposition of the redemption fine and penalty was found to be contrary to the law. The appeal was allowed, and the show-cause notice was discharged. The importer was liable only to pay advance tax at 2%, as per S.R.O. 566(I)/08, along with any penalty under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.\n•\nCitations: 2007 SCMR 1131 = 2007 PTD 1473, Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company v. Collector of Sales Tax, Rawalpindi Appeal C. No. 52/ST/IB of 2004, Messrs SCAN and Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Appraisement Karachi PTCL 1999 CL 114.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 1384/LB of 2008, decision dated: 26-02-2009, hearing DATE : 23rd February, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hussain Ahmad Sherazi for Appellant.\nRehan, Inspector for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7929", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 721 = 2010 SLD 721 = 2010 PTD 1983", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nQuality of Imported Stainless Steel and Misdeclaration\n•\nDetails: Dispute arose over the quality of imported stainless steel, with allegations that the goods were of secondary quality, while the importer claimed they were prime quality. The Pakistan Steel Mills report confirmed the goods contained nickel below the required amount for prime stainless steel, but the First Appellate Authority dismissed this test. Upon review, it was concluded that the goods did not meet the criteria for prime quality due to missing chromium and other components.\n•\nHeld: The goods were determined to be of secondary quality. However, the charge of misdeclaration under Ss. 32 & 32A of the Customs Act was not substantiated, as no false declaration had been made. The charges were not upheld.\n•\nCitations: Customs Appeal No. K-151 of 2006; 1986 MLD 190; PLD 1996 Kar. 68; 2002 PTD 2957; 2004 PTD 38; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 617, 2006 PTD 909; 2008 PTD 1250; 2008 SCMR 438 and 2009 PTD 467.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-232 of 2008, decision dated: 6-08-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin, A.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7930", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 722 = 2010 SLD 722 = 2010 PTD 2204", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nProvisional Assessment and Time Limit for Show-Cause Notice\n•\nDetails: After the provisional assessment of a consignment was made, the final determination of the customs value was issued based on a valuation ruling. A show-cause notice was issued to the importer demanding payment of short levied duties, taxes, and penalties. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the order, ruling that the show-cause notice was barred by time and that no allegations of misdeclaration had been made.\n•\nHeld: The show-cause notice was deemed to be out of time and invalid. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was allowed.\n•\nCitations: Rehan Umer v. Collector of Customs, Karachi and 2 others 2006 PTD 909; Messrs CIBA GEIGY (Pakistan) Limited v. Deputy Controller of Customs Valuation, Karachi and 2 others 2005 PTD 1131.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. K-333 of 2006, decision dated: 15-02-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Aziz, Appraising Officer for Appellant.\nShaukat Hayat for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7931", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 723 = 2010 SLD 723 = 2010 PTD 2432", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Value Determination and Reassessment\n•\nDetails: The importers challenged a reassessment of the customs value of their imported goods after the appraisers demanded additional duty and taxes. The importers contended that their declared value was in accordance with the transaction value, but the customs authorities failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding undervaluation.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was allowed. The importers had discharged the burden of proof as per S. 25(1) of the Customs Act and R. 109 of Customs Rules, 2001. The customs authorities failed to establish that the declared value was incorrect.\n•\nCitations: Kamran Industry v. Collector of Customs, Exports PLD 1986 Kar. 68; Punjab Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CEST and 2 others 2002 PTD 2957; Messrs Collector of Customs, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim v, Messrs Zymotic Diagnostic Int'l., Faisalabad 2008 SCMR 438.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.K-288 to K-292 of 2009, decision dated: 2-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIL MORON, JUDICIAL (MEMBER-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Constultant for Appellant.\nShahid Dasti, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7932", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 724 = 2010 SLD 724 = 2010 PTD 2472", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Goods and Confiscation\nDetails: The case involved allegations against the importer for deliberately misdeclaring the description, classification, quantity, and value of imported goods to defraud the government of Rs. 207,404. The goods were confiscated, but the importer was given the option to redeem them after paying a redemption fine. However, the Examining Officer did not clearly state that the quantity was in excess, and the show-cause notice did not specify the goods involved. The Customs Department failed to substantiate its claim regarding the misdeclaration of value.\nHeld: The charges of excess quantity were not substantiated as no clear statement was made in the examination report. The misdeclaration of value was based on presumptive considerations and lacked evidence. As the goods were not mentioned in the show-cause notice, the adjudicating authority could not subsequently address them. The orders were set aside as the show-cause notice was defective.\nCitations:\n•\nThe Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and others v. Rahm Din 1987 SCMR 1840\n•\nMessrs Mughal Tobacco Limited v. Collector of Customs 1986 MLD 190\n•\nMessrs Kamran Industries v. The Collector of Customs, Exports and 4 others PLD 1996 Kar. 68\n•\nMessrs Punjab Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Appellate Tribunal Customs and Excise and Sales Tax and 2 others 2002 PTD 2957\n•\nInnovative Trading Co. Ltd. v. Appellate Tribunal and 2 others 2004 PTD 38", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-573 of 2009, decision dated: 31st August, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7933", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 725 = 2010 SLD 725 = 2010 PTD 2523", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Import of Banned Vehicles and Redemption Fine\nDetails: The importers declared the import of old and used Refrigerated Lorries, which were not permissible under the Import Policy Order 2006-2007. The Assistant Collector imposed a redemption fine of 30% of the value of the offending goods, which was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The importers contended that their import was lawful under the applicable Import Policy Order.\nHeld: The assessment order had become final after the lapse of time for appeal, and the Customs Authorities could not reopen the case through adjudication proceedings. The Customs Officers did not have the right to challenge the assessment orders, which were finalized through proper procedures. Only the Federal Board of Revenue or Collector of Customs could reopen the case under S.195 of the Customs Act. The imposition of redemption fine was not legally justified.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs Kamran Industries v. The Collector of Customs PLD 1996 Karachi 68\n•\nMessrs Pfizer Laboratories v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 358\n•\nEduljee v. Federation of Pakistan 1990 PTD 155\n•\n2003 PTD 2090", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.K-435 to K-455 of 2008, decision dated: 21st June, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shamshad Younus for Appellant.\nSibtain Mahmood, Advocate assisted by Ghulam Yasin A.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7934", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 726 = 2010 SLD 726 = 2010 PTD 2576", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal to Collector (Appeals) and Limitation\nDetails: The First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time-barred, but the appellant argued that the case was sub judice with the Federal Tax Ombudsman, justifying the delay. The differential treatment given to the appellant compared to another appeal was also challenged.\nHeld: The delay in filing the appeal was justified due to the case being under review with the Federal Tax Ombudsman. The First Appellate Authority should have condoned the delay, and the differential treatment violated Article 25 of the Constitution. The appeal was allowed.\nCitations:\n•\nMessrs K.K. Enterprises v. Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise (Appeals) Customs Appeal No.K-112 of 2006\n•\n2002 SCMR 312\n•\nPLD 1995 SC 396\n•\n1990 SCMR P. 1072", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-192 of 2006, decision dated: 29-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant for Appellant.\nNajamlul Hassan Jamali, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7935", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 727 = 2010 SLD 727 = (2010) 101 TAX 229 = 2010 PTCL 868 = 2010 PTD 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional assessment, finalization, and valuation of imported goods\nDetails: Customs authorities challenged the decision of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the finalization of provisional assessment for imported goods. The authorities argued that the provisional assessment was completed within the legal timeframe, and the valuation of goods was based on proper evidence. The Tribunal had earlier ruled that the final assessment was made after the one-year period, hence making it void, and that the provisional assessment should have become final under Section 81(4) of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the validity of the provisional assessment and demand notice, concluding that the finalization was within the statutory one-year period. The Tribunal’s view was incorrect, as the final assessment was based on a demand notice, which incorporated all necessary components of a final assessment. The Court also agreed with the Tribunal’s finding that the valuation of the imported goods lacked proper supporting documentation, thus dismissing the reference.\nCitations: Messrs Golden Plastic (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs and others PLD 2002 Kar. 54, Messrs Abdul Aziz Ayoob v. Assistant Collector of Customs and others PLD 1990 Kar. 378", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No. 154 of 2008 decided on 3rd November, 2009, hearing DATE : 14-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant.\nZiaul Hassan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS CHINA NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES and othersHYDROPOWER ENGINEERING, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7936", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 728 = 2010 SLD 728 = 2010 PTCL 973 = 2010 PTD 870", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court jurisdiction, short levy recovery, and classification of imported goods\nDetails: The case concerned the application of the correct PCT heading for the classification of titanium dioxide imported goods. Following a post-importation audit, a show-cause notice was issued to recover the short levy due to misclassification of the goods. The importer argued that the department had applied a new classification retroactively, which was contested.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the department's decision, finding that no new levy was imposed. The issue arose from the misclassification, and the importer was required to pay the difference in short levied duties. The Court refused to interfere with the authorities' decision.\nCitations: Messrs Nazir Ahmed v. Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 453, Messrs Radhka Corporation v. Collector of Customs 1989 SCMR 353, and others.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Application No.100 of 2009, decision dated: 14-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia-ul-Hassan for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS P & G INTERNATIONAL\nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, (APPRAISEMENT GRII), KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7937", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 729 = 2010 SLD 729 = 2010 PTCL 1054 = 2010 PTD 922", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure, confiscation, and sale of jewellery\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the customs authority’s seizure and confiscation of gold and silver jewellery under passenger baggage regulations. The authority had sent the gold to the Mint and deposited silver with the State Bank. The petitioner sought a refund of the sale proceeds of the confiscated goods.\nHeld: The High Court quashed the notice for the disposal of goods, stating that the authority was obligated to refund the sale proceeds if the goods were sold, after deducting necessary charges. The petitioner was entitled to receive either the return of the jewellery or its sale proceeds, depending on the disposal of the goods.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=169", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1409 and C.M.A. No. 7640 of 2009, decision dated: 25-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Qureshi for Petitioner.\nKhalil Dogar for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\nMian Khan Malik, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUSAF \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7938", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 730 = 2010 SLD 730 = 2010 PTD 1001", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Tampered vehicle auction and Customs authority's procedure\nDetails: The complainant sought the cancellation of a bid for a tampered confiscated vehicle, arguing that Customs had not followed correct procedures and policies regarding tampered vehicles. Issues included the issuance of sale certificates, the failure to verify the chassis number, and irregularities in registration.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the tampered vehicle be taken back by Customs and that the complainant receive the sale value and repair charges after depreciation. It also called for responsibility to be fixed for maladministration, including the failure to comply with regulations for auctioning tampered vehicles.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Complaint No.266 of 2009, decision dated: 1st December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nijat Khan and Bilal Khurshid Anwar for the Complainant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "BILAL HUSSAIN\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7939", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 731 = 2010 SLD 731 = 2010 PTCL 939 = 2010 PTD 1060", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggled vehicle, ownership proof, and confiscation\nDetails: Customs seized a vehicle owned by the petitioner, suspecting it to be smuggled. The petitioner provided a registration book and letters from Pakistan Coast Guards, but Customs contended that the documents were not valid proof of ownership, and the Coast Guards denied selling the vehicle.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the Customs authorities' decision, stating that the petitioner had failed to provide sufficient evidence of legitimate ownership. The vehicle was determined to be smuggled, and Customs was justified in its confiscation. The petition was dismissed.\nCitations: Iftikhar Ahmed v. Secretary Revenue Division 2003 PTD 1739, Shehzad Ahmed Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan 2005 PTD 23", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1047 of 2005, decision dated: 22-01-2010, hearing DATE : 21st October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Petitioners.\nShafi Muhammadi for Respondent No. 1.\nAshiq Raza, D.A.G. for Respondents Nos. 2 & 5.\nAdman Karim, A.A.G. Sindh along with Ejaz Ali for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAKEEMUDDIN and others\nVS\nDIRECTOR GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS and EXCISE) THROUGH DIRECTOR, KARACHI and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7940", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 732 = 2010 SLD 732 = 2010 PTD 1177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Import of poultry feed containing traces of pork meat/bones\nDetails: The Supreme Court, exercising suo motu powers, addressed the import of poultry feed with traces of pork meat/bones. Notices were issued to the importers and authorities. It was ruled that the importers, who were penalized under Sections 32 and 156(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, must pay the imposed penalties. Additionally, the importers were required to either re-export the goods within three weeks or face destruction of the consignment. The customs department was instructed to ensure the exercise was completed within four weeks under the supervision of the Member Customs Federal Board of Revenue.\nHeld: Importers must either re-export or have the goods destroyed under the customs supervision. Payments for penalties must be made to the Customs department. The matter would be treated as final.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32 & 156(4); Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 184(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 2482 of 2007 and Suo Motu Case No. 15 of 2007, decision dated: 7-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nCH. IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nMAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Punjnad Feed. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for National Feed.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7941", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 733 = 2010 SLD 733 = 2010 PTD 1376", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs value of goods – Provisional assessment\nDetails: The petitioner sought the release of a consignment based on provisional assessment under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969. However, the goods were already assessed using the valuation advice issued by the Directorate-General of Customs Valuation, following the procedures under Section 25 of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The request for provisional assessment was not feasible since a valid valuation letter had already been issued. The petition was dismissed due to the factual controversy being unsuitable for resolution in constitutional petition.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25 & 81; Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 16279 of 2009, decision dated: 18-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Nizami for Petitioner.\nGhulam Ali Raza for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GLACIER INTERNATIONAL THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7942", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 734 = 2010 SLD 734 = 2010 PTD 2015", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure and confiscation of smuggled tyres\nDetails: Tyres were seized and truck confiscated for smuggling, and the Appellate Tribunal released the truck and tyres upon payment of duty and redemption fine. The High Court reviewed the matter, focusing on whether the truck was involved in smuggling. The authorities failed to establish that false cavities existed in the truck as defined by S.R.O. 499(I)/2009.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the decision to release the truck and tyres, as the truck had not previously been involved in smuggling and the false cavities provision did not apply.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s) & 156; S.R.O. 499(I)/2009.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No. 24 of 2010, decision dated: 14-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "IQBAL HAMEED UR RAHMAN, JUSTICE\nCH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sultan Mahmood for Petitioner.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS \nVS\nREHMAT AFRIDI and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7943", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 735 = 2010 SLD 735 = 2010 PTD 2018", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Hotel Tax and Vires of Hotel Tax Rules\nDetails: The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the North-West Frontier Province Hotel Tax Rules, 2003, and the validity of the maximum charges for lodging units in a hotel under the North-West Frontier Province Finance Ordinance. The appellant contended that the tax was improperly assessed on the highest room rent and did not align with the parent statute.\nHeld: The Supreme Court declared Rule 4(1) of the North-West Frontier Province Hotel Tax Rules, 2003, ultra vires the North-West Frontier Province Finance Ordinance, 2002. The authorities were directed to reassess the tax for the period in question.\nCitations: North West Frontier Province Finance Ordinance (XXIII of 2002), Ss. 4 & 5; North-West Frontier Province Finance (Amendment) Ordinance (VII of 2003), S.4; North West Frontier Province Hotel Tax Rules, 2003, R.4; West Punjab Province v. K.B. Amir-ud-Din and others PLD 1953 Lah. 433; Muhammad Younas v. Chairman Municipal Committees, Sahiwal and others PLD 1984 Lah. 345; Pakistan through Secretary Finance v. Aryan Petro Chemical Industries 2003 SCMR 370.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "North West Frontier Province Finance Ordinance (XXIII of 2002)=4", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 240 of 2005 in C.P. No. 2720 of 2004, decision dated: 20-07-2010, hearing DATE : 29-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nRAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Naeem Bukhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Masood Kausar, Advocate Supreme Court, Syed Arshad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court along with Zia-ur-Rehman, A.G. N.W.F.P. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL and others \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7944", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 736 = 2010 SLD 736 = 2010 PTD 2035 = 2011 PTCL 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of imported goods\nDetails: The Deputy Director, Customs Valuation, attempted to determine the valuation of imported goods under Section 25-A(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.\nHeld: The Deputy Director did not have the authority to determine the valuation of the goods.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.25-A(1).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14408 of 2009, decision dated: 20-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN QADIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nSultan Mehmood on behalf of Izhar-ul-Haq for Department.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MUHAMMAD HANIF CHAUHAN \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7945", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 737 = 2010 SLD 737 = 2010 PTD 1960", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Rectification of Mistake in Appellate Tribunal's Order\nDetails: The Additional Collector of Customs filed an application for rectification of the Appellate Tribunal's order, claiming that the imported goods were of Prime quality rather than Secondary. The importer argued that no apparent mistake was present on the order's face, and the application was filed with ulterior motives.\nHeld: The application for rectification was dismissed. The delay in filing the application and the lack of evident mistake on the record made it unjustifiable. The attempt was deemed an exercise in futility and intended to bypass the Importer's complaint with the Federal Tax Ombudsman.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Appeal No.535/2003\n•\nPLD 1997 SC 865\n•\n2007 PTD 967\n•\n2009 PTD 2189\n•\n2009 PTD 1664", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Rectification Application in Customs Appeal No. K-232 of 2008, decision dated: 19-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Dasti, A.O. for Applicant.\nNadeem Ahmed Mirza Consultant for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BANOORI CUSTOMS AGENCY, AIRPORT, PESHAWAR and 5 others \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX and FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7946", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 931 = 2011 SLD 931 = 2011 PTD 596", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Short Payment of Duty and Liability of Principal and Agent\nDetails: Audit revealed that goods in commercial quantity were cleared without redemption fines and that short duty was paid by the principal and clearing agent. The Deputy Collector ordered payment of the shortfall.\nHeld: The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Officer to determine if the short payment was due to negligence or default, and to issue a speaking order on the liability of the clearing agent.\nCitations:\n•\nS.209(3) of the Customs Act, 1969", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 173/PB of 2010, decision dated: 10-11-2010, hearing DATE : 11-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SHER NAWAZ MEMBER, (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Danish Ali Qazi for Appellants.\nNaseer Khan, D.S. and Aziz-ur-Rehman, D.S. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7947", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 932 = 2011 SLD 932 = 2011 PTD 987", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Goods and Penalty Imposition\nDetails: The appellant was charged with misdeclaration of the value of imported goods after filing a goods declaration and paying tax liabilities. The appellant claimed that the declared value was the actual transaction value, supported by documents and a revised invoice.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the appellant's declared value was valid, as no evidence of malpractice or fraudulent documents was presented. The original order was set aside, as it was based on faulty procedures.\nCitations:\n•\nS.25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969\n•\nS.156 of the Customs Act, 1969", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-628 of 2009, decision dated: 24-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II\nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin, Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UNIQUE WIRE INDUSTRIES, KARACHI\nVS\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7948", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 933 = 2011 SLD 933 = 2011 PTD 1032", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Clearance of Imported Steel Sheets and Valuation Issues\nDetails: The importers cleared steel sheets at a lower value, bypassing a valuation ruling, leading to short levies in duty. The importers contended that proceedings based on specific sections were invalid, and limitations had expired.\nHeld: The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Officer for fresh consideration, addressing the points raised by the appellants and departmental officers.\nCitations:\n•\nS.25-A & S.32A of the Customs Act, 1969\n•\nS.32(3A) of the Customs Act, 1969", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos. K-164 to K-166, K-452 to K-534, K-540 to K-544, K-1112 to K-1115 and K-1118 of 2010, decision dated: 21st February, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOTON, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II\nMUHAMMAD ARSHAD, MEMBER TECHNICAL-II", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Awan for Appellant (in Customs Appeals Nos.K-164 to 166 of 2010).\nHaji Yousuf, Consultant for Appellant (in Customs Appeals Nos.K-540 to 544 of 2010 and 452 to 534 of 2010).\nAsim Munir Bajwa for Appellant (in Customs Appeals Nos.K-1112 to 1115 and 1118 of 2010).\nAbdul Wabeed A.C. (Appraisement) Ghulam Yasin Appraising Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAMIM TIN MERCHANT, KARACHI and others\nVS\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS), COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7949", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 934 = 2011 SLD 934 = 2011 PTD 1146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Service of Show-Cause Notice and Misdeclaration of P.C.T. Heading\nDetails: The show-cause notice and order-in-original were not properly served on the appellant, rendering the orders null and void. Additionally, the appellant was charged with misdeclaration of P.C.T. heading for classification of goods, which was disputed.\nHeld: The show-cause notice was not served, making the original and appeal orders invalid. No misdeclaration offense was found, as the citation of P.C.T. headings was a request, not a punishable offense.\nCitations:\n•\nS.215 of the Customs Act, 1969\n•\nMessrs Darbar Impex v. Central Board of Revenue\n•\n1999 SCMR 1881\n•\n2006 PTD 1207", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=215", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. K-671 of 2009, decision dated: 26-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARIF MOWN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza Consultant for Appellant.\nSikandar Ali Junejo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KAKA TRADERS, KARACHI\nVS\nADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7950", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 935 = 2011 SLD 935 = 2011 PTD 1615", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure and Confiscation of Vehicle Due to Misdeclaration\n•\nDetails: The Deputy Collector of Customs Anti-Smuggling Division ordered the confiscation of a seized vehicle due to misdeclaration. The vehicle had been imported under the notification for defence store, which did not restrict subsequent sales. The vehicle's import and sale occurred before the issuance of a notification requiring sale permission.\n•\nHeld: The vehicle was legally imported and sold under the applicable laws at the time, and therefore, the order for its release to the rightful owner was made.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) Ss. 32, 156(1)(10-a)(14), 168 & 194-A, S.R.O. 358(I)/2002, S.R.O. 576(I)/2006.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Appeal No.Cus.200/PB of 2010, decision dated: 13-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHALID NASIM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellants.\nPir Zaheer-ud-Din, Superintendent for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AUTOMOBILE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT) LTD and 2 others\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX and FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PESHAWAR and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7951", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 936 = 2011 SLD 936 = 2011 PTD 1695", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nIncorrect Application of Excise Duty on Importer\n•\nDetails: An importer was charged with short payment of excise duty due to an error in the one custom system that affected the duty calculation. The system's error led to a short realization of duties. The importer argued that the system's faults were beyond their control.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the department was responsible for the error in the system, not the importer, and the show-cause notice was quashed.\n•\nCitations: Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Customs Act (IV of 1969), Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Customs General Order 12 of 2002, S.R.O. 371(I)/2002, PLD 1971 SC 124, Messrs Kamran Industries v. Collector Customs (Exports) Karachi.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 397/PB of 2009, decision dated: 2-04-2011, hearing DATE : 14-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irshad Ahmad Durrani and Amir Bilal for Appellants.\nNaseer Khan and Fazlur Rehman, Deputy Superintendents Customs for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS NAIAMY INTERNATIONAL IMPORTS/EXPORTS, PESHAWAR CANTT\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), PESHAWAR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7952", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 937 = 2011 SLD 937 = 2011 PTD 1936", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nJurisdiction for Post-Clearance Audit by Directorate of Intelligence\n•\nDetails: The Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation attempted to audit an importer's records four years after clearance, which was deemed a post-clearance audit. The department argued the audit was necessary for verifying smuggling-related activities.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Directorate had no jurisdiction to conduct the audit after such a long period, and their actions were deemed unlawful.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) S. 3E, S.R.O. 486(I)/2007, Shahzad Ahmad Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan, Syed Muhammad Razi v. Collector of Customs.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=3", + "Case #": "C.A. No.140/LB of 2010, decision dated: 9-09-2010, hearing DATE : 6-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD HANIF TAHIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Basit for Appellant.\nAhmad Kamal, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS UMAR USMAN and othersONS, MULTAN\nVS\nSUPERINTENDENT, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION, F.B.R., MULTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7953", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 938 = 2011 SLD 938 = 2011 PTD 2033", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of Goods in Smuggling Case\n•\nDetails: Goods were seized for allegedly violating smuggling regulations but no attempt to cross customs controls was substantiated. The goods were held in customs control without evidence of smuggling.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal found no evidence of an attempt to evade duty or breach customs control, and the goods were ordered to be released to the rightful owner upon payment of a fine.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s), 16, 32, 139, 167, 168, 171, 194-A, Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950) S.3.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus.362/PB of 2010, decision dated: 31st March, 2011, hearing DATE : 30-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHER NAWAZ, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "IIrshad Ahmad Durrani for Appellant.\nAziz-ur-Rehman, D.S., Sher Ahmad Khan, Inspector and Syed Asifullah, Inspector for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD FAROOQ\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APFEAL) PESHAWAR and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7954", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 939 = 2011 SLD 939 = 2011 PTD 2114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompetence of Deputy Collector to Adjudicate\n•\nDetails: A Deputy Collector of Customs was found to lack the legal authority to adjudicate a case involving substantial duty and taxes, as the monetary threshold exceeded the limits defined under the Customs Act. Additionally, there were procedural flaws in the filing and signing of appeals.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal ruled that the Deputy Collector lacked the authority to adjudicate and the appeal process was flawed, resulting in the dismissal of the case.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969) Ss. 174-A, 179(1), 32(3-A), 2(b), S.R.O. 371(I)/2002.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=174", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus.17/PB of 2011, decision dated: 16-05-2011, hearing DATE : 7-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHER NAWAZ (MEMBER TECHNICAL)\nGULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Hussain Superintendent Customs and Azizur Rehman, Deputy Superintendent Customs for Appellant.\nPir Alam Shah, Consultant for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS (APPEALS), PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7955", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 940 = 2011 SLD 940 = 2011 PTD 2139", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of Transit Goods\n•\nDetails: Goods meant for Afghan Transit were seized under suspicion of being interchangeable auto parts, banned under Afghan Transit Trade regulations. The goods were initially ordered to be released but were later confiscated after re-examination.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal set aside the confiscation order due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in expert opinions. The goods were released to the rightful owner.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 128, 129, 156(1), 194-A & 195, Imports and", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=128", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus.263/PB of 2010, decision dated: 22-02-2011. DATE or nearing: 25-01-2011", + "Judge Name:": "GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Danish Ali Qazi for Appellants.\nNaseer Khan, Deputy Superintendent Customs and Fazal Mehmood, Inspector Customs for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHIRKAT KHUSHBAKHT SULTAN LTD and others \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7956", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 941 = 2011 SLD 941 = 2011 PTD 1222", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCoercive Recovery Actions Despite Pending Refund Claims\n•\nDetails: The complainant alleged wrongful deduction of amounts by Customs despite a pending refund claim. The issue concerned the simultaneous settlement of refund claims and recoveries.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Customs settle the refund claim promptly and avoid deducting amounts before finalizing the refund. The Federal Board of Revenue was directed to issue guidelines on handling such cases.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 33, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3)(i), 9 & 10.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No.240 of 2010, decision dated: 5-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GADOON TEXTILE MILLS, SAWABI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7957", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 942 = 2011 SLD 942 = 2011 PTD 1391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDenial of Refund Claim Due to Incorrect Demand Notice\n•\nDetails: The complainant challenged a demand notice issued by the department while their refund claim was pending. The issue was about the timing and process of deducting amounts when the refund was still unresolved.\n•\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal allowed the refund claim, highlighting that the demand notice was unjust due to the pending refund.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 33, Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 9 & 10.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No.160/Khi/Customs(79)/690/2010, decision dated: 2-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SITARA PEROXIDE LIMITED, FAISALABAD \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7958", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 943 = 2011 SLD 943 = 2011 PTD 1406", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Allegation of Maladministration and Embezzlement of Imported Goods\nDetails: The complainant, who had imported urea formaldehyde and glazing powder, found his goods cleared by unauthorized parties and transported to his brother-in-law's address. Allegations of embezzlement and maladministration were raised, involving customs, Dry Port authorities, and private individuals. The complainant’s failure to act promptly or contest violations was noted as complicity in the fraud.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended a thorough investigation by the Federal Board of Revenue into the case, including examining the legality of clearing consignments without documents and holding those involved accountable.\nCitations: Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 9 & 10, Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25, 44, 48 & 216.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No.206/Isd/Cus(23)/785 of 2009, decision dated: 31st March, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor, Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASIF SIDDIQ\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7959", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 944 = 2011 SLD 944 = 2011 PTD 1553", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Maladministration Regarding Exemption and Refund Claim\nDetails: The complainant sought a refund for duty on imported ground handling equipment but faced unreasonable delays despite an appellate decision in his favor. The customs delayed payment, citing unconfirmed sales tax adjustments, creating undue hardship.\nHeld: The Ombudsman directed the Federal Board of Revenue to expedite the refund, fix accountability for the delay, and improve systems to address similar cases within a specified time frame.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 19 & 33, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 9, 10 & 11.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Complaint No.185/ISD/CUS(21)/727/2009, decision dated: 25-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GERRY DNATA (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7960", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 945 = 2011 SLD 945 = (2011) 104 TAX 201 = 2011 PTCL 884 = 2011 PTD 1594", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Determination of Customs Value and Bank Guarantee\nDetails: The complainant sought the return of a bank guarantee after the customs department rejected the transaction value of imported electronic goods, imposing duties based on market inquiries. The case involved the determination of customs duties and the issue of passing on the burden to consumers.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, noting that the importer failed to prove he had not passed the customs duties on to the consumer and upheld the valuation advice based on the wholesale market price.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 19-A & 25, Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos.D-1016 and 1017 of 2010, decision dated: 13-04-2011, hearing DATE : 8-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ziaul Hassan for Petitioner.\nRespondent No. 1 (in person).\nRespondent No. 2 (in person).\nRespondent No. 3 (in person).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ORIENT COLOR LAB (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR\nVS\nTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CUSTOMS VALUATION, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7961", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 946 = 2011 SLD 946 = 2011 PTD 1626", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Duty Drawback Claim\nDetails: The complainant faced delays of 2-3 years in processing duty drawback claims, highlighting systemic inefficiencies within the customs.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended the Federal Board of Revenue to settle the claims within 30 days, address systemic delays, and submit progress reports regularly.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 35, Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 455-460, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 9, 10 & 11.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=35", + "Case #": "Compliant No.233-KHI/Cust(70)/708/2009, dated 5-11-2009, decision dated: 17-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Ahmad, Advisor, Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SULTEX INDUSTRIES \nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7962", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 947 = 2011 SLD 947 = 2011 PTD 1638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration and Confiscation of Goods\nDetails: The complainant's goods, declared as Yellow Sulphur Clay, were reclassified by customs as Sulphur Powder 99.9% Pure. The goods were confiscated based on misdeclaration, though the adjudicating process lacked proper evidence and laboratory reports.\nHeld: The Ombudsman found maladministration due to the failure to provide evidence and directed refunds for the demurrage charges and container costs, with accountability for the officials involved.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25, 80, 81, 168, 216 & 217, Customs Rules, 2001, R.389, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 9, 10 & 11.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No.315/Khi/Customs(135)/1195 of 2010, decision dated: 12-11-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN\nJUSTICE (RETD.) M. NADIR KHAN, ADVISOR DEALING OFFICER.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALHAMRA TRADING COMPANY\nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7963", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 948 = 2011 SLD 948 = (2011) 104 TAX 21 = 2011 PTD 1117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition Regarding Customs Valuation\nDetails: The complainant filed a constitutional petition challenging the customs valuation advice affirmed in review by the Director General Valuation. The matter concerned the determination of customs values of imported goods.\nHeld: The constitutional petition was dismissed on the grounds that an alternate remedy of appeal was available and had not been pursued.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 19-A, 25, 25-A, 25-D & 194-A(1)(e), Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 15494 of 2010, decision dated: 7-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nSultan Mehmood for Customs Department.\nMajid Anwar, Advocate for respondents Nos.4, 5 and 6.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MAXI INC\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7964", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 949 = 2011 SLD 949 = 2011 PTD 1166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty for Failure to Place Commercial Invoice Inside Container\nDetails: The complainant, an importer, was penalized for not having the commercial invoice and packing list inside the container, though the overseas exporter failed to fulfill the contractual obligation.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended reconsideration of the penalty, allowing the complainant to present evidence of the exporter’s failure and determining responsibility for the penalty.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156(1)(i), 195 & 219, Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 389 & 391, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 9(2)(b) & 10(4).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Complaint No.250/Khi/Customs(73)/754/2009, decision dated: 17-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saeed Akhtar, Dealing Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS LUCKY CEMENT LIMITED, KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7965", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 950 = 2011 SLD 950 = 2011 PTD 1181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Determination and Review Application\nDetails: The issue was whether the final determination of provisional assessments was made within the required time limit under the Customs Act, 1969.\nHeld: The Ombudsman held that the final determination was made within the prescribed time limit, and the failure to pursue the review application rendered the matter infructuous.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 25-D & 81(2), Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 9 & 10.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No. C-46/Khi/Cust (26)/333/2010, decision dated: 7-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ANM TRADING COMPANY THROUGH MESSRS NADEEM & COMPANY, KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7966", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 951 = 2011 SLD 951 = (2011) 104 TAX 12 = 2011 PTCL 804 = 2011 PTD 1185 = 2011 SCMR 967", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Extension of Time for Final Assessment\nDetails: The final assessment order was passed after the time for determination was extended, but no exceptional circumstances were recorded to justify the extension.\nHeld: The Ombudsman set aside the final assessment order as the conditions for the extension were not met.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 81(2).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81(2)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 282 and 283 of 2010, decision dated: 1st April, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADDUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE\nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.\nShehzada Mazhar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others\nVS\nMESSRS SHAFIQ TRADERS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7967", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 952 = 2011 SLD 952 = 2011 PTD 1214", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Imposition of Penalty for Misdeclaration\nDetails: The complainant, a customs clearing agent, was unjustly penalized without being served a show-cause notice or given an opportunity for hearing.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended that the penalty be reviewed, as the complainant had no role in the alleged misdeclaration and was not involved in the fraudulent activity.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32, 32-A & 156(1)(14)(14-A)(45), Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3)(i), 9 & 10.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Shariat Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Complaint No.280/Khi/Cust(124)/1081 of 2010, decision dated: 25-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PACKNMOVE \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7968", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 953 = 2011 SLD 953 = 2011 PTD 1245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Denial of Refund for Re-imported Machinery\nDetails: The complainant sought a refund for duties and taxes imposed on re-imported machinery after repair abroad, but the customs authorities imposed the tax again.\nHeld: The Ombudsman recommended that the refund be processed correctly based on the actual repair cost, and action be taken against the customs officials involved in mishandling the case.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 33, Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3), 9, 10 & 16.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Complaint No.70/Khi/Customs(38)/402/2010, decision dated: 11-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAITA (PAKISTAN) (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7969", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 954 = 2011 SLD 954 = 2011 PTD 2462", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Taxpayer's Challenge to Sales Tax Levy on Consultancy Services\nDetails: A taxpayer contested the Assistant Commissioner's issuance of a show-cause notice for sales tax on consultancy income, arguing that the income from providing consultancy services should not be taxed under the Sales Tax Act. Despite submitting a detailed reply and invoices, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the response without proper examination or opportunity for hearing, seemingly to meet revenue targets.\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman ruled that the Assistant Commissioner's order was arbitrary and oppressive, constituting maladministration. The Ombudsman recommended the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) direct the Commissioner to rectify the order and issue instructions to ensure reasonable hearing opportunities in future sales tax assessments.\nCitations: Sales Tax Act, 1990, Section 3, Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, Section 2(3).", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 55/ISD/ST(18)/664 of 2011, decision dated: 29-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ramzan Bhatti Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TELECOM ENGINEERING and CONSULTANCY HOUSE (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7970", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 277 = 2009 SLD 277 = (2009) 99 TAX 198", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption of Sales Tax on Electricity Supplied to Azad Jammu and Kashmir\nDetails: Islamabad Electric Supply Company supplied electricity to Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) under an agreement that stipulated no sales tax would be charged. The revenue department contended that the agreement lacked legal effect due to the absence of a formal notification under the Sales Tax Act.\nHeld: The court upheld the legal enforceability of the agreement between the Government of Pakistan and AJK, despite the lack of an S.R.O. to give the agreement formal legal effect. Sales tax was deemed not applicable due to the binding agreement, which governed the treatment of electricity supplies between the two governments.\nCitations: Sales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 3 & 4, Customs Act, 1969, Section 131, Export Policy Order 2008, Para 3.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,34,36,46c", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1194/LB of 2001, decision dated: 02-05-2006, hearing DATE : 04-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)\nCH. FARRUKH MAHMUD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo, for the Appellant.\nMs. Zeba Hayee, D.R. and S. Farhan, Auditor, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7971", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 744 = 2012 SLD 744 = 2012 PTD 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Tax Treatment of Electricity Supply to AJK\nDetails: Dispute arose regarding the exemption of sales tax on electricity supplied by Islamabad Electric Supply Company to AJK, with the taxpayer claiming it as an export under zero-rated tax provisions.\nHeld: The court ruled that the electricity supply was not an export as the proper export procedures were not followed. Thus, the zero-rate benefit was denied, and the supply was not treated as export under the Sales Tax Act.\nCitations: Sales Tax Act, 1990, Sections 3 & 4, Customs Act, 1969, Sections 2(s) & 131, Import and Export Control Act, 1950, Section 3, Export Policy Order 2008, Para 3.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.65/IB of 2011, decision dated: 7-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nIKRAM ULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahbaz Butt, Muhammad Faisal Banday, FCA and Muhammad Ahmed for Appellants.\nSyed Tauqeer Bokhari and Imran Shah, D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ISLAMABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LTD\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, (LEGAL), ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7972", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 184 = 1985 SLD 184 = 1985 PTD 272", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Assessment under Martial Law Regulation\nDetails: A sales tax assessment was challenged where the taxpayer had declared excess income under Martial Law Regulation No. 43/48. The taxpayer argued that assessments for periods covered by the declaration could not be reopened.\nHeld: The court held that the sales tax assessment for periods covered by the Martial Law Regulation declaration could not be reopened, as the declaration was comprehensive and included income from all sources, including taxes evasion.\nCitations: Sales Tax Act, 1951, Section 28, Martial Law Regulation No. 43/48 of 1958, CBR Circular dated 20-12-1958.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=28", + "Case #": "S.T.R. No.814 of 1972, decision dated: 22-12-1983, hearing DATE : 26-10-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nFAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iqbal Naim Pasha for Appellant.\nShaikh Haider for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMAD KARACHI HALWA MERCHANT\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7973", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1086 = 2013 SLD 1086 = 2013 PTD 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Goods under Customs Act for Smuggling\nDetails: Smuggling of foreign-origin scrap led to its confiscation when the owner failed to prove lawful importation. The appellant contended the goods were purchased locally from market dealers.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the scrap was legally bought from local dealers and was not smuggled. The seizure was unjustified as the department failed to prove smuggling, and the goods were released to the appellant.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 2(s), 16, 157, 178, 156(1)(8), (89).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Cus. No.113/PB of 2010, decision dated: 25-01-2011, hearing DATE : 8-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waliullah for Appellant.\nYahya Jan, Superintendent, Azizur Rehman, Deputy Superintendent and Mamraiz Ali, Inspector Customs, for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAZRAT AMAN and others \nVS\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS (APPEALS), PESHAWAR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7974", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1087 = 2013 SLD 1087 = (2013) 107 TAX 227 = 2013 PTD 24 = 2013 PTD 1253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal on Customs Duty Assessment\nDetails: An importer filed an appeal after the Customs Directorate assessed the final customs value of goods. The department contested the appeal’s maintainability under Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969.\nHeld: The court held that an appeal was maintainable before the Collector (Appeals) against the final determination order under Section 81 of the Customs Act. The department's appeal was dismissed.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 79, 80, 81, 179, 193, 194-A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.453 of 2011, decision dated: 29-06-2012, hearing DATE : 14-04-2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IMRAN MASOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)\nMUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Laiq Shah A.O. for Appellant.\nZafar Iqbal, A.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS UMAR ENGINEERING COMPANY, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7975", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1088 = 2013 SLD 1088 = 2013 PTD 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Waste Paper Import under Customs Act\nDetails: A consignment of waste paper was misclassified as a job-lot and subjected to confiscation under the Customs Act due to its prohibited import status. The classification was disputed, with the importer claiming it was raw material.\nHeld: The court found that the goods did not meet the definition of a job-lot or stock-lot and should not have been confiscated. The order was overturned as the goods were raw materials, not banned, and the classification was incorrect.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 15, 16, 17, 79, 80, 156, 194-A.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-562 of 2011, decision dated: 19-08-2011, hearing DATE : 2-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellant.\nMir Alam, Appraising Officer for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS REAL PAPER, KARACHI\nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MCC OF APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7976", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1089 = 2013 SLD 1089 = 2013 PTD 52", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration of Consignment\nDetails: The consignment was cleared via Goods Declaration by a clearing agent. The adjudicating officer found deliberate mis-declaration of weight and the description and quality of goods, ordering outright confiscation and penalty on the clearing agent. The Collector (Appeals) directed the release of goods on payment of duty/taxes.\nHeld: The Collector (Appeals) rightly ordered the release of goods upon payment of duty/taxes, as mala fide intent by the clearing agent was not proven. The decision was aligned with the settled law and the circumstances of the case, including the perishable nature of the goods. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Collector's order was legally sound.\nCitations: 1996 SCMR 727; 2004 PTD 2187; PTCL 1996 CL 54", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-1353 of 2011, decision dated: 5-07-2012, hearing DATE : 10-05-2012", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IMRAN MASOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)\nMUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Farooq, Law Officer, for Appellant.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI \nVS\nCOLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7977", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1090 = 2013 SLD 1090 = (2013) 108 TAX 499 = 2013 PTCL 424 = 2013 PTD 59", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Appellate Tribunal's Pecuniary Jurisdiction\nDetails: Customs authorities seized smuggled goods and a vehicle. The Collector Customs released the vehicle on payment of redemption fine, but the Appellate Tribunal set aside the original order. The Collector questioned the competence of a single member of the Appellate Tribunal, arguing it lacked jurisdiction over matters exceeding Rs.100,000.\nHeld: The single member of the Appellate Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, as the seized goods' valuation exceeded Rs.500,000. The case was remanded for decision in accordance with the law.\nCitations: Messrs Aman and Amin Trading Co. v. Deputy Collector of Customs, 2008 PTD Kar. 459", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.2 of 2005, decision dated: 3rd September, 2012, hearing DATE : 24-07-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, JUSTICE\nABDUL QADIR MENGAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf for Petitioner.\nEhsan Rafique for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, QUETTA \nVS\nCUSTOMS, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, APPELLATE TRIBUNALIII, QUETTA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7978", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1091 = 2013 SLD 1091 = 2013 PTD 65", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Rejection of Transactional Value\nDetails: Customs rejected the transactional value based on the higher invoiced value of similar consignments. The importer contended that rejection was arbitrary and lacked proper judicial examination.\nHeld: The rejection of the transactional value was unjustified as it did not follow proper judicial procedures under the Customs Act. All factors, including evidence and methodology, must be considered before rejection.\nCitations: PTCL 1998 CL 243; Collector of Central Excise v. Imdad Ali 1969 SCMR 708; Indus Automobiles v. C.B.R. PLD 1998 Kar. 99", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-121 of 2010, decision dated: 28-04-2012, hearing DATE : 6-03-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant.\nGhulam Yasin, Appraising Officer for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ADVENT TECHNOLOGIES, \nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, (PACCS, GROUPII), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7979", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1092 = 2013 SLD 1092 = 2013 PTD 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggling and Seizure of Goods\nDetails: Seized foreign-origin scrap was found without proof of legal import. The appellant presented GDs (Goods Declarations) suggesting legal import, but the department did not accept them. The vehicle used for transporting the goods was confiscated but released on redemption fine.\nHeld: The department failed to prove the scrap was smuggled, and the appellant established the legal import link. The Appellate Tribunal ordered unconditional release of the goods.\nCitations: None cited", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.309/PB of 2011, decision dated: 27-06-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "ROZI KHAN BURKI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waliulllah for Appellant.\nSardar Ali, A.C. and Mazhar Muhammad, Superintendent for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KAIBAT KHAN\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), PESHAWAR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7980", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1093 = 2013 SLD 1093 = 2013 PTD 78", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration of Exported Goods\nDetails: An exporter was found to have mis-declared the weight and value of goods, which was later assessed by the Price Checking Committee. The exporter was not consulted during the valuation process.\nHeld: The assessment procedure was flawed as the exporter was not heard, and the valuation was not conducted in accordance with the legal requirements under S.25 of the Customs Act. The orders imposing penalties were set aside.\nCitations: PLD 1996 Kar. 68; PTCL 2000 CL 35; PLD 1996 Kar. 451", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.K-575 of 2007, decision dated: 30-07-2010, hearing DATE : 28-07-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED GUL MUNIR SHAH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza, Consultant for Appellant.\nSyed Zameer Akram, Appraising Officer, for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ARIF INDUSTRIES, KARACHI\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, (EXPORT), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7981", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1094 = 2013 SLD 1094 = (2013) 108 TAX 363 = 2013 PTD 111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition and Import Duty Dispute\nDetails: The National Highway Authority was demanded to pay short-paid duty on Concrete Transit Mixers (CTMs). The petitioner argued the duty rate was 5% but was being demanded 65%.\nHeld: The duty rate of 65% was correct at the time of import under the law, and the S.R.O. 1090(I)/2006 was not applicable retroactively. The petition was dismissed.\nCitations: PLD 1997 SC 334; 1997 MLD 1198", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1765 of 2007, decision dated: 21st June, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN AFRIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omer Farouk Adam for Petitioner.\nMalik Ataat Hussain for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.\nMuhammad Riaz Hussain for Respondent No. 1.\nTajammal Hussain for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KINGCRETE BUILDERS THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER \nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH CHAIRMAN CBR, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7982", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1095 = 2013 SLD 1095 = (2013) 108 TAX 491 = 2013 PTD 155", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration and Fine in Lieu of Confiscation\nDetails: The petitioner contested the invocation of provisions of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, which involved fixing a fine in lieu of confiscation for mis-declared goods, despite an appeal being pending before the Appellate Authority.\nHeld: The High Court directed that the petitioner could raise the matter before the Appellate Authority, which would decide the appeal accordingly.\nCitations: None cited", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-4081 of 2011, decision dated: 20-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nFAROOQ ALI CHANNA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nJaved Faruqi DAG for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL THROUGH MANAGING PARTNER\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7983", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1096 = 2013 SLD 1096 = 2013 PTCL 432 = 2013 PTD 210 = (2013) 107 TAX 305", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViSFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Auction of Confiscated Vehicle During Appeal\nDetails: A vehicle was auctioned during the pendency of an appeal. The appellant sought the release of the confiscated vehicle.\nHeld: The order to auction the vehicle was erroneous. The High Court set aside the order and allowed the appellant to seek release from the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal.\nCitations: Khuda-e-Nazar v. The State 1987 MLD 1536", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(1),179,180,181,185C", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2012, decision dated: 1st October, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dilharam Shaheen for Appellant.\nJawaid Farooqui, D.A.G., for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KIFAYATULLAH\nVS\nSPECIAL JUDGE CUSTOMS and TAXATION, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7984", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 806 = 2001 SLD 806 = 2001 PLC 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Termination of Civil Servant's Employment\nDetails: A civil servant's service was terminated verbally without inquiry or opportunity for defense, violating the prescribed procedure.\nHeld: The verbal termination was invalid, and the civil servant was deemed to be in service from the date of termination.", + "Court Name:": "Service Tribunal, Punjab", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 799 of 1999, decision dated: 11-04-2000.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. AKHTAR HUSSAIN, MEMBER, III", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Rizwana Anjum Mufti for Appellant.\nKh. Haider Ali, District Attorney for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AHMED TARIQ\nVS\nDISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (MEE), ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, BAHAWALNAGAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7985", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1090 = 2015 SLD 1090 = 2015 PTD 221 = 2015 PTCL 204 = (2015) 111 TAX 295", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Powers of Inland Revenue Officers to Monitor Manufacturing Premises\nDetails: Taxpayers challenged the orders under Sections 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and 45(2) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, which authorized Inland Revenue officers to monitor manufacturing premises. The taxpayers contended that this was done without a show-cause notice, violating principles of natural justice.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the word monitor meant to observe and check over time, and that the Inland Revenue had the power to monitor manufacturing premises without prior show-cause notice. The taxpayers had not been subjected to any adverse action at this stage, thus a hearing or show-cause notice was not required. Monitoring was to observe production, sales, and stock to verify tax payments, not to investigate tax evasion. The Court also emphasized that the monitoring period should have a reasonable timeframe and could be extended if necessary. The petition was dismissed.\nCitations: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 40B; Federal Excise Act (VIII of 2005), S. 45(2); Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=40BFederal Excise Act, 2005=45(2)", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.124 of 2014 in Writ Petition No.33429 of 2013, decision dated: 11-09-2014, hearing DATE : 15-04-2014", + "Judge Name:": "AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE\nSHAMS MAHMOOD MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Appellant (in I.C.A. No. 124 of 2014).\nShehzad A. Elahi for Appellant (in I.C.A. No. 129 of 2014).\nAli Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 5072 of 2014).\nNadeem Mahmood Mian, Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Muhammad Asif Hashmi and Rana Muhammad Luqman, Commissioner, Inland Revenue, Faisalabad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KAMALIA SUGAR MILLS LTD. THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7986", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1091 = 2015 SLD 1091 = 2015 SCMR 116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Height Restrictions on Buildings Near Quaid-i-Azam's Mazar\nDetails: The Quaid-i-Azam Mazar Management Board filed a constitutional petition to enforce height restrictions on buildings within a 3/4 mile radius of the Mazar, based on a resolution and notifications by the President and Provincial Government.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the President's directive and Provincial Government notification did not have the force of law until incorporated into the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations in 2002. The Board's resolution lacked specificity regarding height, and the President's directive was not an order under Art. 270A of the Constitution. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.\nCitations: Quaid-i-Azam Mazar's Protection and Maintenance Ordinance (XXVII of 1971); Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, Regln. 25-1 & 10.2; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 270A", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.82-K of 2006, decision dated: 14-02-2012. (On appeal from the judgment dated 16-12-2005 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.P. No.953 of 2004)", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nKhalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.\nManzoor Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 2.\nZulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court along with Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 4.\nDil Muhammad Alizai, D.A.G. applicant in C.M.A. 249-K of 2006.", + "Petitioner Name:": "QUAIDEAZAMS MAZAR MANAGEMENT BOARD\nVS\nPROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY HOUSING and TOWN PLANNING SINDH, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7987", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1097 = 2013 SLD 1097 = 2013 PTD 392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Reference Application under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969\nDetails: The scope of reference under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969, was clarified, stating that the High Court's jurisdiction is limited to legal questions arising from the Appellate Tribunal's decision, and factual findings cannot be challenged unless perverse.\nHeld: The High Court held that it could only review legal issues in reference applications and could not interfere with factual findings unless there was an error in law or fact.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 196", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.330 of 2011, decision dated: 25-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sibtain Mehmood for Applicant.\nIlyas Ahsan, Customs Officer for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS QASIM INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL (PAK) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7988", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1098 = 2013 SLD 1098 = 2013 PTD 407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Vehicle Under the Customs Act, 1969\nDetails: A truck was seized by Customs authorities due to tampering with its chassis number. The Appellate Tribunal had ruled in favor of the respondent, but the Customs authorities filed a reference.\nHeld: The High Court found that the evidence of tampering was valid, and the confiscation of the truck was justified. The Appellate Tribunal had erred by not considering the forensic reports properly, and the original confiscation order was restored.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 168, 180 & 196", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.80 of 2009, decision dated: 3rd October, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JUSTICE\nROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Qayum Khattak for Appellant.\nTasleem Hussain for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION, PESHAWAR \nVS\nKHALIL MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7989", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1099 = 2013 SLD 1099 = (2013) 108 TAX 407 = 2013 PTD 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Demand Notice Issued by Customs Authorities Without Show Cause Notice\nDetails: The petitioner imported goods under a concession but Customs authorities later issued a demand notice for duty. The notice was issued without the statutory show-cause notice.\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the demand notice was issued without lawful authority and jurisdiction, as no show-cause notice had been provided. The petition was allowed, and the demand notice was set aside.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 32(2)(3); Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.1801-P and 1802-P of 2012, decision dated: 29-08-2012", + "Judge Name:": "WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JUSTICE\nROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Idris Mufti for Petitioner.\nAbdul Rauf Rohaila for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SANA ENTERPRISES THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR, PESHAWAR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7990", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1100 = 2013 SLD 1100 = 2013 PTD 440", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Quantum of Fine for Smuggling Under the Customs Act, 1969\nDetails: The Customs authorities sought to impose a fine on the accused for the release of a vehicle used in smuggling. The Customs Appellate Tribunal had reduced the fine, but the Collector Customs contested the reduction.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the fine imposed under the relevant notification and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the fine was in line with the regulations.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 181, 15, 16 & 196; S.R.O. 574(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Custom Reference No.19 of 2008, decision dated: 3rd December, 2012, hearing DATE : 31st July, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE\nGHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel along with Muhammad Azam Chughtai, Law Officer Customs for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, QUETTA \nVS\nRAMZAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7991", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1101 = 2013 SLD 1101 = 2013 PTCL 443 = 2013 PTD 446 = (2013) 107 TAX 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Contemptuous Conduct and Recovery Proceedings in Customs Case\nDetails: The petitioner company challenged recovery proceedings despite not complying with earlier directions from the Appellate Tribunal and High Court to pay outstanding duties.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, stating that the company's conduct was contemptuous, and it had failed to comply with prior orders. The recovery proceedings were upheld.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 202; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=202Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-4040 of 2011, decision dated: 28-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Omair Nisar for Petitioner.\nS. Mohsin Imam, Dilawer Hussain, Standing Counsel and Muhammad Farooq Khan, Law Officer for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DEWAN CEMENT LIMITED \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7992", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1102 = 2013 SLD 1102 = (2013) 108 TAX 356 = 2013 PTD 457", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Seizure of Vehicle Used in Smuggling Under Customs Act, 1969\nDetails: The vehicle in question was seized for smuggling, and the petitioners failed to provide proof of lawful possession.\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the reference, as there was no question of law to be answered and no evidence of lawful possession of the vehicle.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s), 16, 168 & 196; Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Custom Reference No.15 of 2011, decision dated: 20-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIFTAH-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE\nMRS. IRSHAD QAISER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sakina Gul for Petitioners.\nAzhar Naeem Quani for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI SALEEM GUL and others\nVS\nCUSTOM TRIBUNAL, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7993", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1103 = 2013 SLD 1103 = (2013) 108 TAX 495 = 2013 PTD 463", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Provisional Assessment and Delay in Final Assessment of Goods\nDetails: The respondent-assessee challenged the final assessment of duties after an inordinate delay in the process, claiming the delay violated the Customs Act.\nHeld: The High Court upheld the final assessment and dismissed the intra-court appeal, noting the delay exceeded the allowed period and no exceptional circumstances were provided to justify it.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 81; Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.164 of 2011 in W.P. No.11062 of 2010, decision dated: 7-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "RAUF AHMAD SHAIKH, JUSTICE\nSYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Raza for Appellant.\nMian Abdul Basit for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, MULTAN \nVS\nMESSRS TREND INTERNATIONAL THROUGH PARTNER and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7994", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1104 = 2013 SLD 1104 = (2013) 108 TAX 396 = 2013 PTD 471", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nMis-declaration, Confiscation of Goods, and FIR Registration under Customs Act, 1969\n•\nDetails: Petitioners, as importers, were charged with mis-declaration, leading to the confiscation of their goods under section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969. An FIR was also registered against them, pending trial. The petitioners challenged the validity of the confiscation and the registration of the FIR.\n•\nHeld: The Court determined that provisions under the Customs Act, 1969, regarding confiscation and seizure of goods take precedence over general law provisions (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898). As the goods in question were not prohibited or smuggled, they should not be considered as case property. The findings that required the production of a No Objection Certificate from the Court of Special Judge (Customs) were erroneous. The petition was disposed of with directions to deal with the goods in accordance with law.\n•\nCitations: Government of Pakistan v. Mahmood Ahmed Qureshi (2002 SCMR 1527); Adam v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1969 SC 446); Khuda-e-Nazar v. The State (1987 PCr.LJ 9); The State v. Ghulam Jaffar (PLD 1970 Pesh. 66).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-2986 and D-2988 of 2012, decision dated: 21st November, 2012, hearing DATE : 18-09-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nFAROOQ ALI CHANNA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zain A. Jaoti and Sameer Ghazanfar for Petitioners.\nS. Mohsin Imam for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.\nDilawer Hussain, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EVERLUCK ENTERPRISES PROPRIETORSHIP KAMRAN WAHID KHAN, KARACHI and others \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION (FBR), ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7995", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1105 = 2013 SLD 1105 = 2013 PTD 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Duty Demand and Limitation under the Customs Act, 1969\n•\nDetails: Importers were confronted with a demand for duties on goods imported beyond their allocated quotas for the years 2005-2007. The goods were cleared under concessionary S.R.O. or different PCT Headings than their quota allocation.\n•\nHeld: The appeal succeeded partially, with the Tribunal finding that the demands for the years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 were not sustainable both on legal and factual grounds. The Department had failed to justify the excessive duty demands, and the limitation period for recovery of duties was exceeded in some cases. The demand for the year 2007-2008 was retained. The order was modified accordingly.\n•\nCitations: Tribunal Appeal Nos. 154/ST/IB/2005 and 155/ST/IB/2005; Messrs Gandhara Nissan v. Collector Customs (2007 PTD 117).\n•\nSub-issues (b) and (c): The court also discussed the application of section 32 of the Customs Act regarding false statements, errors, and limitations on duty demands. It was determined that the applicable provision for the audit-triggered show cause notice was section 32(3A), not section 32(2), which governs collusion or fraudulent misstatements.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.127/PB of 2011, decision dated: 1st October, 2012, hearing DATE : 6-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "GULAB SHAH AFRIDI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellants.\nSardar Ali Khan Assistant Collector and Naseer Khan Superintendent Customs for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AGE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., PESHAWAR\nVS\nDEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS (AUDIT), PESHAWAR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7996", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1106 = 2013 SLD 1106 = 2013 PTD 628", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nDetention of Goods under Customs Act, 1969\n•\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the detention of goods after payment of duties, arguing that the consignment was released and out of charge but not returned by Customs due to an inquiry related to previous consignments. The goods were detained under section 186 of the Customs Act, 1969, on the basis of alleged mis-declarations in prior imports.\n•\nHeld: The Court ruled that once the goods were cleared and the duty paid, Customs Authorities had no jurisdiction to detain them based on prior mis-declarations without initiating proper proceedings. The detention was illegal, and the Court directed the immediate release of the goods.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Wall Master v. Collector (PTD 2004 3018); Messrs Sunny Traders v. Federation of Pakistan (2009 PTD 281).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=186", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-3809 of 2012, decision dated: 10-01-2013, hearing DATE : 16-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Ismat Mehdi for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ALI\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7997", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1107 = 2013 SLD 1107 = 2013 PTD 649 = (2013) 107 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLimitation and Appeal under the Customs Act, 1969\n•\nDetails: The Department filed an appeal against the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, which had been returned on the grounds of being time-barred under section 193 of the Customs Act. The Department claimed that the Collector's order-in-appeal was not served timely.\n•\nHeld: The High Court dismissed the reference, finding that the Department had not raised the issue of late service of the appeal order before the Appellate Tribunal, nor did it apply for condonation of delay. The High Court's jurisdiction under section 196 of the Customs Act was limited to questions of law, not factual disputes.\n•\nCitations: 2001 SCMR 838; Civil Appeal No. 2036 of 2004 (1992 SCMR 1898); 2011 SCMR 1279.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.160 and C.M.As. Nos. 1794, 1297 of 2012, decision dated: 17-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nFAROOQ ALI CHANNA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Dil Khurram Shaheen for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS \nVS\nNAZEER AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7998", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1108 = 2013 SLD 1108 = 2013 PTD 651", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSection: 196\n•\nLimitation Period for Filing a Reference\n•\nDetails: The period for filing a reference to the High Court under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969 is 90 days from the date the aggrieved person or the Collector is served with the order of the Appellate Tribunal.\n•\nHeld: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed as Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not apply when a special enactment like the Customs Act prescribes its own limitation period.\n•\nCitations: Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969; Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908\n(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)\n•\nSection: 5\n•\nCondonation of Delay\n•\nDetails: Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply when the limitation period is prescribed under a special enactment.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked in this case.\n•\nCitations: Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No. 58 of 2006, decision dated: 3rd December, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE\nGHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "INSPECTORGENERAL, FRONTIER CORPS BALOCHISTAN THROUGH COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX and FEDERAL EXCISE, QUETTA \nVS\nMESSRS ALLAUDDIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "7999", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1109 = 2013 SLD 1109 = 2013 PTD 658 = (2014) 109 TAX 190 = 2013 MLD 601", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan\n•\nArticle: 199\n•\nConstitutional Petition - Policy Decisions\n•\nDetails: The High Court does not interfere in government policy decisions unless they are violative of constitutional guarantees or involve arbitrary, mala fide actions.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the government's decision and dismissed the constitutional petition.\n•\nCitations: Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan\n(b) Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950)\n•\nSections: 2 & 3(1)\n•\nImposition of Import Ban\n•\nDetails: A ban was imposed on the import of CNG kits, equipment, and cylinders through S.R.O. No. 84(1)/2012. The petitioners' claim was dismissed as they had no vested rights to import such goods.\n•\nHeld: The ban was found valid, and the High Court dismissed the petition.\n•\nCitations: Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950; S.R.O. No. 84(1)/2012\n(c) Constitution of Pakistan\n•\nArticle: 18\n•\nIssuance of License\n•\nDetails: A license issued by the government to conduct business does not confer a vested right.\n•\nHeld: The High Court held that the license is a privilege and not a vested right.\n•\nCitations: Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan\n(d) Constitution of Pakistan\n•\nArticles: 18 & 25\n•\nLegislation and Trade Regulations\n•\nDetails: The legislature has the authority to regulate business or profession for specialized classes of people. Restrictions are permissible if justified under constitutional provisions.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the legislation and regulations.\n•\nCitations: Articles 18 & 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan\n(e) Legislation\n•\nPowers to Legislate\n•\nDetails: Interested parties cannot be heard in matters regarding the government's legislative powers.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the government's powers to legislate and promulgate laws.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=2", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-3000 of 2012, decision dated: 12-12-2012, hearing DATE : 22-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioners.\nJawed Farooqui, D.A.G. for Respondent No. 1.\nAsim Iqbal and Farmanullah for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LANDIRENZO PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARACHI and 3 others \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8000", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1110 = 2013 SLD 1110 = 2013 PTCL 437 = 2013 PTD 679", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSection: 194-B\n•\nReference to High Court - Hearing \n•\nDetails: The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal without affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel, which led to the case being remanded.\n•\nHeld: The High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.\n•\nCitations: Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2005 PTD 709\noner were reproduced front the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioner---Reproduction of certain grounds of appeal did not constitute hearing as required by law---Tribunal fell in error while dismissing appeal of petitioner without affording an opportunity of a meaningful hearing to the counsel for the petitioner---High Court set aside order of Appellate Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal---Reference was allowed, in circumstances.\n \nPakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2005 PTD 709 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.22 of 2006, decision dated: 25-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nMs. Kausar Parveen for Respondents with Muhammad Ashiq Shahid, Senior Intelligence Officer \nIntelligence Investigation, Khushab", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD IQBAL \nVS\nSENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX), KHUHSAB and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8001", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1111 = 2013 SLD 1111 = 2013 PTD 691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSection: 19\n•\nClassification of Agricultural Machinery\n•\nDetails: Machinery imported for producing namkeen snacks was classified under the wrong PCT Heading, but the First Appellate Authority correctly found it should fall under a different heading and allowed the exemption.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the First Appellate Authority’s decision to classify the machinery under the correct PCT heading.\n•\nCitations: Messrs P & G International Lahore v. Assistant Collector of Customs Appraisement, 2010 PTD 870", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-1077 of 2011, decision dated: 29-06-2012, hearing DATE : 15-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Yasin, Appraising Officer for Appellant.\nSyed Irshad Ali, for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (LAW), KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS HAYAT SWEET INDUSTRIES, NASIMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8002", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1112 = 2013 SLD 1112 = 2013 PTD 698", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSection: 18(3)\n•\nImposition of Regulatory Duty\n•\nDetails: Petitioners challenged the imposition of regulatory duty, claiming that it was ultra vires the Constitution because similar laws already existed.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the Federal Government had the authority to impose regulatory duty, dismissing the constitutional petition.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1998 SC 670; PTCL 1997 CL. 1\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSection: 18(3)\n•\nPurpose of Regulatory Duty\n•\nDetails: Regulatory duty serves multiple purposes, including regulating import-export balance and generating extra revenue for the State.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the imposition of regulatory duty.\n•\nCitations: PTCL 1997 CL. 1\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nFiscal Statutes\n•\nDetails: Fiscal statutes must be strictly interpreted, without adding new words by way of interpretation.\n•\nHeld: The High Court emphasized the need for strict interpretation of fiscal statutes.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2702 of 2011, decision dated: 24-12-2012, hearing DATE : 17-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mahmod Chohan, Niaz Ullah Niazi, Monim Sultan, Saud Nasrullah Cheema, Mlaik Naveed Suhail, Ch. Arshad Mahmood, Mudassar Ikram, Chaudhry, Tufail Shahzad and Sabir Ahmed, Ahmed Hafeez and Mian Tahir Iqbal for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAJID TRADERS and 4 others \nVS\nM/O COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8003", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1113 = 2013 SLD 1113 = 2013 PTD 703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSections: 195, 197, 80, 83, 32, 32(3A), 25\n•\nFiscal Fraud - Clearance of Consignment\n•\nDetails: The clearance of goods without applying valuation rulings led to short payment of revenue. The High Court upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision on how recovery should proceed under the law.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed as time-barred and without merit.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1995 Kar. 687; PLD 1971 SC 197\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSections: 194A & 215\n•\nLimitation of Appeal to Appellate Tribunal\n•\nDetails: The appeal was dismissed due to delay, and the appellant's plea for condonation of delay was not valid.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was rejected for being time-barred and the delay not properly explained.\n•\nCitations: PLD 1995 SC 396; Messrs Nida-e-Millat Lahore v. Commissioner Income Tax Zone/Lahore 2008 SCMR 284", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=195", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-666 and 703/II, K-670 to 677/II of 2011, decision dated: 21st December, 2012, hearing DATE : 17-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM AHMED MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ghulam Yasin A.O. for Applicant.\nNadeem Ahmed Mirza Consultant for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (LAW), KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS CARE IMPEX" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8004", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1114 = 2013 SLD 1114 = (2013) 108 TAX 507 = 2013 PTD 731", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, Import of Banned Goods\n•\nDetails: The importer contested the orders passed by the authorities on the grounds that no show cause notice had been issued. However, customs authorities argued that the show cause notice and other documents were transmitted electronically via the Unique User Identifier system. The goods in question were misdeclared, including explosives/fire crackers that were banned under the Import Policy Order 2007-2008. The authorities declined redemption based on the law, and the Customs Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision.\n•\nHeld: The High Court upheld the decision of the Customs Appellate Tribunal, ruling that transmission of information through the Unique User Identifier system was sufficient evidence. The reference was disposed of, and no legal error was found in the Tribunal’s order.\n•\nCitations: Yasir Enterprises v. Model Customs Collectorate, 2009 PTD 1880", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.57 of 2010, decision dated: 20-12-2012, hearing DATE : 20-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Ahmed for Applicants.\nGhulam haider Shaikh for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMAMD RAFIQ and others \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8005", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1115 = 2013 SLD 1115 = 2013 PTD 765 = (2014) 109 TAX 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, Vehicle Seizure, Smuggling Allegation\n•\nDetails: A vehicle registered before 14 years was seized on the grounds of being smuggled. The owner provided documents including the original registration book and bill of entry. However, the bill of entry was not related to the vehicle. The authorities failed to verify the authenticity of the documents or the vehicle's registration. The Tribunal had previously ruled that the owner had successfully proved the vehicle's legitimacy.\n•\nHeld: The High Court accepted the Reference application, ruling that the customs authorities failed to prove that the vehicle was smuggled, and the documents provided by the owner were valid.\n•\nCitations: Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs, PLD 1996 Kar. 68", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=159", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.58 of 2010, decision dated: 29-01-2012, hearing DATE : 13-12-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dilharam Shaheen for Applicant.\nGhulam Hyder Shaikh for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD GUL\nVS\nMEMBER JUDICIAL, CUSTOMS TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8006", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1116 = 2013 SLD 1116 = 2013 PTD 794", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, Exemption of Duty\n•\nDetails: The distinction between exemption and levy under the Customs Act was examined. It was clarified that while the levy of duty (under Section 18) is a legislative power, the exemption (under Section 19) is related to the payment of the duty and does not alter the taxability. The burden of proof for exemption lies with the assessee, and the power to grant exemption is delegated to a subordinate authority.\n•\nHeld: The High Court affirmed that Section 18 and Section 19 of the Customs Act operate independently. The grant of exemption does not nullify the levy of duty but removes the liability for payment of duty to the extent exempted.\n•\nCitations: Customs v. Ravi Spinning Mills Ltd., 1999 SCMR 412; PLD 1978 Lah. 468", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.949 of 2005, decision dated: 1st November, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN FASIH UL MULK, JUSTICE\nMRS. IRSHAD QAISER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Petitioner.\nAbdur Rauf Rohila for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "P.M. INTERNATIONAL THROUGH PARTNER and 3 others\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE THROUGH SECRETARY and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8007", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1117 = 2013 SLD 1117 = (2013) 108 TAX 472 = 2013 PTD 813", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, Jurisdiction of High Court and Time Bar for Misdeclaration\n•\nDetails: A case involving misdeclaration of goods in 2003 and a show cause notice issued in 2008 was examined. The notice alleged wilful evasion of duty and taxes based on a misclassification, but the notice was issued beyond the 3-year limitation period under Section 32(3) of the Customs Act. The High Court ruled that the notice was time-barred and void.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the show-cause notice was void because it was issued after the statutory time period for such actions had expired.\n•\nCitations: Union Sport Playing Cards Company v. Collector of Customs and another, 2002 MLD 130", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Applications Nos. No.466 and 467 of 2011, decision dated: 20-12-2012, hearing DATE : 30-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JUSTICE\nSADIQ HUSSAIN BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer-ul-Hassan Minhas for Applicant.\nMs. Dil Khurram Shaheen for Respondents.\nDilawer Hussain, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SARWAR INTERNATIONAL THROUGH PROPRIETOR and others \nVS\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MCC PREVENTIVE, AFU JIAP KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8008", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1118 = 2013 SLD 1118 = 2013 PTD 821 = (2014) 109 TAX 124", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, Quashing of FIR in Smuggling Case\n•\nDetails: The petitioner’s consignment was seized, and an F.I.R. for smuggling was filed. However, the Customs Appellate Tribunal had set aside the order-in-original, declaring the proceedings void. The petitioner sought the quashing of the F.I.R., while the Department argued that an alternate remedy under Section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. was available. The High Court found that since the matter had become redundant, a constitutional petition was appropriate.\n•\nHeld: The High Court quashed the F.I.R. and allowed the constitutional petition, stating that there was no possibility of conviction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=169", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6435 of 2009, heard on 21st January, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Akhtar Qureshi with Syed Muhammad Ali Rizvi, Deputy Superintendent for Respondents Nos.2 to 8.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS YASIR ENTERPRISES THROUGH CH. BASHER AHMED \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8009", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1119 = 2013 SLD 1119 = (2013) 107 TAX 69 = 2013 PTD 825", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, Valuation of Goods\n•\nDetails: The petitioners challenged the valuation of goods determined by the Director of Valuation, arguing that the Fallback method had been adopted without sufficient reasoning. The High Court found that while customs officials have discretion to choose the method of valuation, the reasons for selecting the fallback method were not adequately explained, particularly since prices were taken from the internet without considering other methods.\n•\nHeld: The High Court set aside the valuation order and directed the Collector of Customs to pass a fresh order following the correct procedures and giving adequate reasons for selecting the fallback method.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1756 of 2010, decision dated: 29-05-2012, hearing DATE : 23rd May, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, Mian Muhammad Athar, Toufique Asif, Muhammad Umer Riaz, Ch. Abdul Aziz, Naseem Sikandar and Niaz Ullah Niazi for Petitioners.\nDr. Rana M. Shamim, Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Mujeeb-ur-Rehman, Izhar-ul-Haque, Amin Feroze Khan, Muhammad Abid Raja, D.A.G. and Muhammad Anwar Ch, Deputy Collector Customs for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS FACO TRADING THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nMEMBER, CUSTOMS, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8010", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1120 = 2013 SLD 1120 = 2013 PTD 897 = 2013 SCMR 638 = (2014) 109 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration of Goods and Customs Penalties\nDetails: A company imported goods declaring them as Tin Free Steel Sheets (Secondary Quality) under PCT heading 7210.5000, attracting a 10% duty. However, it was later discovered that the goods were actually Electrolytic Tin Plate, covered under PCT heading 7210.1200, which attracted a 25% duty. The company had submitted fake and forged documents at the time of clearance and tampered with the PCT headings. The goods were confiscated by the Customs authorities with an option for redemption after the payment of a fine. A personal penalty was also imposed on the company. The company contended that the mis-declaration was not deliberate, as the documents were sent by the exporter, but this plea was rejected. The management was found to have deliberately mis-declared the goods, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.\nHeld: The Supreme Court upheld the penalty and refused to grant leave to appeal, agreeing with the lower forums that the company had intentionally mis-declared the goods.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Ss. 32 & 156(1)(14)\n•\nConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 802 and 813 of 2012, decision dated: 13-02-2013", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE\nTARIQ PARVEZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Qamar Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS A.C.P. OIL MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8011", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 31 = 1971 SLD 31 = 1971 PCRLJ 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "High Court's Power to Convert Appeal to Revision and Sentence Reduction\nDetails: The High Court has the power to convert an appeal into a revision under Section 439(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.), independent of subsection (5). In a case where the accused had been suffering imprisonment for 4 years, the sentence was reduced from six years of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of Rs. 2 lac to two years of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 10,000.\nHeld: The sentence was reduced in light of the circumstances and the power to convert the appeal to a revision was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 439(1) & (5)\n•\nSea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), S. 167(81)", + "Court Name:": "Dacca High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=439", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 426 of 1966, converted into Revision No. 382 of 1970, decision dated: 30th April 1970", + "Judge Name:": "A. K. M. NURUL ISLAM, JUSTICE\nA. QUASIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ERFAN SHAIKH and others\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8012", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 32 = 1971 SLD 32 = 1971 SCMR 404", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Possession of Illicit Intoxicants and Taxi Driver's Knowledge\nDetails: A taxi driver was accused of being involved in smuggling charas (hashish) left by passengers in the back seat of his taxi. The prosecution failed to establish that the driver knew about the nature of the goods, as no direct evidence showed that he was aware or an associate of smugglers. The driver was convicted based on assumptions, but the court ruled that convictions must be based on evidence.\nHeld: The conviction of the taxi driver was overturned, and he was acquitted due to lack of evidence.\nCitations:\n•\nPunjab Excise Act (I of 1914), S. 61\n•\nPenal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 34", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Punjab Excise Act, 1914=61", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1970, decision dated: 7th April 1971", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nWAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Sher Alam, Advocate S.C. instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZIR HUSSAIN\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8013", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 108 = 1976 SLD 108 = 1976 PCRLJ 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Charge Defect and Smuggling of Goods by Sea\nDetails: An accused in a smuggling case was charged under Section 34, P.P.C., instead of Section 178 of the Customs Act. Despite this, the court held that no prejudice was caused to the accused as the charge fully stated the allegations. The accused, who was involved in smuggling using a launch, had his sentence reduced from 6 years to 2 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000.\nHeld: The charge defect was found to be curable, and the sentence was reduced.\nCitations:\n•\nPenal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 34\n•\nCustoms Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156(8), (89) & 157", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=178", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 332 of 1973, decision dated: 10th September 1974", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAYEE QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nasir Shah Mir and Mufti Alim-ud-Din for Appellants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAKARIA and 7 others \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8014", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 373 = 1979 SLD 373 = 1979 PCRLJ 977", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--S. 5 & 497 read with Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 161 (5) & 185-C\nApplication of Section 497, Cr. P.C. in Customs Act cases\nDetails: The applicant argued that Section 497, Cr. P.C. did not apply to offences under the Customs Act, as Section 161 of the Customs Act provides special provisions for bail. The contention was rejected, and it was held that the powers vested in the Special Judge are regulated by Section 497 of the Cr. P.C.\nHeld: Section 497, Cr. P.C. directly applicable in Customs Act cases.\nCitations: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Sections 5 & 497; Customs Act, 1969, Section 161 (5) & 185-C.\n(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--S. 497\nConsideration for bail in Customs Act cases\nDetails: The applicant, around 20 years old, was charged under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act. The Court determined that age was not a sufficient factor for bail.\nHeld: The applicant not entitled to consideration for bail based on age.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 156(1)(8).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=5", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Bail Application No. 9 of 1979, decision dated: 21st May, 1979", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAFIQ \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8015", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 132 = 1980 SLD 132 = 1980 PCRLJ 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 156(1), Items 8 & 70\nScope of offences under the Customs Act\nDetails: Section 156(1) creates penal offences and civil penalties, with Item 8 involving both civil penalties and criminal trials, while Item 70 only involves civil penalties. The two items are not designed to address the same situation.\nHeld: Items 8 and 70 are distinct, with Item 8 creating penal offences and Item 70 applying only to civil penalties.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 156(1), Items 8 & 70.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 139 & 156, Items 8 & 70\nObligations under Section 139 of the Customs Act\nDetails: Section 139 mandates passengers or crew members to declare baggage contents. Failure results in penalties under Item 70. If the baggage contains contraband, it is punishable under Item 8.\nHeld: Offences under Item 8 can be prosecuted even if provisions of Item 70 are violated.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 139 & 156, Items 8 & 70.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 2(s) & 156(1), Item 70\nInterpretation of Item 70 and its scope\nDetails: Item 70 applies to goods neither prohibited nor restricted. The failure to comply with Item 70 regarding baggage doesn't automatically indicate smuggling.\nHeld: Violation of Item 70 does not necessarily indicate smuggling.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 2(s) & 156(1), Item 70.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 156(2) read with Ss. 139 & 2(s)\nBurden of proof in smuggling cases\nDetails: The burden of proof lies with the offender to show that there was no intent to defraud the Government or commit an act of smuggling.\nHeld: Offender must prove no intent to smuggle; otherwise, prosecution is justified.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 2(s) & 156(2).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1979, decision dated: 9-05-1979", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muzaffar Hussain for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAFIQ\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8016", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1949 80 = 1949 SLD 80 = 1949 PLD 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Court Fee Act, 1870, S. 7 iv (c) - Art. 17 (iii)\nDetermining Court Fee based on the substance of the relief\nDetails: The Court ruled that the real substance of the relief claimed, not the form of the suit, determines the Court fee. If a substantive relief is claimed in the form of a declaratory suit, it is governed by Section 7 iv (c), not Article 17 (iii) of the Court Fees Act.\nHeld: Court-fee determined by the substantive relief sought, not the form of the suit.\nCitations: Court Fee Act, 1870, Section 7 iv (c), Article 17 (iii).\nSuits Valuation Act, 1887, S. 8\nValuation of suits for Court-fees and jurisdiction\nDetails: The value for Court-fees must match the valuation for jurisdiction.\nHeld: Value for Court-fees and jurisdiction must be the same.\nCitations: Suits Valuation Act, 1887, Section 8.\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908, O. VII, R. 11 (b)\nCourt's discretion to demand proper Court-fee\nDetails: The Court has the right to assess the real nature of the suit and demand proper Court-fee for substantive relief, even if the plaintiff arbitrarily values the suit.\nHeld: Court can demand appropriate Court-fee based on the substantive relief.\nCitations: Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order VII, Rule 11(b).", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos, 33 and 34 of 1946, decision dated: 25-10-1948,", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. KHAN, J. C.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Nawaz Ahmad, for the Appellants.\nMuhammad Ashraf, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHARKATEPUSHTOON LIMITED\nVS\nTHE SECRETARY OF STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8017", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 133 = 1980 SLD 133 = 1980 SCMR 114", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156 (8), (9), (89) & (90) and 16\nImposition of redemption fine on contraband goods\nDetails: The Customs authorities treated the vehicle as an item imported in violation of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and imposed a redemption fine.\nHeld: Imposition of a redemption fine and demand for payment of taxes was justified.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 156 (8), (9), (89), (90) & 16; Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, Sections 3(1)(3).\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156 (9) & 187\nBurden of proof for contraband goods\nDetails: The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of lawful possession of the contraband car and had to prove that the goods were not subject to confiscation.\nHeld: Burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove lawful possession and payment of taxes.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Sections 156 (9) & 187.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 171\nSeizure of contraband goods and notice requirement\nDetails: Despite the refusal to receive the recovery memo, the requirement to provide a notice of seizure was met.\nHeld: Requirement of notice fulfilled, and objection regarding non-receipt of memo was unfounded.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, Section 171.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 135-P of 1978, decision dated: 16-05-1979", + "Judge Name:": "G. SAFDAR SHAH, JUSTICE\nKARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Jamil, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUR RAUF KHAN\nVS\nCOLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8018", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 134 = 1980 SLD 134 = 1980 SCMR 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSmuggling of Cars\n•\nDetails: The case involves the seizure of smuggled cars by the Coast Guards. The High Court did not address whether the cars were smuggled or imported with forged permits, focusing instead on the prohibition of imports without valid permits and the authority of Coast Guard officers.\n•\nHeld: Leave to appeal granted, as the legal issues raised by counsel needed examination.\n•\nCitations: Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3), Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950, S. 3 (1)), Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156 to 169 & 171, S. R. O. 1426 (1)/73, S. R. O. 1264 (K)/1968, S. R. O. 920 (1)/73, S. R. O: 30 (1)/73", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 28 to 32 and 44 of 1975 decided on 8-08-1975", + "Judge Name:": "HAMOODUR RAHMAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD GUL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem-ud-Din, Standing Counsel for the Federal Government", + "Petitioner Name:": "Director General, PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS ETC. \nVS \nABRAMJEE ETC." + }, + { + "Case No.": "8019", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1980 135 = 1980 SLD 135 = 1980 SCMR 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFailure to Stop During Customs Checkpoint\n•\nDetails: A customs squad set up a roadblock to stop a vehicle suspected of smuggling. Despite clear signals to stop, the vehicle failed to do so, leading to a chase and shots fired. The driver did not stop and was liable for penalties and vehicle confiscation.\n•\nHeld: The driver was found liable for fines and the vehicle's confiscation.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 164 (1) & 156 (1) (80)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=164", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1978, decision dated: 12-03-1980, hearing DATE : 25th February. 1980", + "Judge Name:": "ANWARUL HAQ, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD HALEEM, JUSTICE\nKARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Iftikhar Jilani, Advocate Supreme Court Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. \nShahud-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Moqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAID MUHAMMAD\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8020", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1981 129 = 1981 SLD 129 = 1981 PCRLJ 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLegality of a Complaint Under Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The Superintendent of Police submitted a report to a Special Judge Customs, which was argued not to be a police report but a complaint, invoking section 185-A (6) of the Customs Act.\n•\nHeld: The report was deemed a valid complaint as required by the Customs Act.\n•\nCitations: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 4 (1) (h), Customs Act (V of 1969), Ss. 185-A (6) & 195(1)(a), Barkat v. Emperor AIR 1943 All. 6", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=185", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 23 of 1978, decision dated: 25-08-1980, hearing DATE : 16-08-1980", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALEH MUHAMMAD and othersANOTRER \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8021", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 107 = 1983 SLD 107 = 1983 PCRLJ 2299 = 1983 PTCL 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSmuggling of Narcotics at Airport\n•\nDetails: A foreign national was arrested at the airport for attempting to smuggle heroin, and the legitimacy of the search conducted by an Airport Security Force officer was challenged.\n•\nHeld: The Airport Security Force officer had the authority to conduct the search, and the accused’s allegations were dismissed as an afterthought.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156 (1) (8), 160 (1), item Nos. 8 and 9, Airport Security Force Act (LXXVII of 1975), S. 6(2) (e), Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 284-C of 1982, decision dated: 10-08-1983, hearing DATE : 24-07-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Bashir Malik and A. Sattar Khan Rajput for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMAD KABIR\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8022", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 192 = 1984 SLD 192 = 1984 CLC 1659", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nClassification of Machinery for Customs Duty\n•\nDetails: Disputes arose regarding the classification of imported machinery under different I.T.C. headings. The Customs Authorities acted under instructions from the Central Board of Revenue (C.B.R.), leading to constitutional relief.\n•\nHeld: The petitioners were entitled to approach the High Court for relief, as appealing under Customs Act procedures would be futile.\n•\nCitations: Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9, Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 193, 195 & 196, Collector of Customs v. Abdul Majid Khan 1977 SCMR 371", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition Nos. D-148, D-235 and D-682 of 1982, decision dated: 18-04-1983. dates of hearing: 15th, 21st and 22-03-1983", + "Judge Name:": "FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JUSTICE\nSAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurshid Anwar Shaikh, Khalilur Rehman and Hassan Inamullah for Petitioners.\nS. Murtaza Hussain for A.G. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AJAZ & COMPANY \nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8023", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 193 = 1984 SLD 193 = 1984 CLC 2028", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSeizure and Auction of Goods\n•\nDetails: The seizure of goods by Customs was contested, but the goods were auctioned, with the department seeking to deduct taxes before paying the petitioner.\n•\nHeld: The seizure and auction were deemed legal, and the petitioner could claim the sale proceeds after tax deductions.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156 & 169, Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9, Azizullah v. The State PLD 1981 Kar. 251", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-923 of 1982, decision dated: 4-10-1983", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, JUSTICE\nSYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rasheed Munir Ahmed for Petitioner.\nS. Inayat AU for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL NABI\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8024", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 194 = 1984 SLD 194 = 1984 PCRLJ 540", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nConfiscation of Launch Involved in Smuggling\n•\nDetails: A launch owned by the petitioner was confiscated due to involvement in smuggling, and the legality of the confiscation was challenged.\n•\nHeld: The order of confiscation was upheld as legal, with no violation of natural justice principles.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 157, 179-A, 209, Imports and Exports Control Act (XXXIX of 1950), S. 3, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199, Abdul Razzak v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1974 SC 5", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157,179A,209,215Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-572 of 1977, decision dated: 2-03-1983, hearing DATE : 21st February, 1983", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, ACTG. CHIEF, JUSTICE\nSAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.\nA. Aziz Munshi with Abul Khair and Mahmoodul Hassan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL GHANI \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8025", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 175 = 1984 SLD 175 = 1984 PCRLJ 2617 = 1984 PTCL 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 185(4) - Jurisdiction\n•\nDetails: The case questioned whether an Additional Sessions Judge, acting as the Incharge Sessions Judge during vacation, had jurisdiction to dispose of a customs case.\n•\nHeld: The judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge was not without jurisdiction in these circumstances.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 156(1)(89) read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-B - Sentence Legality\n•\nDetails: The contention was that the sentence should include both fine and imprisonment as required under S. 156(89). However, the sentence of fine alone was not in accordance with the law and merited enhancement.\n•\nHeld: The sentence was enhanced to 24 days of rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of Rs. 30,000.\n(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) - S. 382-B - Sentence Reckoning\n•\nDetails: The accused was sentenced to 24 days' R.I., and the period of detention as an under-trial prisoner was counted towards the sentence.\n•\nHeld: The accused was released forthwith after considering the time spent in detention.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(1),156(8),156(89),185Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=382B", + "Case #": "Criminal Revision No. 4 of 1983, decision dated: 28-09-1983, hearing date: 27-09-1983", + "Judge Name:": "Z. C. VALLIANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Qureshi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE\nVS\nMUHAMMAD HANIF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8026", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 195 = 1984 SLD 195 = 1984 PCRLJ 3131", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 185-A read with S. 156(1)(89) - Jurisdictional Defect\n•\nDetails: A complaint was filed by a Police Station SHO, who was not authorized at the time to initiate such proceedings. The jurisdiction of the Special Judge (Customs) was questioned, and since the complaint was filed by an unauthorized person, the proceedings were declared illegal.\n•\nHeld: The conviction and sentence were set aside due to jurisdictional defects in the complaint.\nCases Referenced:\n•\nTafazzul Hussain and others v. The Province of East Pakistan and others P L D 1961 Dacca 389\n•\nIncome-Tax Officer Dacca v. Suleman Bai Jeewa P L D 1970 S C 80\n•\nAdnan Afzal v. Captain Sher Afzal P L D 1969 S C 187\n•\nRashid Ahmed v. State P L D 1972 S C 271", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=185", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Appeals Nos. 13 and 14 of 1977, decision dated: 29-05-1984. dates of hearing: 21st and 22-05-1984", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzafjar for Petitioner (in Cr. A No. 13/77).\nS. Sami Ahmed for Appellant (in Cr. A. 14/77).", + "Petitioner Name:": "PIRU \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8027", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 185 = 1985 SLD 185 = 1985 CLC 2655 = 1986 PTCL 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Classification – Natural Justice – Demand Without Proper Hearing\nDetails:\nThe petitioners imported a consignment of “Klim” brand powdered milk from Denmark, claiming its classification under PCT heading 21.07 as food for infants and invalids, exempt from sales tax. However, the Customs Department issued a provisional demand notice (14-05-1975) alleging the milk fell under PCT heading 04.02 and was liable to 20% sales tax, based on a CBR decision dated 02-06-1975. The demand of Rs. 40,697 was enforced via a letter dated 13-11-1977 without providing a copy of the CBR decision or affording a proper hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the demand on multiple legal grounds including violation of Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, denial of due process, and retrospective application of classification.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that the Customs authorities failed to grant a proper hearing and did not supply the copy of the CBR’s classification decision to the petitioners. The impugned order dated 13-11-1977 was declared void for want of lawful authority. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector of Customs for a fresh decision after supplying the CBR decision, allowing a full hearing, and considering the petitioners' representations. The Assistant Collector was directed to conclude proceedings by 31-05-1984.\nCitations:\nPLD 1974 Kar. 81 – Procedural fairness: Acts must conform to the manner prescribed by law\nPLJ 1977 Lah. 549 – Vested rights of importers cannot be disturbed by subsequent administrative decisions", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(2),32(3),202", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-881 of 1978, decision dated: 12-03-1984", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, JUSTICE AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Petitioners and Muhammad Akram Zuberi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. S. KHALID EBRAHIM & CO. \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISING) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8028", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 186 = 1985 SLD 186 = 1985 PCRLJ 276 = 1985 PTCL 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Jurisdictional Defect in Customs Offence – Filing of Complaint by Unauthorized Officer\nDetails:\nTwo appellants, Piru s/o Haji Ladhe and Faqir Mohammad s/o Abdul Hameed, were convicted under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act, 1969 by the Special Judge (Customs & Taxation), Karachi. They were sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000, with a further six months in default. The incident occurred on 12-01-1975, when police intercepted wagons driven by the appellants carrying smuggled foreign cloth. The initial and final challans were submitted by the S.H.O. on 27-01-1975 and 25-02-1975, respectively. However, under Customs General Order No. 19/74 (dated 25-10-1974), only the Inspector General of Police was authorised to file complaints before the Special Judge. Later, vide Customs General Order No. 26/75 (dated 26-07-1975), this authority was delegated to the Superintendent of Police. The amendment allowing S.H.O.s to file complaints was introduced after the appellants’ trial had commenced.\nHeld:\nThe High Court held that the complaint was filed by an officer (S.H.O.) not authorised under the law at the relevant time. This was not a procedural defect but a jurisdictional one. Since the amendment conferring such power on S.H.Os was not retrospective, the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction. Accordingly, the trial and conviction were declared coram non judice and void. The convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.\nCitations:\nPLD 1961 Dacca 389 – Presumption of prospectivity in legislative enactments.\nPLD 1970 SC 80 – Statutory language and retrospective construction.\nPLD 1969 SC 187 – Retrospective application of procedural statutes.\nPLD 1972 SC 271 – Importance of mandatory sanction in jurisdiction.\nPLD 1978 Pesh. 113 – Complaint must be filed by a duly authorised officer; otherwise, trial is vitiated.\n1977 P Cr. L J 93 – Proceedings quashed where complaint was filed by unauthorised police officer.\n1981 P Cr. L J 179 – Validity upheld where complaint filed by authorised officer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156,156(1),156(1)(89),185-AIncome Tax Act, 1922=34(2D)", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1977, decision dated: 29-05-1984. dates of hearing: 21st and 22-05-1984", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Appellant No. 1.\nS. Sami Ahmad for Appellant No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PIRU and others\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8029", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 246 = 1986 SLD 246 = 1986 PCRLJ 136 = 1986 PTCL 209", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Whether Muhammad Ashraf was guilty of attempting to smuggle Pakistani currency out of Pakistan under Section 156(1)(8), Customs Act, 1969.\nKey Facts\nAccused: Muhammad Ashraf, a British national of Pakistani origin.\nIncident: On 17-12-1981, Ashraf arrived at Islamabad Airport to board a flight to Dubai.\nRecovery: Customs officials seized Rs. 9,00,000 in Pakistani currency from his suitcase and Rs. 200 + 505 UAE Dirhams from his person.\nDefense Claim:\nCarried cash to buy machinery for a cold storage/ice factory in Chichawatni.\nChanged travel plans last minute due to a court case in Dubai.\nTook wrong suitcase accidentally (identical to cousin’s).\nTrial Court’s Acquittal (Reasons)\nBenefit of Doubt: Defense version possibly true. \nProsecution Lapses:\nFailed to examine key witnesses (Airport Manager, constable).\nDid not produce original FIR or suitcase keys.\nHostile witnesses (P.W.3, P.W.4) supported Ashraf’s wrong suitcase claim.\nCustoms Officials’ Bias: Monetary incentives for convictions.\nAppellate Court’s Reversal (Conviction)\n1. Procedural Objections Rejected\nCompetency of Appeal: Federal Government validly appointed counsel (not limited to Law Officers under Central Law Officers Ordinance).\nJurisdiction: Lahore Special Appellate Court had authority (trial occurred in Lahore).\n2. Flaws in Trial Court’s Reasoning\nIgnored Material Circumstances:\nAshraf personally presented the suitcase at PIA counter for tagging.\nKnew lock combination and carried keys (indicated ownership/control).\nNo effort to deposit cash safely despite 26 days in Pakistan.\nImplausible Defense:\nCarrying Rs. 9 lakh in cash (not bank drafts) for machinery purchase was irrational for an experienced UK-based businessman.\nNo construction plans found in luggage.\n Wrong suitcase claim appeared staged (identical suitcases, no attempt to exchange).\n3. Burden of Proof under Customs Act\nSection 156(2): Seizure of currency (specified in Section 2(s)) shifts burden to accused to prove no intent to smuggle. Ashraf failed to discharge this burden.\n4. Evidence of Smuggling Intent\nConduct:\nBooked Dubai flight last minute despite claiming Karachi-bound for machinery.\nNo explanation for carrying cash to Islamabad Airport.\nContradictions:\nDefense witnesses (D.W.1, D.W.4) gave inconsistent accounts.\nProsecution witnesses (P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6) consistently testified Ashraf presented and opened the suitcase.\nFinal Ruling\nConviction: Ashraf guilty under Section 156(1)(8), Customs Act.\nSentence:\n6 years rigorous imprisonment.\nFine of Rs. 1,00,000 (default: 2 years additional imprisonment).\n5 corporal stripes (as mandated by law).\nForfeiture: Seized Pakistani currency (Rs. 9,00,200) forfeited to the Federal Government.\nKey Legal Principles\nAppeals Against Acquittals: Appellate courts may overturn acquittals if findings are perverse or ignore material evidence.\nSmuggling Intent: Presenting currency-laden luggage at international departure constitutes attempt to smuggle.\nBurden Shifting: For specified goods (e.g., currency), accused must prove lack of smuggling intent.\nSignificance: Reinforces strict scrutiny of innocent explanations in smuggling cases and upholds statutory burden-shifting in customs offenses.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156,185M185-B,185-F", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 326/C of 1984, decision dated: 3rd August, 1985. dates of hearing: 25th November; 2nd, 9-12-1984, 27th January; 3rd February and 3rd March, 1985", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi for Appellant.\nMuhammad Munir Bhatti for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE \nVS\nM. ASHRAF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8030", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 305 = 1992 SLD 305 = 1992 SCMR 1083 = 1993 PTCL 590", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Valuation Based on Incorrect Price Lists\nCase Details:\n•\nThe valuation of goods was based on price lists from a country other than the country of origin.\nConclusion:\n•\nThe court directed Customs authorities to accept the importer’s declared value due to the arbitrary nature of the valuation.\nCitations:\n•\nEastern Rice Syndicate PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 364 rel.\n(b) Onus of Proving Misstatement\nConclusion:\n•\nThe burden lies on Customs authorities to prove misstatement of value.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25B,30,32,156,156(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 239 of 1982, heard on 5-11-1990", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HASAN SHAH, JUSTICE\nRUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Elahi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.\nSh. Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana MA. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.\nRespondent No. 3. Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS LATIF BROTHERS\nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8031", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 275 = 1993 SLD 275 = 1993 PCRLJ 500 = 1993 PTCL 722", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Illegal Search Due to Non-Compliance\nConclusion:\n•\nFailure to inform the accused of their rights under Section 159(1) renders the search and conviction invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nSyed Abdul Nabi v. State 1988 CLC 29 rel.\n(b) Bail Granted for Further Inquiry\nConclusion:\n•\nBail was granted as the legality of the search and the applicability of the offense required further inquiry.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=159(1),156(1)(8)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497(2)", + "Case #": "Special Crl. Bail Appln. No.31 of 1992, decision dated: 5-07-1992", + "Judge Name:": "SHOUKAT HUSSAIN ZUBEDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Ismat Mehdi for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARID KHAN \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8032", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 278 = 1993 SLD 278 = 1993 SCMR 311 = 1994 PTCL 322", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice Under Section 171\nConclusion:\n•\nNon-compliance with Section 171 is not fatal if the accused is informed through other means, such as recovery memos.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156,156(90),171,187Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos.207 of 1990 and 7-P of 1991, decision dated: 14-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JUSTICE\nWALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in both the Appeals).\nNemo for Respondents (in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 1990).\nShakirullah Jan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in Criminal Appeal No. 7-P of 1991).\nCriminal Anneal No. 7P of 1991", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE THROUGH DEPUTY Attorney General, PESHAWAR\nVS\nBANDA GUL and 2 others\nCriminal Anneal No.7P of 1991\nHE STATE THROUGH DEPUTY Attorney General, PESHAWAR\nVS \nIMDAD KHAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8033", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 271 = 1996 SLD 271 = 1996 SCMR 93 = (1995) 73 TAX 98 = (1995) 72 TAX 266 = 1996 PTCL 101", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Duty under Section 202\n•\nCase Details: Customs authorities stopped goods clearance under Section 202(4).\n•\nConclusion: Action upheld as lawful despite failure to cite specific provisions in the notice.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=202,202(2),202(3),202(4)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 145-P of 1995, decision dated: 8-08-1995", + "Judge Name:": "SH. RIAZ ALAUTHOR(S):MAD, JUSTICE\nMAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE\nRAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Nawaz Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABASON INDUSTRIES PUBLIC LIMITED\nVS\nSUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, GADOON AMAZAI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8034", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 586 = 1998 SLD 586 = 1998 PCRLJ 411 = (1998) 77 TAX 166", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Simultaneous Convictions\n•\nIssue: Validity of simultaneous convictions under Sections 156(8) and 156(89) of the Customs Act.\n•\nConclusion: Accused cannot be convicted under both sections for the same offense.\n•\nCitations:\no\nPLD 1986 SC 192", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(8),156(89),185(1)", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 15 and Custom Criminal Jail Appeal No. 16 of 1997, decision dated: 16-09-1997, hearing DATE ; 5-09-1997", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Shakeel Ahmed, Syed Ayaz Zahoor, M. Aslam Chishi, M. Riaz Ahmed and K.N. Kohl for Appellant (in Custom Appeal No. 6 of 1997).\nSyed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellant (in Custom Appeal No. 7 of 1997).\nMushtaq Ahmed for Appellant (in Custom Appeal No. 10 of 1997).\nSyed Ayaz Zahoor for Appellant (in Custom Appeal No. 11 of 1997).\nK.N. Kohl for Appellant (in Custom Appeal No. 15 of 1997).\nAppellant through Jail (in Custom Criminal Jail Appeal No. 16 of 1997).", + "Petitioner Name:": "NABI DAD and others \nVS \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8035", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 587 = 1998 SLD 587 = 1998 PCRLJ 1514", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Bail in Drug Smuggling\n•\nIssue: Bail refusal in a drug smuggling case involving gold.\n•\nConclusion: Bail denied due to sufficient evidence and the seriousness of the offense.\n•\nCitations:\no\nTariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Bail Application No.2 of 1998, decision dated: 16-02-1998", + "Judge Name:": "SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana M. Shamim for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MULLAH QAID JOHAR \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8036", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 595 = 2000 SLD 595 = 2000 PTCL 515 = 2000 YLR 2724", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Public Interest Litigation and Judicial Activism\n•\nFacts: The case involved delays in disposal of cases by the Customs Appellate Tribunal, raising broader concerns of public interest and judicial efficiency.\n•\nKey Issues:\no\nJudicial Activism: Courts must adopt dynamic interpretations to address evolving legal challenges.\no\nRecommendations: High Court recommended reforms in the appointment and functioning of Customs Tribunals.\n•\nKey Citations:\no\nShehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693\no\nPeople's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1473", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. D-1901 of 1999, heard on 22-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, JUSTICE\nZAHID KURBAN ALAVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem for Petitioner.\nS. Tariq Ali, Arshad Malik and Mir Fawad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PHILIPS ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES OF PAKISTAN LTD. \nVS\nPAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8037", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 810 = 2001 SLD 810 = 2001 PCRLJ 1314 = 2001 PTCL 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Supremacy of Special Courts and Acquittal Impact on Departmental Penalties\n•\nFacts: The accused was convicted under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act, but acquitted on appeal. Despite the acquittal, departmental penalties, including confiscation of goods and a vehicle, were imposed.\n•\nLegal Issue: Could penalties and confiscations imposed by the department stand after the accused’s acquittal by Special Courts?\n•\nRuling: Section 179-A of the Customs Act (repealed in 1979 but in force during the incident in 1978) gave primacy to decisions of the Special Court over departmental adjudication. The departmental orders were declared illegal.\n•\nKey Citations:\no\nGovernment of Pakistan v. Abdul Majeed 1997 SCMR 348\no\nFederal Government v. Muhammad Sarwar PLD 1989 SC 377", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.4174 of 1983, heard on 26-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahir Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.\nKhan Muhammad Virk for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SIRDAR KHAN and 3 others\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8038", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 814 = 2001 SLD 814 = 2001 YLR 2696 = (2001) 84 TAX 504", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Petition in Revenue Matters\n•\nFacts: A petitioner challenged a customs notice through a constitutional petition without exhausting departmental remedies under Sections 193 and 195-A.\n•\nIssue: Is a constitutional petition maintainable when alternative remedies exist?\n•\nRuling: The petition was dismissed as the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedies.\n•\nKey Principle: Judicial remedies should not bypass statutory processes unless exceptional circumstances exist.\n•\nKey Citation:\no\nConstructions Ltd. v. Executive Engineer, Indus Bridge Division PLD 1975 Kar. 1059", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.21877 of 2000, decision dated: 14-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fakhar-ud-Din G. Ebrahim for Petitioner.\nJawahar A. Naqvi on behalf of K.M, Virk for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NEW JUBILEE INSURANCE\nVS\nA.C. CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8039", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 815 = 2001 SLD 815 = 2001 YLR 3011 = (2001) 84 TAX 476", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation and Redemption of Vehicles\n•\nFacts: Imported vehicles under a Personal Baggage and Gift Scheme were confiscated for non-compliance with rules. Petitioners were not given the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation.\n•\nIssue: Whether the petitioners were entitled to reclaim vehicles by paying a fine.\n•\nRuling: The court directed release upon payment of a 10% fine in addition to duties, highlighting that confiscation was disproportionate.\n•\nKey Citation:\no\nMuhammad Arif v. Collector of Customs 1998 CLC 1664", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 14045 to 14073, 14079, 14615 to 14630 and 14641 of 2001, heard on 8-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Petitioner.\nK.M. Virk for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUSAF\nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CFS CUSTOMS, THOKAR NIAZ BAIG and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8040", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 796 = 2002 SLD 796 = 2002 CLC 506 = 2002 PTCL 340", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Raid by Rangers Beyond Jurisdiction\n•\nFacts: Rangers seized gold in a city raid beyond their operational area.\n•\nIssue: Was the raid lawful?\n•\nRuling: The raid violated Section 7 of the Customs Act and the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance. Seizures outside their jurisdiction were declared illegal.\n•\nKey Citations:\no\nSher Bahadur v. Chairman, Industrial Relations PLD 1975 Kar. 483", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No.21 of 1997, decision dated: 3rd October, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMANSOOR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Adrian Ahmed for Appellant.\nJawahar A. Naqvi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHEIKH NIZAR ALI\nVS\n and another" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8041", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 816 = 2001 SLD 816 = 2001 PTCL 615 = 2002 CLC 705", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Adjudication vs. Executive Authority\n•\nFacts: A Collector (Adjudication) reopened a case already decided by another adjudicating authority.\n•\nIssue: Could the Collector act under revisional powers to reopen the case?\n•\nRuling: The Collector (Adjudication) had no jurisdiction to reopen cases already finalized. Adjudicative and executive functions are distinct, and such revisional actions violated procedural safeguards.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 13890 of 2001, decision dated: 2-08-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqsood Ahmed Butt, Mian Sultan Tanvir and Imran Shafiq for Petitioner.\nKhan Muhammad Virk for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAN TRADING COMPANY, GUJRANWALA \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION), LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8042", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 802 = 2002 SLD 802 = 2002 MLD 296 = 2002 PTCL 80 = (2002) 85 TAX 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Binding Nature of CBR Orders on Confiscation\n•\nFacts: Disputes arose regarding the interpretation and implementation of CBR orders on confiscated goods and their effect on appellate jurisdiction.\n•\nRuling: CBR orders under Section 181 of the Customs Act are binding on Customs officers and Appellate Tribunals. However, tribunals retain jurisdiction to rule on whether goods are liable for confiscation.\n•\nKey Citation:\no\nCentral Insurance Company v. C.B.R. 1993 PTD 766", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181,223", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.4 of 1998 (Previous Civil Appeal No.253 of 1997), decision dated: 16-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nMANSOOR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MULTAN\nVS\nMUHAMMAD TASLEEM\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVS\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOM HOUSE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8043", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 804 = 2002 SLD 804 = 2002 MLD 700 = 2002 PTCL 31", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Search Warrants Issued by Illaqa Magistrate\n•\nFacts: A search warrant issued by an Illaqa Magistrate led to the seizure of goods. The petitioner challenged the legality of the warrant.\n•\nRuling: Warrants issued by Illaqa Magistrates, rather than Judicial Magistrates, are unlawful. The High Court nullified all actions based on the invalid warrant.\n•\nKey Citations:\no\nCollector of Customs v. Muhammad Akram RLD 1999 Pesh. 33", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=162", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1012 of 1995, decision dated: 26-07-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MANSOOR AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kh. Adnan for Petitioner.\nK.M. Virk for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHANZENFER ALI KHANPE\nVS\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8044", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 808 = 2002 SLD 808 = 2002 PCRLJ 196 = 2002 PTCL 603", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Confessional Statements in Customs Cases\n•\nFacts: Accused were convicted based on circumstantial and documentary evidence, including signed confessional statements under Section 165 of the Customs Act.\n•\nIssue: Were the confessional statements admissible, and was the delay in filing the FIR justifiable?\n•\nRuling: Confessions under the Customs Act are valid, as they are not governed by Section 161, Cr.P.C. Delays in FIR filing were adequately explained.\n•\nKey Citations:\no\nState of Punjab v. Barkat Ram AIR 1962 SC 276", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos.421, 434, 462, 484 and Criminal Revision No. 101 of 2000, decision dated: 19-09-2001. dates of hearing: 23rd April; 21st, 26th May; 4th and 11-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIDA RACHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Muhammad Khan and Pir Fida for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD FAROOQ AFRIDI\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8045", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 809 = 2002 SLD 809 = 2002 PCRLJ 621 = 2003 PTCL 117", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Quashing of Proceedings in Fraudulent Claims\n•\nFacts: Proceedings were initiated against the accused for fraudulently obtaining customs refunds.\n•\nRuling: The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of evidence and trial to address the allegations.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 126 of 2000, decision dated: 23rd April, 2001, hearing DATE : 19-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "FAIZ MUHAMMAD QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Applicant.\nM. Shaiq Usmani for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL \nVS\nTHE STATE\nCH. ABID SAEED and others \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8046", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 810 = 2002 SLD 810 = 2002 PCRLJ 1818 = 2003 PTCL 23", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=161,162,163,185A,185CPakistan Penal Code, 1860=41Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=4(1)(s),5(2),54,59,60,61,167,160,161,169,154,172,173,164,103,190,497", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Bail Applications Nos.30, 31, 32. 33 of 2001, decision dated: 18-01-2002. dates of hearing: 14th, 27th, December; 2nd and 4th January. 2002", + "Judge Name:": "SHABBIR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Navin Merchant for Applicant (in Special Criminal Bail No. 30 of 2001).\nSohail Muzaffar assisted by Ms. Fouzia Rasheed for Applicants (in Special Criminal Bails Nos.31 to 33 of 2001).\nS. Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel (in all applications).", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8047", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 811 = 2002 SLD 811 = 2002 SCMR 920 = 2003 PTCL 129", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Delivery of Goods Pending Appeal\n•\nFacts: A passenger coach was not released despite the petitioner fulfilling redemption fine conditions.\n•\nRuling: The High Court ordered the immediate release of the coach, as there was no stay order on the original adjudication.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 379-K of 2001, decision dated: 19-06-2001", + "Judge Name:": "SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khursheed Hashmi, Deputy Attorney-General and Akhlaq A Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "Director General, PAKISTAN COAST GUARDS, KARACHI and others\nVS\nABDUL JABBAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8048", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 812 = 2002 SLD 812 = 2002 PTCL 579 = 2002 SCMR 1527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Dual Proceedings by Special Judge and Customs Authorities\n•\nFacts: Acquittal by the Special Judge Customs was argued to nullify confiscation orders by Customs Authorities.\n•\nRuling: Judicial and departmental proceedings are independent. Acquittal does not automatically invalidate adjudication unless the latter violates legal principles.\n•\nKey Citations:\no\nAdam v. Collectors of Customs PLD 1969 SC 446", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1582 of 2001, decision dated: 13-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nAbdul Rashid Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (CUSTOMS), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and others \nVS\nMAHMOOD AHMED QURESHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8049", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 813 = 2002 SLD 813 = 2002 PTCL 468 = 2002 SCMR 1176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViRlNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Observations on Customs Officials\n•\nFacts: Observations against Customs officials in a High Court ruling were challenged.\n•\nRuling: The Supreme Court directed the Competent Authority to review the matter and decide on any necessary action.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 97-L of 2002, decision dated: 11-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.\nKh. Haris Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court with Ijaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others\nVS\nTARIQ IQBAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8050", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 681 = 2006 SLD 681 = 2006 SCMR 129 = 2008 PTCL 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 196---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Appeal to High Court---Requirement---When S.196, Customs Act, 1969 requires filing of an appeal by the Collector then it can be filed only by the Collector and none else---Appeal filed by Director of Customs would be deemed to be illegal, incompetent and not maintainable---Even the appeal purported to have been filed by the Collector as the nomenclature of the appellant appeared as Collector of Customs but not signed and verified by him and instead was signed or verified either by a Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector of Customs same would also be deemed not to have been filed in accordance with law---Principles---Supreme Court . expressed its extreme dissatisfaction, discontentment and displeasure on the manner in which the officers of the Customs, Department, Law Officers/Standing Counsel engaged by the Department and the Advocate-on-Record involved in filing/institution of petitions had conducted themselves---Such conduct of persons involved resulted ,in colossal loss to the Government---Copy of the present was directed to be sent to the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and the Attorney-General for Pakistan, to apprise them of the apathy, careless, casual and ignorant behaviour of the officers of the Customs and the Law Officers/Counsel dealing with the Customs Department.\n \nIn the matter of Reference by the President of Pakistan under Article 162 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 219; Messrs V.N. Lakhani and Company v. m.v. Lakatoi Express and 2 others PLD 1994 SC 894; E.A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1964 SC 536; Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1971 SC 61; Liverpool Borrough Bank v. Turner (1848) 13 QB 30; The Punjab Province v. Malik Khizar Hayat Khan Tiwana PLD 1958 FC 200; Khalid Saeed v. Shamim Rizvan and others 2003 SCMR 1505; State through Advocate-General, Sindh v. Hanif Ahmed and others 1994 SCMR 749; Kadir Bux and others v. The Crown PLD 1955 FC 79; Haji Abdullah Jan and others v. The State 2003 SCMR 1063 and Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268 ref.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 196 & 194-B---Appeal to High Court---Limitation---Filing of appeal after lapse of 30 days from the date on which the order under S.194-B, Customs Act, 1969 was served on the Collector, the appeals would be barred by time---Appeal would be deemed to have been properly filed when the memos. of appeal were signed and verified by the Collector---Principles.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.287-K, 288, 291, 292, 872, 873-K of 2004, 307, 308, 314, 326, 330 to 333, 339, 343 to 346, 357 to 363-K, 461, 462, 503 and 530-K of 2005, decision dated: 17-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.287, 288, 291 and 292-K of 2004).\nK.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.872, 873, 326-K of 2004, 330 to 333, 357 to 363, 461, 462, 503 and 530 of 2005).\nA.S.K. Ghouri, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos-307, 308, 314, 319, 343 to 346-K of 2005).\nM.S. Ghouri, Advocate-on,-Record for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.343 and 344-K of 2005).", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATEGENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION and others \nVS\nMESSRS ALFAIZ INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8051", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 685 = 2006 SLD 685 = 2006 PTD 2770 = 2007 PTCL 269 = 2007 SCMR 195", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Misuse of Bonded Warehouse – Application of Penalty\nConclusion:\nThe accused unloaded goods from a bonded warehouse and consumed them without customs notification. The Customs Appellate Tribunal imposed penalties under clause (90) of Section 156(1), but the High Court found clause (62) more applicable. It reduced the penalty and maintained that the importer was liable to penalties provided by clause (62).\nCitations: No illegality was found in the High Court's ruling. Leave to appeal was declined.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 173-P of 2002, decision dated: 16-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE\nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdur Rauf Rohaila Advocate Supreme Court with Tasleem Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nSyed Safdar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR \nVS\nMESSRS PAPER INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., NOWSHERA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8052", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1033 = 2007 SLD 1033 = 2008 PTCL 32 = 2007 PTD 1485 = 2007 SCMR 1149", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Delay in Issuing Show-Cause Notices for Seized Goods\nConclusion:\nGold seized in 1963 had a show-cause notice issued in 1978, violating procedural timelines under the Customs Act, 1969. The delay invalidated the seizure, requiring the return of the goods.\nCitations:\n•\nHaji Noor-ul-Haq v. Collector of Customs 1998 MLD 650\n•\nJoint Secretary C.B.R. v. Raja Nazar Hussain 1991 SCMR 647", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168(2),180,221Land Customs Act, (XIX of 1924)=9Sea Customs Act, 1878=178,167(81)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1985 of 2000, decision dated: 8-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nNASIR-UL-MULK, JUSTICE\nSYED, JAMSHED ALI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\n Ex parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS\nVS\nMST. SIDDIQAN AFZAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8053", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 686 = 2006 SLD 686 = 2006 PTCL 378 = 2008 SCMR 1538", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 15 & 17---RBD Palm oil unfit for human consumption, import of---Confiscation of such oil and imposition of penalty---Validity---Test reports of such oil showing same to be fit for human consumption at the time of its import, but had become unfit due to passage of time---Making improper samples of such oil or subjecting same to processing could make same unfit for human consumption---Test report indicated that such oil, after undergoing further process of Ghee manufacturing could become fit for human consumption---Appellate Tribunal set aside impugned order with direction to importer to carry out process of manufacturing Ghee from such oil subject to scrutiny by representative of Health Department and release such quantity of oil only if found fit for human consumption. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 194 & 196---Decision of Appellate Tribunal on factual aspect of case---Appeal to High Court---Maintainability---Decision of Tribunal neither suffering from any illegality or infirmity nor contrary to or in violation of any provision of Customs Act, 1969 or any other law---No question of law was before Tribunal for adjudication, which was necessary condition for maintainability of appeal under S.196 of the Customs Act, 1969---High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 884-K and 885-K of 2004, decision dated: 10-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions).\nNemo for Respondent (in both Petitions).", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM, KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS KAGHAN GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "8054", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 739 = 2010 SLD 739 = (2010) 101 TAX 169 = 2010 SCMR 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 196---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Imported goods--- Description---Scope---Grievance of importer was that goods imported fell within PTC Heading 8419.5090 chargeable to customs duty at 10% but authorities applied PTC Heading 8419.5010 and charged customs duty at the rate of 35%---Validity---Goods imported were shaped like Shell as well as Tube , therefore, it did not appeal ,to a prudent mind to take the same out from description Shell or Tube type and put under description other not akin to relevant description---Adjudicating officer had correctly classified imported goods chargeable under PCT Heading 8419.5010, so also the Customs Appellate Tribunal---High Court rightly dismissed appeal and reference of importer---Concurrent findings recorded by courts below were unexceptionable-Leave to appeal was refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.906 of 2009, decision dated: 28-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8055", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 740 = 2010 SLD 740 = (2010) 102 TAX 125 = 2010 SCMR 1746", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 196---Finance Act (IV of 2007), S.8(25)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether Director-General, Intelligence and Investigation, Federal Board of Revenue was covered by expression \"\"aggrieved person\"\" under S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969, prior to its amendment vide S. 8(25) of Finance Act, 2007 made applicable from 1-7-2007. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 196---Finance Act (IV of 2007), S. 8(25)---Reference applications before High Court---Scope---Reference applications filed by Director-General Intelligence and Investigation were dismissed by High Court as incompetently filed---Validity---Reference applications were filed in March/April, 2007, i.e. prior to 1-7-2007, when section 196 of Customs Act, 1969 was amended by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 1-7-2007, authorizing appellants etc. to file Reference applications before High Court---Prior to the amendment, Director and Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation etc. had no power to institute Reference applications in S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the passed by High Court, whereby appeals of appellants were dismissed as incompetently and invalidly filed---Appeal was dismissed. \n \nDirector, Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation and others v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (PVT.) Limited and others 2006 SCMR 129 and Director, Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation, Customs and Excise, Karachi v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (PVT) LTD., Karachi and others 2004 PTD 2987 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 768 to 788 of 2009, decision dated: 15-07-2010, hearing DATE : 11-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nTARIQ PERVAIZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all cases).\nMuhammad Nacem Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sajjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in all cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Director General, INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATIONFBR THROUGH DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATIONFBR \nVS \nSHER ANDAZ and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8056", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1991 286 = 1991 SLD 286 = 1991 PLD 36 = 1993 PTCL 182", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Compliance with Customs Adjudication Orders\nConclusion:\nAll agencies empowered under Section 6 of the Customs Act must comply with adjudication orders. Withholding seized vehicles despite a release order was declared unlawful.\nCitations:\n•\nPLD 1970 SC 1\n•\nPLD 1981 SC 94", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=6,169,170Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.291 of 1990, decision dated: 24-12-1990", + "Judge Name:": "MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Hussain Khan for Petitioner.\nMuhammad Riaz Ahmad Standing Counsel for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SULTAN MUHAMMAD\nVS\nCOMMANDANT PISHIN SCOUTS, CHAMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8057", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 273 = 1996 SLD 273 = 1996 PLD 69 = 1996 PTCL 585", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Appeal Against Acquittal under Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\nA co-accused exonerated others, claiming the industry was leased and not involved in illegal activities. The prosecution failed to rebut these claims.\nHeld:\nThe acquittal was upheld due to insufficient evidence from the prosecution.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1)(89); Cr.P.C. (V of 1898), S. 417; PLD 1953 Lah. 495; 1993 SCMR 828.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(1)(89)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=417", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.65 of 1994, decision dated: 30-05-1996", + "Judge Name:": "SYED IBNE ALI, CHIEF, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Muhammad Khan assisted by Abdul Waheed Khan and Muhammad Arif Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE THROUGH DEPUTY Attorney General FOR PAKISTAN, PESHAWAR \nVS\nQAZI TALIB MOHYUDDIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8058", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 599 = 2000 SLD 599 = 2000 PLD 62 = 2000 PTCL 445", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Confiscation of Bus Involved in Smuggling\nDetails:\nA bus owner was implicated in smuggling based on statements from the driver and cleaner. Contraband was hidden in cavities specially designed in the bus.\nHeld:\nThe owner was linked to the illegal activity, and confiscation orders were upheld.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 194-B; PLD 1988 Lah. 177; PLD 1974 SC 5.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.24 of 1999, decision dated: 22-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nRAJA MUHAMMAD KHURSHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Azeem, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NOOR BAT KHAN \nVS\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8059", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 817 = 2001 SLD 817 = 2001 PLD 78 = (2001) 83 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Effect of Repeal of a Statute\nDetails:\nGold seized in 1963 under the repealed Sea Customs Act, 1878, was confiscated in 1978 under the Customs Act, 1969, without following proper procedure.\nHeld:\nConfiscation was illegal due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The gold was ordered to be returned.\nCitations: Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 168, 180, 221(1); Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), S. 167(81); 1998 MLD 650; 1991 SCMR 647.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168,180,221(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Sea Customs Act, 1878=167(81)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2454 of 1983, heard on 26-09-2000", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.\nIzharul Haq Sheikh, for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. SIDDIQAN AFZAL and 6 others \nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS, FAISALABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8060", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 21 = 1970 SLD 21 = (1994) 70 TAX 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act 1969 - Retrospective Application of Policy Ruling\nDetails: Respondent imported hub spindles of cycles in March 1983 against an import license issued for cycle parts. The Customs Department alleged that the respondent contravened import policy. A policy ruling issued in August 1983 was applied retroactively by the Customs Department to the imports made earlier in March 1983.\nHeld: The Court held that the ruling issued in August 1983 could not be applied retroactively to imports made in March 1983. The High Court's observation that the ruling applies only to imports made after its issuance date was upheld.\nCitations: Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan (PLD 1970 SC 453).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal Nos. 189 and 190 of 1990, decision dated: 7-12-1991", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HASAN SHAH, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD RAFIQUE TARAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana M.A. Qadri, Advocate-on-Record, for the Appellants.\nRaja Muhammad Akhtar Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 3 others\nVS\nMANZOOR BROTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8061", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 782 = 2004 SLD 782 = (2005) 91 TAX 95 = 2004 PTD 2577", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=23(1)Second Schedule,Part-I,Clause102ECompanies and Modaraba Rules, 1981=9,18Companies and Modarabas (Floatation and Control) Ordinance (XXXI of 1980)=10,11,14,15,19,37", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 2306/KB of 2001, decision dated: 11-05-2002, hearing DATE : 11-04-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KABIR UL HASSAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nABDUL GHAFOOR, JUNEJO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalil Ahmed Waggan, F.C.A., Irfan Saadat Khan, Muhammad Arshad, A.C.A. and Muhammad Saleem Siddiquie, A.C.A. for Appellant.\nMateen Khan, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8062", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 783 = 2004 SLD 783 = (2005) 91 TAX 117 = 2004 PTD 2648", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=159Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=370", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 305/KB of 2003, decision dated: 25-05-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nS. ABDUL MINAM, JAFRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sartaj Yausaf, D.R. for the Appellant.\nMuhammad Mehtab for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8063", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 784 = 2004 SLD 784 = (2005) 91 TAX 126 = 2004 PTD 2494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi", + "Law and Sections:": "Finance Act, 1997=PreambleFinance Act, 1995=Preamble", + "Case #": "ITA NO. 1893/KB of 1999-2000 (Assessment year 1997-98), decision dated: 31st August, 2001, hearing DATE : 24.05.2001", + "Judge Name:": "INAM ELLAHI SHEIKH, CHAIRMAN\nJAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by . Mr. Irfan Sadat Khan, Advocate.\nRespondent by . Mr. Qamar-ud-Din. D.R.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8064", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 785 = 2004 SLD 785 = (2005) 91 TAX 135 = 2004 PTD 2672", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=59,62", + "Case #": "I.T.A No. 325/IB/2002, Assessment Year 2000-01, decision dated: 27-05-2004, hearing DATE : 15-05-2004.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Muhammad Tahir Khan. D.R for the Appellant.\nNone for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8065", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 786 = 2004 SLD 786 = (2005) 91 TAX 142 = 2004 PTD 2691", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=50(7A),59A,59(1),156", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 07/IB/2004, Assessment Year 1995-96, decision dated: 24-05-2004, hearing DATE : 12-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MASOOD UL HASSAN SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMAHMOOD AHMAD MALIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8066", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 787 = 2004 SLD 787 = (2005) 91 TAX 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=74", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No.1248/LB of 2001 (Assessment year 1996-97), decision dated: 27-3-2002, hearing DATE : 14-3-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nKHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAMJAD ALI RANJHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Abbas, Advocate and Irfan Ilyas, F.C.A., for the Appellant.\nAshraf Ahmud All, D.R., for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8067", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1121 = 2013 SLD 1121 = (2013) 107 TAX 309", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act 1969 - Jurisdiction of Pakistan Coast Guards and Filing Appeals\nDetails: The Pakistan Coast Guards seized gold and initiated legal proceedings. The appeal filed by the D.G. Pakistan Coast Guards was dismissed on grounds of incompetency, as officers of Customs are barred from appealing decisions made by officers of equal or higher rank. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was upheld.\nHeld: Officers of the Pakistan Coast Guards are not officers of Customs under the Customs Act, 1969. They are authorized to perform limited functions for preventing smuggling in coastal areas. Appeals by Coast Guards officers under section 193 of the Customs Act were deemed incompetent.\nCitations: Sultan Muhammad v. Commandant Pishin Scouts, Chaman PLD 1991 Quetta 36; Haji Abdullah Jan v. The State 2003 SCMR 1063.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Spl. Custom Ref. Application No.36 of 2010, decision dated: 23-1-2012, hearing DATE : 23-11-2011", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE\nAQEEL AHMAD ABBASI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nisar Ahmed Tarar, for the Applicant.\nMs. Firdoos Farride, for the Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others\nVS\nDirector General PAKISTAN, COAST GUARDS, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8068", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1122 = 2013 SLD 1122 = (2013) 107 TAX 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act 1969 - Maintainability of Constitutional Petition\nDetails: Petitioner exceeded authorized import of ammunition using multiple NTNs. Customs withheld the Import Authorization Permit (IAP), citing alleged violations. Petitioner argued that the Customs Authority acted beyond its jurisdiction, making a constitutional petition necessary.\nHeld: The petition was declared maintainable as the respondents allegedly acted outside their jurisdiction. The Customs Authority was within its rights to withhold the IAP pending inquiry under the Customs Act, 1969.\nCitations: PLD 1961 SC 537; PLD 1963 SC 203; PLD 1965 SC 605.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 9895 of 2012, decision dated: 29-5-2012", + "Judge Name:": "AYESHA A MALIK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Adnan Ahmad Khawaja, for the Petitioner. \nGhulam Ali Raza with Miss Naeema Bazool, Deputy Collector Custom and M. Naveen Chishti, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAMAL SALAM\nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8069", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1123 = 2013 SLD 1123 = (2013) 107 TAX 185 = 2013 PTD 1178", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act 1969 - Misdeclaration by Exporter\nDetails: Exporter misdeclared the weight of exported goods, violating Section 32 of the Customs Act. The exporter claimed bias due to non-issuance of a written show-cause notice during summary adjudication.\nHeld: The Court rejected the claim, stating that the issue was already known to the exporter, and no bias occurred. Verbal notices are acceptable in summary adjudications.\nCitations: Not mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.58/LB of 2011, decision dated: 27-09-2012, hearing DATE : 10-08-2011", + "Judge Name:": "CH. IMRAN MASOOD, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Najaf for Appellant.\nAhmad Kamala D.R. with Habib-ur-Rehman, Inspector for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8070", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1124 = 2013 SLD 1124 = 2013 PTCL 560 = 2013 PTD 1251 = (2014) 109 TAX 109", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViS1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act 1969 - Dismissal of Appeal Without Reasons\nDetails: Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal without providing reasons. The High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision after hearing parties and recording findings.\nHeld: The dismissal was invalid as it lacked justification. The case was remanded for proper adjudication.\nCitations: 2006 PTD 2237; 2005 CLD 159 = 2005 PTD 449.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.10 of 2012, decision dated: 9-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD, JUSTICE\nIBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nAhmad Raza for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RAZA SERVICES THROUGH ATTORNEY \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), MULTAN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8071", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1125 = 2013 SLD 1125 = (2013) 108 TAX 484 = 2013 PTCL 511 = 2013 PTD 1259", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act 1969 - Penalty for Illegal Removal from Bonded Warehouse\nDetails: Taxpayer clandestinely removed goods from a bonded warehouse without paying duties. The penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,000,000 to Rs. 500,000 by the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court found the taxpayer liable under Section 156(1)(62) with a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000.\nHeld: The penalty was reduced to the statutory maximum under Section 156(1)(62).\nCitations: Not mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "S.A.O. N0.27 of 2002, decision dated: 6-11-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN FASIH-UL MULK, JUSTICE\nMRS. IRSHAD QAISER, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "lsaas All Qazi for Appellant.\nTalseem Hussain for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS KAGHAN GHEE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8072", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1126 = 2013 SLD 1126 = 2013 PTD 1331", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Jurisdiction - Anti-Dumping Duties\nDetails: Complaint filed against anti-dumping duties imposed by the National Tariff Commission. The complaint was deemed outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman, as the issue fell under the Ministry of Commerce and not the Revenue Division.\nHeld: Complaint was dismissed as it should be addressed to the Federal Ombudsman (Wafaqi Mohtasib).\nCitations: Not mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=9", + "Case #": "Complainants Nos. 04/ISD/CUS(01)/208, 05/ISD/CUS(()2)/209 and 11/ISD/CUS(04)/309 of 2013, decision dated: 6-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "A Sardar Irshad Shaheen, Advisor Dealing Officer. Muhammad Afzal Awan for Authorized", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS IMPEX AGENCIES, KARACHI \nVS\nSECRETARY REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8073", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1127 = 2013 SLD 1127 = 2013 PTD 1332", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act 1969 - Valuation and Revised Rulings\nDetails: Petitioner contested valuation of imported goods. A revised valuation ruling by the Director of Valuation was applied retroactively.\nHeld: The revised ruling was deemed effective from the date of the original ruling, not imposing excess taxes on the petitioner. Benefit of ambiguity or error in rulings must favor taxpayers.\nCitations: Not mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18406 of 2011, decision dated: 12-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Applicant.\nSarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BILAL ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8074", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1128 = 2013 SLD 1128 = 2013 PTD 1393", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act 1969 - Exemption of Duty and Maladministration\nDetails: Federal Board of Revenue denied exemption for bed-lifts for a hospital, alleging they were passenger lifts. The Court found the refusal discriminatory and without reasoning.\nHeld: FBR directed to reconsider the exemption with proper justification and afford the complainant an opportunity to be heard.\nCitations: Not mentioned.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 9/Khi/Cust/(07)/21 of 2013, decision dated: 29-04-2013", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Nadir Khan, Advisor Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS QUAIDEAZAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAHAWALPUR\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8075", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 165 = 1995 SLD 165 = (1995) 72 TAX 279 = (1994) 205 ITR 370", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Section 273(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - Failure to pay advance tax - Assessment year 1975-76 - Assessee was a partner in a firm and was an assessee under section 210(1) - ITO demanded advance tax for relevant year - Difference of tax finally determined and advance tax demanded under section 210 was more than 331 /3V per cent, assessee was required to revise and to file an estimate of advance tax - Since this was not done, ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 273(2)(c) and imposed penalty - Tribunal held that firm was prevented by reasonable cause from estimating its income and same would apply to partners - Whether finding of Tribunal was a finding of fact - Held, yes - Whether Tribunal was, thus, justified in cancelling penalty imposed under section 273(c) - Held, yes\nFACTS\nThe assessee was a partner in a firm and was also an assessee under section 210(1). The ITO demanded advance tax for the assessment year 1975-76 under section 156, read with section 210, on the basis of the assessed income. The difference of the tax finally determined and advance tax demanded under section 210 was more than 331/ 3 per cent and the assessee was required to revise and to file an estimate of advance tax under section 212(3A) and to pay tax accordingly, which was not done. Therefore, the ITO initiated proceedings under section 273(c) and imposed penalty. In the reply submitted to the ITO it was mentioned that till the last date on which the last instalment of advance tax was due, the assessee had no reason to believe that his current income was likely to be greater than the income on which the advance tax was demanded under section 210 and it was on account of heavy additions in the assessment of the firm that the income had increased. It was also mentioned that at the time of proceeding under section 144B in the case of the firm it was agreed that the partners would not be penalised for any default under sections 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c ) and 273. The ITO concluded that it was obligatory upon the assessee to file a higher estimate of his total income and pay the tax thereon.\nOn first appeal, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the appellant fully knew that its income was going to be far greater than the income on the basis of which the advance tax was demanded as on account of the search undisclosed stock was surrendered by the firm. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed. On second appeal, the Tribunal held that the firm was prevented by reasonable cause from estimating its income and the same would apply to the partners.\nHELD\nIn the instant case, the finding that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause was a finding of fact. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty imposed under section 273(c) on the assessee.", + "Court Name:": "Rajasthan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=273(c),210(1),212(3A),144B", + "Case #": "DB IT REFERENCE NO. 105 OF 1981, APRIL 19, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "K.C. AGRAWAL, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nV.K. SINGHAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.S. Gupta for the Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax\nVS\nL.K. KASLIWAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8076", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 166 = 1995 SLD 166 = (1995) 72 TAX 282 = (1994) 205 ITR 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Capital Gains - Exemption under Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nDetails: The assessees were co-owners of a bungalow and land. They sold the entire property in 1972 for Rs. 24 lakhs, with a provision in the sale deed allowing repurchase of the residential portion (bungalow) for Rs. 7 lakhs. After the sale, they resided in the bungalow as tenants. Within a year, the assessees repurchased the bungalow via an independent agreement, paying Rs. 7 lakhs. The Income Tax Officer denied the Section 54 deduction, claiming the purchase of the same property did not qualify. The AAC upheld the deduction, supported by the Tribunal, as the sale and repurchase were valid transactions.\nHeld: The assessees purchased the bungalow within the prescribed one-year period and were entitled to the exemption under Section 54(1). The transactions were neither bogus nor invalid.\nCitations:\n•\nCases Referred To:\no\nAlapati Venkataramiah v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 185 (SC)\no\nCIT v. T.N. Aravinda Reddy [1979] 120 ITR 46 (SC)\no\nCIT v. Bhurangya Coal Co. [1958] 34 ITR 802 (SC)\no\nCIT v. Mrs. Shahzada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397 (AP)\no\nCIT v. Zaibunnisa Begum [1985] 151 ITR 320 (AP)\no\nS. Radhakrishna v. CIT [1984] 145 ITR 170 (Mad.)\no\nSmt. Vijayalakshmi v. CIT [1975] 100 ITR 648 (Kar.).", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),54Income Tax Act, 1922=12B", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 232 OF 1979, MARCH 5, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. SUJATA MANOHAR, JUSTICE\nU.T. SHAHM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dilip Dwarkadas and A.S. Tungare for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax\nVS\nPHIROZE H. PATCH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8077", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 167 = 1995 SLD 167 = (1995) 71 TAX 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Expenditure - Damages under Section 14B of EPF and FP Act, 1952\nDetails: The assessee defaulted on provident fund contributions under the EPF and FP Act, 1952, for which damages were levied under Section 14B. The ITO disallowed the damages, terming them penal. The Commissioner (Appeals) bifurcated the damages into compensatory (interest) and penal portions, allowing the former as deductible. The Tribunal reversed this, disallowing the entire claim.\nHeld: Following the Supreme Court rulings, damages under Section 14B comprise compensatory and penal components. Deduction is allowable for the compensatory part. The Tribunal was incorrect in reversing the Commissioner’s order.\nCitations:\n•\nCases Referred To:\no\nOrgano Chemical Industries v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 1803\no\nPrakash Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 684 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),37(1)", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 324 OF 1983, SEPTEMBER 9, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE\nD.R. DHANUKA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.V. Zaveri for the Applicant.\nG.S. Jetly, P.S. Jetly and Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NEW MAHALAXMI SILK MILLS (P.) LTD\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8078", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 168 = 1995 SLD 168 = (1995) 71 TAX 148 = (1994) 206 ITR 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Prosecution for Failure to Pay TDS - Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nDetails: The assessee deducted tax at source from employee salaries but failed to deposit it with the Central Government on time. The trial court convicted the assessee, but the Sessions Judge acquitted it, citing the omission of without reasonable cause or excuse in the charge. The Revenue appealed.\nHeld: The absence of specific wording in the charge did not prejudice the accused or vitiate the trial. The explanation provided by the assessee for the delay (e.g., unavailability of the managing director's signature) was not accepted as reasonable cause. The trial court's conviction was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nCase Referred To:\no\nITO v. Taurus Equipment (P.) Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 982 (Pat.).", + "Court Name:": "Madras High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=276B,200Income Tax Rules, 1962=30", + "Case #": "CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 412 OF 1987, OCTOBER 8, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ramaswamy, K. for the Appellant.\nKarpagavinayagam, N.S. Varadhachari and C.P. Pattabiraman for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Income Tax OFFICER\nVS\nRAYALA CORPN. (P.) LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8079", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 169 = 1995 SLD 169 = (1995) 71 TAX 152 = (1994) 206 ITR 391", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Firm Registration and Delayed Declaration Filing\nDetails:\nThe assessee-firm applied for registration for AY 1972-73, granted on 24-2-1975. For AY 1973-74, the return and Form No. 12 were due by 30-6-1973 but filed late due to partner 'D's death and procedural errors. The ITO and Commissioner denied registration due to late filing and invalid signature on Form No. 12, while the Tribunal accepted the explanation and granted registration.\nHeld: The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay and accept the declaration as valid was upheld. The firm was entitled to registration.\nCitations: Relevant to Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1)", + "Case #": "I.T. REFERENCE NO. 309 OF 1980, JUNE 9, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "G.T. NANAVATI, JUSTICE\nY.B. BHATT, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "B.J. Shelat and M.R. Bhatt for the Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax\nVS\nDAHYABHAI PARSHOTTAMDAS PATEL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8080", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 170 = 1995 SLD 170 = (1995) 71 TAX 199 = (1994) 206 ITR 359", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Income Accrual and Waiver of Interest\nDetails:\nFor AY 1974-75, the assessee, maintaining mercantile accounts, waived interest after the accrual date. The ITO initially allowed the waiver, but the Commissioner and Tribunal ruled that interest had accrued as per agreement by 31-12-1973, making it taxable. Subsequent waiver could not alter its character.\nHeld: Interest accrued as income could not be negated by later waiver. Assessed income was upheld.\nCitations:\n•\nKey Cases: Morvi Industries Ltd. v. CIT [1971], CIT v. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962], State Bank of Travancore v. CIT [1986].", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),263", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 44 OF 1982, SEPTEMBER 28, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "DR. B.P. SARAF, JUSTICE\nD.R. DHANUKA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sudhir J. Mehta and Ms Aarti Vissanji for the Applicant.\nG.S. Jetly, P.S. Jetly and Mrs. S. Bhattacharya for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "WESTERN INDIA OIL DISTRIBUTING CO. LTD\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8081", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 171 = 1995 SLD 171 = (1995) 71 TAX 244 = (1994) 205 ITR 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Mesne Profits as Capital Receipt and Capital Gains Tax\nDetails:\nThe assessee received mesne profits after evicting a tenant and resolving a land acquisition case. The ITO treated mesne profits as taxable revenue, while the Tribunal considered them as capital gains. However, no cost of acquisition was involved, making them non-taxable under capital gains.\nHeld: Mesne profits were capital receipts and not subject to capital gains tax due to the absence of acquisition costs.\nCitations:\n•\nKey Cases: CIT v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi [1940], CIT v. Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. [1973], CIT v. P. Mariappa Gounder [1984].", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=2(12)", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 32 OF 1991 AND 9 OF 1991, JANUARY 18, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "AJIT K. SENGUPTA, JUSTICE\nSHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax\nVS\nSMT. LILA GHOSH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8082", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 172 = 1995 SLD 172 = (1995) 71 TAX 253 = (1994) 205 ITR 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Reassessment and Change of Opinion\nDetails:\nThe assessee stopped its business and rented out properties. During initial assessments, deductions for municipal taxes and non-computation of annual value were allowed. Later, the ITO reopened assessments based on a new judicial decision. The Tribunal held the reopening as a change of opinion without any failure of disclosure by the assessee.\nHeld: Reassessment under Section 147(a) was invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion.\nCitations:\n•\nKey Cases: Poonjabhai Vanmalidas and Sons v. CIT [1974], Liquidator, Mahmudabad Properties v. CIT [1972].", + "Court Name:": "Gujarat High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(2),147(a),148,34(1)(a)", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NOS. 535 AND 535A OF 1980, MARCH 22, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "G.T. NANAVATI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M.J. Thakore for the Applicant.\nK.A. Puj and J.P. Shah for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax\nVS\nGUJARAT GINNING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8083", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 173 = 1995 SLD 173 = (1995) 71 TAX 257 = (1994) 205 ITR 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Business Income and Carry Forward of Loss\nDetails:\nThe assessee, previously operating a board mill business, leased out the mill in 1971 due to financial difficulties. Rental income was treated as business income. After the lease expired in 1982-83, the lessee refused to vacate, and the assessee filed a suit for possession. The ITO and subsequent authorities denied the carry-forward of losses and running expenses, stating the business was no longer active. However, it was observed that the assessee’s steps to reclaim the mill indicated an intention to restart business operations.\nHeld: The Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee had no intent or ability to restart the business was deemed baseless and perverse. The disallowance of carry-forward loss and running expenses was overturned in favor of the assessee.\nCitations:\n•\nHindustan Chemical Works Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 561 (Bom.)\n•\nL. Ve. Vairavan Chettiar v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 114 (Mad.)\n•\nNew Savan Sugar and Gur Refining Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1969] 74 ITR 7 (SC)", + "Court Name:": "Calcutta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1)", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 46 OF 1990, APRIL 10, 1992", + "Judge Name:": "AJIT K. SENGUPTA, JUSTICE\nSHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dutt for the Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "LAKSHMI NARAYAN BOARD MILLS (P.) LTD\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8084", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 174 = 1995 SLD 174 = (1995) 71 TAX 227", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Tax Applicability under Circular No. 12 of 1991\nDetails:\nThe assessee filed a return for the assessment year 1991-92, including income covered under Section 80-C of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, and other income. The Assessing Officer imposed additional tax without determining the nature or source of excess income based on Circular No. 12.\nHeld: The provisions were not applicable in all cases without proper examination. The assessment imposing additional tax was held unjustified.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80C(5),80C,143B,50(4),13,55,59A,80BConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-1556 & D-1642 of 1993, D-714, D-723, D-724, D-1364 and D-1365 of 1994, decision dated: 9-2-1995, hearing DATE 30-1-1995, 31-1-1995, 1-2-1995 and 2-2-1995", + "Judge Name:": "MAMOON KAZI, JUSTICE\nMS. MAJIDA RIZVI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Sirajul Haque and Dr. Nasim Ahmad Khan, Advocates, for the Petitioners.\nM.G. Hasan and Shaikh Haider, Advocates, for the Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PRINCE GLASS WORKS LTD and others\nVS\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8085", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 175 = 1995 SLD 175 = (1995) 71 TAX 238 = (1994) 205 ITR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Revenue Receipt from Settlement Agreement\nDetails:\nThe assessee, a sole distributor for Polish tractors, faced termination of the agreement due to complaints of defects. A settlement resulted in compensation of ₹93,450 for transferring import licenses. The assessee claimed this as a capital receipt. The ITO treated it as a revenue receipt, as the tractors constituted stock-in-trade.\nHeld: The sum was a revenue receipt and taxable under Profits and Gains of Business or Profession. \nCitations:\n•\nP.H. Divecha v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 222 (SC)\n•\nBombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT [1971] 81 ITR 777 (Bom.)\n•\nCIT v. Automobile Products of India Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 159 (Bom.)", + "Court Name:": "Bombay High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Act, 1961=256(1),45,28", + "Case #": "IT REFERENCE NO. 210 OF 1979, MARCH 2, 1993", + "Judge Name:": "SMT. SUJATA MANOHAR, JUSTICE\nU.T. SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.J. Mehta and I.M. Munim for the Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDIAN ENGG. & COMMERCIAL CORPN. (P.) LTD\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER OF Income Tax" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8086", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 820 = 2001 SLD 820 = 2001 PTCL 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Import Concession and Expiry of S.R.O. Notification\nDetails:\nThe appellant sought import concessions under S.R.O. No. 108(I)/95. The goods reached Pakistan's territorial waters before the notification's expiry but were partially bonded afterward. Customs refused concessions for goods not bonded on time. The court ruled that the notification only required goods to be imported into Pakistan, not necessarily bonded, before expiry.\nHeld:\nThe refusal to clear the remaining reels was unlawful as the goods were imported within the notification's validity period.\nCitations:\n•\nSection 19 of the Customs Act, 1969\n•\nNotification S.R.O. No. 108(I)/95", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 340/LB/2000, decision dated: 27-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN\nMR. FALAK SHER, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Dr. Shafiq Ahmed, Advocate. Respondent by: Ms. Rukhsana Yasmeen, D.R. and Mr. Liaqat Ali, Deputy Superintendent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. ARZOO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8087", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 821 = 2001 SLD 821 = 2001 PTCL 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Smuggling and Concealment of Gold\nDetails:\nThe appellants concealed gold in insect killer heads and misdeclared the consignment. Upon discovery, they tampered with the bill of entry to claim bona fide import. The customs tribunal upheld confiscation and penalties, emphasizing mala fide intent and mens rea. The appeal was dismissed.\nHeld:\nThe confiscation and penalties against the appellants were upheld due to clear evidence of smuggling and fraudulent conduct.\nCitations:\n•\nSections 2(s), 16, 156(1), and 157 of the Customs Act, 1969", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 532/LB/99", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Dr, A. Basit, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Ms. Rukhsana Yasmine, D.R.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MOON INTERNATIONAL and others\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT)," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8088", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 822 = 2001 SLD 822 = 2001 PTCL 196 = (2001) 83 TAX 142", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Maintenance of Constitutional Petition Against Issuance of Show-Cause Notice and Application of Promissory Estoppel\nDetails: The petitioner challenged the issuance of a show-cause notice and the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel concerning a customs duty exemption. The petitioner had entered into a contract before a notification change and had vested rights under the previous notification. The Central Board of Revenue (CBR) had admitted partial local production of machinery, but this did not nullify the exemption. The Court ruled that the rights vested by the contract could not be removed by a new order or notification.\nHeld: The Constitutional petition was maintainable. The notice issued by the CBR was declared unlawful. The doctrine of promissory estoppel applied, protecting the petitioner’s rights.\nCitations: Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer (PLD 1990 SC 399), Gatron Industries Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 1072), Al-Samrez Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan (1986 SCMR 1917), M/s. M.Y. Electronics Industries v. Government of Pakistan (1998 SCMR 1404), Customs Act 1969, Section 19.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No, 6794 of 2000, decision dated: 28-07-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Raja Muhammad Akram and, Mr. Salman Akram Raja, Advocates.\nRespondent by: Mr. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LIMITED\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8089", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 823 = 2001 SLD 823 = 2001 PTCL 373", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "Regulatory Duty in Excess of 50% Invalidity\nDetails: The petitioners challenged the imposition of a regulatory duty exceeding 50% on imports. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that such duty could not exceed 50% of the rate specified in the Customs Act's First Schedule. The petitioners contended that the duty imposed was too high and sought a reduction.\nHeld: The regulatory duty imposed beyond 50% was declared invalid. The petitioners were liable to pay the regulatory duty at a rate not exceeding 10%.\nCitations: Yousuf Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Customs (PLD 1989 SC 232), Customs Act 1969, Section 18(2).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1263 of 1986, decision dated: 20-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SABIHUDDIN AHMED, JUSTICE\nMR. JUSTICE ABDUL GHANI SHAIKH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioners by: Mr. Muhammad Ali Saeed, Advocate, Respondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "MODerN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8090", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 824 = 2001 SLD 824 = 2001 PTCL 423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Withdrawal of Customs Duty Exemption on Compressors\nDetails: The petitioner, a refrigerator manufacturer, was denied customs duty exemption on compressors under S.R.O. No. 504(I)/90 after a Customs General Order was issued. The exemption was originally granted on the premise that locally manufactured compressors were unavailable. The petitioner contested the withdrawal, arguing that there was no evidence of locally produced compressors being commercially available.\nHeld: The withdrawal of the exemption was declared unlawful. The petitioner was entitled to the duty concession as per the original S.R.O. The Customs General Order did not override the statutory benefits.\nCitations: S.R.O. No. 504(I)/90, Customs Act 1969, Section 19, Section 223.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,223Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 964 and 1311 of 1998, heard on 20th January. 2000", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBAS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Waqar Azeem, Advocate.\nRespondents by: Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. UNITED REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8091", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 825 = 2001 SLD 825 = 2001 PTCL 580", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nNarcotics Smuggling and Jurisdiction of Customs vs. Control of Narcotic Substances Act\n•\nDetails: The case revolves around the prosecution of respondents for narcotics smuggling. They were initially tried under the Customs Act, 1969, but later faced prosecution under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The key issue was whether they could be tried twice for the same offence, violating Article 13 of the Constitution.\n•\nHeld: The Supreme Court ruled that the trial under the Customs Act was without jurisdiction, as the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, has overriding effect. The respondents' prosecution under the Narcotic Substances Act was valid, and their conviction under the Customs Act was quashed.\n•\nCitations: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (XXV of 1997) Sections 6, 7, 8, 72, 73, 74; Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) Sections 2(s), 156(1)(8)", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "C.A. Nos. 1361 to 1381 of 2000 & CRL. A. Nos. 348, 349 and 158 to 170 of 2000, ​11167,​ ​8095,​ ​10783,​ ​11168​ ​of​ ​2000​ ​and​ ​ dated​ ​30.5.2000", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SHEIKH RIAZ AHMAD\nMR. JUSTICE MUNIR A. SHEIKH\nMR. JUSTICE MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appelant by: Mr. K.M. Virk, ASC and Mr. Dil Muhammad Tarar, ASC, Respodent by: EX-parte", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, \nVS\nNASIM AMIN BUTT (CA 1361/2000)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8092", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 788 = 2004 SLD 788 = 2004 PTD 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nShort Levy of Duty and Limitation under Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The case concerns the issuance of a show-cause notice for short levy of customs duty and erroneous refund. The notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the notice issued beyond the limitation period was invalid, as there was no misdeclaration of goods and the notice fell under an error or misconstruction as per Section 32(3) of the Customs Act.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) Sections 32(2)(3); S.R.O. 490(I)/95, 14-6-1995", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.25 and 26 of 1999, heard on 2nd October 2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE\nM. BILAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Appellant.\nA. Karim Malik with Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, Deputy Superintendent Custom for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CARGILL PAKISTAN SEEDS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, THROUGH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8093", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 789 = 2004 SLD 789 = 2004 PTD 21", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nExemption from Duty for Imported Equipment under Customs Act\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the import of equipment with an exemption from duty under S.R.O. 400(I)/97 and S.R.O. 435(I)/2001. A dispute arose regarding whether the imported equipment was locally manufactured, which would affect the exemption status.\n•\nHeld: The High Court held that the Engineering Development Board correctly determined the local manufacturing status of the equipment and the issue of compatibility was outside the scope of the court’s review.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) Section 21; Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Article 199", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=21", + "Case #": "C.P.D. No.373 of 2003, decision dated: 4-07-2004, hearing DATE 16-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nGULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Amjad Hussain Bukhari for Petitioner.\nS. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.\nAkhtar Hussain for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INTERGLOBE COMMERCE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8094", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 790 = 2004 SLD 790 = 2004 PTD 94", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nSurcharge on Imports under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act\n•\nDetails: This case examines the levy of a 10% surcharge on imported goods, allegedly beyond the powers of the Ministry of Commerce.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the Ministry of Commerce could not levy the surcharge, as such powers rested with the Ministry of Finance/Revenue Division. Customs officials had no authority to demand the surcharge in the absence of a relevant S.R.O.\n•\nCitations: Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950 (XXXI of 1950) Section 3(1); Import Trade and Procedure Order, 2000", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 33 to 51, 60 to 87, 105 to 107 and 113 to 118 of 2003, heard on 26-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioners.\nS. Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel, Shakeel Ahmed, Ata-ur-Rehman and Ms. Masooda Saraj for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD UMER\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8095", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 791 = 2004 SLD 791 = 2004 PTD 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nFixation of Import Value and Complaints Against Overvaluation\n•\nDetails: The case addresses complaints regarding the overvaluation of imported TVs by the Central Board of Revenue, affecting customs duties.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that reliable data be obtained to establish fair customs values. No maladministration was found in the handling of the valuation process.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) Sections 25-B, 33; Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 (XXXV of 2000) Section 2(3)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No.C-780 of 2003, decision dated: 21st July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ahsan Sheikh, Partner.\nAshhad Jawwad, Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement).", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PRIME INTERNATIONAL\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8096", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 792 = 2004 SLD 792 = 2004 PTD 1693", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRefund Claim for Customs Duty Based on Misapplication of Valuation Rules\n•\nDetails: The case involves a refund claim related to the customs duty paid on the import of CKD vehicles. The dispute centered on whether the transaction value was influenced by the buyer-seller relationship.\n•\nHeld: The Federal Tax Ombudsman determined that the value of goods was correctly assessed under Rule 116 of the Valuation Rules, 2001, and no maladministration occurred.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) Sections 25, 33; Customs Rules, 2001 Chapter IX; Finance Act, 1999; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 940-K of 2003, decision dated: 24-09-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz Sheikh of the Complainant.\nAshhad Jawwad, D.C. (Customs) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS HINO PAK MOTORS LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8097", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 793 = 2004 SLD 793 = (2005) 91 TAX 446 = 2008 PTD 560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=5(5),59(1),61,62Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=209,209(7)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 405-L of 2004, decision dated: 10-07-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.A. Zuberi, Dealing Officer.\nM. Iqbal Hashmi, Advocate, for the Complainant.\nMs. Amina Faiz Bhatti and M. Abid, D.Cs.I.T., for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAMI FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8098", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 794 = 2004 SLD 794 = (2005) 91 TAX 502", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nPowers of I.A.C. to revise order\n•\nDetails: The assessee's assessment was finalized under the Self Assessment Scheme. The I.A.C. cancelled the assessment due to failure to declare assets like a half share in a house, cash, and prize bonds. The case discusses whether the non-declaration of such assets leads to adverse inference.\n•\nHeld: The non-declaration of the asset does not lead to adverse inference and does not justify initiating action under section 13. Revision of the wealth statement does not change the status of the return filed. The I.A.C. exceeded its jurisdiction under section 66A, and the order was without lawful jurisdiction.\n•\nCitations: Sections 13, 55, 57, 59(1), 61, 62, 66A", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13,57,66A,59(1),54,61,58,55,50(7F),62", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1177/LB of 2002 (Assessment year 2000-2001), decision dated: 03-09-2002, hearing DATE : 12-06-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nSYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nSYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nJAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \nAS PER, JAVED TAHIR BUTT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arshad Saeed Sheikh, F.C.A., for the Appellant.\nNaseer Ahmad, D. R., for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8099", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 552 = 2005 SLD 552 = (2005) 91 TAX 71 = 2005 PTD 1567", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nReference to High Court – Penalty – Non-compliance with Rule 61\n•\nDetails: The case involves the imposition of a penalty for non-compliance with Rule 61 of the Income Tax Rules. The penalty was deleted by the C.I.T. (A), and the Tribunal upheld this decision.\n•\nHeld: Failure to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing made the penalty void and ab initio, leading to its deletion. The penal provisions apply to non-compliance with Rules 53, 61, and 61A. The absence of specific reference to the Income Tax Ordinance in the rules did not affect their legal validity.\n•\nCitations: Income Tax Rules, 53, 61, 61A, Section 108 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=108(b),116,142,139,141,108Income Tax Rules, 1982=53,61,61(a)", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 386 of 2004, decision dated: 24-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nSH AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Jamil Khan for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax, COMPANIES Zone-II\nVS\nMESSRS CREATIVE PACKAGES (PVT.) LTD.," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8100", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 553 = 2005 SLD 553 = (2005) 91 TAX 92 = 2005 PTD 1881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAssessment – Enhancement of declared value of properties\n•\nDetails: The assessing officer enhanced the value of properties, but reductions were made by the C.I.T. (A), and the I.T.A.T. affirmed this reduction.\n•\nHeld: The assessing officer's enhancement of property values was unjustified since the value had been reduced in the previous year and no changes occurred since. The C.I.T. (A)'s correction was affirmed.\n•\nCitations: None explicitly mentioned", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Income Tax Appeal No. 542 of 1998, decision dated: 21st December, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAIN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Yousaf Umer for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD ZONE, FASALABAD\nVS\nABDUL REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8101", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 554 = 2005 SLD 554 = (2005) 91 TAX 203 = 2005 PTD 1729", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCollection of excess tax and refund\n•\nDetails: A refund was claimed for excess sales tax charged on condemned vehicles. The department refused, citing that it was non-refundable under Section 3B of the Sales Tax Act.\n•\nHeld: The complaint of maladministration due to delays was found valid, but the request for a refund was premature. The Tax Ombudsman recommended written counseling for the officer responsible for the delay and further investigation.\n•\nCitations: Section 3B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(12),2(35),3B,8(1)(b),2(2)(33)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 523-K of 2004, decision dated: 31-8-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR S.M. SIBTAIN, DEALING OFFICER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Shakeel, for the Complainant.\nMs. Sayeeda Anjum Mushtaq, A.C.S.T. (Refund), for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MRS. FARKHUNDA JABEEN\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8102", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 555 = 2005 SLD 555 = (2005) 91 TAX 294 = 2005 PTD 591 = 2005 PTCL 407", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nTaxability of capital work in progress\n•\nDetails: A final assessment was made by the D.C.W.T., but capital work in progress was initially excluded. The assessment was rectified to include it under the CAT levy.\n•\nHeld: The rectification was annulled, ruling that past and closed transactions cannot be reopened based on subsequent judgments. The assessee's claim to exclude the capital work in progress from CAT levy was upheld.\n•\nCitations: Section 35 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)=17B,35", + "Case #": "W.T.A. No 754/LB, 1123/LB and 969/LB, 2002 Assessment Year 1992-93, decision dated: 17th December 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD TAUQIR AFZAL MALIK, JUDICIAL MEMBER,\nMUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nMUHAMMAD SHARIF CHAUDHRY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Nasim Akbar, FCA and Mr. Haroon Ahmad ACA.\nRespondent by: Mr. Waqar Mehmood Khilji, DR. \nAppellant by: Mr. Waqar Mehmood Khilji.\nRespondent by: DR Mr. Nasim Akbar, FCA and Mr. Haroon Ahmad ACA.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8103", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1059 = 2003 SLD 1059 = (2004) 89 TAX 208", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nLate issuance of S.R.O. for returns of income\n•\nDetails: There was a delay in the issuance of S.R.O. return forms, causing a short time for filing returns. The case discusses whether an extension of time was necessary.\n•\nHeld: No time gap existed for return forms, and no public demand for an extension was received. Taxpayers should be granted sufficient time to file returns.\n•\nCitations: None explicitly mentioned", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=114,237,55,118(3)Income Tax Rules, 2002=34(2),34,35,36,39", + "Case #": "Complaint Nos. 1449 to 1453 of 2003, decision dated: 23-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar, Dealing Officer, Muhammad Sharif and Moin-ud-Din, Advocate, for the Complainants. Sajjad Ali, Secretary (Income Tax Judicial), CBR, for the respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZMAT SALEEM, SAHIWAL\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8104", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 795 = 2004 SLD 795 = (2004) 89 TAX 277 = 2004 PTD 2819", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCompulsory registration under Sales Tax Act\n•\nDetails: The complainant was registered without evidence of a proper basis. The validity of the compulsory registration and the penalty levied was questioned.\n•\nHeld: The department failed to provide evidence for compulsory registration, and the case should be re-examined. If found invalid, the registration should be canceled, and the penalty removed.\n•\nCitations: Section 14, 19, and 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=11,14,19,26,33", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1278 of 2003, decision dated: 15-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Dealing Officer.\nBashir Ahmed and Mansoor Sattar, Advocates, for the Complainant.\nImtiaz Ahmad Sheikh, D.C.S.T., for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI MUHAMMAD SALEEM, MANSEHRA\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8105", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 796 = 2004 SLD 796 = (2004) 89 TAX 509 = 2004 PTD 2400", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRectification of mistake – Unexplained investment\n•\nDetails: The assessee failed to establish that the excess income arose from normal business activities, leading to an addition of excess income to tax. The Tribunal upheld the charge of excess income.\n•\nHeld: Provisions of section 13(1)(a) are independently invokable. Excess income cannot be taxed through section 80C(5) without proof of it arising from regular business activities. The Tribunal’s decision was valid, and no rectification was necessary.\n•\nCitations: Sections 13(1)(a), 80C(5)", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=13(1)(a),30,80C,156,80CC,50(5),80C(5),62,143B,80C(4)", + "Case #": "M.A. No. 81/LB of 2003 (Assessment year 1994-95), decision dated: 25-08-2003, hearing DATE : 13-6-2003", + "Judge Name:": "EHSAN UR REHMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzad Hussain, F.C.A., Asim Zulfiqar, A. C. A. and Hussain Tariq, Advocate, for the Appellant.\nAnwar Ali Shah, D.R. and Shahid Jamil Khan, Legal Advisor, for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8106", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 797 = 2004 SLD 797 = (2004) 90 TAX 256 = 2004 PTD 2777 = (2005) 91 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nClaim for carried-forward depreciation\n•\nDetails: The assessee sought to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation from previous years, which was rejected by the department.\n•\nHeld: Depreciation for the assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 can be carried forward to the assessment year 1995-96 and beyond. The rejection of the claim was invalid.\n•\nCitations: Sections 34 to 38 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979", + "Court Name:": "Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=34,35,36,37,38,62,80C,143B,Third Schedule,59,69A,63,65", + "Case #": "I.T.A Nos. 332/LB to 337/LB of 2003 (Assessment Year 1995-96), decision dated: 26-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMUHAMMAD MUNIR QURESHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Habib Ullah, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Mr. Mahmood Jaffery, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8107", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1060 = 2003 SLD 1060 = 2003 PTCL 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court under Section 561-A Cr. P.C.\nDetails: The case concerns the defraudation of public funds amounting to crores of rupees. The learned Judge in Chamber had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, before the prosecution had presented its evidence. The High Court was urged to set aside the ruling and remand the case to the trial court.\nHeld: The High Court’s invocation of inherent jurisdiction was premature. The case was remanded to the trial court for proceedings to resume from the point at which they had been halted, giving the prosecution an opportunity to present evidence.\nCitations: Section 561-A, Cr. P.C.; Customs Act, 1969, Section 185-A.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=561", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos. 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 of 1994, decision dated: 21st May, 1998", + "Judge Name:": "MR. CHIEF, JUSTICE AJMAL MIAN \nMR. JUSTICE RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN\nMR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE\nVS\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8108", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1061 = 2003 SLD 1061 = 2003 CLD 511 = 2003 PTCL 456", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Import Fee Under Import Policy Order, 1993\nDetails: The challenge was to the validity of the import fee imposed under the Import Policy Order, 1993, which required payment by registered importers without any corresponding services provided.\nHeld: The imposition of the import fee was deemed invalid, as there was no justification for charging it from registered importers without offering services in return.\nCitations: Ayaz Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1993 Lah.194; Sri Gadadhar Ramanuj Das v. Province of Orissa, AIR 1950 Orissa 47.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Import Policy Order, 1993=31", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.363 of 1994, heard on 6-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Javed for Petitioner.\nCh. Sultan Mansoor for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEWAN SALMAN FIBRES LIMITED \nVS\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8109", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1062 = 2003 SLD 1062 = 2003 PTCL 671", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Period for Custom Duty Recovery\nDetails: The appellant imported sunflower seeds and was assessed under a concessional rate under SRO 490(I)/95. The Customs authorities later sought to reassess and impose a higher duty due to a supposed mis-declaration. The issue at hand was the applicability of the six-month limitation period for issuing recovery notices.\nHeld: The show-cause notice was issued beyond the six-month period for recovery of short levied duties, making it invalid. The case was deemed a misconstruction rather than a mis-declaration, which fell under the limitations of Section 32(3) of the Customs Act.\nCitations: Section 32, Customs Act, 1969; Finance Ordinance, 2000 (XXI of 2000); Supreme Court in 1992 SCMR 1898.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal Nos. 25 & 26 of 1999, heard on 2-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Advocate. I\nRespondents by: Mr. A, Karim Malik, Advocate and Mr. Shahid Siddiqui, Deputy Superintendent Custom", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. CARGIL PAKISTAN SEEDS (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nTHE CUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8110", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1063 = 2003 SLD 1063 = 2003 PCRLJ 1119 = 2003 PTCL 681", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Bail in Case Involving Contraband Fireworks Explosion\nDetails: A container containing fireworks exploded during unloading at a dry port, killing 16 people and injuring over 30. The Clearing Agent had dishonestly declared the contents as cosmetics to facilitate clearance.\nHeld: The bail applications were dismissed, as there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused were involved in the explosion due to the mis-declaration and dishonesty in the clearance process.\nCitations: Penal Code (Sections 302, 324, 436, 427 & 109); Explosive Substances Act (Sections 4 & 5).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 2085-B, 2238-B, 2068-B and 2086-B of 2003, decision dated: 29-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.2085-B and 2086-B of 2003).\nMunir Ahmed Bhatti with Malik Abdul Aziz Kenwal for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 208-B of 2003). Khawaja Sultan Ahmed for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No-2238-B of 2003).", + "Petitioner Name:": "ARSHAD BUTT\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8111", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1064 = 2003 SLD 1064 = 2003 PTD 1888", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act - Input Tax Adjustment and Exemption\nDetails: Several aspects of the Sales Tax Act, including voluntary registration, de-registration, penalties, and tax on supplies made during exemption periods, were addressed.\nHeld: The Appellate Tribunal remitted the penalty for delays in tax payments and confirmed the validity of certain exemptions and adjustments under the Sales Tax Act. Penalties were reconsidered, and certain provisions for tax on sales of fixed assets were clarified.\nCitations: Sales Tax Act, 1990 (Sections 3, 8, 33, 34); GST Appeals.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=59", + "Case #": "S.T.A. 1057/PB of 2002, decision dated: 17-04-2003. dates of hearing: 19-12-2002 and 4-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nS. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, ACA, Shahzad Hussain, FCA and Saeed Iqbal for Appellant.\nAl-Haj, D.R., Hussain Muhammad and Phool Badshah for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8112", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 742 = 1999 SLD 742 = 1999 CLC 520 = 2000 PTCL 47", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Constitutional Jurisdiction and Concurrent Findings\nDetails: The case involved a challenge to the actions of authorities under the Customs Act, specifically regarding the levy of duties and tax adjustments. The High Court exercised constitutional jurisdiction.\nHeld: The High Court affirmed the decisions of the authorities, noting that no excess of jurisdiction or violation of law had occurred. Concurrent findings were upheld.\nCitations: Federation of Pakistan v. Ibrahim Textile Mills Ltd., 1992 SCMR 1898; Muhammad Ashraf v. Deputy Superintendent, Smuggling Squad, PLD 1977 Lah. 300.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-150 of 1994, decision dated: 20-10-1998, hearing DATE : 9-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JUSTICE\nGHULAM NABI SOOMRO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Petitioner.\nSyed Tariq Ali, Standing Counsel for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "HANIF BROTHERS\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8113", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 743 = 1999 SLD 743 = 1999 MLD 1964 = 2000 PTCL 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Levy of Service Charge on Imported Goods\nDetails: The imposition of a 2% ad valorem charge by the Federal Government for inspection and verification of imported goods was challenged as an unlawful levy.\nHeld: The charge was ruled to be a service fee and not a customs duty, as the Customs Act did not provide for such a levy. The imposition was declared void.\nCitations: Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1991 SC 329; Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 1246.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1406, 1409, 1410, 1418, 1422, 1426, 1445, 1523, 1552 of 1996; 29, 34, 63, 64, 78, 99, 158, 176, 199, 204, 231, 280, 342, 348, 349, 475, 544, 558, 697 and 724 of 1997, decision dated: 31st July, 1998. dates of hearing: 12th, 17th a-06-1997", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE\nMRS. KHALID RACHID, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Sardar Khan and Abdul Latif Yousafzai for Petitioners.\nK.G. Saber on behalf of the Customs Departmdnt.\nMursaleen Khan, Standing Counsel on behalf of the Federal Government.\nSaifur Rehman Kiyani, assisted by Moeen-ud-Din Humayun on behalf of the Central Board of Revenue", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAFEEZ IQBAL OIL & GHEE MILLS and others \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8114", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 597 = 2000 SLD 597 = 2000 MLD 235 = 2000 PTCL 436", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Appreciation of Evidence and Recovery of Contraband Heroin\nDetails: The case involved the recovery of 123 kg of heroin from the accused's baggage, with the prosecution's evidence being strongly supported by witnesses and chemical analysis.\nHeld: The conviction of the accused was upheld due to the solid evidence supporting the recovery of heroin. The accused's claim of no contraband in possession was rejected.\nCitations: Taj Bahadur v. The State, 1997 MLD 1078; Badho v. The State, 1973 PCr.LJ 395.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Jail Appeal No. 19 of 1997, decision dated: 6-10-1998", + "Judge Name:": "HAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana M. Shamim for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "JOHN CHIBUZO \nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8115", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 598 = 2000 SLD 598 = 2000 MLD 218 = 2000 PTCL 451", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Sentence Reduction Following Guilty Plea\nDetails: The accused pleaded guilty to charges under the Customs Act, and the issue was the appropriate sentence.\nHeld: The sentence was reduced, with leniency granted due to the accused's remorse and guilty plea.\nCitations: Criminal Procedure Code (Section 243).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Appeal No. 18 and Special Jail Appeal No. 15 of 1996, decision dated: 23rd February, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "HAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana M. Shamim for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DOMINGUEZ RODRIGUEZ NARCISO \nVS\nTHE STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE SERVICES, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8116", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 599 = 2000 SLD 599 = 2000 MLD 470 = 2000 PTCL 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Recovery of Duty Beyond Six Months\nDetails: The case concerned the recovery of duty after the statutory six-month period under Section 32(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, and the failure of authorities to issue a show-cause notice.\nHeld: The recovery was deemed unlawful as it occurred beyond the allowed six-month period.\nCitations: Section 32(2), Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 679 of 1992, heard on 12-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Petitioner.\nQazi Naeem for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PUNJAB OIL MILLS LTD. \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8117", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 600 = 2000 SLD 600 = 2000 PTCL 688 = 2000 SCMR 678", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Misdeclaration of Imported Goods at Border\nDetails: The case concerned a misdeclaration of goods at the border to avoid customs duty and the consequences for such misdeclarations.\nHeld: The High Court affirmed that the authorities at the border had the right to examine goods based on misdeclarations, and the appeal was dismissed.\nCitations: Section 32(1), Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 324-Q to 330-Q of 1999, decision dated: 2-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nNASIR ASLANT ZAHID, JUSTICE\nABDUR REHMAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Shakil Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Anwar Khan Durrani, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner (in all the Petitions).\nNemo for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BABA KHAN \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, QUETTA and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8118", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 601 = 2000 SLD 601 = 2000 CLC 1403 = 2000 PTCL 777 = (2000) 82 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of Imported Cinematographic Films\nDetails: The Customs authorities imposed customs duty on cinematographic films by including royalties in the normal value of the films imported.\nHeld: The imposition of customs duty based on the inclusion of royalties in the normal value was upheld, but the quasi-judicial functions of Customs Officers could not be interfered with.\nCitations: Section 25, Customs Act, 1969; Central Board of Revenue's Circular", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,223Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 25932 of 1998, heard on 10-05-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAVYUM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioners.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PLAY PICTURES THROUGH PROPRIETOR and 8 others \nVS\nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH MEMBER, CUSTOMS, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8119", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 602 = 2000 SLD 602 = 2000 PTCL 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption under S.R.O. 108(I)/95 based on Capacity Certificate\nDetails:\nThe appellants were entitled to an exemption under S.R.O. 108(I)/95 based on the Capacity Certificate granted under S.R.O. 504(I)/94. The dispute arose when a refund of Rs. 1,61,10,596 was sanctioned based on this exemption, and the Customs Department later questioned its legality. The Board's letter clarified that the appellants were not entitled to the concession prior to 14-1-1996, but the appellants had maintained the approved capacity under the original certificate, fulfilling the requirements for exemption under S.R.O. 108(I)/95.\nHeld:\nThe appellants were lawfully entitled to the exemption under S.R.O. 108(I)/95, as the conditions, including capacity certification and consumption certificates, were met. The exemption could not be denied based on technicalities such as missing references on the Bills of Entry.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Section 19\n•\nS.R.O. 504(I)/94, 9-6-1994\n•\nS.R.O. 108(I)/95, 12-2-1995", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 7(01)/IB/89, decision dated: 30-01-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN QAMARUDDIN AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nMR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM, TECHNICAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Tariq Najeeb Chaudhry, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Mr. Guam Chaudhry, Assistant Collector and Mr. S.K. Masood Kiani, Deputy Superintendent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. PEL APPLIANCES LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GADOON AMAZAI\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOM HOUSE, JAMRUD ROAD, PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8120", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 603 = 2000 SLD 603 = 2000 PTCL 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption under S.R.O. 1284(I)/90 for machinery import\nDetails:\nThe appellants imported machinery but were not entitled to the exemption under S.R.O. 1284(I)/90 because their unit was located less than 30 kilometers from the outer limits of the Municipal Corporation. The exemption was meant to protect the environment of urban areas. The appellants had deliberately claimed the exemption despite being aware of the location issue.\nHeld:\nThe appellants were not entitled to the exemption, and their deliberate mis-declaration was proven under Section 32(2) of the Customs Act.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Section 19\n•\nS.R.O. 1284(I)/90, 13-12-1990\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Section 32\n________________________________________", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 169/LB/99, decision dated: 24-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN QAMARUDDIN AHMAD, CHAIRMAN\nMR. MUHAMMAD ASLAM, TECHNICAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr., Irfan Qadir, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Mr. Shafqat Mahmood, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. KOHINOOR RAIWIND MILLS LTD\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8121", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 604 = 2000 SLD 604 = 2000 PTCL 320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "SLD #: 13957\nWithdrawal of exemption after contract conclusion\nDetails:\nThe issue concerned whether a vested right to exemption could be created under a contract made on the basis of exemption under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. The appellants had entered into a contract based on the exemption, but the government withdrew the exemption. Section 31-A of the Customs Act allows for the imposition of duties even after a contract is concluded. The doctrine of promissory estoppel, previously invoked in similar cases, was no longer applicable.\nHeld:\nNo vested right was created, and the competent authority could rescind the exemption. The withdrawal of the exemption was valid, and the duty payable was subject to Section 30 of the Customs Act.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Section 19\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Section 31-A\n•\nEconomic Reforms Act, 1992, Sections 6 & 10\n•\nS.R.O. 921(I)/94, S.R.O. 1189(I)/94", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1176 of 1997, decision dated: 1st September, 1999", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI\nMR. JUSTICE SH. IJAZ NISAR\nMR. JUSTICE MAMOON KAZI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Farooq. A,G. and Ch, Akhtar Ali, AOR, Respondents by: S. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada Senior \nAdvocate and Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE and ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND ANOTHER\nVS\nFACTO BELARUS TRACTORS LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8122", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 605 = 2000 SLD 605 = 2000 PTCL 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Double Jeopardy & Protection Against Retrial\nDetails: The case concerns the scope and application of Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which prohibits double punishment or prosecution for the same offense. The petitioner had been convicted under the Customs Act, 1969 for narcotics smuggling and later summoned for trial under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1996. The key issue was whether the petitioner could be tried again for the same offense, as both laws addressed the same act of smuggling.\nHeld: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not be tried twice for the same offense. Even though the petitioner had violated two laws (Customs Act and Anti-Narcotics Law), both offenses arose from the same act of smuggling, and the evidence required to convict the petitioner under both laws would be identical. The Court emphasized the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution, Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act.\nCitations:\n•\nArticle 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973\n•\nSection 403, Code of Criminal Procedure\n•\nSection 26, General Clauses Act, 1897\n•\nState of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (1968) 3 SCR 107\n•\nOm Parkash Gupta v. State of U.P. AIR 1957 SC 458", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1996=8", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous No. 135/Q of 1999, decision dated: 11-10-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM\nMR. JUSTICE GHULAM MAHMOOD QURESHI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate.\nRespondents by: Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Deputy Attorney-General and Mr. A. Karim Malik, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MR. SABIR AZIZ\nVS\nSESSIONS JUDGE, WITH POWERS OF SPECIAL JUDGE ANTINARCOTICS, AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8123", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 606 = 2000 SLD 606 = 2000 PTCL 782", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Seizure of Vehicle by Customs Authorities\nDetails: The case revolves around the seizure of a Hino-Pak bus by Customs Authorities, which was alleged to have violated import regulations under the Customs Act, 1969. The appellant argued that the vehicle was locally manufactured and the registration documents issued by the Motor Registration Authority in Lahore confirmed its legitimacy. The Customs authorities had seized the bus on grounds of a fake registration number.\nHeld: The Court found the seizure illegal, as the vehicle's registration book issued by the Motor Registration Authority was sufficient proof of its authenticity. The Customs authorities had failed to establish any valid grounds for the seizure. The Court also pointed to the inordinate delay in issuing the show-cause notice, which suggested mala fide intentions. The appeal was accepted, and the vehicle was ordered to be released.\nCitations:\n•\nSection 16, Customs Act, 1969\n•\nSection 3(1), Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950\n•\nSection 188, Customs Act, 1969\n•\nSection 2(4), Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 359/2000, decision dated: 4th October 2000", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, CHAIRMAN\nMR. MOHAMMAD SULEMAN, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Muhammad Naeem Qazi.\nMr. Maj. (R) Naik Muhammad Khan, Advocates. Mr. S.K.M. Kiani, Deputy Superintendent, Mr. Mehboob-ul-Arifeen Mr. Sh. Zafar, Inspectors. FIA", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. MUHAMMAD KASHIF\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8124", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 826 = 2001 SLD 826 = 2001 PTCL 166 = 2001 SCMR 556", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Exemption from Import Duty under PAYE Scheme\nDetails: This case involves a dispute over the exemption from import duty under the Pay as You Earn (PAYE) scheme. The appellant entered into a contract for the import of textile machinery and sought duty exemption under a notification issued in 1980. However, the exemption was withdrawn by a later notification issued in 1984, which led to the legal challenge. The key issue was whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption based on the earlier notification.\nHeld: The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption under the earlier notification. Since the later notification superseded the previous one and no substantial steps were taken by the appellant to implement the contract before the notification's issuance, the government was not bound to honor the earlier exemption. The Court also clarified that the Federal Government, not being a party to the appellant's contract, could modify or withdraw the exemption.\nCitations:\n•\nSection 19 & 31-A, Customs Act, 1969\n•\nNotification No. S.R.O. 500(I)/84, dated 14-6-1984\n•\nSohail Jute Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1991 SC 329\n•\nM.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan, 1998 SCMR 1404", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.621 of 1997, decision dated: 30-11-2000", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nMIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant.\nIzharul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALHAMD TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED \nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8125", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 827 = 2001 SLD 827 = 2002 PTCL 22 = 2001 YLR 594", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act - Show Cause Notice and Time-Barred Demand for Customs Duties\nDetails:\nA company, granted Bond Manufacturing Licences in 1991, received a show-cause notice in 1997 for the recovery of customs duties and penalties after its licence was cancelled. The company objected, citing that the demand was time-barred under Section 32 of the Customs Act since the show-cause notice should have been issued within six months of the cancellation in 1993. The Collector rejected this objection, arguing that the duties were conditionally exempt and could be recovered if the conditions were violated within seven years.\nHeld:\nThe court held that the show-cause notice issued after over four years was invalid. Once the licence was cancelled in 1993, the dues became payable, and the lapse of time deprived the department of its authority to issue the notice. The delay was considered inadvertent, and the department could not pursue recovery after the period of limitation expired.\nCitations:\n•\nNigina Cotton Mills Limited v. Pakistan, 1990 CLC 1337\n•\nMessrs Central Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1992 CLC 841\n•\nMessrs Qaid Cap House v. Collector of Customs, 1983 CLC 1736", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=56(1),32,32(3),156(7),156(10A)", + "Case #": "C. A. No.4 of 2000, decision dated: 23rd April, 2001. dates of hearing: 12th and 16-04-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE\nJAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazeer Ahmad Shami and Kh. Adnan Ahmad for Appellants.\nCh. Muhammad Hussain for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ASIM FABRIC (PVT. LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8126", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 828 = 2001 SLD 828 = 2001 PTCL 558", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Central Excise Rules - Validity of Appointment and Limitation for Show-Cause Notice\nDetails:\nThe appellants challenged the delayed publication of the appointment of the Collector of Customs in the official gazette, claiming it rendered the order illegal. Additionally, they contested a show-cause notice issued regarding the export of sugar to India, arguing the claim was time-barred and there was no misdeclaration or collusion on their part. The case also involved doubts over the validity of S.R.O. 547(I)/96, which prohibited rebates on exports via land routes.\nHeld:\nThe court upheld the validity of the Collector's appointment despite the delayed publication. It ruled the show-cause notice was barred by time under Rule 10(1) as the sugar export occurred over a year before the notice was issued. The validity of S.R.O. 547(I)/96 was questioned, as it conflicted with the Central Excise Act's provisions and created confusion regarding duty rebates. The MOU with the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association was considered to override the SRO.\nCitations:\n•\nCentral Excise Act, 1944, Section 3\n•\nCentral Excise Rules, 1944, Rules 4, 10(1), 12(1), 13, 52, 52-A\n•\nS.R.O. 547(I)/96, dated 01.07.96", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Appeal Nos. 568, 570, 567, 566, 569, 610, 609, 645, 679, 543, 577, 593, 575, 705, 574, 728, 579, 580, 572, 571, 573, 835, 836, 840, 1342, 1344, 1458, 1459, 1459, 1345, 1457, 1364, 1424, 624, 700/LB/2000, decision dated: 31st January, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED UWANA, CHAIRMAN\nMR. FALAK SHER, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondent by: Ms. Rukhsana Yasmin, D.R", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASHMIR SUGAR. (568/LB/2000) and others\nVS\nCOLLECTOR, EXCISE and SALES TAX, FAISALABAD, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8127", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 820 = 2002 SLD 820 = 2002 PTCL 215", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act - Detention of Vehicle Pending Investigation\nDetails:\nThe petitioners contested the detention of their vehicle by the Customs authorities, claiming no evidence had been gathered to prove the violation of customs laws. They undertook not to create any charge against the vehicle or dispose of it during the investigation. The petitioners sought permission to use the vehicle pending the completion of the investigation.\nHeld:\nThe court allowed the petitioners to use the vehicle during the investigation, provided they adhered to the condition of not disposing of the vehicle or creating any charges against it. The authorities were instructed to resolve the matter through adjudication.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969, Section 2(KK)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5169 of 1999, heard on 2-04-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioners by: Mr. Shahryar Sheikh, Advocate.\nRESPONDENTS by: Mr. A. Karim Malik, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABID HUSSAIN and 4 others\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8128", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 821 = 2002 SLD 821 = 2002 PTCL 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act, 1969 - Release of Goods into Bond\nDetails: The case revolves around the release of goods into bond under Notification No. S.R.O. 69(1)/70, dated 17-04-1970, allowing for the duty-free release of goods meant for export. The appellant filed an into-bond bill of entry for the disputed goods and requested their release under the notification. The goods were later exported, and a demand for customs duty was raised. The case assesses whether the release of goods into bond and their subsequent export were valid under the Customs Act and departmental practice, specifically addressing Section 22 regarding the duty demand, and Section 32 concerning time-barred demands.\nHeld: The release of goods into bond and their subsequent export were valid and within the framework of long-standing departmental practice supported by Customs General Order Nos. 48/73 and 18/72. The demand for duty was time-barred under Section 32, as the demand could only have been issued within six months. The adjudication decision was deemed legally sound, and the demand raised was found to be unjustified and time-barred.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 - Section 22, Section 32\n•\nNotification No. S.R.O. 69(1)/70, dated 17-04-1970\n•\nCustoms General Order Nos. 48/73, 18/72", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=22", + "Case #": "Appeal No. H-170/2001, decision dated: 10-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SAJID HUSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Riaz-ud-Din Shaikh, Advocate.\nRespondents by: Mr. Imdad Jokhio, Principal Appraiser.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. FATEH INDUSTRIES LIMITED\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), QUETTA. 2. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8129", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 822 = 2002 SLD 822 = 2002 PTCL 401", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act, 1969 - Export of Poppy Seeds\nDetails: The petitioner entered into a contract and opened a letter of credit for the export of poppy seeds from Pakistan before the export was banned under Notification No. S.R.O. 28(1)/99, dated 14-01-1999. The petitioner was charged with exporting banned goods under Section 16 of the Customs Act, 1969, but contended that the notification did not affect contracts entered into prior to its issuance. The case examines whether the retrospective application of the ban under the notification can affect the rights vested in the petitioner prior to its enactment.\nHeld: The notification banning the export of poppy seeds was held to be prospective, and it could not affect the rights of the petitioner who had entered into a contract and opened a letter of credit before the notification. The petitioner could not be charged under Section 16 for the export of poppy seeds as the notification did not retroactively apply to the contract. The orders passed by the Collector of Customs (Adjudication) were set aside.\nCitations:\n•\nCustoms Act, 1969 - Section 16\n•\nExport Policy Order, 1998-99\n•\nImport and Export (Control) Act, 1950 - Section 3\n•\nNarcotics Control Act, 1997 - Section 2\n•\nNotification No. S.R.O. 28(1)/99, dated 14-01-1999", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Appeal No. K-492/01 and K-493/01, decision dated: 22-05-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SAJID HUSAIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Muhammad Aleem Khan Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. RAFIDAIN TRADING CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED and M/S. MODerN OVERSEAS TRADING (PVT.) LIMITED\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), KARACHIII" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8130", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 823 = 2002 SLD 823 = 2002 PTCL 427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Release of smuggled vehicles on payment of fine\nDetails: Vehicles seized by customs on the grounds of being smuggled were not allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine. The appellants argued that the vehicles had been excluded from the smuggled goods category under SRO 1374(I)/98 since 12.6.1999, which entitled them to release on payment of a fine.\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled that the vehicles could be released on payment of a 100% fine, as they were excluded from the smuggled goods category from 12.6.1999. The Customs Act and related notifications were interpreted in favor of the appellants.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.156(2), SRO 1374(I)/98, SRO 739(I)/99, SRO 496(I)/99, SRO 1355(I)/99, SRO 1367(I)/99, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 2506, 2505, 2499, 2496, 2504, 2554, 2497, 2427, 2426, 2432, 2436, 2463, 2494, 2565, 2500, .......16.05.2002", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mian Abdul Ghaffar, and Rana Sardar Ali and Mr. Muhammad Akram Nizami, Advocates. Mr. Amer Ahmed, D.R., Mr. Rahat Pirzada, D.S., Mr. Mubarak Ali Sherazi, I.0. and Mr. Akhtar Zaidi, Inspector", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others\nVS\nDEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8131", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 824 = 2002 SLD 824 = 2002 MLD 1621 = 2002 PTCL 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Allegation of smuggling due to tampered chassis\nDetails: A vehicle was suspected of being smuggled as its chassis number had been welded and altered. The appellant argued that the damage to the chassis resulted from an accident, but the Tribunal rejected this and ruled that the welded chassis number was an attempt to conceal the vehicle's smuggled status.\nHeld: The Tribunal confirmed the vehicle's outright confiscation without the option to pay a fine, based on the tampered chassis number suggesting an attempt to mislead authorities.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.156(1)(89), (90), S.181; SRO 1374(I)/98; Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, S.3(3).", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 1583-CUS/IB of 2001(PB), decision dated: 6-04-2002, hearing DATE : 15-01-2002.", + "Judge Name:": "(JUSTICE (R) ABDUL MAJEED TIWANA, CHAIRMAN\nRAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nS.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ajoon Khan for Appellant.\nPir Alam Shah, D.S./D.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SALAHUDDIN\nVS\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUTSOMS (ADJUDICATION), PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8132", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 825 = 2002 SLD 825 = 2002 SCMR 273 = 2002 PTCL 560", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Whether conviction under Customs and Narcotics laws constitutes double jeopardy\nDetails: The case questioned whether an accused could be convicted under both the Customs Act and the Control of Narcotic Substances Act for the same act, considering the protection against double jeopardy under the Constitution and Criminal Procedure Code.\nHeld: The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine if convictions under both laws for the same offense would violate the double jeopardy provisions.\nCitations: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, S.9(a)(b)(c); Customs Act, 1969, S.156(1)(8); Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S.403; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13(a), Art. 185(3); State v. Naseem Amin Butt 2001 SCMR 1083; Hoot Khan v. Industrial Relations Commission PLD 1977 Kar. 144; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 1995 SCMR 626; The State v. Anwar Khattak PLD 1990 FSC 62.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=13(a),156(1),156(8)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=403Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=13(a)Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997=9(a),9(b),9(c)", + "Case #": "Criminal Petition No.40-Q of 2001, decision dated: 5-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nJAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salah-ud-Din Mangel, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Ashraf Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHADI KHAN \nVS\nTHE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8133", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 826 = 2002 SLD 826 = 2002 SCMR 653 = 2002 PTCL 572", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs duty on auction-purchased vessels\nDetails: The issue concerned whether a petitioner who purchased vessels at an auction directed by the High Court was liable to pay customs duty, as the vessels were considered Pakistani goods under the High Court’s control.\nHeld: The Supreme Court ruled that the vessels, once under High Court control, were still subject to customs duties, as no exemption was provided. The ruling emphasized that goods, including vessels, are liable for duty when they are transferred for sale or disposal, even when in local jurisdiction.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.18, 19; Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3); East & West Steamship Co. v. The Collector of Customs PLD 1976 SC 618; Tufail Muhammad v. Deputy Collector of Customs 1980 PCr.LJ 721; Vulcan Company Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1983 SCMR 522.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "C.P. Nos. 185-K and 186-K of 2001, 7-12-2001", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nRANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Ali Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court anti K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M.N. Kohli, Deputy Attorney General for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS S.S. ENTERPRISES, KARACHI \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8134", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1065 = 2003 SLD 1065 = 2003 PTCL 688", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "High Court jurisdiction under Customs Act\nDetails: The case involved a question of whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review a matter under the Customs Act without the presence of a legal question.\nHeld: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, confirming that the High Court's jurisdiction was limited to questions of law, and no such question was present in the appeal.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.196; Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 695-L of 2003, decision dated: 21st April, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL\nMR. JUSTICE KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Munir Ahmad Bhatti, ASC and Mr. Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, A.O.R. Mr. K. M. Virk, ASC, Mr. Mian Attaur Rehman, A.O.R. and Mr. Muhammad Yawar Ali, Dy. Attorney General", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. NISSHO SRI, \nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) DRY PORT TRUST, FAISALABAD and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8135", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1066 = 2003 SLD 1066 = 2003 PTCL 716", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Notice requirements for seized goods\nDetails: The case dealt with the seizure of goods under the Customs Act and the need for the department to serve a notice under Section 180 within two months. The Collector extended the period but did not record reasons for the extension.\nHeld: The Court held that the Collector’s extension of the period for issuing notice was invalid, as no reasons were recorded as required by the proviso to Section 168(2) of the Customs Act.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.168, 180; Joint Secretary, Central Board of Revenue (Customs) v. Raja Nazar Hussain (1991 SCMR 647).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for leave to Appeal No. 767/L of 1997, decision dated: 20-10-1997", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE AJMAL MIAN\nMR. JUSTICE FAZAL ILAHI KHAN\nMR. JUSTICE NASIR ASLAM ZAHID", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Mian Qamar-ud-Din Ahmad, ASC.\nRespondent by: Mr. S. M. Zafar, Sr. ASC and Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, AOR", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, & OTHERS\nVS\nHAJI NOOR-ULHAQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8136", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 1067 = 2003 SLD 1067 = 2003 PTCL 723", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of extended period for issuing notice\nDetails: A review petition sought to challenge the dismissal of an appeal where no show-cause notice was served within the extended period. The reason for the extension was for completing the inquiry.\nHeld: The review was rejected, as the show-cause notice was not served even within the extended period, making the extension invalid.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.168.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Civil Review Petition No. 29-L of 1997, decision dated: 27-05-1999", + "Judge Name:": "CHIEF, JUSTICE AJMAL MIAN\nMR. JUSTICE MAMOON KAZI\nMR. JUSTICE CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioners by; Mr. Sh. Izharul Haq, ASC and Mr. M. A. Qureshi, AOR.\nRespondents by; Mr. S. M, Zafar, Sr. ASC and Mr. Tanvir Ahmed, AOR (Absent)", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, & 2 OTHERS\nVS\nHAJI NOOR-ULHAQ S/O HAJI NOOR JAMAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8137", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 798 = 2004 SLD 798 = 2004 PTCL 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Valuation of imported goods\nDetails: The issue was whether the valuation of goods could be determined based on identical or similar goods when the importer was associated with the supplier. The respondent sought release of goods after 5% loading under Section 81 of the Customs Act.\nHeld: The Tribunal held that the goods should be assessed under the provisions of the Customs Act after considering the association between the importer and the supplier.\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969, S.25(1), (5), (6), 81.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal Nos. K. 274, 275, 276 & 277/02/3765, decision dated: 11-06-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MS. YASMIN ABBASSEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III)\nMR. SAFDAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-III)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Sohail Muzzafar, Advocate, Mr. Saeed Hasan, AC & Mr. Masood-ul-Hasan, PA. Respondent by: Mr. \nSardar Ali Javed, Consultant", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM, KARACHI\nVS\nM/S. NEW ALLIED ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8138", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 799 = 2004 SLD 799 = 2004 PTCL 122", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Evasion of central excise duty\nDetails: The appellant was charged with evading central excise duty for services provided to PIA, as they did not issue the prescribed bill of charges. The show cause notice for the period from 1990 to 1995 was challenged on the grounds of limitation.\nHeld: The Tribunal ruled that the non-issuance of bills and failure to deposit central excise duty amounted to fraud, and the notice was not barred by limitation.\nCitations: Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rules 10 & 96-W; Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=10", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No. 7(223)ATIB/99(PB), decision dated: 18-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. AMIN HOTEL, PESHAWAR\nVS\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and others\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, SAMBRIAL\nVS\nNAGINA ENGINEERING WORKS, GUJRANWALA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8139", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 800 = 2004 SLD 800 = 2004 PTCL 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, 1969 – Section 25 – Valuation of Old/Used Boilers\n•\nDetails: The appellant contested the reassessment of imported old/used boilers. The Customs Appraiser Department had arbitrarily assessed the value of boilers of 1987 model at Rs. 20 per kilo, while boilers of 1974 and 1975 models were assessed at Rs. 42 per kilo. The appellant had previously assessed the boilers at Rs. 42 per kilo. The Collector of Customs ordered a reassessment based on the valuation guidelines in CGO 12 of 2002, but the appellant argued that the valuation was unjustified and arbitrary.\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed. The assessment of the boilers at Rs. 42 per kilo was not justified, as the condition of the boilers had not been demonstrated to differ from other consignments valued at Rs. 20 per kilo. The Customs Appraisers failed to provide a sound basis for the higher valuation.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), Section 25, CGO 12 of 2002, dated 15.06.2002.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal Nos. 1685-1686/LB/2003, 15-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. SHER ZAHEER AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL MEMBER)\nMR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Respondents by: Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik M. Arshad, Advocates.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8140", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 801 = 2004 SLD 801 = 2004 PTCL 290", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, 1969 – Section 194-B – Non-compliance with Tribunal Order\n•\nDetails: The Collector of Customs was directed by the Tribunal to expedite the disposal of remanded cases within 45 days. However, the Collector requested an extension of 60 days, which was not accepted by the Tribunal, as the Collector had not complied with the earlier orders.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal emphasized that its remand order was final and binding, and ordered the Collector of Customs to comply with the timeline, ensuring continuous hearings to finalize the cases within 45 days from the issuance of the order.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), Section 194-B.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "C.M. No. 54/2004 in Customs Appeal No. 1648/LB/2003, decision dated: 1st April, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. M. B. Tahir. SDR and Mr. Masood Javed, Appraiser.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar and Mr. Malik Muhammad Arshad, Advocates", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. MILLAT TRACTORS LTD., \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8141", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 802 = 2004 SLD 802 = 2004 PTCL 568", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, 1969 – Section 6 & Section 193 – Jurisdiction of Customs Officers\n•\nDetails: The issue was whether the officers of Frontier Corps (F.C.) were authorized to act as officers of Customs and exercise rights under Section 193 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that F.C. officers were not legally empowered to file appeals, as they were only entrusted with certain specific functions.\n•\nHeld: The court held that F.C. officers, under SRO 281(I)/95, were not authorized to act as Customs officers under Section 193 and could not exercise appeal rights. The appellant's case was not valid for appeal by F.C. personnel.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), Sections 6, 171, 193, 194-B, SRO 281(I)/95.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=6", + "Case #": "Cus. No, 81/PB/2003, decision dated: 6-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Ajoon Khan, Advocate.\nRespondents by: Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, D.R. assisted by Fazalur Rehman, D.S. & Arbab FariduIIah, Advocate", + "Petitioner Name:": "BARAT KHAN R/O MANZARI CHEENA MOHMAND AGENCY\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX & CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PESHAWAR AND OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8142", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 803 = 2004 SLD 803 = 2004 PCRLJ 1958 = 2004 PTCL 584", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Act, 1969 – Sections 168, 171 & 180 – Seizure of Goods and Vehicles\n•\nDetails: The case concerned the legality of seizing goods and vehicles under the Customs Act without issuing a notice under Section 171. The petitioner challenged the seizure of a vehicle based on an unverified forensic report, and the lack of notice about the seizure.\n•\nHeld: The court ruled that the seizure was illegal as the mandatory notice under Section 171 was not issued. The Customs authorities were required to follow due process, including providing notice and conducting a proper examination of the seized goods. The action was deemed unlawful, and the court granted relief to the petitioner.\n•\nCitations: Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), Sections 168, 171, 180; Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199; Cr.P.C. 537.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 5519 and 5529 of 2003, decision dated: 1st April, 2004, hearing DATE : 22-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nCh. Saghir Ahmad; Standing Counsel for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD FAROOQ \nVS\nMUHAMMAD MUBEEN AKHTAR and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8143", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 556 = 2005 SLD 556 = 2005 PTCL 270 = 2005 PTD 123 = 2005 SCMR 37", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)\n•\nArt.199—Constitutional jurisdiction—Disputed question of fact\n•\nPrinciple: Controversial questions cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs.179, 193, 194-A & 196—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Alternate efficacious remedy\n•\nScope: Constitutional jurisdiction should not have been exercised as efficacious remedies under the Customs Act (1969) were available to the importers via concerned forums.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs.162 & 163—Search without warrant\n•\nPrinciple: Search without warrant may be valid if the situation requires immediate action; however, compliance with statutory provisions should be the norm.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs.162, 163, 171, 179, 193, 194-A & 196—Misdeclaration and seizure\n•\nPrinciple: Urgent situations may justify searches without warrants. Constitutional intervention is unnecessary when alternate remedies are available.\nHeld: The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the matter was referred to the appropriate forum within the customs hierarchy.\nCitations:\nDr. Sajjad Ahmad v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir PLD 1979 Lah. 304; K.M. Asaf v. Abdullah Malik PLD 1976 Lah. 158; Iqbal Akhtar v. Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq PLD 1977 Lah. 1318; State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. PLD 1983 SC 280, etc.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1884-L of, 2004, decision dated: 30-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nJAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmer Bilal Soofi, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rahman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Syed Najmul Hasan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others \nVS\nUNIVERSAL GATEWAY TRADING CORPORATION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8144", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 557 = 2005 SLD 557 = 2005 PTCL 712 = 2005 PTD 1949", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nSs.156(1)(9)(90), 162, 163, 171 & 196—Seizure of vehicle\n•\nHeld: The appellant, as a bona fide purchaser of the vehicle, presented sufficient documentation, including import certificates and payment of duties, which led to the acceptance of the appeal.\n(b) Words and phrases\n•\n Deciphered —Meaning: To interpret or make clear.\nCitations:\nHaji Abdur Razzaq v. Pakistan PLD 1974 SC 5 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 25 of 2002, heard on 22-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "BASHIR A. MUJAHID, JUSTICE\nMIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farhad Nawaz Lodhi for Appellant.\nKhalil-ur-Rehman Abbasi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ASLAM AZAD\nVS\nCOLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS THROUGH COLLECTOR 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8145", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 743 = 2010 SLD 743 = (2010) 101 TAX 221 = 2010 PTCL 1067 = 2010 PTD 465", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Jurisdiction\n•\nPrinciple: Orders passed without jurisdiction are non-est (invalid) in the eyes of law.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nS.179(1)—Pecuniary jurisdiction of Customs Officers\n•\nScope: Any transgression of jurisdiction renders the entire exercise void and illegal.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nS.196—Reference to High Court\n•\nHeld: The question regarding the origin of imported goods is a factual one and does not involve a question of law; thus, the reference application was dismissed.\n(d) Jurisdiction\n•\nPrinciple: Non-fulfillment of jurisdictional requirements renders proceedings coram non judice (invalid).\nCitations:\nShamoon Traders v. Customs, Excise, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2006 PTD 2177; Mansab Ali v. Amir PLD 1971 SC 124; Reckitt Benckiser Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan 2009 PTD 642, etc.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No. 101 and C.M.A. No. 1281 of 2009, decision dated: 22-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zain A. Jatoi for Applicant.\nM. Junaid Ghaffar for Respondent.\nAshiq Raza, Dy. A.G. on Court notice.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PACCS, KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLIES CO. (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8146", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 744 = 2010 SLD 744 = (2010) 101 TAX 261 = 2010 PTCL 756 = 2010 PTD 657", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)\n•\nS.194—Appeal without proper signature and authority\n•\nHeld: The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable since it was not filed by an aggrieved person or their authorized representative.\n(b) Appeal (civil)\n•\nPrinciple: An appeal must be filed by the aggrieved person or their authorized representative to be valid.\nCitations:\nDirector, Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 2006 SCMR 129, etc.\n4o mini", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "S.C.R.A. No.248 of 2008 and C.M.A. No. 1930 of 2009, decision dated: 1st December, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Usman Shaikh for applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAHRUKH ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR and others \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 3 ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8147", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 745 = 2010 SLD 745 = (2010) 101 TAX 333 = 2010 PTCL 1025 = 2010 PTD 900", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 79 & 81(1)\n•\nRelease of imported goods provisionally\n•\nDetails: The case involves the provisional release of imported goods after postdated cheques were obtained from the importer to cover the difference in declared value and customs duties. The validity of this process was questioned, as no documentary evidence supported the enhancement of declared value.\n•\nHeld: The power granted under Section 81(1) was not arbitrary but had to be exercised with due diligence and reasoning. The provisional assessment was set aside due to being beyond the competence of the authority.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Dewan Farooque Motors Ltd., Karachi v. Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Karachi 2006 PTD 1276; Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi v. Messrs Auto Mobile Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi 2005 PTD 2116.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 194-C (Second Proviso)\n•\nJurisdiction of Tribunal Member\n•\nDetails: The case discusses the scope of a Member (Technical) of the Tribunal sitting singly. It was concluded that such a member could decide appeals only on factual matters and not on questions of law.\n•\nHeld: The Member (Technical) was limited to deciding appeals based on facts and not legal questions.\n•\nCitations: Collector of Customs, Model Collectorate of PACCS, Karachi v. Muzammil Ahmed 2009 PTD 266; Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi v. Messrs Mia Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad 2009 PTD 1127.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 196\n•\nReference application involving questions of fact\n•\nDetails: The High Court ruled that in exercising its advisory jurisdiction, it could not address questions of fact or those not arising from the Tribunal’s order.\n•\nHeld: Reference applications concerning factual questions were outside the High Court’s jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Applications Nos.89 and 90 of 2008, decision dated: 15-10-2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant.\nZia-ul-Hasan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS \nVS\nMESSRS PAK ARAB RAFINERY, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8148", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 746 = 2010 SLD 746 = (2010) 101 TAX 343 = 2010 PTCL 1044 = 2010 PTD 940", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 194\n•\nAppeal to Tribunal involving questions of law\n•\nDetails: This case examines whether a Member (Technical) of the Tribunal could dispose of appeals that raised questions of law. It was concluded that such a member had no jurisdiction over legal matters.\n•\nHeld: The Member (Technical) was not authorized to decide questions of law.\n•\nCitations: Rehan Umer v. Collector of Customs 2006 PTD 909; Messrs Khan Trade International v. Assistant Collector Customs, Karachi 2006 PTD 2807.\n(b) Customs Rules, 2001 - R. 420\n•\nNon-filing of reference on prescribed form\n•\nDetails: The issue revolved around the failure to file a reference in the prescribed format. Despite this, the case clarified that non-compliance with formality did not invalidate the reference.\n•\nHeld: The requirement of filing on the prescribed form was a mere technicality and did not affect the substance of the reference.\n•\nCitations: Abdul Ghani and Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1962) 6 Tax 185.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Applications Nos.3 to 10 of 2009, decision dated: 25-01-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMAD, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Najeeb Jamali for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DAWLANCE ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR, KARACHI \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8149", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 747 = 2010 SLD 747 = 2010 PTD 2136 = (2010) 102 TAX 189 = 2011 PTCL 12", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 168 & 196\n•\nSeizure of vehicle and appeal to High Court\n•\nDetails: The issue was about the validity of an appeal filed without being signed by the Collector. The appeal was signed only by the department's counsel.\n•\nHeld: The reference could only be filed, signed, or verified by the Collector. As it did not meet these requirements, the appeal was dismissed.\n•\nCitations: 2009 PTD 1799; 2006 SCMR 129; 2008 PTD 356.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168,196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No. 5 of 2007, decision dated: 24-05-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, JUSTICE\nSARDAR SHAUKAT HAYAT, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moin-ud-Din Humayun for Appellant.\nIssaq Ali Qazi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR \nVS\nIFTIKHAR ALI KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8150", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 748 = 2010 SLD 748 = (2010) 102 TAX 243 = 2010 PTD 2338 = 2011 PTCL 98", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - S. 18 & First Schedule\n•\nClassification of pistols under Import Tariff\n•\nDetails: The dispute concerned the classification of non-prohibited bore pistols of 0.9mm caliber. The Revenue Board had classified them under a higher duty tariff, but the High Court found this incorrect.\n•\nHeld: The High Court ruled that the classification under PCT Heading 9302.0012 should apply, setting aside the department's decision.\n•\nCitations: Khadim Hussain v. Additional District Judge Faisalabad PLD 1990 SC 632.\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) - Art. 199\n•\nConstitutional petition regarding interpretation of tariff\n•\nDetails: The case involved a constitutional petition for the interpretation of the Import Tariff and classification of pistols. Despite availability of alternative remedies, the petition was found maintainable.\n•\nHeld: The High Court could intervene as the interpretation of the statute fell within its jurisdiction.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582.\n(c) Interpretation of Statutes\n•\nReading and as or \n•\nDetails: The Court applied the principle that when two interpretations are reasonable, one that avoids redundancy should be preferred.\n•\nHeld: The word and in the tariff was interpreted as or to avoid redundancy.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-2536 of 2009, decision dated: 9-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nRaja M. Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IQBAL HUSSAIN THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8151", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 1129 = 2013 SLD 1129 = 2013 PTD 581", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969) - Ss. 156 & 157\n•\nSeizure and release of confiscated auto-parts\n•\nDetails: The petitioners challenged the denial of benefit from an amending S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 on the grounds of retrospective application. The Court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit.\n•\nHeld: The Court directed that the petitioners could redeem the confiscated goods under the new S.R.O.\n•\nCitations: Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652; Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582.\n(b) Interpretation of Statutes - Retrospective Effect of Amendment\n•\nRetrospective effect of concessionary notification\n•\nDetails: The case involved whether a concessionary notification could be applied retrospectively for the benefit of taxpayers.\n•\nHeld: The Court upheld the retrospective application of the amending S.R.O. as it benefited the taxpayer.\n•\nCitations: Collector of Customs, Lahore v. A.A. Corporation, Lahore 2004 PTD 2738.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.21507 of 2011, decision dated: 22-10-2012", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners.\nSarfraz Ahmad Cheema along with Asad Khan Inspector ASO for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM NABI and 3 others\nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MEMBER CUSTOMS (LEGAL) REVENUE DIVISION FBR, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8152", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 481 = 2005 SLD 481 = 2005 PTCL 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Refund and Exemption Orders\n•\nDetails: The case concerns the application of section 33 of the Customs Act, 1969, and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, related to refunds of customs duties. It highlights the issue of whether refunds can be claimed beyond the statutory period if not due to inadvertence, error, or misconstruction. The CBR had granted an exemption order, knowing that the claims were beyond the six-month limitation period, as the refund was for regulatory duties and not based on error.\n•\nHeld: The tribunal ruled that section 33(1) does not apply to this case, as the exemption was granted with clear comprehension of its legal basis and not due to inadvertence. Additionally, section 33 should be interpreted alongside section 224 of the Customs Act, which allows for the extension of the period of limitation under certain conditions.\n•\nCitations: Sections 33, 224, 196, 223 of the Customs Act, 1969; Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeal No. 70 of 2003, decision dated: 24-August, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SHABBIR AHMED\nMR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by Mr. Shakeel Ahmed.\nRespondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI\nVS\nM/S. CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8153", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 480 = 2005 SLD 480 = 2005 PTCL 76", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "•\nCustoms Value Enhancement and Provisional Assessment\n•\nDetails: The enhancement of customs value was made based on a recommendation of a Committee but lacked sufficient evidence to support the decision. The case involves a challenge to the department's decision based on this unsupported enhancement.\n•\nHeld: The judicial forum did not accept the recommendation of the Committee, as it was not backed by adequate evidence. Moreover, the provisional assessment under section 81 of the Customs Act was not finalized within the required six-month period, making the order ultra vires.\n•\nCitations: Sections 25, 81 of the Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeals Nos. 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 96 of 2003, decision dated: 21st August, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE S. A. SARWANA\nMR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Raja M. Iqbal.\nRespondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI\nVS\nM/S. H. M. ABDULLAH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8154", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 479 = 2005 SLD 479 = 2005 PTCL 79", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "•\nRedemption Fine in Customs\n•\nDetails: The issue revolved around the imposition of a 100% redemption fine after the Tribunal determined there was no mis-declaration regarding the goods in question.\n•\nHeld: The Tribunal was not justified in imposing the redemption fine, as the goods were not mis-declared. The question was answered in the negative, ruling that the fine could not be imposed as a condition for the release of the goods.\n•\nCitations: Section 181 of the Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeals Nos. 212 and 213 of 2001, decision dated: 1st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE S. A. SARWANA\nMR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Ms. Dilharam Shaheen and Mr. Muhammad Nadeem Qureshi.\nRespondent by: Raja Muhammad Iqbal", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. RAVI CHIP BOARD (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ADJUDICATIONI, KARACHI and TWO OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8155", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 478 = 2005 SLD 478 = 2005 PTCL 82", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "•\nAppeal Filing by Director of Customs and Intelligence Directorate\n•\nDetails: The case addressed whether the Director of the Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs & Excise) could file an appeal without authorization to exercise the functions of the Collector under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n•\nHeld: The Director was not considered an aggrieved person and therefore could not file an appeal. The Tribunal held that only the Collector or an aggrieved party, as defined under the law, had the statutory right to file an appeal.\n•\nCitations: Sections 3, 4, 196, 81 of the Customs Act, 1969; Notification No. S.R.O. 388(I)/82, dated 22nd April, 1982.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeals Nos. 282 and 283 of 2002, decision dated: 11-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SHABBIR AHMED\nMR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Raja Muhammad Iqbal.\nRespondent by: Mr. Farogh Naseem.", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION, CUSTOMS and EXCISE, KARACHI\nVS\nM/S. ALFAIZ INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8156", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 477 = 2005 SLD 477 = 2005 PTCL 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Tribunal Remand for Factual Reassessment\nDetails: The Tribunal did not find any legal question arising but decided that the factual controversy regarding the weight of the goods needs to be reconsidered. The Tribunal is directed to provide an opportunity for the appellant to prove the factual claim that there was no difference in weight, and that the Customs' allegations were unfounded.\nHeld: The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh factual review.\nCitations: None provided.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeal No. 5 of 2002. decided on 31ST January, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE ZAHID KURBAN ALVI\nMR. JUSTICE SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Ali Bin Adam Jafri.\nRespondent by: Raja M. lqbal.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. PIONEER STEEL CORPORATION, KARACHI\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8157", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 476 = 2005 SLD 476 = 2005 PTCL 93", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Section 32 and Untrue Declarations\nDetails: The case involved an export of goods with a declaration of 100% cotton fabric, which was later found to contain 10% polyester. Section 32 was invoked based on the untrue declaration, but since the mis-declaration did not affect duty or drawback, it was not deemed a violation. The statutory change in section 32(1) under the Federal Laws (Revision & Declaration) Ordinance, 1981 requires knowledge of the false statement, which was absent here.\nHeld: Section 32 does not apply, as the mis-declaration did not relate to evasion of duties or other charges.\nCitations: Section 32, Customs Act, 1969, Federal Laws (Revision & Declaration) Ordinance, 1981.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 3 of 2002, decision dated: 15-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SABILIUDDIN AHMED", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr., Muhammad Saleem Mangrio.\nRespondent by: Raja Muhammad lqbal, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. A. R. HOSIERY WORKS, KARACHI\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8158", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 475 = 2005 SLD 475 = 2005 PTCL 99", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "World Customs Organization Ruling\nDetails: The Customs Administration of Pakistan did not refute the World Customs Organization's classification ruling regarding white spirit under PCT Heading 2710.0039. The classification is supported by technical specifications and the opinion of the World Customs Organization. If the Customs Administration did not reject the ruling, it is tacit acceptance of it.\nHeld: The correct classification of the goods is under PCT Heading 2710.0039 as per World Customs Organization's ruling.\nCitations: World Customs Organization, PCT Heading 2710.0039.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Appeals No. 24 to 40 of 2003 and 108 to 112 0f 2003, decision dated: 12.8.2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nSAYED MOHSIN ASAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL),\nMR. MOHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL/CHAIRMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Advocate.\nRespondents by: Mr. Kamran Khan, Assistant Collector and Mr. Muhammad Rasheed, Superintendent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. PAKISTAN OIL FIELDS LTD., RAWALPINDI\nVS\nTHE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, RAWALPINDI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8159", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 474 = 2005 SLD 474 = 2005 PTCL 138", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "Discrimination in Export Policy\nDetails: The respondent was denied the same export facility allowed to other firms for urea exports to Afghanistan. The Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock granted the respondent the export permit, which was later challenged by the Ministry of Commerce. The court held that the retrospective application of the decision to deny the permit violated the respondent's vested rights.\nHeld: The decision to restrict the export permit cannot be applied retrospectively, as it adversely affects the respondent's vested rights.\nCitations: Article 25, Constitution of Pakistan; Section 16, Customs Act, 1969; Export Policy and Procedures Order, 2000.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 1502 of 2004, heard on 16-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR,\nCHIEF, JUSTICE NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI\nMR. JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Irshad, DAG. \nRespondents by: Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillian, Sr. ASC and Mr. Mohr Khan Malik, AOR", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN\nVS\nM/S. VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8160", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 473 = 2005 SLD 473 = 2005 PTCL 220", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal and Departmental Proceedings\nDetails: The case involved tampered customs documents, but the criminal prosecution was set aside by the Lahore High Court due to lack of evidence. However, the department continued its adjudication proceedings independently of the criminal case, with a focus on the tampered documents.\nHeld: The department's adjudication proceedings are independent of the criminal proceedings, and duties/taxes should be assessed only on the altered entries, not the entire consignment.\nCitations: Section 156(1) Clause 10-A, Customs Act, 1969; Customs General Order No. 12 of 1994.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Appeal Nos. 7(201)CU/IB/2000, 7(202)CU/IB/2000, 7(203)CU/IB/2000, 7(204)CU/IB/2000 and 7(291)CU/IB/2000, decision dated: 30-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. AI-HAJ FIROZ-UD-DIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Muhammad Naeem Qazi and Mian Nazir Azhar, Advocates.\nMr. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi, Advocate and Mr. Agha Sabir, Intelligence Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. R.M.S. DIPLOMATIC BONDED WAREHOUSE, ISLAMABAD ETC\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), NORTHERN ZONE, RAWALPINDI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8161", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 472 = 2005 SLD 472 = 2005 PTCL 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "CONTROL OF NARCOTIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1997---Section 9(c)---No case-property was produced, no sample of the recovered substance was available, no report of%E", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 1700 of 2001, heard on 3rd November, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE CH. MIKHAR HUSSAIN \nMR. JUSTICE ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mian Abdul Gaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad, Advocates\nRespondent by: Mr. Muhammad Sohail Dar, Assistant Advocate General", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMAD S/O MUHAMMAD ISMAIL, KARACHI\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8162", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 471 = 2005 SLD 471 = 2005 PTCL 298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Classification of Goods and Maintainability of Appeal\nDetails: The respondent imported a ventilation system for poultry farms, classified by the department under heading 8419.8990 with a 25% custom duty. The respondent contested the classification and sought a lower duty of 10%. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the classification had been consistent with past practice. The appellant raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal but had not raised this issue at the Tribunal level.\nHeld: The appeal is dismissed as the objection on maintainability was not raised earlier. The Tribunal's classification of the goods is upheld.\nCitations: Section 19, Customs Act 1969; Notification S.R.O. 26(1)/98", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 327/2002, decision dated: 17-03-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI\nMR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Izharul Haq, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Syed Sohail Abbas Gilani, Advocate.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SAMBRIAL DRY PORT, SIALKOT\nVS\nM/S. ALBADAR POULTRY FARMS, WAZIRABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8163", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 470 = 2005 SLD 470 = 2005 PTCL 315", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clViTFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "Mis-declaration and Penalty under Customs Act\nDetails: In cases under the First Appraisement System, where importers are uncertain about the details of imported goods, the allegations of mis-declaration under section 32 do not stand. In this case, the penalty imposed under section 156(1)(14) was remitted as the mis-declaration claim was unfounded. Additionally, hydraulic jacks were imported for HTV use, and old & used auto parts had to be processed to become unserviceable.\nHeld: The penalty under section 156(1)(14) is remitted, and the classification and duty imposition are confirmed as per relevant notifications.\nCitations: Sections 32, 156(1)(14), 181, Customs Act 1969; S.R.O. 374(I)/2002", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal Nos. 423 to 439/2003(K-2), decision dated: 10-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. S.M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Sardar Ali Javed, Consultant.\nRespondent by: Mr. Babar Gulzar, A. O. (V)", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. MUHAMMAD UMER CLOTH MERCHANT, KARACHI\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALSI), CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8164", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 469 = 2005 SLD 469 = 2005 PTCL 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Correction of Clerical Errors\nDetails: The case involved a clerical error in the Tribunal's order, where the name of the appellant was mistakenly included in a list of parties. The error was identified as an accidental slip, which does not require the statutory limitation period for corrections.\nHeld: The accidental slip or clerical error is corrected under section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the Court exercises suo motu powers to correct the error without limitation.\nCitations: Section 194-B, Customs Act 1969; Section 152, Civil Procedure Code", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "C. A. No. 48 of 2004, heard on 28-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN\nMR. JUSTICE RUSTAM ALI MALIK", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Syed Hamid Ali Shah. \nRespondents by: Ch. Abdul Ghafoor and Ch. M. Ashraf; Secy", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. CHISTIA SUGAR MILLS\nVS\nTHE COLLECTOR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8165", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 558 = 2005 SLD 558 = 2005 PTCL 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDWT0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969,Section 181,.In case of confiscation of goods the redemption fine was to be worked out with reference to duties and taxes attempted to be evaded and not the duties and taxes leviable on the whole consignment.--The question whether the learned Adjudication Officer as well as the learned Appellate Tribunal Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise was justified in omitting to note that as per S.R.O. 1374(I)/ 1998, dated 17-12-1998, the 100% redemption fine provided therein is to be worked out with reference to the duties and taxes attempting to be evaded and not the duties and taxes leviable on the whole consignment?\nThe appellant did not deny the arrival of excess weight as compared to the declaration made in the Bill of Entry but took a plea that it was the fault of supplier who generally send extra fabric for the purpose of sampling. However, the appellant was not able to produce any evidence to substantiate the contention and consequently the explanation was rejected. The Adjudicating Officer ordered for outright confiscation of the consignment with an option to redeem the goods against 100% fine of the value of the consignment as per S.R.O. 1374(I)/798, dated 17-12-1998.\nThe impugned order of the Tribunal is not open to any exception.\nThe appellant having failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his plea the outright confiscation was justified. \nQUESTION OF FACT,,The question whether there is no motive to evade the duties and taxes is a question of fact.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 4 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd December, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SHABBIR AHMED\nMR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Usman Shaikh.\nRespondent by: Raja M. Iqbal", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. WEAVE and KNIT (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nVS\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS ADJUDICATIONII, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8166", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 559 = 2005 SLD 559 = 2005 PTCL 372", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDVT0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1990,,Sections 194-A & 196,,,No appeal can be decided without notice to the parties. Observation by Members of Appellate Tribunal while deciding appeal cannot be termed to be a judicious speaking order.--The learned Members of the Tribunal while deciding Appeal No, 456 of 2000 filed by Messrs City Link against Collector of Customs Adjudication Karachi-II also disposed of Appeal No. 7 of 2001 of Respondent Messrs Silver Corporation with the observation.\nThe observation cannot be termed to be a judicious speaking order. Therefore, we set aside the finding and remand the case for disposal of Appeal No. 7 of 2001 afresh after notice to the parties.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeal No. 202 of 2001, decision dated: 3rd September, 2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE SHABBIR AHMED\nMR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant Raja Muhammad Iqbal.\nRespondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), EXPORTS COLLECTORATE, KARACHI and others\nVS\nM/S. SILVER CORPORATION, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8167", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 560 = 2005 SLD 560 = 2005 PTCL 374 = 2005 PTD 246", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDUT0", + "Key Words:": "CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973,. Article 247,..Analysis of various constitutional provisions relating to the tribal areas since 1947;--Analysis of the various Constitutional provisions relating to the tribal areas is that the tribal areas became legally parts of the territories of Pakistan from 15-8-47, the date mentioned in the Notifications of the 27th June 1950 and all laws which applied to those territories before the 15th August 1947 were continued in force until altered or amended, and from 1955 the tribal areas of the North-West Frontier became parts of the Province of West Pakistan having a representation even in the Legislature of the said Province. There could be no manner of doubt, therefore, that the Sea Customs Act, the Land Customs Act and section 5 of the Tariff Act, which had been made applicable to the tribal areas by the Notifications of the 22nd September, 1926 and the 24th January 1938, continued to apply in those areas and never lapsed. Torkham was declared a Land Customs Station by the Notification of the 28th January l938 and Afghanistan was declared a foreign territory under section 5 of the Tariff Act, 1934 by the Notification of the 10th January 1939, in respect of the tribal areas of the Khyber Agency. Subsequently on the 29th March 1941, another Notification was issued prohibiting under section 19 of the Sea Customs Act the importation of dutiable goods into Pakistan from Afghanistan. By another notification issued on the 12th June 1951 under subsection (1) of section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, the importation of fabrics into Pakistan save under a licence issued for the purpose was prohibited and on the 28th July 1959, another Notification No. S.R.O. 349 was issued under section 5 of the Tariff Act, 1934 again declaring Afghanistan to be a foreign territory for the purposes of the said section and directing that a duty of customs at the rate prescribed by or under the Tariff Act shall be leviable on any of the articles mentioned in the Schedule to the said Notification, which included fabrics -containing silk, artificial silk, cotton or gold and silver thread, when imported by land & from any of the notified foreign territories.\nBy Regulation No. III of 1979 the Customs Act, 1969 was extended to Swat district which indeeded the tribal area of Kohistan. Later on Kohistan was carved out from Swat district, therefore the Customs Act, 1969 is still applicable to Kohistan.--The Act 1969 was made applicable to the Districts of Chitral, Dir, Swat and Malakand Protected Area but it was not made applicable to the area forming Kohistan District as required under Article 247 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.\nThere is no dispute between both the parties that the tribal area of Kohistan was a part and parcel of Swat District. Admittedly vide Regulation No. III of 1975.\nIt would be deemed that the Act 1969 was also extended to the tribal area in Kohistan.\nCUSTOMS ACT, 1969,,Section 1,..Analysis of various constitutional provisions relating to the tribal areas since 1947.--See Article 247 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. By Regulation No. III of 1979 the Customs Act, 1969 was extended to Swat district which indeeded the tribal area of Kohistan. Later on Kohistan was carved out from Swat district, therefore the Customs Act, 1969 is still applicable to Kohistan.--See Article 247 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. \nPROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATED TRIBAL AREAS OF NORTH WEST FRONTIER PROVINCE (APPLICATION OF LAWS) REGULATION, 1975,,.Section 2 & Schedule--S. No. II,. By Regulation No. III of 1979 the Customs Act, 1969 was extended to Swat district which indeeded the tribal area of Kohistan. Later on Kohistan was carved out from Swat district, therefore the Customs Act, 1969 is still applicable to Kohistan.--See Article 247 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=1", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 283 of 2003, heard on 30-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY\nMR. JUSTICE RANA BHAGWANDAS\nMR. JUSTICE FALAK SHER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Hamid Farooq, Dy. A.G.\nRespondent by: Mr. Abdul Latif Yousafzai, ASC", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE COLLECTOR CUSTOMS\nVS\nABDUL JABBAR ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8168", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 687 = 2006 SLD 687 = 2006 PTD 2231 = 2007 PTCL 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 18(2), 19 & Sched.---S.R.O. 279(1)/94, dated 2-4-1994---S.R.O. 1050(I)/95, dated 29-10-1995---Goods chargeable to duty @ 65% ad valorem---Non-payment of duty on such goods for being exempt under S.R.O. 279(I)/94, dated 2-4-1994---Levy of regulatory duty by authority on such goods, excluded from such levy under S.R.O. 1050(I)195---Validity---Importer for non-payment of duty @ 65% on imported goods would not be entitled to exemption from payment of regulatory duty in terms of of Supreme Court reported as 1993 SCMR 412---Importer's appeal was dismissed in circumstances.\n \nMessrs Zaman Paper and Board Mill's case Civil Petitions Nos.1039-L, 1040-L, 1565-L and 1709-L of 1999; Molasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd.'s case 1993 SCMR 1905; Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT PLD 1990 SC 1156 = 1990 PTD 768; PLD 1990 SC 68 and 1993 SCMR 1523 ref.\n \nCollector of Customs v. Ravi Spinning Mills Ltd. and others 1999 SCMR 412 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.9 of 2004, decision dated: 6-06-2006, hearing DATE : 27-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Ashiq Hussain for Appellant.\nCh. Saghir Ahmed for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NORTHERN POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD. THROUGH PROJECT DIRECTOR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8169", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 688 = 2006 SLD 688 = 2006 PTD 2237 = 2007 PTCL 78 = 2007 PTR 70", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 193(4)---Appellate Authority, order of---Essentials---Appellate Authority in exercise of quasi judicial function was required to decide appeal and not merely to dispose of the same---Such order must be a speaking order disclosing application of mind to the facts and law and reasons for every finding---Practice of dealing with an issue in a perfunctory manner and disposing of appeal by a slipshod order devoid of any reason---High Court strongly deprecated such practice---Principles.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 25(3)---Customs Rules, 2001, R. 2(g), Expin. II---Relationship between buyer and seller in terms' of the rules---Expression \"\"associated\"\" used in R.2(g) of Customs Rules, 2001 while-defining expression \"\"related persons\"\"---Scope---Expression \"\"associated\"\" would not be taken as independent expression, but would be considered in the light of Explanation II to R.2(g) of Customs of Rules, 2001---Principles.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 194 & 196---Reference to High Court---Question of fact not decided by Tribunal---Validity---Tribunal as a final fact-finding authority was obliged to consider such question---High Court in exercise of its advisory jurisdictions would not give any finding of fact for the first time in such a case.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 25(3)(a)(b)---Interpretation of clauses (a) & (b) of S.25(3) of Customs Act, 1969---Use of word \"\"or\"\" in between such clauses made them disjunctive and/or not injunctive---Conditions specified in both such clauses not required to be satisfied simultaneously---Transaction value would be accepted for purpose of S.25(1) of Customs Act, 1969, if either of the .conditions specified in such clauses, was satisfied---Principles.\n \n(e) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Term used by legislature---Substitution of such term by any executive or judicial authority not warranted.\n \n(f) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 25(1)(3)---Customs Rules, 2001, R.2(g), Expin. II---Deduction of trade discount from price of imported goods---Validity---Exporter had allowed discount to applicant on importing 11280 vehicles in CKD kits---Exporter had not allowed discount to any other importer---Commercial level and quantity level of import made by applicant could not be compared with any other importer in Pakistan---Like would be compared with like, in such circumstances surrounding the sale of imported goods, discount allowed by exporter could not be treated on account of influence or due to relationship, but same was on account of commercial expediency and business consideration---Applicant was entitled to claim discount.\n \n(g) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---S. 25(3)---Transaction value, determination of---Like would be compared with like.\n \n(h) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---S. 32---Custom General Order No.12 of 2002, dated 15-6-2002, Para 44---Short-levy of duty, charge of---Issuance of show-cause notice pertaining to post import matter and passing order-in-original for recovery of short levied duty by Assistant Collector of, Customs---Validity---Such being a post importation case, only officers of Valuation Department could initiate action for recovery of government dues under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969---Order-in-original was without jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25(3),193(4),194,196Customs Rules, 2001=2(g),Expin.II", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Application No.166 of 2005, decision dated: 14-06-2006. dates of hearing: 25-04-2005 and 26-04-2006.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh and Khurram Shaikh for Applicant.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAK SUZUKI MOTORS CO. LTD. THROUGH SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER (CORPORATE PLANNING & LOGISTICS), KARACHI \nVS \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (PROCESSING), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8170", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 689 = 2006 SLD 689 = 2006 SCMR 1446 = 2007 PTCL 255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25 & 25-B---Inspection and Valuation of Imported Goods Rules, 1990, R.9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)---Customs duty---Pre-shipment assessment---Notification, implementation of---importer filed general manifest on 3-4-1991, regarding the consignment imported by him---Firm of Pre-shipment Inspectors, assessed the duties in terms of its prevailing price report---Duties on four bills of entries were assessed and paid on 10-7-1991, while remaining six bills of entries were filed on 31-7-1991---Customs authorities, on the basis of a notification issued on 14-7-1991, assessed the remaining consignment at the price fixed in the notification---High Court found that as the notification was published in official gazette on 5-8-1991, therefore, bills of entries filed before the date of publication could not be assessed on the price fixed in the notification---Validity---Notification dated 14-7-1991 on the basis of which enhanced duties were claimed was published in official gazette on 5-8-1991, while bills of entries for clearance of consignment were filed on 8-4-1999 and 31-7-1999---Price fixed in the notification dated 14-7-1991 became effective on 5-i-1991 and not earlier---Importer was entitled to claim that the value of consignment be reckoned with at the previous rate---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused.\n \nThe Province of East Pakistan v. Major Nawab Khawaja Hassan Askary and others PLD 1971 SC 82; Muhammad Ishaq v. Chief Administrator of Auqaf, Punjab PLD 1977 SC 639 and Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1978 SC 190 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.859-K and 889-K of 2004, decision dated: 6-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE\nKARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 859-K of 2004).\nAbdul Hafeez Lakho, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1 (in C.P. No. 859-K of 2004).\nNemo for Respondents Nos.2 to 5 (in C.P. No. 895-K of 2004).\nAbdul Hafeez Lakho, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 889-K of 2004).\nRana M. Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 3 (in C.P. No. 889-K of 2004).\nNemo for Respondents No. 1, 2, 4 to 6 (in C.P. No. 889-K of 2004).", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS (VALUATION) and others \nVS\nMESSRS ABDUL SHAKOOR ISMAIL KALOODI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8171", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 690 = 2006 SLD 690 = 2006 PTD 2494 = 2007 PTCL 304", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 32, 156(1) & 196---Import of goods under the Scheme, \"\"no duty no draw back rules\"\"---Exemption---Claim for---Importer, who imported four consignments of stainless steel sheets and coils, filed bills of entry and all four consignments were released by Customs Authorities without payment of customs duty and other taxes leviable thereon in terms of notification under the Scheme \"\"no duty no draw back rules\"\"---\"\"No duty no draw back scheme\"\" was regularized by stringent conditions provided in said notification which required the export house or exporter to obtain serially numbered pass book from Collector of Customs---Said conditions suggested that Importer company had to approach the Collector of Customs before making any order for the import of input raw material or before purchasing locally produced input goods---During scrutiny of importer's, records by the Customs Authorities it was found that bills of entry were filed prior to issuance of said pass book which he was required to obtain before import of consignments i.e. input goods---Importer did not enter the pass book number on the bill of entry, but he entered the pass book number after it was issued by Assistant Collector---Importer held Department responsible for delayed issuance of said pass book---Contention of importer was that they having complied with substantial requirement of notification, could not be denied exemption available under said notification---Even otherwise omission of pass book number on the bills of entry amounted to violation of rules attracting a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000 in terms of S.156(1) of Customs Act, 1969---Appellant could not be denied exemption for which he was otherwise entitled solely for the reason that bill of entry did not contain pass book number---Appeal was accepted and impugned orders were cancelled---Appellant was held entitled to exemption, subject to imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000 for violation of relevant rules.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 70 of 2004, decision dated: 20-07-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Appellant.\nFarooq Azam for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PRIME INTERNATIONAL TRADERS THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR and others \nVS\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8172", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 691 = 2006 SLD 691 = 2006 PTD 2609 = 2007 PTCL 274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 196---Appeal to High Court---Finding of Tribunal on a point not raised by parties--Validity---Such finding could not be treated as finding arising out of the pleas taken by parties---High Court in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969, could not take suo motu notice of a plea, which was neither raised before the Tribunal nor was there any finding of Tribunal thereon---High Court in exercise of its limited jurisdiction could not grant any relief to appellant on such plea as same would amount to transgressing its jurisdiction---Principles. \n \nMian Shafiq Alam v. The Collector 1998 MLD 2985; .1995 SCMR 387 and Collector, Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax, v. Haji Ahmedullah and others 2005 PTD 1654 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeals Nos.18 to 21 of 2004, decision dated: 18-08-2006, hearing DATE : 10-08-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar and Ms. Fouzia Rasheed for Appellants.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MANHATTAN INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI and others \nVS\nDIRECTOR GENERAL INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION CUSTOMS and EXCISE), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8173", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 692 = 2006 SLD 692 = 2006 PTD 2500 = 2007 PTCL 323", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 203---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Lower tariff right of---Petitioner had contended that Customs Authorities denied clearance of goods imported by him and detained said goods for considerable period---Petitioner claimed that as delay in issuing clearance certificate was caused by Customs Authorities, he was liable to pay storage charges at minimum rates---Railway authorities had submitted that petitioner had no right to a lower tariff being charged for extended period of storage of his imported goods; firstly because he did not obtain an order from the Customs Authorities; and secondly that Railways was not to be blamed for the delay---Pleas taken by Railways were not germane to the question in issue---Rule laid down by superior Courts recognized a right of the importer to a lower scale storage and demurrage charges being leviable in a case where delay in clearance of imported goods was attributed to the Customs Authorities---Railways were directed to recover from petitioner the storage charges at a minimum tariff rate, accordingly. \n \nAftab Ahmed Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1993 CLC 2022 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=203", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.21441, 21442, 21443 and 16055 of 2000, heard on 4-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nAhmed Yasin on behalf of Jehangir Akhtar Joja for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.\nGhulam Ali Hassan for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SUPER METAL TRADERS, THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS \nGENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAY and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8174", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1040 = 2007 SLD 1040 = 2007 PTCL 451 = 2007 PTD 896", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 168 & 196---Confiscation of vehicle---Appeal to High Court---Vehicle in question was seized by Customs Authorities from the possession of respondent for having failed to establish lawful import thereof --Appeal filed by respondent against confiscation of vehicle was accepted by the Tribunal vide impugned order declaring confiscation of vehicle as invalid---Vehicle, in the meantime having been auctioned, the Tribunal directed that proceeds from said auction be given to respondent by way of compensation---During the course of proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer, respondent produced the bill of entry and other documents purportedly evidencing lawful import of said vehicle---Said documents were never got verified by Adjudicating Officer nor their authenticity was displaced---Tribunal, in circumstances concluded that Revenue had been unable to establish that chassis number of the vehicle in question was cut and welded or otherwise tampered with or proved that vehicle had not been lawfully imported---Such pure question of fact had already been determined by the Tribunal on the basis of material before it---Findings returned by the Tribunal were not perverse---No question of law having arisen requiring expression of opinion by High Court, appeal being devoid of any merit, was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.531 of 2003, decision dated: 8-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nSH. AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izhar ul Haq for Petitioner.\nAhmed Awais for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS \nVS\nMIAN MUHAMMAD FAROOQ" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8175", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1041 = 2007 SLD 1041 = 2007 PTD 202 = 2007 PTCL 480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 196---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 189---Reference to High Court---Order of Tribunal being based on appreciation of facts, admissions/concessions of Revenue and earlier s of High Court and Supreme Court---Validity---Such controversy having been settled by Supreme Court must be laid to rest---Judgment of Supreme Court was binding on all judicial and administrative forums---No question of law requiring interpretation would arise from impugned order---High Court dismissed reference in limine. \n \n(b) Practice and procedure---\n \n----Issue taken to Supreme Court had decided at that level---Effect---Such controversy must be laid to rest.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Applications Nos.85 and 88 of 2006, decision dated: 3rd October, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Iqbal for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) \nVS\nMESSRS SHABAZ INTERNATIONAL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8176", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1190 = 2016 SLD 1190 = 2016 PTD 1999 = 2016 SCMR 1238 = (2017) 115 TAX 14", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979) [since repealed]--\n--Ss. 136 & 137--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)--Judgment of High Court--Scope--Tax authority impugning of High Court by filing 'petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court instead of an 'appeal'(under S. 137 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979)-- Maintainability--Contention of tax-payer was that under S. 137 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, an 'appeal* had to be filed before the Supreme Court against the of the High Court delivered under S.136 of the said Ordinance, whereas the tax authority in the present case filed a 'petition for leave ' to appeal before the Supreme Court-- Contention of tax authority that since the High Court had entertained an appeal against the order of the Tribunal, when only a reference was maintainable, thus the of the High Court could not be treated as having been delivered in a reference filed under S. 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; and in such circumstances a petition for leave to appeal was maintainable--Validity--Whether the High Court was possessed with powers or not to entertain the appeal under S. 136 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, the impugned order in the present case was passed under that provision of taw and thus appeal under S. 137 of the said Ordinance and not a petition for leave to appeal was maintainable--Even otherwise time limitation for filing the appeal was 30 days while petition for leave to appeal impugning of High Court was filed with a delay of about 2 months-- Petition for leave to appeal was thus barred by time even if treated as an appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(12),136,137Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2005=22Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 761 of 2000, decision dated: 20-01-2016, hearing DATE : 20-01-2015", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE\nIJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhtar Ali Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. \nAbdul Qadir Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.\nSohail Mahmood, DAG on Court‘s Notice.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PESHAWAR and others\nVS\nMESSRS PAKISTAN ELECTRIC FITTINGS MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8177", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1197 = 2016 SLD 1197 = 2016 PTD 2083 = (2016) 114 TAX 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--\n--Ss. 111(1)(b), 120, 122(1), 122(5), 122(9) & 131--Amendment of assessment-- Bank Account maintained by the taxpayer, showed that the bank transactions/credit entries, did not match with declared results; and discrepancies were also observed--Reply to show-cause notice issued to the taxpayer, was rejected being not tenable in the eye of law-- Assessments already completed in terms of S.120 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, were amended under S.122(1)(5) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for relevant years--Appellate Authority maintained orders passed by Adjudicating Officer--Contention of the taxpayer was that assessment made was beyond the scope of show-cause notice, for the reason that in show-cause notice taxpayer was confronted for adding of Rs. 3,09,51,201; whereas in the assessment order he had made addition of Rs. 10,97,000 which was never confronted to the taxpayer--Validity--Taxpayer through show-cause notice was confronted regarding straight addition of Rs.3,09,51,201 under S. 111(1)(b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as unexplained income, but at the time of passing of assessment order, the Assessing Officer, took lenient view, and treated the said amount as sales; and applied GP @5% thereon and allowed expenses on estimate basis, resulting an addition of Rs. 10,97,000. only--Said treatment adopted, though not confronted to the taxpayer, but same was beneficial to the taxpayer and it could not be said that addition of Rs.10,97,000 was beyond the scope of show-cause notice whereby excess amount was proposed--Assessing Officer, while passing the order, took the fair view, and instead of adding the huge amount of Rs. 3,09,51,201 only unexplained income under S. 111(1)(b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 added Rs.10,97,000--Orders of both the authorities below for the assessment year 2007 were upheld, and appeal was rejected.\nCIR v. Maj. Gen. (R) Dr. C.M. Anwar and z others 2015 PTD 424; The Collector Central Excise and Land Customs and others v. Rahim Din 1987 SCMR 1840; Caretex v. The Collector Sales Tax and Federal Excise and others PLD 2013 Lah. 634 = 2013 PTD 1536 and 2009 PTD (Trib) 1919 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=111(1)(b),120,122(1),122(5),122(9),131", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 911/LB of 2013, M.A. (Add. G) No. 44/LB of 2016, I.T.A. No. 912/LB of 2013 and M.A. (Add. G) No.46/LB of 2016, decision dated: 16-05-2016, hearing DATE : 16-05-2016.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Qadeer Ahmed, ITP for Appellant.\nMs. Bushra Fatima, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RASHID AMIR \nVS\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, FAISALABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8178", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1198 = 2016 SLD 1198 = 2016 PTD 2089", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--\n--Ss. 170 & 171--Refund--Maladministration--Refund claim was due on account of tax withholdings /payments, but was not settled-- Authority stated that verification process had been started and refund voucher would be issued on its completion--Department, had to complete the verification process within time as prescribed under S. 170(4) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--Verification process, was not an open ended exercise, and could not be allowed to continue indefinitely--Delay in settling refund claim within prescribed time would tantamount to maladministration under S.2(3)(ii) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000--Ombudsman directed that Federal Board of Revenue should direct the Commissioner to ensure that refund claim be settled within 3 weeks along with compensation due under S.171 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for delayed payment of refund; and to give compliance report within next 7 days thereafter.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=147,148,153,231A,235,236,170,170(4),171Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.66/MLN/IT(44)554 of 2016, decision dated: 23rd June, 2016.", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Daud Khan, Advisor Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CHICAGO METAL WORKS (PVT.) LTD., MULTAN \nVS\nTHE SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8179", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1199 = 2016 SLD 1199 = 2016 PTD 2098 = (2017) 115 TAX 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTST0", + "Key Words:": "Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--\n--S. 46--Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2010, R.27--Delay in filing appeal--Condonation of delay--Registered person filed appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Appellate Authority--None appeared on behalf of registered person on the date of hearing of appeal-- Application for adjournment was received on behalf of registered person through courier post--Counsel of registered person, repeatedly sent adjournment applications by post in a causal manner--Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 2010, provided that the Tribunal, could, if sufficient cause was shown, adjourn the hearing of appeal or application on request made by the party or authorized representative and no request for adjournment sent through post or fax could be entertained--Since no one on behalf of the registered person appeared at the time of hearing application seeking adjournment was refused and appeal was dismissed, being barred by time, in circumstances.\nORDER\nCH. ANWAAR UL HAQ (JUDICIAL MEMBER).--The titled sales lax appeal has been preferred at the instance of registered person, calling in question the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.22/2012, dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned CIR(A) Gujranwala.\n2. None appeared on behalf of registered person while Ms. Bushra Fatima, represented the Department. Today, an application for adjournment on behalf of the registered person has been received through courier post which is signed by one Mr. Muhammad Faisal Iqbal, ITP/AR of the registered person, seeking adjournment for a later date. The counsel of the registered person repeatedly sending adjournment applications by post in a causal manner, seeking adjournment on the 2100\n(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--\n--Sections 122(5-A) & 205--Default surcharge, levy of--Amendment of assessment--On examination of return of income and audited accounts, department observed that the taxpayer had not paid workers ' welfare fund along with return of income, which was payable at 2% of accounting profit--Return of income had shown that taxpayer had made adjustment of workers' welfare fund for arrival of taxable income and claimed workers' welfare fund, but that liability neither paid along with return of income nor offered for adjustment against refund due to the taxpayer--Subsequently, the deemed assessment/ income was amended under S. 122(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; and workers' welfare fund had been charged and demand had been adjusted against excess income tax refund--Being not satisfied with the reply of the taxpayer to show-cause notice, Assessing Officer passed order under S.205 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 whereby default surcharge was levied for relevant to two years; and issued demand notice to the taxpayer for both the years--Validity--Default surcharge, could not be levied on the basis of presumption and assumption, where the determined refund was available; and the taxpayer had not denied any payment of the fund; and the Taxation Officer adjusted the same against available determined refund--Taxpayer's legitimate money was lying in Revenue Department's treasury--Despite giving compensation/ markup, the department had imposed extra burden under the garb of default surcharge--Assessing Officer had not appreciated the fact that certain unadjusted refunds were due from the department at the time of alleged default, if it was true, the default surcharge was not leviable-- Appellate Authority had failed to apply its judicious mind and passed impugned order without considering the facts--Impugned order passed by Appellate Authority, was vacated by Appellate Tribunal, and default surcharge was deleted--Appeals, were allowed.\n(b) Interpretation of statutes--\n--Revenue /fiscal laws--Scope--Revenue /fiscal laws were not in the nature of penal laws, and the deterrent provisions, were neither charging nor revenue generating provision--Taxation laws, were substantially remedial in their character, and were intended to prevent deception, suppress public wrong and promote good reputation of taxing department in taxpayer's eyes; These ought to be construed in such a way as to accomplish all those objects.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=46Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=122(1),122(5A),205Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010=27", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 1176/LB of 2012, decision dated: 13-05-2016, hearing DATE : 13-05-2016, hearing DATE : 17-05-2016.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant.\nMs. Bushra Fatima, D.R. for Respondent.\nNajeeb Moochhala, F.C.A. for Appellant.\nJaved Iqbal Tarad, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AHMAD TRADERS, GUJRANWALA\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE. R.T.O. GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8180", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1200 = 2016 SLD 1200 = 2016 PTD 2104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)--\n--Ss. 2(3)(ii) & 10--Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 120, 122(S)(9) & 122-C-Refund claims-Complainant, who had been regularly filing returns of income had filed return of income for the relevant year annually within due date-Department initiated proceedings under S. 122-C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and completed provisional assessment without proper service of notice on the ground that return was manually filed-Refund was claimed by the taxpayer through an application-Taxpayer/complainant, visited the department time and again and finally sent reminder, but refund was not processed-Ombudsman observed that if the department had the intention to verify the correctness of income and tax computation, or make some inquiry with regard to the processing of refund; it should have been completed within 30 days-Refund could not be withheld on the basis of anticipated liabilities, or prospective proceedings- Department could not withhold refund, unless some substantiated flaw was proved in the claim about its genuineness and accuracy- department's neglect, inattention and ineptitude in the discharge of duties for processing of refund, was tantamount to \"\"maladministration \"\" in terms of S.2(3)(ii) of Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance,\n2000-Ombudsman recommended that, Federal Board of Revenue should direct the Commissioner to dispose of refund compensation claim by providing opportunity of hearing to the complainant, in a transparent manner within 21 days; report of compliance within 7 days thereafter.\n2009 SCMR 973 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(ii),10,10(4)Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=120,120(1)(b),122(5),122(9),122C,140", + "Case #": "Complaint No.33/MLN/IT/(22)/252 of 2016, decision dated: 23rd June, 2016.", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD TARIQ \nVS\nTHE SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8181", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1201 = 2016 SLD 1201 = 2016 PTD 2108 = (2016) 114 TAX 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--\n--Ss. 21(c), 40(1)(3), 122(5-A) & 131--Amendment of assessment-- Declaring lease, rentals under the head 'income from other sources -- Additions--Return filed by the taxpayer for the tax year 2010, was deemed to be treated as assessment--Subsequently, it was found by the department that deemed assessment was erroneous insofar as prejudicial in the interest of Revenue; in as much as the taxpayer had declared lease rentals under the head \"\"income from other sources\"\", and expenses deemed by the taxpayer, were not allowable against such income under S.40 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--Assessment was amended, whereby an aggregate addition under S. 40(1) under head \"\"operating expenses\"\"; addition under S.40(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 under the head \"\"depreciation\"\" and addition under S.21(c) under the head \"\"auditor remuneration\"\", were made by Assessing Officer--Appellate Authority had upheld all said additions-- Validity--No infirmity existed in the impugned orders, which would warrant interference--Taxpayer had leased out all its assets, and he only derived lease rentals--Operating expenses claimed against said income were not allowable; as those had no direct nexus while earning such income--Under S.40(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, the taxpayer was only entitled to claim those expenses, which had directly been attributed to such, income---Appellate Authority, had rightly upheld additions made under S.40(1)(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as taxpayer had failed to point out any nexus of the assets issued in earning income declared during relevant year--Matter of addition made under S. 21(c) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification as the audit remuneration paid to the Chartered Accountant Firm, was subject to deduction of tax or not.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=21(c),40,40(1),40(3),122(5A),131", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 1735/LB of 2013, decision dated: 11-05-2016, hearing DATE : 11-05-2016", + "Judge Name:": "CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nemo for Appellant.\nMs. Bushra Fatima, D.R. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CRYSTAL TEXTILE PROCESSING MILLS (PVT.) LTD., GUJRANWALA\nVS\nCOMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8182", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1202 = 2016 SLD 1202 = 2016 PTD 2122 = (2016) 114 TAX 81", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)--\n--Ss. 113, 114, 120, 122(5-A), 131, Second Schedule, Part IV, clause (72-A)--Payment of minimum tax on gross receipts-- Amendment of assessment---Returns filed by taxpayer (Hajj operators) for tax years 2010 & 2011, declaring net income, were deemed to be treated as assessment--Subsequently Additional Commissioner/ Assessing Officer found that deemed assessment was erroneous, for the reason that taxpayer worked out liability by applying normal rate of tax; whereas taxpayer was required to pay minimum tax under S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on total turnover (gross receipts), declared for said years--Assessment was amended under S. 122(5-A) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001; whereby gross receipts from Hajj Services declared by the taxpayer, were subjected to minimum tax under S. 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--On filing appeal by the taxpayer Appellate Authority observed that receipts of the taxpayer could not be termed as turnover, and deleted the additions in both years 2010 and 2011--Validity--Taxpayer had wrongly calculated tax on normal rates on net incomes declared, which were arrived at by excluding the operating expenses from gross receipts from Hajj Services--Provisions of S. 113(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provided that taxpayer was liable to pay minimum tax on its gross receipts declared during the years (2010 - 2011) under consideration-- Hajj Group Operators, were excluded from the purview of S. 113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 through insertion of new cl.(72-A) of the Part -IV of Second Schedule, w.e.f. July 2013, whereas no such exclusion was available to the taxpayer in tax years 2010 and 2011-- Assessing Authority in circumstances, had rightly charged minimum tax under S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on gross receipts declared by the taxpayer in tax years 2010 and 2011--Impugned order passed by Appellate Authority, was vacated and that of the Assessing Officer, passed under S.122(5-A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was restored, having been passed in accordance with law.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=113,113(3),114,120,122(5A),131,Second Schedule,PartIV,clause(72A)", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.2075/LB and 2076/LB of 2013, decision dated: 12-05-2016, hearing DATE : 12-05-2016.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. ANWAAR UL HAQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Bushra Fatima D.R. for Appellant.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, R.T.O., GUJRANWALA \nVS\nMESSRS KARWANESIDDIQUEEAKBAR (PVT.) LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8183", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1203 = 2016 SLD 1203 = 2016 PTD 2125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n--Ss. 179, 32, 14, 14A & 156(1)--Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S. 162(1)--Contention of department was that word *taxes' had been inserted in S. 179 of Customs Act, 1969 through Finance Act, 2014, which was quite enough for exercising jurisdiction corresponding to taxes--Held, such understanding was based on misconception as the word \"\"taxes'' was inserted by legislature for calculation of involved\namount of duty and taxes on basis of which adjudicating authority as defined in S. 179 of Customs Act, 1969 determined his powers--Inspite of insertion of word \"\"taxes\"\", adjudicating authority had to issue show- cause notice within respective applicable provision of Customs Act, 1969 and not under charging provision of S. 162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--Charging section for short paid amount of income tax was S. 162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 under which Commissioner of Income Tax was the only authority to proceed in matter--No mis-declaration was apparent on part of importer, therefore, invoking of Ss. 32, 14, 14A &. 156(1) of Customs Act, 1969 was manifestly wrong as these provisions could not be invoked in the matter of income tax attracting S. 162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--Department acted without power/jurisdiction as the same was usurpation of powers of authority expressed in S. 162(1) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001--Department was not empowered to proceed in the matter of income tax--Order accordingly.\nCase law referred.\n(b) Jurisdiction--\n--If mandatory condition for exercise of jurisdiction, was not fulfilled, entire proceeding which followed became illegal and suffered from want of jurisdiction--No deviation from notified jurisdiction could be made--If an action had been taken or order had been passed without having competency under respective provision of law same had to be declared illegal and without jurisdiction.\nCase law referred.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n--S. 179(3)--Order in appeal--Delay of 14 days--Show-cause notice was issued on 6-5-2013--Order should have been passed within 120 days i.e. on or before 3-9-2013 as against 27-9-2013--Validity--Order under S. 179(3) of Customs Act, 1969 had to be passed within 120 days from date of issuance of show-cause notice or within further extended period of 60 days by department upon availability of \"\"exceptional circumstances\"\" and recording of said exceptional circumstances prior to expiry of initial period of 120 days after serving notice to person concerned--Held, that extension obtained by department for passing order after expiry of stipulated initial period of 120 days was without any valid reason as no \"\"exceptional circumstances\"\" were either available to it and no notice was served on importer despite mandated-- Rendering the extension was non-existent as same was accorded by Collector without any lawful authority and after expiry of initial period of 120 days on which order passed by department was completely silent--Once matter became barred by time, subsequent enhancement in period of limitation should not have effected reopening of past and closed transaction.\nCase-law referred.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----- Ss. 32,32(2), 80, & 83--Customs Rules, 2001, R. 438 A 442- Allegation of mis-declaration on filing of goods declaration-- Department charged appellant for mis-declaration under S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969 merely on basis of filing of good declaration--No charge had been leveled under S. 32(2) of Customs Act, 1969 against appropriate officials who passed assessment/clearance order under Ss. 80 & 83 of Customs Act, 1969 and Rr. 438 & 442 of Customs Rules, 2001--Held, that inspite of standing on same pedestal, importer had been meted out with partial treatment by department which was not permitted under Art. 25 of the Constitution--Treatment given to importer was violative of Arts. 4 & 25 of the Constitution--Appeal was allowed in circumstances.\nCase law referred.", + "Court Name:": "Customs Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=14,14A,32,32(2),80,83,179,179(3),156(1),179Customs Rules, 2001=438,438A,442Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=4,25Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=162(1)", + "Case #": "Cus. Appeal No.K-3140 of 2013, decision dated: 8-12-2014, hearing DATE : 9-09-2014.", + "Judge Name:": "ADRIAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Obayd Mirza and Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellants.\nMuhammad Aqil Alam for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ALFAJAR ASSOCIATES, KARACHI\nVS\nDIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATIONSFBR, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8184", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1042 = 2007 SLD 1042 = 2007 PTCL 485 = 2007 PTD 800", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 18, 18-A & 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Assessment of imported machine and apparatus as one complete unit---Liability to pay customs duty--- Petitioner sought assessment of imported machines and apparatus as one composite unit under Heading 8422.3000 by describing those as \"\"machinery for aerating beverages\"\" liable to 5% customs duty---On disagreeing with petitioner's claim, petitioner sought their assessment under Heading 8438.8000 which was a residuary heading meant for \"\"other machinery\"\"---Customs Authorities having not agreed with that classification also, matter was referred to the concerned group of Customs Appraisement which came to the conclusion that imported machines and apparatus did not constitute a `single unit'--Validity---Commercial invoice relied upon by petitioner appeared to describe the machinery as a \"\"complete continuous sugar dissolving system\"\" and spoke nothing of the process of aerating beverages---Whenever a set of machines consisting of individual components was intended to constitute to a defined function under a heading, duty was to be charged at the rate prescribed for such defined function irrespective of separate rates of duties provided under distinct headings for each machine according to its individual function---When collective function of a set of machines was not clearly defined under any heading, then in terms of Note No.4 of Chapter XVI of Harmonized Customs Tariff and Trade Control, each machine of set, was to be assessed under the heading appropriate to its functions---As function of the entire set of machine working collectively was not clearly defined under any of the headings, each machine, had to be assessed under the heading, which was appropriate to its function---In absence of any reason to interfere with the classification placed by concerned Group of Customs Appraisement, constitutional petition was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-272 of 2006, decision dated: 21st December, 2006, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner.\nHaider Iqbal Wahniwal for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD., \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8185", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1043 = 2007 SLD 1043 = 2007 PTCL 561 = 2007 PTD 2316 = 2008 SCMR 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Question raised was as to whether on the basis of the doctrine of \"\"promissory estoppel\"\" importer was entitled to exemption from customs duty and that in the meanwhile the Bank guarantee equal to the duty to the extent of goods imported, which would be worked out by Central Board of Revenue, be kept intact out of Bank guarantee, which was pending before the Secretary Ministry of Industries in view of the new scheme introduced, which had been abandoned, could be released along with additional guarantee which was furnished in pursuance of said¬ order---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine the question.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.374 of 2006, heard on 20-12-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Mahmood A. Sheikh, Advocate \nSupreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. \nMs. Naheeda Mehboob Ellahi, D.AG. and Mumtaz Ahmad, (Legal) C.B.R. for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "AGRO TRACTORS (PRIVATE) LIMITED \nVS\nFECTO BELARUS TRACTORS LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8186", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1044 = 2007 SLD 1044 = 2007 PTCL 601 = 2007 PTD 234", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 32 (1), 121 & 196---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr.335 & 341---S.R.O. 375(I)/2002, dated, 15-6-2002---Transshipment---Mis-declara­tion---Port of entry and port of destination---Adjudication proceedings---Jurisdiction---Question not decided by Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal---Effect---Port of entry and port of destination of goods imported were different---Customs officials at port of entry examined the goods, prepared contravention report, issued show cause notice and passed order-in-original---Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of importer and set aside the order-in-original on the sole point of jurisdiction---Plea raised by the authorities was that proceedings against mis-declaration were rightly initiated at the port of entry---Validity---Deeming provision of R.341 of Customs Rules, 2001, read with R.335, thereof, merely empowered customs officials at the port of entry to examine whether the declaration made was correct and goods corresponded to the declaration---Such provisions of the rules did not empower the customs officials to initiate adjudication proceedings as well at the port of entry---Jurisdiction would still be governed by notification issued by Central Board of Revenue, conferring territorial jurisdiction on customs officials---Central Board of Revenue admittedly had conferred territorial jurisdiction on the customs officials posted at the port of destination---Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal did not decide the case on merits, therefore, question pertaining to merits of case required no consideration---Reference was dismissed in circumstances. \n \nBaba Khan v. Collector of Customs, Quetta and 2 others 2000 SCMR 678 rel.\n \n(b) Precedent---\n \n----High Court in field---Effect---Until and unless earlier s of High Court on a point are set-aside by Supreme Court, they hold the field and are to be acted upon.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.84 of 2006, decision dated: 10-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Iqbal for Applicant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVS\nMESSRS AYAZ AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8187", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 561 = 2005 SLD 561 = 2005 PTCL 467", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpUT0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969----Sections 2(kk), 80, 83 & 168---The goods were duty assessed and duty paid, the revenue authorities therefore were not entitled to retain the goods on the basis of a matter pending before the Collector(Adjudication) qua similar goods imported by another person.--It is not disputed by the Revenue that the consignment imported by the petitioner was assessed and duty was also paid by the importer/petitioner. The detention of goods on the basis of a matter pending before the Collector (Adjudication) qua similar goods imported by another person does not change the legal position as to the assessment of duty which was earlier made by the Revenue. \nTheir Lordships of the Karachi High Court in an identical situation observed that if the goods imported were appraised and assessed to custom duties and taxes which were duly deposited the Customs authorities were not entitled to retain them although they were at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law if they had adequate material for initiation of proceedings under section 32 of the Customs Act, l969.\nBeing in respectful agreement with the ratio settled in the aforesaid . I will allow this petition and direct the Revenue authorities to immediately release clear the goods on the assessment already made and taxes paid thereupon. However, it goes without saying that per ratio of the said , the Revenue authorities will have the jurisdiction to proceed in accordance with law and the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1969 if they are in possession of sufficient material to justify such proceedings.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "W. P. No. 2508 of 2004, decision dated: 9-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE NASIM SIKANDAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Waqaf Ahmad\nRespondent by, Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. RAZA ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD\nVS\nDEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8188", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 562 = 2005 SLD 562 = 2005 PTCL 622", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpTT0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969---Section 19---Catalysts cannot be considered as raw material as it is not a consumable item.--Whether the Catalysts can be considered as raw material or otherwise? The answer would be negative because raw material is always meant for consumption whereas. Catalysts is not a consumable item but it retains its identity in spite of all chemical reaction because Catalysts accelerate reaction without getting itself change or the equilibria while increasing the velocity of desired reaction and maximizing formation of ammonia and thus becomes an integral part of the plant. There is no denying the fact that ammonia plant reactors cannot function without having a Catalysts belt which makes the reactor functional and the process of production starts. The under mentioned two figures would show the significance and import of Catalysts without which the entire plant would become non-functional as such the Catalysts can safely be considered as an integral part of the plant.\nHad the Catalysts be a raw material, the position would have been different.\nCatalysts, Epoxy Grout and Specialty Paints being integral part of the \"\"Plant and Machinery\"\" shall be exempted from customs duty and sales tax pursuant to the provisions as contained in SRO. 515(I)/89 dated 3.6.1989 and SRO. 959(I)/89 dated 23.9.1989.--Whether the Catalysts imported by the respondents is an integral part of the rest of the plant or a component part of the machinery identifiable as for use with such plant/machinery. \nCatalysts are an essential and integral part of the plant including all chemical reactors without which the whole machinery remains incomplete and which are utilized in fertilizer production.\nThe question of production of fertilizer/urea does not arise and without it the plant cannot be made functional. SRO. 515(I)/89 dated 3.6.1989 which makes it abundant clear that exemption was granted from the whole of customs duty and sales tax to such plant and machinery which was not manufactured locally if imported for the setting up of industrial projects. It is to be noted that industrial projects included the fertilizer as stipulated in the table of the said SRO.\nCatalysts being an integral part of the plant and machinery could not be separated for the purpose of levying customs duty and sales tax being inseparable part of the plant and machinery. It can safely be considered as an integral part A of the plant and machinery.\n The SRO. 959(I)/89 dated 23.9.1989 made the position abundant clear which indicates that \"\"plant and machinery\"\" not manufactured locally and imported for the expansion of the existing units manufacturing fertilizer shall be exempted from whole of the customs duty and sales tax subject to the conditions specified under SRO. 515(I)/89 dated 3.6.1989. There is no doubt in it that Catalysts is a part and parcel of urea fertilizer plant and machinery and admittedly not a raw material and does not form a part of the urea and besides that it is not locally manufactured and in order to make the plant functional being integral part of the plant and machinery the Catalysts will be exempted from sales tax as well as customs duty.\nBeing an integral part of the machinery as well as plant it will not subject to any duty. In our considered view the plant, machinery and Catalysts cannot be separated for the generation of more income as it would be against the spirit of above mentioned SROS which are specifically meant for the fertilizer unit. Catalysts, Epoxy Grout and Specialty Paints being integral part of the \"\"Plant and Machinery\"\" shall be exempted from customs duty and sales tax pursuant to the provisions as contained in SRO. 515(I)/89 dated 3.6.1989 and SRO. 959(I)/89 dated 23.9.1989 being the relevant SROS.\nMeaning and nature of \"\"Catalysts\"\".--\"\"Catalysts\"\" can very precisely be defined as a chemical action accelerator. \nTo understand the meaning and nature of \"\"Catalysts\"\":-\nCambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary \n\"\"catalyst noun (c).\nSPECIALIZED something that makes a chemical reaction happen more quickly without itself being changed.\"", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "Merriam-Webster Dictionary \"\"Main Entry: cat-a-lyst (noun)", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "1. a substance (as an enzyme) that enables a chemical reaction to proceed at a usually faster rate or under different conditions (as at a lower temperature) than otherwise possible.", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "2. an agent that provokes or speeds significant change or action.\"\"", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "American Heritage Dictionary 4th Ed. 2000", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "\"catalyst (noun) A substance, usually used in small amounts relative to the reactants, that modities and increases the rate of a reaction without being consumed in the process. \n2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences.\"", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "Encyclopedia Britannica ", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "catalyst", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "Section: Types and Importance of Catalysts", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "Enzymes: Natural Catalysts", + "URL Link:": "", + "Citation or Reference:": "", + "Case Link:": "", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "\"Enzymes are the commonest and most efficient of the catalysts found in nature. Most of the chemical reactions that occur in the human body and in other living things are high-energy reactions that would occur slowly, if at all, without the catalysis provided by enzymes. For example, in the absence of catalysis, it takes several weeks for starch to hydrolyze to glucose; a trace of the enzyme ptyalin, found in human saliva, accelerates the reaction so that starches can be digested. Some enzymes increase reaction rates by a factor of one billion or more. \nEnzymes are generally specific catalysts; that is, they catalyze only one reaction of one particular reactant (called its substrate). Usually the enzyme and its substrate have complementary structures and can bond together to form a complex that is more reactive due to the presence of functional groups in the enzyme, which stabilize the transition state of the reaction or lower the activation energy. The toxicity of certain substances (e.g., carbon monoxide and the nerve gases) is due to their inhibition of life-sustaining catalytic reactions in the body. \nLaboratory and Industrial Catalysts\nCatalysis is also important in chemical laboratories and in industry. Some reactions occur faster in the presence of a small amount of an acid or base and are said to be acid catalyzed or base catalyzed. For example, the hydrolysis of esters is catalyzed by the presence of a small amount of base. In this reaction, it is the hydroxide ion, OH, that reacts with the ester, and the concentration of the hydroxide ion is greatly increased over that of pure water by the presence of the base. Although some of the hydroxide ions provided by the base are used up in the first part of the reaction, they are regenerated in a later step from water molecules; the net amount of hydroxide ion present is the same at the beginning and end of the reaction, so the base is thought of as a catalyst and not as a reactant. \nFinely divided metals are often used as catalysts; they adsorb the reactants onto their surfaces (see adsorption), where the reaction can occur more readily. For example, hydrogen and oxygen gases can be mixed without reacting to form water, but if a small amount of powdered platinum is added to the gas mixture, the gases react rapidly. Hydrogenation reactions e.g. the formation of hard cooking fats from vegetable oils, are catalyzed by finely divided metals or metal oxides. The commercial preparation of sulfuric acid and nitric acid also depends on such surface catalysis. Other commonly used surface catalysts, in addition to platinum, are copper, iron, nickel, palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, silica gel (silicon dioxide), and vanadium oxide.\"\" \n\"\"In chemistry, any substance that increases the rate of a reaction without itself being consumed is called Catalyst. Enzymes are naturally occurring catalysts responsible for many essential biochemical reactions. Most solid catalysts are metals or the oxides, sulfides, and halides of metallic elements and of the semi-metallic elements boron, aluminum, and silicon. Gaseous and liquid catalysts are commonly used in their pure form or in combination with suitable carriers or solvents; solid catalysts are commonly dispersed in other substances \"\"known as catalyst supports.\nIn general, catalytic action is a chemical reaction between the catalyst and a reactant, forming chemical intermediates that are able to react more readily with each other or with another reactant, to form the desired end product. During the reaction between the chemical intermediates and the reactants, the catalyst is regenerated. The modes of reactions between the catalysts and the reactants vary widely and in solid catalysts are often complex. Typical of these reactions are acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, formation of coordination complexes, and formation of free radicals, With solid catalysts the reaction mechanism is strongly influenced by surface properties and electronic or crystal structures. Certain solid catalysts, called poly functional catalysts, are capable of more than one mode of interaction with the reactants; bi-functional catalysts are used extensively for reforming reactions in the petroleum industry.\"\" \n\"\"Plant and Machinery\"\" are not two different entities but interchangeable and synonymous.--It can safely be inferred that \"\"plant and machinery\"\" are not two different entities because a plant cannot be functional without machinery and machinery being integral part of the plant, therefore both \"\"plant and machinery\"\" can be considered interchangeable and synonymous keeping in view a little difference between the two and their dependence upon each other because they are not separable and a plant cannot be made functional without a machine. \n\"\"Plant\"\" definition.\nNOTIFICATION NO. SRO. 51 5(1)/89, DATED 03.06.1989---SRO. 959(I)/89, dated 23.09.1989 and SRO. 515(I)/89, dated 03.06.1989 are not subservient to Chapters 38 and 39 of Pakistan Customs Tariff. \nNOTIFICATION NO. SRO. 959(I)/89, DATED 23.09.1989.\nSRO. 959(I)/89, dated 23.09.1989 and SRO. 515(I)/89, dated 03.06.1989 are not subservient to Chapters 38 and 39 of Pakistan Customs Tariff.\nSALES TAX ACT, 1951---Section 7---Catalysts cannot be considered as raw material as it is not a consumable item.--\nCatalysts, Epoxy Grout and Specialty Paints being integral part of the \"\"Plant and Machinery\"\" shall be exempted from customs duty and sales tax pursuant to the provisions as contained in SRO. 515(I)/89 dated 3.6.1989 and SRO. 959(I)/89 dated 23.9.1989.--See Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. Meaning and nature of \"\"Catalysts\"\".--See Section 19 of the Customs -Act, 1969.\n\"\"Plant and Machinery\"\" are not two different entities but interchangeable and synonymous.--See Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969.\n\"\"Plant\"\" definition.", + "URL Link:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Citation or Reference:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case Link:": "CA No. 1093 and 1876 of 1996, heard on 8-06-2004 and 10-06-2004", + "Key Words:": "MR. NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nMR. JUSTICE, JAVED IQBAL\nMR. JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR", + "Court Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. S. M. Zafar, Sr. ASC.\nRespondents by: Mr. Abdul Hafeez Piizada, Sr. ASC, Mr. M. Afzal Siddiqui, ASC, Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR and Mr. Khalid Anwar, Sr. ASC", + "Law and Sections:": "THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI & OTHERS\nVS\nFAUJI FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & OTHERS", + "Case #": "", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8189", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 563 = 2005 SLD 563 = 2005 PTCL 674 = 2005 PTD 1493 = 2005 SCMR 877", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 16---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)--- Passenger Baggage (Import) Rules, 1998, R.2(C)---Import Trade and Procedure Order, 2000--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Contention of authorities was that import of used motorcycles was neither allowed through Passenger Baggage (Import) Rules, 1998, nor the Import Trade and Procedure Order 2000 but High Court, without appreciating the true import of the laws, had allowed the import of used motorcycles in the country---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention of the authorities. \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 16---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)---Passenger Baggage (Import) Rules, 1998, R.2(C)---C.B.R. Instruction No. C.No.10(5) L&P/91, dated 2-2-2001---Import of motorcycles in personal baggage---Scope---Motorcycles imported in personal baggage were confiscated by Customs Authorities---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction directed the Authorities to release the motorcycles as they were covered under personal baggage scheme---Plea raised by the Authorities was that motorcycles were not covered under personal baggage scheme---Validity---To claim the benefit of C.B.R. Instruction No. C.No.10(5) L&P/91, dated 2-2-2001, burden was upon passengers to prove that they were bringing motorcycles in Pakistan in their baggage as they were using the same---No such evidence had been produced on record, therefore, the C.B.R. Instructions had not advanced the case of passengers in any manner---Available record indicated that passengers left country, a few days before bringing into Pakistan the motorcycles and came back with the motorcycles on the pretext to bring them into country under the Passenger Baggage (Import) Rules, 1998, and for such reason the Customs Authorities were right in seizing the same---Supreme Court, after examining the S.R.Os. and precedent law, had noted that without undertaking exercise in the light of relevant S.R.Os. declaring certain items of gifts to be smuggled one, it would not be fair to hold that Adjudicating Authority had rightly declined redemption of motorcycles to passengers---Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Authorities to decide the cases afresh after following the observations made by Supreme Court---Case was remanded for decision afresh. \n Muhammad Arif and others v. Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Quetta and others 1998 CLC 1664 and Collector of Customs and another v. Muhammad Ashraf and another 2003 PTD 1879 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "CA Nos. 690 to 693 of 2002, 14-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE\nKHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, JUSTICE\nM. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in all cases).\nCh. Naseer Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents (in all cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others\nVS\nFARHAN MAHMOOD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8190", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 564 = 2005 SLD 564 = 2005 PTCL 722 = 2005 PTD 1991", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 24---Central Board of Revenue Letter dated 11-10-1992---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.10(3)---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S. 36C---Levy of Central Excise duty on the services of meals and lodging provided by Hotel to the passengers of Airline during July, 1990 to June, 1995---Appeal to High Court---Appellate Tribunal had held that by not paying the excise duty, the appellant had committed, \"\"wilful fraud\"\" and thus the time for the issuance of show-cause notice would be ten years under R.10(3), Central Excise Rules, 1944---Validity---No allegation of fraud or any other accusation specified in R.10(3) of the Rules, was mentioned in the show-cause notice to the appellant---No finding to that effect by the Adjudicating Officer was available on 'record and the Appellate Tribunal, on its own enquiry, had given a \"\"finding of fraud\"\" against the appellant---Appellant could not be brought under R.10(3) in the absence of allegation of fraud in the show-cause notice---When duty was not paid on account of misconstruction of provisions of relevant law, the time within which the notice was to be issued was one year as provided by R.10(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and case of the hotel would not fall under R.10(3) of the Rules---Show-cause notice being barred by time under R.10 of the Rules, High Court allowed the appeal of the Hotel and set aside the impugned orders and s as well as the show-cause notice---Principles.\nAssistant Collector Customs v. Khybar Electronics Lamps 2001 SCMR 838 and Zamindara Paper and Board Mills v. Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore 2003 PTD 1257 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=24", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No.18 of 2004, decision dated: 3rd February, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nEJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellant.\nWaqar Ahmad Seth for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AMIN HOTEL\nVS\nCOLLECTOR SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8191", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 565 = 2005 SLD 565 = 2005 PTCL 738", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpQT0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969----Section 169---A notice is mandatory prior to the sale of things under section 169 of the Act.\nConfiscated goods may be auctioned or disposed of under Customs Rules, 2001 and not under sections 169 & 201 of the Customs Act.\nIt would be against the Constitution, if someone is deprived of his property through its arbitrary premature transfer.\nScope of section 169.--From the reading of the provisions of section 169, things seized and liable to confiscation under the Act, shall be delivered in care of the authorized officer or to be deposited at the Customs House, if there is no authorized officer or at any other place appointed by the Collector of Customs for the deposit of things seized. Such things liable to confiscation, may be sold by the Collector of Customs even during the pendency of adjudication proceedings or appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 201 of the Act and its sale proceeds are to be kept in deposit till final decision of the case. In case it is found afterwards that the thing so sold was not liable to confiscation, the entire sale proceeds after necessary deduction of duties etc. as provided under section 201 of the Act, be handed over to the owner of the things. \nThe intention of the legislature, as evident from the construction of the section, appears that the provisions of sale provided in Para (4) of the section, is for the disposal of perishable goods or goods which otherwise require speedy disposal under any other law. For such perishable goods even, the provisions of section 201 shall be followed which require due notice to the owner of the goods as a pre-requisite to meet the ends of natural justice.\nIt is evident from Paras (1) to (3) of section 169 that things seized and liable to confiscation are to be properly stored and taken care of. Thus if proper care is taken of things or stored properly, there will arise no urgency for disposal of non-perishable goods. There appears legal Iacuna in section 169 in as much as it does not provide for goods but things. While goods are defined under the Act, the things are not defined anywhere in the Act. Thus if the provisions of the said section are construed strictly, the goods cannot be covered under it for any purpose.\nSections 169 and 201 do not provide for scale of confiscated goods.\nThe goods would be the property of the owner when there is redemption of goods by the Adjudicating/Appellate authorities on payment of fine, duty and taxes. The sale proceeds is to be refunded if it is sold out or auctioned.-The appellants/petitioners thereof have alleged non-payment of sale proceeds to them by the respondent Collectorate of Customs, Peshawar. Tribunal had disposed of their appeal in which this Bench ordered on 06.11.2004, inter alia, the release of goods on payment of duty and taxes plus redemption fine, which order by now has attained finality as no appeal was preferred against it by the respondent Collectorate. The appellants/petitioners, when they approached the Collectorate for the release of the goods, they came to know that their goods were already auctioned. They accordingly applied for the refund of the sale proceeds instead but their application was not entertained by the Auction Cell of the Collectorate.\nNo doubt that an order of confiscation under the Act or rules operates directly upon the status of the property and transfers an absolute title to the Government (AIR 1958 SC 845) and all rights in goods vesting in any person stand extinguished (PLD 1977 Karachi 1000) but after payment of redemption fine and duty. The goods continue to remain that of the owner (AIR 1964 Madras 504 + AIR 1962 Bom 290) and the department has no jurisdiction to sell the goods. in such cases, if the department sells the goods, the owner can recover the goods or its market price from the department (AIR 1958 Patna 439). Under section 169(4) of the Act, the department is competent to sell the goods pending the proceedings in the manner as prescribed under section 201 of the Act. In that case the sale proceeds are payable. The departmental instructions are that when an appeal against the order of confiscation has been preferred. the goods should not be sold until the appeal has been finally decided. If the order of confiscation is upheld in appeal, the goods may be sold after a final notice to the owner. Perishable goods should be sold after reasonable notice to the owner to enable him to pay the fine and obtain delivery. Where the Adjudicating authority or the Appellate forum orders the 'redemption of confiscated goods or any goods liable to confiscation, against fine etc., as envisaged under section 181 of the Act, the goods no more remain absolutely vested in the Federal Government but to remain the property of the owner subject to payment of fine and duty and taxes, etc., and in such a case, the sale proceeds are to be refunded in accordance with the provisions of section l69(5) read with section 20l(2) of the Act, even if such goods happen to have been auctioned or disposed of in any prescribed manner.\nSection 181----Scope of section 181.--If we look into the provisions of section 181 of the Act, these provide for option to pay, in lieu of confiscated goods. It provides that whenever an order for confiscation of goods is passed, the officer passing the order may give the owner an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the goods such fine as the officer thinks fit. This fine shall be in addition to payment of duty and charges payable in respect of such goods and any penalty. These provisions change the character and nature of the confiscation through the exercise of option and so the confiscation does not remain absolute but it is converted into simple fine or monetary consideration payable in lieu thereof. So in a case where order is made under section 181 of the Act by an officer and the goods are found sold, such sale will be considered as sale during pendency of the case or to say under section 169, read with section 201 of the Act, i.e., sale of goods other than confiscated goods. Consequently, the balance of sale proceeds would become payable to the owner under section 201(3) of the Act after deduction of duty and taxes etc., provided the owner applies for it within six months of the sale of the goods or shows sufficient cause for not doing so.\nSection 182----Scope of section 182.--Under section 182 of the Act, confiscated goods under the Act vest forthwith in the Federal Government and the officer who orders such confiscation, shall take and \"\"hold\"\" the confiscated goods. The vesting of goods in the Federal Government would mean the alienation and transfer of property to the Federal Government. Such transfer will be invalid, if it is not absolute or conditional for one reason or the other. It can be considered absolute when there is no legal remedy left to be exhausted by the owner of the property to get the property back from the transferee. From this, the inference would be that the confiscation shall be attached finality under the Act. The word \"\"confiscated\"\" used in section 182 of the Act, designate itself as if finally determined so.\nTransfer of confiscated goods to the Federal Government is invalid if it is not absolute or conditional.\nTo deprive some one of his property through its arbitrary premature transfer is against the Constitution.\nSection 193----Appellate proceedings is the continuation of the original proceedings.\nSection 201---Confiscated goods may be auctioned or disposed of under Customs Rules, 2001 and not under sections 169 & 201 of the Customs Act.\nIt would be against the Constitution, if someone is deprived of his property through its arbitrary premature transfer.\nScope of section 201.--The provisions of section 201 of the Act provide for sale of goods \"\"other than confiscated goods\"\" and application of sale proceeds. The pre-requisite for the sale of goods is the issuance of due notice to the owner of the goods. This notice is also mandatory prior to the sale of things under section 169 of the Act. Such notice shall be served through registered post as required under section 215 of the Act. It may be mentioned here that where such notice was not given, the sale proceeds were awarded to the owner of the goods by the Hon\"\"ble Peshawar High Court. Peshawar in case vide SAO. No. 25 of 2002 decided on 18.03.2003, titled Nowsherawan vs. Collector of Customs, Peshawar despite the fact that the goods had been out rightly confiscated. The decision was maintained by the Hon\"\"ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide Civil Petition No. 397-P of 2003 decided on 04.05.2004 with modification to the extent that the payment of sale proceeds was restricted to the value of the goods involved.\nSections 169 and 201 do not provide for scale of confiscated goods.\nThe goods would be the property of the owner when there is redemption of goods by the Adjudicating/Appellate authorities on payment of fine, duty and taxes. The sale proceeds is to be refunded if it is sold out or auctioned.- See Section 169 of the Customs Act, 1969. \nWORDS AND PHRASES\n\"\"Confiscated\"\".", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=169", + "Case #": "Misc. Application No. 100/PB/2005 in Appeal No. Cus. 278/PB/2004 (Remand), decision dated: 27-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellants by: Mr. Muhammad Fayyaz and Mr. Wahid Ali Khan, Advocates.\nRespondents by: Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, D.R., Mr. Azam Khan, D.S. and Mr. Sohail, Inspector.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MR. QADEEM KHAN and others\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8192", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 566 = 2005 SLD 566 = 2005 PTCL 828", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpOD0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969---Section 169----Seized petrol was non notified item it could be released under section 181 since the seized petrol is auctioned in violation of provisions of section 201(1) read with section 169, the sale proceeds be refunded to the owner of goods.\nSection 181----Seized petrol was non notified item it could be released under section 181 since the seized petrol is auctioned in violation of provisions of section 201(1) read with section 169, the sale proceeds be refunded to the owner of goods.-\nThe established practice of quantum of redemption tine in lieu of release of goods is one sixth of the value, above this is high side.\nSection 194---An Appellate Authority had the same powers which were vested in the trial judge of the Court. \nSection 201---Issuance of notice was mandatory under section 201.--The Customs Rules, 2001, which also provide for auction of the goods in Chapter-V thereof, make it mandatory under Rule 58 that soon the goods reach the stage of being sold under the Act, or required to be sold by auction, the Collector shall direct its sale by public auction, after giving due notice to the owner under relevant provisions of the Act. Issuance of notice was mandatory under section 201 of the Act as the goods. \nThe provisions of section 201 of the Act provide for sale of goods \"\"other than confiscated goods\"\" and application of sale proceeds. The pre-requisite for the sale of goods is the issuance of due notice to the owner of the goods. This notice is also mandatory prior to the sale of things under section 169 of the Act. Such notice shall be served through registered post as required under section 215 of the Act.\nSeized petrol was non notified item it could be released under section 181 since the seized petrol is auctioned in violation of provisions of section 20l(1) read with section 169, the sale proceeds be refunded to the owner of goods.--The staff of Customs Intelligence, Peshawar intercepted Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. PRN-9584 at G.T. Road near Khairabad and found the same loaded with foreign origin Petrol. The driver when asked to account for its import, produced delivery order issued by the Customs State Ware House, D.I. Khan regarding auction of foreign origin petrol which was to be transported through Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. LSB-3545 and not by the seized Oil Tanker bearing Registration No. PRN-9584. So it was observed that the delivery order of the State Ware House was being misused. The Oil Tanker No. PRN-9584 was, therefore, seized for violation of the provisions of sections 2(s) and 16 of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. A sample of petrol taken was got tested from the H.D.l.P. laboratory Peshawar which reported that the seized petrol did not confirm to be of Pakistan standard. So on the second day the seized petrol was auctioned as was being inflammable goods through the Customs Collectorate, Peshawar. Subsequently on adjudication of the matter, the Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Peshawar held that the seized petrol was smuggled goods. He, therefore, ordered its outright confiscation in terms of section 156(1)(9) and (90) of the Act read with section 3(3) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950. The vehicle was also confiscated u/s. 157(2) of the Act but taking a lenient view in the matter, an option was given to its rightful owner/driver to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 75,000/-.\nThe seized goods being petrol, is non notified item regarding which the Adjudicating Officer had the discretion to exercise his powers u/s. 181 of the Act of giving an option to the owner of the goods to pay fine in lieu of confiscation thereof Relying on the authority of the Honourable Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in case Nowsherawan vs. Collector of Customs, Peshawar coupled with the fact that the seized goods were non notified item and so could be released u/s. 181 of the Act, both the impugned Order-in-Original as well as the Order-in-Appeal be considered modified to the extent of providing release of the petrol in this case against payment of duty and taxes with fine @ 25% of its value. Since the petrol has been auctioned in violation of the provisions of section 201(1), read with section 169 of the Act, it is ordered that the sale proceeds of the auctioned goods shall be refunded to the appellant owner of the goods in accordance with the provisions of section 201(2) & (3) of the Act. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=169", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 1119/PB/2002, decision dated: 15-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Arbab Saiful Kamal, Advocate.\nRespondents by: Mr. Qurban Ali Khan, D. R. and Mr. Azam Khan.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUNASIB KHAN R/O SHAKOLIKHEL, DIR\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CUSTOM HOUSE, PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8193", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1045 = 2007 SLD 1045 = 2007 PTCL 672", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1FpND0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969---Sections 2(s) & 156(1)89---A vehicle 21 years old, the body of which becomes poor and rusty in nature, partial welding/soldering on body could be due to repair during the life of vehicle and therefore cannot be a smuggled vehicle.-The chassis number was not grinded and welding/soldering appears on the body could be due to repairs conducted during the life of the vehicle i.e. 21 years old and that according to the report the body is in very poor shape and rusty in nature, thus the inference drawn by the Additional Collector (Adjudication), that it is a smuggled vehicle is in-correct. The report has been examined in the light of these submissions which forcefully supports the contention of the appellant that the vehicle was not smuggled vehicle and the partial welding point noted in the report could be the result of the repair as the vehicle was imported in the year 1984 and during 20, 21 years it needs repairs of and on. Winch inspired the confidence and prove that vehicle in question was not a smuggled one.\nSections 179 & 193---It is a requirement of law that adjudicating authority should be consistent in deciding the identical matters.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 627/LB/2004, decision dated: 25-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Syed Muhammad Mohsin Hamdani, Advocate.\nRespondenz by: Mr. Muhammad Farooq, Inspector.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD BOOTA S/O FAQIR MUHAMMAD\nVS\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), MULTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8194", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 567 = 2005 SLD 567 = 2005 PTD 2573 = 2006 PTCL 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.81 & 80---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Provisional assessment---Period of one year specified in S.81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 from the date of provisional assessment had expired and there was no order extending the period of final assessment by 90 days by the Collector of Customs---No final assessment order having been made under 5.80 of the Customs Act, 1969, by virtue of the provisions contained in 5.81(4) of the Act, the provisional assessment made under S.81(1) had attained finality---High Court allowed the Constitutional petition in the terms that notices issued for enforcing the recovery against the cancelled bank guarantee as well as for the recovery of amount in excess of assessed taxes and duty, shown in the provisional assessment order, were illegal and were liable to be struck down---Department was restrained from enforcing any recovery from the, petitioner in excess of the taxes and duty assessed at the time of provisional assessment order.\n \nRuling No.66, given by Central Board of Revenue contained in the book Customs General Order, 2002 Edition, compiled by Mr. Tariq Najib Choudhry, page 369 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=80", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-1003 of 2004, decision dated: 1st September, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "M. MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan for Petitioner.\nAhmed Khan Bugti with Fayyaz Ahmed Rai, Appraising Officer in Customs Department for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS WALL MASTER\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8195", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 693 = 2006 SLD 693 = 2006 PTCL 51 = 2006 PTD 1261", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Personal Baggage and Gift Scheme (Import of Vehicles) Rules, 2000--R. 7---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 168, 194-A & 196---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Import of vehicle under Personal Baggage Scheme---Refusal of revenue to clear vehicle for being two years old as same was not covered by such Scheme---Constitutional petition was filed by importer during pendency of his appeal before Appellate Tribunal---Maintainability---Issue as to year of manufacturing of vehicle could not be converted into one of law or interpretation of Constitution or other legal provisions for framing question of law before High Court---Importer being appellant before Tribunal could not complain of inefficacy of proceedings before Tribunal---Tax-payer could approach High Court under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969 against an order of Tribunal giving rise to a question of law---Importer had not challenged any specific order of revenue---Communication referred to in constitutional petition had not resulted into an action adverse to importer's interest---Deviation of revenue from its original stand by raising additional defence with regard to year of manufacturing of vehicle, could not justify exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Interference at such stage by High Court would amount to pre-empt not only of Tribunal, but would circumvent appellate hierarchy under Customs Act, 1969 including High Court as well as Supreme Court---Importer could place his arguments before Tribunal being a forum of fact as well as of law---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in limine.\n \nRepublic Motors Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and others 1990 PTD 889; Pakistan and others v. Qazi Ziaud Din PLD 1962 SC 440; Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue PLD 1968 Lah. 1155; Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory v. S.T.O. PLD 1971 SC 205; Julian Dinshaw v. ITO 1992 PTD 1 = 1992 SCMR 250; Attock Cement v. Collector of Customs 1999 PTD 1892; Gul Ahmad Textile Mills v. Collector of Customs 1990 MLD 126; Maple Leaf Cement v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1999 PTD 3907; United Business Lines v. Government of Punjab PLD 1997 Lah. 456; Ikram Bus Service and others v. Board of Revenue and others PLD 1963 SC 564; Al-Samrez 'Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917, Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and 3 others v. Azizuddin Industries Ltd. PLD 1970 SC 439; Bilal Ahmad Malik v. Secretary, Ministry of Commerce PLD 1963 (W.P.) Kar. 981; Lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd. v. Government of Punjab PLD 2000 Lah. 1; Pakistan v. Fecto Balarus Tractors Ltd. PLD 2002 SC 208; Federation of Pakistan v. Ch. M. Aslam 1986 SCMR 916; Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills v. WAPDA 1997 SCMR 641; Pakistan v. Hussain Ali Shah PLD 1960 SC 310; Ghulam Nabi v. Province of Sindh and others PLD 1999 Kar. 372; Messrs Shadman Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2001 CLC 385; Messrs Syed Bhais v. Chairman, C.B.R. 2001 CLC 1445; Union of India v. Messrs Anglo Afghan Agencies AIR 1968 SC 718; Hashwani Hotels v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 315; Sheikh Fazal Ahmad v. Raja Ziaullah Khan PLD 1964 SC 494; Anisa Rehman v. PIAC 1994 SCMR 2232; Chief Commissioner Karachi v. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 45; Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1987 SC 304; Indep Newspapers v. Wage Board 1993 SCMR 1533; Chairman RTA v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Co. PLD 1991 SC 14 and Collector of Customs v. Muhammad Tasleem 2002 MLD 296 ref.\n \nPunjab Beverage Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue 2001 PTD 3929 and Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore 1999 SCMR 1881 rel.\n \n(b) Order---\n \n----Correspondence between two Government Departments---Not an order.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "W.P. No.3363 of 2004, decision dated: 27-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aitzaz Ahsan and Barrister Sultan Tanvir for Petitioner.\nAhmar Bilal Soofi for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. TASNIM AKHTAR\nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8196", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 694 = 2006 SLD 694 = 2006 PTD 278 = 2006 PTCL 256", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.19 & 32-Notification S.R.O. No.738(I)/1990, dated 11-7-1990--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Refund of export duty---Declaration of goods as cotton yarn and in alternate as cotton thread---Raising of new plea before Supreme Court---Customs authorities in response to refund of export duty, issued notice under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969, to exporter for making misdeclaration about description of goods---High Court held that the exporter took alternate pleas in the application of refund stating the goods firstly as `thread' and then alternately termed as `cotton yarn' and such declaration could not be termed as misdeclaration---Authorities raised a plea that before filing of constitutional petition before the High Court the exporter did not exhaust alternate remedies available to him---Validity---Authorities failed to show as to whether such plea was raised before High Court---As no such plea was raised before High Court, same could not be allowed to be raised before Supreme Court for the first time---Supreme Court declined to take any exception to the passed by High Court as neither factual nor legal infirmity was pointed out in the ---Leave to appeal was refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "CP Nos. 183-K to 185-K of 2003, decision dated: 29-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and others\nVS\nMESSRS SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8197", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 695 = 2006 SLD 695 = 2006 PTCL 261 = 2006 PTD 207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.32 & 209(3)---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.50(5)--- Custom Agents Licensing Rules, 1971---S.R.O. 13(1)/1971, dated 8-1-1971---Import of vehicle---Failure of Clearing Agent to mention correct rate of withholding tax in Bill of Entry---Demand of deficient tax from Agent---Plea of Agent was that he was not liable to pay such tax, but its liability was that of importer that neither he nor importer had knowledge of levy of such tax; and that impugned demand was time­barred---Validity---Agent would be deemed to be importer---Agent was under an. obligation to know about tax chargeable and leviable on imports---Primary responsibility of Agent was to fill various columns of Bills of Entry in a proper manner and in accordance with prevalent law---Agent's neglect to do so would amount to wilful neglect on his part---Ignorance of law would be no excuse and Agent could not be paid dividend for his ignorance---Such omission on the part of Agent was wilful omission to defraud State Exchequer, thus, period of limitation would be three years under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969-.--Impugned demand was legal.\n \n(b) Administration of justice---\n \n----Ignorance of law is no excuse, thus, defaulting party cannot be paid dividend for his ignorance.\n \n(c) Natural justice, principles of---\n----Party absenting himself to appear before am authority could not claim that he was not provided opportunity of hearing.\n \n(d)Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss.32 & 196---Appeal before High Court---Question of fact---Non­payment of withholding tax---Question, whether importer deliberately avoided such payment or same was on account of bona fide mistake, would be a question of fact---Such question could not be entertained in appeal before High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=209", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.173 to 188 of 1999, decision dated: 8-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE\nSYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Adnan Ahmed for Appellant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS EVERNEW AGENCIES\nVS\n and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8198", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 696 = 2006 SLD 696 = 2006 PTCL 24", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5TT0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969---Section 2(5)----Even if bodies/parts of vehicles were replaced the action itself cannot be called an act of smuggling.--In absence of any evidence substantiating the charge of smuggling against the appellants, the matter did not fall in the jurisdiction of the customs authorities under the Customs Act, 1969 even if bodies/parts of those vehicles were replaced. That action in itself could not be called an act of smuggling.\nAnti-smuggling squad has no jurisdiction under the Customs Act to impound the vehicle on the basis of alteration done in terms of section 33 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965.--In terms of section 33 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, when such an alteration is made in a vehicle that particulars contained in the certificate of registration no longer remain accurate the owner of the vehicle has to intimitate the same to the Motor Registering Authority within 14 days alongwith certificate of registration of the vehicle accompanied by the prescribed fee and the Motor Vehicle Registering Authority would enter the alteration in the registration documents. Thus the respondent agency had no jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1969 to impound the vehicle on the basis of alteration done in terms of section 33 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965.\nMOTOR VEHICLES ORDINANCE, 1965---Section 33----Anti-smuggling squad has no jurisdiction under the Customs Act to impound the vehicle on the basis of alteration done in terms of section 33 of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 525/LB/2004, decision dated: 19-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)\nMR. SARFRAZ AHMAD KHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Syed Muhammad Mohsin Hamdani, Advocate.\nRespondent by: Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Malik, Superintendent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD AMJAD S/O HAJI GOS BUKSH, NAWAN SHEHR, MULTAN\nVS\nSUPERINTENDENT CUSTOMS ANTISMUGGLING SQUAD, MULTAN & OTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8199", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 697 = 2006 SLD 697 = 2006 PTCL 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5ST0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969--Sections 18 & 19---As Notification dated 10.09.1991 was not made operative retrospectively, therefore, the respondents were not entitled for exemption particularly when the duty had already been paid by them in pursuance of earlier notification dated 16.05.1991 being a past and closed transaction.--Learned counsel contended that the High Court had granted exemption of duty to the respondents in view of notification dated 10.09.1991, which was made applicable with effect from 12.09.1991, although the respondents were not entitled for the same because it had no retrospective effect as per its terms as the duty levied had already been cleared by them in pursuance of earlier notification dated 16.05.1991. Having gone through both the notifications, we are of the opinion that as notification dated 10.09.1991 was not made operative retrospectively, therefore, the respondents were not entitled for exemption particularly when the duty had already been paid by them in pursuance of earlier notification dated 16.05.1991 being a past and closed transaction.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 1889 of 2002, heard on 21st December, 2005", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE IFTIIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMR. JUSTICE FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR\nMR. JUSTICE M, JAVED BUTTAR", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. M. Bilal, Sr. ASC. Respondent by: Nemo", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS APPEALS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI\nVS\nM/S. UDL INDUSTRIES LTD. & 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8200", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 698 = 2006 SLD 698 = 2006 PTCL 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5RT0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969---Sections 2(s), 156(1) 8, 9 & 89, and 187 --- Where the doubt exist in believing that the seized vehicle is not the same which was imported as per bill of entry the benefit of doubt goes to the possessor of vehicle.--The seized vehicle to be smuggled one, mainly on the grounds that physically the vehicle was 1986-87 model with white colour (and as per seat belt), while as per registration book, it was 1983 model with green colour and the laboratory report, which reported its chassis number replaced and welded. It may be mentioned here that most of these materials relied upon by the seizing agency are variable factors and the contention of the respondents that the vehicle had met a fatal accident has not been rebutted. Modification and fabrication in the body and replacement of parts with parts of different model vehicle cannot be ruled out during the repair after the accident. The laboratory report has been obtained by the seizing agency from FSL, Peshawar without prior notice to the respondents and at their back. The seizing agency had not taken the trouble to have had brought the laboratory report on file in accordance with law, so that the respondents could have an opportunity to cross-examine the expert or the official, who produced the said report in evidence against them..The perusal of the impugned Order-in-Appeal would show that the vehicle is duly registered and the bill of entry contains the same chassis number, which the seized vehicle has got. It is an old vehicle of 1983 model, which must have undergone alteration and addition of parts thereto, particularly, when the prosecution has not been able to account for an imaginary vehicle to be other than the seized one. Moreover, the seized vehicle has not been examined by any Motor Vehicle Examiner or any dealer of Toyota Motors as to whether its chassis frame is of 1983 model or otherwise. Thus every doubt would exist in believing that the seized vehicle is not the same, which was imported as per bill of entry. The benefit of such doubt will naturally extend to the possessor of the vehicle in question. \nSection 194-A --- Meaning of the expression \"\"aggrieved person\"\".---The expression \"\"aggrieved person\"\" denotes a person who has got a legal grievance i.e., a person is wrongfully deprived of anything to which he is legally entitled and not merely a person who suffers some sort of disappointment but not suffer any personal injury or whose interest is adversely affected by a decree or . The Detecting Officer or any such agency representing the prosecution is not an aggrieved person.\nDeputy Director or Intelligence Officer of Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation (Customs and Excise) are not competent to prefer appeal. -- A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent to the maintainability of the instant appeal on the ground that the appellant Additional Director, Intelligence & Investigation (Customs & Excise), Peshawar cannot be termed to be \"\"aggrieved person\"\" within the meaning of section 194-A of the Act.\nThis appeal has been preferred by the Additional Director, Intelligence & Investigation (Customs & Excise), Peshawar, as evident from the memo. of appeal, it is signed by Deputy Director, Intelligence & Investigation (Customs & Excise), Peshawar. Still the affidavit annexed to the memo. of the appeal, which is paged-5 on file, is signed by Intelligence Officer (Law), Customs Intelligence, Peshawar as deponent of the affidavit. Both the Deputy Director and the Intelligence Officer are not authorized to sign the memo. of the appeal or the affidavit on behalf of the appellant Additional Director. Even the affidavit has not been got attested from an Oath Commissioner. \nAlthough, the Additional Director, Intelligence & Investigation (Customs & Excise), Peshawar, was competent by virtue of notification vide SRO. 1/2005 dated 6.1.2005 to exercise powers and discharge the duties of officers of Customs under various provisions of the Act, specified in column (3) of the Table given in the notification, including section 194-A of the Act, but neither the Deputy Director nor the Intelligence Officer were so authorized to exercise such powers and so, they both could not sign or give affidavit to the appeal, where nomenclature of the appellant was shown as Additional Director.\nWORDS AND PHRASES\n\"\"Aggrieved person\"\".", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Appeal No. Cus. 264/PB/2005, decision dated: 23rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MR. RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Additional Director lntelligence & Investigation (Customs & Excise), Peshawar\nAppellants by: Mr. Abdul Latif, I.O. and Mr. Rehan Gul, I.O.\nRespondents by: Mr. Irshad Ahmad Durrani, Advocate and Pir Izhar-ul-Haq, D.S. Customs", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8201", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 699 = 2006 SLD 699 = 2006 PTCL 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5QT0", + "Key Words:": "CUSTOMS ACT, 1969---section 18C----A certificate issued by Chambers of Commerce of Dubai cannot be relied unless authorised by Dubai Government or Government of Pakistan on the point of origin of imported ornaments.--Learned counsel was called upon to satisfy as to whether the certificate being relied upon by him fulfills the requirement of Rules 7 and 16 of the Rules of Origin 1973, he categorically conceded that there is no document available on record to substantiate that the Chambers of Commerce of Dubai was authorised either by the Dubai Government or the Government of Pakistan for issuance of such certificate. \nWe are of the opinion that certificate being relied upon was not acceptable comparing to the report furnished by the Additional Collector and Karyana Merchant Association, Karachi on the point that the imported Ornaments are of American origin or Irani origin.\nRULE OF ORIGIN--Rules 7 & 16---A certificate issued by Chambers of Commerce of Dubai cannot be relied unless authorised by Dubai Government or Government of Pakistan on the point of origin of imported ornaments.--See Section 18C of the Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 744 of 2004, 26-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMR. JUSTICE FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR\nMR. JUSTICE MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Appellant by: Mr. Muhammad Munir Piracha, ASC.\nRespondent by: Mr. M. Bilal, Sr. ASC", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. SHAMOON TRADERS, QUETTA\nVS\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE & SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARACHI ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8202", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 700 = 2006 SLD 700 = 2006 PTCL 486 = 2006 PTD 1207", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5OD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.32 & 156 (1), item 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-- Constitutional petition---Untrue statement/false declaration---Determi­nation---Fraudulent claim of rebate---Recovery---Petitioners were not the exporters but had some transactions with exporters and received certain amounts through crossed cheques drawn by exporters---Department found that the exporters made fraudulent claim with regard to duty draw back rebate thus notices were issued for refund of rebate---Petitioners being husband and wife inter se were also issued such notices as husband had received the cheques and wife was owner of the house---Validity---Only a person making false statement or a false declaration before officer of customs could be held guilty of offences under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 and could be subjected to penalty under Item 14 of S.156 (1) of Customs Act, 1969---Amount erroneously paid could be refunded under S.32 (2) of Customs Act, 1969---When Customs Authorities were misled into making payments to exporters, such amount could only be recovered from them and from no other person---Nothing whatsoever was there even to infer that any allegation of any nature was ever made against wife by the authorities---Coercive measures for recovery were being applied against the wife merely because of the fact that house where her husband was living belonged to her---Such high-handedness on the part of officers vested with extensive powers for recovery of public revenues had to be strongly discouraged---High Court set aside the notice issued against petitioners for recovery of duty draw back---Petition was allowed in circumstances.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.32 (1)---False declaration---Onus to prove---Burden to prove liability for an offence under S.32 (1) of Customs Act, 1969, is squarely upon department and no penalty can be imposed on mere inferences.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-1360 and Misc. No. 5096 of 2005, decision dated: 1st February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nALI SAIN DINO METLO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoukat H. Zubedi for Petitioners.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.\nMehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for Respondent. No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAIKH RASHID AHMED and others\nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR, SPECIAL RECOVERY CELL, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS), KARACHI and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8203", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 701 = 2006 SLD 701 = 2006 PTCL 375 = 2006 PTD 534", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1F5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 194 & 196---Decision of Appellate Tribunal on question of fact---Appeal of High Court---Maintainability---Question, whether goods were of foreign origin or not had been decided by Tribunal as well as by the Additional Collector of Customs---No question of law arose from such decisions for determination by High Court in terms of S.169 of Customs Act, 1969---High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "C.P.L.A. No.356-K of 2005, decision dated: 25-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nHAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ZARGHOON ZARAI CORPORATION \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8204", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 702 = 2006 SLD 702 = 2006 PTCL 452 = 2006 PTD 1836", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act(IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(1)(89), 157, 178 & 196(3)---Appeal to High Court---Question of fact---Sole contention of the Revenue in the case was that `Form G' in question did not relate to the gold seized---Such contention examined in the facts and circumstances of the case attempted to raise a pure factual controversy and no question of law arose requiring adjudication by the High Court---Appeal being without any merit was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "C.M. No. 240-C of 1997, decision dated: 24-03-2006", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nSHEIKH AZMAT SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh for Petitioner.\nMian Abdul Ghaffar for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, \nVS\nMUHAMMAD YOUSAF AMIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8205", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 703 = 2006 SLD 703 = 2006 PTCL 465 = 2006 PTD 1930 = 2007 PTR 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.19 & 223---Notification S.R.O. 357(1) / 2002, dated 15-6-2002--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Exemption from payment of duties---Declining benefit on the basis of letter issued by official of Central Board of Revenue---Petitioner imported polypropylene filler falling under PCT Heading 5607.4900 and claimed benefit of notification S.R.O. 357(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002, as the material was not locally manufactured---Authorities, on the basis of letter issued by an official of Central Board of Revenue, refused benefit of the notification to the petitioner---Plea raised by the petitioner was that Customs General Order issued by Central Board of Revenue under S.223 of Customs Act, 1969, could not be overruled through a letter issued by Engineering Development Board---Petitioner also contended that the material imported by him was not included in the list of locally manufactured items in Indigenization Programme approved by Indigenization Committee---Validity---For the purpose of S.R.O. 357(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002, such goods were to be treated as not manufactured locally which were not included in the list of locally manufactured items prepared by Central Board of Revenue in consultation with Ministry of Industries---Letter written by Engineering Development Board, until and unless duly concurred by Central Board of Revenue and item was included in the list of locally manufactured items, was not to be acted upon for declining the concession available under S.R.O. 357(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002---Polypropylene filler (PCT Heading 5607.4900) was not being manufactured locally and authorities were not empowered to refuse the concession---Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of S.R.O. 357(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002---High Court directed the authorities to extend the benefit of the notification to petitioner---Petition was allowed accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,223Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-557 of 2004, decision dated: 7-04-2006. dates of hearing: 31st March and 7-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nSHAMSUDDIN HISBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Ghaffar Khan for Petitioner.\nAhmed Khan Bugti for Respondent No. 2.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN CABLES LTD. THROUGH FINANCE DIRECTOR and COMPANY SECRETARY \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH CHAIRMAN, C.B.R and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8206", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 704 = 2006 SLD 704 = 2006 PTD 1851 = 2006 PTCL 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)-----S. 203---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition ---Wharfage or. storage fee---Importer has the right to lower scale of storage and demurrage charges being leviable in case where the delay in clearance of imported goods is attributable to the Customs Authorities- -Such rule applies to the Port . Trust and also Railways Authorities.\n \nAftab Ahmed Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1993 CLC 2022 and Mrs. M.H.B. Khan v. Regional Manager and others W.P. No.320 of 2000, dated 21-6-2000 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=203Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.21441 to 21443 of 2000, heard on 4-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nAhmed Yasin on behalf of Jehangir Akhtar Joja for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.\nGhulam Ali Hassan for Respondent No. 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS LONE TRADERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nGENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAY and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8207", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 705 = 2006 SLD 705 = 2006 PTD 1290 = 2006 PTCL 495", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Release of imported consignment---Petitioner had also availed remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in respect of same grievance as agitated in the present petition, which was pending there---Petitioner had contended that he was suffering day to day loss due to non-release of consignment and stated that without prejudice to his legal rights he was willing to make payment of all duties and charges in respect of said consignment on the basis of his declared value---Submission made by petitioner being reasonable, equitable and fair, constitutional petition was disposed of in the terms that customs duty, sales talc, etc., leviable on consignment in question, on basis of his own declared value, could be directly paid to Customs Authorities, accordingly---Appellate Tribunal was directed to decide pending appeal within specified period.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.P.D. No.1355 of 2004, decision dated: 10-01-2005, hearing DATE : 10-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nS. ALI ASLAM, JAFFERY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mohsin Imam for Petitioner.\nAhmad Khan Bugti for Respondent No. 2.\nMuhammad Sarfaraz Sulehry for Respondent No. 5.\nNemo for the Remaining Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MARKATIA CORPORATION\nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8208", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 706 = 2006 SLD 706 = 2006 PTD 1876 = 2006 PTCL 499", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 25---Determination of customs valuation of goods---Predetermined value attributed to the imported goods cannot form the basis of an assessment that rejects the declared value of such imported goods---Valuation made by Customs authorities on the basis of valuation ruling was violative of the method, means and procedure contemplated by S.25, Customs Act, 1969 and was, therefore, void and of no legal, effect---Matter was remanded by High Court to the authorities, who were to reassess the imported goods in accordance with S.25, Customs Act, 1969.\n \nMessrs S.T.B. International through Proprietor v. Collector of Customs, Lahore and 5 others 2006 PTD 232 and Messrs Pakistan Dry Battery Manufacturers Association through Vice-Chairman and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 9 others 2006 PTD 674 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "W.P. No.533 of 2006, decision dated: 27-04-2006", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nMian Shahid Iqbal for Respondent No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SOHRAB GLOBAL MARKETING (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGER (IMPORT) \nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CFS, NLC and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8209", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 707 = 2006 SLD 707 = 2006 PTCL 517 = 2006 PTD 1865", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Rules, 2001--Rr. 103 & 104(3)---Action in case of violation---Scope---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suspension of licence of customs clearing agent by the Licensing Authority---Scope---Suspension of licence pending action under R.103 Customs Rules, 2001 was an exceptional circumstance which could only be resorted to by the Licensing Authority where it considered immediate action to be necessary---Order of the Authority, in the present case, failed to set out the reasons for immediate action, and had not even stated that the Licensing Authority had any reason considered necessary by it to suspend the licence of the Agent forthwith---Validity---Right of the Agent to conduct its business, among other things, was a constitutionally protected right---If such right was to be curtailed, there should be valid justification for such curtailment---Rules 104(3) of the Customs Rules, 2001 envisaged an application of mind by the Licensing Authority to justify immediate suspension of a licence---Rationale of R.104(3) of the Rules was to protect the right of a Customs Clearing Agent to carry on his business, pending inquiry, except in extraordinary circumstances spelled out by the Licensing Authority to justify immediate suspension of his licence---Impugned order, therefore, was not legally sustainable to the extent it ordered immediate suspension of the licence of the Agent---Suspension of licence pending final adjudication under R.103, Customs Rules 2001 was therefore, declared to be illegal by the High Court---High Court, however, observed that present order of the Court, shall not, in any manner, preclude the Licensing Authority from initiating further proceedings under the Rules.\n \n(b) Customs Rules, 2001---\n \n----R. 103(2)---Action in case of violation---Appeal envisaged under R.103(2) of Rules was only in respect of final orders which might have been passed under R.103, Customs Rules, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=103", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.16269 of 2002, heard on 12-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nA. Karim Malik for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS RAAZIQ INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD., THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (LICENCING) DRYPORT MUGHALPURA, AND 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8210", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 708 = 2006 SLD 708 = 2006 PTCL 527 = 2006 PTD 1412", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Public functionary-\n \n----Private person cannot be saddled with responsibility of getting an act done by a public functionary.\n \n(b) Taxation---\n \n.----Concessionary S.R.O.---Requirements of such S.R.O. fulfilled by party---Lapse on the part of a tax official in compliance with an administrative order---Effect---Such lapse would not have, effect of negating concession available under law.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.21---S.R.O. 1083(I)/90, dated 16-10-1990---S.R.O. 929(I)/92, dated 28-9-1992---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Refund of duty drawback, claim for---Fulfilment of all requirements by exporter for availing rebate/duty drawback on export---Non-countersigning of quadruplicate copy of Bill of Export by Assistant Collector (Examination)---Rejection of claim for want of such countersigning--Validity---Such lapse on the part of tax official in compliance with an administrative order would not have the effect of negating concession available under law---Authority had committed a serious error in rejecting such claim on a frivolous ground, which was not sustainable in law---High Court accepted constitutional petition, set aside impugned orders and directed authorities to refund duty drawback to exporter in terms of concessionary S.R.Os.\n \n(d) Administrative instructions---\n \n----Administrative instructions should not be acted in a manner, which would negate the mandate of law---Substantive rights of citizens should not be sacrificed on altar of some procedural and administrative instructions---Principles.\n \nThe rights conferred on the citizens under the law should not be denied, on account of any administrative lapse on the part of any public functionary. The administrative instructions for carrying out the purposes of law should not be acted in a manner that the mandate of law itself is negated. The procedures and administrative instructions are always devised and issued for the sake of convenience and uniformity and for promoting the purposes of substantive law and not otherwise. The substantive rights of the citizens should not be crucified on the altar of some procedural, administrative instructions, if otherwise the requirements of a beneficial legislation or notification issued thereunder are fulfilled.\n \nImtiaz Ali v. Ghulam Ali PLD 1963 SC 382 rel.\n \n(e) Taxation-\n \n----Concession/exemption notification---Concession/exemption would be allowed on fulfilment of conditions specified in such notification and could not be withheld on the ground of any administrative instructions on the part of tax officials subordinate to Central Board of Revenue.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=21", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1665 of 2000, decision dated: 20-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Malik for Petitioners.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CHENAB FABRICS and PROCESSING MILLS LTD., FAISALABAD \nVS\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 5 OTHERS." + }, + { + "Case No.": "8211", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 709 = 2006 SLD 709 = 2006 PTCL 540 = 2006 PTD 1491", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 25-A & 25---Taking over imported goods---Pre-conditions---Under-valuation of goods by importer and availability of prospective buyer of goods at higher value must co exist before taking such action Before accepting higher offer of prospective buyer, authority must have material to assert that value of imported goods was understated---Object of S.25-A of Customs Act, 1969 was to discourage under-invoicing of goods and protect honest importer of his goods bought over by local purchaser without going through importer's effort made therefor---Principles.\n \n Section 25-A of Customs Act, 1969 empowers the Customs Authorities to take over imported goods in these two conditions i.e. (1) if the value imported goods declared in Bill of Entry or Goods Declaration is understated; and (2) there is a buyer of imported goods at substantially higher value. Thus, power under section 25-A does not become exercisable merely because there is a buyer of imported goods willing to pay high price, but the importer has also undervalued the value of imported goods. The object of section 25-A is to discourage under-invoicing of goods, whereby the duties and other charges are evaded by an importer, and at the same time protect an honest importer from. his goods being bought over by a local purchaser, who, without going through the importer's effort of analyzing foreign markets, reading local market conditions and negotiating best price with foreign supplier of goods, want to become owner of imported goods. In such a situation paying more might prove for him to be a good bargain, but at the expense of importer, who would have to give up his title in goods without any just cause. This cannot be allowed. Therefore, before higher offer of an interested person is accepted, the concerned Customs Official must have material to assert that the value of imported goods has been understated.\n \n The principle laid down in Section 25-A Customs Act, 1969 is that before exercising right to acquire goods in terms thereof, the duty on goods is to be first assessed according to the value determined under section 25 of Customs Act, 1969.\n \nSohaib Khan v. Collector of Customs 2005 PTD 1069 and Moon Corporation v. Central Board of Revenue 2004 PTD 2615 rel.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 25-A, 25 & 217(2)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Taking over imported goods---Sale of goods to prospective buyer at value more than 300% higher than declared value---Suit for declaration and damages by importer challenging such action of authority---Maintainability---Authority, after considering declared value to be understated had directed for examination of goods on reverse of Goods Declaration---Importer, instead of subjecting goods for examination had presented Goods Declaration again for its process under Appraisement System---Authority, after receiving such higher offer from prospective buyer had served notice on importer apprising him of such offer and under-valuation of goods---Importer in reply to such notice had sought full inquiry into valuation of goods---Importer, without waiting for result of such inquiry had filed suit within four days of delivering such reply to authority---Contents of such notice, though neither disclosed in plaint nor its copy annexed thereto, showed that authority had first formed opinion regarding understatement of declared value of goods by importer---Duty of importer was to have contested such matter before authority and got valuation done by authority in order to rebut its claim---Such offered price was not just substantially higher offer, but was enormously high---Such fact coupled with importer's reluctance to agitate such matter before authority created doubts about his case---Impugned action of, authority in such circumstances could not be termed to be mala fide or without jurisdiction---Suit was dismissed for being not maintainable in view of bar contained in S.217(2) of Customs Act, 1969.\n \n PLD 1997 Kar. 541; 2002 PTD 654; 2003 PTD 409; 2004 PTD 1189; Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1798; Amin Textile Mills v.- Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 SCMR 201; Shahid Agency v. The Collector of Customs 1989 CLC 1938 and Moon Corporation v. Central Board of Revenue 2004 PTD 2615 ref.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.217(2)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Action or order of Customs authority suffering from mere illegality---Remedy---Aggrieved party could seek his remedy in the hierarchy provided under Customs Act, 1969.\n \n PLD 1997 Kar. 541; 2002 PTD 654; 2003 PTD 409; 2004 PTD 1189; Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1798; Amin Textile Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 SCMR 201 and Shahid Agency v. The Collector of Customs 1989 CLC 1938 and ref. Moon Corporation v. Central Board of Revenue 2004 PTD 2615 rel.\n \n(d) Tort---\n \n----Damages, claim for---Appropriate time for agitating such claim---Act or omission resulting in injury would give rise to such claim which could be agitated under general law by way of civil suit---Legality of such act or omission, if challenged before Civil Court, then claim for damages could simultaneously be agitated in same suit---Legality of such act or omission, if challenged only before special forum provided under special statute, then until such main controversy was put at rest before such forum, filing of suit for damages before Civil Court would be premature---Principles.\n \nA claim for damages is always agitated under the general law by way of civil suit. Claim for damages arises on account of some act or omission, which results in injury. Where legality of an act or omission is challenged under the general law by way of a civil suit, then claim for damages .can also be simultaneously agitated in the same suit. However, where legality of an act or omission is challenged only before a special forum provided under a special statute, then until the main controversy is put at rest before such special forum, filing of suit for damages in Civil Court would be premature. In such circumstances, the person who has sustained injury has to wait until the special forum decides the controversy, all appeals taken thereunder or time for filing appeal has gone by and the decision has attained finality. Only then the person who has sustained injury on account of some act or omission can file suit for damages in Civil Court. A party cannot be allowed to agitated a claim for damages in Civil Court at a time, when the main controversy is either pending or is required to be agitated before the special forum, but the aggrieved person has chosen not to take it before such forum. Filing of suit for damages in such a situation would be premature and liable to be so declared.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Suit No. 205 of 2002, decision dated: 13-03-2006, hearing DATE : 31st January, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Plaintiff.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendants Nos. 1 to 3.\nMuhammad Nadeem Qureshi for Defendant No. 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS BINACO TRADERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8212", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 710 = 2006 SLD 710 = 2006 PTCL 596 = 2006 PTD 1976", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 18(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition ---Charging of regulatory duty---Contention of petitioners that in terms of notification regulatory duty could be charged on the import of goods chargeable to statutory or concessionary rate of 0% duty and not on the goods importable free of duty, was repelled as practically there was no difference between terms 0% and `free of duty' both conveyed the same meaning---No distinct or separate concept of Zero rated import as was in concept of Zero rated supply in Sales Tax Act, 1990 existed in Customs Act, 1969, under Sales Tax Act, 1990 concept of \"\"Zero rated supply\"\" was introduced only for the purpose of claiming adjustment or refund of input tax; whereas in the Customs Act, 1969 no such scheme existed---Regulatory duty, in circumstances was rightly charged from petitioners on the goods, which according to First Schedule were importable free of duty held;---Petitioners were not entitled to its refund.\nCollector of Customs and others v. Ravi Spinning Ltd. and others 1999 SCMR 412 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "C.Ps. Nos.223 to 226 of 2003, decision dated: 26-01-2005, hearing DATE : 26-01-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nALI SAIN DINO METLO, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh and Ch. Muhammad Wasim Iqbal for Petitioners.\nNadeem Qureshi for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.\nMehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PARKE DAVIS & COMPANY LTD and others\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS THROUGH ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS AFU" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8213", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 686 = 2009 SLD 686 = 2009 PTCL 129 = 2009 PTD 77", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 156(1), Cl. 89---S.R.O. No.574(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Smuggled vehicle with proved tampered chassis frame and not a smuggled vehicle with non-tampered chassis frame---Held, outright confiscation of the vehicle through order-in-original under Cl.89 of S.156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with S.R.O. No.574(I)/2005 dated 6-6-2005 was lawfully passed and did not suffer from any illegality---Petition for leave to appeal against of the High Court upholding said order was dismissed---Principles.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 657 of 2007, decision dated: 24-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE\nM. JAVED BUTTAR, JUSTICE\nSAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. M. Bilal, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court with Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "CH. MAQBOOL AHMED\nVS\nCUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8214", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 276 = 2009 SLD 276 = (2009) 99 TAX 190 = 2009 PTD 966", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTYz0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=33,33(2)(cc),34", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No. 135/LB of 2006, decision dated: 13-05-2006, hearing DATE : 02-05-2006", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Muhammad Ahsan, Advocate, for the Appellant.\nHassan Muhammad, D.S., for the Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8215", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 687 = 2009 SLD 687 = 2009 PTCL 220 = 2009 PTD 119", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 19, 159 & First Sched. Heading No.71/78---S.R.O. 714(I)/93, dated 14-11-1989---State Bank of Pakistan Notification FE1/94-SB dated 20-3-1994---Import of gold as accompanied baggage in March 1997---Seizure and confiscation of such gold by customs authorities on basis of Notification No.1 (2) ECS/48, dated 1-7-1948---Validity---State Bank of Pakistan through Notification No. F. E.1/94-SB, dated 20-3-1994 had permitted such import in accordance with import policy order---Authority had not shown any violation of import policy by such import---High Court directed release of such gold on payment of tax in terms of S.R.O. No.714(I)/93, dated 4-11-1989.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=159", + "Case #": "S.C.A. No.03 of 2003, decision dated: 8-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJIBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE\nKHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant.\nMuhammad Nadeem Qureshi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL MAJEED\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8216", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 688 = 2009 SLD 688 = 2009 PTCL 475 = 2009 PTD 328", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 203---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Charging full demurrage/storage charges---Case of the petitioner was that despite having been issued the requisite delay and detention certificate under the Customs Act, 1969, authorities were insisting on charging full demurrage/storage charges---Contention of the petitioner was that where a delay and detention certificate was issued by the Customs Authorities, the demurrage was to be charged at minimum rate---Constitutional petition, in circumstances was allowed and authorities were directed by High Court to charge the demurrage/storage charges at the minimum tariff rate. \n \nAftab Ahmed Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1993 CLC 2022 and Messrs Adam Holding Ltd. v. A.C. Customs 1994 CLC 1198 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=203", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1260 of 2008, decision dated: 1st December, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nMs. Kausar Parveen for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS MAJID & CO. THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\nDISTRICT MANAGER, PIA and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8217", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 689 = 2009 SLD 689 = (2010) 101 TAX 134 = 2009 PTD 1902 = 2010 PTCL 187", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 30---Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992), S.6---S.R.O. No.369(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000 (as amended by S.R.O.(sic)(I)/2001, dated 29-1-2001)--Customs General Order 12 of 1981, dated 14-9-1981---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 54 & 55---Suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction Maintainability---Suit which was in respect of seeking declaration and other reliefs for the illegal order or issuance of S.R.O. and controversies related thereto could only be decided by way of inquiry and evidence, therefore, Civil Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such suit---Plea of the department that suit was not maintainable in law was repelled. \n \nK.G. Traders v. Deputy Collector, of Customs PLD 1997 Karachi 541; High Court Appeals Nos. 31, 32 and 33 of 2000 and passed in Suit No.376 of, 2002 rel.\n \nCollector of Customs, Lahore v. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation 2005 SCMR 37; Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore 1999 SCMR 1881 and The Central Board of Revenue Islamabad v. Sheikh Spinning Mills Ltd., 1999 SCMR 1442 distinguished.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---S. 30---Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992),, S.6---S.R.O. No.362(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000 (as amended by S.R.O. (sic)(I)/2001, dated 29-1-2001)---S.R.O.439(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001---Customs General Order No.12 of 1981, dated 14-9-1981---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.77---Partial shipment of the machinery was made before the amendment of S. R.O.362(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000, therefore, by virtue of the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 read with Customs General Order No.12 of 1981. and so also Art.77 of the Constitution, the importer had been protected and had acquired the vested right to clear the consignment in terms of S.R.O.369(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000 as amended vide S.R.O.I/2000, dated 29-1-2001---Promissory estoppel shall operate against the department as notification in shape of S.R.O.439(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001 could not override the rights which had been acquired by the importer---Notification S.R.O.439(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001 was not in accordance with law---Principles. \n \nCelanese Pakistan Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others 2002 PTD 2874; Gatron and Bhadelia Industries Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1999 MLD 2994.(Kar.); Lucky Cement Ltd. v. The Central Board of Revenue PLD 2001 Pesh. 07; Fecto Belarus Tractors Ltd. v. Pakistan through Ministry of Finance Economic Affairs and another SBLR 2001 SC 109 and Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652 rel.\n \nMessrs Jeewajee (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 518; Anoud Power Generation Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan' PLD 2001 SC 340; 1992 SCMR 442; Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore 1999 SCMR 1881; Collector of Customs Faisalabad v. Shamsul Anwar Khan 2006 SCMR 1382; Zaman Cement Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue 2002 SCMR 312; Cyanamid Pakistan Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement) 2002 CLC 1764; Alhamd Textile Mills Ltd. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others 2001 SCMR 556 and M.Y. Electronics Industries v. Government of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1404 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30", + "Case #": "Suit No. 880 of 2001, decision dated: 16-07-2009, hearing DATE : 13th, 14th, 19th and 22-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHARRAM G. BALOCH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Plaintiff.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IBRAHIM FIBRES LTD. THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER (IMPORTS) \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8218", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 690 = 2009 SLD 690 = 2009 PTD 992 = 2010 PTCL 327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.156(1), clauses (14), (14-A), (16), (17), (77), (84), Ss.32, 32-A, 35, 39, 131, 131-A & 178---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of proceedings---Interim challan in the case was submitted after three years of lodging F.I.Rs.---No provision being in the law for submission of interim challan after three years, it was to be deemed as final challan, which carried no material for connecting the petitioners with the commission of said crimes---Inordinate delay of over three years in the investigation of crimes and submission of interim challan without collecting any evidence against the petitioners was indicative of fact that pendency of such proceedings in the Customs Court would be nothing but an abuse of the process of law which was to be prevented in order to secure the ends of justice---No possibility/likelihood of conviction of the petitioners existed in the two crimes in case the proceedings emanating from the crimes which related to an attempt to defraud the national exchequer by fraudulently claiming the inadmissible duty draw back, were allowed to continue---Proceedings were ordered to be quashed. \n \nMian Munir Ahmed v. The State 1985 SCMR 257; State through Advocate General N.-W.F.P. and others v. Gulzar Muhammad and others 1998 SCMR 873 and Ch. Perviaz Ellahi v. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others 1995 MLD 615 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1243 and D-1244 of 2008, decision dated: 13-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Kumail Ahmed Shirazee for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHURRAM FAROOQ SIDDIQUI\nVS\nDEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS and EXCISE, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8219", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 691 = 2009 SLD 691 = 2009 PTD 1880 = 2010 PTCL 333", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 168 & 15---Pakistan Petroleum (Refining Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971, R.38---Seizure of imported consignment of petroleum product (Waste Oil/petroleum residue)---Classification of petroleum products---Determining factor---Consignment was allegedly found to be misdeclared and restricted/banned item---Reports of all the recognized laboratories indicated that flash point of the product in the imported consignment was more than 54% which made the petroleum product as HSD---Importer at the time of the import, was aware of the product which he imported, he had classified the consignment under wrong head, to escape duty and get the consignment cleared, without being an industrial importer and without the approval of the Ministry of Petroleum---Held, importer had imported as substandard product (HSD), misdeclared the goods, imported the consignment without being eligible for such import and had failed to seek approval of the Ministry of Petroleum---Consignment, in circumstances, was rightly seized and impugned action of the Customs Department was unexceptionable---Principles. \n \nNasir Ahmed v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 594 and Central Board of Revenue and another v. Khan Muhammad PLD 1986 SC 192 ref.\n \n(b) Administration of justice---\n \n----Court proceedings---Presumption of correctness---Scope---Presumption of correctness was attached to the court proceedings---Court proceedings could not be nullified merely because the party or its counsel had recorded statement to the contrary or filed an affidavit. \n \nFayyaz Hussain v. Akbar Hussain and others 2004 SCMR 964 fol.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 168---Seizure report---Requirements---Law requires that time, date and place be mentioned in the seizure report----Principles. \n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---Ss. 168 & 15---Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971, R.38---Import of consignment as waste oil (petroleum residue)---Seizure of imported consignment---Classification of petroleum product---Determining factor---Consignment was allegedly found to be misdeclared and restricted/banned item---Contention of the importer was that samples of the petroleum product for analysis were drawn in the absence of the importer---Samples, in fact, were drawn in presence of Clearing Agent and same were sealed according to law---Matter being still pending before Special Judge Customs and to rule out the chance of improper sampling of the consignment, High Court directed the Authorities to draw fresh samples from each container, as per R.38, Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 in presence of the Importer or his Clearing Agent and Deputy Registrar of the High Court and after taking the samples to deliver one sample from each container to the Court of Special Judge Customs and any relevant authority of the Customs Department may join in the process of sampling and any party may get the samples analysed from the recognized laboratories for comparison with the earlier analysis done---High Court, in circumstances, declined to interfere in the impugned order, same being devoid of illegality or legal infirmity, having been passed, keeping in view the laboratory reports as well as consenting statement of the importer.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Customs Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2009, decided 8-06-2009. dates of hearing: 29th May and 3rd June, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Saghir Ahmad for Appellant.\nMuhammad Akhtar Qureshi, Ghulam Sarwar Shah, Deputy Collector (I&P) and Syed Muhammad Ali Rizvi, Dy. Superintendent for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "YASIR ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR\nVS\nMODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE THROUGH COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, MULTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8220", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 749 = 2010 SLD 749 = 2010 PTCL 716 = 2010 PTD 487", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.3-A, 3-E [as amended by Finance Act (VII of 2005)], Ss. 25, 26, 80, 156 & 168---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Constitutional petition---Import of \"\"Spraying Lorries\"\"---Conversion into truck chassis---Examination and assessment---Seizure of imported goods after clearance---Petitioner/importer imported used \"\"Spraying Lorries\"\", which were examined and assessed on the basis of valuation fixed by the valuation committee---Petitioner paid customs duties and taxes duly assessed by the appropriate officer of the customs department and said imported consignments were made out of charge/cleared---Later on Intelligence Officer, seized said vehicles on the plea that petitioner had changed spraying mechanism fitted in said Spraying Lorries and converted into truck chassis frames fitted with engine and cab and that such trucks as converted by the petitioner, were not importable under Import Policy Order, 2008---Sprinkler Lorries, which the petitioner had imported, were classified under PCT Heading 8705.9000, whereas truck mounted on chassis with cab, fell under PCT Heading 8706.0000---Customs duty in the former case was more than the import of vehicle under the latter Heading---Importer had to pay additional taxes and duties in case of import of Spraying Vehicle, as such Lorry. was equipped with Spraying System for which the tax was separately leviable---Element of evasion of customs duty and taxes, was not involved in the case, in circumstances---No ban, prohibition or restriction existed under the Import Policy Order 2008-09 for conversion of vehicle into any other shape, like truck, bus or a trailer---Such vehicles, in circumstances were not liable to be seized or detained on the plea of conversion/modification ---Impugned seizure of the vehicles on the basis of their conversion and modification was not justified, more so when those vehicles were importable under the policy without any condition or restriction---Impugned order/action of the authorities qua seizing, detaining the vehicle, was declared as illegal and without lawful authority---Authorities were directed to release forthwith the seized vehicles of the petitioner.\n \nMessrs Zeb Traders through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others 2004 PTD 369; Mazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and 2 others 2004 PTD 2994; Messrs Ali Trade Linkers, Lahore v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 others 2005 PTD 1164 and Shahzad Ahmed Corporation through Shahzad Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 2005 PTD 23 ref.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss.2, 3-A, 3-E, 4 & 80 [as amended by Finance Act (VII of 2005)]--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition--Powers to re-examine and re-assess goods which were out of charge after assessment by the concerned Collectorate of Customs---Under provisions of amended Ss. 3-A, 3-E of Customs Act, 1969, F.B.R. was vested with the powers to specify the functions, jurisdiction and powers of the Directorate--Various officers of the Directorate of Intelligence had been conferred the powers to discharge the duties of the Officers of the customs under the provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Director had full powers to investigate and re-examine even if the goods were out of charge after the completion of the process of appraisement, if it had reason to believe that goods were possessed by the importer in contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Authorities had ample powers under the amended law to re-examine and re-assess goods even if the same were out of charge after assessment by the concerned Collectorate of Customs. \n \nF.A. Corporation through Proprietor v. Director-General Customs, Intelligence and Investigation and 3 others' 2008 PTD 1365 ref.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.168---Seizure of goods---Power to seize goods was an extraordinary power and it could be exercised in the extraordinary circumstances---Condition precedent for seizure of the goods under S.168(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 was that the goods seized should be liable to be confiscated---Appropriate officer of the customs had to see that some prima facie material was available with him to the effect that the goods were liable to be confiscated---Goods (vehicles) could be seized or taken into possession by the Customs Authorities provided they were being plied or possessed in contravention of provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Phrase \"\"Anything liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1969\"\" made it clear that liability of confiscation had already been determined and was no longer in dispute. \n \nCollector of Customs and others v. S.M. Yousaf 1973 SCMR 411 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.16589, 16020, 16021 and 16022 of 2009, decision dated: 9-10-2009, hearing DATE : 24-09-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nIzhar ul Haq Sheikh for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ELGA CONTROLS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, ISLAMABAD and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8221", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1046 = 2007 SLD 1046 = 2007 SCMR 1278 = 2008 PTCL 22 = (2007) 96 TAX 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 2(aa), 207, 208 & 209---\"\"Indentor appointed by principal through contract\"\" and \"\"Licensed Agent appointed by Customs Department\"\"---Distinction---Liability of Indentor for violation of provisions of Customs Act, 1969 or rules framed thereunder---Scope---Concept of Indentor not existing in Customs Act, 1969---Principal not bound to appoint Indentor under Ss.207, 208 and 209 of Customs Act, 1969---Office of Indentor being distinct and different from office of Licensed Agent---Business of Licensed Agent would be to interact on behalf of principal with authority of Customs Department---Indentor had no concern with internal business of Customs Department nor legally he could have an access to its affairs---Indentor, if found involved in such violation, could be held responsible for same in his private capacity, but not as an Indentor---Indentor for non-discharging his duty properly could not be penalized under any provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Indentor would not be answerable to any one except to his principal---Papers of consignment received from principal would not be clarified by Indentor for same being the job of Licensed Agent---Principles.\n \nAlliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Burjorjee & Co: Karachi and others PLD 1977 Kar. 765 ref.\n \n(b) Administration of justice---\n \n----One cannot be penalized under a particular provision of law, unless established that his action falls within mischief of such provision of law.\n \nHaji Abdul Razzaq v. Pakistan through Secretary, M/O Finance and others PLD 1974 SC 5 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.891 of 2003, decision dated: 8-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nMIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ARFEEN INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. \nVS \nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT) DRYPORT and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8222", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1047 = 2007 SLD 1047 = 2007 PTD 1480 = 2008 PTCL 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 32 & 217---Claim for refund of export duty---Issuance of show-cause notice under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 upon making such claim by exporter---Suit challenging such notice---Maintainability---Authority in accordance with law had levied duty on exported goods---Impugned action of authority was in accordance with law and could not be termed as mala fide and was not open to challenge before civil court---Suit was dismissed being non-maintainable.\n \nMalik Muhammad Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 2167; Messrs Amin Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 others 2000 SCMR 201; Messrs. Binaco Traders v Federation of Pakistan 2006 PTD 1491; Abbasia Cooperative Bank v. Hakeem Hafiz Muhammad Ghaus PLD 1997 SC page 3 and Al-Abram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellant Tribunal 1993 SCMR 29 ref.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 217(2)---Protection of action taken under Customs Act, 1969---Scope---Official act done in good faith would be protected---Section 217(2) of Customs Act, 1969 did require that for claiming protection thereunder, the act must be done in good faith.\n \n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---\n \n----S. 9---Special law providing remedy for redress of grievance---Effect---Plaintiff could not verbally be allowed to circumvent such remedy by invoking jurisdiction of civil court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Suit No. Nil of 2006, decision dated: 20-11-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. QAISAR IQBAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sharif for Plaintiff.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Defendants.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD AND 4 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8223", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1048 = 2007 SLD 1048 = 2007 PTD 1458 = 2008 PTCL 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 25---Import of used dump truck in SKD condition for off-highway use----Classification of such truck under PCT Heading---Such truck would be assessed under PCT Heading 8704.1000, but not under PCT Heading 8704.2100---Principles.\n \n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art. 189---Issue taken to Supreme Court and decided at such level---Such controversy deemed to have been laid to rest---Principles.\n \nOnce the issues are taken to the Apex Court and decided at that level, then the controversy must be deemed to have been laid to rest. Judgments of Supreme Court are binding on all the judicial and administrative forums in the country.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Applications Nos.178, 179 and 180 of 2006, decision dated: 1st February, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for the Applicant along with Zulfiqar Sarwar Khara, Appraisement Officer Customs.\nShah Muhammad, proprietor of Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI \nVS\nMESSRS ACHAK ENTERPRISES, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8224", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1049 = 2007 SLD 1049 = 2007 PTD 1618 = 2008 PTCL 151 = 2007 PTR 287", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 196 & 194-B---Appeal to High Court---Raising question of limitation---Scope---High Court would decide such question, if raised before Customs hierarchy. \n \n2005 PTD 78; Collector of Customs, E&ST and Sales Tax v. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. 2005 SCMR 1636 and Pakistan State Oil company Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and others 2006 SCMR 425 rel.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 32---Categories of cases falling under mischief of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 and limitation provided therefor stated.\n \nFor the purpose of limitation, cases falling under the mischief of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969, have been placed in two categories. Subsection (2) is to be read in conjunction with subsection 1(a) & (b) and it deals with the matters, where, by reason of some collusion, any duty or charge has not been levied or has been short levied or has been erroneously refunded. The period of limitation prescribed under this subsection in five years, which was earlier three years upto 30-6-2000. While in subsection (3), the period of limitation prescribed is three years, which was earlier six months upto 30-6-2000, and it covers those matters where by reason of any inadvertence, error or misconstruction, any duty or charge has not been levied or has been short levied or has been erroneously refunded. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 32(1)(2) & 106---Supply of High Speed. Diesel to Pakistan Navy---Collection of duty and taxes on such supplies by supplier, but its non-payment to department claiming such supplies to be duty free provisions and stores---Show-cause notice, dated 30-1-2002 alleging that such non-payment of duty by supplier was due to wrong interpretation of S.106 of Customs Act, 1969, and that supplier had since long hoodwinked department and succeeded in evading duty and taxes on a large number of consigmnents---Limitation---If such supplies were duty free provisions and stores admissible under S.106 of Customs Act, 1969, then supplier should not have collected duty and taxes from Pakistan Navy---Such allegations would bring impugned show-cause notice within scope of subsections (1) and (2) of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969, which provided three years' period of limitation at relevant time---Principles.\n \nPLD 1963 SC 322; PLD 1969 SC 187; PLD 1970 SC 80; PLD 2001 SC 38; 1984 MLD 562; 2000 PCTL 117; PLD 1999 Kar. 391; 2005 PTD 78; PLD 1986 Kar. 373; PLD 1990 338; 1999 CLC Kar. 520; 2005 PTD SC 1654; PLD 2000 SC 825; 2000 SCMR 678; Collector of Customs, E&ST and Sales Tax v. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. 2005 SCMR 1636 and Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and others 2006 SCMR 425 ref.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---S. 32---Substance of show-cause notice, if read as whole, would determine, whether same was issued under subsections (1) and (2) or under subsection (3) of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969. \n \n(e) Words and phrases---\n \n----\"\"Hoodwink\"\"---Meaning.\n \nOxford Dictionary ref.\n \n(f) Words and phrases---\n \n----\"\"Evade\"\"---Meaning.\n \nG The Oxford Dictionary ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(1)(2),106,194,196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Applications Nos.201 to 206 of 2006, decision dated: 20-03-2007", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SNEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Taha Ali Zai for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX (ADJUDICATIONII)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8225", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1050 = 2007 SLD 1050 = 2007 PTD 2215 = 2007 SCMR 1881 = 2008 PTCL 161 = (2007) 96 TAX 193", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.32---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Making untrue statement---Imposition of penalty---Order of Collector of Customs was assailed before High Court, which appeal was allowed and order imposing penalty under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 was set aside---Validity---Provision of S.32(1) of Customs Act, 1969, would be attracted only when- a mis-declaration or mis-statement was made with a view to obtain. illegal gain by evasion of payment of customs duty and. other taxes or by causing loss to Government revenue---Mis-declaration alleged to have been made in the case, was neither for evasion of payment of customs duty or other taxes/charges nor same had caused any financial loss to the Government---Petition far leave to appeal by the Authorities being without merit, was dismissed. \n \nKamran Industries v. The Collector of Customs (Exports), Karachi and 4 others PLD 1996 Kar. 68; Messrs Al-Hamd Edible Oil Limited and others v. Collector of Customs and others 2003 PTD 552; Pakistan v. Hardcastle PLD 1967 SC 101; Sikandar and Brothers v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1986 Kar. 3783 and Finest Corporation v. Collector of Customs PLD 1990 Kar. 338 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.330-K of 2004, decision dated: 14-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) and others\nVS\nMESSRS R.A. HOSIERY WORKS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8226", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1051 = 2007 SLD 1051 = 2007 PTD 2250 = 2008 PTCL 181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25C & 25---Take-over of imported goods under S.25C of the Customs Act, 1969--Scope---Unless it was established that under invoicing had been committed, the take over of imported goods under S.25C, Customs Act, 1969 could not be allowed---Under invoicing could only be established when resort to the provisions of S.25, Customs Act, 1969 was taken in order to ascertain the actual market value of the imported consignment. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 25C & 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Object and purpose of S.25C Customs Act, 1969---Take over of imported goods under S.25C of Customs Act, 1969---Procedure to be adopted by the Customs Authorities before taking-over the imported goods under S.25C Customs Act, 1969 and obligations of importer in such a situation, elaborated with illustrations by High Court.\n \nSection 25 of the Customs Act provides several steps for the purposes of determining customs value of imported goods. The customs value so determined is then treated as their transactional value and applicable rate of duty is computed on such value. While determining customs value, there is always a .chance that customs official may determine such value that might be substantially lower than the actual transactional value of the imported goods. In order to curb clearance of goods at under-invoiced value, section 25C has been incorporated in the Customs Act. Under section 25C, under-invoicing of imported goods can be detected with the aid of a third party. As a first step, section 25C allows a third party to make an offer to the Customs Authorities for purchase of the imported goods at a price which is substantially higher than the declared value. Upon receiving such offer, the matter is placed before the highest official of the Customs i.e. the Collector of Customs, who is to first satisfy himself that the declared value is not the actual transactional value. The satisfaction of the Collector of Customs precedes all other steps that are required to be taken under section 25C for the take over of the imported goods. Therefore, before any step for take-over of the imported goods mentioned in section 25C(1)(i)(ii)(iii), (2) and (3) is taken, the Collector of Customs has to satisfy himself as to the actual value of the imported goods. If he finds the actual value of the imported goods is higher than its declared value, only then he would take further steps provided for take-over of imported goods under section 25C (1)(i)(ii)(iii), (2) and (3) of the Customs Act. Mere getting a substantially high offer from a local purchaser without any finding as to the under invoicing of the imported goods, is not sufficient to set in motion the process of take-over under section 25C.\n \nIt is for this reason that the word \"\"satisfy\"\" appears in section 25C of the Customs Act. If the satisfaction of Collector of Customs as to the real transactional value is not treated as a condition precedent, then, it would be giving an altogether different, meaning to section 25C and permitting levy of customs duty at a value which a local buyer is willing to pay for the imported goods ignoring altogether the actual transactional value of the imported goods. Without under-invoicing being established, accepting an offer of a third party would amount to forced take-over of importer's goods without any fault on the part of the importer. Therefore, forced take-over of goods belonging to one by another can only be legitimate if it is established that the importer has under-invoiced his imports. Unless under-invoicing is determined by the Collector of Customs by resorting to the modes provided under Section 25, forced take-over of imported goods under section 25C cannot be justified on any principle of law. \n \nThe object of section 25C of the Customs Act can never be to allow take-over of goods of an honest importer by accepting a higher price for his goods but the object is to curb, the tendency of under invoicing by a dishonest importer. The right of an importer to clear his goods upon payment of duties and charges at the actual transactional value cannot be taken away merely because someone from 'the local market is prepared to buy his goods at a higher price than what is prevalent in the local market for the imported consignment. No importer should be penalized or deprived of his imports under section 25C when he has not committed under-invoicing and is seeking clearance of his goods at the actual transactional value. If the process of take over of importer's goods as provided in section 25C is set in motion without first determining their actual transactional value then it would lead to abuse of section 25C. Such abuse could be on the part of a local businessman who, on the basis of prevalent market conditions at the time of import, may be willing to offer a price that is substantially higher from the actual transactional value. This abuse could also be at the behest of a dishonest importer himself. An importer may value an imported item at US $ 1.00 in his Goods Declaration though the real import value is US $ 2.00. The importer then sets up a fake buyer and through him seeks take over of the goods under the provisions of section 25-C with an offer of US $ 1.50. If the Collector of Customs is not obliged to determine the actual transaction value then he is certainly going to consider the offer of US $ 1.50 to be substantially higher than the declared value of US $ 1.00. In this manner, the Collector of Customs would charge customs duty at the offered value of US $ 1.50 instead of the actual transactional value of US $ 2.00. Such a course would definitely deprive the exchequer customs duty on actual transaction value which is US $ 2.00. This short levy of duty can easily be prevented if the Collector of Customs first determines the transaction value of the imported goods under section 25 of the Customs Act before taking steps for their take-over under section 25C. \n \nIn the present case, before the Collector of Customs could have determined the actual transactional value, the petitioner (Importer) rushed to High Court to file the present petition. The Customs Authorities on their part had even issued notice to the petitioner seeking necessary information in order to ascertain transactional value but certain pertinent information, such as the origin of the imported goods, was not provided to the Customs Authorities. It is the duty of an importer to divulge all information with regard to his imports so that the Customs Authorities may proceed smoothly with their obligation to ascertain the actual transaction value. Withholding necessary information that solely rests with the importer or is within his exclusive reach would recoil aversely upon the intentions of an importer. The Customs Authorities are not expected to embark upon a roving inquiry in order to gather information for determining transactional value of the imported consignment when information like the name and address of the exporter, the payment made to the exporter and the mode of payment and/or any other information that is in possession of the importer or is within his exclusive reach is not divulged to the Customs Authorities to facilitate them in determining the real transactional value of the imported goods. In the present case the petitioner (Importer) failed to provide all information sought by the Customs Authorities vide their letter and rushed to file the present petition thereby leaving halfway the process of determining the actual transactional value of the imported goods. \n \nThe petitioner (Importer) instead of providing all necessary information as sought by the Customs Authorities vide their notice for determining transactional value of the imported goods, unduly rushed to High Court and filed the present constitutional petition. This constitutional petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.\n \nThe petitioner (Importer) was directed by the High Court to appear before the Collector of Customs and provide all requisite information, which is within his possession or is within his control with regard to the consignment in question: The Collector of Customs, after hearing the parties, shall determine the actual transactional value of the imported goods and in case he finds that petitioner committed under-invoicing or misdeclaration of goods he shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 19G9)---\n \n----Ss. 25C & 25---Take-over of imported goods under S.25C, Customs Act, 1969---Protection under intellectual property laws---Scope and effect---Object and purpose of S.25C of the Act being to curb the tendency of under-invoicing by a dishonest importer, irrespective of the fact whether imported goods were protected or not under the laws governing intellectual property, if an offer is received under S.25C, Customs Act, 1969 and pursuant thereof under-invoicing is detected then the imported goods would be subject to take-over under the provision of S.25C, Customs Act, 1969---Protection of imported goods under the intellectual property laws could not be used as a shield to resort to under-invoicing and deprive the exchequer of the customs duties and charges at the actual transaction value.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "C. P. No. D-2160 of 2006, decision dated: 20-07-2007, hearing DATE : 21st February, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nFAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Shafi Siddiqui for Petitioner.\nAqeel Ahmed Abbasi and M. Haseeb Jamali for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "KASHIF NASEEM\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8227", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1052 = 2007 SLD 1052 = 2007 PTD 2354 = 2008 PTCL 193 = 2008 SCMR 58 = (2008) 97 TAX 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Exemption from charge of customs duty---Counsel for petitioner had stated that High Court was not justified in holding that no difference or distinction could be made between the goods subjected to `zero duty' and `free duty' and referred to Notification No. S.R.O. 1050(I)/95 dated 29-10-1995 whereby Government levied further regulatory duty at the rate of 5 % and 10% ad valorem on import of certain goods---Wording of said Notification was very clear that a person could not be subjected to levy of regulatory duty, unless the goods imported by petitioner fell in the category of goods which were liable to be charged to customs duty, either at zero per cent or sixty per cent; and such goods would not include those goods which had been totally exempted from charge to duty or were to be imported duty free---Contentions advanced by the counsel for petitioner requiring deeper examination, it was deemed proper to grant leave, to examine said contentions---Leave to appeal was granted. \n \nMessrs Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs Circle Sheikhupura and another PLD 1988 SC 370 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 239-K of 2006, decision dated: 6-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Sheikh Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.\nRana M. Shamim, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1.\nNemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUS TRADING and CONTRACTING COMPANY, KARACHI\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8228", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1053 = 2007 SLD 1053 = 2007 PTD 1493 = 2008 PTCL 203", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 32---Non-acceptance of declared value of imported goods---Additional duties, demand of---Pendency of dispute before Customs Authorities---Release of goods---Scope---Goods by passage of time would lose its value and utility and become unprofitable by mounting of demurrage---Release of goods upon deposit of differential amount in shape of additional duties with Nazir of High Court would be appropriate, which amount would be paid to succeeding party upon final determination of dispute---High Court disposed of suit in such terms.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Suit No. 1367 and C.M.As. Nos. 7639 and 7944 of 2006 and C.M.As. Nos.1709 and 2194 of 2007, decision dated: 22-03-2007.", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Plaintiff.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal and Haider Iqbal Wahniwal for Defendants along with Chaudhry Fahed Ali, Assistant Collector and Ilyas Ahsan Khan, Appraising Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SALEEM\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8229", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1068 = 2008 SLD 1068 = 2008 PTCL 252 = 2008 PTD 337", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of imported goods---Petitioner imported goods and sought its clearance through G.D.---Department on the basis of Customs computerized data assessed and released the consignment by determining the transaction value under S.25(5) of Customs Act, 1969 after payment of adjudged customs duty and other taxes---Subsequently Directorate of Customs Valuation and P.C.A. vide its letter in question with respect to suo motu post importation check findings referred the matter for assessment purposes---Validity---Letter referred by the petitioner was only a communication of an information from Directorate of Valuation and P.C.A. addressed to Collector of Customs which spoke of a post importation check carried out by Directorate---That check was with regard to under-invoicing in, the import of filters on the basis of declared value in the original invoice and the evidential invoice---Such was the stage of initial inquiry by the Department---Letter in question was an internal communication and same had neither been sent to the petitioner nor was addressed to it---Filing of constitutional petition on the basis of such a letter was not correct---Constitutional petition, in circumstances was premature and there was no order in the field causing any prejudice to the petitioner---Constitutional petition being premature was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.12009 of 2007, heard on 10-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KH. FAROOQ SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abid Ahmad for Appellant.\nRana Abdul Hamid Addl. A.G. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS GUL INDUSTRIAL CONCERN THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, AT CUSTOMS CUSTOMS HOUSE AND ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8230", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1069 = 2008 SLD 1069 = 2008 PTCL 488 = 2008 PTD 1394", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.201, 16, 168 & 169---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 523 & 550---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. i99-Constitutional petition---Confiscation of vehicle---Sale of vehicle through auction---Vehicle in question, on suspicion of having been involved in the commission of offence, was detained and confiscated---Petitioner, who claimed legal import of vehicle, requested for its release on payment of duty and taxes, which was accepted and release of vehicle was ordered on payment of redemption fine and duty and taxes leviable---Customs Department, during that period, had already auctioned the vehicle, which offended the petitioner who filed constitutional petition---Petitioner had alleged that vehicle was auctioned in undue haste and that no notice was given to the petitioner before said auction---Customs Department denied said allegations and urged that a notice under S.201 of Customs Act, 1969 was given to petitioner through. registered post---Evidences on record had established that notice under S.201 of the Customs Act, 1969 was given to the petitioner regarding sale/auction of vehicle---Customs Department, in circumstances, could not be held to have violated any provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Constitutional petition was dismissed, however as petitioner was allowed to redeem the vehicle on payment of redemption fine, in addition to duty and taxes leviable thereon, he was entitled to receive the sale proceeds from the department in accordance with law.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1169 of 2007, decision dated: 17-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SAEED MAROOF KHAN, JUSTICE\nZIA-UD-DIN KHATTAK, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Petitioner in person.\nZubair Shah, Assistant Collector, Customs (Auctions)/Respondent No. 4 as well as Muhammad Jamil, Law Officer, Customs Department in person", + "Petitioner Name:": "BACHAUDDIN\nVS\nGOVERNMENT THROUGH COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8231", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1070 = 2008 SLD 1070 = 2008 PTCL 582 = 2008 PTD 1659", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(1)(14)(82) & 185-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Quashing of proceedings---Special criminal revision application---Deputy Attorney General stated that for the same offence, the case was challaned at three 'forums; Customs Court; Banking Court; and Commercial Court and that the right forum was the Commercial Court---Validity---No government revenue was involved in the case---Applicant had not cheated the government or had caused any loss to the government---Offence allegedly committed by applicant, had caused loss to the reputation of Pakistan business community for which he was challenged at a proper forum which would dispose of the matter on merits---Case relied upon by Deputy Attorney General, was against same applicant who was challaned in Banking Court for the same offence and the High Court had quashed the proceedings pending in the Banking Court---In view of the finding given by High Court against the same applicant in respect of same incident, proceedings pending before the Customs Court, were quashed-Proceedings in Commercial Court would continue and would be disposed of on merits. \n \nMuhammad Hashim v. Presiding Officer Special Banking Court (Offence in Banks), Sindh at Karachi and 7 others 2006 PCr.LJ 1886 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Special Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2008, decision dated: 3rd July, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Muhammad Kazim for Petitioner.\nImran Ahmed, DAG along with Mr. Khalid Nawaz Khan Marwat, Federal Counsel.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD HASHIM\nVS\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8232", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 1071 = 2008 SLD 1071 = 2008 PTCL 586 = 2008 PTD 1638", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(1)(8)(89) & 157---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional. petition---Illeged export---Confiscation of trucks---Show-cause notice was issued to petitioners on allegation that they being proprietors of International Customs Agency, managed illegal export---Petitioners duly submitted replies to said show-cause notice---Additional Collector Customs, by impugned order, confiscated Trucks of petitioners under S. 157 of Customs Act, 1969 and penalties of Rs.2,00,000 each were also imposed---Appeal filed by the petitioners against such confiscation and imposition of penalties was sub judice---Said appeal was pending before Collector Appeals Customs, who had also issued stay order, which was turned down by the Assistant Collector State Warehouse for no obvious reason---Assistant Collector State Warehouse and Additional Collector Customs were directed by High Court to stop the auction proceedings in respect of confiscated Trucks; and if the auction proceedings had taken place, they were further directed not to dispose of the Trucks till the disposal of appeal pending before the Collector Appeals Customs--Collector Customs was directed to dispose of the appeal within specified period.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 690 of 2007, decision dated: 4-05-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD QAIM, JAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nJEHANZAIB RAHIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Issac Ali Qazi for Petitioners.", + "Petitioner Name:": "TILA MUHAMMAD and others\nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and 4 others ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8233", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 692 = 2009 SLD 692 = 2009 PTCL 200 = 2009 PTD 63 = 2009 SCMR 218 = (2009) 99 TAX 89", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1JpND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 32(1), 180 & 168---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (IX of 1950), S.3(1)---Drugs Control Act (XXXI of 1976), Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Seizure of goods---Show-cause notice---Goods on importation were lying at the dry port area pending clearance without any seizure having been effected, and the matter of the imported goods being banned for import in the country was being inquired into---Goods were formally seized after providing enough opportunity to the importer to submit the proof of import authorization, even the agency on whose behalf the importer claimed to have imported the goods, did not respond to the query made by the Customs authorities despite lapse of 1-1/2 months---Importer was accordingly issued a show-cause notice after effecting formal seizure of the goods but no satisfactory reply was received from the importer---Show-cause notice issued to the importer, in circumstances, was within time---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 32(1), 168 & 180---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Import of banned injections---Seizure of goods---Show-cause notice---Report from Health Ministry was, available on the record to show that the goods, so imported by the importer, were not only unregistered but banned in Pakistan since 2006 on account of causing adverse effects to human beings--Effect---Drugs in question having adverse effect on human health and being already banned in the country could, in no case, be released or returned---Contention raised by the petitioner (importer) having sufficiently been discussed and properly dealt with by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court in a legal and valid manner, petition for leave to appeal against the of the High Court was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32(1),180,168Drugs Act, 1976=PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3(10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1116 of 2008, decision dated: 18-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Manzoor Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AHMED BROTHER TRADE INTERNATIONAL, GILGIT \nVS\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, RAWALPINDI/ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8234", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 711 = 2006 SLD 711 = 2006 PTD 253 = 2006 SCMR 63 = 2006 PTCL 325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(1), Cls.(9) & (14); 16 & 32---Customs Appraisement Manual, Chap.15, C1.(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Correctness of weight of the exportable consignment---Determination---Duty of Customs authorities---Customs authorities were required to check/examine 10% of the said consignment even if the representatives of the exporters had not raised any objection to the examination of only one carton/packet out of large number of cartons/packets containing the goods/consignment for export---Where the Customs authorities checked/ examined only one packet/carton out of large number of packets, they could not claim that the exporters were estopped or precluded from objecting to the legality or otherwise of the examination and challenge the report of the Appraising/Examining Officer on the basis of such examination/ appraisement---By checking/examining just one out of large number of packets/cartons of goods to be exported, officers of the Customs Department had acted illegally and in violation of the Customs Appraisement Manual and the Standing Orders issued by the Central Board of Revenue---Such act of the Customs authorities had rendered examination of the consignments as illegal, improper and of no binding effect---Order of the Customs authorities, on the basis of reports of such examination of the consignments holding the exporters guilty of offences under Ss.16 & 32, Customs Act, 1969 and imposition of penalties under cls.9/14 of S.156(1) of the Act was also without lawful authority and of no legal consequence---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos.541-K to 543-K of 2004, decision dated: 20-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, JUSTICE\nSAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in all Petitions).\nNemo for Respondents (in all Petitions).", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS)\nVS\nMESSRS ERUM INTERNATIONAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8235", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 750 = 2010 SLD 750 = 2010 PTCL 303 = 2010 PTD 1024", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.194-C & 196---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.2(1), 46 & 47(1)-- Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), Ss 2(3) & 34(2)(3)---Federal Excise Rules, 2005, R.51---Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2006, R.2(1)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional Petition---Appeal to Customs, Excise & Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal---Marking of appeal by Registrar directly to a single Member of Tribunal under some administrative arrangement without its initial entrustment by Chairman to a Bench of two Members comprising such single Member---Decision of appeal by single Member of Tribunal challenged through reference application/appeal before High Court---Validity---Where case was initially entrusted by Chairman to a Bench of Two Members, but same after being part-heard could not be decided by such Bench due to certain circumstances, then Chairman keeping in view expediency and exigency of case could entrust same to single Member of same Bench---Such authority of Chairman was not a routine, incidental and ministerial in nature, but was dependant upon due application of mind to question as to which case should be allotted to a single Member Judicial or Technical on account of its nature and question involved therein---Where an authority had been conferred upon a particular person, then same had to be exercised by him alone and could not be further delegated---Such authority of Chairman could not be delegated to Registrar either at the time of institution of case or during its pendency---Question of exercise of such authority and jurisdiction by Chairman could not be equated with mere a procedural or substantial compliance rule---Impugned order passed by such single Member in matter falling either within purview of Customs Act, 1969, Sales Tax Act, 1990 or Federal Excise Act, 2005 could not sustain for error of jurisdiction---Question of lack of jurisdiction had not been raised before such single Member, thus, no question of law arose out of impugned order and High Court could not set aside same in exercise of its jurisdiction under special law---High Court converted reference/Appeal into constitutional petition and set aside impugned order for being without jurisdiction---Principles.\n \nAzad Jammu and Kashmir Logging and Saw Mills Corporation through Chairman and Managing Director v. Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax Muzaffarabad and another 2005 PTD 1998; Collector of Customs, E. and Sales Tax v. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. 2005 PTD 2446; Dar Okaz Printing and Publishing Limited Liability Company v. Printing Corporation of Pakistan Private Limited PLD 2003 SC 808; The State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209; Messrs Nishat Mills Limited v. Superintendent of Central Excise Circle II and 3 others PLD 1989 SC 222; Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of PACCS, Karachi v. Muzammil Ahmad 2009 PTD 266; Messrs Rahim Electric Store, Faisalabad v. Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad 2003 PTD 187; Abdul Ghaffar Lakhani v. Federal Government of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1986 Kar. 525 and James Patrik and Co. Proprietary Ltd. v. Decie Ethel Sharpe PLD 1955 PC 82 ref.\n \nStatutory Interpretation by Cross 15, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Logging and Saw Mills Corporation through and Managing Director v. Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax Muzaffarabad and another 2005 PTD 1998; Collector of Customs, E. and Sales Tax v. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. 2005 PTD 2446; Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of PACCS, Karachi v. Muzammil Ahmad 2009 PTD 266; Abdul Ghaffar Lakhani v. Federal Government of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1986 Kar. 525 and James Patrik and Co. Proprietary Ltd. v. Decie Ethel Sharpe PLD 1955 PC 82 rel.\n \n(b) Jurisdiction---\n \n---Where an authority has been conferred upon a particular person/officer, then same has to be exercised by him alone and cannot be further delegated. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.196(1)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.47(1)---Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S.34(3)--- Reference/appeal to High Court against order of Appellate Tribunal---Scope---Only Question of law arising out of impugned order could be raised before High Court---Such legal question, be that of jurisdiction either of forums below in departmental hierarchy or Tribunal itself, must be agitated before such forum and on account of analyzing, same must emerge for determination, but if not, then same could not be termed as question of law arising out of impugned order---In references/appeals under special law, no collateral attack to order of Tribunal could be made even if based upon lack of jurisdiction---Principles. \n \nAzad Jammu and Kashmir Logging and Saw Mills Corporation through and Managing Director v. Collector Central Excise and Sales Tax Muzaffarabad and another 2005 PTD 1998; Collector of Customs, E. and Sales Tax v. Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. 2005 PTD 2446; Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of PACCS., Karachi v. Muzammil Ahmad 2009 PTD 266 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos.12, 13 of 2005, Custom References Nos. 1, 14, 16, 20. 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 51, 65, 71, 78, 79 of 2009, decision dated: 24-12-2009. dates of hearing: 10th and 14-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE\nIQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS and EXCISE), FAISALABAD and anothers\nVS \nBAGH ALI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8236", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 751 = 2010 SLD 751 = 2010 PTCL 726 = 2010 PTD 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.196---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.3---Review of ---Scope---Petitioner sought review of the passed by High Court on the ground that he was not served with the notice fixing date of hearing---Validity---Review application which was filed in High Court in sales tax proceedings was not maintainable as Sales Tax Act, 1990, did not make provision giving jurisdiction to High Court to review its own order---Similar was the position in respect of Customs Act, 1969, and petitioner failed to show that there was any provision under which High Court could review its own order exercising jurisdiction under Customs Act, 1969---Review application was dismissed in circumstances. \n \nMst. Nigar Bibi v. Salahuddin Khan and others PLD 1990 SC 76 and Collector of Sales Tax East, Karachi v. Custom Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal 2003 PTD 1477 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "C.M.As. Nos.1080, 2108 and 2109 of 2009 in Customs Reference No.237 of 2006, decision dated: 23rd October, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SADAAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousaf Iqbal for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MAROOF OIL COMPANY THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8237", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 752 = 2010 SLD 752 = 2010 PTCL 841 = 2010 PTD 313 = 2010 SCMR 164", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 196---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Imported goods--- Description---Scope---Grievance of importer was that goods imported fell within PTC Heading 8419.5090 chargeable to customs duty at 10% but authorities applied PTC Heading 8419.5010 and charged customs duty at the rate of 35%---Validity---Goods imported were shaped like \"\"Shell\"\" as well as \"\"Tube\"\", therefore, it did not appeal ,to a prudent mind to take the same out from description \"\"Shell or Tube type\"\" and put under description \"\"other\"\" not akin to relevant description---Adjudicating officer had correctly classified imported goods chargeable under PCT Heading 8419.5010, so also the Customs Appellate Tribunal---High Court rightly dismissed appeal and reference of importer---Concurrent findings recorded by courts below were unexceptionable-Leave to appeal was refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.906 of 2009, decision dated: 28-07-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JUSTICE\nGHULAM RABBANI, JUSTICE\nSARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LIMITED \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISEMENT), CUSTOMS HOUSE KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8238", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 753 = 2010 SLD 753 = 2010 PTCL 1007 = 2010 PTD 438", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.19---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.13---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S.12-B---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 247(3)---Constitutional petition---Levy and collection of federal excise and regulatory duty---Exemption of Tribal Areas---Counsel for the petitioner had contended that where the manufacturing units of the' petitioners were located in the tribal areas, anything imported from abroad for their consumption, could not be subjected to the levy of regulatory or excise duty, so long as, the laws imposing such levy, were not extended to such areas---Contention of counsel for department was that since the taxable event for the purposes of Excise Act, 1944, Customs Act, 1969 or Sales Tax, 1990 was import of goods into Pakistan, it was immaterial, whether any of those enactments had been extended to the Tribal Areas or not---Validity---Whether it was regulatory duty, excise duty or sales tax, the taxable event for the purposes of Excise Act, 1944, Customs Act, 1969 or Sales Tax Act, 1990 or S. R. Os. issued thereunder, was import of goods into Pakistan--Once the goods were imported into Pakistan, they were liable to be (axed under said Acts or the S. R. Os. issued thereunder regardless altogether of the fact that those had been imported for being transported to or consumed in an area where neither of the said enactments or S.R.Os. issued thereunder were applicable---Neither Central Excise Act, 1944 nor the amendments made in the Customs Act, 1969 nor the Sales Tax Act, 1990 including the S.R.Os. issued under those Acts had been extended to the Tribal Areas; but it would be absolutely insignificant when the legislature in its wisdom, had made the levy contingent only upon the import of goods, which had nothing to do with their onward transmission to an area whether settled or tribal---Argument that where none of the said Acts or the S.R.Os. issued thereunder had been extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas or Federally Administered Tribal Area in the terms of Article 247(3) of the Constitution, the department had no authority to levy the duty, was not tenable; it was all the more untenable, when the incidence of levy was independent of all the subsequent events---Import of goods being within the regime of said Acts, could not be exempted from the levy---Levy and collection 'being two different events, levy would become a fait accompli on the arrival of the goods at the seaport notwithstanding the collection was done at a different stage or place. \n \nMessrs Gul Cooking Oil v. Government of Pakistan and others 2002 PTD 2079; Messrs Master Foam (Pvt.) Ltd. and 7 others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2005 SC 373; Messrs Shroof and Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 1989 Supp (1) SCC 347 and N.B. Sanjana v. Eliphinstone Spinning and Waving Mills AIR 1971 SC 2039 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1134, 1191, 1208, 1239, 1246, 1617 of 2004, 5, 6, 157, 158 of 2005, 50, 51, 223, 844, 854 of 2006 and 1049 of 2007, decision dated: 18-12-2009", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE\nABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1134, 1191, 1208, 1239, 1246, 1617 of 2004, 5, 6, 157, 158 of 2005, 50, 51, 223, 844, \nIsacc Ali Qazi for Petitioners.\nIqbal Mohmand, Dy. A.G. for Respondents Nos.1, 2.\nEid Muhammad Wahallah for Respondent No. 6.\nRaja Muhammad Irshad, S. Muhammad Ghazi, Ozair Kirmat Bandari, Shamshad Ali Cheema, Muhammad Hamayun Khan along with Muhammad Jamil, Law Officer for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, 7 to 10", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS LAL GHEE OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE \nVS\nPAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE and ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD and 9 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8239", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 754 = 2010 SLD 754 = 2010 PTD 2006 = 2010 SCMR 1746 = 2011 PTCL 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5ST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.196---Finance Act (IV of 2007), S.8(25)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether Director-General, Intelligence and Investigation, Federal Bureau of Revenue was covered by expression \"\"aggrieved person\"\" under S.196 of Customs Act, 1969, prior to its amendment vide S.8(25) of Finance Act, 2007 made applicable from 1-7-2007. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.196---Finance Act (IV of 2007), S.8(25)---Reference applications before High Court---Scope---Reference applications filed by Director-General Intelligence and Investigation, FBR were dismissed by High Court as incompetently filed---Validity---Reference applications were filed in March/April, 2007, i.e. prior to 1-7-2007, when S.196 of Customs Act, 1969 was amended by Finance Act, 2007 with effect from 1-7-2007, authorizing appellants etc. to file Reference applications before High Court---Prior to the amendment, Director and Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation, FBR etc. had no power to institute Reference applications in S.196 of Customs Act, 1969---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the passed by High Court, whereby appeals of appellants were dismissed as incompetent and invalidly filed---Appeal was dismissed. \n \nDirector, Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation and others v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt.) Limited and others 2006 SCMR 129 and Director, Directorate-General of Intelligence and Investigation, Customs and Excise, Karachi and Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi and others 2004 PTD 2987 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 768 to 788 of 2009, decision dated: 15-07-2010, hearing DATE : 11-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JUSTICE\nTARIQ PERVAIZ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (in all cases) for Appellants.\nMuhammad Naeem Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sajjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in all cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "Director General, INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATIONFBR, THROUGH DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION, FBR, ISLAMABAD\nVS \nSHER ANDAZ and 2 OTHERS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8240", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 755 = 2010 SLD 755 = 2010 PTD 1394 = 2011 PTCL 16", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 202 & 215---Issuance of warrant of attachment for recovery of taxes, duties or penalties---Cause or ground of such demand neither mentioned in warrant nor first confronted to assessee---Validity---No recovery could be effected on basis of such warrant for not being a valid demand---Illustration.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=202", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7242 of 2010, decision dated: 13-04-2010", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAK STAR INTERNATIONAL THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8241", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 756 = 2010 SLD 756 = 2010 PTD 2101 = 2011 PTCL 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 32 (3)---S. R. O., 333(I)/2002, dated 15-6-2002---S. R. O. 477(I)/2003, dated 7-6-2003--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Constitutional petition---Customs tariff, misprinted rates---Correction---Retrospective effect---Scope---Discretion, exercise of---Grievance of petitioners was that Customs authorities could not demand short levied Central Excise Duty on the ground that rates were misprinted in tariff---Validity---There was lot of difference between short levied or not levied and misprinting, while misprinting could be a mistake clerical or otherwise---Customs authorities at their own did not have inquired into the matter as to how misprinting had occurred in relevant notifications at the relevant place nor it intended to do so in future, therefore, petitioners were not solely responsible for the omission---Petitioners were not alleged to have managed to get their material released stealthily---Petitioners had sold out their material and then it was impossible to charge such duty from those who had earlier purchased the consignments---Clarification issued by Federal Board of Revenue could be made effective prospectively and not with retrospective effect, therefore, High Court granted discretionary relief to petitioners who chose one of the two or more alternatives, all of which were lawful---High Court observed it would not be a proper exercise of discretion to refuse relief to a party to which it was entitled under the law---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, declared that recovery notices were issued to petitioners were without any basis and the same were set aside---Petition was allowed in circumstances. \n \n1997 SC 503; 1992 SCMR 1652; PLD 1997 SC 582 and 1999 SCMR 139 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 12818 of 2004, heard on 1st April, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners.\nCh. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS A.A. BROTHERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (REVENUE DIVISION), ISLAMABAD and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8242", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 757 = 2010 SLD 757 = 2010 PTD 2036 = 2011 PTCL 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5OD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Demand of tax by authority on ground of non-applicability of exemption notification to goods imported by petitioner---Validity---Authority had not issued show cause to petitioner before raising such demand, thus, he had no occasion to avail remedy of appeal before Tribunal---Petitioner had sought determination of fiscal rights on substantial question of law to be arrived at upon interpretation of impugned notification---Constitutional petition was maintainable in circumstances. \n \nMessrs Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer, Circle XVIII South Zone, Karachi and others 1992 PTD 1; Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Limited, Chittagong v. Sales Tax Officer, Chittagong PLD 1971 SC 205 and Messrs Kamran Industries v. The Collector of Customs (Exports) and 4 others PLD 1996 Kar. 68 rel.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.4(c)---S. R. O. 509(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---Import of Artificial Filament Cellulose Acetate Tow (AFCAT) for manufacturing of cigarette filter rods---Importer claimed exemption from tax on basis of S.R.O. 509(1)/2007 for such goods to be falling in PCT Heading. 5502.0090---Refusal of authority to accept such claim on ground that such exemption applied to textile and articles thereof and not to AFCAT to be used exclusive in manufacturing of cigarette filter rods---Validity---Terms \"\"Textile and articles thereof\"\" used in such Notification were not conditioned by purpose of its use or use by any sector or industry, but only condition placed for application thereof was that same should be falling under PCT heading provided in Chaps. 50 to 63 and other respective headings---Factum of importing AFCAT by petitioner for last ten years by without demand and payment of tax and AFCAT being a textile and falling in PCT Heading 5502-0090 was not disputed by authority---Petitioner could not be deprived of benefit of such notification merely on imagining or reading words, which were not written therein---Interpretation given to such notification by C.B.R. and authority seemed to be based upon purpose and use of AFACT than its nature as basis of its classification---AFCAT being clearly textile and falling PCT heading, thus, was covered by such notification and petitioner was entitled to its benefit---High Court accepted constitutional petition in circumstances.\n \nCommissioner of Income Tax, Companies-II and another v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf), Karachi PLD 1992 SC 847; Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Mardan v. Al Razad Synthetic (Pvt.) Ltd 1998 SCMR 2514;, Noor Elahi and others v. Member Board of Revenue and others 2003 SCMR 1045; Collector of Customs, Lahore and others v. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another 2005 SCMR 37; Khan Trading Company, Gujranwala v. Collector of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (Adjudication), Lahore 2002 CLC 705; Messrs Sargodha Jute Mills Limited through Director v. Additional Collector-II, (Adjudication), Collectorate of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Lahore and another 2006 PTD 515; Muhammad Iqbal Siddiqui v. Province of Sindh, Ministry of Food and Cooperation through Secretary and others 2007 YLR 1457; Messrs Sui Southern Gas Company v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2002 PTD 150; Messrs Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer, Circle-XVIII South Zone, Karachi and others 1992 PTD 1; Messrs Usmania Glass Sheet Factory Limited, Chittagong v. Sales Tax Officer, Chittagong PLD 1971 SC 205; Pakistan Tobacoo Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others 1991 PTD 359; Messrs Ahmed Abdul Ghani Textile Mills v. Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and 2 others 1990 CLC 493; Messrs Razzak Industries Employees Union (C.B.A.) v. Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and another (1986 PLC 109); Messrs Kamran Industries v. The Collector of Customs (Exports) 11th Floor, Customs House, Karachi and 4 others PLD 1996 Kar. 68; Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan and 11 others PLD 1970 SC 453; Messrs Radaka Corporation and others v. Collector of Customs and another 1989 SCMR 353; Messrs Nizamuddin Faridul Haq v. The Collector of Customs, (Appraisement), Karachi and 2 others PLD 1994 Kar. 480; Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others v. Sheikh Spinning Mills Limited, Lahore and others 1999 SCMR 1442; Messrs Ihsan Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others 2006 PTD 2209; Ghandhara Nissan Diesel Ltd., Karachi v. Collector of Customs Appraisement, Karachi and another 2006 PTD 2030; Messrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others 1993 SCMR 1232; Messrs Swadeshi Ploytex Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (1990) 2 SC 358; Messrs Bombay Chemical Private Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-1, Bombay AIR 1995 SC 1469; Hansraj Gordhandas v. H. H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat and others AIR 1970 SC 755 and Messrs Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. v. Collector of Central Excise AIR 1997 SC 3620 ref.\n \n(c) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Taxing statute---Words used in a statute including taxing statute---Meanings to be assigned to such words---Principles.\n \nThe words are to be taken in -their literal meaning, and plain, ordinary and natural meanings are to be assigned to them, and same principle will also be applicable to the taxing statute, unless the plain, ordinary and natural meaning does not make sense, then resort has to be made to discover the intent and meaning of the word used in the statute. \n \nMessrs Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Circle Sheikhupura and another PLD 1988 SC 370 and Government of Pakistan and others v. Messrs Hashwani Hotel Ltd. PLD 1990 S 68 rel.\n \n(d) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Fiscal statute---Language of such statute must not be stained to tax a transaction not allowed by legislature to be taxed---Principles.\n \nThe language of the statute must not be stained to tax the transaction, which otherwise the legislature has not allowed to be taxed as there is no room for any intendment, there is no equity about a tax, there is no presumption as to tax, nothing is to be read and nothing is to be implied, but one can only look fairly at the language used. \n \nMessrs Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Circle Sheikhupura and another PLD 1988 SC 370 and Government of Pakistan and others v. Messrs Hashwani Hotel Ltd. PLD 1090 S 68 rel.\n \n(e) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Fiscal statute---Exemption notification would be construed strictly at point of entry, but liberally once goods found to be falling in any category thereof.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=4", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 252 of 2009, heard on 9-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yousuf Sayeed for Petitioner.\nZain A. Jatoi for Respondent No. 1.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "FILTERS PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED \nVS\nFEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH MEMBER CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8243", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 957 = 2011 SLD 957 = 2011 PTCL 767 = 2011 PTD 683 = (2011) 103 TAX 252", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1J5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Words and phrases---\n \n----\"\"'Demurrage\"\"-Import, object and scope-Demurrage' refers to the amount payable to port authorities by importer or consignee for any delay in removing imported goods from port after expiry of initial period of \"\"free days\"\" i.e. the period for which no demurrage is charged-Rationale for charge and reason why essentially punitive rates are charged is that space at the port is at a premium---Cargo is constantly being moved and space is required as goods are continuously off-loaded and on-loaded ships. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 195---Customs Rules, 2001, R. 556---Constitution of Pakistan Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Demurrage, charging of---Delay due to official proceeding---Goods imported by petitioner were not allowed to be released as the authorities alleged the same contaminated with certain prohibited items---After retesting the goods by two separate laboratories, High Court directed the authorities to release the goods---During the entire period, the goods remained at container terminal of the Port and demurrage charges continued to accumulate in respect thereof---Plea raised by petitioner was that as action taken by Customs authorities was withdrawn, therefore, it was entitled to complete waiver of demurrage charges---Validity---Firstly the terminal operator must determine the amount of concession to which importer/consignee was entitled, so as to remove any \"\"hardship\"\" caused on account of demurrage or port charges, which must be reduced to no more than the value of goods---Once amount of concession was determined, imported goods were to be released forthwith without payment by importer/ consignee of reduced amount---Terminal operator must then refer the mutter to Collector of Customs concerned, who must satisfy himself that Terminal operator had correctly given concession---Once the amount was certified by Collector, the Terminal operator would be entitled to its payment by Federal Government or its adjustment against any fiscal demand upon Terminal operator under any federal law---If Terminal operator was dissatisfied with the amount certified by Collector, it could seek appropriate relief from Federal Board of. Revenue under S. 195 of Customs Act, 1969, and/or to pursue other remedies as might be available to it under law---High Court directed the Port authorities to re-compute amount of concession to which petitioner was entitled---Once the amount was re-computed and importer had paid the amount of demurrage charges for relevant period, its goods should be released forthwith---Petition was disposed of accordingly. \n \nAftab Ahmed Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 CLC 2022; NLR 1991 Civil 372; Adam Holding Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, Customs 1994 CLC 1198; Lone Traders v. General Manager Pakistan Railways and others 2006 PTD 1851 and Super Metal Traders v. General Manager Pakistan Railways and others 2006 PTD 2500 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=195Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Customs Rules, 2001=556", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-2140 of 2010, decision dated: 24-12-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mehmood ul Hassan for Petitioner.\nHasan Akbar for Respondent No. 4.\nSyed Tariq Ali, Federal Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS A. R. AUTOS THROUGH MUZZAFAR DIN SHAIKH, KARACHI\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and anothers" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8244", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 958 = 2011 SLD 958 = 2011 PTCL 863 = 2011 PTD 1433", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 2(s) & 16---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 517 & 524---Vehicle purchased in public auction held under Ss. 517 and 524, Cr.P.C., and issuance of auction certificate by District Officer (Revenue)---Seizure and confiscation of such vehicle by Customs authorities despite production of auction certificate by its purchaser on ground that same was not recorded as legally imported in Customs Data Bank of Imported vehicles---Order-in-original upheld by Appellate Authority was set aside by Tribunal while relying upon of Supreme Court delivered in CPSLA No. 4020-L of 2001 titled Province of Punjab v. Arshad Mahmood---High Court dismissed reference application filed by Revenue.\n Zahidullah v. Secretary Mines 2007 YLR 1920 ref.\nProvince of Punjab v. Arshad Mahmood C.P.L.A. No.4020-L of 2001 rel.\nCh. Muhammad Ashraf v. Deputy Superintendent Anti-Smuggling Squad PLD 1977 Lah. 300 not fol.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.27 of 2010, decision dated: 15-03-2011, hearing DATE : 14-02-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SHAH, JAHAN KHAN, JUSTICE\nYAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Moin-ud-Din Hamayun for Petitioner.\nIsaq Ali Qazi for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR \nVS\nDAULAT KHAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8245", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 959 = 2011 SLD 959 = (2011) 104 TAX 361 = 2011 PTCL 172 = 2011 PTD 2175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 29, 79 & 88(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Refund claim after five months of clearance of goods---Importer's plea that value of imported goods declared in Bill of Entry on higher side was due to error of supplier, thus, he had inadvertently paid higher duties than what was actually due from him---Refusal of Customs authorities to accept such claim---Validity---Amendment of Bill of Entry was permissible under S. 88(5) of Customs Act, 1969 before completion of warehousing but not after clearance of goods---Importer, in the present case, had not only removed/cleared goods, but had consumed major portion thereof---Whether imported goods were software or not, was a matter of inquiry and finding of fact---Whether incorrect description of goods given in Bill of Entry was due to importer's inadvertence or mistake of supplier, was a question of fact and matter of record---High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, could not decide such questions of fact---Refund claim was hit by provision of S. 29 of Customs Act, 1969---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.\n \nPIDC v. Federation of Pakistan 2003 PTD 2241; Shahtaj Sugar Mills v. Addl. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan 2009 SCMR 1421; Ghulam Abbas v. C.B.R. 1994 CLC 1612; Pfizer Lab. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 64; H. Shiekh Nooruddin and Sons Ltd. v. C.B.R. PLD 1989 Kar. 601; Messrs Baba Khan v. Collector of Customs 2000 SCMR 678; 2002 PTD 1122 and Government of Pakistan and others v. Sandoz Pakistan Ltd. 2006 SCMR 1403 rel.\n \nH. Shiekh Nooruddin and Sons Ltd. v. C.B.R. PLD 1989 Kar. 601 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=29", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-1396 and D-1397 of 1995, decision dated: 5-04-2011, hearing DATE : 10-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tanveer Ashraf for Petitioner.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION THROUGH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER BLT (SOUTH), KARACHI \nVS \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FINANCE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8246", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 960 = 2011 SLD 960 = (2011) 104 TAX 230 = 2011 PTD 2839 = 2012 PTCL 250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 13(3)(4) & 193---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr.239, 240, 345(2) & 356--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Licence for private bonded warehouse of the petitioner company, was cancelled after expiry of its period by authorities---Petitioner, pending appeal against order of cancellation of licence, moved application for removal of goods under R.356 of Customs, Rules, 2001 but authorities refused to grant the same without Bank guarantee---Validity--- Under provisions of S.13(3) of Customs Act, 1969, Collector of Customs, no doubt enjoyed the power for cancellation of licence for infringement of any condition laid down in the licence; or in case of any violation of any provision of the Customs Act, 1969, or any rule framed thereunder, but there was a provision that cancellation could be done after providing opportunity of show-cause notice to the licencee against the proposed cancellation---Suspension of licence was regulated under S.13(4) of Customs Act, 1969, which had provided that the Collector had the power to suspend the licence in case the proceedings were pending under S.13(3) of Customs Act, but no said proceedings for cancellation were pending against the petitioner under S.13(3) of Customs Act, 1969---Impugned order had shown that no reasons had been given about the suspension of the licence---Every functionary of the government was duty bound to act strictly in accordance with law and not in arbitrary or perfunctory manner---Goods available in the bonded warehouse were perishable and an illegal act or delay in disposal of such goods, could cause financial loss to the petitioner---Petitioner, no doubt was bound to adhere to law and in case any violation had been committed, authorities were within their jurisdiction to initiate action, but such action should not be beyond law---Impugned suspension order had shown that it was without reasons and it seemed that the Collector while passing the order had not applied his mind---Order in question was set aside by High Court and was declared to be without lawful authority.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 100---Customs Rules, 2001, R.356---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of goods from one warehousing station to another---Imposition of condition of furnishing bank guarantee by department---Validity---Under provisions of S.100 of Customs Act, 1969, if the owner intended to transfer any goods from the warehouse he had to apply to the Collector of Customs and the Collector could permit said transfer in such form and manner as the bond could prescribe---Petitioner, in the present case did not request for ex-bonding the goods, but only asked for stacking in-bond goods to another bonded warehouse on same terms and conditions, which were applicable to the present bond---Reasons for transferring the goods to other bonded house were evident, as the operation of the wharehouse had been suspended---Petitioner having not asked for ex-bonding the goods, duties/taxes would not be leviable for such transfer---Duties and taxes leviable, would be payable when the goods were requested to be ex-bonded as per terms of import or in-bonding---Petitioner was not manufacturer and not intended to export the goods sought to be transferred--- Goods were only finished goods saleable at Duty Free Shops and petitioner was liable to pay duty and taxes according to ex-bonding procedure---Rule 356(1) of Customs Rules, 2001 was applicable to petitioner's case as the goods were not in the process of ex-bonding, nor were in the process of sale, and the Collector could allow said transfer against indemnity bond as per Appendix-VII---Deputy Collector (Bonds) had misinterpreted the law while imposing the condition of bank guarantee for refusing to transfer of goods from one wherehouse to another bond---Appeal against order-in-original being pending disposal before competent forum, High Court could not interfere in the appellate jurisdiction of the department.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=13", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.13486 of 2011, decision dated: 22-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shezada Mazhar for Petitioner.\nSarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SUGI (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DULY AUTHORIZED REGIONAL MANAGE \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMSand 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8247", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 961 = 2011 SLD 961 = (2012) 105 TAX 79 = 2011 PTD 2861 = 2012 PTCL 263", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25-A, 25-D & 196---Determination of customs value---Powers of Member (Technical) to decide question of law---Reference application--Prima facie, a matter of law was adjudicated upon by the Member (Technical) sitting single---Validity---Member (Technical) sitting singly, had no jurisdiction to decide upon question of law and could assume such jurisdiction---Such question though had not been proposed, but being a jurisdictional question, High Court could frame a fresh .question and answer the same---High Court framed question afresh and answered the same in negative---Consequently impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Appellate Tribunal to place before an appropriate Bench and to decide the appeal preferably within a period of 60 days after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard.\n \nMuzammil Ahmed v. Collector of Customs 2009 PTD 266 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25A,25D,196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.113 and C.M.A. No.929 of 2008, decision dated: 28-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nMUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8248", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 962 = 2011 SLD 962 = (2012) 105 TAX 48 = 2011 PTD 2849 = 2012 PTCL 266", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 196---Reference application---Principle of mutatis mutandis---Applicability ---Scope---No independent order-in-original was passed in case of the applicants, but order passed in another case, was mutatis mutandis applied to their cases---Tendency of the Customs Authorities to finalize the cases on the basis of the concept of mutatis mutandis was depreciated---Customs authorities were supposed to pass separate orders in each case---Litigant had a right that his case should be disposed of on its own factual position of his case and not on the factual position of the case of any other litigant, despite the position that the facts would be the same---Orders of the lower court were set aside and the matters were remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order afresh by independently stating the facts of each case giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Applications Nos.249, 250, 251 and 252 of 2008, decision dated: 15-03-2011", + "Judge Name:": "IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Applicant.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS PAKISTAN TELEPHONE CABLES LTD. THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY \nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8249", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 963 = 2011 SLD 963 = 2011 PTD 2856 = 2012 PTCL 312 = (2012) 105 TAX 115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 79, 80 & 81---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Provisional assessment---Petitioner/importer got released imported goods after provisional assessment---Almost three years later, Deputy Director Customs issued a demand notice for recovery of amount against the said goods declaration---Under provisions of S.81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, provisional assessment could be finalized within a period of one year and 90 days, and extension could be allowed in exceptional circumstances, but with specific approval of the Collector concerned---In the present case, provisional assessment was finalized three years back---Department having failed to finalize the assessment of goods released on provisional assessment in terms of S.81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, provisional assessment on the basis of declared value, had become final and the additional amount or ad hoc amount to secure the differential, had become refundable, in circumstances---Impugned demand of additional amount by the department, was declared to be without lawful authority, in circumstances.\n \nCollector of Customs (Appraisement) Karachi v. Auto Mobile Corporation of Pakistan Karachi 2005 PTD 2116 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79,80,81,81(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.11062 of 2010, decision dated: 5-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Basit for Petitioners.\nAhmad Raza for Respondents.\nKhawaja Noor Mustafa, Deputy Attorney General.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS TREND INTERNATIONAL THROUGH PARTNER\nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, DRY PORT, MULTAN and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8250", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 618 = 2012 SLD 618 = 2012 PTCL 431 = 2012 PTD 1 = (2012) 105 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.25, 25-A(4) [as amended by Finance Act (XVI of 2010)]---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 107(a) & 121---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Interpretation of S.25-A, Customs Act, 1969---Determination of customs value of imported goods---Valuation advice dated 23-10-2009 issued under S.25-A of Customs Act, 1969, was made applicable by Assessing Authorities to the consignments of goods imported in April, 2010 under the respective goods declaration filed by the importers---By reliance on said advice, the Assessing Authorities rejected the declared valuation of imported goods and adopted the higher valuation---Validity---Section 25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 was amended during the course of hearing of petition---Section 25-A had conferred power on the valuation authority to pre-determine the valuation of imported goods on the principles laid down in S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969---Valuation advice issued under S.25-A of Customs Act, 1969, was meant to last for 90 days or so as contemplated by provisions of S.25 of the Act and R.107 of Customs Rules, 2001---Valuation ruling must ordinarily be required as valid for a period of ninety days from the date of issuance---Section 25-A(4) had provided that a valuation ruling shall be applicable until and unless revised or rescinded by the competent Authority---Interpretation and application of said subsection (4), was that while the valuation ruling would continue to hold the field unless revised or rescinded, any aggrieved importer had the right to approach the concerned Officer after the ninety days period and he would then have give reasons as to why the ruling had not been revised or rescinded---Impugned valuation advice and other valuation advice that could have been issued, would survive and continue to have validity for 90 days from the date of their issuance; and thereafter the valuation authorities were under a duty to justify the value to issue a fresh advice; in other words to give grounds to maintain an existing valuation advice.\nSadia Jabbar v. Federation of Pakistan and others C.P. No.2673 of 2009 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25A(4)Customs Rules, 2001=107Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.8931, 17144, 10058, 10057, 10056, 10055, 7845, 7844, 17049, 22673 of 2010 and 3732, 3731, 662, 1594, 9287 and 7653 of 2011, heard on 4-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Raza Ahmad for Petitioners.\nHaider Rasool Mirza and Amjad Mahmood Butt and Umar Ahmad Khan for Petitioners in connected petitions.\nSh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Ehsan Ullah Cheema for Respondents/ Directorate of Valuation.\nSarfraz Ahmad Cheema, Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Syed Tahir Abbas Rizvi and Irteza Ali Navi for Respondents/Customs Collectorate.\nHafeez Saeed Akhtar for Respondents Nos.3 and 4 (in Writ Petition No. 3732 of 2010). Rao Naseem Hyder Khan for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AYESHA IMPEX\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8251", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 619 = 2012 SLD 619 = 2012 PTCL 547 = 2012 PTD 28 = (2012) 105 TAX 154", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 157(2) & 187---Smuggling of goods---Onus to prove---Principle of shifting of onus---Applicability---Authorities confiscated goods on the ground that the same were smuggled but respondent contended that the goods were purchased from the auction by contractor of Meerani Dam Project---Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by respondent and directed to release the goods and refund the fine---Validity---Held, Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had taken a right view in respect of seized goods---Initial burden, under S.187 of Customs Act, 1969, was on the respondent to show a lawful authority or permit or document in respect of the possession of foreign origin goods---Respondent had successfully discharged his burden by producing documents proving purchase of goods through a lawful auction from the Engineering company working on the Dam---After reasonable explanation offered by respondent, responsibility shifted upon Customs Authorities to show that goods were smuggled by respondent but no evidence or material was produced by Customs Authorities---Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal did not commit any error, nor any law point requiring interpretation was pointed by authorities---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal---Reference was dismissed in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157(2),187", + "Case #": "Custom Reference No.7 of 2011, decision dated: 14-09-2011, hearing DATE : 5-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JUSTICE\nABDUL QADIR MENGAL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf for Appellant.\nSadbar Jan for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, BALOCHISTAN\nVS\nMESSRS ABDUL SATTAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8252", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 1054 = 2007 SLD 1054 = 2007 PLJ 921", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899)--\n----Ss. 27(A) & 3(1)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Question of jurisdiction--Demand of stamp duty on the sale-deed--Local council fee on transfer of property--Urban and rural lands--Impugned demand without jurisdiction raised by DDO (Registration) and Zila Council officer, after passing as many 24 long years of the date of registration of sale-deed for payment of stamp duty on enhancement of total value of property--No explanation as to reason for awakening of respondents from deep slumber after a period of 24 years of the registration document--Zila Council Officer propelling the DDO (Registration) to initiate the action that sale-deed in-question was \"\"definitely under valued\"\" and it was a fraudulent transaction--Sale-deed in-question was executed by Federal Government through a senior functionary--Registration Act or Stamp Act not confer any jurisdiction on the Zila Council Officer, as the same was otherwise not available to him under the law--Neither the District Collector nor the Provincial Government in any manner was competent to fix the value of property which was subject matter of a sale-deed presented for its verification registration--Petitioner having a sale-deed executed directly by a senior functionary being a representative of the Federal Government at a particular value under the Stamp Act--Instruments of sale-deed having been executed on behalf of government, no duty was chargeable to it in view of proviso (1) to the charging Section 3 of stamp Act, 1899--Petition allowed.\n [Pp. 925, 926, 927 & 929] A, B, C, D, G & H\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973--\n----Art. 199--Principle--Assumption of jurisdiction--No Court, tribunal or forum howsoever high can confer a jurisdiction to a forum, Court to tribunal which is not available to it under the law nor it can deprive a forum, Court or Tribunal of a jurisdiction which is available to it under the law--It is only law enacted by legislation which can be invoked to exercise a jurisdiction. [Pp. 927 & 928] E & F", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 17807 of 2005, decided on 17.4.2007. DATE of hearing: 27.3.2007", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate for Petitioners.\nMr. Rafey Ahmed Khan, AAG for Respondent No. 1.\nMr. Mian Subah Sadiq Klasson, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. OKARA TEXTILES LIMITED and others\nVS\nDEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (REGISTRATION) OKARA & ANOTHER" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8253", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 620 = 2012 SLD 620 = (2012) 106 TAX 31 = 2012 PTD 980", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.81(2)---Extension of time sought through letter only signed by Collector---Validity---Nothing was written on such letter to show that Collector had approved extension sought thereby---Such extension was not in accordance with law.\n \nPSO v. Collector of Customs 2006 SCMR 425 and Flying Board; Paper Products v. Deputy Collector of Customs 2006 SCMR 1648 and Collector of Customs v. Auto Mobile Corporation 2005 PTD 2116 ref.\n \nSus Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2011 PTD 235 rel.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.81 & 196---Reference---Jurisdiction of High Court---Scope--Question as to whether order of final assessment under S.81 of Customs Act, 1969 had been passed within period of limitation for being question of law and not of fact could be decided by High Court' despite decision of three lower forums.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Applications Nos.150 of 2010 to 158 of 2010, decision dated: 4-06-2011. dates of hearing: 18th. May and 1st June, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE\nIRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Najeeb Jamali for Applicants.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS DAWLANCE ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR \nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOM, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8254", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 964 = 2011 SLD 964 = 2011 PTD 2816 = (2012) 105 TAX 15", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25-A, 25-D, 80, 81, 155E & 155Q---Customs Rules, 2001, R.107(a)--- Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), Ss. 2(3) & 10(3)---Delay and inaction in finalization of provisional assessment order---Objection about jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman, on the ground that the electronic message about final determination of value was appealable; and the matter involving assessment of duty and taxes, being outside the jurisdiction of Federal Tax Ombudsman, were not relevant as the complainants had neither challenged the electronic message nor the assessment of duty and taxes---No dispute existed between the complainants and the department that the imported goods were provisionally assessed under S.81 of Customs Act, 1969, despite the presence of applicable valuation ruling dated---Such was done on the insistence of the complainants that the value fixed under that valuation ruling, were much higher than the actual transaction values; and the Directorate General (Valuation) was already considering the request of the complainants for downward revision of the value order---Directorate General (Valuation), rejected the plea of the complainants to finalize the provisionally assessed value under the newly issued valuation ruling, and instead directed the complainants to approach Assessing Officer for issuance of final assessment order under S.80 of Customs Act; 1969---Representative body of the complainants approached the Director General (Valuation) for downward revision of customs value fixed under the valuation ruling but Director General (Value) rejected review application under S.25-D of Customs Act, 1969, for giving retrospective effect to valuation ruling unjustly---Interim order issued in favour of the complainants, had created vested interest to the complainants which could not have' been justly ignored at the time of issuance of subsequent valuation ruling---Issuance of said valuation ruling by Directorate General (Valuation) without applying the same to the impugned goods allowed provisional release; and rejected the review application, ignoring altogether the interim order, being arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable, was tantamount to maladministration under S.2(3) of Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000---Ombudsman recommended the FBR to direct the Director General (Valuation) to extend the application of Value Ruling to the impugned goods released provisionally under S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969 within 21 days; and report compliance within 30 days.\n \nCIT v. Olympia Watch Co. 1987 PTD 739 ref. Justice (R) M. Nadir Khan, Advisor Dealing Officer.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25A,25D,80,81,155E,155QFederal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),10(3)Customs Rules, 2001=107(a)", + "Case #": "Complaint Nos.284-311/Khi/Cust(117-144)738-765 of 2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS OMERJEE VAMRA, KARACHI and 2 7 others OTHERS \nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8255", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 965 = 2011 SLD 965 = 2011 SCMR 1986 = (2012) 105 TAX 26", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 32(3)---Demand notice issued by Deputy Collector Customs---Department (petitioner's) contention was that there was no illegality in the demand notice issued by Deputy Collector Customs under S.32(3) of Customs Act, 1969---Validity---Demand notice though was not in conformity with the language of S.32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 still did provide the opportunity to the respondent, therefore, substantial justice had been done---Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Tribunal to decide the same on merits providing the parties an opportunity to place on record the relevant material---Respondent could challenge the authority of the officer issuing the notice or they take such additional pleas before the Appellate Tribunal within parameters of law.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.482-K of 2011, decision dated: 8-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.\nA.S.K. Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVS\nMESSRS NATIONAL REFINERY" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8256", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 966 = 2011 SLD 966 = (2012) 105 TAX 75 = 2011 PTD 2853", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25, 32 & 196---Determination of customs value of goods---Misdeclaration---Reference application---Respondent had imported consignment of steel and declared the same to be of secondary quality steel which was classified under PCT Code 7225.1900 on which duty was leviable at 5%---Department collected only one sample from four containers and sent it for test to the Laboratory---Contents of 'silicon' in that sample as per report were 0.58%---Case for misdeclaration was made against the importer and customs duties were imposed under the PCT Code 7209.1510---Minimal difference in the proportion of silicon in the consignment imported by the importer, would not make it a case of misdeclaration, because it could be a difference of which the importer was not aware; and had in good-faith classified it under PCT Heading 7225.1900 and paid duties thereon---Such a minimal difference having occurred in testing of one sample, getting the samples drawn from other containers for testing was obligation of the department instend of arriving at any conclusion---Minimal difference that had occurred in the present case, could be considered to be within margin of error---Case being not of misdeclaration, in view of such a minimal error, and no further test having been gotten done by the department, duties were payable under Heading 7225.1900 and not under PCT Heading 7209.1500---Order accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,32,196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.124 of 2009, decision dated: 1st September, 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE\nMUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zain A. Jatoi for Applicant.\nJunaid Ghaffar Advocate along with Darvesh Mandhan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nVS\nMESSRS QASIM IRON MERCHANT" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8257", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 967 = 2011 SLD 967 = (2012) 105 TAX 111 = 2011 PTD 2851", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25 & 81---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods---Petitioner imported goods and classified the same for the purpose of import under PCT Heading 3009,5000 and paid applicable duty at the rate of Rs.10% ad valorem---Department by issuing Customs General Order, demanded payment of customs duty at the enhanced rate of Rs.25%, which was applicable rate for items under PCT heading 3208.5000--- Contention of counsel for the importer was that provisional assessment was made in the year 1990 and according to the provisions of S.81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, taxes and charges correctly payable on those goods were to be determined within one year of the date of provisional determination; and that department had failed to comply with the said provision of law; and that according to S. 81(4) of the Act, the provisional assessment had become final assessment---Validity---Department having failed to comply with the provisions of S. 81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, S.81(4) of the said Act had become applicable; and the provisional determination made in the year 1999, was ,to be considered as the final determination---Department was directed to release the relevant bank guarantee to the petitioner within one month, in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9297 of 2003, decision dated: 30-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner.\nCh. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS CRESCENT ART FABRICS (PVT.) LTD. THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR \nVS\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8258", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 621 = 2012 SLD 621 = (2012) 105 TAX 226 = 2012 PTD 516", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of1969)--Ss.80 & 193---Refund claim---Such claim was refused by the Authority, but accepted by High Court---Plea of Revenue was that demand raised under S.80 of Customs Act, 1969 was appealable under S.193 thereof against imposition of enhanced customs duty and that High Court could not set aside demand/order of Authority for payment of customs duty from petitioner, when alternate remedy was available to him---Validity---High Court while passing impugned had encroached upon jurisdiction of Collector (Appeals)---High Court could not have decided such factual controversy---Supreme Court set aside impugned of High Court in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.231, 232 of 2004 and 949 of 2007, decision dated: 5-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE\nASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE\nAMIR HANI MUSLIM, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.\nNemo for Respondent No. 1\nShaiq Usmani, Sr. Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others \nVS\nMESSRS FATIMA ENTERPRISES LTD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8259", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 968 = 2011 SLD 968 = (2011) 104 TAX 17 = 2011 PTD 1105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 17, 168, 181 & 196---Seizure and confiscation of imported goods---Failure to produce valid documents---Appeal to High Court---Customs mobile squad during the course of normal checking recovered and seized 44 gunny sacks of foreign black tea and the appellants/ importers failed to provide any legal documentary proof of lawful import thereof---Twenty four bags were ordered to be released to the appellants being legally imported, but remaining bags were confiscated---Vehicle carrying said bags was also confiscated, but an option in terms of S.181 of Customs Act, 1969 was given to the rightful owner of said vehicle to redeem vehicle against redemption fine---Only documents which could provide validity to the importers/appellants, was the triplicate copy of bill of entry---Appellants provided said triplicate copy of bill of entry in respect of 24 bags and on that basis said 24 bags were released while in respect of remaining bags, the appellants produced copies of \"\"Exchange Control\"\" which would not serve the purpose as said documents were for bank record only---Said copies of \"\"Exchange Control\"\" produced by the appellants, could not be termed as a document tendered in accordance with law; as same were not only the photocopies, but were copies from the copies, which had no evidentiary value and were inadmissible in evidence---Said documents would have no presumption of correctness as same were not produced from proper custody---Impugned of Appellate Tribunal, whereby appeal of the appellants against orders of the Deputy Collector Customs (Adjudication) was partly allowed, could not be interfered with in appeal by High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "S.A.O. No.20 of 2001, decision dated: 8-03-2011, hearing DATE : 1st March, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE\nMAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Khan for Appellants.\nIshtiaq Ahmad for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MOHTAMIM SHAH and others\nVS\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8260", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 969 = 2011 SLD 969 = (2011) 104 TAX 39 = 2011 PTD 862", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 15, 16, 156(1)(8)(89), 167, 168, 194-A & 196---Recovery, seizure and confiscation of huge foreign currency---Appeal/reference to High Court---Appellant who was leaving abroad, was intercepted at the Airport and huge amount of foreign currency of different countries was recovered from his possession who intended to smuggle same out of the country in violation of law---Appellant had failed to prove the lawful possession of said currency and taking the same in valid and lawful manner---Said currency was seized and confiscated---Appeal before Collector (Appeals) which was accepted and seizure and confiscation of currency was termed to be disregard of law, justice and equity and currency was directed to be returned to the appellant---Appellate Tribunal accepted appeal by Customs authorities against order of Collector (Appeals) and order passed by Collector was set aside---Validity---Appellant was provided a full chance of rebuttal and nothing was brought on record reflecting that such discretion was exercised by the Appellate Tribunal against law or without jurisdiction; or same had caused any prejudice to the customs department---Reference was rejected. \n \nThe Collector Central Excise and Land Customs and others v. Rahm Din 1987 SCMR 1840 and 2006 SCMR page 1609 ref.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---Ss. 6 & 7---Entrustment of functions of the Customs Officers to certain other officers to assist the officers of Customs---Functions of Customs Officials could be entrusted to other officer by the Board by issuing a notification in the official Gazette---All the officers of Central Excise, Police and the Civil Armed Forces; and all the officers engaged in the collection of land revenue were empowered and required to assist the officers of the Customs in discharge of their functions under Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=15", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.38 of 2009, decision dated: 20-12-2010, hearing DATE : 30-09-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE\nSYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Idrees Mufti for Petitioner.\nSyed Mudassir Ameer for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MINHAJUDDIN\nVS\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8261", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 970 = 2011 SLD 970 = (2011) 104 TAX 146 = 2011 PTD 2381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 18---S. R. O. 506(1)/1988 dated 26-6-1988---S.R.O. 577(1)/2006 dated 5-6-2006---S. R. O. 576(1)/2006 dated 5-6-2006---Goods dutiable---Assessment of duty and taxes---Vehicle was initially imported free of duty and taxes---Sale of such vehicle-Customs authorities were approached for assessment of duty and taxes and issuance of NOC on the basis of sale permission issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs---Vehicle was assessed to duty and taxes on 5-9-2007---NOC was issued after payment of leviable duty and taxes---Sale permission was turned out to be fake---Vehicle was seized---Appellate Tribunal remitted the redemption fine and ordered its release on payment of leviable amount duty/taxes vide dated 14-2-2010---While determining the short levied amount of duty and taxes, the customs calculated the value, duty/taxes on the basis of exchange rate prevailing on 21-12-2010 instead of assessment made previously as on 5-9-2007---Complainant contended that duty and taxes had already been assessed and paid on the basis of value determined by the Customs with reference to the sale in the local market i.e. 5-9-2007 and only question involved was a short-assessment of amount of duty and taxes on account of change of category and level of concession due to fake sale permission in the name of diplomat, there was no justification either of seizure of vehicle or for changing the date of assessment from 5-7-2009, when the vehicle was sold in the local market, on 21-12-2010 which had no relationship in the matter except for that the complainant had on that day made an application for release of the vehicle in pursuance of the Appellate Tribunal's ; and the application could not be construed to be the consent for changing the crucial date for assessment of value; and determination of short-levied amount of duty/taxes with reference to 21-12-2010 after over three years of the date of sale of the vehicle in the local market on 5-9-2007, was against the rules, arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable and unlawful-Validity-Customs made error in re-determining the value and applying the rates of exchange, duty and other taxes with reference to 21-12-2010 after the Appellate Tribunal's , rather than 05-09-2007 when the vehicle was sold in the local market and the leviable duties and taxes were originally assessed and paid due to fake sale permission---Present was not a case of smuggling or unlawful import of a vehicle but a fraudulent change of level of concession at the time of sale of the vehicle in the local market; it would have been fair to demand the amount of short-levy caused by manipulation of higher level of concession on the same basis of the date of sale of vehicle in the local market i.e. 5-9-2007 rather changing the date of re-assessment to 21-12-2010---Provisions of S.R.O. 576(1)/2006 dated 5-6-2006 did not warrant levy of exchange rate or duty and taxes other than those applicable on the date of sale of vehicle in the local market which was 5-9-2007---No progress had been made after 2008 as the real culprits and their accomplices in the Customs department had yet to be brought to book---Maladministration of the Customs authorities was established---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended the Federal Board of Revenue to direct the Customs to re-determine the short-levied amount, as per law, on the basis of the date of the vehicle's sale in the local market i.e. 5-9-2007, as per provisions of S.R.O. 576(1)/2006; dated 5-6-2006; to release the vehicle to the complainant on payment of the short-levied amount, if any, worked out on the basis of the above and direct the Directorate General I & I to bring the investigation to its logical conclusion by apprehending the culprits and bringing them to justice.\n \n2008 PTD 1482 and 2007 PTD 1630 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Complaint No.39/ISD/CUS(10)498 of 2011, decision dated: 22-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer.\nImdad Hussain for the Complainant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "IMDAD HUSSAIN\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8262", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 971 = 2011 SLD 971 = (2011) 104 TAX 143 = (2011) 104 TAX 153 = 2011 PTD 2427", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs. Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.32, 129 & 156(1)(14)(64)---Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965---Public Notice No.16/2000(A) dated 30-09-2000---Untrue statement, error, etc. ---Afghan Transit Trade Invoices were filed declaring the goods ails `white paper'---On physical examination, goods were found to be `ctarette paper' meant for use in manufacturing of cigarettes, not white% paper meant for writing purposes---Description of cigarette paper wags declared in GDs and omission in Afghan Transit Trade Invoices constituted an offence in terms of S.32 and S.129 of the Customs Act, 1969, punishable under Cls.(14) and (64) of S.156(1) of the Customs' Act, 1969---Validity---Contention of Department that omission disqualified the goods for transit was not maintainable---Customs at the Port had explained that \"\"these consignments were not subject to examination by the selectivity criteria of the computer system at the port of entry, but, 'all the consignments were examined at the port of exit\"\"-Such explanation was not plausible because, while allowing transit, GDs and Afghan Transit Trade Invoices were simultaneously filed in accordance with the requirements of Public Notice No.16/2000(A) dated 30-9-2000---Data entry operator was required to feed all the particulars of the GDs and Afghan Transit Trade Invoices, and make the required corrections, if any---In case of discrepancy, the documents were returned to the Clearing Agent for necessary corrections---Appraisement staff in the Customs House and the Customs examination staff at the port were similarly required to identify discrepancies, if any---Failure of the Customs at the Port to identify the discrepancy involved in the material particulars of transit goods through all stages of Customs process reflected neglect and inefficiency on their part.\n \nWrit Petition No.443 of 2000 rel.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss.32, 129 & 156(1)(14)(64)---Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965---Untrue statement, error, etc.---Cigarette paper---Omission of such paper in the Afghan Transit Trade Invoices but declared in GDs---Detention of goods by the Customs Authorities with the perception that there was no cigarette industry in Afghanistan to justify import of cigarette paper---Validity---Notwithstanding the fact that evidence supporting existence or otherwise of cigarette industry in Afghanistan was a mixed question---Collector's action to detain cigarette paper was un-maintainable and inconsistent with the practice in Customs House---Detention of cigarette paper was unlawful unless it was excluded from the scope of Afghan Transit through a Gazette Notification---Instructions of Federal Board of Revenue and. Ministry of Commerce endorsing Collector's suggestion not to allow transit of cigarette paper could not be lawfully pressed into service---Maladministration on the part of Customs was established---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Federal Board of Revenue to direct Collector Customs to allow transit of the goods after getting the description in the Afghan Transit Trade Invoices appropriately amended; to call upon the Clearing Agent to show cause why action should not be taken against him for the omission of description of cigarette paper in Afghan Transit Trade Invoices and to initiate disciplinary action against the relevant Customs staff at the Port and boarder for their negligence and inefficiency.\n \nWrit Petition No.1681 of 1998 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Complaint No.32/ISD/Cus(08)/301 of 2011, decision dated: 19-07-2011", + "Judge Name:": "DR. MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Yasin Tahir, Senior Advisor Dealing Officer.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS SAEED SHINWARI LTD., AFGHANISTAN\nVS\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8263", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1412 = 2009 SLD 1412 = (2009) 100 TAX 184 = 2009 PTD 932 = 2010 PTCL 179", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQ1NTND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.32, 156(1)(14)(77), 157 & 178---Import and Export (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(1)---Pistols, import of---Cancellation of import licence by Ministry of Commerce after such goods reached Pakistan---Effect---Such cancellation would not affect importer's right to import such goods. \n \nMessrs A.R. Hosiery Works, Karachi v. Collector of Customs (Export), Karachi and another 2004 PTD 2977 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,156(1),156(14),156(77),157,178Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3(1)", + "Case #": "Customs Reference No.1 of 2008, decision dated: 12-01-2009, hearing DATE : 16-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA AND SYED QALB-I-HASSAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Applicants. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Warriach for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD FAISAL IQBAI, QURESHI and others \nVs \nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8264", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1413 = 2009 SLD 1413 = (2009) 100 TAX 191 = 2009 PTD 943 = 2010 PTCL 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.25(1) & 25-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Enhancement of value of imported goods against its declared value on ground of receipt of new valuation advice---Validity---Such advice did not show method of its preparation, but was repetition of method being applied earlier---Such advice did not find mention of unit price or its retail price in market---Such advice should have been based upon proper discussion and reference to value of disputed items---High Court set aside impugned order in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25(1),25AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 14779 of 2008, decision dated: 2-02-2009", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner. Ch. Zafar Iqbal for Respondent-Department", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs M.A.H. TRADERS through Proprietor \nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8265", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1414 = 2009 SLD 1414 = (2009) 100 TAX 323 = 2009 PTD 494", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.7-- Constitutional petition---Moulding of relief---Theory of subsequent event---Applicability---Scope---Court seized of a matter, which is competent and maintainable before it, can always mould the relief as is warranted by the facts of the case, even taking into account the subsequent developments occurring during the pendency of the Lis---Such rule, however, is subject to important limitations; that no prejudice is caused to the defendant/respondent by doing so; such events must have nexus with the cause of action or the defence of the case and should not amount to setting up a new case by the parties; either side must get a chance of meeting the effect of the subsequent events, which, in ordinary course should be incorporated by appropriate amendment of the pleadings.\n \nCh. Riyasat Ali, Advocate v. Returning Officer and 2 others 2003 CLC 1730; Capt. S.M. Aslam and others v. Karachi Building Control Authority through Chief Executive Nazim-e-Aala and others 2005 CLC 759; Mehrab Khan through Attorney v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh and 5 others 2005 CLC 441; Ardeshir Cowasjee v. Province of Sindh 2002 CLC 684; Marghub Siddiqi v. Hamid Ahmad Khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519 and Salahuddin and 2 others v. Fronteir Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. Tokht Bhai and 10 others PLD 1975 SC 244 ref.\n \n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Theory of subsequent event, applicability of---Moulding of relief---Scope---Vires of specific order of the Commission had not been challenged in the constitutional petition, rather no ground, at all, had been set out on the basis of which it could, especially by the court, be ascertained, assessed, determined and adjudicated as to what was the illegality or vices (legal or factual) of the Commission's order, not only the court shall be in disadvantageous position to examine the order in this behalf, even the respondent shall not be in a position to defend the case on the basis of the present pleadings.\n \n(c) Maxim---\n \n----Ubi jus ibi remedium---Lex semper dabit remedium---No concept of a wrong without a remedy---Principles.\n \nAccording to the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium there is no concept of a wrong without a remedy and the \"\"remedium\"\" may be defined to be the right of action, or the means given by law, for the recovery or assertion of a right; besides, in view of another maxim lex semper debet remedium, if a man has a right, he must have means to vindicate and maintain it, and should have a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it; and indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal, thus, it appears, that \"\"remedium\"\" in the above maxims has a more extended signification than the word \"\"action\"\" in its modern sense and an \"\"action\"\" is, in fact, one peculiar mode pointed out by the law for enforcing a remedy, or for prosecuting a claim or demand in the Court of law.\n \nBroom's Legal Maxims 10th Edn. P.118 ref.\n \n(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art. 199---Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000), S.64(5)---Non-establishment of Appellate Tribunal by Federal Government under S.64 of Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000---Remedy---Maxims ubi jus ibi remedium and lex semper debet remedium---Applicability---In the present case, Association of Textile Manufacturers, subject to its locus standi undoubtedly had a right of appeal under the statute, which was the most sacred right, however, if for any reason the forum of appeal had not been established enabling the exercise of such valuable right, the right, could not be allowed to be frustrated or stultified, for the lapse on part of the Federal Government as it was the fundamental principle of law that the rights and the remedies of the parties could not be left in vacuum, thus, in the situation the Association (Subject to its locus standi) shall have an independent right to challenge any such order under Art.199 of the Constitution, if it had been passed by a forum which could be construed to be a forum against which a writ of certiorari would lie, otherwise before the courts of plenary civil jurisdiction under S.9, C.P.C.\n \n(e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art. 199(4), (4-A)---Constitutional jurisdiction---Interim injunction, grant of---Scope---Provisions of Art.199(4) or(4-A) of the Constitution would .only be relevant, if a case for the grant of interim injunction is made out on the basis of the contents of the main petition---Where however, the statutory body was not under challenge in the petition, how could the interim injunction beyond the scope of pleadings be granted against the said body even ignoring the rule that Civil Procedure Code was applicable to the proceedings under Constitutional jurisdiction.\n \nHussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1970 SC 1 and Marghub Siddiqi v. Hamid Ahmad Khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519 ref.\n \n(f) Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)---\n \n----S. 64---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Cause of action and entire structure of the case was rested upon one single grievance i.e. for the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal within the parameters of S.64, Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000 which could not be granted particularly when the Bill for amendment of the same section of the Ordinance had been approved by the Standing Committee and also for the reason that as per the decision of the National Judicial Policy Making Committee dated 18/19-4-2009, may be the retired Judge of the Supreme Court could not be appointed as the Chairman of the Appellate Tribunal---If any such direction was given by the High Court, it shall be difficult to cope with and reverse a situation, which might emerge on account of the amendment.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=7", + "Case #": "I.C.A. No.549 of 2008, heard on 13-05-2009.", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Majid Ali Wajid for Appellant. Ch. Aamir Rehman, D.A.G., Muhammad Nawaz Waseer, Standing Counsel, Shahzad A. Elahi and Ahmed Sheraz for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ALL PAKISTAN TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION through Secretary \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8266", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1415 = 2009 SLD 1415 = (2009) 100 TAX 331 = 2009 PTD 1239 = 2010 PTCL 541", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 32(1), 79(1) & 194-C(3)---Imported goods declared to be of China origin assessed as of Holland origin by Member Technical Appellate Tribunal, sitting singly---Validity---Nothing on record to show that certificate of origin provided by importer was not reliable---Determination of origin of goods to be of Holland on basis of physical inspection was not substantiated with factual evidence---Member Technical of the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide such matter---High Court remanded case to Tribunal to decide such matter afresh while observing that if the Tribunal wanted to depart from decision taken by Member Technical, then it would have to give cogent reasons in support of its decisions. \n \n2009 PTD 266; Messrs Zarghoon Zarai Corporation v. Collector of Customs and another in 2006 PTD 534; Collector of Customs, Karachi v. Messrs Ali Enterprises, Karachi 2006 PTD 651; Collector of Customs, Multan v. Muhammad Tasleem 2002 MLD 296 and Messrs Taqiur Rehman, Faisalabad v. Deputy Collector Customs (Import), Dry Port, Faisalabad 2003 PTD 456 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32(1),79(1),194C(3)", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.85 of 2008, decision dated: 1st April, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND SALMAN ANSARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Applicant. Junaid Ghaffar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI \nVs \nMessrs SUPERIOR STEEL, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8267", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1416 = 2009 SLD 1416 = (2009) 100 TAX 335 = 2009 PTD 1274", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 16 Agricultural Pesticides Ordinance (II of 1971), S.4--Import of product as pesticide----Pesticide registration placed on record showed the generic name of the product and it was not established that the \"\"trade name\"\" of the product had been registered in the country of export as the requisite certificate to that effect had not been placed on record -Held, until the trade name of the manufacturer was registered in the country of manufacture, the product could not be imported as per the law---On account of any earlier permission of import, which had not been detected at the relevant time and was cleared for certain reasons, the department was not bound to necessarily follow the same footsteps and was to grant the import when it was not permissible under the law. \n \nOxford Dictionary; ICA No.375/2003; Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 others v. Manzoor Brothers 1995 SCMR 516; Messrs Dada Soap Factory Ltd. v. Pakistan through Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and 2 others PLD 1984 Kar. 302; Messrs Muhammad Anwar Muhammad Iqbal Brothers !Ad Karachi v. Collector of Customs and 3 others PLD 1976 Kar; 253; Syed Ghulam Ali Shah v. The State through A.D.M. and Tribunal, Sanghar PLD 1970 SC 253; Mst. Zahida Sattar and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2002 SC 408 and Black's Law Dictionary Eighth Edition ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16", + "Case #": "C.As. Nos.532 and 536 of 2003, decision dated: 13-05-2009, hearing DATE : 1st April, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND ALI AKBAR QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Dilawar Mehmood for Appellant. Sh.Ilzhar-ul-Haq and Ms. Yasmeen Sehgal, DAG, for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SHAIKII SALIM ALI (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8268", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1417 = 2009 SLD 1417 = (2009) 100 TAX 355 = 2009 PTD 1181", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.194-C(3-A)-Appeal involving question of law-Decisions of Appeal by Member Technical of the Appellate Tribunal without providing opportunity of hearing to appellant---Validity---Member Technical of the Tribunal while sitting singly could not decide such matter---High Court remanded case to Tribunal for fixing same before appropriate Bench for its decision afresh within specified time after providing opportunity of hearing to both parties. \n \nCollector of Customs Modern, Customs Collectorate of Paces, Karachi v. Muzammil Ahmed 2009 PTD 266 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Spl. Customs Reference Application No.261 of 2008, decision dated: 1st April, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND SALMAN ANSARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Applicant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SHIRJEEL ENTERPRISES through Proprietor \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, APPRAISEMENT, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8269", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1418 = 2009 SLD 1418 = (2009) 100 TAX 358 = 2009 PTD 1147 = 2010 PTCL 176", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.32---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Untrue statement, error in connection with matter of customs---Issuance of demand notice---Petitioners imported textile material and sought its clearance---Since the material was apparently not within the earlier classifications mentioned in PCT Heading, it was sent to the laboratory and on the basis of the report, it was classified under PCT Beading 5407.6100 and was made out of charge on payment of leviable duty and tax as assessed by the Customs Authorities---Subsequently, the petitioners received the impugned demand notices alleging therein that goods were classified under PCT Heading 5407.6100 whereas the same should have been classified under PCT Heading 5903.9000 which attracted higher rate of duty---Since the demand notices issued to the petitioners were without any proceedings subsequent to the delivery of goods to the petitioners having been declared out of charge, it was illegal on the face of it---Authorities could proceed on the basis of provisions of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969 after fulfilling the parameters thereof and complying with the legal requirements---Demand notice issued to the petitioners was set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 17903 of 2008, heard on 6-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioners. Izhar ul Haque Sh. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ASIAN TRADERS through Proprietor and others \nVs \nMUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN MAGSI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8270", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1419 = 2009 SLD 1419 = (2009) 100 TAX 361 = 2009 PTD 1949 = 2010 PTCL 984", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Appeal---\n \n----Right of appeal is a vested right which is generally provided by all statutes. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.193---Right of appeal, exercise of---Pre-condition---Order passed by Collector---Precondition to file an appeal by a person excluding Custom Officers is that decision or order should be under Ss.79, 80 and 179 of Customs Act, 1979 and authority passing the same should not be below the rank of Assistant Collector---Judgment or order under appeal has to be by a person above the rank of Assistant Collector---No bar exists in entertaining appeal against order passed by Collector either---Appeal against order of Collector can be entertained and decided by Collector (Appeals). \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss.193 & 195---`Appeal' and 'revision'-Distinction-Appeal has been provided against any order or passed by any authority equal or above the rank of Assistant Collector while revision is only against order of subordinate officer. \n \n(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art. 199--- Constitutional petition--- Maintainability--- Factual controversy---Scope---Arms of extraordinary jurisdiction under the provision of Art.199 of the Constitution cannot be extended to factual controversies. \n \n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss.2(kk), 2 (rr), 17, 168 & 186---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Constitutional petition-- -Terms \"\"detain\"\" and \"\"seize\"\"---Distinction---Non-issuance of notice---Customs authorities conducted raid on the premises owned by .petitioners and seized large quantity of imported paper, for which petitioners could not produce any documentary proof---Plea raised by petitioners was that authorities could not detain and seize the goods without issuance of statutory' notice---Validity---Term \"\"detain\"\" meant to prohibit disposal or use of goods pending finalization of any proceedings, while \"\"seizure\"\" started after the end of such proceedings---Seizure, therefore, started after the goods were taken into possession by Customs authorities as per provisions of S.168 of Customs Act, 1969---Requirement of issuance of notice under S.168 of Customs Act, 1969, started from the date of seizure---Detention or seizure of goods of petitioners did not suffer from any illegality or even irregularity---Law was amended in years 2004 and 2005 and detention had become permissible under Ss.17 and 186 of Customs Act, 1969---High Court declined to interfere in proceedings conducted by authorities against petitioners---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.\n \nHaji Noor-ul-Haq v. Collector of Customs and others 1998 MLD 650; Collector of Customs, Lahore and others v. Haji Noor-ul-Haq PTCL 2003 CL 716; Syed Muhammad Razi v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Customs House, Karachi and 2 others 2003 PTD 2821; Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Mst. Siddiqan Afzal and others 2007 SCMR 1149; Messrs Sohrab Global Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director v. Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore and 4 others 2005 PTD 67; Messrs Punjab Arms Co, Lahore through Proprietor v. Deputy Collector of Customs (Group-IV) Lahore and 4 others 2005 PTD 86; Messrs Julian Hshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer, Circle XVIII South Zone, Karachi and others 1992 SCMR 250; Gatron (Industries) Limited v. Government of Pakistan and others 1999 SCMR 1072 and Maple Leaf Cement Factory Limited v. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Faisalabad 2000 YLR 1989 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2(kk),2(rr),17,79,80,168,179,186,193,195", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.13293 of 2008, decision dated: 24-06-2009, hearing DATE : 21st April, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik M. Arshad for Appellants. Ehsanullah Cheema for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "IRSHAD AHMED and others \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division (FBR), Islamabad and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8271", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1420 = 2009 SLD 1420 = (2009) 100 TAX 378 = 2009 PTD 1127 = 2010 PTCL 213", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs-Act (IV of 1969)--S. 194-C(3-A)---Appeal involving question of law----Tribunal, powers of---Scope---Member Technical of Appellate Tribunal while sitting singly could not decide such matter. \n \nCollector of Customs v. Muzammil Ahmed 2009 PTD 266 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194C(3A)", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.66 of 2008, decision dated: 17-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND SALMAN TALIBUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja M. Iqbal for Applicant. Shaukat Hayat for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM, KARACHI \nVs\nMessrs MIA CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8272", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1421 = 2009 SLD 1421 = (2009) 100 TAX 379 = 2009 PTD 1158", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.33---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.72---Clearing of imported goods without seeking benefit of exemption of duties and tax under exemption notification--Refund of such duties and tax claimed after 21 months---Validity---Where one party under a mistake of law or fact paid some money to another party including Government department, which was not due by law or contract or otherwise, then same must become repayable in view of S.72 of Contract Act, 1872---Where tax was chargeable and payable by an importer/exporter and due to inadvertence/error/misconstruction, excess amount was paid or recovered than what was actually due and payable, then claim for refund of excess amount must be made within six months---Where duty and tax charged and recovered was not payable at all, then S.33 of Customs Act, 1969 would have no application and refund could be sought even beyond six months period. \n \nMessrs Pfizer Laboratories v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 64 ref.\n \nMessrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 64 rel.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.33---Clearing of goods without seeking benefit of S.R.O.27(I)/98, dated 17-1-1998---Claim for refund of duties and taxes not payable under such S.R.O---Validity---Importer had not produced a certificate from Engineering Development Board that goods mentioned in Customs General Order were not locally manufactured at time of their import---Importer had not produced evidence that minimum average of 50% of production of importer's unit had been exported or value addition of 40% had been made during period so far expired---Importer was not entitled to exemption under the S. R.O.---Refund claim was rejected in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference No. 380 of 2007, decision dated: 2-04-2009", + "Judge Name:": "FAISAL ARAB AND SALMAN ANSARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Awan for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MEKOTEX (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI \nVs \nCHAIRMAN, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8273", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1422 = 2009 SLD 1422 = (2009) 100 TAX 403 = 2009 PTD 1292 = 2010 PTCL 169", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.25(1)---Prime Hot Cold Coils, import of-- Declaration of value of such goods by importer at price of US$ 175 to 180 per metric ton---Pre ex-bonding examination of goods revealed same to be of secondary quality and not of prime quality---Prayer of importer for valuing goods at price of US$ 157 per metric ton being transactional value of secondary quality of goods---Validity---Customs duty would be levied on basis of such declared additional value of goods---Importer had suffered due to violation of contract by shipper/Supplier by paying sale price more than sale price of goods actually shipped---Importer for violation of contract and recovery of excess duty could take action against shipper/supplier. \n \nBatala Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore v. Collector of Customs P'I'D 2634; Messrs Flying Board and Paper Products v. Deputy Collector Customs Dry Port, Lahore 2006 SCMR 1648 and Messrs Flying Board and Paper Products v. Deputy Collector, Customs 2006 SCMR 864 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25(1)", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application No.259 of 2008, heard on 25-03-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND SALMAN ANSARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abul Inam for Applicant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal along with Mr. Tariq Aziz (Appraising Officer) for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "S. FAISAL REHMAN through Duly Authorized Representative/Attorney \nVs \nCOLLECTOR (APPRAISEMENT) CUSTOMS, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8274", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2087 = 2008 SLD 2087 = 2008 PTD 1916 = (2009) 99 TAX 43 = 2009 PTCL 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(90) & 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Assessment of duty---Adjudication officer ordered outright confiscation of goods---Order was partly allowed in appeal in the manner that the goods were allowed to be released on payment of 30% fine in lieu of confiscation in addition to payment of assessed duty, taxes etc.---Word \"\"propriety\"\" in this context has reference to the propriety of the order in the light of the law which was applicable and was not intended to grant general and unlimited jurisdiction to the revising authority to set aside any ground whatsoever---Where the declared value had not been appraised properly and the market factors made it clear unequivocally that the declared and appraised value were still ridiculously low, department could exercise its jurisdiction---Appraisement could not be called as legal if the same had been done mala fide with the intention of depriving the revenue of its well deserved share---If such factor is proved beyond doubt that the value of raw-material of the product is higher than the price of the manufactured item it is definitely improper---Onerous duty of the department is to determine the value of goods by adopting the methods provided under S.25, Customs Act, 1969---High Court confirmed the exercise of jurisdiction by the Collector but repelled the view that subsequent appraisement could be made on the basis of the valuation ruling---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. \n \nKhan Trading Company, Gujranwala v. Collector of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (Adjudication), Lahore 2002 CLC 705 and Shahzad Zahir Shah and 6 other v. Muhammad Usman Ghani and 3 others 2005 YLR 1394 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,156(90)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9602 of 2008, heard on 5-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Khawar Ikram Bhatti for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAMSUDDIN \nVs \nTHE STATE through DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATIONF.B.R and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8275", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2088 = 2008 SLD 2088 = 2008 PTD 1958 = (2009) 99 TAX 63 = 2009 PTCL 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 194-A, 194-B & 194-C---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Dismissal of appeal on technical ground of default in appearance--Petitioner had challenged two orders of Appellate Tribunal, first through which Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner for non-prosecution, while by way of second order application for restoration of appeal was dismissed---Counsel for Revenue had pleaded that since petitioner had failed to put in appearance, the Tribunal had all the legal justification to dismiss its appeal for non-prosecution---Counsel for petitioner, however denied the factum of service---Provisions of S.194-B of Customs Act, 1969, were clear that the Appellate Tribunal was required to give an opportunity of being heard to the parties to an appeal and to pass such orders as it would think fit confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or could remand the case to the Authority passing the order impugned before it---Substantive provisions of S.194-B of Customs Act, 1969 could not be interpreted in any other manner except that the Tribunal was competent to confirm, modify, annul as well as to remand an order appealed against, which was possible only after stating reasons therefor---Disposal of appeal for non-prosecution was not discernible from the substantive provisions of S.194-B of Customs Act, 1969---Impugned order for dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution as also the second order refusing to restore the appeal, were set aside by High Court; consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner would be deemed to be pending before the Tribunal to be disposed of after giving both the parties an opportunity of being heard. \n \nWalayat Flour Mills, Lyallpur v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi 1973 PTD 530 and S. Chenniappa Mudalier v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1964) 10 Taxation 220 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194A,194B,194CConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.7005 of 2007, decision dated: 15-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahsan Mehmood for Petitioner. Ms. Kausar Parveen for the Revenue", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED through Director \nVs \nCUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8276", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2089 = 2008 SLD 2089 = 2008 PTD 1968 = (2009) 99 TAX 83 = 2009 PTCL 11", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25, 32 & 196---Determination of customs value of goods---Mis-­declaration---Order passed in appeal by Customs Appellate Tribunal, whereby on the charge of mis-declaration appellant was penalized for making payment of evaded amount,,. of duties and taxes along with additional tax---Appellant, who imported certain consignment of second hand clothes, had disposed of the consignment of second-hand clothes in the same year---After disposal of imported second-hand clothes in the very year to assess the value of goods on presumptive evidence, was beyond the scope of S.25 of Customs Act, 1969---Even otherwise after clearance of goods and removal of consignment from the customs area, Customs Authorities were functus officio to reopen the case again as it had become past and closed transaction---No specific provision had been quoted as to whether appellant had been guilty of offence falling under subsection (2)(3) of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969; it would thus be difficult to observe as to whether appellant had been guilty of mis-declaration. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 32---Untrue statement---Limitation---If case would fall under S.32(2) of Customs Act, 1969, the period of limitation at the relevant time was three years and if it would come within the purview of S.32(3) of the Act, permissible period to adjudicate would be six months---Object of providing limitation period was to finalize the transaction within specific time. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 180---Show-cause notice after confiscation of goods---Object of issuance of show-cause notice as prescribed in 5.180 of the Customs Act, 1969, was to intimate the concerned parties beside indicating them about the nature of contravention, and the penal action intended to be taken against them---Before taking any step, subsection (b) of S.180 of the Customs Act, 1969 provided an opportunity to the party to make representation in writing within such reasonable time as the appropriate officer could specify against the proposed action---Without issuing any proper notice under S.180 of the Customs Act, 1969 and examining the subject consignment or having a similar evidence that of subject consignment, assessment of goods, after their clearance would be deemed to be an arbitrary decision with no reasonable cause.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,32,180,196", + "Case #": "Spl. Customs Appeal No.148 of 2001, decision dated: 2-04-2008, hearing DATE : 29-01-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salim Thepdawala for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SIKANDAR ENTERPRISES through Attorney \nVs \nCUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX TRIBUNAL, KARACHI and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8277", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1423 = 2009 SLD 1423 = 2009 PTD 201 = (2009) 99 TAX 180 = 2009 PTCL 414", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 32---Untrue statement, error etc.---If the element of mens rea was not apparent in the case, mentioning of different head, was not necessarily to cheat. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 32---Untrue statement, error etc---Simple mentioning of a head when there were circumstances warranting different possibilities, would not amount to intentional or dishonest act. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---S. 32---Untrue statement, error-etc.---Classification of actual PCT---Case being that of one item, further investigation could be continued with its sample and seizure of the consignment was not justified. \n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 32---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Untrue statement, error etc.----If the goods imported were appraised and assessed by the Customs authorities and duties/taxes were duly deposited, the Customs authorities were not entitled to retain them although the department was at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law if they had adequate material for initiation of proceedings under S.32, Customs Act, 1969. \n \nMessrs Zeb Traders through Proprietor v. Federation of Pakistan 2004 PTD 369 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "W.P. No.9155 of 2008, decision dated: 30-07-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Ehsanullah Cheema, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SAFE WAY through Proprietor \nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, (APPRAISEMENT GROUPI) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8278", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1424 = 2009 SLD 1424 = 2009 PTD 244 = (2009) 99 TAX 190 = 2009 PTCL 455", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods---Where the value declared by the importer was less than the value of the raw material used in the product, the importer having come to the High Court with unclean hands, was not entitled to any favour. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods---Provisional valuation---Such valuation can neither deprive the department nor the assessee for adopting lower or a higher value---No estoppel was available in tax proceedings especially when the importer had made the payment under protest for getting his goods released as an interim arrangement---Provisional settlement is subject to the final decision. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods---Rejection of declared value by the customs department---Scope---Principles.\n \nThe department is at liberty to reject the declared value where it has got reason to believe that the same is not correctly declared. However, it cannot proceed beyond the prescribed procedure under S.25 of the Act. It may be true that the section 25(10), after amendment therein, has brought slight change in procedure, but it cannot be accepted that it has granted any unlimited or unbridled powers to the assessing authorities for adopting the value. Moreover, the valuation ruling, which has been held to be an unlawful, cannot be applied for determining the value of any consignment. Department was directed to. determine the value as per law and rules after issuance of notices to the importer within one month from the communication of present order to him.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7395 of 2008, decision dated: 11-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner. Ehsan Ullah Cheema with Ahmad Kamal, Deputy Collector", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AUTOCRAFT through Proprietor \nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8279", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1425 = 2009 SLD 1425 = 2009 PTD 246 = (2009) 99 TAX 193 = 2009 PTCL 452", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 195---Power of Boards or Collector to pass certain orders---Scope--- Order passed by Principal Appraiser (Customs) can only be re-opened by Collector of Customs while exercising jurisdiction under 5.195, Customs Act, 1969---Collector of Customs can only revise the order, if any illegality or irregularity is committed by Principal Appraiser or its subordinate---Any such order by Deputy Collector of Customs against the order of Principal Appraiser was without jurisdiction, illegal and without lawful authority qua the rights of the importer.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=195", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5368 of 2008, decision dated: 16-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Miss Kausar Parveen for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ZIBTEC (PVT.) LTD through Director and others \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTOR and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8280", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1426 = 2009 SLD 1426 = 2009 PTD 266 = (2009) 99 TAX 253 = 2009 PTCL 477", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 194-C(3-A) & (4) [as amended by Finance Act (IV of 2007)]--- Procedure of Appellate Tribunal---Interpretation of S.194-C(3-A) & (4), Customs Act, 1969---Limitation of a Bench of Single Member to hear a matter involving question of law has been removed by the deletion of explanation to subsection (3-A) by Finance Act, 2007 and the pecuniary jurisdiction has been enhanced by the amendment of its subsection (4).\n \nAlthough no amendment has been made in subsection (3-A) of S.194-C, Customs Act, 1969 but the plain and simple interpretation of this subsection is that the Chairman has the power to constitute as many benches consisting of single members as he may desire and the only interference of the Federal Government will be to specify cases or such classes of cases which these Benches can hear. So the Central Government is not a party to the constitution of the Benches but only to the specification of cases/classes of cases which may be heard by the Single Members and, therefore, the process of constituting these Benches is not different from constituting the Benches under subsections (3-A) and subsection (4). The only limitation is that such Benches can only hear the classes of cases specified by the Central Government. These specifications have been made by the Central Government in the conditions attached to the hearing of the cases given in subsections (3-A) and (4) as to the pecuniary jurisdiction and the legal jurisdiction. The limitation of a bench of single member to hear a matter involving question of law has been removed by the deletion of the explanation to subsection (3-A) by Finance Ordinance, 2007 and the pecuniary jurisdiction has been enhanced by the amendment of subsection (4). \n \nAman and Amin Trading Co. v. Collector of Customs Karachi 2008 PTD 459 distinguished.\n \nMessrs Aman and Amin Trading Co. v. Collector of Customs' 2008 PTD 459; 2008 PTD 996; 2008 PTD 1274; 2005 PTD 108; 2004 PTD 921; PLD 2003 Kar. 127 and \"\"2002 MLD 229 ref.\n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Non-obstante clause in a provision---Effect---Non-obstante clause in a statute overrides the provision of the statute which has been mentioned in the non-obstante clause. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 194-C(3-A)---Procedure of Appellate Tribunal---Interpretation of S.194-C(3-A) Customs Act, 1969---Non-obstante clause in sub-section (3-A) of S.194-C, Customs Act, 1969---Purpose---Held, intent of the legislature is that if Special Bench comprising two or more technical members cannot hear a matter involving question of law then it will be illogical and absurd to conclude that the legislature intended that a technical member sitting singly can hear a matter relating to a question of law---Absurdity cannot be presumed in an interpretation.\n \nThe purpose of the non-obstante clause in subsection (3-A) of S.194-C, Customs Act, 1969 is to empower the Chairman to constitute single benches. Even if the contention that the provisos have been overridden, is accepted the intention of the legislature has to be arrived at by reading the entire section 194-C and determining what was the purpose for deleting the explanation to subsection (3-A) and whether by removal of such set of explanation both Judicial and Technical Members will become empowered to decide questions of law sitting singly. When reading the statute as a whole although prima facie it is seen that the deletion of explanation will empower both judicial member and technical member to decide questions of law sitting singly but after considering the second proviso to subsection (2) and trying to arrive at a harmonious interpretation the only interpretation which follows is that the intent of the legislature is that if Special Bench comprising two or more technical members cannot hear a matter involving question of law then it will be illogical and absurd to conclude that the legislature intended that a Technical Member sitting singly can hear a matter relating to a question of law and that absurdity cannot be presumed in an interpretation. \n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 194-C(3-A) [as amended by Finance Act (IV of 2007)]---Procedure of Appellate Tribunal---Member Technical of the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate in matters involving questions of law---Principles.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194C(3A),194(4)", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Applications Nos. 63, 64, 86, 87, 131 to 133, 116 to 118 of 2008, 403, 404 and 406 of 2007, decision dated: 5-12-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PACCS, KARACHI \nVs \nMUZAMMIL AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8281", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1426 = 2009 SLD 1426 = 2009 PTD 281 = (2009) 99 TAX 268 = 2009 PTCL 470", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25-A, 25 & 32---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Valuation Ruling---Scope---Valuation Ruling can not be considered as a valid document for cancellation of an appraised assessment---Valuation Ruling, if issued by an authority which did not figure anywhere in S.25-A the issuance, of same was illegal, void and of no legal effect. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 32---Scope and extent of application of S.32.\n \nSection 32, Customs Act, 1969 has been inserted to correct an error, modify an assessment and to recover the refund issued inadvertently. This obviously means review or correction of the error in a finalized matter. Once a consignment is out of charge after due consideration of relevant facts it becomes a past and closed transaction to the extent of its value etc. The same, therefore', should not be invoked only on the basis of the mere estimate, gosips, personal whims or feelings that the value could have been enhanced or it could fetch more taxes etc. The opening of an appraisement for the purposes of re-valuation of an earlier estimate or adopted figure would require `reason to believe' and not `reasons to suspect'. For example, if one subsequently, finds that the description''-of the imported goods was different, H. S. Code applied was wrong as a result of mis-representing or the number of items mentioned in GD and accepted by the Department incorrectly, etc., nobody will have any objection on the application of provisions of section 32. However, if one feels that more revenue could have been generated and thus invokes the provisions of section 32, said course was not justified. The valuation ruling cannot be considered a piece of evidence unless the same is based upon sound footings. However, on the basis of a valuation ruling, the provisions of section 32 cannot be invoked. \n \nWrit Petition No. 8400 of 2008 fol.\n \n2006 PTD 2237 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25A,32Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 15822 of 2008, heard on 24-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUNNY TRADERS through Proprietor \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division (FBR), Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8282", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1427 = 2009 SLD 1427 = 2009 PTD 263 = (2009) 99 TAX 289 = 2009 PTCL 422", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25, 25A & 25-I---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods---Third reappraisal of goods by customs department and following a valuation ruling which was set aside by High Court---High Court recorded its displeasure and made observations on the issue and cancelled the appraisement order on the basis of valuation ruling with remarks that department was allowed to reappraise the same in strict compliance of law and procedure provided in S.25, Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25A,25IConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6804 of 2008, decision dated: 7-08-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar and Malik Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner. Ehsan Ullah Cheema for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GENUINE IMPORT IMPEX through Proprietor \nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, (APPRAISEMENT GROUPIII) and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8283", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1428 = 2009 SLD 1428 = 2009 PTD 467 = (2009) 99 TAX 317 = 2009 PTCL 330", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 32---Object, requirements, interpretation and scope of application of S.32, Customs Act, 1969---Phrases \"\"reason to believe\"\" and \"\"material particular\"\"-Connotation.\n \nSection 32 Customs Act, 1969 applied where someone makes or causes to make or signs or causes to deliver to an officer of customs any declaration, notice, certificate and other documents whatsoever. This obviously means that it only speaks of a document which has been signed by him or which he has caused to sign or makes any statement to any question which he has reason to believe that such document and statement is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section. \n \nSection 32 is a penal clause. It completely speaks of a declaration, notice, certificate or other document or a statement given by the importer on the basis of which a consignment is released. In the show-cause notice when the Deputy Collector speaks of the appraisement it only states that some importers with the active connivance of their clearing agents are evading the government dues by getting their items assessed at a very low rate. \n \nAfter the assessment has become out of charge invoking the provision of section 32 on the basis of another ruling apparently does not find any support from the language of S.32.\n \nSection 32 has been inserted to correct an error, modify an assessment and to recover the refund issued inadvertently. This obviously means review or correction of the error in a finalized matter. Once a consignment is out of charge after due consideration of relevant facts it becomes a past and closed transaction to the extent of its value etc. The same, therefore, should not be invoked only on the basis of the mere estimate gosips, personal whims or feelings that the value could have been enhanced or it could fetch more taxes etc. The opening of an appraisement for the purposes of re-valuation of an earlier estimate or adopted figure would require `reason to believe' and not `reasons to suspect'. For example, if one subsequently, finds that the description of the imported goods was different, H.S. Code applied was wrong as a result of misrepresenting or the number of items mentioned in GD and accepted by the Department were incorrect etc, nobody will have any objection on the application of provisions of section 32. However, if one feels that more revenue could have been generated and thus invokes the provision of section 32 such understanding was not agreeable. The valuation ruling cannot be considered a piece of evidence unless the same is based upon sound footings. However, on the basis of a valuation ruling, the provisions of section 32 cannot be invoked. \n \nThe plain reading of S.32(1)(2)(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, in the light of the golden principle of remaining within the language of law, gives a very clear impression. The provision applies on a person who, in connection with any matter of customs, makes or signs or causes to be made or sign, or delivers or causes to be delivered to an officer of customs any declaration, notice, certificate or other document in any form or gives a statement in reply to a question before the customs authorities knowingly and intentionally having the reasons to believe that such document or statement is false in any material particular, he shall be guilty of an offence under this section. \n \nMoreover, the language of this section can only be applied on the basis of the document delivered, furnished by the importer or the statement given by him before the customs authorities. Whether a valuation advice in any form can be considered as a document furnished by him or a reply in answer to a query raised by the customs authorities by the importer, does not need much to discuss. One may argue that the said valuation ruling having been prepared under section 25 by virtue of section 25-A subsection (2) is an applicable customs value for assessment of the relevant imported and exported goods, but, whether the same can be used subsequently after the consignment is out of charge by applying section 32 apparently does not find support from the language of S.32(1)(2)(3) of the Customs Act, 1969. \n \nSection 32 does not speak of ignorance of the applicable value at all. It is totally in relation to the document furnished by the importer as well as the statement given by him. The matter does not end there. Section 32(1)(b) further adds that knowingly or having reason to believe that such document or statement is false in any material particular. These words make the requirements as more stringent and difficult to apply contrary to the said requirement. The show-cause notice very clearly indicates that neither any effort has been made to determine falsehood of the documents nor any of the statements given by the importer is proved to be as falsely given.\n \nStill further, the said subsection (b) of section 32(1) through addition of phrase \"\"in any material particular\"\" totally shuts the doors of gosips, estimate, surmises or apprehensions. The phrase \"\"reason to believe\"\" and later \"\"in any material particular\"\" cannot give room to any vague estimate howsoever strong it may be. It only applies if the documents are furnished or the statements have been given knowingly that the same are wrong and incorrect. \n \nPhrase \"\"material particular\"\" again is very restrictive. The term \"\"material\"\" used here Means `pertaining to the subject matter' while `particular' is synonymous to accurate, appropriate, definite, detailed, distinct, exact etc. The phrase, therefore, can only be used where definite and positive belief can be established with regard to the submission of the incorrect documents or wrong statement. \n \nBefore invoking the provision of section 32 the prime responsibility of the competent authority is to establish that the document furnished and the statement given by the importer or his representative is wrong and that it was well within his knowledge. The application of section 32 directly without establishing incorrectness of the document available on the record with evidence is beyond the scope and power of the concerned authorities.\n \nValuation ruling especially in the manner that they are being prepared are still estimates and if the same are not followed at the time of earlier appraisement, it cannot be used against an importer which has already appraised and has been made out of charge by the customs authorities. \n \nWrit Petition No. 8400 of 2008 decided on 28-7-2008 fol.\n \nToyo International Motorcycle v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, (Revenue Division) Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others 2008 PTD 1494; 2006 PTD 2237; Pooran Lal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) (1974) 93 ITR 505 (S.C.) and L.R. Gupta v. Union of India (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Delhi) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,32", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.15767 to 15776 of 2008, heard 24-11-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and Sarfraz Ahmad Cheema for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs S.T. ENTERPRISES through Proprietor \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, (Revenue Division/FBR), Islamabad and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8284", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1429 = 2009 SLD 1429 = 2009 PTD 523 = (2009) 99 TAX 346 = 2009 PTCL 312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(89), 168, 171 & 196---Notifications S.R.O. No.574(I)/2005 and S.R.O. No.179(I)/2006---Smuggled vehicle---Imposition of redemption fine---Vehicle in question was seized by customs authorities under S.168 of Customs Act, 1969, and applicant produced fake import documents, therefore, authorities declared the vehicle as smuggled one liable to confiscation---Authorities allowed release of vehicle subject to payment of redemption fine 'equal to 30% of the value of the vehicle---Plea raised by applicant was that he was bona fide purchaser and neither he smuggled the vehicle nor prepared; forged documents---Validity---When applicant purchased costly vehicle he should have inquired into and verified documents of vehicle---Though seller of vehicle in question was available in town but applicant neither lodged any F.I.R. against him nor filed suit for recovery---For last more than three years, applicant did not bother to initiate any proceedings against the seller, which prima facie, showed that applicant had conscious knowledge that vehicle was a smuggled one---High Court declined to interfere with orders passed by customs authorities---Reference was dismissed in circumstances.\n \nCh. Muhammad Ashraf v. Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Smuggling Squad Central Excise and Land Customs Department PLD 1977 Lahore 300 and Abdul Rauf Khan v. Collector Central Excise and Land Custom 1980 SCMR 114 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(89),168,171,196", + "Case #": "Customs Reference Application No. 236 of 2008 and Constitutional Petition No. 1991 of 2007, decision dated: 23rd January, 2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Wahab Baloch for Applicant. Ghulam Haider Shaikh for Respondent No. 1. Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "Agha MASIHUDDIN \nVs \nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PREVENTIVE COLLECTORATE, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8285", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2002 = 2013 SLD 2002 = 2013 PTD 1636", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 2(s), 16, 162, 163, 168, 156(1) Cls.(8), (9), (89), (90), 157(2), 171 & 215---Criminal Procedure Coed (V of 1898), S.103---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Smuggling---Foreign Origin contraband Whisky and other goods---Confiscation---Appellant contended that locally manufactured goods were seized and detained without any legal reason; that there was no law to seize or confiscate locally manufactured goods; that goods loaded on truck were seized within the country as such these goods could not be treated as smuggled goods; that the notice was not issued in the names of Miscellaneous Goods owners although the names of the owners of Miscellaneous Goods were provided in shape of bilties to the seizing agency but even then no notice was served upon the owners of such goods which was mandatory; that seizure of local goods was not discussed in the order and discussed only smuggled and non-duty paid goods whereas more than 50% consignments consisted of local goods; that fine and penalty had been imposed on the owner of Truck but there was nothing about the existence of Liquor in the truck; that the liquor found from the truck was not loaded on the Truck by the transport company; and that person arrested and produced before the Court were outsiders and they had accepted their guilt before the Special Customs Court and Transport Company was not found involved in the transport of liquor as the same was not booked and no billty Number was assigned---Validity---Department was unable to show acknowledgement receipts of service of Show Cause Notice---Name of appellant was mentioned in the Show Cause Notice as well as in the order-in-original---Locus standi of the appellant stood established inasmuch as the fact that the case had been adjudicated without giving them the opportunity of being heard---Admittedly and evidently Show Cause Notice were not served on the transport company as well as the owners of Miscellaneous goods and Adjudicating Officer had not provided the opportunity of hearing to the Transport company and all the owners of Miscellaneous goods, the whole proceedings were not covered under the law---Further, the adjudicating authority had not discussed about the liquor which had been the core point in the Show Cause Notice whereas the goods which as per inventory had been manufactured locally being part of the offending goods had been confiscated without giving any reason---Adjudicating Officer did not impose fine and penalty on driver of the Truck for liquor who had pleaded guilty before Special Judge Customs and was punished---Order-in-original was patently not a speaking order and was not properly worded---Locally manufactured goods and imported goods purchased from the local markets were allowed to be released and their confiscation was unlawful and without any valid reason---Value of conveyance and container was reduced---Redemption fine equivalent to 20% of the value of trailer/truck with a penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Officer on the owner of vehicle was upheld---Order was modified accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. K-337 of 2013, decision dated: 29-05-2013, hearing DATE : 24-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ADNAN AHMED, MEMBER, JUDICIAL-II AND GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER TECHNICALLY", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhabbat Hussain Awan and Ms. Surraya for Appellants. Saeed Ashraf, P.O., and Fareedullah, SPO for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD KAMRAN \nVs \nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS ADJUDICATIONI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8286", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2003 = 2013 SLD 2003 = 2013 PTD 1647", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.32 156(1) & 168---Seizure of non-importable goods liable to confiscation---Seizing agency consisting of staff of Directorate of Intelli-gence and Investigation, Federal Board of Revenue not having charging powers under S.32 of Customs Act, 1969---Effect---Such seizure would be illegal and without jurisdiction---Illustration.\n \n 1987 SCMR 18; 2004 PTD 2994 and 2005 PTD 23 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "C.A. No.603/LB of 2009, decision dated: 24-03-2010, hearing DATE : 10th March. 2010", + "Judge Name:": "MHER MUHAMMAD ARY SARGANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHALID NASEEM, TECHNICAL MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant. Muhammad Sarwar, SIO for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Kh. MUHAMMAD WASEEM \nVs \nSUPERINTENDENT, INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8287", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2004 = 2013 SLD 2004 = 2013 PTD 1690", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 18 & 209---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 307-A & 566---Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 2010, Art. 28---Petroleum products acquired by exporter under DTRE approval not consumed in export due to its loss during transit to Afghanistan---Show cause notice issued to Bonded Carrier of such goods by, authorities demanding damages as well as duties and taxes in terms of R. 566 of Customs Rules, 2001---Order-in-Original passed against Carrier upheld by Appellate Authority---Validity---Liability to pay duties and taxes under law would be that of DTRE holder as importer of crude oil and exporter of finished goods to Afghanistan through licensed Bonded Carrier---Relationship of DTRE holder and Bonded Carrier would be that of Principal and Agent---Carrier as agent would be liable to pay duty only for wilful commission of wrong as provided under S. 209(3) of Customs Act, 1969---Such goods had not been removed from Bond for home consumption without payment of duty or put to home consumption, but had been destroyed during transit to Afghanistan due to terrorist act being an unavoidable accident---Loss of such goods by terrorist attack had been reported to Police, consignor, DTRE office and Customs Officers at border---Customs Act, 1969 did not require recovery of duty and taxes on goods proved to have been destroyed in unavoidable accidents---When Principal as importer or exporter could not be held liable, then recovery of duties and taxes from Bonded Carrier could not be allowed---Impugned show-cause notice was bad in law due to non-joinder of DTRE holder---Tribunal accepted appeal and set aside impugned orders---Principles.\n \n(b) Words and phrases---\n \n----\"\"Unavoidable accident\"\"---Definition.\n \n 2002 PTD 804 ref.\n \n(c) Words and phrases---\n \n----\"\"Unavoidable cause\"\"---Definition.\n \n 2002 PTD 804 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. 13 and 14/CU/IB of 2012, decision dated: 24h June, 2013, hearing DATE : 21st May, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM AHMAD MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MUHAMMAD AKHTAR AWAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MESSRS", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellant. Bilal Afzal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs VENUS PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR DTRE, AFU, B.B.I., AIRPORT and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8288", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2005 = 2013 SLD 2005 = 2013 PTD 1698", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.202, 83, 21 & 156(1)(11)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.6---Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S.14---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.148---DTRE Rules, Rr.305, 307A & 307G---Recovery of government dues---Import of white label BOPP Film without payment of duty and taxes for use in manufacturing of BOP film for the purpose of export---Revenue alleged that DTRE user failed to export even a single kilogram of BOPP film printed against the subject DTRE approval within prescribed time limit and directed to deposit government duty and taxes along with additional duty and taxes---Importer contended that show-cause notice as well as order-in-original was beyond the scope of DTRE as the goods had been exported---Validity---Appellant had purchased local BOPP films from Tri pack in huge quantity to be consumed for local sale---Samples obtained by the Auditing Team was not taken as per law; neither the papers were signed by the appellant nor one signed copy provided to the appellant---Auditing Team did not consider the appellant's version during the visit that material imported under DTRE was under production and most of it was ready for export---Record revealed that Auditing Team collected the stickers of irrelevant material just to create a fictitious demand against the appellant---No loss of revenue had occurred to the National Exchequers from the delayed export made by the appellant which was even beyond his control---Benefits could not be denied merely on technicalities---Order-in-original was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal and appeal was accepted.\n \n 2012 SCMR 1526 and (1976) 34 Tax 54 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=202", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.C-148 of 2012, decision dated: 11-03-2013, hearing DATE : 6-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH, MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Imran for Appellant. Muhammad Ismail D.R. with Asif Hussain Inspector for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALAZIZ ROTOFLEX (PVT.) LTD \nVs \nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION) MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8289", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2006 = 2013 SLD 2006 = 2013 PTCL 478 = 2013 PTD 1708", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.32(1), 32-A, 16, 25, 25A, 80, 156(1)(9)(14), 193, 195 & 202--- Customs Rules, 2001, Chapter XI, (Rr.133 to 215)---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(3)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.33---Income Tax Ordinance, (XLIX of 2001), S. 148---Customs General Order 14 of 2005 dated 6-6-2005---Valuation Directorate Letter No.1/5/2009-VIIA/ 3077, dated 31-5-2010---False statement, error, etc.---Fiscal fraud---Personal Baggage Scheme---Re-assessment of the vehicle was made on the ground that vehicle was cleared on suppressed value which resulted in short recovery of duties and taxes as the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) was more than the declared and assessed value---Validity---Vehicle had been allowed release after due consideration as per old precedent during the time of presentation of document---Till the release of vehicle, the department was at liberty to investigate and approach the relative department i.e. Director General of Valuation of its advice; in case of having any doubt or to allow swift clearance, the vehicle could have been allowed provisional release, till the department was satisfied to have come to right determination of value and vehicle had been allowed release under S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969, with due consideration---Later on, case of short recovery of duty and taxes was made out on the observation of a letter which was a communication of the minutes of meeting---Besides, the value assessed was based on the concept of Maximum Selling Retail Price (MSRP) available on the internet and websites in different parts of the world---Application of the concept was in negation to the conception of determination of Customs Value under S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969 and was alien to the scheme of things prescribed thereunder---Reliance on the same could not be made as different markets and retail outlets at different places even within the same city cater to different buying capacity of the buyers and could not be made a bench mark---Concept of Maximum Selling Retail Price (MSRP) was void---Cardinal principles were not followed and plea taken by the department for assessment on the basis of Maximum Selling Retail Price (MSRP) did not have any criteria under any warrant of law to be accepted---Guideline as provided under Customs General Order 14 of 2005 dated 6-6-2005 read with legal obligations under Ss.25 and 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1969 had not been followed stricto sensu---Order in question was patently infested with legal and factual improprieties without application of judicious mind/and was based upon assumptions, presumptions and inferences deduced wrongly beyond the terms of the show cause notice---Order was held unlawful and void and appeal was allowed.\n \n Sheraz Shipping Company v. Collector of Custom PACCS Customs Appeal K of 2013 rel.\n \n(b) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976---\n \n----R.109(b)---Denial of admissibility of special power of attorney---Validity---First Appellate Authority observed that \"\"special care would need to be taken with regard to acceptance of any special power of attorney\"\"---In spite of taking special care about doing so, First Appellate Authority without applying its judicious mind, denied the admissibility of special power of attorney---Subject power of attorney was duly registered/attested by the competent authority in as much as properly notarized as per prescribed law---Vakalatnama submitted by the counsel was within the parameters prescribed in the Pakistan Legal Practitioner and Bar Council Rules, 1976---Rule 109(b) of the said Rules entitled the registered advocate to appear, act and plead the case before any court or Tribunal in Pakistan---Every advocate was duty bound to uphold the dignity and high standard of his profession, as a member---Advocate owned entire devotion to the interests of the client, zealous in maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, nothing be taken or withheld from him in discharge of them save by rules of law legally applied---Observation of First Appellate Authority in the order about the question of \"\"locus standi\"\" on part of the counsel was devoid of law based upon assumptions, perverse fanciful and irrelevant with no evidence---Wrong inference was drawn from the evidence on record which was serious violation of prescribed rules, law and statute knowingly committed by the adjudicating officer---Record clearly reflected the professional conduct of the advocate well within parameters as defined in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss.32(1) & 32-A---False statement, error, etc.---Fiscal fraud---Personal Baggage Scheme---Import of vehicles under Personal Baggage Scheme---Misuse of law---Appeal was disallowed by the First Appellate Authority on the ground of misuse of law relating to the import of vehicles under Personal Baggage Scheme---Validity---If such presumption was taken to be true then it was for the Federal Board of Revenue to set up an enquiry to investigate as to how long such malpractice was going on and who were the officials hands and gloves with unscrupulous importers, causing colossal loss of revenue to exchaquer and to review policy---Such open secret was perverse to the evidence on record---First Appellate Authority had not taken into consideration the grounds of the show-cause notice and gone beyond the terms of reference of show-cause notice---Any order which was based on the grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice was a void order.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-1345 of 2011, decision dated: 11-06-2013, hearing DATE : 17-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Appellant. Abdul Aziz for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HAZRAT NOOR through Duly, Constituted Attorney \nVs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8290", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1998 1148 = 1998 SLD 1148 = 1998 SCMR 237 = (1996) 76 TAX 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 16---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S. 3---Pakistan Customs Tariff, Sched., Items 84.28 & 84.24---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether High Court, while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction, rightly undertook factual inquiry to conclude that specified goods fell under Pakistan Customs Tariff, Sched., Item No.84.28 and not 84.24. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 30(a)---Pakistan Customs Tariff, Sched., Item 84.28 [as amended by Finance Ordinance (XIV of 1983)]---Contents of Pakistan Customs Tariff, Sched., Item No.84.28 were made liable to 85 per cent. ad valorem customs duty and 10 per cent. sales tax---Effect---Amendment in Pakistan Customs Tariff, Item No.84.28 of Finance Ordinance, 1983, could not be applied retrospectively and would not cover cases, in which bills of entry were filed in 1982 under S. 30(a), Customs Act, 1969 or before coming into force of amendment made by Finance Ordinance, 1983---Dispute having arisen between importers and Customs Authorities as to whether specified goods were liable to customs duty or not, those goods had to be warehoused as per importers' claim---Factual position would indicate that in such cases provision of S. 30(a), Customs Act, 1969 would apply and specified goods were not liable to customs duty if bills of entry had been filed before 12th June, 1983, when amendment in Item 84.28, Pakistan Customs Tariff, Sched. was effected through Finance Ordinance, 1983. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n----S. 30(a)---Pakistan Customs Tariff, Sched., Items 84.28---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Appeal to Supreme Court---Factual inquiry by High Court---Validity---High Court's competency to go into factual inquiry to classify imported goods---No attempt was made to address any serious argument for or against competency of High Court to go into factual inquiry---High Court, however, was competent to go into that question for legal rights of parties were involved requiring interpretation of items of Pakistan Customs Tariff---No flaw or legal infirmity in of High Court, thus, existed to which any exception could be taken.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16Pakistan Customs Tariff=84.28,84.24Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.202-K to 206-K and 607-K of 1990, decision dated: 8-06-1992, hearing DATE : 28-04-1992", + "Judge Name:": "DR. NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFT-UR-REHMAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naeem-ur-Rehman, Standing Counsel with S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record (in C.As. Nos.202-K to 206-K of 1990) and S. Shahud-ul-Haque, Advocate Supreme Court with A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (In C.A. No. 607 of 1990).\nKhurshid A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court with Maroof Ali Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others \nVs \nSHAKEEL BROTHERS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8291", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 121 = 1976 SLD 121 = (1976) 34 TAX 42", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "[Estate Duty Act, 1950(X of 1950)]........Section 38 (1)-Valuation- Agricultural land-Valuation on the basis of sales which had taken place in the vicinity-Whether relevant and proper-Held yes-Formula of valuation adopted in the case of Ahmad Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty- Whether of universal application-Held no.\nThe Controller has based his valuation on the basis of sales which had taken place in the vicinity and such sales were clearly relevant in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Estate Duty Act, which provides that \"\"the principal value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of Controller, it would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the deceased's death\"\". The formula adopted in the case of Ahmad Khan was dictated by the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining therein. That case does not lay down any formula of universal application.\nCase referred to:\nAhmad Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty (P.L.D. 1969 S.C. 123 ; (1969) 23 Taxation 11(S.C.).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=38", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 55 of 1975, decision dated: 5-3-1976", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI C.J. AND ANWARUL HAQ, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Maqbool Illahi Malik, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mst. SAEEDUNNISA and others\nVs\nIncome Tax APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8292", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 122 = 1976 SLD 122 = (1976) 34 TAX 45", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "[Estate Duty Act, 1950 (X of 1950)]......Section 38 (I) (before amendment in 1971)-valuation-Agricultural land-market value-Valuation of agricultural land at market price which a willing buyer is prepared to pay to willing seller- Whether proper method of computation-Held yes.\nB. Estate Duty Rules, 1950-Rule 25A (inserted in 1971)-Rule prescribing method of valuation of agricultural land at ten limes the figure of produce index-Whether retrospective in operating -Held no.\nC. Estate Duty Act, 1950 (X of 1950)-Section 38 (1) (Before amendment in 1971)-Valuation-Agricultural land-Formula of valuation at 10 times produce index unit adopted by Supreme Court in Ahmad Khan-Whether related to particular facts and circumstances obtaining in that case and not of universal application-Held yes-Tribunal ignoring material on record for ascertaining market price and relying on Supreme Courts decision without preparing ground and laying down foundation for doing so- Whether sustainable in law-Held no.\nCase distinguished :-\nAhmad Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty (P.L.D 1969) S.C. 123 ; (1969) 20 Tax 11.\nCases referred to :-\nSh. Rahmatullah V. Deputy .Settlement Commissioner (P.L.D. 1963 S.C. 633) and Mst. Wazir Bibi, etc. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Estate Duty) (T.R. No. 43 of1971).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=38", + "Case #": "P.T.R. No. 170 of 1973 (T.R. No. 19 of 1974), decision dated: 27-10-1975, hearing DATE : 17-6-1975", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND MUNAWAR ELAHEE RANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Petitioner. Nemo, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY\nVs\nSyeda KISHWAR SULTANA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8293", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 123 = 1976 SLD 123 = (1976) 34 TAX 49", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFFpND0", + "Key Words:": "[Estate Duty Act, 1950 (X of 1950]].......Section 38-VaIuation- Agricultural land-Formula adopted by Supreme Court in Ahmad Khan for evaluation of land at ten times produce index unit-Whether of universal application--Held no.\nB. Estate Duty Rules, 1950-Rule 25A-Provision, whether retrospective in operation Held no.\nC. Estate Duty Act, 1950(X of 1950)-Section 55(5)-Reference to High Court-High Courts jurisdiction to make enquiries and record a finding- Whether High Court competent to give on the area left by the deceased and the value of the estate-Held yes.\nCase explained :-\nAhmad Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty (P.L.D. 1969 S.C. 123) ; (1969) 20 Taxation II.\nCase referred to :-\nSh. Rahmatullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (P.L.D. 1963 S.C. 633).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=38", + "Case #": "Civil Reference No. 5 of 1953, decision dated: 28-8-1975, hearing DATE 19-3-1975", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Petitioner. Ch. Nisar Ahmad, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY\nVs\nTHE ESTATE OF SYED QALANDER ALI SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8294", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 124 = 1976 SLD 124 = (1976) 34 TAX 118", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "[Estate Duty Act. 1950 (X of 1950)].......Section 58A-Jurisdiction- Application of the Act to Tribunal Area-Estate Duty Act not specifically extended to Upper Tanawal (Tribal area of Hazara district) by Government Notification under Article 3 of Presidential Order No. 3 of 1961- Whether the Act can be assumed to be applicable to that area being part of Hazara district of Peshawar Division under Dissolution Order of1970--Held no Assumption of jurisdiction of Controller of Estate Duty over the properties of the deceased situated in Upper Tanawal and levy of estate duty-Whether without lawful authority and void Held yes-Presidential Order No. 3 of 1961 (Excluded Areas) (Cesser of Exclusion) West Pakistan) order, 1961, Articles 2,3,4-Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order (1 of 1970), Articles 4,19.\n It is clear from this history of the area that there was no order notified in the Gazette under Article 3 of the Presidential Order No. 3 of 1961 whereby Estate Duty Act may have been extended to this area. The simple inclusion of it in the Peshawar Division by the Dissolution Order would not alter the position in the matter of applicability of laws because it was a part of Hazara district since 1961 and being a part of Hazara district was a part of Peshawar Division. Description of the boundary of a Province area or Division does not by its silence have the effect of enacting laws which were not in the field or for creating rights and liabilities under such Acts. A specific power was possessed by the Local Government as well as the Central Government to extend the laws applicable in Hazara district to the area which had been included in the district. Not show a to have ever exercised that power the applicability of the Estate Duty Act cannot be assumed or inferred from the Dissolution Order of West Pakistan.\nThese petitions are allowed with costs. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Collector of an Estate Duty over the properties of Nawab situate in Upper Tanawal is declared to be without lawful authority and the levy of estate duty on the basis of such erroneous assumption of jurisdiction is declared as void.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=58", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No, 265 of 1975, decision dated: 28-2-1976, hearing DATE : 26-2-1976", + "Judge Name:": "SHAFI-UR-RAHMAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Wasim Sajjad, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAHMATUN NISA BEGUM\nVs\nCONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, GOVERNMENT OF PAIHSTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8295", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1976 125 = 1976 SLD 125 = (1976) 34 TAX 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "[Estate Duty Act, 1950 (X of1950)].......Section 584, 59-Valuation-Opportunity of hearing-Determination of valuation by Controller of Estate Duty without giving an opportunity of hearing to the accountable persons- Whether valid in law-Held no-Word \"\"Determination\"\" in section 58 A, meaning of.\nB. Constitution of Pakistan., 1962-Article 98-Writ-Order passed without jurisdiction-Whether can be challenged in writ petition without exhausting the remedies by the statute itself-Held yes.\nC. Principles of natural justice-Whether should be read in all statutes unless the same are expressly excluded-Held yes- Word \"\"Law, meaning of.\nCases referred to :-\nProvince of East Pakistan v. Nur Ahmad (P.L. D. 1964. C. 451); Abdul Rahman v. Collector and Deputy Commissioner and others (P. L. D. 1964 S. C. 46); University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad P. L. D. 1965 S. C. 90) and Government of West Pakistan v. Begum Agha Abdul Karim Shorish Kashmiri (P. L. D. 1969)", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=59", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 743 of 1957, decision dated: 3-7-1970, hearing DATE : 30-4-1979", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND MUHAMMAD MUNIR FARUQUEE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ismail Bhathi, for the Petitioner. Sh. Abdul Haq, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "KUNDAN BIBI and others\nVs\nWALAYAT HUSSAIN, CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8296", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 709 = 1979 SLD 709 = (1979) 40 TAX 3", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "[Estate Duty Act, 1950 (X of 1950)]........Sections10, 11-Estate duty Gift - Gifted property deemed to pass on death of donor-Exclusion-Condition; for exclusion gift should have been bona fide, should have arisen more than five years before death and gift tax should have been paid-Conditions whether cumulatitve-Held yes-Failure to fulfill even one of the conditions Whether takes out the gifted property from ambit of exclusion-Held yes-\nWhether property deemed to pass on death of the donor-Held yes.\nUnder the scheme of the Estate Duty Act gifts are always deemed to be property passing unless they fulfill the following three conditions:\n(a) The gifts should have been bonafide. \n(b) The gifts should have been arise more than five years before the death of the deceased.\n(c) Gift tax should have been paid thereon.\nAll these conditions appear to us to be cumulative in nature and there-fore if the gift does not fulfill condition (a) i.e., the gift is not found to be bonafide, it will be deemed to be property passing and the other two tests of time limit and the payment of gift tax would not be required to be applied. However, such of the gifts as are made bonafide will have to undergo the other two tests in order to attract the exemption, so that with the fulfillment of the first condition of the gift being bonafide, the remaining two conditions would be the limitation within which they have been made, and the payment of the gift tax thereon. Such gifts are bona tide and fulfils the first condition but are not made beyond the limitation of time will still not attract the exemption and it would not be necessary to test the fulfillment of the third condition in respect thereof. Now the gifts which fulfill the first two conditions of having been made bonafide and also more than Eve years before the death of the deceased will still be deemed to be property passing unless the third condition regarding the payment of gift tax is also fulfilled. It would, therefore, become necessary that the third condition is also fulfilled to avail of the exemption provided. These are all three negative conditions and must be fulfilled cumulatively. The tests have to be applied as mentioned in the above order. If we look to the scheme of the Estate Duty Act we find that even on the fulfillment of these three conditions some of the gifts are still to be treated as \"\"property-passing\"\". Such gifts are mentioned in Sections 10 and 11, so that even where all the three conditions, including the payment of the gift tax are fulfilled the gift can still be deemed to be property-passing, if they come within the clutches of Section 10 and 11 etc. In order to provide relief to such property-passing, the provisions of Section ll have been enacted whereby such gifts as are subjected to the levy of Estate Duty in spite of the payment of the gift tax, necessary credit in respect of the taxes paid under the Gift Tax Act is allowed. The question of chargeability or otherwise of the gifts tax in these circumstances does not arise, as, in our opinion unless three negative conditions are fulfilled, the gifted property shall be deemed to pass on death.\nCase referred to :\nGulberg Textile Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (1978) 37 Taxation 125 H.C. Kar.)", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=10", + "Case #": "E.D.A. No. 3(KB) of 1978-79, decision dated: 24-10-1972", + "Judge Name:": "M.T. SIDDIQUI, PRESIDENT AND A.A. ZUBERI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mino N. Bhanjee, F.C.A., for the Appellant. S.M. Sibtain, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8297", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1979 710 = 1979 SLD 710 = (1979) 39 TAX 18", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "[Estate Duty Act, 1950 (X of 1950)]........Sections 58, 58A-Estate duty-Cash-in-hand-Failure of accountable persons to produce evidence in support of plea that entire cash-in-hand was spent either on treatment of deceased or charity-Cash-in-hand estimated on the basis of wealth statement of the deceased-Whether justified-Held yes.\nB. Estate Duty Act, 1950 (X of 1950) Section 58A-Goodwill- Supply contractors business--Whether has any goodwill-Held no-Goodwill on account of share of deceased in partnership business, if any-Whether includible in the estate of the deceased-Held no.\nCases referred to:- \nSteuart v. Gladstone (1879) 10 Ch, 626; Greens Death Duty, 6th Edition; Partnership by Lindley, 12th Edition and Indian Estate Duty Act by Nanavati, 2nd Edition.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Estate Duty Act, 1950=58", + "Case #": "E. D. A. No. 7 M3975-76, decision dated: 21-6-1977", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND KHIZAR HUSSAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahmood Mirza, Advocate for the Appellant. Aftab Ahmad D. R. for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8298", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2090 = 2008 SLD 2090 = 2008 PTD 1276 = (2008) 98 TAX 53", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)--Ss. 23, 27, 37, 49, 54, 55 & 56---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Imposition of anti-dumping duty---Petitioners imported the ceramics porcelain tiles and filed bill of entries prior to the notification dated 30-11-2006 whereby, provisional anti-dumping duties on dumped imports of tiles was imposed---Validity---Provisions of S.56, Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000 provided that provisional measures and definitive anti-dumping duties could only be applied to products which entered into Pakistan for consumption on or after the date of publication of notice of affirmative preliminary or final determination in an investigation, save as provided under Ss.49, 54 & 55 of Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000---Combined reading of Ss.49, 54 & 55 of Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000, made it abundantly clear that products which entered into Pakistan for consumption on or before the date of publication of notice could be subjected to. duty---Disputed duty, in circumstances could not be levied/imposed on the products which entered into Pakistan before 30-11-2006, when the notification was issued---Petitioner submitted application to Authority with the request that duties upon the tiles under consideration could not be charged being imported prior to the issuance of notification dated 30-11-2006, and the Authority was illegally charging the anti-dumping duties upon the tiles--Authorities without considering the material irregularities pointed out to them by number of petitioners, issued the impugned notification---Constitutional petition was allowed holding that impugned notification issued on 30-11-2006 was not applicable upon the transactions of imports made by the petitioner.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Anti Dumping Duties Ordinance (LXV of 2000)=23", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.20 of 2007, decision dated: 9-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, C, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner. Muhammad Akram Sheikh and Muhammad Kamran Shoaib for Respondents. Mazhar Bangash with Sheraz Ahmad, Legal Officer NTC", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FORTE TILES through Proprietor \nVs \nNATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION through Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8299", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2091 = 2008 SLD 2091 = 2008 PTD 1274 = (2008) 98 TAX 112 = 2009 PTCL 419", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25, 194-C & 196---Determination of value of goods---Jurisdiction of Single Member of Appellate Tribunal---Application for reference to High Court---Question of determination of value of goods involved in the case, at relevant time was to be decided by a Bench of two Members of the Appellate Tribunal as per requirement of law prevalent at the relevant time, but same was decided by single Member, which was an illegality---Counsel for department had not disputed said factual position and had not objected to suggestion of remand of case made by the counsel for the applicants---Applications were allowed, impugned orders were set aside and matters were remanded for decision of the issue afresh.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,194C,196", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference Application Nos. 340 to 346 of 2007, decision dated: 4-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIB AHMAD KHAN AND MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Junaid Ghaffar for the Applicants in Spl. Customs Reference Applications Nos.340 to 346 of 2007.\nRaja Muhammad Iqbal for the Respondent in Spl. Customs Reference Application Nos.340, 341, 342, 343, 345 and 346 of 2007", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ATTA CABLES (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Director \nVs \nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8300", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2092 = 2008 SLD 2092 = 2008 PTD 1365 = (2008) 98 TAX 183 = 2009 PTCL 515", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 4, 6 & 3(g)---S.R.O. No. 486(I)/2007 dated 9-6-2007---Appointment of the Director-General of Intelligence and Investigation for Customs and Central Excise---Director-General Intelligence of Customs and Central Excise, by all means and by any standard was an officer of customs department so approved by law for which the specific notification, that assigned powers was S.R.O. No.486(I) of 2007, dated 9-6-2007---Strong information with regard to mis-declaration, undervaluation and incorrect description of the goods being available exercise of jurisdiction with the regular appraising department and request of the joint inspection was valid, genuine and lawful---Principles. \n \nMazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi and 2 others 2004 PTD 2994 and Shahzad Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 2005 PTD 23 distinguished.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---Ss. 17, 15 & 32---Misstatement, understatement and misdeclaration of imported goods---Powers of Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation---Scope---Where there is no doubt to the extent of misstatement, understatement and misdeclaration of goods; law provides ample and wide powers to Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation to stop the clearance of any consignment even if the same was out of charge---Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, has full powers to investigate even after the process of appraisement by the Customs Collectorate if it has reasons to believe that the goods are rnisdeclared---Principles. \n \nMazhar Iqbal v. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi and 2 others 2004 PTD 2994 and Shahzad Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others 2005 PTD 23 distinguished.\n \nCollector of Customs, Lahore and others v. Universal Gateway Trading Corporation and another 2005 SCMR 37 fol.\n \n(c) Precedent---\n \n----Law enunciated in one applies on the other case only if in the said case the facts and circumstances are the same. \n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 4, 6 & 3(g)----Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199----S.R.O. No. 486(I)/2007 dated 9-6-2007---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Misstatement, understatement and misdeclaration of imported goods---Petitioner having failed to prove that action by Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation was without jurisdiction in the matter, High Court would not show indulgence by way of exercising constitutional jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=3A,3B,3C,3D,4,6,3(g),15,17,32Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.1451 to 1455 2008, heard on 16-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahzad Mazhar for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and Sultan Mehmood vice Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq with Muhammad Rauf, Senior Intelligence Officer", + "Petitioner Name:": "F.A. CORPORATION through Proprietor \nVs \nDIRECTOR GENERAL, CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8301", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2093 = 2008 SLD 2093 = 2008 PTD 1592 = (2008) 98 TAX 224 = 2008 PTCL 543", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 194-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Petitioner approached the Appellate Tribunal for issuance of detailed which was declined observing that one of the Members of the Tribunal had retired in the meanwhile; and other having been transferred, detailed could not legally be passed by the existing Bench---Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner was accepted---Appeal filed by the petitioner would be deemed to be pending before the Tribunal to be decided in accordance with law after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. \n \nPakistan State Oil Company Ltd. v. Collector of Customs 2005 PTD 709 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.10767 of 2007, decision dated: 10-04-2008", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Kousar Parveen for Respondent-Revenue", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALMADINA TRADERS through Proprietor \nVs \nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (IMPORTS) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8302", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2094 = 2008 SLD 2094 = 2008 PTD 1594 = (2008) 98 TAX 225 = 2008 PTCL 545", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25, 25-A(3), 25-D & 81---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods---Provisional assessment of duty---Petitioner/importer, imported `Polypropylene Film' and sought its clearance---Detail of the description of goods in Column No.35 being different and ambiguous, Department sought. the laboratory examination of the goods---Customs Laboratory, reported that orientation of Polypropylene films could not be determined at the level of that laboratory, but same could be determined elsewhere for further classification---Nothing with absolute certainty, had so far been decided by the Authorities with regard to the valuation of the imported goods---Customs Test Laboratory had opined that the laboratory had no adequate facility to determine orientation of polypropylene film---Director General of Customs Valuation, in its letter advised Collector to finalize assessment on the basis of test reports to be obtained through some prominent laboratory---Law required that when a valuation was determined by the Collector of Customs or Director of Customs valuation etc. a review petition lay before the Director General under S.25-D of Customs Act, 1969 and an application lay to the Director. General under S.25-A(3) of Customs Act, 1969, in case of conflict in the customs valuation determined under subsection (1) of S.25-A of Customs Act, 1969---Petitioner had already moved various applications, but with no result---Director General of Customs Valuation was directed to proceed with the applications filed by the petitioner---Petitioner was paying demurrage and detention charges, further delay would be detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and also to Revenue---High Court directed that pending applications of the petitioner be decided as expeditiously as possible---Case of the petitioner, till the finalization of the valuation by the Director General, would fall under S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969---Department was directed to proceed in the matter under provisions of S.81 of Customs Act, 1969 for the provisional release of the goods. \n \nRehan Umer v. Collectorate of Customs and 2 others 2006 PTD 909 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2026 of 2008, decision dated: 13-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Muhammad Nawaz Cheema for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUN TRADERS through Proprietor \nVs \nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, FAISALABAD and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8303", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2095 = 2008 SLD 2095 = 2008 SCMR 1610 = (2008) 98 TAX 277 = 2008 PTD 1729 = 2009 PTCL 72", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 19 & 25---S.R.O.447-(I)/04, dated 12-6-2004---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Determination of value of imported car--Exemption---Foreign Embassy imported a car after exemption by the Central Board of Revenue from payment of customs duties and taxes, however, the notional value of 27,000 US $ was shown in the bill of entry of the car---Car having been sold within three years of its import, in terms of Notification No. S.R.O. 447-(1)/04 dated 12-6-2004, same was liable to 100% of duties and taxes leviable at the prevailing rate and duties and taxes of value determined in foreign currency at the time of importation---Customs Authority determined the value of the car at the rate of 74,244 Euro, prevailing at the time of importation---Respondent challenged the same on the ground that the Customs Department having itself accepted the bill of entry showing the value of the car as 27,000 US $, there could be no question of re-determination of its value---Leave to appeal was granted to consider said dispute and other submissions of the counsel---Since short question of law were involved, appeal would be set down for hearing on the present record within specified period.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,25Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.696 of 2008, decision dated: 19-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SHEIKH HAKIM ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS \nVs \nMessrs TRADECOM PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD. through Executive Deputy Director and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8304", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2096 = 2008 SLD 2096 = 2008 PTD 1742 = (2008) 98 TAX 290 = 2008 PTCL 555", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25 & 25-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of customs value of goods on basis of valuation advice---Competent Authority---Grievance of the petitioner was that valuation advice under S.25-A of Customs Act, 1969 having been issued by an Authority which was non-existent in the said Section, same was without jurisdiction---Petitioner had argued that such and similar valuation advices issued by the Authorities, not mentioned in S.25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 had already been held to be as ultra vires to the provisions of Customs Act, 1969 by the High Court in a number of such petitions---Authority which had issued impugned valuation ruling was Deputy Director, but S.25-A of the Customs Act, 1969 did not grant or delegate powers to a Deputy Director to issue such a direction---Such valuation ruling could be issued by the Collector of Customs on his own motion or Director of Customs Valuation on reference made to him by any person---Deputy Director not figuring any where in S.25-A of the Customs Act, 1969, constitutional petition was allowed in the manner that the value determined on the basis of an illegal valuation ruling was cancelled---Customs Authorities would revalue the consignment ignoring the same by resorting to S.25 of Customs Act, 1969. \n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Legislation---Legislation was always for the public-at-large with the spirit of the welfare of State as well as its citizens--Progressive changes in law were made to match the circumstances with progress and the development in the society.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition Nos. 8483 and 8484 of 2008, heard on 21st July, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "KH. FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Ehsan Ullah Cheema for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs RASHID ARMS COMPANY through Proprietor \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Revenue Division and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8305", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2097 = 2008 SLD 2097 = 2008 PTD 1760 = (2008) 98 TAX 296 = 2008 PTCL 578", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 25---Customs Rules, 2001, R.113(I)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Determination of value of imported goods---Enforcement of value---After arrival of consignment of textile fabrics imported by petitioner/importer, same was presented for assessment---On examination, consignment was found exactly in accordance with the declaration made by importer with regard to quantity, quality and weight, but despite that Customs Authorities did not accept transactional value and evidence furnished by importer and arbitrarily enhanced the value without any basis---Validity---Under provisions of S.25(1) of Customs Act, 1969 Customs Value of imported goods would be the transactional value---Under Clause (1) of R.113 of Customs Rules, 2001, price actually paid or payable was the total payment made or to be made by the buyer to or for benefit of the. seller for the imported goods---Enhancement of value without any satisfactory evidence of any import of identical goods of the very period, when consignment in question was imported, was not in accordance with S.25 of Customs Act, 1969 which spoke about the assessment on the basis of transactional value---Action of Authorities resorting to the assessment on the basis of valuation advice in pursuance of provisions contained in subsection (7) of S.25 of the Customs Act, 1969 without resort to subsections (1) to (6) of S.25 of the Act, 1969, was illegal and without lawful authority---Authorities were directed by High Court to accept the transactional value declared by the importer in terms of S.25(1) of Customs Act, 1969; and if, after assessment, any excess amount of customs duty and taxes were recovered from the importer same would be returned to him within specified period.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25,25(1),25(7)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Customs Rules, 2001=113(1)", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-1381 of 2004, decision dated: 30-06-2008, hearing DATE : 19-03-2008", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY AND GHULAM DASTAGIR A. SHAHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "WANIA IMPEX through Proprietor \nVs \nASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8306", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2007 = 2013 SLD 2007 = 2013 PDS 1311", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)].........Sections 79(1), 80, 25, 181, 25, 32, 32A, 16, 6(2),, Customs Rules, 2001, Rule 107(a),, SRO-487(I)/07, dated 09/06/2007,, Paragraph 08 of Appendix-C of Import Policy Order, 2007-08,,. Goods Declaration,,. Liability,, Determination,,. GD was selected for scrutiny,, Used Overhead Crane,, This item was listed in banned and not importable list,, Importer was found guilty,, Order-in-Appeal, rejected,, Mis-declaration by importer at the time of import,,. Scope,, Validity,, Levy of duty,,. Effect,, Contention of the appellant was that the disputed item was not being manufactured locally and goods being imported in the instant case also do not tally with the list of local manufacturing exactly and is always under doubt as to its local manufacturing aspect and hence this restrictions cannot be applied practically,,. Show-cause Notice,, Restrictions imposed vide Appendix C of the import Policy Order 2007-2008 Vide serial No.8 is not applicable in the instant case as the same is more specifically mentioned and covered vide serial No.6 of the Appendix-C which covers machines of chapter 84 and against this serial No the HS code 8426 is not listed and hence is freely importable and learned respondent has erred in law by applying a wrong provision of law in so far as issuance of show cause notice is concerned,, As per respondent, in terms of paragraph 1(d) of S.R.O. No. 487(I)/07, dated 09/06/2007 read with proviso. to Section 181, Customs Act, 1969, as a Government policy in public interest, the goods imported in violation of Import Policy Order, can not be allowed release even on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation,, The Tribunal observed that in case of controversy of any machinery imported where there is a dispute that same is manufactured locally under CGO 11 of 2007 as per list provided thereunder, a mechanism for resolution of dispute is also provided there under,, The Engineering Development Board is the authority to be approached and their no objection has to be sought as the imported machinery is not being manufactured locally and same be allowed to the appellant,, In the instant case, the appellant failed to do so though it did approach the BDP but no such permission sought from them,, Besides the dispute as the status of the impugned overhead crane as to whether its local substitute is available or not, the most crucial aspect in the instant case is its being in used condition,.. The import of used machinery is barred under Serial No. 8 of Appendix-C of Import Policy Order 2007-2008,, This is an admitted position, in view of this, the Tribunal held the orders of the Collector Appeal correct in law as it had discussed all the issues which had been presented before this Tribunal, therefore, appeal was dismissed,,", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-524/2011 (old No.K-251/2008) hearing DATE 11.06.2013. DATE of order 03.09.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II), KARACHI AND MR. ADNAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), KARACHI.", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Precision Engineering Services, No. 14, Mogul Tobacco Godown, Plot No. B31.SITE, Karachi. \nVs\nThe Assistant Collector of Customs Model Customs Collectorate of PaCCS, Customs House, Karachi." + }, + { + "Case No.": "8307", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2008 = 2013 SLD 2008 = 2013 PDS 1312", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]..........Section 194A,,. Main appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution ,, Application for restoration,, Respondent did not oppose, hence the instant appeal was reported its original number,, On previous date of hearing, the respondent was directed by the court to get impugned vehicle re-tested from independent laboratory and get report regarding side cut,.. Report was produced by the respondent department according to which the chassis number was not tampered,, Appellant was willing to pay duty and taxes of the vehicle in question and department showed its no objection,, Appeal was accepted and the appellant was directed to pay the duty and taxes plus redemption fine equivalent to 30%,,", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 159/2012 DATE of order 28/05/2013", + "Judge Name:": "MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Muhammad Tayyab, Advocate for appellant. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. Sajjad Ali, . \nVs\nCollector of Customs, ETC." + }, + { + "Case No.": "8308", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 1575 = 2014 SLD 1575 = 2013 PDS 1313 = 2014 PTD 548", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "[Custom Act (IV of 1969)]........Sections 79(1), 80, 195,, Goods Declaration, filing of,, Duties & taxes,.. Liability,.. Applicability,... Scrutiny,, Mis-declaration,.. Order-in-original,.. Confiscation,, Show-cause Notice,.. Option to redeem the goods on payment of fine was given,.. Imposition,.. Penalty,, Representation to the Collector of Customs (Adj-II) who vacated the order of the Dy. Collector (Adj-II), hence the instant departmental appeal,.. Contention of the appellant during course of adjudication proceedings, the representative of the importer/respondent No.1 was failed to substantiate his statement with any corroborate document rather admitted the presence of higher value invoice in the container and the forum below, Deputy Collector (Adjudication) confiscated the goods on charge of \"\"deliberate mis-declaration of value\"\" and fine of 35% of the ascertained value was imposed in lieu of redemption of the confiscated goods vide order-in-original,, In reply, the respondent No. 1 stated that he had made written and oral submission that the pay of goods to the exporter, a contract was registered with Habib Bank Limited and payment was made through bank accordingly by LC LICCONO6029712 - 14/11/2012,.. The goods were proper values and invoice submitted was valid and there was no illegality or mis-declaration on his part, retrieved invoice was bogus as such it was bearing any particulars not even the name of exporter,, The Tribunal expressed his displeasure on the manner in which the Officer of Customs Department, Law Officer involved in the filing of this appeal had conducted themselves,, They did not bother to find out the correct provision of law relating to filing of appeal before this Tribunal and to obey and comply with the legal requirements, the representative of the appellant who had argued that the appeal had not any proper manner and in-spite of clear decade of law filed appeal in the name of wrong person as a petitioner,,. The appeal was filed on 17/05/2013 with supporting affidavit of Deputy Collector Customs (Law), Dr. Shahab Imam where in para 1 of his affidavit he has stated that \"\"That I am authorized by the Collector of Customs (PaCCS), vide Office order No.95/2007 (PaCCS) dated 10.09.2007, to file appeal on behalf of the Collectorate/ the appellant, in the case as noted above, as such am will conversant with the facts of the case.\"\",, Cause of action arose in March, 2013 but the contents of the affidavit show the date of office order mentioned in the affidavit as 10/09/2007 which is much earlier than the cause of action arose,,. Tribunal found the appeal without any merit, hence dismissed the same accordingly,,", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=79", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-490/2013 hearing DATE 28.08.2013. DATE of order 09.09.2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. ADNAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II), KARACHI", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate of PaCCS, Custom House, Karachi. \nVs\nM/s. Captain & Company, 1st Floor, Shafi Court, Opp. Central Hotel, Merewether Road, Karachi" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8309", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2009 = 2013 SLD 2009 = 2013 PDS 1314", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRFJDST0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]........Sections 2(s), 156(2), 181,,.. S.R.O. No. 566(I)/2005, dated 06/06/2005,, Order-in-original,, Foreign origin cloth measuring 2020 yards was recovered by Anti Smuggling Staff,, Culprits failed to produce documentary evidence regarding law possession or legal import of the impugned cloth,, Invocation,, Sections 2(s), Customs Act, 1969 could not be invoked because value of the impugned cloth had not exceeded to Rs. 150,000/-,,. Option was offered to the appellant to get release of the goods on payment of redemption fine equal to 20% of the assessed value along with leviable duty and taxes,, Appeal before the Collector (A) which was rejected, hence the instant appeal,.. Contention of the appellant was that the impugned cloth was purchased by her from the open market and she was not aware of the custom duty and she is ready to pay custom duty,, The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating officer had passed a correct detailed order considering all aspects of the case, although, the charges leveled against the appellant were established as the cloth in question come within the ambit of S.R.O. No. 566(I)/2005, dated 06/06/2005, but two persons claimed the ownership of the seized cloth and the value of the seized cloth of each person did not exceed to Rs. 1,50,000/-, thus the provision of Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 could not be invoked in the instant case, therefore, the option given to the appellant under Section 181, Customs Act, 1969 to get release of the goods on payment of redemption fine equal to 20% of the assessed value along with duty and taxes was correct on law and facts, therefore, the Tribunal did not interfere with the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) which was upheld and the instant appeal was dismissed,,", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 44/2013 hearing DATE 11/06/2010. DATE of judgment 12/06/2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mst. Sharifan Bibi wife of Noor Ahmad Caste Arain R/o Grand Battery Factory, Chowk Yatem Khana, Multan Road, Lahore\nVs.\n1. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), 2. Deputy Collector, Customs (Adjudication) AFU, , Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8310", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 460 = 1983 SLD 460 = 1983 CLC 786 = 1983 PTCL 280", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Challenge to Seizure Order under Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 — Requirement of Compliance with Procedural Safeguards\nDetails:\nThe petitioner challenged two actions by the customs authorities:\nA notice dated 6-3-1981 under Section 168 of the Customs Act seizing 17 cases of machinery lying at the premises of Messrs Tariq Multi-purpose Industries.\nA subsequent order dated 16-6-1981, issued under Section 168, restraining the movement of another 6 cases of machinery held by respondent 4.\nDuring the proceedings:\nRespondents 1 to 3 withdrew the first notice (dated 6-3-1981) but reserved the right to proceed afresh under law.\nThe main contest remained regarding the second order (dated 16-6-1981).\nThe petitioner's main grounds of challenge were:\nNo proper determination of confiscability before the restraint order.\nNo reasons for seizure communicated under Section 171.\nNo show-cause notice issued under Section 180 within two months as required by law.\nThe respondents argued that the order was not a seizure, thus procedural safeguards (such as a two-month limit and the requirement to disclose grounds) did not apply.\nThe Court rejected this argument, holding that:\nEven an order restraining the owner from dealing with the goods under Section 168 amounts to a seizure. \nTherefore, compliance with Section 168(2) (show-cause notice within two months) and Section 171 (communication of reasons) was mandatory.\nSince no show-cause notice had been issued and no extension obtained, and reasons for seizure were not provided, the Court found the seizure unlawful.\nHeld:\nThe order dated 16-6-1981 was declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.\nThe petition was accepted, and the petitioner was entitled to delivery of the six cases of machinery.\nNo order as to costs, acknowledging the reasonable conduct of Customs’ legal officers.\nCustoms authorities voluntarily undertook to issue a delay detention certificate for the consignment.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168,168(1),168(2),171,180", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 810 of 1981, decision dated: 24-11-1983, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 1982", + "Judge Name:": "SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND SALEEM AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sharaf Fareedi for Petitioner. U. Niamat Moulvi and Zaheer-ud-Din Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ILAM KHAN \nvs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8311", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 461 = 1983 SLD 461 = 1983 CLC 1440 = 1983 PTCL 371", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Challenge to Show-Cause Notices under Section 32(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 and Request for Commission to Examine Foreign Entity\nDetails:\nThe petitioners jointly challenged 21 show-cause notices (Annexures A/1 to A/21) issued by the Deputy Controller of Customs (Valuation) under Section 32(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, on the allegation that the petitioners had cleared consignments through false declarations. The basis of these notices appeared to be a telex allegedly received from the supplier, Messrs. Amardas Champion Ltd. Part, Bangkok, Thailand.\nHowever, the petitioners argued that the supplier disowned the telex through a letter dated 26th May, 1982, raising serious doubts about the authenticity of the allegation. In response, the petitioners requested the issuance of a Commission to record the statement of a partner or representative of the supplier firm, contending that this was necessary to resolve the key factual dispute. This request was denied by the Deputy Controller, prompting the present constitutional petition.\nHeld:\n[This section would normally contain the Court’s final decision, but the judgment or ruling is not fully provided in your message. If you can share the outcome or final paragraphs, I will complete this section accurately.]\nCitations:\nLetter from Messrs Amardas Champion Ltd., Bangkok, dated 26-05-1982\nPrinciples of natural justice and fair hearing (implied)", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(2)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 556 of 1982, decision dated: 28-06-1982", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND FAKHRUDDIN H. SHAIKH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Silat for Petitioner\nNemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS AMBALA BANS STORES and 6 OTHERS\nvs \nTHE DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8312", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 462 = 1983 SLD 462 = 1983 CLC 1506 = 1983 PTCL 22", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "Discretion under Section 25-A of the Customs Act – Customs Valuation Dispute\nSection 25-A, Customs Act: Grants discretion to acquire imported goods at declared value if undervaluation is suspected.\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a Corporation, imported enamelled copper wire from Singapore, declaring the value at $3,600 per metric ton. The customs authorities rejected this declared value and reassessed it at $4,600 per metric ton. After unsuccessful appeals before the Collector and the Government, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The petitioner had also offered that the customs authorities acquire the consignment under Section 25-A of the Customs Act at the declared value, which was declined.\nHeld:\nThe High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that under Section 25-A, the decision to acquire goods at the declared value lies solely at the discretion of the customs authorities. Therefore, no judicial direction could compel the authorities to exercise this discretion in a particular manner.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25-A", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 4935 of 1982, decision dated: 22-12-1982", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Shaukat Ali for Applicant", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS ELECTRIC CONCERN CORPORATION \nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8313", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 463 = 1983 SLD 463 = 1983 CLC 1736 = 1983 PTCL 396", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Limitation Period for Issuance of Demand Notice under the Customs Act, 1969\nDetails:\nThe petitioner imported Karakuli cloth in January 1965 for cap manufacturing and paid assessed customs duty. After the consignment’s release, a demand notice was issued on 30th March 1965 seeking additional duty, which the petitioner disputed in a written reply dated 2nd April 1965, enclosing a government gazette indicating exemption beyond 25% ad valorem duty. The petitioner claimed that no further action was taken thereafter, implying departmental satisfaction with the explanation.\nAfter seven years of inactivity, a fresh demand notice dated 3rd July 1972 was issued by Customs for Rs. 2,757, referring to the earlier demand of 1965. The petitioner challenged the 1972 notice as time-barred under Section 32(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, which requires issuance of such notices within four months from the relevant date, i.e., the date of assessment.\nThe respondents argued that the delay was due to a pending internal clarification from the Central Board of Revenue (CBR), finalized only on 14th November 1972, and that the 1972 notice was merely a reminder, not a fresh demand.\nHeld:\nThe Court held that the July 1972 notice was not a mere reminder but a fresh demand notice and that the seven-year delay without any communication was unjustified. Consequently, the demand was declared time-barred under Section 32(3), and the notice was set aside. The Court allowed the petition, directed that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner be discharged, and made no order as to costs.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32,32(3)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 871 of 1974, decision dated: 20-04-1983", + "Judge Name:": "SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mrs. Rashida Patel for Petitioner. \nAkram Zubairi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S QUAID CAP HOUSE \nvs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8314", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1983 464 = 1983 SLD 464 = 1983 CLC 2738 = 1983 PTCL 206", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Legality of Confiscation under Customs Act — Interpretation of Parts and Accessories in Import Policy\nDetails:\nThe petitioners imported Crosrol Varga Accessory under an import licence mistakenly citing Item 33(a) instead of the correct Item 38(a) of the Import Policy for January–June 1970. The Customs authorities allowed the first consignment without objection but seized the second, claiming the item was not covered under the proper import category. A show-cause notice was issued under Section 156(9) of the Customs Act, 1969, and Section 3(3) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950. Despite objections, the Deputy Collector of Customs confiscated the goods, offering release upon payment of a fine. The Collector (Appeals) and the Central Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioners’ appeals and revision respectively.\nThe petitioners challenged the orders, arguing:\nThe term accessory in Item 38(a) of the Import Policy included the imported item.\nOnly items specifically listed in Annexure XVI were excluded, and their goods did not fall within the excluded categories.\n Parts and accessories must be read disjunctively, each having distinct meanings.\nThe Court analyzed the meaning of accessory, citing Ballentine's Law Dictionary and found that the item, though not usable independently, was meant to enhance the main carding machine's function and production — thus qualifying as an accessory.\nHeld:\nThe Court held that the term accessories in Item 38(a) included the imported Crosrol Varga Accessory. Since the item was not among the exclusions listed in Annexure XVI of the import policy, the confiscation orders were declared to be without lawful authority. The petition was accepted, and the impugned orders were set aside. No order as to costs was made.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156,156(9)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1129 of 1973, decision dated: 26-08-1981", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, JUSTICE AND B. G. N. KAZI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Aziz Khan for Petitioner. \nA. Aziz Munshi, Dy. A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLONY THAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD. \nvs \nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8315", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 300 = 1984 SLD 300 = 1984 CLC 530 = 1984 PTCL 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJTST0", + "Key Words:": "Challenge to Customs Circular Requiring Letter of Credit and Jawaznama for Afghan Transit Goods\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a trader from Kabul engaged in import/export, challenged the vires of a circular dated 13 January 1983 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Afghan Transit) requiring submission of a Letter of Credit (L/C) and original Jawaznama for transit goods destined for Afghanistan. The petitioner had imported a consignment of polyester yarn and submitted requisite documentation including the Bill of Entry and a certification from Da Afghanistan Bank but was denied clearance due to absence of an L/C.\nThe petitioner argued that:\nThe requirement of L/C and Jawaznama had no statutory backing under the Customs Act, 1969 or any rules made thereunder.\nIt violated the Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement.\nSection 29 and 219 of the Customs Act only authorize rule-making for transit regulation, and the impugned orders (Annexures C and D) were neither rules nor statutory in nature.\nLong-standing practice did not require an L/C, and sudden imposition through a circular was unreasonable.\nThe requirement imposed a financial burden, including demurrage charges, which the petitioner argued were inapplicable under the bilateral transit agreement.\nThe respondents (Customs) countered that:\nTransit clearance required submission of valid L/C and Jawaznama to prevent misuse of the facility.\nSection 26 of the Customs Act empowered officers to demand relevant documentation to verify legitimacy.\nThe requirement was supported by Circular No. 1/83 (Annexure C) and Central Board of Revenue’s instructions (Annexure D).\nThe Standing Order No. 20/60 provided the general framework for transit procedures.\nPetitioner failed to provide standard evidence of genuine trade, including banking channel remittance proof.\nHeld:\nThe court held that:\nThe requirement for L/C and Jawaznama did not have the force of law under section 219 of the Customs Act, 1969 since they were imposed via circulars and not formal rules.\nThere was insufficient statutory authority under sections 26 or 129 to unilaterally impose such conditions through administrative instructions.\nSudden deviation from long-standing practice, without legal basis or rule-making, could not be sustained in law (citing PLD 1970 SC 453, PLD 1976 Karachi 253).\nThus, the circular dated 13 January 1983 and instructions in Annexure D were declared without lawful authority.\nThe customs authorities were directed to release the consignment without requiring an L/C or original Jawaznama.\nRecovery of demurrage by Karachi Port Trust was also held unlawful due to the protections under the Pak-Afghan Transit Agreement.\nCitations:\nPLD 1970 SC 453, PLD 1976 Karachi 253, PLD 1962 SC 75, PLD 1965 SC 412 (on departmental practice and quasi-judicial authority).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=26,29,129,219", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-379 of 1983, decision dated: 24-11-1983, hearing DATE : 19-10-1983", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI AND MUHAMMAD ZAHURUL HAQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sharaf Faridi for Petitioner. \nAziz A. Munshi, Deputy Attorney General for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Zaheer-ud-Din Khan for Respondent No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZAMIR LTD. \nvs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8316", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 172 = 1984 SLD 172 = 1984 MLD 1510 = 1984 PTCL 192", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Illegal Search and Seizure and Its Impact on Trial under the Customs Act\nDetails:\nThis case involves two appeals filed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Customs) convicting the appellants under Section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act for being in possession of smuggled goods (221 kilograms of betel nuts and 276 glasses of foreign-made goods). The appellants were sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 300 each. The prosecution witnesses included police officers and constables who testified about the arrest and recovery of goods from the appellants' vehicle, a Suzuki. The appellants denied knowledge of the contraband and argued that they were unaware of the goods in the vehicle.\nThe appellants challenged their arrest and trial, citing non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, which mandates the serving of a notice before arrest or search. They relied on the Azizullah case to argue that their arrest was illegal. The defense argued that they were unaware of the contraband goods and that the arrest was invalid.\nThe court examined the validity of the arrest, the legality of the investigation, and whether non-compliance with Section 171 would vitiate the trial. The appellants' legal team argued that such non-compliance rendered their conviction unsustainable, while the prosecution maintained that the trial should proceed despite the alleged irregularity.\nHeld:\nThe court ruled that non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act did not invalidate the trial or the jurisdiction of the court. The arrest was conducted by a competent officer under Section 151 of the Customs Act, and the contraband was seized from the appellants. The court concluded that even if there were defects in the pre-trial procedures (such as the failure to issue a notice under Section 171), it did not affect the trial’s validity unless it impacted the jurisdiction of the court or caused a miscarriage of justice. The trial was upheld, and the conviction was maintained.\nCitations:\nAzizullah v. The State, P L D 1981 Kar. 250\nH.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, A I R 1955 S C 196\nS.M.Yousaf v. Collector of Customs, P L D 1968 Kar. 599\nAbdul Rauf v. The State, C.P. No. 80 of 1981\nCommander S.M.R. Ibrat v. The Commander-in-Chief, Royal Pakistan Navy, PLD 1956 SC (Pak.) 264\nAziz Maseeh v. The State, P L D 1976 Lah. 53\nState v. Muhammad Hussain, P L D 1968 SC 265", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=151,156(1)(89),171,190,191(1)(a),191(1)(b),191(1)(c),193,195,196,197,198,199Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=302(1),537", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1983, decision dated: Ist August, 1984, hearing DATE : 4-06-1983", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHARY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HIZBULLAH \nvs \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8317", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 311 = 1984 SLD 311 = 1984 CLC 2536 = 1985 PTCL 297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "Validity of Regulatory Duty Imposed under SRO 635(I)/76\nDetails:\nA group of 59 constitution petitions, led by Constitution Petition No. D-200/78, challenged the legality of regulatory duty imposed via SRO 635(I)/76 dated 01-07-1976. The petitioners contended that:\nThe imposition of regulatory duty without following the procedure in the Protective Duties Act, 1950 was illegal.\nSection 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, which delegated power to the Federal Government to impose such duty, amounted to excessive delegation and was unconstitutional.\nThe case relied upon earlier conflicting decisions including:\nSterling Engineering Corporation v. Collector of Customs\nMessrs Hashim Tanir Traders v. Ministry of Finance (PLD 1977 Kar 911)\nMessrs Yousuf Re-rolling Mills Karachi v. Collector of Customs\nPetitioners relied on both Pakistani and American jurisprudence to argue against the constitutionality of the delegation under section 18(2). The respondents defended the delegation as limited and policy-guided, pointing to case law upholding such powers.\nHeld:\nThe High Court dismissed the petitions, holding:\nRegarding the procedure under the Protective Duties Act:\nThe Court found no statutory obligation under the Customs Act, 1969 or the Protective Duties Act, 1950 requiring the Federal Government to follow the procedure under the latter when levying regulatory duty. No provision was cited that would imply such requirement.\nRegarding excessive delegation under section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969:\nThe Court rejected the claim of excessive delegation. Relying heavily on Messrs Sh. Abdur Rahim Allah Ditta v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1976 Lah 886), and Zaibtun Textile Mills Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue (PLD 1983 SC 358), it held that:\nThe statute provided clear limits: specific categories of goods, maximum rates, and time-limited validity (till the end of the financial year).\nThese constituted sufficient legislative guidance, and the delegation did not amount to an unconstitutional abdication of legislative functions.\nThe temporary and limited nature of the power ensured legislative oversight.\nThe Court also emphasized that the growing complexity of state functions justifies limited delegation, especially where administrative expertise is needed and where legislative supervision is structurally retained.\nCitations:\nMessrs Sh. Abdur Rahim Allah Ditta v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 1976 Lah 886\nZaibtun Textile Mills Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue, PLD 1983 SC 358\nSterling Engineering Corp. v. Collector of Customs\nSobho Gyanchandani v. Crown, PLD 1952 FC 29\nProvince of East Pakistan v. Sirajul Haq Patwari, PLD 1966 SC 854\nHodge v. Regina (1883) 3 App. Cas. 117\nAmerican cases cited by petitioners:\nJ.W. Hampton Jr. & Co. v. U.S., 276 U.S. 394\nA.L. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. U.S., 295 U.S. 495\nFahey v. Mallonee, 332 U.S. 245", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,18(2),18(4)", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-690 of 1977, decision dated: 14-02-1984. dates of hearing: 1st, 8th and 14-02-1984", + "Judge Name:": "NAIMUDDIN AND K. A.CHANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Pervez for Petitioner. Aziz A. Munshi, Deputy Attorney General with Muhammad Akram Zubairi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s STERLING ENGINEERING CORPORATION \nvs \nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8318", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1984 180 = 1984 SLD 180 = 1985 CLC 1273 = 1984 PTCL 318", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---S.2--State Bank of Pakistan Notification No. E/1/7/8/SB, dated 11th May, 1978--Foreign currency, import of--Any amount of foreign currency, held, can be imported into Pakistan under State Bank Notifica­tion No.E/1/7/8/SB, dated 11-5-1978.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.156, cls. (8), (77), (81), (82) & (89)--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9--Smuggling of currency--Allegations against petitioner that he had not brought any foreign currency from outside Pakistan but had purchased same from inside Pakistan and in collusion with Customs Officer prepared a bogus declaration of foreign currency, not substantiated by any evidence--Concerned officer of Customs Department charged for this irregularity but allegations against accused not at all proved--Authorities having no material before them to presume that accused had not brought foreign currency from outside Pakistan-­Accused declaring currency on same date he arrived in Pakistan, held. a circumstance sufficient to prove that he had brought it from outside Pakistan.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n--S. 156, cls. (8),(77), (81), (82) & (89)--Smuggling of currency--Attempt to smuggle or actual smuggling of currency out of Pakistan not proved-­Arrest of accused on such allegations, held, uncalled for and illegal.\n \nCrown v. Muhammad Rafique Safdar and others P L D 1952 Sind 281 and Abdul Salam v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1133 ref.\n \n(d) Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)--\n \n--Art.9--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156--Constitutional jurisdiction-­Petitioner having a remedy by way of appeal under a statute but impugned order of respondent against petitioner illegal ab initio-­Petitioner, held, could file writ petition instead of filing an appeal against said order.--[Appeal (civil)].\n \nThe Murree Brewery Co. Limited v. Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Works Division and 2 others PLD 1972 S C 279 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2,156,156(8),156(77),156(81),156(82),156(89)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.368 of 1983, decision dated: 19-06-1984", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD BHATTI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Raza Ahmad Khan, Deputy A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAN MUHAMMAD \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PESHAWAR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8319", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 229 = 1985 SLD 229 = 1985 MLD 1327", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(1)(8) & 178--Smuggling--Accused and some other persons seen coming from India carrying some bundles with them--On challenge of Nakabandi party, except for accused, others managing to run away-­Large quantity of smuggled goods recovered from bundles which were thrown away by accused on spot -Members of Nakabandi party except one, who was declared hostile, supporting prosecution version--No reason found as to why any of said witnesses should have perjured himself against accused persons--No member of Nakabandi party found to be acquainted with accused prior to occurrence--Defence evidence not believed--Conviction upheld.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---Ss. 156(1)(8) & 178--Smuggling--Defence evidence--Accused apprehended by a party of Rangers--Smuggled articles recovered from bundles being carried by accused--Defence evidence stating that accused were arrested from their fields found to be most unlikely--Taking of innocent persons from their fields and then planting of a large quantity of smuggled goods on them by a party of Rangers without any motive being incredible, version of defence witnesses disbelieved.\n \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---Ss. 156(1)(8), 178 & 171--Defence plea that at time of arrest accused were not given any notice under S. 171, Customs Act, 1969 not taken at trial--Such plea discarded at appeal stage.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n---Ss. 156(1)(8) & 178--Sentence--lnciderrt taking place more than twelve years back--Accused facing protracted trial and suffering torture of suspended sentence--Sentence of two years' R.I. reduced to one already undergone in circumstances.--[Sentence].", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 1976, decision dated: 22-06-1985, hearing DATE : 16-06-1985", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others \nvs \nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8320", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 230 = 1985 SLD 230 = 1985 MLD 1610", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 25 & 32--Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.31--Custom duty--Levy or increase on export goods--Export price--Increase in--Export duty being levied or increased on export goods from Pakistan, held, would not automatically mean increase in price of value of those goods in foreign market unless and until foreign market showed inclination to accept increase in price--Contract stipulating increase in price on account of levy of export duty--Buyer could legitimately refuse to increase price if 'he saw no profit in such increase of price.\n \nb) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n---Ss. 25(4), (5) & 32--Value of export goods- -Determination--Levy of custom duty--Effect--Value of exported goods was normal price of those goods in open market in foreign country--In case seller was not able to find buyer in foreign country who was willing to increase price of export goods on account of levy of duty in Pakistan, he, held, was not obliged to make declaration that value of goods was value -inclusive of duty levied.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---S. 25(5)--Value of export goods--Assessment of--Basis--Duty of Customs Authorities--Assessment to be made by Customs Authorities in respect of value of export goods has to be made on reasonable enquiry-­Assumptions for assessment under section 25(5) of Customs Act, 1969, held, could serve purpose but they alone could not be sole basis and would not empower customs authorities to shut their eyes from other circumstances.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---Ss. 25(5) & 32--Value of export goods--Declaration by exporter-­Falsity--Punish men t- -Liability of exporter--Declaration made by exporter that he had sold goods for particular price in foreign country--Such declaration could not be completely brushed aside or treated to be false merely because certain assumptions were to be made by assessing authorities--Assumptions made under section 25(5) of Customs Act, 1969 could be quite different from actual value obtained by exporter In Pakistan from export goods in outside world--Falsity in respect of value of goods would depend upon its normal price in foreign country and unless and until that evidence was established, petitioner/exporter, held, could not be punished for having made false declaration of price.\n \n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n---Ss. 25 & 32--Price of export goods--Determination--Levy or increase in custom duty--Increa3e in price of export goods--Relationship between exporter and importer--Relevancy--Decision of Customs Authorities made on presumption that price of export goods declared by seller /petitioner was not real because buyer was associated with him--Presumption declared, unjustified, fanciful, arbitrary and without any basis--Relation­ship of associate, held, was to be ignored for purposes of making assessment if independent evidence was available in respect of price prevalent in foreign country:\n \n(f) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n---Ss. 25 & 32--Export of goods--Imposition of ad valorem duty--Contract made before such imposition--Charge of additional duty--Goods were exported by petitioner to its buyer at rates agreed to between parties before imposition of ad valorem duty--After imposition of ad valorem duty petitioner asked for increase in price from buyer due to imposition of duty which was refused by buyer--It could not be alleged that previously agreed and actually received rates were inclusive of duty imposed--No justification to charge additional duty in circumstances.\n \n \n(g) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n---S. 25(5)--Additional duty--Requirements--Authority failing to establish prevalent market price at relevant time in country of export, held, had hardly any justification to charge additional duty.\n \n(h) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n---S. 25(5)--Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.31--Imposition of duty-- Responsibility to bear---Agreement between parties stipulated that export duty would be responsibility of buyer and not of seller-Assumption under section 25(5) of Customs Act could be made in law that duty was included in price or should have been included in normal price-­ Rebuttal of presumption, held, was provided by refusal of buyer to increase price after imposition of duty--Association of buyer and seller was of no consequence in absence of evidence of any other price prevalent in country of export--No justification for imposition of additional duty was present in circumstances.\n \n(i) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n---Art. 199--Constitutional jurisdiction ; International law--Conflict between State law and international convention--Supremacy of State law--Plea of petitioner left undecided by High Court in view of fact that petition was being accepted on other pleas.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-54 of 1979, decision dated: 1st August, 1985. dates of hearing: 12th and 13-08-1985", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurshid Anwar Shaikh for Petitioner. Akmal Wasim for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "DAWOOD COTTON MILLS Ltd. \nvs \nTHE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8321", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 231 = 1985 SLD 231 = 1985 CLC 2710 = 1986 PTCL 30", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "The petitioners imported vessels for scrapping and filed bills of entry before or shortly after the delivery of the vessel's manifest. The Customs Department levied duty, including an additional regularity duty imposed after 1-1-1978, even though the imports occurred prior to that date. Petitioners contested the retrospective application of the new duty.\nIssue:\nWhether the Customs Authorities could apply the enhanced duty rate effective from 1-1-1978 to imports where either the bill of entry or the manifest was filed before that date.\nHeld:\nThe Court held that under Section 30 read with Section 79, the applicable rate of duty is based on whichever is later: the date of manifest or the date of bill of entry. Since both events occurred before 1-1-1978 in all three cases, the post-1-1-1978 regularity duty was inapplicable. The demand by Customs was declared illegal, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect.\nDirection:\nCustoms Department was directed to refund excess duty collected.\nNo order as to costs.\nCitations:\nPLD 1976 Kar. 196\nPLJ 1979 Kar. 124\nPLD 1980 Lah. 469\nPLD 1984 Kar. 94", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 276, 277 aria 278 of 1978, decision dated: 14-02-1984.", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khurshid Anwar for Petitioner\nAkram Zubairi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s S. M. SADIQ \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8322", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 232 = 1985 SLD 232 = 1985 CLC 2714 = 1986 PTCL 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Additional Customs Duty — Validity of Demand and Procedural Fairness\nDetails:\nThe petitioners challenged the demand of additional customs duty under Section 9 of the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance, 1972, arguing (i) that SRO 37(I)/72 exempted them from such duty, (ii) that the demand was time-barred, and (iii) that they were not afforded a fair hearing. The case involved goods falling under the Tariff Act headings, imported against foreign exchange.\nHeld:\nThe High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that:\nThe SRO 37(I)/72, issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, only adjusted standard customs duty rates and had no effect on the separate additional customs duty imposed by Section 9 of the Finance (Supplementary) Ordinance, 1972, which is a self-contained charging provision.\nThe show-cause notice was issued within four months from the date of short payment, making the demand legally valid.\nPetitioners were given a fair opportunity to appear for a hearing as per the show-cause notice; their failure to appear did not constitute a denial of natural justice.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 125 of 1975, decision dated: 13-10-1983", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND HAIDER AZI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.H. Abbasi for Petitioner\nAkram Zuberi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s AWAMI AUTOS Ltd. \nVs \nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8323", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 233 = 1985 SLD 233 = 1985 CLC 2728 = 1985 PTCL 104", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duty – Exemption under Notification S.R.O. 372(I)/72 for LPG Cylinders\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, Committee of Administration, Fauji Foundation, a Charitable Endowment under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, challenged the imposition of 50% customs duty on the import of LPG cylinders from Singapore. Previously, the petitioner was allowed to import similar cylinders from Iran at a reduced duty of 20% under Notification S.R.O. 372(I)/72 dated 8-6-1972. The petitioner contended that these LPG cylinders are specially designed for use with LPG filling plants and thus qualify as machinery or apparatus under the said notification. The Central Board of Revenue rejected this claim, arguing that the cylinders were containers used for domestic/commercial purposes and not machinery.\nThe core issue was whether LPG cylinders could be classified as machinery under the notification. The relevant part of the notification defines machinery to include apparatus or appliances specially adapted for use with machinery (item ii of the definition).\nThe petitioner provided detailed technical reasons and operational context to argue that the cylinders are specially designed and are integral to the functioning of the LPG distribution system, particularly its filling plant. The respondents argued that the cylinders were mere containers.\nHeld:\nThe Court held that the LPG cylinders qualify under item (ii) of the definition of machinery in S.R.O. 372(I)/72 as “apparatus and appliances specially adapted for use in conjunction with machinery.” The Court found that the cylinders are specially designed to function with the petitioner’s LPG filling machinery and are essential for its operation. Previous treatment by Customs, allowing imports at 20% duty, supported this interpretation. However, the Court did not accept that the cylinders fell under items (i) or (iv) of the machinery definition.\nThe impugned orders by the Customs and CBR were set aside. The petitioner was declared entitled to the benefit of the notification, limiting customs duty to 20% ad valorem on the imported LPG cylinders.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18,19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 364 of 1976, decision dated: 2-04-1984", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoorul Arfin for Petitioner.\nAbul Khair for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAUJI FOUNDATION \nVs \nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8324", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 234 = 1985 SLD 234 = 1985 CLC 2754 = 1986 PTCL 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Vested Right to Customs Duty Exemption – Withdrawal by Subsequent Notification\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a textile mill owner, imported machinery (High Drafting System for Ring Frames) under the Balancing, Modernization, Replacement (BMR) Scheme with approval from the Ministry of Industries. This import was originally exempt from customs duty under SRO 820(I)/78 issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969. The petitioner opened an irrevocable letter of credit on 23-7-1980, prior to the issuance of Customs General Order No. 11 dated 4-9-1980, which removed this machinery from the exemption list.\nDespite this, when the machinery arrived in February 1981, the Collector of Customs demanded 40% ad valorem duty, later securing a bank guarantee from the petitioner. The Central Board of Revenue did not decide the exemption issue, yet the Collector attempted to enforce the guarantee.\nHeld:\nThe Sindh High Court held that the petitioner had acquired a vested right to duty exemption once the contract was made and the letter of credit opened during the effective period of the original SRO. The subsequent Custom General Order could not be applied retrospectively to revoke that right. Therefore, the customs authority's demand for duty and enforcement of the bank guarantee was held to be without lawful authority.\nCitations:\nM. Afzal & Sons v. Fed. Govt. of Pakistan, PLD 1978 Lah 468\nAzizuddin Industries Ltd. case, PLD 1970 SC 439\nMardan Industries Ltd., PLD 1965 Pesh 47\nM.E.M.Y. Industries case, CP D-1401/80 (unreported)\nDistinguished: Dada Steel Mills v. Collector of Customs, PLD 1984 Kar 94", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19,30General Clauses Act, 1897=21", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-109 of 1983, decision dated: 17-06-1984. dates of hearing: 26th and 27-03-1984", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "H.A. Rahmani for Petitioner. Abdul Aziz Munshi, Dy.A.G. and Muhammad Akram Zuberi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "NISHAT MILLS Ltd. \nVs \nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8325", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 235 = 1985 SLD 235 = 1985 CLC 2796", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 18--Pakistan Customs Tariff, Hdg. 73.03--Custom Authorities passing order declaring goods as second hand serviceable auto parts--Such authorities ignoring relevant considerations while deciding that goods were not scrap--Order set aside and case remanded with direction for determination whether goods which were actually scrap fell under Pakistan Customs Tariff Hdg. 73.03--Writ issued.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-424 of 1983, decision dated: 9-05-1984", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J. AND ABDUL RAZAAK A. THAHIM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mamnoon A. Kazi for Petitioner. Akram 2uberifor Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs WASEEM TRADERS \nVs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8326", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1169 = 1986 SLD 1169 = 1986 CLC 77 = 1986 PTCL 253", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "Whether customs authorities could lawfully detain imported goods (claimed as iron/steel scrap ) after initial clearance and duty payment, pending reclassification.\nKey Facts\nGoods: Two consignments (36 MT + 51 MT) classified as scrap (PCT Heading 73.03) by customs, attracting 70% duty.\nInitial Action: Goods examined, duty paid (₹1,09,727), and cleared for release (July 1984).\nDetention: Customs withheld goods post-clearance, alleging misdeclaration (auto parts like engines, gearboxes - reusable, not scrap).\nPetitioner's Claim: Detention illegal without seizure notice under Section 168, Customs Act 1969.\nCourt's Ruling\nDetention ≠ Seizure:\nSection 168 (requiring notice within 2 months) applies only to goods liable to confiscation. \nHere, goods were detained (not seized) under Section 32 for duty re-assessment. Dictionary definitions cited:\nDetain: To hold; keep in custody. \nSeize: Take possession forcibly. \nPrecedent: Zia-ur-Rehman's Case (PLD 1973 SC 49) - Different terms imply different legal consequences.\nRe-Assessment Valid Under Section 32:\nAuthorities can re-assess duty within 3 years if:\nInitial assessment based on untrue statements/collusion.\nGoods are later found non-compliant (e.g., misclassified).\nLimitation Extended: Pending litigation period excluded (Hindustan Motors Ltd., AIR 1975 Cal 368).\nMerits Not Decided:\nWhether goods are scrap (fit only for metal recovery) or reusable auto parts must be determined by customs authorities via due process.\nBrussels Nomenclature Note 6 defines scrap, but factual inquiry needed.\nFinal Order\nDetention Declared Illegal: Goods ordered released immediately (already examined).\nRe-Assessment Permitted: Customs may initiate proceedings under Section 32 to determine correct duty.\nCosts: None awarded.\nKey Legal Principles\nDistinction Detention/Seizure: Critical for triggering procedural safeguards (e.g., Section 168 notices).\nDuty Re-Assessment: Authorities retain power to correct levies within statutory limits, even post-clearance.\nJudicial Restraint: Constitutional courts avoid factual inquiries when specialized tribunals exist.\nSignificance: Clarifies customs' powers to re-assess duties without confiscation, balancing revenue protection and importer rights.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=17,18,32,80,83,68,112,156(2),168,168(2),169,172,177,179,180,195", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-870 of 1984, decision dated: 15-10-1985, hearing date: 30-09-1985", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid M. Ishaque for Petitioner. Liaquat Merchant, Deputy Attorney General with A.S. Pingar and Abdul Rashid Nizami for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s YOUSUF REROLLING MILLS \nvs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPRAISMENT), KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8327", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1170 = 1986 SLD 1170 = 1986 CLC 170", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 18--Appraiser's Manual, para. 18--Custom duty--Hygroscopic goods--Petitioners importing wool-tops (hygroscopic goods), claiming that the fibre they imported had a natural tendency of absorbing moisture from air and its capacity' to absorb moisture was 20$ and in order to ascertain true weight of consignment discount of percentage of moisture absorbed by it had to be allowed and Custom duty charged on oven-dry weight--Petitioners also claiming that there was an established practice with Customs Department to treat oven-dry weight of wool tops as their net weight and assess customs duty on its basis--Customs Authorities changing method of taxation from valuation basis to actual weight basis and ascertaining that term 'oven-dry weight' had been introduced male fide by petitioners in order to defeat change in assessment of duty from ad valorem basis to weight basis in collusion with suppliers who were compensated by enhancement of rates-­Appraiser's Manual not showing that weight of such goods was not its actual weight but it was its oven-dry weight--Petitioners unable to show that wool tops were dealt with, as far as whole sale trade was concerned, either in Pakistan or in country from where it was imported, on basis of such standard weight and not on basis of actual weight-­Petitioners also failing to show any established practice being followed by Customs Authorities to treat oven-dry weight of wool tops or any other hygroscopic goods, as their net weight, and assess customs duty on its basis--Petitioners furnishing no documentary evidence in this regard before Collector of Customs Appeal (Appraisement) who gave a negative finding which was upheld by Central Board of Revenue--Concurrent findings of fact of these two authorities could not be disbelieved particularly when there was no material to show that these findings were wrong and unjustified--Held, Oven-dry weight of wool tops was not its bona fide invoice standard weight nor wool tops could be dealt with as far as whole sale trade was concerned on basis of such weight and that there was no established practice with Customs Department to treat oven dry weight of wool tops or any other hygroscopic goods as their net weight and assess customs duty on it: basis.\n \n1985 C L C 1757 Kar. ref.\n \nP L D 1984 Kar. 302 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=18", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-468 to 47-4 of 1985, decision dated: 10-09-1985", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND ABDUR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahsan Zaheer Rizvi for Appellants. Wajih-ud-Din for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SANAULLAH WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. \nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8328", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1171 = 1986 SLD 1171 = 1986 CLC 231 = 1986 PTCL 88", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "The petitioner was allowed to establish a Guar Gum manufacturing plant in Hub Chowki, District Lasbela (Balochistan), a duty-free area under a notification dated 26-06-1980, exempting such areas from customs duty under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969.\nOn 14-03-1983, the petitioner imported and cleared machinery for the plant. However, 5% additional customs duty was levied on the clearance under the Finance Ordinance, 1982 (Ordinance XVIII of 1982).\nThe petitioner argued:\nSince the machinery was exempted from customs duty under section 19, additional customs duty should not be imposed.\nThe Finance Ordinance, 1983 (Ordinance XIV of 1983), which amended section 2(2) of the earlier ordinance, was enacted on 01-07-1983, i.e., after clearance of goods, and hence had no retrospective application to his case.\nThe State countered that:\nSection 6 of the Finance Ordinance, 1983 inserted a clarificatory and retrospective provision, explicitly stating that no exemption from customs duty would apply to additional customs duty.\nTherefore, even duty-free goods were subject to 5% additional customs duty, and this was enforceable retrospectively.\nReliance was placed on:\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Neon Signs (1974 PTD 162) – holding that retrospective fiscal statutes must be given full effect.\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Kruddsons Ltd. (PLD 1974 SC 180) – upholding retrospective application even in pending appeals.\nHeld:\nThe Supreme Court upheld the retrospective effect of the Finance Ordinance, 1983, and held that:\nThe petitioner's machinery was not exempt from additional customs duty, despite being exempt from standard customs duty.\nThe amendment in section 2(2) of the Finance Ordinance, 1982, through Ordinance XIV of 1983, explicitly excluded any exemption from applying to additional customs duty, and was applicable by fiction of law to the machinery cleared on 14-03-1983.\nThe petition was dismissed for lack of merit.\nCitations:\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Neon Signs, 1974 PTD 162\nCommissioner of Sales Tax v. Kruddsons Ltd., PLD 1974 SC 180", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. D-949 of 1984, decision dated: 2-10-1985", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Zia-ud-Din Qureshi for Petitioner. Liaquat Merchant, Deputy Attorney General with Abdul Sattar Pinjal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s GUM INTERNATIONAL Ltd. \nvs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8329", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1172 = 1986 SLD 1172 = 1986 CLC 612", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---S.25--Value of goods--Determination of--To determine value of goods according to open market value as prevailing in country of purchase at relevant time, held, was incumbent upon Authority.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.25--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9--Open market value--Omission to consider--Neither price quoted by supplier of goods, nor price prevailing in country of manufacture was considered-­Consideration of open market value prevailing in country imported from being requirement of law, failure to consider same, held, would justify interference by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction\n \nP L D 1959 S C 364 fol.\n1985 C L C 781 and P L D 1959 S C 364 ref.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---S.25--Term \"\"open market\"\"--Connotation of--Term \"\"Open market\"\", held, could not be given such a wide connotation as to mean open market in the world--Open market would be open market of country from which goods were imported.--[Words and phrases].\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---S.25--Term \"\"country of origin\"\" --Meaning and scope--Country of origin, held, should be construed as the country from which goods originate or were imported.--[Words and phrases].\n \n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---S.156(1)(iv)--Malpractices, proof of--Goods found to be different from what they had been described--Importer, held, would not be guilty of malpractice, if such fact was not established on record", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. D-418 of 1983, decision dated: 30-10-1985.hearing DATE : 23rd October, 1985", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND IBADAT YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Pingar for Petitioner. Wajeeh-ud-Din Ahmad for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KAUSAR TRADING COMPANY \nVs \nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8330", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1173 = 1986 SLD 1173 = 1986 MLD 790 = 1985 PTCL 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Valuation – Assessment of Imported Machinery\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a cigarette manufacturer, imported a second-hand but reconditioned Molins Mark 8 Cigarette Machine (1969 make) for replacement of existing machinery. The declared import value was Rs. 3,73,136. The Customs Authorities did not accept this valuation and instead assessed the value at various stages ranging from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 10,00,000. The Customs Valuation Department suggested Rs. 6,40,000 based on a 40% depreciation method. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals), without citing specific documentary evidence, upheld the Deputy Collector's assessment at Rs. 10,00,000. The petitioner challenged this valuation on the grounds that (i) it violated Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969; (ii) there was no contrary evidence provided by Customs; and (iii) visual inspection and arbitrary enhancement were not permissible under the law. The respondent contended that comparable data existed, although not explicitly disclosed in the decision.\nHeld:\nThe High Court found that the Customs Authorities, particularly the Collector of Customs, had acted arbitrarily by fixing the valuation at Rs. 10,00,000 without disclosing the documentary basis or providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond to any contrary evidence. The decision was held to be in violation of principles of natural justice and Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969. The order dated 31-12-1981 was set aside. The case was remanded for fresh decision by the Collector of Customs, who must provide the petitioner with any materials relied upon and a proper hearing. The Collector was directed to resolve the matter within two months. If not resolved by 30-04-1984, the Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner was to be cancelled and returned.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Constitutional- Petition No.D-545 of 1982, decision dated: 29-02-1984", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rasheed A.Akhund for Petitioner. \nAbdul Khair for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUGHAL TOBACCO COMPANY LTD. \nvs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8331", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1181 = 1986 SLD 1181 = 1986 MLD 2089 = 1985 PTCL 285", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQVNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Duty Repayment on Export – Scope under Section 21(c) of the Customs Act\nDetails:\nThis order disposes of four writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 4120, 4125, 4135, and 5478 of 1984), which involved common questions of fact and law. The petitioners were exporters of knitted fabrics made from imported metallic and nylon yarns on which customs duty had been paid. Upon export of the finished fabrics, they claimed repayment of customs duty under S.R.O. 237(1)/77 dated 15th March 1977, issued under section 21(c) of the Customs Act, 1969.\nWhile the petitioners were granted partial refund, they contended that they were entitled to repayment at the full rate specified in the notification's table, regardless of the actual duty paid on imports.\nHeld:\nThe High Court dismissed the petitions, holding:\nThe term “repayment” under section 21(c) and the SRO implies refund of customs duty actually paid, not any amount in excess of that.\nThe table in the notification indicates only the maximum ceiling for repayment, not an entitlement beyond actual duty paid.\nThe Board has discretion to allow partial repayment; the refund cannot exceed what was actually paid.\nThe petitioners' claim that others had received higher refunds was unsupported by evidence and was denied by the department.\nConclusion:\nThe petitions were found to be without merit and were dismissed in limine, reaffirming that customs duty repayment is limited to actual amounts paid and within the maximum ceiling set by the notification.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=21(c),37", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.4120, 4125, 4135 and 5478 of 1983 with Civil Miscellaneous No.962 of 1985, decision dated: 5-05-1985", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Kahliq Mian for Petitioner\nMalik Muhammad Qayum, Dy. A.G. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "TAYABA ENTERPRISES \nvs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8332", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2007 = 2013 SLD 2007 = 2013 PDS 1480", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)].......Section 194-B,, Review Application,.. Applicant stated that his contentions had not been incorporated in the passed by this Tribunal,.. Learned Tribunal found that a speaking was passed by the Bench after considering all the points on merits,.. Since Tribunal was not empowered to review its own order under the Customs Act, 1969, the instant review application was rejected,..", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 144/2012 hearing DATE 13/05/2013 DATE of order 03/06/2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Mr. Muhammad Amir, A.R. For the respondent Mr. Saleem Afzal, I.O.\nMuhammad Zahid S/o Muhammad Afaal R/o H. No. 311-1, Muhalla Shah Rukhn-e-Alam Colony, Multan.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Muhammad Zahid S/o Muhammad Afaal R/o H. No. 311-1, Muhalla Shah RukhNEAlam Colony, Multan.\nvs\nThe Additional Collector Customs Adjudication MCC, Multan and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8333", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2008 = 2013 SLD 2008 = 2013 PDS 1481", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)].........Sections,, Order-in-Original,, Interception of a truck by Customs staff containing non-duty paid steel pipes to be transported from Lahore to Karachi,.. Owner of the said steel pipes failed to provide any documentary evidence showing legal import or lawful possession of the said material,.. Order-in-Original was passed, hence the instant appeal,.. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order had been passed in mechanical fashion and the respondent No. 1 had not applied its judicious and independent mind, the appellant was the bona-fide purchaser, the said steel pipes were bought from the open market of Karachi and the same were being transported through registered forwarding agency, GD dated 23/01/12 was submitted before the respondents but they did hot consider the same and passed a harsh and unjustified order,.. Respondent stated that the impugned order had been passed in accordance with law and with judicious mind therefore, the same did not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity, the appellant himself showed his willingness to pay the duty and taxes leviable on the seized goods,.. It was an admitted fact that the appellant had failed to establish that the goods in question were legally procured from the open market and were duty paid, this fact was also strengthened through his willingness to pay the duty and taxes of the impugned goods,.. Relying on the willingness of the appellant, the adjudicating authority allowed the release of the same on payment of redemption fine equal to 25% of the assessed value in addition to payment of duty and taxes leviable thereon. Learned Tribunal found ratio of redemption fine on the higher side, thus the same was reduced and the appellant was directed to pay the duty and taxes plus 10% redemption fine,.. The adjudicating authority also ordered the seized truck to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,000/-, by taking a lenient view the learned Tribunal waived off the redemption fine,..", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, (IV of 1969)=", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 91/LB/2013 hearing DATE 06.06.2013 DATE of judgment 10.06.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD MUBEEN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Mr. Ahmad Fraz, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Zulfiqar Ali, Inspector\nMuhammad Irfan S/o Muhammad Ismail R/o House No. 6, Street No. 72, Mohallah Shafi Park, Wassanpura, Lahore", + "Petitioner Name:": "Muhammad Irfan S/o Muhammad Ismail R/o House No. 6, Street No. 72, Mohallah Shafi Park, Wassanpura, \nVs\n1. The Collector of Customs, (Adjudication), 2. The Superintendent ASO, Customs House," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8334", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2009 = 2013 SLD 2009 = 2013 PDS 1482", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969),.. Section 194,.. Appeal,.. A trailer containing cloth was intercepted by the staff of Intelligence & Investigation which did not tally with the GD,, Search and examination of goods was carried out,, A sticker pasted with the description \"\"in transit to Afghanistan via Karachi\"\" was found,.. Order-in-Original,, Appellants filed appeal before Collector (A) which was dismissed,.. Order-in-Appeal,, It was an admitted fact that the goods were totally different than what were imported as claimed by the appellants, especially quantity in meters, weight, description and HS Code,.. It was also an admitted fact that the container did not have any empty space and was found full when intercepted by the Intelligence staff at the time of interception,, A sticker such as \"\"Afghan Trader\"\" was also found on one bale and on other bales the same were removed by the appellants which fact fully proved that the goods which the appellants had claimed to be imported under the aforementioned GD after the payment of leviable duty and taxes were not the same,, This fact also proved that the goods in question found to be smuggled/Afghan Transit and transported in the country without payment of leviable duty and taxes,, Appellants had failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of the forums below, therefore, the appeal was dismissed being without any merits by the learned Tribunal,,", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 335/LB/2010 hearing DATE 25.6.2013 DATE of judgment 26.6.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL AND CH. MUHAMMAD MUBEEN, MEMBERS (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellants Mr. Raza Ahmad, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Saleem Ullah, SIO.", + "Petitioner Name:": "1. Major (R) Abdul Sattar of M/s. Sattar Enterprises, 2. Muhammad Azam son of Ghulam Qasim, Caste Awan\nvs\n1. Superintendent, Intelligence & Investigation, FBR, 2. Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication) MCC, . 3. Collector of Customs (Appeals), MCC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8335", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2010 = 2013 SLD 2010 = 2013 PDS 1483", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]........Sections 168, 171, 156(1)(9), 156(1)(10A), 156(1)(90), 223,.. Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Article 25,.. S.R.Os. Nos. 576(I)/2006, dated 05/06/2006 and 799(I)/2006, dated 5.8.2006,,. Pakistan Customs Tariff read with CGO 12 of 2002, dated 15/06/02, Chapter 99 and sub-chapter III,.. F.B.R.'s letters Nos. 1(7)/2003.Cus.Exm-23161-R, dated 15/02/2012 and 01/SS/09, dated 01/10/2009,.. An Ambulance Van was seized by the Anti-smuggling staff of Customs department upon receiving the secret information,.. Show-cause Notice,. Vehicle was confiscated, hence the instant appeal,.. A letter No. 01/SS/09, dated 01/09/2009, issued by the F.B.R. showed that the importing and clear Collectorates have the lawful jurisdiction to adjudicate such like matters, thus the impugned order had been passed by the learned Collector of Customs was without jurisdiction,.. According to S.R.O. No. 576(I)/2006, dated 05/06/2006 or Chapter 99 if any violation has been made by any person, the Collectorate of Customs would have initiated, a report and then sent the same to the Collector of Port of import for adjudication purpose but in the present case the Collector of Customs himself passed the impugned order,.. The learned counsel for the appellant had made a statement that the MCC (Appraisement) Karachi issued NOC for registration of Ambulances after payment of leviable duty and taxes but in the present case the learned Collector of Customs had refused to do the same, which according to Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was not permissible as it was discrimination between the citizens of Pakistan,. Learned Tribunal found Order-in-Original, passed by the learned Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Samberial well reasoned, the appellant was ready to pay redemption fine in addition to duty and taxes leviable under the law,, Learned Tribunal accepted the instant appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Collector of Customs, Samberial, only to the extent of the present appellant,..", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 139/LB/2012 hearing DATE 12.6.2013 DATE of judgment 13.6.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD MUBEEN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Malik M. Arshad, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Abdul Latif, Inspector.\nMuhammad Mohsin S/o Mohammad Yousaf, Resident of Village Jathike, Tehsil Samberial, District Sialkot.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Muhammad Mohsin S/o Mohammad Yousaf, Resident of Village Jathike, Tehsil Samberial, District Sialkot.\nVs\n1. Superintendent, ASO, MCC, Samberial, Sialkot.2. Collector of Customs, MCC, Samberial, Sialkot. 3. Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Samberial, Sialkot" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8336", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 910 = 1987 SLD 910 = 1987 MLD 2247", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--S.15--Default--Landlord filing ejectment application on 23-12-1978 for alleged default since June. 1976--Tenant contending that on landlord's refusal to accept rent he deposited same from March, 1978 when ejectment application had not yet been filed--Delay for filing ejectment application not explained--Landlord not issuing any rent receipt and tenant not taking advantage of it--Fact that tenant started depositing rent from March, 1978 clearly showed that it was from that month landlord refused to accept rent--Tenant was, held, not defaulter in payment of rent in circumstances.\n \n(b) Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--\n \n---S.15--Bona fide, personal need--Tenant and his witnesses admitting that landlord had no other shop--Pleading their ignorance, if disputed shop was needed by landlord for his personal use or his son indirectly admitting need of shop by landlord --Need of landlord for disputed shop, held, was bona fide.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)=15", + "Case #": "First Rent Appeal No.85 of 1983, decision dated: 20-03-1986.hearing DATE : 19-03-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rafique Khanzada for Appellant S.M.A. Mahmood for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAFIQUE AHMAD\nVs\nABDUL REHMAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8337", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1987 911 = 1987 SLD 911 = 1987 CLC 2336", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S-168--Import Policy Order, 1978--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199- -Confiscation of imported goods--Orders for--Legality of-­Orders, confiscating imported goods of petitioner on ground of violation of Import Policy Order, 1978 concurrently passed by Customs Authorities without taking into consideration previous practice of department in respect of import of disputed goods, was declared as illegal by High Court--Setting aside such illegal order, High Court directed that case of petitioner be reconsidered by Customs Authorities.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No. 1217 of 1979, decision dated: 19-08-1986", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ AND HAIDER ALI FLIRZADA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Haq Nawaz for Petitioner. Ahmedullah Qudwai for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GOODWILL INTERNATIONAL \nvs \nTHE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8338", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1708 = 2000 SLD 1708 = (2000) 81 TAX 40", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excise & Salt Act 1944 (l of 1944)]......Sections 3CC & 4 read with Central Excise Rules (1944), rule. 96ZZL - Assessment - Excise duty - Petitioner engaged in the manufacture of Polypropylene bags - Levy of central excise duty on strips woven to make Polypropylene - Representation of petitioner turned down by the C.B.R. holding that Polypropylene strips were synthetic textile material - Constitutional petition against -Validity of rule 96ZZL and levy of central excise duty on strips - Questions of law - Determination of - Whether mere fact that strips were not an end product was enough to save the petitioner from payment of excise duty when same were capable of being sold in the market- Held no - Whether classification of strips as goods of textile was rightly made by C.B.R. and It fell under heading 54.04 - Held yes.\nA perusal of that shows that the same arguments as had been raised before this Court were put forward before the Peshawar High Court. The plea that rule 96ZZL was violative of section 3CC and 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was rejected as being untenable. On a comparison of the new schedule with the of schedule, it was found that Item No. 08.03 in the of schedule has been substituted by heading 54.04 In the new schedule. It was observed that the Polypropylene strips were capable of being sold, therefore, the mere fact that they are not an end-product is not enough to save them from the excise duty.\nThe other contention regarding classification of the goods as textile rather than plastic was rejected on the ground that the Polypropylene strips were synthetic textile material which fell under heading 54.04, It was further held that the demand without holding a factual inquiry as to whether strips were marketable was valid; the strips were dutiable Irrespective of the actual weight and In any case it was a question of fact which should have been raised by filing an appeal.\nCases Referred to:\nOrient Straw Board and Paper Mill Ltd. Karachi v. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise etc. (PLD 1985 Karachi 126); Trust Ceramic Industries Landhi v. Deputy Collector ll, Central Excise and Land Customs etc. (1991 CLC 1923), Union of India and another v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. (A/R S. C. 791); Civil and Military Press Ltd. etc. v. Pakistan through Secretary etc. (1985 CLC 1021); Trust Ceramic Industries case supra and Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. etc. v. federation of Pakistan etc. (PLD 1991 SC 329) Adil Polypropylene Products v. The Federation of Pakistan etc. [PTCL 1997 CL 56).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 11264 of 1995, heard on 29-6-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAEIM POLY SACK LTD\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8339", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1709 = 2000 SLD 1709 = (2000) 81 TAX 110", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "[Sea Customs Act 1878].......Section 167(8b) - I&E (Control Act, 1950 -Section 3(3) - Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199 - Penalty - imposition of - Petitioner supplied Three A.Cs to respondent No. 4, who was Medical Superintendent Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore for Installation in his Hospital - In lieu thereof the respondent No. 4, transferred import licence for the import of 3 A.Cs in favour of petitioner in which was issued in his name - The Petitioner imported 26-A.Cs and 2 compressor on the basis of said import licence - A.Cs were released by the Custom Authorities on the misconception that A.Cs were imported for Hospital - After lapse of considerable period penalty was imposed on the petitioner u/s 167(8b) of Sea Customs Act when it transpired that A.Cs were not imported for the Hospital - Appeal dismissed and the revision petition against decision of appellate authority met the same late - Constitutional Petition - Principle of locus poenitentiae - Application of- Whether principle of locus poenitentiae could not be stretched to protect orders and actions in derogation to law which had caused injustice on the lace of record - Held Yes - Whether use of import licence issued in favour of M. S. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital which was meant only for 3 A.Cs, could be taken as defence by the petitioner - Held no - Whether imposition of penalty after release of A. Cs by the Custom Authorities without duty through inadvertence was well within the ambit of section 157(8b) of Sea Customs Act- Held Yes - Words & Phrases : Locus Poenitentiae.\nAdmittedly, it was the petitioner who imported 26 Air-conditioners and two compressors. Mere use of the import licence issued in favour of M. S. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital which was meant only for three air conditioners cannot be taken as a defence by the petitioner on the lace of his own admission and the facts emanating from record. The principle of locus poenitentiae is a well recognized principle of constitutional law and it has been held by this Court as well as by the Honble Supreme court that an order once passed, cannot be recalled if certain rights have been created in favour of a person. This principle cannot be stretched to protect orders and actions inderogation to law which have caused injustice on the face of record. in the instant case, In view of the value of the air conditioners imported by the petitioner, it was liable to pay custom duty to the tune of Rs. 44,270.88. However, since by inadvertence, it was neither charged nor the afore referred amount was paid, they could be burdened with fine not exceeding five times of the value of the goods as mandated under Section 167 sub para 8(b) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, The imposition of line, is therefore, well within the ambit of law. \nCases referred to:\nNawab Syed Raunaq All etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 Supreme Court 236); Muhammad Baran and Others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 691); The Engineer-in-Chief Branch Through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and Another v, Jalaluddin (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 207).", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sea Customs Act, 1878=167", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1734 of 1973, Heared on 29-11-1999 & 1-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILANI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sh. Zia Ullah, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/S. VULCAN CO. (PVT) LTD\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8340", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1710 = 2000 SLD 1710 = (2000) 81 TAX 381", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act 1969 (lV of 1969)]...... Section 224 read with SRO. 1083(l)/90, dated 16-10-1990, Draw back claim - Rejection of- Extension of time for filling refund claim by C.B.R. - Validity - Whether Circulars and C.G.Os. issued in exercise of Powers vested in C.B.R. had effect of enlarging time for filing refund claim and were binding like statutory Rules - Held yes Whether officers of customs and other persons employed in execution of Customs Act by virtue of section 223 of Act were obliged to follow S.R.Os. & C.G.Os - Held yes.\nFrom the provisions of Section 224, enabling the C.B.R. to extend the period of limitation, the above-referred circulars & C.G.O. were issued and same are in conformity with authority vested in C.B.R. as such the conclusion drawn by Chairman C.B.R. that statutory limitation cannot be condoned, fizzles out. Indeed by virtue of proviso to Section 223, Illegal orders, instructions and directions given by C.B.R. are not binding on all officers of customs, but the case in hand is on different footing, since we have found that, above-referred circulars and C.G.O. were issued in exercise of powers vested in C.B.R. thereby having effect of enlarging time for filing the refund claim, same is as effective and binding as statutory. Rules is, and officers of customs and other persons employed in execution of the Customs Act. By virtue of Section 223 are obliged to follow the same.\nCase referred to: -\nPakistan through the Secretary Social Welfare and Local Government Department and another v. Ch. Din Muhammad and Others (PLD 1964 Supreme Court21); Pakistan v. Shaikh Abdul Hamid (PLD 1961 SC 105).", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=224", + "Case #": "C. P. NO. D-1953 of 1997, accepted on 26-9-1999, hearing DATE : 26-5-1999", + "Judge Name:": "HAMID ALI MIRZA AND MUSHIR ALAM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Malik, for the petitioner. S. Tariq Ali Standing Counsel, for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "GRACE KNITWEAR (PVT.) LTD\nVs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ETC" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8341", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1711 = 2000 SLD 1711 = (2000) 81 TAX 385", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969)]......Section 32(1) Statement of declaration - words any matter of Customs appearing in Section 32(1) of Act -interpretation of - Wrong statement or declaration at starting point - Penal consequences of - Whether words any matter of Customs are restricted to bills of entry under section 79 Held; no. (2) whether Statement or declaration made by importer at starting point related to matter of Customs and attracted penal provisions of section 32(1), of Act if found untrue in any material particulars - Held yes. \nOn interpretation of section 32 of the Customs Act, the High Court came to the conclusion that to attract penal consequences of section 32, it is not necessary that such statement or declaration is made in the bill-of-entry under section 79 of the Customs Act. Section 79 relates to filing of bill-of-entry in respect of imported goods for home consumption, warehousing, etc.\n \nUnder sub-section (1),of section 32, if any person in connection with any matter of customs makes any declaration or statement which is untrue In any material particulars, he ls guilty of an offence under that section. No reference is made in section 32(1) to section 79 or that such declaration or mis-statement is made in bill-of-entry. For an untrue declaration or statement to come within the mischief of section 32(1), the same should be untrue in any material particulars and that the statement or declaration is made in connection with any matter of customs. The words any matter of customs are not restricted to bills-of-entry.\nThe High Court rightly held that the concerned authority at Mand where the declaration was made were entitled o examine whether the goods correspond to the declaration made so that `no change in the goods takes place from the starting point at Mand to the Dry Port. Such statement or declaration at the starting. point therefore, related to a matter of Customs and attracted penal provisions of section 32(1) of the Customs Act, in case it was untrue In any material particulars.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 324-Q to 330-Q of 1999, dismissed on 2-12-1999, hearing DATE : 2-12-1999", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "BABA KHAN\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, QUETTA and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8342", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1712 = 2000 SLD 1712 = (2000) 81 TAX 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act 1969 (IV of 1969)]......Section 13 - Tax adjustment Ordinance, 1996 (LXXIX of 1996), - Section 18 - Levy of Service charges - Validity - Appointment of two companies for pre-shipment inspection and levy of service charges thereon - Constitution Petition - Allowed by Lahore High Court holding service charges altra vires of Constitution, but dismissed Balochistan High Court holding same as in accordance with law Appeals against - Services charges - Nature of - Whether could be equated with Customs duty - Question of law - Custom duty - Meaning of Fee and tax Co-relation between - Whether custom duty was tariff payable on imported merchandise, levy or tax applied by Government on importation of commodities into country Held yes - Whether tax was not co-related to particular service rendered but was intended to meet expenses of Government and lee was meant to compensate Government for expenses incurred in rendering services to person from whom fee was collected - Held yes - Whether legislation could impose fee for pre-shipment inspection, benefit of which went to companies and not to payees of fees - Held no - Whether service charges imposed under section 18-B of Ordinance towards preshipment inspection was ultra vires of powers of federal legislature Held yes.\nThe expression \"\"customs duty\"\" has not been defined in the Act and therefore, to know its concept, one will have to fall back upon the meaning of the expression given in the dictionaries. According to \"\"Handbook of Legal Terms and Phrases Judicially Defined\"\" by M. Ilyas Khan, the customs duty is one of the species of revenue. in Ballentines law Dictionary..3rd Edition, p. 300, the Customs duty has been defined as the tariff payable on imported merchandise, the levy or tax applied by the Government on the importation of commodities into the country. It is not merely a duty on the Act of importation, but a duty on the thing imported. It is not confined to a duty levied while the article is entering the country, but extending to a duty levied alter it has entered the country. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Edition, P. 386 defines customs duty as tax on the important and exportation of commodities, merchandise and other goods; the tariff or tax assessed upon merchandise imported form or exported to a foreign country.\nNo doubt both tax and fee are compulsory exactions, but the difference between the two lies in the fact that the tax is not correlated to a particular service rendered, but is intended to meet the expenses of the Government and a fee is meant to compensate the Government for expenses incurred in rendering services to the person from whom fee is collected. A tax ls for the purpose and goes to the general revenue unlike fee.\nNo doubt, legislation can be made to impose fee in respect of any of the matters in the Federal Legislative List, but definitely not for pre-shipment inspection, the benefit of which has to go to the companies appointed to carry out the inspection and not to the payees of the fees. The imposition of such fees is not in lieu of services to be rendered for the benefit of its payees.\nTo sum up in the light of the definition and distinction between tax and \"\"fee\"\" as demonstrated above, the service charge as levied by virtue of Section 18-B inserted into the Act through Tax Adjustment ordinance, the charge is not a fee, because it is neither meant for benefit of payees nor its collection enables the Government to carry out expense, for the benefit of importer. The world has shrunk into a global village. With the advancement of information and media technology, the determination of prices is an easy task. and the quality of goods to be exported or imported can be checked through the machinery provided by the Customs Act.\nFor the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the imposition of service charge as imposed under Section 18-B of the Act towards the pre- shipment inspection is ultra vires of the powers of the Federal Legislature. Resultantly, the appeals filed by the Central Board of Revenue fail and are hereby dismissed while the appeals filed by the private appellants are allowed.\nCases referred to:\nM/s. Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. & others v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1991 S.C. 329); M/s. Nishat Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 Lah. 347); Muhammad Ismail & Co. v. Chief Cotton Inspector, Multan Division (PLD 1966 S,C. 388); Mathews v. Chicory Marketing Board (1960 CLR 263); The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (AIR 1954 S.C. 282); Sh. Abdul Rahim, Allah Ditta v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 S.C. 670); State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawala and another (AIR 1959 S. C. 544).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=13", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals NOS. 586, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1829, 1830 of 1997 and 255 to 235, 1219 & 1220, 1604 to 1696 of 1998 decided on 24-2-1999. (On appeal against the Judgment dated 25-24997 of the Lahore High Court, in W.P. No. 29228 of 1996) and etc.] hearing DATE : .22, 23, & 24-2-1999", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, C., J, SH. RIAZ AHMAD, AND CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR/ASC for Appellants (in CAs 225 to 235/98) Akhtar All Mehmood, ASC for Appellants (in CA 1403/97) M. Sardar Khan, Sr. ASC, for Appellants (in CAs 1404 & 1405/97) M. Muzaffarul Haq, ASC for Appellants (in CA 1829/98). Ali Zafar, ASC, Ch. Akhtar All, AOR and lmtiaz M. Khan, AOR for Respondent (in CAs 231 & 1658/98). Irfan Qadir, ASC and Ejaz Ahmed Khan, AOR", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8343", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1713 = 2000 SLD 1713 = (2000) 81 TAX 431", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIQlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act IV of (1969)]......Sections 27(1), 27(2), 84 & 708 - Payment of duties - Demand of - Validity - Assessee Imported consignment of 439 cases of Textile Machinery - Bill of entry Machinery not placed then in warehouse- 26 cases burnt and destroyed by live - Notice for recovery of duty on destroyed cases - Appeal dismissed by Member Judicial C.B.R. and also by Tribunal with directions to collector of Customs to take up matter with C.B.R. for grant of special exemption u/s 20 of Customs Act- Reference to High Court u/s 196 of Act rejected by Tribunal - Notice for payment of out-standing duty during pendency of reference application of assessee Constitutional petition - Scope of Section 27(1) of Act - Question of law - Whether section 108 of Act refers to sub-section ( 1) of Sect/on 27 and applicable in case of assessee - Held no - Whether demand of customs duty on goods which were not In possession of assessee or even cleared or even not placed in warehouse; but were destroyed by fire due to some unavoidable circumstances, was Illegal and without jurisdiction - Held yes.\nThe other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have acted Illegally In applying section 27(1) rather than section 27(2) of the Act, Is equally well-founded. Section 108 of the Customs Act, refers to subsection (2) of section 27 which provides method tor valuation of the goods. It neither refers to subsection (1) nor has the same been made applicable by reference. Section 27(1) of the Act, is, therefore, in any case, not attracted. It is also pertinent to mention that admittedly 28 cases of machinery which were lying at the port and were destroyed by fire at the time when the petitioner had filed bill of entry but the goods had not been cleared or removed to a warehouses. The petitioner was in no way responsible for the fire which occurred due to some unavoidable circumstances as has been found by the Tribunal itself. The goods were not in possession or control of the petitioner at that time and have. as a matter of fast not even cleared the customs barrier. In these circumstances, it is highly anomalous to demand the payment of customs duty on the goods which have yet to be cleared either for home-consumption or tor warehousing, as the case may be, at a time, when the petitioner was not admittedly, in possession of the goods.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=27", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 5904 of 1999, and Reference Application No. 1 of 1996, decision dated: 7-12-1999.hearing DATE : 17-11-1999", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "Salman Akram Raja, for the petitioner A. Karim Malik, for the Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "TATA TEXTILE MILLS LTD\nVs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR (RECOVERY OFFICER)CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE and CUSTOMS, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8344", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1F5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 472 = 1992 SLD 472 = 1992 SCMR 1270 = 1993 PTCL 527", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1F5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.19---Where a particular article was exempted from payment of customs duty under S.19, which exemption was later withdrawn, the benefit of exemption was available only in respect of those goods which were imported between the date the exemption was granted and the date it was withdrawn, provided the bill of entry had been filed with the Customs before the date of, exemption was withdrawn. \n \nFederation of Pakistan v. M. Afzal & Sons and others (CA. 210 to 215 of 1977), decided on 29-8-1991 fol.\n \nAli Samrez's case 1986 SCMR 1917 modified.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.202 to 204 of 1985, decided 12-04-1992. (From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 6-2-1980 passed in W.P. 606 of 1978), hearing DATE : 29-04-1991", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH C.J. SAAD SAOOD JAN AND RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Deputy Attorney-General and Ch. Fazal-i-Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Nemo for Respondents. M. A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nvs\nAMJAD HUSSAIN DILAWARI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8345", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 477 = 1992 SLD 477 = 1992 SCMR 1902 = 1993 PTCL 551", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 171---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to examine the question whether liability could be divided into two parts amongst two accused persons for the purpose of determining the question of cognizance and jurisdiction.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=171Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Cr. Petition No.50-P of 1991, decision dated: 16-03-1992. (On appeal from the judgment/order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 3-8-1991 passed in Cr. Appeal No.63 of 1911), hearing DATE : 16-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HASAN SHAH, MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE through Deputy Attorney General\nvs\nNAEEM RAZA WIRK" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8346", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 478 = 1992 SLD 478 = 1992 MLD 2135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art.73(2)---Object and scope---Article 73 of the Constitution simply defines Money Bill; but there is nothing in it that remission, alteration etc. of tax can only be made by legislature exclusively through Money Bill--­ Provision of Art. 73(2) of the Constitution cannot be construed to have provided that alteration, revision or abolition like levy of tax was also exclusive legislative power which could only be performed by Parliament.\n \n (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art.189---Decisions of Supreme Court binding on other Courts- -Question of law as to interpretation of Constitution having been decided by Supreme Court would be binding on all Courts in Pakistan.\n \nM. Afzal & Sons v. Federal Government of Pakistan PLD 1977 Lah. 1327 and AI-Samrez Enterprises v. The Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917 ref.\n \n(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Arts.175 & 199---Judicial function of Courts---Exercise of---Extent---Courts owe their creation to Art.175 of the. Constitution which provides negative mandatory command that Courts would not have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on them by the Constitution or by or under any law---Courts were not to question wisdom of legislature in enacting provision of any law in any manner; their judicial function was primarily confined to interpretation of law---High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution was vested with jurisdiction to declare any law or any custom or usage having the force of law as void to the extent so far as same was inconsistent with fundamental rights; beyond which jurisdiction of High Court to examine vires of law does not extend.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.19---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),IArt.73---Exemption of customs duty through Notification issued under S.19, Customs Act, 1969---Provision of S.19, Customs Act, 1969 on account of failure of legislature to, lay down guidelines for exercise of powers by delegatee under said provision of law i.e. S.19, whether ultra vires of the Constitution---Delegation of power did not constitute abdication of legislative function by a legislature but was a valid delegation of discretion vested under law---Failure of legislature to lay down guidelines for exercise of powers by delegatee under S.19, Customs Act, 1969, would not render such provision of law to be ultra vires of the Constitution---Merely because S.19, Customs Act, 1969 was capable of being administered discriminately could not, be declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution.\n \nCollector of Central Excise and Land Customs and 3 others v. Azizuddin Industries Ltd. PLD 1970 SC 439; Messrs Amin Soap Factory v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1976 SC 277; Zaibtun Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and others v. Central Board of Revenue and others PLD 1971 Kar. 333; Zaibtun Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and others v. Central Board of Revenue. and others PLD 1983 SC 358; Messrs Sh. Abdur Rahim, Allah Ditta v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1988 SC 670; Messrs East and West Steamship Company v. Pakistan and others PLD 1958 SC 41 and Miss Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 1988 SC 416 ref.\n \n(e) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)---\n \n----S.7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.73---Vires of S.7, Sales Tax Act, 1951---Exemption of Sales tax through notification---Exercise of powers by delegatee---No guidelines laid down for exercise of such powers by delegates by legislature---Provision of S.7, Sales Tax Act, 1951, on account of failure of legislature to lay down guidelines for exercise of powers by delegatee under S.7, was not ultra vires of the Constitution merely because provision of S.7, Sales Tax Act, 1951, was capable of being administered discriminately could not be declared to be ultra vires of the Constitution.\n \n(f) Discretion---\n \n---- Absence of guidelines for exercise of discretionary powers conferred under statute---Authority exercising discretionary powers was required to exercise such power reasonably, justly and fairly on basis of relevant considerations having legal nexus with object of law, with wisdom and maturity keeping in view interest of the State above all---Such principles should be read in a statute as guiding principles to regulate exercise of powers conferred on functionaries of the State; same were so fundamental in character that they need not be expressly provided in a statute itself.\n \n(g) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art.25---Equality of citizens---Citizens placed in similar situation are to be treated alike---Treating of a class of citizens differently from another class which was not similarly situated would not offend against fundamental right of equal protection of law---Merely because certain manufacturer of goods situated in specific areas had been given different treatment from those who were not situated in that area, such treatment would not offend against fundamental rights as enunciated in Art.25 of the Constitution.\n \n(h) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)--\n \n----S.7---Exemption from sales tax---No legal impediment that exemption must invariably relate to goods and not to persons.\n \n(i) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--\n \n----Art.199---Repugnancy to provisions of Constitution---Where any law was repugnant to any express provision of the Constitution, same could be declared to be void by the High Court.\n \n(j) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art.203-D---Repugnancy to injunctions of Islam---Where any law was repugnant to injunctions of Islam, same could be declared to be so by Federal Shariat Court and such law would cease to be law on the date fixed by Federal Shariat Court.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.2097 of 1991, decision dated: 10-06-1992, dates of hearing: 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th and 29-01-1992", + "Judge Name:": "MUNIR A. SHEIKH AND MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Akram Sheikh for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Dy. A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mian ANWAR-ULHAQ RAMAY\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8347", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 479 = 1992 SLD 479 = 1992 MLD 2202", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.156(1)(8)---Sentence---Undue leniency far from having a deterrent effect, which is the end and aim of all punishments, tends to result in offences of such nature being repeated or made widely committed---Main object of punishment is not revenge but the protection of society. \nMrs. Munasingh Arachchige v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 62; Bonifacio A. Burayag v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 22 and Bonifacio A. Burayag v. The State PLD 1991 SC 988 ref.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-\n----S.156(1)(8)---Sentence---Offence was pre-arranged and a disabled person had been selected purposely to justify the export of the medical bed (fowler) in which heroins was cleverly concealed---Imprisonment of six years awarded to accused was maintained with reduction in fine m circumstances---Accused was, however, directed to suffer S.I. in lieu of RX with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. \nMrs. Munasingh Arachchige v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 62; Bonifacio A. Burayag v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 22 and Bonifacio A. Burayag v. The State, PLD 1991 SC 988 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Spl. Cr. Jail Appeal No.15 of 1992, decision dated: 17-08-1992, hearing DATE : 12-08-1992", + "Judge Name:": "QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ANTHONY GEORGE\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8348", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 480 = 1992 SLD 480 = 1992 MLD 2298", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (V of 1969)--Ss.156(1)(8) & 185-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417--­Appeal against acquittal---No evidence worth mentioning was on record to even faintly connect accused with crime with which they were charged--­Court examined evidence on record carefully and found accused not guilty---Prosecution case even if accepted, would not make out a case of \"\"attempt\"\" to smuggle contraband Charas, but it could be a case of \"\"preparation\"\" alone which by itself was not sufficient to convict accused for offence under S.156(1)(8) of Act, 1969---Before an acquittal appeal is admitted to regular hearing , it must be shown that - impugned in appeal is unreasonable, perverse and manifestly wrong---Case against accused being of immature investigation and accused in fact having been prosecuted on basis of no evidence, appeal against order of Court below, was wholly misconceived. \n \nAbdul Ghaffar Khan v. The State 1991 MLD 1823; Abdul Majid v. The State 1973 SCMR 108, Crown v. Muhammad Rafique Safdar and others PLD 1952 Sindh 28, Central Board of Revenue and another v. Khan Muhammad PLD 1986 SC 192 and Hyder Khan and another v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1841 ref.\n \n(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---\n \n----S.417---Appeal against acquittal---Requirement for admission---Before an appeal against acquittal is admitted to regular hearing, it must be shown that impugned is unreasonable, perverse and manifestly wrong.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Spl. Cr. Acquittal Appeal No.2 of 1992, decision dated: 16-03-1992, hearing DATE : 15-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": "QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "THE STATE through the Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi\nvs\nABDUL RASHID and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8349", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1992 481 = 1992 SLD 481 = 1992 SCMR 2423", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDST0", + "Key Words:": "Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII tit 1979)--S. 60---Harmonised Customs Tariff Section XVI, Chaps. 84 & 85---Octroi Notification by Municipal Committee---Harmonized Customs Tariff could not be read while construing item contained in the Octroi Notification--­Legislation by reference could not be stretched by reading items contained under broad headings under the Harmonized Customs Import Tariff into items contained in an Octroi Tariff where each item in the Octroi Tariff related to distinct goods and each item itself was under a broad heading in the tariff' of a class that had no relationship with the broad heading under the Harmonized Customs Import Tariff.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979)=60", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.263-K of 1992, decision dated: 26-08-1992.(On appeal from the judgment dated 4-6-1992 passed in C.P, No.D-795 of 1992 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh)", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid M. Ishaque, Advocate, Supreme Court and Mrs. Majida Razvi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner. Sharaf Faridi, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Shabbir Ghorry, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs RELIANCE CORPORATION, OCTROI CONTRACTORS\nvs\nMessrs UNITED REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (Pvt.) LTD., KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8350", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 410 = 1993 SLD 410 = 1993 SCMR 17 = 1993 PTCL 608", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 31-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 73---Provisions of S. 31-A, Customs Act, 1969 were not violative of Art. 73 of the Constitution of Pakistan.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 30---Date for determination of value and rate of import duty---Date of issuance of an import licence or the factum of issuing of an import licence would have no nexus with the rate of customs duty payable on the goods imported as Government while issuing an import licence does not make any representation, that it will not impose new customs duty or will not increase the rate of it if already imposed.\n \nSection 30 of the Customs Act 1969 provides dates on the basis of which the value and the rate of duty are to be determined, which inter alia provides that in case of goods cleared for home consumption under section 79, the value of the imported goods and rate of duty shall be, on the basis of date on which a bill of entry is presented under that section. The importers having been charged customs duty as aforesaid then could not have any legitimate grievance to agitate. The date of issuance of an import licence or the factum of issuing of an import licence has not nexus with the rate of customs duty payable on the goods imported, as the State while issuing an import licence does not make any representation, that it will not impose new customs duty or will not increase the rate of it if already imposed.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---Ss. 31-A & 30---Any amount of duty which became payable in consequence of withdrawal of a concession from duty, even though such withdrawal took place after the conclusion of a contract for the sale of goods or opening of a letter of credit, would be payable in terms of S. 30 with reference to the date of filing of the Bill of Entry.\n \nMain Nazir Sons Industries Ltd. and another v. Government of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 883 ref.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n----Ss. 30 & 31-A---Withdrawal of exemption---Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in case of withdrawal of exemption from payment of customs duty.\n \nMain Nazir Sons Industries Ltd. and another v. Government of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 883 ref.\n \nAl-Samraz Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917 mentioned.\n \n(e) Promissory estoppel---\n \n----Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against Legislature or laws framed by it because Legislature cannot make a representation.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=30,31AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=73", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 137-K of 1992, decision dated: 24-05-1992. (On appeal from the judgment dated 16-5-1991 in Const: Petition No.D-267 of 1987)", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "N.A. Farooqi Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s ABDUL WAHID ABDUL MAJIDs\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8351", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 413 = 1993 SLD 413 = 1993 MLD 217 = 1994 PTCL 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JDND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--S.497---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(1)(8)/178---Bail, grant of--­Prosecution case against accused mainly rested upon the confessional statement made by co-accused before a Qazi in Saudi Arabia---Prosecution agency had no intention to examine the Qazi as a prosecution witness--Confession of co-accused recorded in Saudi Arabia was-neither admissible in Pakistan nor the same could be used as a piece of evidence against accused during the course of trial---No evidence was available on record connecting the. accused with the crime---Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.-­\n[Confession].\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- \n \n----S.156(1)(8)/178---Cases are decided upon tangible evidence, positive or circumstantial---No person can be prosecuted on mere conjectures and on the basis of mere words of co-accused.---[Criminal trial.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(1),156(8),178Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=497", + "Case #": "Criminal Bail Application No.57 of 1992, decision dated: 22nd October 1992", + "Judge Name:": "QAISER AHMED HAMIDI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAZ DIN\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8352", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 418 = 1993 SLD 418 = 1993 MLD 632 = 1994 PTCL 121", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JTTT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IIV of 1969)--S.156(1)(14)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Seizure of over-invoiced goods---Penalty by Adjudication Authority---Petitioners/exporters contended that they had not signed memo. of seizure and samples were not drawn from their consignments---Both facts were decided against petitioners by Customs Authorities on the basis of evidence---Point of valuation could not be raised for the first time in Constitutional petition---Even otherwise appropriate parties i.e. State Bank of Pakistan and Chief Controller of Import and Exports, had not been impleaded---Constitutional petition, thus, was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(1),156(14)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1099 of 1987, decision dated: 14th September 1992", + "Judge Name:": "IMAM ALI G. KAZI AND AHMED YAR KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Ilyas Khan for Petitioner. M.L. Shahani for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs D.M. BR\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8353", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 421 = 1993 SLD 421 = 1993 MLD 1247 = 1994 PTCL 112", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JTQT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 78 & 156(1)(8) & (9)---Confiscation of gold belonging to petitioner while he was in transit to India---Validity---Petitioner was acquitted by the Special Judge; therefore gold recovered from him could not be legally confiscated under S.78, Customs Act, 1969---Finding of Special Judge that petitioner was in transit and that he had no intention to smuggle gold into Pakistan, having attained finality was binding on Customs Authorities as they were party to such decision and did not choose to challenge the same---Central Board of Revenue had given decisive finding that no declaration was made by petitioner---Confiscation can be resorted to only in case of attempt of smuggling---Petitioner having been acquitted of the charge of smuggling, he could not in law as well as equity be deprived of gold in question which was to he restored to him or value of the same.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=78,156(1),156(8),156(9)", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-833 of 1988, decision dated: 25-03-1992, dates of hearing: 24th and 25-03-1992", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Petitioner. Zahir-ud-Din Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD SHAHID \nvs\nKHALID MEHMOOD TABASSUM and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8354", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 422 = 1993 SLD 422 = 1993 MLD 1566 = 1994 PTCL 313", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Administration of justice---\n \n---- Any authority vested with judicial power, while exercising such power, would decide the matter according to the established judicial norms---View that an Authority/Tribunal having jurisdiction to decide the case rightly also has jurisdiction to decide such case wrongly is no more a valid law---Concept is that to whom jurisdiction is granted would decide the matter according to law.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S.78(4)---Personal penalty imposed on respondent and petitioner for violation of provision of S.78(4), Customs Act, 1969---Offence complained of against petitioner who was carrying on business of oil storage and respondent importer was misdeclaration of the imported goods---Personal penalty imposed upon importer was set aside by the Central Board of Revenue although he was primarily responsible for the said mischief---Petitioner's liability who was carrying on business of oil storage was secondary but he was not absolved of the personal penalty---Such findings by Central Board of Revenue were totally incompatible and contrary to the established principles of law---Discretion exercised by Central Board of Revenue was not in accordance with reasons and sound judicial principles---Petitioner at the relevant date being not a bonded warehouse, whether still could be deemed responsible for the violation of S.78(4), Customs Act, 1969, such question had not been decided by the Authorities---Petitioner on the contrary was treated as Public Bonded Warehouse---Question as to what was the responsibility of the petitioner before specified date (on which they attained status of Public­ Bonded Warehouse) as oil storage company was to be attended to--Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to Collector of Customs for deciding it afresh on merits, after hearing all the parties and fixing the responsibility, if any, of the petitioner and the importer.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=78(4)", + "Case #": "Const. Petition No. 1033 of 1989, decision dated: 16-03-1993", + "Judge Name:": "SYED HAIDERALI PIRZADA AND NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sohail Muzaffar for Petitioner. Zahir-ud-Din Khan for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Ata-ur-Rehman (absent) for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KARACHI TANK TERMINALS (PVT.) LTD.\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8355", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 424 = 1993 SLD 424 = 1993 CLC 1663 = (1993) 68 TAX 189", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JpYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 157, 168 & 180---Seizure/confiscation of launch---Validity---Provisions of Ss. 157, 168 and 180, Customs Act, 1969, being mandatory in nature, must be followed strictly---Every conveyance of whatever kind used in the removal of any goods liable to confiscation under Customs Act would also be liable to confiscation---Where, however, any goods were seized and no show-cause notice in respect thereof, was given under S.180, Customs Act, within two months of the seizure of goods, such goods would be returned to the person from whose possession same were seized---Notice under S.180, Customs Act must necessarily contain grounds on which it was proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose the penalty but an opportunity of making representation in writing of being heard in terms thereof must also be given---No show-cause notice under S.180, Customs Act, 1969, having been served upon petitioner in respect of seizure or confiscation of launch in question, seizure/confiscation of such launch was of no legal effect---Authorities were directed to issue Port Clearance Certification to petitioners enabling them to load and sail out of port if so desired by them.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=157,168,180", + "Case #": "C.P. No. D-2267 of 1992, decision dated: 19-04-1993", + "Judge Name:": "HAZIQUL KHAIRI AND MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN ADIL KHATRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Azizullah K. Shaikh for Petitioner. Ikram Ahmed Ansari, DyAG. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LATIF TRADING COMPANY\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8356", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 384 = 1994 SLD 384 = 1994 CLC 420 = 1994 PTCL 424", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JpTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 25-B [as inserted by Finance Ordinance (II of 1988), S.5]---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 73(2) & 89---Issuance of Ordinance touching a subject (Money Bill) whereby S.25-B was inserted in Customs Act, 1969---Validity--­President of Pakistan was invested with powers under Art.89 of the Constitution to issue Ordinance touching a subject (Money Bill) covered by its Art.73(2)---Finance Ordinance, 1988, as regards S.5, thereof, to the extent of bringing about insertion of S.25-B in Customs Act, 1969, during the period of its operation was thus a valid piece of legislation.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 25-B [as inserted by Finance Ordinance (II of 1988)]---Notification No.610(1)/88, dated 30-6-1988---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.89--­Validity of S.25-B, Customs Act, 1969 and Notification No.610(1)/88 dated 30-6-1988---Insertion of S.25-B, Customs Act, 1969 through Finance Ordinance 1988 and issuance of Notification dated 30-6-1988 by Central Board of Revenue, in exercise of powers thereunder were valid---Both S. 25-B, Customs Act, 1969 and Notification dated 30-6-1988, however, ceased to remain operative upon expiry of four months time from the date of promulgation (26-6-1988) of Finance Ordinance (II of 1988); which on efflux of such period would be deemed to have been repealed in terms of Art.89(2)(a)(i) of the Constitution.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 25-B [as reinserted by Finance (Revised) Ordinance (XXII of 1988)]--­Finance Ordinance (II of 1988), Preamble---Re-insertion of S.25-B, Customs Act, 1969 through Finance (Revised) Ordinance, 1988---Validity---Finance (Revised) Ordinance, 1988 issued by President on 26-10-1988, with respect to reinsertion of S.25-B, in Customs Act, 1969, was ab initio void and of no legal effect; President having no power whatsoever to re-enact an Ordinance, upon expiry of four months period from the promulgation of a previous Ordinance viz. Finance Ordinance (II of 1988). \n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 25-B [as inserted by Customs Ordinance (II of 1988)]---Notification No.610(1)/88, dated 30-6-1988---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 264(c)--­Effect of repeal---Validity of acts, obligations and liabilities during period when Finance Ordinance (II of 1988) was in the field---All rights acquired, obligations accrued and liabilities incurred pursuant to S.25-B, Customs Act and Notifications or Orders issued thereunder while Finance Ordinance (II of 1988), occupied the field were and remained valid, since those would fall in the category of past and closed transactions; however, any Notification or Order issued in terms of S. 25-B, Customs Act, 1969 and in exercise of delegated powers under Notification dated 30-6-1988 beyond 25-10-1988 when S. 25-B, Customs Act, 1969 stood repealed upon the deemed repeal of Finance Ordinance II of 1988, would be invalid in law, except in situations cover,-by Art. 264(c) of Constitution. \n \nPLD 1989 Central Statute 193; PLD 1989 Central Statute 175; PLD 1988 SC 75; PLD 1989 SC 75; Govt. of Punjab v. Ziaullah Khan 1992 SCMR 601; Maulvi Tamizuddin Ahmad v. Province of East Bengal PLD 1949 Dacca 1 Ikhlas Ahmad v. Noorun Nabi Ahmad Qureshi PLD 1958 Kar. 383; Tirathmal's case PLD 1959 Kar. 594; Ziaullah Khan v. Govt. of Punjab PLD 1989 Lah. 554; Ittefaq Foundary v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1990 Lah. 121; Phasco Hardware Co. v. Govt. of Pakistan PLD 1989 Kar. 621 and Abdullah & Co. v. Collector of Customs PLD 1992 Kar. 258 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25BConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=73(2),89", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petitions Nos. 1755-D,.440, 518, 519, 553, 747, 813, 814, 986, 987, 1072, 1131, 1227, 1232 to 1486, 1487, 1488, 1489, 1490, 1491, 1506 and 2045 of 1992, decision dated: 18-02-1993. dates of hearing: 16th, 17th and 18-02-1993", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL HAFEEZ LAKHO, SHARAF FARIDI, SIRAJUL HAQUE MEMON, J.H. REHMATOOLA, MUZAFFARUL HAQ, MAKHDOOM ALI KHAN, AFSAR ABIDI, MUHAMMAD NASEEM, ATAUR RELUNAN, KHAWAJA SHAMSUL ISLAM FOR KHALID ANWAR, ABDUL INAM, IBRAHIM PISHORI. A.G. SIDDIQUI AND NAIMUR REHMAN FOR RESPONDENTS", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs A.G.E.ELECTRIC CO.\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8357", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 385 = 1994 SLD 385 = 1994 SCMR 468 = 1994 PTCL 343", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JpST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--First Sched, PTC 40-09-D & 40.09-B---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Importers (respondents) having imported rubber air hose pipes were assessed customs duty under P.T.C. 40.09-D---Importers paying duty but asking for refund on ground that their goods were liable under PTC 40.09-B--­High Court in Constitutional petition accepting importers' claim directing Authority to refund the requisite amount---Leave to appeal was granted to consider the validity of such direction. \n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----First Sched., P.T.C. 40.09-D & 40.09-B---Petitioners could not point out any lacuna in the reasoning of High Court in coming to the finding that that rubber air hose pipes were covered under PTC 40.09-B and not under PTC 40.09-D for purposes of customs duty---Judgment of High Court being in consonance with law was maintained in circumstances. \n \nRaja M. Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in all Appeals).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=FirstSchedConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 231 to 233 of 1989, decision dated: 20-01-1991. (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 20-3-1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 4726 of 1986)", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Ejaz Ahmed Khan, Deputy Attorney-General instructed by Rao M. Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in all Appeals).", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Islamabad and others\nvs\nM/s. RAJA TRADERS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8358", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 386 = 1994 SLD 386 = 1994 SCMR 537 = 1994 PTCL 533", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIR1JpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Import Policy Order, 1980)--Annexure IV, Part II, item No. 84.19B of I.T.C. Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Import of machinery---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether machinery in question, fell within ambit of item No.84.19B `of I.T.C. Schedule and whether machines imported were beverage manufacturing machines which were excluded by Part II of Annexure IV of Import Policy Order, 1980.\n \n(b) Import Policy Order, 1980---\n \n----Annexure IV, Part II, item No.84.19B of I.T.C. Sched. & item No.84.58 of I.T.C. Sched.---Classification of imported goods under relevant head or entry--Customs Authorities were proper forum to determine such head or entry--­Goods imported by appellants were Post-Mix, Over-counter and under-counter Dispensers, which were covered by item No.84.19B of I.T.C. Schedule--­Customs Authorities were empowered to determine the head or entry in the Tariff Schedule under which any particular commodity would fall and unless their construction was perverse, Court would not be competent to interfere--­When there were two constructions which an entry could reasonably bear and one of them, for good reasons, was adopted by the Customs, Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere merely because another entry more favourable to subject appeared to Court as equally applicable.\n \n(c) Import Policy Order, 1980---\n \n----Annexure IV, Part II, Item No. 84.19B of I.'T.C. Sched., & Item No. 84.15C of I.T.C. Schedule---Appellants' entitlement tar refund of excess amount--­Customs Authorities having properly determined head or entry in Tariff Schedule under which appellants' goods had fallen and same being both appropriate and proper, no case of interference was made out- --Appellants, however, having been imposed a redemption fine of specified amount and Customs Authorities having collected excise duty from then; on some units of goods which they first cleared at 120 per cent ad valorem customs duty item under item No.84.15C of the I.T.C. Schedule (instead of at 40 per cent. under item No. 84.19B01 of the I.T.C. Schedule) excess amount received by them would be adjusted against redemption fine already paid by or to be leviable from appellants.\n \n(d) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---- If there were two constructions which an entry (Tarrif) could reasonably bear and one of them, for good reasons, was adopted by the Department, Court would have no jurisdiction to interfere merely because another entry more favourable to the subject appeared to Court as equally applicable.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Import Policy Order, 1980=AnnexureIV,PartII,itemNo.84.19B ofI.T.C.Sched.Customs Act, 1969=9,14,156(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1989, heard on 9-12-1990. (From the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 2-12-1984 passed in W.P. 4020/84)", + "Judge Name:": "RUSTAM S. SIDHWA AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mahfuzul Haq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Dy. A.G. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "BIG MAK FOODS LTD.\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8359", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 804 = 1996 SLD 804 = 1996 SCMR 400 = 1996 PTCL 571", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 156(8)(89)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether a Criminal Court trying an accused under the Customs Act can, at the time of acquitting the accused, restore to him the goods allegedly smuggled. \n \nAdam v. Collector of Customs, Karachi PLD 1969 SC 446: Muhammad Shahzad and another v. Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards and others 1989 MLD 536; The State v. Ghulam Jaffar etc. PLD 1970 Pesh. 66; Assistant Director of CustoAis v. Muhammad Afzal Khan PLD 1964 (W.P.) Pesh. 178 and Muhammad Sarwar v. Federal Government of Pakistan and others 1988 PCr.LJ. 213 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156(8)(89)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 232-P of 1995, decision dated: 8-11-1995. (On appeal from the judgment dated 18-6-1995 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 107/94)", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Latif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court and Nur Ahmed Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Abdul Hakeem Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Hamid Qureshi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOM HOUSE, PESHAWAR and others\nvs\nM/s. SHER AHMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8360", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 810 = 1996 SLD 810 = 1996 CLC 1319 = (1996) 75 TAX 268", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 171---Constitutional petition--­Aggrieved person---Locus standi of petitioner---Seizure of car---Car was not seized by Customs Authority from petitioner but from respondent from whom petitioner claimed to have purchased the same---No transfer letter was issued in favour of petitioner nor the car was registered in his name---Petitioner being neither owner of the car nor the same having been seized from his possession, could not claim to be an aggrieved person---Person from whom car in question was seized was served with a notice under S. 171, Customs Act and he alone had locus standi to seek redress of his grievance---Petitioner had no locus standi to file Constitutional petition.\n \n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art. 199---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 168---Alternate remedy, non­availing of---Effect---Seizure of car---Car was seized by Customs Authorities from respondent and not from petitioner---Car had been seized under S. 168, Customs Act and matter had not yet been adjudicated upon by Customs Authorities---After adjudication when order was passed by Customs Authorities. two more remedies would be available to aggrieved person i.e. to file appeal before Central Board of Revenue and thereafter, to file revision before Federal Government---Petitioner, if so advised, could come to Court after exhausting all the statutory remedies by .challenging vires of impugned orders---Constitutional petition being not competent was dismissed in circumstances.\n \nCh. Abdul Qadir v. Lahore Commercial Bank Ltd. 1980 SCMR 280 and Wealth Tax Officer v. Shaukat Afzal and others 1993 SCMR 1810 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168,171Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1115 of 1995 and 33 of 1996, decision dated: 4-03-1996", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR AND MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Latif Afridi for Petitioner. Saadat Hussain, Dy. A.G. Barrister K.G. Saber assisted by Muhammad Jamil, Law Officer for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN \nvs\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8361", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 811 = 1996 SLD 811 = 1996 CLC 1365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 32---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--­Maintainability---Alternate remedy available---Effect---Filing of untrue statement---Show-cause notice---Forum provided in the statute was not different from the Authority which determined the fiscal policy in the matter ---Effect--­Held, it would be effort in futility to approach the same Authority which formulated the policy---Despite alternate remedy provided in fiscal matters, aggrieved party could directly approach the High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction---Exhaustion of alternate remedy in such a matter, therefore, was neither a condition precedent nor mandatory for invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in circumstances.\n \nF.S. Tobacco Co. (Pvt) Limited v. Superintendent Central Excise and Sales Tax and others Writ Petition No. 494 of 1994; Usmania Glass Sheets Factory v. Sales Tax Officer PLD 1971 SC 205; Nagina Silk Mills v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1963 SC 322; Edulji Dinshaw v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1990 SC 399: Fecto Cement Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Appraisement 1994 MLD 1136 and Hussain Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pakistan 1991 PTD 169 ref.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n----S. 32(2)(3)---Show-cause notice under S. 32(2)(3), Customs Act, 1969 in essence provides an opportunity to an affected party to explain any wrong doing in filing the declaration/paying the taxes---Allegations of filing untrue statement intentionally---Show-cause notice---Purpose---Such notice has to show proper allegations duly framed pointing out the false declaration which was allegedly wilfully made to cheat the Tax Department---Importer, through a notice under S.32(2)(3) was straightaway called upon to pay the deficient amount failing which it was threatened to be proceeded against---Validity--Held, until and unless proper hearing was granted to the importer to explain as to why it should not pay the short levied custom duty, demand for payment of such amount could not be made---Notice issued to the importer, in circumstances, did not comply with the requirements of S. 32(2)(3) of the Customs Act, 1969.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.794, 795, 958 and 960 of 1995, decision dated: 18-04-1996", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. KHALIDA RASHID AND QAZI HAMID-UD-DIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KHYBER ELECTRIC LAMPS\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMSand others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8362", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 812 = 1996 SLD 812 = 1996 SCMR 1709 = 1996 PTCL 579", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156, 168 & 180---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--­Recovery and confiscation of gold coins---imposition of personal penalty or, petitioner---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted to consider question of public importance as to whether it had been established before adjudicating Authority that coins in question were, of gold particularly when report of Assayer of Pakistan Mint had not been made available to petitioner; whether notice Wider S. .180, Customs Act, 1969, had been served upon petitioner, if not, whether statutory extension of time envisaged by 5. 168, customs Act had been granted with reasons therefore, and whether disposal of case of petitioner was violative of the law laid down by Supreme Court in PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 25 and PLD 1970 SC 173.\n \nThe Federation of Pakistan and another v. Sardar Ali and others .PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 25 and Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC 173 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156,168,180Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. No.195-P of 1995, decision dated: 26-05-1996.(On appeal from the judgment/order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 7-3-1995 passed in Writ Petition No.567 of 1993)", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN, JEHANGIRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate. Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Haji MAZAR KHAN\nvs\nMEMBER (JUDICIAL), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8363", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2011 = 2013 SLD 2011 = 2013 PDS 1689", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]........Sections 139, 2(s)(i), 171, 168, 156(2) read with 187,.. S.R.O. No. 566(I)/2005, dated 06/06/2005, Sr. No. 10,.. Order-in-Original,.. Order-n-Appeal,.. Recovery of US$ 19,000/- by Customs staff, owner of the currency failed to establish lawful export or legal possession of the recovered US-dollars, sufficient reasons of smuggling of the said recovered foreign currency US-dollars, therefore, same were seized after adjudication proceedings,. Appellant filed appeal before the learned Collector (Appeals), Lahore, who rejected the same, hence the instant appeal,.. It was evident from the record that no notice under Section 171, Customs Act, 1969 had been sent to the appellant and no compulsory requirements of Section 168 were fulfilled,.. Burden of proof under Section 156(2), Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 187 ibid was on the prosecution side to prove that the appellant was in unlawful possession of the foreign currency as no chance was given to the appellant for making declaration of his baggage in accordance with Section 139, Customs Act, 1969,.. It was also evident from the record that the interception of the appellant and seizure of currency was made by ASF which was also illegal act,.. Respondent-department along with para-wise comments had placed on file copies of receipts produced by the appellant before the learned adjudicating authority regarding the purchase of the seized currency of appellant which was a proof of purchase of currency by the appellant from Libya,. This fact was ignored by the learned adjudicating authority and the learned appellate authority,.. Admittedly the appellant was working as labourer in Libya for the last 25 years,.. Appellant had faced the agony of a criminal case registered against him by the respondent and the appellant remained in Jail and a fine had also been imposed on the appellant by the learned Special Judge Customs, Lahore,.. Appellant was probably not aware of the procedure for taking the amount or getting the same endorsed on the Passport being illiterate and from a labourer class, as mentioned by the learned Special Judge Customs, Lahore in his order, dated 08/12/2010,.. Appeal was accepted and the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal were set aside,..\n(b) Words & Phrases,.. The word \"\"currency\"\", meaning of,..", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=139", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 137/LB/2011 hearing DATE 28.5.2013 DATE of judgment 04.6.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD MUBEEN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Mr. K. J. Misha Advocate and Nawaz Haider, Attorney. For the respondent Mr. Israr Shah, Inspector\nMuhammad Amin Salfi S/o Ch. Khairat Hussain through Special Attorney Nawaz Haider S/o Nazir Hussain House No. 25, Ali Block, Awan Town, Lahore\nThe Additional Collector of Customs, Lahore", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8364", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2012 = 2013 SLD 2012 = 2013 PTD 1786", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss.194-A (5) & 215---Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal---Service of order, decision etc. ---Condonation of delay---Copy of order-in-original was not served/communicated to the appellant as he was out of Pakistan for quite a long time---Factum of passing the order-in-original came to the knowledge of the appellant on 20-02-2012 certified/attested copy of the order-in-original was issued and was received on 14-3-2012, in such scenario the order-in-original could not be communicated or served upon the appellant in person---Section 215 of the Customs Act, 1969 had enumerated the modes and the manner in which service of order, summons etc. could be affected---Evidently, such mode of service had not been followed for the purpose of service of order-in-original upon the appellant--- Where an order or had not been communicated or served or conveyed to the party, limitation in Fling the appeal would not start running---Circumstances warranted to condone the delay in filing the appeal and it was ordered by the Appellate Tribunal accordingly. \n1960 PTD 1045; 2002 PTD 1035; 2010 PTD 2261 and 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1904 rel.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 156(1) (14) (50) (51) (58) (59), (61), (62) (90), 13, 32(1)(2), 79, 84, 86, 88, 97, 104, 116, 162, 163, 168(3) & 178---Punishment for offences---Removal of goods from private bonded warehouse---Penalty was imposed on the appellant on the ground that he had played pivotal role in evasion of customs, duty and other taxes as he settled the deal with the indenter for import of consignment; and in league with co-accused hired a premises which premises was used for illegal storage of bonded goods and he, keeping himself behind the screen managed all the affairs and committed the fraud; that he had neither joined the investigation nor had appeared before the Trial Court and that he had been declared absconder by the court of Special Judge Customs, Taxation Anti Smuggling---Validity---Assuming that the appellant guided in arranging the premises on rent as alleged in the show cause notice that did not in any manner whatsoever led to an adverse inference to be drawn against the appellant and that no element of mens rea or actus reus was involved or alleged in the show cause notice against the appellant---Penal provisions, in circumstances, were not attracted against the appellant, as it was nowhere alleged in the show cause notice, that the appellant removed the goods from the bonded warehouse or for that matter was privy to the alleged offence--- Proprietor of the firm made it very much clear that the goods were actually removed by him only and rest of the parties to the show cause notice were having no linkage/concern with any activity carried out by him---Licensee of the private customs bonded warehouse, during the hearing had also admitted that the goods were removed by him and such submission had been incorporated in the show cause notice---In the presence of confessional statement given before the Special Judge, Customs and also in the written statement before the Collector (Adjudication) there remained no logic and reasoning to implicate and impose penalty on the appellant---Action on the part of Department imposing penalty upon the appellant was illegal, void ab initio, without lawful authority and jurisdiction, preposterous, based on wanton and callous behavior and as such was nullity in the eyes of law---Order-in-original was set aside to the extent of the appellant only by the Appellate Tribunal.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S.86---Wherehousing of goods---Removed of goods---Evidence--- Presumption or assumption, howsoever strong and high it might be would not lead to an adverse inference in the absence of any solid and concrete evidence to the contrary.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S.86---Wherehousing of goods---Removal of goods---Purported evidence---Purported parrot-like statements of the partisan witnesses had been projected to have been recorded by the Investigating Officer, as was reasonably suspected, to besmear the reputation of the appellant---No evidence much less incriminating evidence was available with the prosecution qua the appellant, and the purported evidence, if any, had no sanctity in the eyes of law, as the statements of parties witnesses, if any, were not substantive piece of evidence, as such, was not admissible in the process of law.\n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S.86---Wherehousing of goods---Removal of goods---Show cause notice---Adjudicating officer cannot go beyond the scope of the allegations/charges leveled in the show cause notice, and if it does so, the very action together with the super structure built thereon is blown to smithereens.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.70 of 2012, decision dated: 8-07-2013, hearing DATE : 16-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shoeb Ahmad for Appellant. Ghulam Bari, Inspector for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Shoeb Ahmad for . Ghulam Bari, Inspector for s.\nSheikh FAROOQ AHMAD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8365", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2013 = 2013 SLD 2013 = 2013 PTD 1809", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJTND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S.194A---Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal---Remand order---Revival of order by the original Adjudicating Authority already set aside by the Appellate Tribunal-\"\"Validity---Operating para of the order-in-original in compliance to the directions of Appellate Tribunal s order did not answer the queries posed by it---Adjudicating Authority without application of mind fairly inked that he did not find any cogent reasons to alter the order-in-original and revive it by putting life into a dead body---Order had been based by reviving an order which had lost its validity was in itself a nullity in law and was a void order---Answer to question \"\"whether upholding of an order which had already been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal could be revived by the original Adjudicating Authority to whom it was remanded to decide a fresh \"\" was answered in the negative.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss.80, 81, 84, 86, 56, 109, 193 & 195---Checking of goods declaration by the customs---Valuation---Value of goods loaded up and allowed in bonding after assessment under S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969--Re-assessment of goods after clearance from bond under S.109 of the Customs Act, 1969---Validity---Goods had been examined under first appraisement system after physical examination and taking up the declared value by the shed staff and Deputy Collector, and allowed removal for into bond under $.84 of the Customs Act, 1969---Department contended that goods were not assessed under S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969 as there was a remark on face of goods declaration that \"\"into bond allowed subject to check value aspect at the time of ex-bonding\"\"---Nothing else was indicated which could bring forth the fact with evidence that the goods had been assessed provisionally under S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969-\"\"Various sections of Chapter XI of Customs Act, 1969 dealt exclusively with warehousing and provide detail procedure in such circumstances---Department had failed to prove that any guarantee or other instruments had been taken from the importer under S.56 of the Customs Act, 1969---Goods assessed under S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969 for the in-bonding could not be subjected to redetermination check of value unless specifically allowed under S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969---Only one section was available in the chapter XI of Customs Act, 1969 which dealt with re-assessment but restricted itself to the rate of duty and that was S.109 of the Customs Act, 1969---Things had to be done in the same manner and the same way as prescribed under the law and no other way---Imported goods allowed release for into bond had to either assessed under S.80 or S.81 of the Customs Act, 1969 at the initial stage of their import when goods declaration was filed---Merely putting remarks that \"\"valuation check to be made at the time of export\"\" was neither legal nor provided under the law, as to allow an open cheque for an indefinite period---Valuation dispute had been made after release of goods from the bonded warehouse making it thus a close transaction and during the time till release was in custody of the Department---Question as to \"\"whether impugned goods which had been examined under first appraisement and value loaded up by the Deputy Collector and allowed in bonding after assessment under S.80 of the Customs Act, 1969 could be put to re-assessment well after clearance from the bond under S.109 of the Customs Act, 1969\"\" was answered in the negative.\nMessrs. Pfizer Laboratories v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 358; Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise, Lahore v. Zamindara Paper and Board Mills 2007 PTD 1804 and Supreme Court order dated 10-11-2003 case No.775-K of 2003 ref.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.32, 30 & 25---Customs Rules, 2001, R.107---False statement, error, etc.--Goods in- custody of the Department for clearance---Invocation of provision of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969---Validity-\"\" Goods had been examined at length under first appraisement system and allowed for in-bonding which was evident from the examination report on the goods declaration filed by the importer---In spite of point of jurisdiction, charge leveled against the importer with reference to S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969 had legal infirmities--In addition to declaration any communication, or answers to questions, put by customs officers and found wrong in material terms, constituted an offence within the framework of the S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969\"\"-In order to bring an act, or action within the framework of the word \"\"false\"\", as used in S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969, the act should either be a conscious wrong, or culpable negligence and should be untrue either knowingly or negligently---Two questions needed to be addressed before invoking S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969, for mis-declaration (a) whether mens rea which was essential element for the purpose of subsection (1) of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969 had been proved and (b) whether a demand for short recovery could be made under the provisions of subsection (2) of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969, without proving any guilty intention, knowledge, or mens rea on the part of the maker of the statement---If element of mens rea was not visible and guilty intention was not proved then provisions of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969 could not be invoked---Charge of mis-declaration under S. 32 of the Customs Act, 1969, could not be invoked---Question as to \"\"whether the provisions of S.32 of the Customs Act, 1969 could be invoked when the impugned goods till its clearance had been in custody of the ,Department\"\" was answered in the negative by the Appellate Tribunal.\nOmalsons Corporation v. The Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication) Karachi 2002 PTD (Trib.) 3053; Moon International v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement) Lahore PTCL 2001 CL 133; Union Sport Playing Cards Co. v. Collector 2002 YLR 2651, Apl-Hamd Edible Oil Limited v. Collector 2003 PTD 552; A.R. Hosiery Works v, Collector of Customs (Export) 2004 PTD 2977; Ibrahim Textile Mills Limited v. F.OP. PLD 1989 Lah. 47; Central Board of Revenue v. Jalil Sheep Co. 1987 SCMR 630; State Cement Corporation v. G.O.P. CA. No.43 of 1999 and Cargill Pakistan Seeds (Pvt.) v. Tribunal 2004 PTD 26 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-653 of 2009, decision dated: 12-06-2013, hearing DATE : 13-03-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. NIAMAT-ULLAH CHAIRMAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) AND GHULAM AHMED MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Junaid Ghaffar for Appellant, A M. Farooque Khan for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DELTA AUTOMOBILES and others\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8366", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2014 = 2013 SLD 2014 = 2013 PTD 1835 = 2013 PTCL 722", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 179(3)(4)---Order of Collector extending time for decision of ease by Adjudicating Officer after expiry of period of limitation prescribed therefore---Validity---Proceedings before Adjudicating Officer had already abated due to expiry of limitation---Collector could pass such order within limitation period prescribed under S. 179(3) of Customs Act, 1969---Such extension of time would be immaterial in circumstances.\nAbdul Zaheer and others v. Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards and 4 others PLD 1990 Kar. 412; Haji Noor-ul-Haq v. Collector of Customs and others 1998 MLD 650; Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Collector Sales Tax Gujranwala and another 2008 PTD 60; Messrs Pace International Rawalpindi v. Secretary Revenue Division Islamabad 2006 PTD 340; CBR/Sales Tax Department v, Messrs Pace International Rawalpindi PTCL 2005 CL 841; Messrs Tanvir Weaving Mills v. Dy. Collector Sales Tax and 4 others 2009 PTD 762; Messrs Miraj Din v. Collector of Customs (Appeals), Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore and 2 others 2009 PTD 2004 and lrshad Ahmed and another v. Deputy Superintendent Customs (AIB) Lahore and 6 others 2012 PTD (Trib,) 47 ref. \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 179(3)(4)---Decision of case by Adjudicating Officer---Extension of time by Collector without giving any reason therefore---Validity-\"\" Such order of Collector for being short of statutory requirements could not be termed as a valid order---Illustration.\nAbdul Zaheer and another v. Director-General Pakistan Coast Guards and 4 others PLD 1990 Kar. 412; Haji Noor-ul-Haq v. Collector of Customs and others 1998 MLD 650 and Irshad Ahmed and another V. Faiz Ahmed Chaudhry, Deputy Superintendent Customs (AIB Lahore) and 6 others 2012 PTD (Trib.) 47 rel.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 32, 32-A, 162, 163 & 168(1)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 58---S.R.O. 486(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007---Mis-declaration of transactional value of imported goods by under-invoicing same---Search warrants obtained from Court at Karachi, raid conducted and record seized at Karachi by Superintendent, Intelligence and Investigation-FBR of Lahore Directorate---Validity---According to S.R.O. 486(I)/2007, dated 9-6-2007, officers of Directorate could exercise powers and discharge duties of officers of Customs within areas of their respective jurisdiction---Neither any case was registered nor any investigation was pending at Lahore against appellant at time of such raid, search and seizure of his record at Karachi by Superintendent of Lahore Directorate---Staff of Lahore Directorate in such circumstances were not competent to conduct such raid at Karachi for being outside their territorial jurisdiction---Delegation of powers to Superintendent of Lahore Directorate under S. 168 of Customs Act, 1969 would not be helpful as powers under charging Ss. 32 & 32-A thereof were not vested with him under S.R.O. 486(I)/2007---Such record seized in illegal manner by Superintendent of Lahore Directorate could not be used against appellant for any purpose.\nMessrs Ahsan Yousaf Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad v. Federation of Pakistan 2003 PTD 2037; Food Consults (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore and another v. Collector (Central Excise and Sales Tax) Lahore and 2 others 2004 PTD 1731; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Islamabad v. Messrs Master Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. 2003 PTD 1034; Messrs Zakria Enterprises v. Muhammad Musharaf and 7 others 2005 PTD 1200; Chairman Centred Board of Revenue v. Messrs Haq Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Burewala 2007 SCMR 1039; Collector of Sales Tax and others v. Messrs Food Consults (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2007 PTD 2356; 2004 PTD 2994 and 2005 PTD 23 ref. Messrs Ahsan Yousaf Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad v. Federation of Pakistan 2003 PTD 2037; Food Consults (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore and another v. Collector (Central Excise and Sales Tax) Lahore and 2 others 2004 PTD 1731; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Islamabad v. Messrs Master Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. 2003 PTD 1034; Messrs Zakria Enterprises v. Muhammad Musharaf and 7 others 2005 PTD 1200; Chairman Central Board of Revenue v. Messrs Haq Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Burewala 2007 SCMR 1039 and Collector of Sales Tax and others v. Messrs Food Consults (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2007 PTD 2356 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=179", + "Case #": "Custom Appeals Nos.237/LB and 238/LB of 2012 and C.As. Nos. 30/LB, 31/LB of 2013, decision dated: 28-07-2013, hearing DATE ; 28-05-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. NIAMAT ULLAH CHAIRMAN/MEMBER, JUDICIAL AND CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL MEMBERS, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar Malik Muhammad Arshad, Raza Ahmed and Abdul Salam Sajid for Appellants. S.M. Abbas Jafferi, I.O. for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD and others\nvs\nMUHAMMAD IJAZ and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8367", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2015 = 2013 SLD 2015 = 2013 PTD 1895 = (2014) 109 TAX 287 = 2014 PTCL 236", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 16 & 19---S.R.0. 172(I)/2013 dated 5-3-2013---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Amnesty Scheme for smuggled/non-duty paid vehicles whereby such vehicles could be released on payment of redemption fine along with duty and taxes--- Legality---Amnesty Scheme in question was introduced through S.R.O. 172(I)/2013 dated 5-3-2013---Amnesty Scheme was discriminatory as persons importing motor vehicles through the normal scheme had not been extended the tax/duty concessions given in the Amnesty Scheme--Amnesty Scheme extended the advantage of extra depreciation allowance benefit to owners of smuggled/non-duty paid motor vehicles as under the normal scheme, a person was allowed to import motor vehicles up-to a maximum of three (3) years old and could claim depreciation allowance up-to a maximum of forty eight percent (48%)---However, under the Amnesty Scheme, no age limit had been set for smuggled/non-duty paid motor vehicles and depreciation allowance up to 60% and 72% (depending on the category and age of car) could be claimed thereby again giving undue advantage to owners of smuggled vehicles in the form of extra depreciation reward of even up-to 100%, subject to the trifling payment of US$500 or Rs.100, 000 as made applicable---Persons who had violated the laws of the country by smuggling vehicles of their choice and not paying taxes/duties had been incentivized to smuggle even more vehicles during the subsistence of the Amnesty Scheme, not only without any imposition of allowable age restriction applying on them but also allowing a more relaxed registration/regularization scheme compared to the normal scheme in vogue---Amnesty Scheme also seriously affected the local car market and automobile manufacturers by disrupting the competitive market and creating a parallel black or grey market for vehicles and put the future prospects of local auto industry in jeopardy as they could not place effective long term policies fearing anti-industry schemes like the present Amnesty Scheme to harm their returns---Road worthiness and safety of smuggled cars was also a cause of concern coupled with their higher maintenance costs---Under the Amnesty Scheme, the smuggled cars were not subjected to road worthiness or emission control tests as no criteria for allowable age limit had been set in contrast to vehicles imported through regular import channel---Vehicles which were 15 to 20 years old had also been cleared under the Amnesty Scheme which were not only an environmental hazard but would also increase the import bill for fuel and spare parts resulting in the loss of much needed foreign exchange---Although the Amnesty Scheme was meant only for vehicles that were already smuggled into Pakistan and were being used without payment of due duties/taxes, but reportedly a large number of vehicles were smuggled into Pakistan for regularization under the amnesty scheme after the scheme was launched---Furthermore, vehicles which were already confiscated by the custom authorities had also been released against payment of duty under the Amnesty Scheme whereas the auction of such released vehicles would have yielded quadruple the amount recovered via the Amnesty Scheme---Reportedly a large number of vehicles, duty of which had been received under the Amnesty Scheme, were still not brought in Pakistan and were parked at foreign ports and borders for making entry into Pakistan---S.R.O. 172(I)/2013 dated 5-3-2013 by which Amnesty Scheme in question was introduced was bad law because it favoured tax evaders and put honest taxpayers at a disadvantage; it discriminated against law abiding and taxpaying citizens and discouraged them from gaining confidence in the legal system, especially in the tax regime which was to be administered justly and fairly across the board; it amounted to approving the crime of tax evasion, it did not provide a level playing field for all stakeholders, especially the local automobile manufacturers to benefit from the Amnesty Scheme; it promoted anti-competitive market behavior by saturating the market with cheaper, older and high maintenance vehicles---Considering the fact that Pakistan s tax to GDP ratio was abysmal, such unwarranted, capricious and senseless Amnesty Scheme would only further encourage the rampant culture of tax evasion, and it appeared more akin to the State settling/compromising with the tax evaders, with the State positioned in a weaker bargaining position--- Failure of State institutions to apprehend the violators and subject them to the law of the land must not be an excuse to allow for amnesty schemes to prevail and again suggested a failure of the state to establish its writ and protect its boundaries from illegal transit of goods---Amnesty Scheme was benefitting only a few influential, tax evading citizens and corrupt government officials at a time when the country required a level playing Held where the protected stakeholders were also taxed similar to the common man---Such schemes, announced at random, were against Art. 25 of the Constitution as they violated the guarantee against arbitrary decisions under the whims and fancies of the rulers in power---Such type of schemes encouraged illegality in the financial sphere, by promising to turn black money into white---Competition Commission of Pakistan also warned the Federal Government and Federal Board of Revenue about the pessimistic consequences of the Amnesty Scheme in question but no credence was given by the persons who had conspired to yield bounties for themselves at the cost of interest of the country---Electronic and print media also raised questions about the vindication of impugned scheme but they were ignored by officials---Report of the Federal Tax Ombudsman stated that the Amnesty Scheme had caused loss of billions of rupees to the national exchequer; that a total 1405 vehicles were cleared on only 61 Identification Cards and (in some cases) 50 vehicles were cleared on just one Identification Card; that several hundred cars, which were still parked at auction yards of foreign countries, had been cleared in the country under the Amnesty Scheme indicating mega corruption---Beneficiaries of the Amnesty Scheme were exempted from questioning by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)--Amnesty Scheme besides being discriminatory had also been applied in a discriminatory manner to achieve certain political objectives with mala fides---Amnesty Scheme was inconsistent with Art. 25 of the Constitution as it had created inter alia an unreasonable classification, having no rational nexus with the object of the amnesty---Impugned Amnesty Scheme with S.R.O. No.172(I)/2013 dated 5-3-2013 were declared to be illegal, unconstitutional, void ab-initio, discriminatory by High Court and were accordingly set-aside---High Court directed that all cars registered under the Amnesty Scheme must be ceased and reverted back to pre S.R.O. position; that legal action by way of criminal proceedings should be initiated against all government officials including Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue involved in introducing, approving and executing the Amnesty Scheme; that a committee might be established to examine the corrupt practices and suggest a code of ethics to be strictly complied with by all government departments; that vehicles smuggled after announcement of Amnesty Scheme should be confiscated forthwith and entry of vehicles which had still not been brought to Pakistan should be banned, and Q they were still brought, then they should be confiscated and auctioned in accordance with law; that all vehicles above the age of three years might also be confiscated; that tighter border controls must be placed to ensure that smuggling was prevented and all violators were severely punished; that in future no government department should be allowed to import luxury vehicles and all the departments might be directed to use locally manufactured vehicles, but in order to improve the standard of manufacturing/assembling of vehicles in Pakistan, some remedial steps might be taken; that there should be a complete ban on government, semi-government departments, statutory bodies/organizations and corporations to import any kind of luxury vehicle on any pretext whatsoever, but, jeeps (SUVs) like vehicles used for defence purpose and for law enforcement agencies, were exempted\"\"-Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan----Art. 25---Equality of citizens---Reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia---Scope---Equal protection of law contemplated that persons similarly situated or similarly placed were to be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed ---- However, a law applying to one person or one class of persons might be constitutionally valid U\"\" there was sufficient basis or reason for it, but a classification which was arbitrary and was not founded on any rational basis was no classification as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Art. 25 of the Constitution---To make a classification reasonable, it should be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that were grouped together from those who had been left out and such differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification. \n(c) Constitution of Pakistan---Art. 25---Equality of citizens---Reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia---\"\"Intelligible differentia\"\"---Meaning- \"\"intelligible differentia\"\" meant that in the case of law, differentiating between two sets of people or objects, all such differentiations should be easily understood as logical and lucid and it should not be artificial or contrived---Intelligible differentia distinguished persons or things from other person or things, who had been left out.", + "Court Name:": "Islamabad High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16,19,181Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950=3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1476 of 2013, decision dated: 19-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Javed Akbar and M. Imran Amir \nRespondent(s) by: Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri, learned D.A.G., Ahmad Hassan Rana, Advocate for FBR along with Muhammad Saleem, Secretary, FBR", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHAWAJA SAAD SALEEM\nVS\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8368", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2016 = 2013 SLD 2016 = 2013 PTD 1913", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 193(3), 193-A & 195-B---Constitution of Pakistan. Art. 10--- Failure of appellant to deposit duty demanded or penalty imposed--- Effect---Language of S. 195-B of Customs Act, 1969 being in affirmative and not negative, thus, would be deemed to be directory and not mandatory---Provision of S. 195-B of Customs Act, 1969 would be read in benefit of appellant---Non-deposit of such duty/penalty by appellant would not deprive him of right of appeal provided under 5.193 of the Act---Decision of appeal on merits despite such failure of appellant would be an act of allowing him a fair trial---Appeal could not be dismissed for such failure of appellant--Principles\n2005 PTD (Trib.) 731; Messrs Bilal Fabric Ltd. and 9 others v. Collector of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax and Hon'ble High Court vide its dated 10-4-1993 Writ Petition No. 1058 of 1993; Messrs Meaple Leaf Cement Factory's case 1993 MLD 1645; PTCL 1993 CL 686(sic); 1993 CLC 1405; S.M. Anwar Sethi v. South British Insurance Company Ltd. PLD 1975 Kar. 458; Barkat Ali v. The State PLD 1973 Kar. 659; Cross on evidence 1967, 3rd Edn., London Butterworth; A Practical Approach to Evidence by Peter Murphy 1988 3rd Edn. London, Black Stone Press Ltd; The Modern Lavy of evidence by Adrian Kean 1985, 1st Den. Oxford , Professional Books Ltd.; Mst. Safia Begum v. Mst. Malkani and another PLD 1965 Lah. 576; Akber Ali v. Ehsan Ellahi PLD 1980 Lah. 145; Government of Pakistan v. Moulvi Ahmed Saeed 1983 CLC 414; Muhammad Sarwar v. Fazal Rehman 1982 CLC 1286; Sardar Ghulam Nabi Khan v. Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir 1984 CLC 325; Eastern Rice Syndicates v. CBR PLD 1959 SC (Pak) 364; The Collector Central Excise and land Customs v. Imdad A11 1969 SCMR 708; Messrs Latif Brothers v. Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore 1992 SCMR 1083; Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs PLD 1952 FC 19; PLD 1996 Kar. 68; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2220; PLD 1958 SC 104; 1992 SCMR 1898; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2898; 2007 PTD 1862; 2008 PTD 60; 2008 PTD 578; 2008 PTD 609; 2008 SCMR 1510; 2008 PTD 2025; 2008 PTD 1539; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1263; 2009 PTD 1247; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 81; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1146; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1469; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1631 & 2898; PTCL 2009 CL 373 (sic); 2010 PTD 1759; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2421; 2006 PCr.LI 1427 = 2006 PTD 2190; 2006 PTD 1207; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2297; 2002 PTD 976; 2002 SCMR 312; 2009 PTD 1507; 2005 SCMR 492; 1990 SCMR 1072, 1990 SCMR 1059, 1975 SCMR 352, PLD 1995 SC 396, 1998 SCMR 1404, PLD 1997 SC 582, PLD 1997 SC 334; 1997 SCMR 1874; (1957) 32 ITR 89; (1967) 64 ITR 516; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 580; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 1152; (1982) 1381 ITR 742; 1993 PTD 206; 1997 PTD (Trib.) 2209 and PLD 1992 SC 485; 2013 PTD (Trib,) 353; 2002 PTD 700; 2002 PTD 407; 1959 (H.C. of Pak.) 364; 1986 PLC (C.S,) 560; 1980 CLC 2007 and 1986 CLC 746; 1986 CLC 1408; 1993 SCMR 662; 1991 MLD 1243; (1974) 94 ITR 1; (1984) 146 ITR 40; 1986 PTD (Trib.) 119; Qamaruddin v. Province of Sindh 2002 CLC 825; General Medical Store v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 136 Taxman 412; Shah Moorad Sugar Mills Ltd., v. Additional Collector Sales Tax (Quetta), Hyderabad and others 2005 PTD 2417; 2006 PTD (Trib.) 62, Dr. Zafar Haider v. Income Tax Tribunal and 2 others 2008 PTD 1940 ref. \nPLD 1972 SC 326; Niaz Muhammad Khan v. Mian Fazal Rakib PLD 1974 SC 134; 1993 MLD 1645; 1993 CLC 1405; 2005 PTD (Trib.) 731; 1991 PTD 551; 2006 PCr.LJ 1427 = 2006 PTD 2190; (1957) 32 ITR 89; (1967) 64 ITR 516; 1995 PTD (Trib.) 580, (1995) PTD (Trib.) 1152, (1982) 1381 ITR 742, 1993 PTD 206,1997 PTD (Trib.) 2209; PLD 1992 SC 485 and 2013 PTD (Trib.) 353 rel. \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 79, 80 & 131---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 107, 109, 110, 433, 432 438, 442, 444, 450, 452 & 556---Obtaining clearance of containerized goods through MCC of PaCCS Mechanism stated.\nPLD 1996 Kar. 68 and 2012 PTD 428 ref.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. .32---Expression \"\"knowing or having reason to believe\"\" as used in S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969---Connotation stated. The untrue and false statement attracting the mischief of provisions of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969 has to be made by the importer/exporter and by the clearing agent or by any person submitting document with the customs in connection with any matter of customs \"\"knowing or having reasons to believe\"\", The provision of section 32 contemplates the existence of a personal \"\"know1edge\"\". Believe being a conviction of the mind arising not from actual perception or knowledge, but by way of inference of evidence received or information derived from others. It falls short of any absolute certainty, because the accused in accounting for his possession may be able to show that the ground upon which is based are unsubstantial.\n2011 PTD (Trib.) 2220 and Fazal Kader Chowdri v. Crown PLD 1952 FC 19 rel.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 32, 32-A & 79---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 433---Allegations of violation of Ss. 32 & 32-A, Customs Act, 1969---Levelling of such allegations on importer in absence of goods declaration or statement or electronical information--Scope---Provision of S. 32 of Customs Act, 1969 would not apply to such case as importer had neither submitted document or goods declaration electronically nor given information electronically---Principles.\n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 32-A---Show-cause notice, issuance of---Limitation---Date of detection being in year 2007 or first quarter of 2008---Show-cause notice issued in October, 2010---Validity---Neither show cause could be issued nor recovery proceedings be initiated after expiry of stipulated period---Impugned show cause notice was barred by time in circumstances.\nS.T.A. 274 of 2005 Sattar Brothers v. Collector of Customs (Appeals), Hyderabad and others; S.T.A. 179 of 2006 Dadabuoy Sack Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise (Appeals) Hyderabad and others 2009 PTD (l rib,) 500; Shah Murad Sugar Mills and others's case 2007 PTD 117; Messrs Ghandhara Nissan Diesel Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Karachi 2005 PTD 2453; PSIC Cutlery, Wazirabad v. Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise, Gujranwala and others 2008 PTD 981; loyla Sadat Cotton Industries v. Collector of Customs 1992 SCMR 1898; Federation of Pakistan v. Messrs Ebrahim Textile Mills Ltd. and others 2006 PTD 537; Collector of Customs, Sales Tax (West) Karachi, v. K&A Industries, Karachi, 2007 PTD 1862; 2008 PTD 60; 2008 PTD 578; 2008 PTD 609; 2008 SCMR 1510; 2008 PTD 2025; 2008 PTD 1539; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1263; 2009 PTD 1247; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 81; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1146; 2010 PTD (Trib) 1469; 7310 PTD (Trib.) 1631 and 2898; PTCL 2009 CL 373(sic); 2010 PTD 1759; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2421 and 2011 PTD (Trib.) 2220 rel.\n(f) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 193(3)---Order-in-appeal, passing of---Delay of 59 days---Appeal filed on 28-2-2011, while order-in-appeal required to be passed within 120 days of its filing i.e. by 28-6-2011 or within further extended period of 60 days prior to expiry of 120 days---Extension granted on 27-8-2011 on ground of non-finalization of matter within stipulated period due to availing of adjournments by both parties---Validity---Time extension in such cases would be akin to giving a new lease of life into dead body and would tantamount to flogging a dead horse---Event or document, if became dead on account of non-timely extension of time period, would be considered and new spirit could not be infused therein---Record showed that parties had not sought any adjournment Appellate Authority could not extend time without serving notice upon appellant---Impugned extension was unlawful and without jurisdiction as some had been granted after expiry of initial period of 120 days--- Order-in-Appeal being barred by 59 days was, without jurisdiction and void ab initio.\n2004 PTD 369, 1998 MLD 650, 2005 PTD 23, 2003 PTD 2821, 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2898 , 2007 PTD 2092, 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636, 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2117, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 79, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 987, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1010, 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1146 and 2012 PTD .(Trib.) 1650 ref.\n2007 PTD 117; Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax Gujranwala and another 2008 PTD 60; Khalid Mehmood v. Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore 1999 SCMR 1881; 2007 PTD 2092; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2117; 2009 SCMR 1126; 2002 MLD 180; 2003 PTD 1354; 2003 PTD 1797; 2008 PTD 578; 2009 PTD 762; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 107; 2010 PTD 465; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 79; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 987; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1010; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1146 and 2012 PTD (Trib.) 1650 rel.\n(g) Jurisdiction\"\"---Exercise of jurisdiction by an Authority/Court/Tribunal---Scope-\"\" Such jurisdiction, 0 made subject to existence of a specific condition, could not be exercised in absence of such condition.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=193", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-1199 of 2011, decision dated: 8-07-2013, hearing DATE : 25-06-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. NIAMAT-ULLAH CHAIRMAN/MEMBER, JUDICIAL-I, MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI (MEMBER, JUDICIAL-1) AND GHULAM AHMED MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALQUTAB ENTERPRISES\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8369", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2017 = 2013 SLD 2017 = 2013 PTD 1952 = 2014 PTCL 100", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 196, 194C, 3A & 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 & 185(3)---Tax reference before High Court converted into writ, petition and remanded for decision afresh---Legality---Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether in converting tax reference into writ petition and remanding the case for decision afresh the High Court had misconstrued the provisions of Ss. 194C, 3A & 4 of Customs Act, 1969; whether impugned of the High Court had the effect of making said provisions of law redundant, and whether in absence of any question of law having been raised in the reference, could the same be entertained and converted into a writ petition.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 410-L- and 434-L of 2010; decided on 14-06-2013. (On appeal from the judgment dated 24-12-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Custom Reference Nos. 30 and 35 of 2009), hearing DATE : 14-06-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Sh. Izhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAEEM TRADERS\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8370", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2018 = 2013 SLD 2018 = 2013 PTD 1971", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)---S. 24-A---Order of Court/Tribunal/Authority---Essentials ingredients\nstated. \nOrders which did not contain rebuttle on the ground advanced and decisions/ s relied upon by appellant and also not containing substantial reasons and did not show that it was passed on objective consideration shall always be treated as illegal, void, arbitrary and a result of misuse of authority vested in public functionary. No room is available for such illegal, void and arbitrary orders in any system of law. If any authority, court or tribunal gave a finding of fact, which was not based on material available on record, it become perverse and a perverse finding of fact, which is violative of the established principle of appreciation of evidence on record was not sustainable in law. The principle that every judicial or quasi-judicial finding should be based on reasons containing the justification for the finding in the order itself is an established principle of dispensation of justice.\n2005 YLR 1019; 2007 PTD 2500; 2004 PTD 1973; 2005 YLR 1719; 2003 PTD 777; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2369; 2002 MLD 357; 1983 CLC 2882; 2005 PTD 2519; 2005 PTD 1189; 2003 PTD 2369; PLD 1995 SC (Pak) 272; PLD 1970 SC 158; PLD 1970,SC,173; 1984 SCMR 1014 and 2012 PTD (Trib.) 619 rel. \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1A969)----S. 180---Adjudication proceedings---Dispensing with requirement of issuing show-cause notice to assessee at his request for summary adjudication---Scope---Object of issuing such notice being to enable assessee to know about charges levelled against him, applicable contravened provisions of law and attracted penal , clauses ---- Adjudication Officer could not ignore mandatory requirement of issuing such notice prior to proceedings for adjudication either properly or summarily---Principles.\nPLD 1976 SC 37; 2001 SCMR 838; PLD 1964 SC 536; 2003 SCMR 1505; 2006 SCMR 129; 2006 PTD 978; University of Dhaka v. Zakir Ahmed PLD 1965 SC 90; 1994 SCMR 2232; M.D. The Bank of Punjab v. Syed Shahzad Hussain 2006 SCMR 1023; Sir Edward Snelson's case PLD 1961 SC 237; Fazal-ur-Rehman's case PLD 1964 SC 410; Zakir_Ahmed`s case PLD 1965 SC 90; Pakistan Crome Mines case 1983 SCMR 1208 and Pakistan's case PLD 1987 SC 304 ref.\n2004 PTD (Trib.) 1324; 2001 SCMR 838 and 2006 PTD 978 rel. \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 206---Corregendum issued by Appellate Authority to replace an existing para of its order with fresh para---Validity---Such change would not fall within ambit of \"\"clerical or arithmetical error\"\"---Corrigendum in question for being impermissible under law would be of no legal effect---Principles.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of1969)----S. 193(3)---Order-in-appeal, passing of---Delay of 10 days---Appeal fled on 3-9-2012, while order-in-appeal required robe passed within 120 days of its #ling i.e. by 1-1-2013 or within further extended period of 60 days prior to expiry of 120 days---Appellate Authority instead of opting to extend such period issued corrigendum dated 9-1-2013 replacing its order dated 1-1-2013 to 9-1-2013--- Validity---Date 1-1-2013 would be considered for calculation of limitation---Order-in-Appeal for being barred by 10 days was without jurisdiction and void ab initio.\n1998 MLD 650; 2002 MLD 180; 2003 PTD 1354; 2003 PTD 1797; 2004 PTD 369; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2898; 2005 PTD 23; 2003 PTD 2821; 2007 PTD 2092; 2008 PTD 60; 2008 PTD 578; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1263; 2009 PTD 762; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 107; 2009 PGD 1978; 2010 PTD 465; 2011 PTD 235; 2011 PTD 1185; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1010; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 987; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 79; 2012 PTD (Trib.) 1650 and 2012 PTD 980 ref.\n2007 PTD 117; 2008 PTD 60; 2007 PTD 2092; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2117; 2009 SCMR 1126; 2002 MLD 180; 2003 PTD 1354; 2003 PTD 1797; 2008 PTD 578; 2009 PTD 762; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 107, 2010 PTD 465; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 79; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 987; '2011 PTD (Trib.) 1010; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1146 and 2012 PTD (Trib.) 1650 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=180", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-167 of 2013, decision dated: 1st July, 2013, hearing DATE : 2-04-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. NAIMAIIRLLAH CHAIRMAN/MEMBER, JUDICIAL-I AND GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER TECHNICAL-II", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellant. Irfan Burni (A.O.) for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BENCH MARK COMMODITIES\nvs\nASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8371", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2019 = 2013 SLD 2019 = 2013 PTD 1988", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpST0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss. 2(s), 168, 156(1), 181 & 196---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(3)---S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009--- Smuggled vehicle, seizure and confiscation of---Non-availability of import record of such vehicle in Customs Data Bank---Order of Appellate Tribunal releasing such vehicle on payment of fine equal to 15% of its customs value in addition to duty and taxes leviable thereon---Plea of Revenue was that impugned order was violative of S. R. 0. 499(I)/2009 dated 13-6-2009 prohibiting such release---Validity-- Neither such S.R.O. could curtail powers of Adjudicating Authority nor would he be bound by instructions/directions/orders contained therein while exercising a quasi-judicial function---Adjudicating Authority in his discretion could impose fine in lieu of confiscation of vehicle---Confiscated vehicle for being property of Government used to be auctioned on nominal price on fake names to relatives and kins of auction mafia within institution---Release of such vehicle on payment of fine and additional duty and taxes would be more beneficial to State instead of its confiscation and auction in such clandestine manner---Board had amended such S.R.0. subsequently allowing release of non- customs paid vehicles- plying in country on payment of concessional duty---Police personnel having seized such vehicle were neither authorised officer under Customs Act, 1969 nor had they power of seizure except in case of tampering of chassis---Confiscation of such vehicle in garb of such S.R.O. after its illegal seizure by Police Personnel was not justified---High Court dismissed reference application in circumstances.\nSheikh Nazi: Ali v. Customs Central and Excise and others 2002 CLC 506 and Additional Director Intelligence and Investigation, Peshawar v. Sartaj Khan T.R. 5-P/2012 rel.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 168, 156(1), 181 & 223---S.R.0. 499(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009-- Smuggled vehicles, seizure and confiscation of---Release of such vehicle on payment of #ne by Adjudicating Authority despite issuance of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 dated 13-6-2009 prohibiting such release---Validity---Neither such S.R.O. could curtail powers of Adjudicating Authority nor would he be bound by instructions/directions/orders contained therein while exercising a quasi judicial function-Adjudicating Authority would be bound to make his decision keeping in view facts and circumstances of case and law applicable thereto--- Adjudicating Authority in his discretion could impose fine in lieu of confiscation of vehicle.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 168 & 156(1)---S.R.O. 499(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009---Smuggled vehicle---Seizure of such vehicle by police personnel not being authorised officer under Customs Act, 1969 nor having been conferred with power of its seizure---Confiscation of such vehicle by customs authorities in garb of S.R.O. 499(I)/2009 dated 13-6-2009---Validity-- Police Personnel could not seize vehicle except in case of tampering of its chassis number---Confiscation proceedings conducted on basis of such illegal seizure of vehicle and its confiscation was, not legally justified.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Custom Reference No. 10-P of 2013, decision dated: 31st May, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "YAHYA AFRIDI AND IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ishtiaq Ahmad for Petitioner. Ajoon Khan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION\nvs\nBANARAS KHAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8372", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2020 = 2013 SLD 2020 = 2013 PTD 1996", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 25, 79(1) & 81---Mis-declaration of origin and value of imported goods---Goods declared of China origin alleged by Authority to be of Japan origin requiring assessment at higher values as compared to China origin---Order-in-original enhancing declared value of goods upheld by Appellate Authority---Validity---No data or evidence available on record in support of impugned enhancement of value made without any reason---Importer by producing Bill of Lading, certificate of origin issued through combined declaration under FTA packing list, commercial invoice as evidence had proved subject goods to have been imported from China---Alleged offence could not be attributed to importer in absence of element of mens rea caused by him---Declaration/statement made by an importer under bona fide belief or in presence of any department practice or interpretation in vogue or view held by departmental officers would not be mis-declaration in terms of S. 32(1) of Customs Act, 1969---Tribunal set aside impugned orders and show cause notice for being arbitrary and suffering from inherent legal infirmities.\nLt. General (Retd) Shah Rafi Alam v. Lahore Race Club 2004 CLD 373; Khalid Qureshi v. UBL 2001 SCMR 103; East West Steamship v. Queen Land insurance PLD 1963 SC 663; Sahibzada Sharfuddin v. Town Committee 1984 CLC 1517; Abida Rashid v. Secretary, Government of Sindh PLD 1995 Kar. 587; Assistant Director v. B.R. Herman Mohata Ltd. PLD 1992 SC 485; Central Insurance v. CBR 1993 SCMR 1232 and Messrs Muller and Phipps Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Collector of Sales Tax Enforcement LTU, Karachi 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1787 ref.\n2007 PTD 1493 rel.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 32(1)---Declaration of goods made under bona fide belief or in presence of departmental practice or interpretation in vogue---Effect stated.\nStatement or declaration made under bona fide belief or in presence of any departmental practice or interpretation vogue or view held by the departmental officers shall not be a mis-declaration within the contemplation of subsection (1) of section 32 of the Customs, 1969. The matter of interpretation is also not a matter of mis-declaration.\n(c) Public functionaries---Duty and obligation of public functionaries would be to redress grievance of citizens without fear, favour and nepotism.\nZahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC 530 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-279 of 2013, decision dated: 17-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) AND ADNAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mohabbat Hussain Awan for Appellant. Ghulam Yasin, A.O., for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, SEWING MACHINE and othersILK YARN\nvs\nCOLLECTOR MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTOR, (PaCCS) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8373", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2021 = 2013 SLD 2021 = 2013 PDS 1699", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)].......Sections 195(1), 33,.. S.R.Os. Nos. 554(I)/1998, dated 12/06/1998, 479(I)2003, dated 07/06/2009,.. C.B.Rs. letter C. No. 1/53/Mach/90, dated 26/06/2005,.. Audit,.. Import of textile machinery and spares,.. During audit of tax-payer's record, it was revealed that the appellant had imported 41 consignments of textile machinery and spares for the purpose of installation in their factory which were assessed under respective PCT heading and cleared in terms of S.R.O. No. 554(I)/1998, dated 12/06/1998 availing exemption of duty and taxes,.. Out of manufactured goods, 23.21% yarn was exported and 76.79% yarn was sold in the local market,.. Total 205618 bags of cotton yarn were produced, out of which 41499 bags were exported and 169831 bags were sold locally,.. Total sales during the period under audit were 211330 bags,.. Ratio of export and local sale items of bags come to 20.18% and 79.82% respectively,.. Percentage of export in terms of bags was also checked and found less than 60% of the value of actual production, whereas as per provisions of S.R.O. No. 554(I)/1998, dated 12/06/1998, the appellant was required to export 60% of actual production for the first two years,.. Refunds,.. As appellant had availed amnesty scheme and deposited the due amount of duty, he was not entitled to claim refund due to falling under category C of the said S.R.O,.. Show-cause Notice,.. Order-in-Original,.. Exemption,.. Contention of the appellant was that such order was illegal, void ab-initio and had been passed without application of independent judicial mind and without jurisdiction,.. I.T.A.T. remanded the case only to the extent finding out the figures regarding export target as fixed for the category \"\"B\"\" of the table to the exemption notification, therefore, imports and category of the appellant by no stretch of imagination were opened to any exception,.. Learned Tribunal observed that as per provisions of S.R.O. No. 554(I)/1998, dated 12/06/1998 the appellant was required to export 60% of the value of actual production for the first two years whereas he had failed to fulfill the requirement of clause C of S.R.O. No. 554(I)/98, dated 12/06/1998,.. As appellant had availed amnesty under S.R.O. No. 554(I)/1998, dated 12/06/1998 and deposited the due amount of duty at Custom House, Karachi, The appellant was not entitled to claim refund as per clause (b) of the S.R.O. No. 554(I)/1998, dated 12.06.1998 due to falling under category C of the said S.R.O,.. Learned Tribunal found that the Collector of Customs, Faisalabad had passed a speaking order, keeping in view all aspects of the case and threshed out each and every contentions raised by the appellant,.. It was established that the appellant had voluntarily opted to avail the scheme for relief under S.R.O. No. 554(I)/1998, dated 12/06/1998,.. There was no mandatory requirement of law or legal constrain to avail the option for relief,.. It was purely on the voluntary decision on the part of the importer to choose and avail the option either to claim the benefit under S.R.O. No. 554(I)/1998 or to contest his case before the adjudicating officer,.. Availing of relief, although under protest, can not be rolled back subsequently,.. The appellant was supposed to have more accurate knowledge than any other person,.. As he did not contest the case before the adjudicating officer and instead decided to deposit 5% customs duty and availed the benefit under the above said S.R.O., therefore, he can not raise any demand for refund at a latter stage,.. The matter was a past and closed transaction and cannot be disturbed in either way,.. Refund in the instant case was not only inadmissible under the above said notification which provided for refund of duty paid through error, inadvertence or misconstruction, none of which was matter in the instant case, hence, learned Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned Order-in-original passed by the learned Collector of Customs, Faisalabad, therefore, appeal was dismissed,..", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=195", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 206/LB/2010 hearing DATE 20.03.2013 DATE of judgment 15.04.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. NIAMAT ULLAH, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Mr. Akhtar Ali, Advocate with Mr. Iqditar Alam, A.R. For the respondent Mr. Sultan Mehmood, Advocate with Mr. Mehmood Dogar, Inspector\n1. The Collector Customs, MCC, Faisalabad. 2. The Additional Collector Customs (Adjudication) Faisalabad. 3. The Audit Staff (Bond Section) Faisalabad. Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8374", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2022 = 2013 SLD 2022 = 2013 PDS 1700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)].......Sections 17, 157, 168(1), 2(s), 16 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 3(1) & (3) of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1950, clauses (1), 156(1), 156(1)(8), 156(1)(14) read with Section 178, 169(3),.. General Rules of Interpretation of the First Schedule (Pakistan Customs Tariff), Rule 2(a) read with Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969,.. Appendix-A, B of Import Policy Order, 2010,.. PCT Heading 9302.0092,.. PTD Heading 9301.9041,.. Import of goods,.. Mis-declaration by importer,.. Smuggled items,.. Seizure,.. The appellant imported 350 pistols under PCT Heading No. 9302.0092 from Turkey, consignment was examined and all the pistols were reported to be semi-automatic,.. Customs appraiser also examined the imported pistols and found a hole near trigger of 229 pistols out of 230 pistols of model Zigan-63, therefore, the G.D. was sent back to the examination staff for verification of the hole near trigger of the above pistols of model Zigana-3 and the same were also detained for further verifications,.. Two samples of pistols Zigana-63 were sent to the Inspectorate of Armaments, Rawalpindi for examination and report whether these were automatic or otherwise who reported that (as per design these weapons are automatic due to conversion from 2xholes auto to auto) As per Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation of the First Schedule (Pakistan Customs Tariff) read with Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969, all the imported goods are classified in accordance with their character,.. Since the aforesaid pistols were automatic by their design, therefore, the same were classifiable as automatic pistols under PTC Heading 9301.9041,.. As per Appendix-A of the prevailing Import Policy Order, import of automatic Zigana-63 by mis-declaring the same as semi automatic, therefore, import of said 230 automatic pistols was prohibited, hence the appellant tried to smuggle 230 automatic pistols of model Zigana-63, the same along with packing material were seized and criminal case was registered,.. Order-in-Original,.. The only issue involved in this case was as to whether 230 Nos. of Pistols Zigana-63 imported by appellant No. 1 were semi-automatic falling under PCT heading 9302.0092 importable in term of Import Policy Order, 2009 or automatic classifiable under PCT heading 9301.9041 not importable under the aforesaid Import Policy,.. Contention of the learned counsel that these pistols were semi-automatic in their current configuration was found correct by the learned Tribunal,.. It was also on record that according to report received from Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Lahore, all the pistols including model Zigana-63 were reported to be semi-automatic,.. It was also admitted fact that no sub-assembly was imported by the appellant No.1,.. The contention of the learned counsel that according to the report of Inspectorate of Armaments, Rawalpindi, all the pistols of any brand can be converted into auto or semi-automatic and unless and until the same are converted with expert alteration, these pistols cannot be termed as automatic also found to be correct,.. The learned Departmental Representative when confronted with the aforesaid situation that neither these pistols were automatic in their present condition nor any sub-assembly was imported for conversion thereof he was unable to controvert the assertion of the learned counsel that these pistols in their current configuration were semi automatic,.. He was also unable to deny the contention of the learned counsel that the hole near the trigger was meant for installation of a laser pointer,.. He, however, admitted that no sub-assembly for converting these pistols from semi-automatic to automatic was imported by the appellant No.1,.. The report received from the Inspectorate of Armaments when read in harmony with the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Lahore made it clear that these pistols were semi-automatic,.. This also was supported from the opinion of the Inspectorate of Armaments, Rawalpindi that every pistol can be converted into automatic or semi-automatic with expert alteration,.. The current configuration of the pistols can only be taken into consideration for import and classification thereof,.. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the reply of the Shipper in Turkey in response to query made by respondent No. 1 where under it was declared that the shipment of the 350 pieces of Zigana Brand pistols exported to appellant No. 1 consisted of semi-­automatic pistols by design,.. They further confirmed that as per Turkish Government rules they could neither manufacture nor export any automatic weapon to any country,.. The learned counsel also referred to the clarification sought from the manufacturer in Turkey by respondent No. 1 that Zigana-63 Model pistols shipped to appellant No. 1 had a small hole under the grip drilled on customer's demand in order to install laser pointer to the pistol,.. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Lahore and the clarification sought by the department itself from the manufacturing/shipper had not been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order,.. It was further observed by learned Tribunal that the report of Inspectorate of Armaments, Rawalpindi had also been misinterpreted because the said report too confirmed the result received from Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Lahore and the clarification sought from the manufacturer/shipper in Turkey,.. Although the learned Departmental Representative tried to support the impugned order yet he had nothing to say so far as the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab Lahore and the clarification sought from the manufacturer in Turkey were concerned,.. It was held by the Tribunal that Zigana-63 Model pistols subject-matter of the instant appeal were semi-automatic in their present configuration and also by design appropriately classifiable under PCT heading 9302.0092 importable in term of Import Policy Order, 2009,.. Appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside and Zigana-63 Model Quantity 230 pistols were directed to be released on payment of duty and other taxes leviable thereon in accordance with law,.. The penalty imposed on the appellants was also waived off,..\nYasir Enterprises' case 2012 PTD (Trib.) 47 referred.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=17", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 133/2013 hearing DATE 17.06.2013 DATE of judgment 24.06.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Mr. Abdul Salam Sajid, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Maqsood Ahmad, D.S", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8375", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1336 = 2012 SLD 1336 = (2013) 108 TAX 351 = 2012 PTD 1905", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJpND0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]----Ss. 9, 14, 86, 90 & 156(1)---Notification S.R.O. 594(1)/2009 dated 25-6-2009---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.265-K & 561-A---Alleged mis-declaration of goods---Application for quashment of proceedings, dismissal of---Exporter (accused/applicant) declared consignment in question to be Lead Concentrate while laboratory report described the same as Lead Powder, which was subject to regulatory duty---F.I.R. was lodged against exporter---Application filed by exporter under S. 265-K, Cr. P. C, was dismissed by Trial Court on grounds that it was yet to be determined whether contents of consignment were the same as declared by exporter, which controversy could only be decided after prosecution evidence was brought on record, therefore it could not be held that there was no probability of exporter being convicted---Contentions of exporter were that alleged mis-declaration was neither intentional nor deliberate but same was due to lack of knowledge and even customs authorities were not sure about the correct classification until same had been decided by Customs Tarrff Committee, and that in the charge sheet no mens rea or intention of tax evasion had been alleged, therefore, the charge was groundless---Validity---Mis-declaration had been admitted---Question as to whether mis-declaration was intentional/deliberate or in good faith was yet to be ascertained---Order of Trial Court warranted no interference in circumstances---Application was dismissed in circumstances.\n \nMiraj Khan v. Gul Muhammad 2000 SCMR 122 and Collector of Customs v. Messrs Power Electronic Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore 2011 PTD 2837 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=14", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.137 and M.A. N ).3655 of 2012, decision dated: 13-08-2012, hearing DATE : 31st July, 2012", + "Judge Name:": "SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi for Applicants. Imtiaz Ahmed, Standing Counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "JAVED IQBAL SIDDIQUI and others\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8376", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2023 = 2013 SLD 2023 = 2013 PDS 1702", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)].....Sections 168, 170, 171, 2(s) read with S.R.O. No. 566(I)/2005, dated 09/06/2005 (Serial No. 55 amended vide S.R.O. No. 36(2)2011, dated 13/01/2011, 16, 157(2), 178 156(1)(89) read with Section 3(1)(3) of Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1950,.. Smuggled goods,.. Show-cause Notice,.. Seizure,.. Order-in-Original,.. Confiscation,.. Customs staff taken in possession from the Police Station Saddar, Bahawalpur the foreign origin smuggled pan parag/gutka loaded on the roof of the bus which was coming from Sadiqabad for Lahore,, At the spot no one claimed ownership of the origin smuggled goods, therefore, the same were seized under Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 after issuing notice under Section 171 ibid for service upon the owner of bus and others,.. Order-in-Appeal,.. Appeal before Collector(A) who modified the impugned order-in-original and redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 125,000/- instead of 20% of CIF value of the vehicle,.. Learned Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had already thrashed out each and every contention of the appellant and passed a speaking order,. Since, the goods in question were found smuggled one and had been brought into the country in a clandestine manner through unauthorized route without payment of leviable duty and taxes and further the same were notified vide S.R.O. No. 566(I)/2005, dated 06/06/2005 issued under Clause (ii) of Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, therefore the same were correctly ordered to be confiscated out rightly,.. As regards the vehicle in question was concerned, the Collector(A) had already taken a very lenient view and reduced the redemption fine from 20% of the CIF value of the bus to Rs. 125,000/-, therefore, learned Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned Order-in-Appeal which was upheld and the instant appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed,..", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 51/2013 hearing DATE 27/05/2013 DATE of judgment 04/06/2013", + "Judge Name:": "MR. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Mr. Raza Shakir, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Saleem Afzal, I.O.\nMr. Irshad Ahmad S/o Muhammad Riaz R/o Madni Masjid, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District R.Y Khan.\n1. Superintendent Directorate General (Customs), Intelligence & Investigation-FBR, Range Office, Multan\n2. Deputy Collector, Customs (Adjudication) Model Customs Collectorate, Customs House, Multan.3. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Lahore.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8377", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2024 = 2013 SLD 2024 = 2013 PDS 1703", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)].......Section 168,.. Smuggled goods,.. Recovery,.. Seizure, confiscation,.. Appeal,.. Customs I&I staff recovered 1200 bags of Iranian plastic dana which were found repacked in polypropylene bags of Indian origin, empty Irani bags 05 bundles and empty Indian bags 05 bundles from the appellants who failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding legal import of lawful possession of the recovered goods and the seized goods were confiscated and a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed upon the appellants,.. From the perusal of record it was evident that appellants repacked the smuggled Irani plastic dana in used polypropylene bags of Indian plastic dana to hide the smuggled nature of the plastic dana which was usually packed in original packing and each bag bore full description,.. Further the consignment against GD No. LDRY-HC-1329 dated 08/08/2012 of HDPE Grade 002DF50 consisting of 2560 bags were cleared on 13/08/2012,.. The impugned 1200 bags of plastic dana bore different grades and these cannot be connected with any import document presented by the appellants,.. Learned Tribunal also perused the impugned Order-in-Original and was of the view that the same had been passed after hearing both the parties and their view points had been given due consideration,.. Learned counsel for the appellants at this stage was asked to substantiate his contentions regarding legal status of the impugned goods and any rebuttal to the allegations leveled against the appellants with corroborative documentary evidence but no such evidence was produced,.. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), same was upheld and appellants' appeal was dismissed being devoid of any merits,..", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=168", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 134/LB/2013 hearing DATE 24.03.2013 DATE of judgment 30.05.2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate. For the Respondent Mr. Muhammad Ismail, D.R. assisted by Mr. Mubarik Sherazi, I.O\n1. Tariq Sardar s/o Muhammad Sardar District Sheikhupura.2. Arif Hussain s/o Muhammad Sardar District Sheikhupura.3. Muhammad Zubair\n1. Superintendent, Intelligence and Investigation, Federal Board of Revenue,Lahore.2. Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Model Custom Collectorate, Lahore", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8378", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2025 = 2013 SLD 2025 = 2013 PDS 1704", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)].......Sections 2(kk), 13, 95, 156(1)(90), 168(1),.. Smuggling of foreign origin goods,.. Show-cause Notice,.. Order-in-Original,.. Confiscation,.. Appeal before Collector of Customs (A) which was dismissed,.. Order-in-Appeal,.. Appellants contended that the impugned order was passed ex-parte without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellants; that the entire proceedings were completed in haste by respondent No. 4 and the appellants were condemned unheard; that even no one appeared on behalf of the department; that respondent No. 4 was under legal obligation to address the issues raised by the appellants in the memo. of appeal; that not a single word was uttered in this behalf by respondent No. 4 and as such the impugned order was totally void and illegal; that 2 coils subject-matter of instant appeal were part of a consignment consisting of 12 coils imported by appellant No. 2 for utilization in production in his manufacturing unit, entire import documents were provided, as regards thickness and width, the coils were secondary in quality and thus the variation in thickness and width was immaterial; that coils were being transported to the unit of appellant No. 2 under Safe Transport Scheme; Appellants referred to the stock register wherein only 10 coils were in-Bonded and 2 coils were shown short as the same were seized by the staff of respondent No. 1 enroute at Lahore,.. Learned departmental representative had supported the impugned order that import documents provided by the appellants were not relevant as there was difference in the specification,.. It was admitted by him that only 10 coils instead of 12 coils reached the factory premises of the appellant No. 2 according to the copy of the stock register provided by the appellants, he could not controvert the assertion of the learned counsel that the impugned order was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the both sides,.. Appellant No. 2 was registered as importer/manufacturer/exporter, engaged in manufacturing of MS Pipes and exportation, imported a consignment of Hot Rolled Coil quantity 12 weighing 128.3150 M.Ton from South Africa and sought transshipment thereof to the manufacturing Bond at Islamabad vide GD No. ST-166 dated 19/07/2012, 2 coils were dispatched under Safe Transport Scheme from Karachi to Islamabad on truck No. K-2367 driven by appellant No. 1,.. According to the stock register of the manufacturing Bond, 10 coils reached the Bond and entered in the stock register and other documents while 2 coils were shown pending arrival,.. The coils imported by appellant No. 2 were admittedly of secondary quality and the difference in specification of such goods could not be ruled out,.. The claim of appellant No. 2 also got support from letters dated 29/09/2012 and 06/10/2012 where-under clearing Collectorate had asked for certificate of in-bonding of 12 coils while the intimation given to MCC, Islamabad was that 2 coils were seized by the staff of respondent No. 1,.. Appellants also informed respondent No. 1 that the seized coils were in Transit from Karachi to Islamabad under Safe Transport Scheme and nothing could be brought on record by the department that these 2 coils were non-duty paid or brought into the country through un-authorized route,.. The interception and seizure of 2 coils enroute from Karachi to Islamabad at Lahore further strengthened the case of the appellants that the same were lawfully imported and were being transported under Safe Transport Scheme to the manufacturing Bond of the appellant No. 2, engaged in manufacturing of MS Pipes by importing Mot Rolled Coils as raw material,.. Appellant No. 2 was also maintaining manufacturing Bond duly licensed under Section 13 and 95 of the Customs Act, 1969 by the Collector of Customs, MCC, Islamabad and thus the appellant No. 2 was entitled to import such raw material without payment of duty and taxes for manufacturing of MS Pipes for exportation thereof,.. The contention of the learned counsel that the impugned order was passed on the back of the appellants without addressing the factual and legal issues raised by the appellants by respondent No. 4 also found correct,.. Learned Tribunal held that 2 coils of Hot Rolled Coils subject-matter of the instant appeal were lawfully imported by Appellant No. 2 vide GD No. ST-166 dated 19/07/2012 and were seized enroute to Islamabad under Safe Transport Scheme,.. Appeal was allowed and both Orders-in-Original and Appeal were set aside,..", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 170/LB/2013 hearing DATE 19-06-2013 DATE of judgment 20-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "For the appellant Mr. Abdul Salam Sajid, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr. Sajjad Bokhari, Inspector\n1. Basharat Hussain son of Ahmed Din, resident of Village Gugdar, Tehsil and District Havely, AJK 2. Mansoor Ahmed Khan, Proprietor of M/s Shaheen Pipe Industries\n1. Collector of Customs, Model Custsoms Collectorate of Preventive, Customs House, Lahore 2. Deputy Collector of Customs (Adjudication), Customs House", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8379", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2026 = 2013 SLD 2026 = 2013 PTD 2025 = (2014) 109 TAX 153", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]----Ss. 19(3) [as inserted by Customs (Amendment) Ordinance (XLVIII of 2002) w.e.f 7-6-2002], 30 & 31-A---Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992), S.6---S.R.0.369(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000---S.R.0. 439(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001---Polyester Staple Fibre Manufacturing Plant, import of---First unit of such plant arrived in Pakistan in May, 2001 an basis of Bill of Entry dated 10-5-2001---Bill of Entry for second unit of such plant filed after 19-6-2001---S. R. 0. 369(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000 exempting such plant from customs-duty was amended subsequently vide S.R.0. 439(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001---Demand of customs-duty @ 5% ad Valorem on import of such second unit of plant under S. R. 0. 439(I)/2001---Plea of importer was that second unit being part of one plant was in continuation of first unit, thus second unit was entitled to complete exemption from customs-duty under S.R.0. 369(I)/2000---Validity---Such second unit for being a separate plant could not be regarded as spare parts being imported for use in first imported unit already installed---Import of complete plant in one or successive shipments and its arrival in different lots and at different times would be irrelevant for such S. R. Os.---Shipment of complete unit in different lats would not and could not mean nor did such S.R.0s. require that such shipments be treated or regarded as one composite whole---Both such imported units would be treated and dealt with separately on basis of law applicable at time of filing of Bill of Entry for each unit---Provisions of subsection (3) inserted in S.19 of Customs Act, 1969 w.e.f.7-6-2002 would not take away benefit accrued to an importer having filed Bill of Entry prior to such date, thus, same would not apply in relation to bath such units---S.R.0. 369(I)/2000 for not having a specific term of its duration was not covered by S.6 of Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992, thus, protection and benefit provided thereunder would not apply to such S.R.0.---S.R.O. 439(I)/2001 was in force when Bill of Entry for second unit was fled, thus, importer would be entitled to exemption in respect of second unit in terms thereof and not otherwise. \nIbrahim Fibres Ltd, v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement) and another 2009 PTD 1902; Nishat Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2005 PTD 495; Karim Ghee and Oil Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2005 PTD 654; Sitara Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement) and another 2005 PTD 729; Fecto Belarus Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others 2009 PTD 390; Molasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1993 SCMR 1905; All-Hamra Industries v. Federation of Pakistan 2005 PTD 2505; Gatron and Bhadilia Industries Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others 1999 MLD 2994; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gulf Edible Oils (Pvt.) Ltd. 2006 PTD 2854; Elahi Cotton Mills v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Celanese Pakistan Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan and others 2002 PTD 2874 and Lucky Cement Ltd. v. Central Board of Revenue and others PLD 2001 Pesh. 7 ref.\n(b) Protection of Economic Reforms Act (XII of 1992)-------\nS. 6 & Sched.---Protection of fiscal incentives for setting up of industries---Applicability---Such protection would be applicable, notification issued under fiscal statute had a specified term for its duration, otherwise not---Principles.\nSection 6 in relation to \"\"fiscal incentives\"\" provided \"\"for' investment\"\" through \"\"statutory orders listed in the Schedule to the Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992 \"\"or otherwise? In respect of such fiscal incentives, section 6 provides that they \"\"shall continue in force for the term specified therein\"\" and -will not be \"\"altered to the disadvantage of the investors'. For section 6 to be applicable, the relevant \"\"statutory order\"\" must have a \"\"term\"\" specified \"\"therein\"\". The reason is obvious. If no such term is specified therein, then the prohibition contained in the Section (which is protection there by provided) would not be applicable. Thus, in respect of a notification issued under a fiscal statute, it must have a specific term for its duration, as specified therein. It is only then the protection of Section 6 is applicable, this is also clear from the notifications listed in the Schedule to the Act.\nThe protection provided by Section 6 is specifically and directly linked to the requirement that the notification have a specific period or duration specified in it.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=19", + "Case #": "High Court Appeal No.267 of 2009, decision dated: 17-07-2013, dates of hearing: 12th and 20-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM SARWAR KORAI AND MUNIB AKHTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sarfraz Ali Metlo for Appellants. Kh. Shamsul Islam for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others\nvs\nIBRAHIM FIBERS LTD. through General Manager (Import)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8380", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2027 = 2013 SLD 2027 = 2013 PTD 2064 = (2014) 109 TAX 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]----Ss. 81(2), 81(1), 80 & 79---Constitution of Pakistan Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---Maintainability-\"\"Petitioner assailed final assessment order passed under S. 81(2) of the Customs Act, 1969---Alternate remedy---Contention of the petitioner was that since no appeal/remedy under the Customs Act, 1969 was available against an order passed under S. 81 (2) of the Customs Act, 1969 and such an order, was the final determination of assessment duty with respect to goods that had been provisionally released under S. 81(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, it was therefore distinct from a final assessment order passed under S, 79 or S. 80 of the Customs Act, 1969 against which an appeal/remedy was available---Held, that only in absence of any statutory remedy, resort to Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was justifiable.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 81(2)---S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Import of platinum sponge/ power---Exemption from payment of customs duty vide S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006 ----Exemption from customs duties for import of platinum was denied to the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner was a pharmaceutical company, it was entitled to only those exemptions specified in Table-III of S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006; and not to the exemption provided for import of platinum in Table-I of the said S.R.0.---Validity---Specific exemptions for the pharmaceutical industry had been provided in Table-III of S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006; nevertheless, there was no restriction on the claim of exemption by an importer under Table-I of S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006 as it so happened that platinum was not an exempted item under Table-III of S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006; whilst it was exempted under Table-I of said S.R.0.; therefore there was no special exemption for the pharmaceutical industry in respect of imported platinum, and there was a general exemption regarding the said item for all importers under Table-I of S.R.0. -567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006---Language of S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006 did not place any restriction upon the persons entitled to exemption under Table-I of said S.Rf0., therefore even though the petitioner belonged to the pharmaceutical industry, there was nothing to deprive it of the benefit Q\"\" exemption under Table-I of S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006---Impugned order was based on the misreading of the S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006, and deprived the petitioner right of an exemption available to all importers under Table-I of S.R.0. 567(I)/2006 dated 5-6-2006 ---- Impugned order was set aside and constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=81", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 2I513 of 2009, heard on 30-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner. Irtaza, Ali Naqvi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ALPHA CHEMICALS (PVT) LTD. through Manager\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8381", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2028 = 2013 SLD 2028 = 2013 PTD 2067", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss. 25 & 25-A(4) [as amended by Finance Act (XVI of 20I0)]--- Customs Rules, 2001, R. 1074--Valuation Rulings, issuance of---Limitation---Valuation Ruling under S. 25 of Customs Act, 1969 could not be issued after years of import---Valuation Ruling issued under S.25-A of Customs Act, 1969 would be applicable upto 90 days from date of its issuance---Person aggrieved by Valuation Ruling issued under S.25-A(4) of the Act could approach Director General Valuation for its revision or rescission after expiry of 90 days---Principles.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss. 25 & 25-A---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-A---Determination of Customs Value of imported goods---Provisions ofSs.25 & 25-A of Customs Act, 1969---Applicability---Scope.\nSection 25-A Customs Act 1969 is only an enabling section; it permits, but does not mandatorily require' a predetermination of customs value. The principle method of determining customs value is and must remain section 25. Section 25-A is not intended to be a substitute for section 25 nor can it be resorted to in such manner and with such frequency that it marginalizes the later provision. It is merely an adjunct to section 25 to be resorted to in appropriate circumstances and for an appropriate period. In enacting section 25A, the legislative intent was not to create a statutory bypass to the Valuation Agreement. Issuance of valuation ruling under section 25-A cannot be regarded as limited only to those cases where the department concludes that there is group under-invoicing, the section also cannot be used for wholesale determination of customs values. Such an approach would, in effect, transform the \"\"determination\"\" permissible under section 25-A to an impermissible \"\"fixation\"\" of value. This is an important point which must be keep in mind and may be relevant in appropriate cases when considering the vires of a Valuing Ruling. \nThe Valuation Ruling must be determined using one of the methods of section 25 of the Act and valuation agreement at least three of those methods, the identical goods method, the similar goods method and the detective value method, required the value to be determined \"\"as or about the same time\"\" as the goods being valued.\nThe determination of value under. section 25-A of the Act is not a simple thing, it is, therefore, appropriate that the ruling should contain sufficient detail to show that section 25-A has been properly applied and also makes it necessary that the Valuation Ruling should be a speaking order as per the mandatory requirement of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897.\nMessrs Zymotic Diagnostic International C.P. No.434-K of 2005 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=25", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-665 of 2012, decision dated: 16-05-2013, hearing DATE : 13-03-2013", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) AND GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-11)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Appellant. Shamim Ahmed, P.A. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs UNITED AUTO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Manager\nvs\nDIRECTOR GENERAL CUSTOMS and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8382", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1375 = 2015 SLD 1375 = 2015 PTD 107 = 2015 PTCL 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---S. 196---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 27---Reference to High Court, filing of---Limitation---Commencement of time for purposes of limitation---Scope---Judgment of Appellate Tribunal sent to counsel by registered post---Presumption that such was served---Time for filing reference before High Court would start to run from the date of service of post---Appeal, in the present case, was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal on 17-2-1998, and record showed that had been dispatched to the counsel from office of Appellate Tribunal on 26-2-1998 through registered post---Even otherwise counsel moved first application for supply of copy of on 2-5-1998, i.e. almost seventy days after the appeal had been heard and dismissed---Second application was moved by the counsel after almost 13 months on 5-3-1999, and third application was moved after more than three years on 11-6-1999---Gross negligence was exercised by the counsel in not bothering for at least 70 days to find out as to why the decision had not allegedly reached his office---Reference filed before the High Court on 16-2-2007 in such circumstances was hopelessly time-barred---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.\n \n Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu AIR 2005 SC 109 = (2004) 8 SCC 774 ref.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 158---Power of customs authorities to search baggage of a transit passenger---Scope---Under S. 158 of Customs Act, 1969, Customs Authorities had the jurisdiction to search the baggage of a transit passenger when he was leaving the customs station.\n \n(c) Void order----Challenge to a void order---Limitation---Party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings.\n \nMessrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Limited v. Collector of Sales Tax and others 2013 SCMR 587 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.427 of 2010 out of Civil Petition No.121-K of 2010, decision dated: 28-05-2014", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN SAQIB NISAR, SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND MUHAMMAD ATHER SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM HUSSAIN RAMZAN ALI\nVs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8383", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1376 = 2015 SLD 1376 = 2015 PTD 134 = 2015 PTCL 165 = (2014) 110 TAX 365", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 196---Reference to High Court----Scope---Taxpayer had raised questions with regard to merits of case in the present Reference to High Court under S. 196 of the Customs Act, 1969---Contention of Department was that such reference on merits of the case was not valid after matter had been remanded by Appellate Tribunal to Adjudicating Officer for decision afresh---Held, that perusal of order of Appellate Tribunal revealed that no finding with regard to merits of the case or on questions proposed in present reference had been recorded in said order for the valid reason that Appellate Tribunal had set aside impugned orders on ground that deciding more than one appeal through common order by giving effect to other cases mutatis mutandis had been deprecated by Superior Courts, and therefore Appellate Tribunal had remanded matter back to Adjudicating Officer for decision afresh---No error therefore existed in impugned order of Appellate Tribunal and therefore questions proposed by taxpayer in the reference did not arise from impugned order as there was no finding on issues---High Court observed that in case of remand of the case for a decision afresh, the only question that could have arisen from such order of remand, would be that under facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide same afresh, which was not proposed in the present case---In case of remand, no question of law arises particularly when adverse order against taxpayer had been set aside, and no adverse order remained in field, therefore, a party could not be treated as an aggrieved party nor there remained anything to be decided by the High Court in terms of S, 196 of the Customs Act, 1969---Reference, being not maintainable, was dismissed in circumstances.\n \nMessrs Pakistan Telephone Cables (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2011 PTD 2849; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Electronic Industries Ltd., Karachi 1988 PTD 111 and E.M. Oil Mills and Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Audit Division II, Companies III, Karachi 2011 PTD 2708 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=196,94B(1),193A", + "Case #": "Special Customs Reference No.256 of 2012, decision dated: 3rd October, 2014", + "Judge Name:": "AQEEL AHMED ABBASI AND MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhamamd Afzal Awan for Applicant. Khalid Mehmood Dhoon for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SIDDIQ TRADERS\nVs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS APPRAISEMENTIV, CUSTOMS HOUSE, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8384", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1377 = 2015 SLD 1377 = 2015 PTD 138 = (2014) 109 TAX 245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n \n----Ss. 113(3), 221, 5 & 2(63)---Income Tax Ordinance (XXXI of 1979), S.80D---Minimum tax on the income of certain persons---Minimum tax---Final tax---Imposition concurrently---Validity---No controversy existed in the present case with regard to application and scope of S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the period up to 30-6-2008 i.e. the date when S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was omitted vide Finance Act, 2008---Prior to insertion of \"\"explanation\"\", mere enlargement or elaboration of definition of expression 'turnover' in subsection (3) of S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 did not alter the situation earlier applicable as interpreted by the Courts---After re-enactment and prior to insertion of \"\"explanation\"\", the provisions of law clearly warranted imposition of higher of minimum tax or final taxes as was offered for tax by the taxpayer in its declarations---At the time, when Assessing Officer imposed final tax and minimum tax concurrently, same was clearly not lawful---Since, through insertion of 'explanation', a new restrictive definition of 'tax paid or payable' had been provided by the legislature which had altered and clearly enlarged the scope of substantive part of S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and that the legislature had not expressly made it retrospective, said \"\"explanation\"\" could not be considered to be applicable on retrospective basis---Orders of the authorities below were vacated and it was held by the Appellate Tribunal that minimum tax and final taxes could not be concurrently imposed---Assessing authority clearly erred in imposing final tax and minimum tax concurrently---Only the higher of two amounts was payable under the law.\n \n 2009 PTD 1707; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 168; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 845 and M.A. No.79/LB 2012 ref.\n \n 2004 PTD 921; 2001 PTD (Trib.) 755 and 2011 PTD 1558 rel.\n \n(b) Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---\n \n----Ss. 5, 8, 169(3) & 122(5A)---Tax on dividends---Tax collected or deducted as a final tax---Imposition of tax on dividend in addition to minimum tax---Taxpayer contended that consequent to amendments made in S.8 and S.169(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 vide Finance Act, 2007, dividend income for corporate recipients was brought out of 'final tax regime'; and it remained so until amendments introduced vide Finance Act, 2013 when position was reinstated as was applicable prior to Finance Act, 2007; and tax on dividend was not a final tax for tax years 2008 through 2013 and was a tax liability under normal tax regime for which a reduced rate of tax of 10% was prescribed; and once it was held that dividend could not be set off and remained chargeable to tax in the year in which the income was derived, the tax could not be imposed in addition to minimum tax rather the applicability and imposition of minimum tax remained dependent upon quantum of tax on dividend; and under the law either tax could have been imposed on dividend or alternatively minimum tax could have been imposed if the tax on dividend remained less than specified proportion of sales subject to tax under normal tax regime---Validity---Assessing authority had erred in law by imposing dividend tax in addition to taxes imposed in rectification orders---During the period 1-7-2007 to 30-6-2013, dividend income remained outside the purview of final tax regime---For the purposes of determining the applicability of minimum tax, it had to be seen whether final taxes and tax on dividend income remained less than minimum tax i.e. proportion of local sales---In case, these two taxes exceeded the minimum tax, the provisions of S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 became inapplicable ab initio---After refusal of set off of dividend income against business losses by the assessing authority and subjection of the same to charge of tax, the position changed altogether as taxpayer had not admitted such liability in its declarations---Tax on dividend income together with final taxes far exceeded the amount of minimum tax and the taxpayer did not remain liable to levy of minimum tax rather it remained liable to tax on dividends as well as final taxes, these being the taxes otherwise payable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Orders of authorities below were modified and it was held by the Appellate Tribunal that taxpayer remained liable to final taxes and dividend tax as aggregate thereof was in excess of minimum tax---No amount was payable by the taxpayer under S.113 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 2001=2(63),5,8,169(3)&122(5A),113(3),221Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=80D", + "Case #": "I.T.As. Nos.1942, 1943/LB of 2012, I.T.A. No.120/LB of 2013 and I.T.A. No.1812/LB of 2011, decision dated: 13-01-2014", + "Judge Name:": "NAZAR AHMAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND FIZA MUZAFFAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Asim Zulfiqar Ali, FCA for Appellant. Muhammad Tahir, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8385", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2015 1378 = 2015 SLD 1378 = 2015 PTD 30 = 2015 PTCL 559", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Administration of justice----Proper place of procedure in any system of administration of justice is to help and not to thwart the grant of their rights to people---Technicalities have to be avoided unless essential to comply on grounds of public policy.\n \n PLD 1963 SC 382 rel.\n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Statute is understood to be directory when it contains matter merely of direction, but not if the directions are followed by an express provision to the effect that in case of default to follow said provision, action shall be null and void.\n \n Niaz Muhammad Khan v. Mian Fazal Raqib PLD 1974 SC 134 rel.\n \n(c) Customs Rules, 2001---\n \n----R.298---Duty and tax remission for export scheme---Approval for availing benefit---Procedure---Person desirous of availing the facility of Duty and Tax Remission for Export Scheme (DTRE) submitted an application for obtaining DTRE approval on the basis of specific export or supply contract or order, Collector, who, after going through the application and recommendations of the processing authorities approves the application for import of goods to be utilized in the manufacture of goods for export without payment of leviable Customs duty and taxes on the said item notified in the Pakistan Customs Tariff.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 32(1)(2) & 32(a)---Customs Rules, 2001, Rr. 298 & 307-E(4)---Mis-declaration---Act contrary to the promise---Doctrine of promissory estoppel, benefit of---Scope---Appellant obtained approval of Duty and Tax Remission for Export Scheme (DTRE) for the importation of zinc for the manufacturing of sanitary fitting for export---Appellant imported zinc but exported copper coated wire instead of sanitary fitting---Customs authorities found the appellant guilty of misusing and abusing the facility of DTRE and causing loss to public exchequer of regulatory duty---Appellant was served with show cause notice on account of mis-declaration and fiscal fraud---Additional Collector of Customs through impugned Order in Original ordered for confiscation of seized goods, imposed penalty and also recommended for cancellation of DTRE approval along with initiation of recovery proceedings---Appeal filed by appellant against the impugned order in original was dismissed---Contention of the appellant was that he was given DTRE approval by the authorities, therefore impugned orders were illegal as he was protected under the doctrine of promissory estoppel---Validity---Appellant submitted application with the Collector who notified the approval as per which the appellant was to import zinc for manufacture and export of Sanitary fitting---Appellant, in his application and approval, made a statement and promise to import the goods mentioned in the application and likewise to export the goods mentioned in DTRE approval---Appellant imported the goods as declared in application but exported the goods namely copper coated wire to which he was not permitted---Appellant was duty bound to adhere to the promise made in the application of exporting sanitary fitting manufactured from alloy comprising of copper and zinc---Copper coated wire could not be termed as sanitary fitting even through a figment of imagination, therefore the act of appellant was in derogation of the DTRE approval and amounted to mis-declaration and fiscal fraud---Doctrine of promissory estoppel was infact squarely applicable on the appellant as he was not allowed to export the goods contrary to the promise made in the DTRE approval---Taking shelter behind the doctrine of promissory estoppel was misplaced as it was for the appellant to adhere to his declaration/promise and not for the authorities in any manner---Appeal was dismissed.\n \n PLD 1991 SC 546; AIR 1980 SC 1285; AIR 1986 SC 806 and 1986 SCMR 916 distinguished.\n \n Army Welfare Sugar Mill Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652 rel.\n \n(e) Estoppel---\n \n----Promissory estoppel---Doctrine of promissory estoppel is based on equitable principles.\n \n Army Welfare Sugar Mill Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Customs Appellate Tribunal", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Rules, 2001=298,307-E(4)Customs Act, 1969=16,32(1),32(2),32(a)", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-286 of 2008, decision dated: 9-12-2013, hearing DATE : 2-07-2013", + "Judge Name:": "ADNAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II) AND GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "G.A. Khan for Appellant. Alla-ud-Din Paracha for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "BABAR WAHEED\nVs.\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Federal Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8386", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2029 = 2013 SLD 2029 = 2013 PTD 2111", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]------Ss. 2(kk), 13, 95, 168(1) & 156(1)(90)---Foreign origin two Steel Coils---Seizure and confiscation of such coils for being non-duty paid and for ,non-production of relevant import documents thereof\"\"-Dismissal of appeal by Appellate Authority--Validity---Appellant being a registered importer/manufacturer/exporter was engaged in manufacturing of MS Pipes and export thereof and was maintaining a duly licensed manufacturing Bond at Islamabad---Record showed that appellant through Goods Declaration had sought trans-shipment of total 12 Coils from Karachi to his manufacturing Bond at Islamabad, out of which 10 coils had reached in Bond and had been entered in stock register---Nothing was -on record to show that disputed two coils had been brought through un-authorised route as same had been seized at Lahore after having been dispatched under Safe Transport Scheme from Karachi to Islamabad---Appellant was entitled to import such coils as raw material without payment of duty and taxes for manufacturing of MS Pipes for exportation thereof---Impugned order had been passed at the back of appellant without addressing factual and legal issues raised by him---Appellant had lawfully imported disputed coils---Tribunal set aside both impugned and original orders in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "C.A. No.170/LB of 2013, decision dated: 20-06-2013, hearing DATE : 19-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUHAMMAD ASGHAR PASWAL, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Salam Sajid for Appellant. Sajjad Bokhari for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "BASHARAT HUSSAIN and others\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PREVENTIVE and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8387", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2030 = 2013 SLD 2030 = 2013 PTD 2116", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]----S.181---S.R.O. No. 574(I)/05, dated 6-6-2005---Confiscated goods\"\"-Option to pay fine---Order passed by Adjudication Officer confiscating vehicles of respondents subject to payment of 30% redemption fine, were maintained by Appellate Authority---Customs Appellate Tribunal reduced amount of redemption fine---Validity---Adjudication officer was empowered to give owner of goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation of goods such fie as he thought fit, whereas second proviso provided that Board might by an order fix an amount of fine which in lieu of confiscation could be imposed on any goods or call of goods imported in violation of provisions of S. 15 or of a notification issued under S. 16 of Customs Act, 1969, or any other law for the time being in force---In exercise of such powers, Central Board of Revenue issued S.R.O. No. 574(I)/05, dated 6-6-2005, which had provided quantum of fine should not be less than specified in Column No.3 and other taxes and penalties imposed under relevant law, which rate had been fixed as 30% of the Customs value, in case of lawfully registered conveyance found carrying goods under S. 2(s) of Customs Act, 1969\"\"-High Court set aside the order passed by Customs Appellate Tribunal and restored that of Adjudication Officer---Reference was allowed accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=181", + "Case #": "Custom References Nos.20 and 23 of 2008, decision dated: 15-07-2013, hearing DATE : 2-05-2013", + "Judge Name:": "JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL AND GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel and Muhammad Azam for Appellants. Sadbar Jan for Respondents. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE and SALES TAX CUSTOMS HOUSE, QUETTA and others\nvs\nMUHAMMAD USMAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8388", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2031 = 2013 SLD 2031 = 2013 PTD 2186", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]----Ss. 32, 32A, 79, 80, 156(1), 179 & 181---S.R.0. 499(I)/2009 dated 13-6-2009---Allegation of misdeclaration of value of imported goods---Offer/option given to importer to redeem consficated goods on payment of all leviable, duty and taxes as well as fine equal to customs value thereof---Validity---Redemption fine would be worked out with reference to duty and taxes attempted to be evaded and not on duty and taxes leviable on whole consignment---Federal Board of Revenue in case of Ss. 32 & 32-A of Customs Act, 1969 had no power to issue notification with fixation of pitch of fine under S. 181 thereof---Adjudicating Authority had discretion to impose fine---Fixation of redemption fine an goods or class of goods by Federal Board of Revenue through S.R.0. 499(I)/2009, dated 13-6-2009 was\"\" against S.181 of Customs Act, 1969 and without lawful authority---Custom value of goods for fine would be taken as given in S. 179 of the Act--- Tribunal modified impugned redemption' fine and fixed the same at 35% of evaded duty and taxes.\n2004 SCMR 456 ref \nMessrs Weave and Knit (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi v. Additional Collector of Customs 2004 PTD 2981; Superior Textile Mills Ltd. v. FOP 2000 PTD 399; (Adjudication) Karachi Collector of Sales Tax and others v. Superior Textile Mills Ltd, and others PLD 2001 SC 600 and Saleem Raza v. FOP and others 2012 PTD 302 rel.\n(b) Notification-------\nNotification would be read in harmonious manner.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------\nS. 156(1)---Penalty, imposition of---Factors essential to be considered by Adjudicating Authority stated.\nPrior to imposing penalty, the Adjudicating Authority has to take into consideration the profile of the importer and his line of business and the relevant clause of the provision of section 156(l) of the Customs Act, 1969. Indeed the clauses of section 156(l) defined the pitch of penalty and other actions, but none of the clauses is mandatory in nature, it is left to the discretion of the Adjudicating Authority and the Court to impose the penalty defined therein to the extent of \"\"he\"\" or \"\"it\"\" feel appropriate. The Adjudicating Authority is also empowered to let free the person/company with a warning.\nThe pitch of penalty has to correspond with the gravity of the offence of importer.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-395 of 2013, decision dated: 15-07-2013, hearing DATE : 31st May, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II) AND ADNAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ms. Ismat Mehdi for Appellant. Ghulam Yasin, P.A. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NOVO NORDISK PHARMA (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, ADJUDICATIONII, KARACIII MCC PaCCS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8389", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2032 = 2013 SLD 2032 = 2013 PTD 2202 = 2014 PTCL 130", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]-----S. 194-A---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal signed/filed by father instead of his son (appellant) confined in Jail---Dismissal of Appeal by Appellate Tribunal for being incompetent-\"\"Validity---Provision of S.194-A of Customs Act, 1969 being mandatory in nature, appeal could only be filed by a person aggrieved by order passed against him, but none else---Father in absence of any authority had no locus standi to file appeal on behalf of his son---Counsel in order to cover defect of locus -standi was bound to get appeal signed by appellant upon his release from prison, but he failed to do so---Father of appellant was not an aggrieved party, thus, appeal was not maintainable for being signed, verified and filed by an un-authorised person.\n2011 CLD 408 and 2006 SCMR 129 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-930 of 2010, decision dated: 5-07-2013, hearing DATE : 25-06-2013", + "Judge Name:": "CH. NAIMATULLAH, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I), GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II) AND MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAEEM QURESHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, COLLECTORATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8390", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2033 = 2013 SLD 2033 = 2013 PTD 2217 = 2014 PTCL 107", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]-----Ss. 2(s)(i)(ii)(iii), 156(I)(89), 168(2) & 180-7-Smuggling--Appreciation of evidence---Accused was arrested and was charged for smuggling 577 yards of foreign cloth but Trial Court acquitted him- Validity---Though smuggled goods were taken into custody by police but the same were not transmitted to Customs authorities, with a result that no notice under S. 180 of Customs Act, 1969, was served upon accused within the prescribed period as provided under S. 168 (2) of Customs Act, 1969, for confiscation of seized goods---Accused in view of such lapse, filed application before Trial Court for return of goods, which was accepted and goods were ordered to be returned to accused---Goods recovered from accused were not stated in the goods listed in S. 2 (s)(i) and (ii) of Customs Act, .1969 nor it was the case of prosecution that goods were brought into the country by unauthorized route, so as to bring it within the category of smuggled goods under S. 2(s)(iii) of Customs Act, 1969, therefore, the goods could not be treated as smuggled goods and no offence under S. 156(1)(89) of Customs Act, 1969 were made out---Value of goods seized were below the specified limit, as such Trial Court had rightly held that the case did not fall within the scope of \"\"smuggled\"\" goods as defined under S. 2(s) of Customs Act, 1969 and provisions of S.156(1)(89) of Customs Act, 1969, were not attracted against accused---Trial Court had given valid reasons for acquittal of accused and authorities failed to point out that fading arrived at by Trial Court was- result of any illegality or jurisdictional defect---High Court declined to interfere in the passed by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Balochistan High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.4 of 2003, decision dated: 10-07-2013, hearing DATE : 3rd May, 2013", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Mumtaz Yousaf Standing Council and Haji Muhammad Azam, Law Officer, Customs for Appellant. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX\nvs\nABDUL RASHID" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8391", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2034 = 2013 SLD 2034 = 2013 PTD 2038", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDST0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]-----S. 185-F---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Order of Special Judge, Customs allowing pre-arrest bail to respondent and allowing release of seized goods from Bonded Warehouse---Quashment petition converted into constitutional petition by High Court---Seized goods had already been released to respondent---Petitioner, U' aggrieved by such order, was required to have filed appeal before Special Appellate Court under S. 189-F of Customs Act, 1969---High Court dismissed constitutional petition for being not maintainable.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=185", + "Case #": "Quashment Petition No.72 converted into Writ Petition No. 174O of 2006, decision dated: 31st January, 2013,", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK AND ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shahid Qayum Khattak for Petitioner. Isaq Ali, D.A.G, and Javed Ali Asghar for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "SAEED IQBAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE\nvs\nHASANT AKHTER and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8392", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 680 = 1999 SLD 680 = 1999 SCMR 1881", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a.) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art. 199 --- Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court --- Exercise of such jurisdiction in cases of adequate alternate remedy being available statutory bar of jurisdiction and in cases where High Court itself or Supreme Court was the repository of ultimate appellate, revisional or referable powers conferred by relevant statute --- Scope and extent --- Principles.\n \nAs to bar of jurisdiction, it is to be noted that Article 199 of the Constitution opens with word to the effect that the Hig4 Court may exercise its powers under such Article only \"\"if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law\"\". Adequacy of the alternative remedy, therefore, if there is another remedy available, should always attract the attention of the High Court.\n \nOf such alternative remedies also there are some, which would still leave the jurisdiction of the High Court virtually unaffected, if the order, complained of, is so patently illegal, void or wanting in jurisdiction that any further recourse to or prolongation of the alternative remedy may only be counter productive and, by invocation of Article 199 the mischief can forthwith be nipped in the bud. In such matters, of course, neither the alternative remedy would be adequate nor bar of jurisdiction in the Sub-Constitutional Legislation may come in the way of the High Court in exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction.\n \nThere are other matters, however, where the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be so readily resorted to. One such, falling in this category, would be matters amenable to the jurisdiction of an exclusive Tribunal, mandated by the Constitution itself. Another, which readily comes to the mind, would be disputes under a statute, postulating the appellate or revisional jurisdiction to reside either in the High Court itself or directly in the Supreme Court. An example, essentially relevant to the first, would be the Service Tribunal where the Tribunal is mandated by the Constitution of Pakistan namely, Article 212, thereof and where an appeal lies directly from the Tribunal's decision to the Supreme Court. Obviously, the High Court should be very slow in entertaining disputes covered by the jurisdiction of such a Tribunal even in matters where the High Court's jurisdiction cannot be taken away e.g. acts which are void, without jurisdiction or coram non judice. In such cases of ouster, the High Court would consider it a better exercise of its discretion not to interfere. More or less a similar principle applies where an exclusive Tribunal or a regular Court has jurisdiction in a matter but the legislation, creating such Court or forum or conferring jurisdiction on the same, also ends up by providing appellate or revisional jurisdiction to the High Court itself. Obvious examples could be civil and criminal proceedings, emanating under the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure, Income Tax References, Customs Appeals etc. In such matters, where the High Court itself is the repository of the ultimate appellate, revisional or referral power, conferred by the relevant statute, it is in the rarest of cases that the High Court may be persuaded to entertain a Constitutional petition and, to enforce the Constitutional remedy in preference to its own appellate, revisional or referral dispensation arising in course of time.\n \nAs regards the appeals and revisions contemplated by and under the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure the High Court, itself being the Court of final resort under such statutes, should be extremely slow in allowing its own general jurisdiction to be sidetracked and rendered ineffective in matters over­stretched to be tackled on the Constitutional plane.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 156(l), (8), (81), (82), 161(2), 168(2), 171, 180 & 196 --- Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5 --- Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, (VIII of 1975), S. 5(2) --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--­Constitutional petition --- Maintainability --- Registration of case against accused under S.156(l)(8)(81) (82), Customs Act, 1969 and S.5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 --- Intervention of Federal Investigation Agency --- High Court found Constitutional petition by the accused to be not maintainable on the ground that the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals) could be questioned before the Custom, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and finally, appeal lay to the High Court as per S.196, Customs Act, 1969, the resultant appeal to be heard by Bench of not less than two Judges --- High Court, however, touched upon the merits of the controversy also --- Validity --- High Court, in circumstances should have declined to say anything on merits of the dispute and preferred to non-suit the petitioner on the sole ground of non-­maintainability of Constitutional petition in the matter on the ground of maintainability.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--\n \n---- S. 156 --- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 --- Federal investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), Ss. 3(l) & 5(l)(2) --- S. R. O. 913(1)/86, dated 5-10-1986 --- Intervention of F.I.A. by registering case under S. 156, Customs Act, 1969 and S.5, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against accused intercepting him at the Airport (Lahore) and seizing huge amount of Pakistani currency being taken abroad by the accused --- Validity --- Broad based powers have been conferred by S. 3, Federal Investigation Agency, Act, 1974 on the Agency for inquiry into and investigation of a large array of offences specified in the Schedule to Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 which includes offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 156, Customs Act, 1969 --- Members of the Agency, throughout Pakistan, for the purposes of inquiry and investigation under Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, have been accorded such powers, including, powers, relating to search, arrest of any person and seizure of property and such duties, privileges and liabilities on the officers of a Provincial Police have in relation to investigation of offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force --- Even if an officer of F.I.A. does not qualify as an \"\"appropriate Officer\"\" for seizure of goods under S.168 of the Customs Act, 1969, such officer is manifestly qualified for so doing under S. 5(l), etc. of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974.\n \nThe intervention of the F.I.A. is to be approached on two planes. Firstly, the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, has interacted with a variety of other laws, including the Customs Act, 1969, Thus, broad based powers have been conferred by section 3 of the Act on the Federal Investigation Agency for inquiry into and investigation of large array of offences, specified in the Schedule to the enactment. Such, inter alia, include offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969. Besides, under section 5 of the same Act, members of the Agency throughout Pakistan, for the purposes of inquiry and investigation under the Act have been accorded such powers, including powers relating to search, arrest of any person and seizure of property and such duties, privileges and liabilities as the officers of a Provincial Police havin1g in relation to investigation of ' offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force. Sections 3(l) and 5(l)(2) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, being relevant.\n \nIn section 5(l), the words \"\"any other law for the time being in force\"\" would attract powers conferred on the local police under the Customs Act. That, in turn, would bring in the picture S.R.O. 913(1)/86, dated 5-10-1986, whereby powers were conferred on police officers under section 6 of the Customs Act, 1969. Such powers by virtue of section 5(l), aforesaid inutatis mutandis, would become invocable by officers of the F.I.A. even though no separate notification has been issued pertaining to the latter under section 6 of the Customs Act.\n \nOfficer of the F.I.A., therefore, proceeded within the ambit of his authority by intercepting the accused as he did.\n \nAs to the specific powers, conferred by the F.I.A. Act per sections 3 and 5 thereof, such do not appear to be, in any manner restricted by the Customs Act, and the correct position seems to be that the F.I.A. enactment being later in time, the new dispensation introduced by it is a graft on the Customs Act but only so far as it goes. Thus, even if an officer of the F.I.A. does not qualify as an \"\"appropriate officer\"\" for seizure of goods under section 168 of the Customs Act, he manifestly qualifies for so doing under section 5(l) etc. of the F.I.A. Act.\n \nYasmeen Lari V. Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1990 PTD 967; Balochistan Trading Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. National Bank of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1989; Abdul Zahir v. Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards, PLD 1990 Kar. 412 and Assistant Collector, Customs v. Malhotra AIR 1972 SC 689 ref.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n--- S. 168(2) --- Extension of time by Collector --- Recording of reasons in writing by Collector --- Necessity --- With the advent of a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction and the final appeal having come to be provided before the High Court, the factum or propriety of the reasons, ascribed under S. 168, Customs Act, 1969 should normally be raised in that jurisdiction alone.\n \nThe extension, to the extent of a maximum of another two months, in contemplation of section 168(2), of the Customs Act, is for issuance of a notice only and if a further notice is read in the provisions, even for considering an extension to issue the requisite notice, unnecessary duplication may arise. That, however, need not preclude the issuance of such a second or further notice to ensure whether an extension is called for if, lawfully, such a notice can be read in the provision.\n \nThe Collector, seized of the plea for extension in contemplation of section 168(2), must record his reasons in Writing and, what is more the reasons should have substance and cannot be merely perfunctory. However, with the advent of a Tribunal of competent jurisdiction and the final appeal having come to be provided before the High Court, the fairness or propriety of the reasons, ascribed under the provision should, normally, be raised in that jurisdiction alone.\n \nAssistant Collector, Customs v Malhotra AIR 1972 SC 689 distinguished.\n \n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n---S. 168 --- If initial, period of two months, envisaged in S. 168, Customs Act, 1969 is allowed to go by without any extension having been made, a vested right may come to accrue to the affectee and Collector should be obliged to issue a notice and accord necessary hearing before granting any extension --- Question whether an extension, if any, was actually made, within the initial period of two months from the date of seizure and merely because it purported to have been to so made, within time, may not be in itself be enough the contrary may be shown but, ordinary within the Customs jurisdiction alone.\n \nThus, if the initial period of two months envisaged in section 168 is allowed to go by without any extension having been made, a vested right may come to accrue to the affectee and the Collector should be obliged to issue a notice and accord necessary hearing before granting any extension. Correspondingly, as always, it would remain a moot question whether an extension, if any, was actually made within the initial period of two months from the date of seizure and merely because it purports to have been so made, within time, may not in itself be enough. The contrary may be shown but, ordinarily, within the Customs jurisdiction alone.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2138-L of 1998, decision dated: 1st June, 1999. (On appeal from the judgment, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-10-1998, passed in Writ Petition No. 16468 of 1995).hearing DATE : 16-04-1999.", + "Judge Name:": "RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A.K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jaferi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "KHALID MEHMOOD \nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8393", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1337 = 2012 SLD 1337 = 2012 YLR 167", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--Ss. 498 & 498-A---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.32, 79, 155 & 156---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.33---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.148---Giving untrue statement and other offences under Customs Act, 1990 Sales Tax Act, 1969 and Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Protective bail, grant of---High Court without touching the merits of the case, admitted accused to protective bail for a period of 15 days to surrender before the Trial Court, subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs. one million---Accused was cautioned that said concession of protective bail would not be extended for any reason.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1091 of 2011, decision dated: 12-04-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED AND IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi and Irfan Aziz for Petitioner", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD JAMAL\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8394", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2098 = 2008 SLD 2098 = 2008 YLR 2666", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)]----Ss. 497(2) & 498---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.156(1), (9), (14), (14-A), (81), (82), (90), 16, 32, 32-A, 157, 178, 207 & 209---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.33 & 36---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), S.14.8(1)---Import and Export (Control) Act, (XXXIX of 1950), S.3(3)---Pre-arrest and after arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Case against accused persons was of misdeclaration---None of the offences charged with, other than S.156(14-A), Customs Act, 1969, attracted the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr. P. C. ---In view of the fact that all duties and taxes as worked out/determined by the Department itself had been paid, the complicity of accused persons and their role in the alleged fraud had become a matter of further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr. P. C. ---All bail petitions were allowed in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case---Ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to two accused persons was confirmed, whereas other five accused persons were admitted to post-arrest bail.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=156", + "Case #": "Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 4271-B, 4419-B, 5021-B and 5022-B of 2008, decision dated: 17-06-2008", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4271-B of 2008) Shahzada Mazhar for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4419-B and 5022-B of 2008) Azam Nazeer Tarar for Petitioner (in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5.021-B of 2008) Khawar Ikram Bhatti, Legal Advisor to Customs Department assisted by Muhammad Rauf Farooqi", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM SIDDIQUI\nvs\nTHE STATE through Director General Intelligence and InvestigationFBR, Regional Office, c" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8395", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2035 = 2013 SLD 2035 = 2013 PTD 2250", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 194-B(1)---Orders of Appellate Tribunal---Stay application- Principle of mutatis mutandis---Appellant contended that during the hierarchy of customs before the Additional Collector of Customs as well as the First Appellate Authority, the subject matter pertaining legal and factual controversy were not to be taken up in accordance with the low and that the case was decided arbitrarily without applying judicious mind only on the principle of mutatis mutandis and -disposed of the matter without discussing the factual as well as legal controversies\"\"--Validity---Customs authorities were required to pass separate orders in each case and the litigant had a right to contest their case, which should be disposed of on its legal and factual positions separately- \nApplication of principle of mutatis mutandis was depricated---Action taken by the Department against the appellant in the subject pending appeal was violative of S.194-B(1) of the Customs Act, 1969--- Appellant had established the prima-facie case, balance of convenience was also in favour of appellant which should also cause irrecoverable loss to the appellant---Appellate Tribunal directed that department should not take any coercive action against the appellant till the next date of hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=194", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-124 of 2012, decision dated: 14-06-2012", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM QURESHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) AND GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-II)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Afzal Awan for Appellant and Ghulam Yasin for Respondent No. 2.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs AYOUB INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8396", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2036 = 2013 SLD 2036 = 2013 PTD 2258", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of I969)----Ss.32(1), (2) & 156(1)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.7A(2), 33, 34 & 36---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss.148, 161(2) & 162---Show-cause notice---Recovery of evaded amount of sales tax and short-levied withholding tax on imports---Scope---Contention was Customs authorities were not designated as an officer of inland revenue, as such they were not empowered to investigate any matter in respect of Sales Tax and Income Tax---Show-cause notice and penalty order passed by customs officers, therefore, was in excess of jurisdiction--Validity---Customs authorities were empowered to make recovery of the escaped amount of sales tax and withholding income tax on imports.\n(b) Customs Act (IV of I969)---Ss.32(1), 2, 32-A, 207, 208, 209 & 194-A---Appeal before Appellate Tribunal---Mis-declaration---Evasion of tax and duties---Show-cause notice---Personal penalty on Clearing Agent without invoking the penal provision in the show-cause notice---Scope---Importer was served with a show-cause notice for evading minimum value addition tax by disposing of the impugned goods in the same state without putting them into further process of manufacturing---Customs official while passing order of recovery against importer also imposed personal penalty on Clearing Agent for not fulfilling its responsibilities under law--- Contention of the appellant (Clearing Agent) was that in absence of any mala fide on the part of Clearing Agent the impugned penalty could not be imposed and opinion framed by the adjudicating officer was without any evidence---Validity---Clearing Agent had filed the goods declaration and discharged his responsibility correctly---Act of connivance as charged in the show-cause notice had not been specified---Neither specific charge of connivance as to the rate of Clearing Agent had been mentioned nor the relevant provisions of Ss.207, 208 & 209 of the Customs Act, 1969 had been invoked---Invoking penal provisions of law without mentioning the same in show-cause notice was void---Appeal was allowed.\nCollector Central Excise and Land Customs and others v. Rahmdin 1987 SCMR 1840; D.G. Khan Cement Co., Ltd., Lahore V. Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise Multan 2003 PTD 1797 and Messrs Kamran Industries v. Collector of Customs PLD 1996 Kar. 68 rel.\n2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636; 2009 PTD 1112; 2010 PTD 465; PLD 1971 SC 184; 1992 ALD/449; 2004 PTD 624; PLD 1976 SC 514; PLD 2001 SC 514; 2002 PTD 2457; PLD 1971 SC 61; PLD 1973 SC 236; E.A. Avanss case PLD 1964 SC 536; 2001 SCMR 838; 2003 SCMR 1505; Director General of Intelligence and Investigation and others v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others 2006 SCMR 129; 2009 PTD 1507; PLD 1996 Kar. 68; 2006 PTD 978; 2002 PTD 976; 2002 SCMR 312; 2005 PTD 492; 2010 SCMR 431; 1990 SCMR 1072; 1990 SCMR 1059; 1975 SCMR 352; PLD 1995 SC 396; 1998 SCMR 1404; PLD 1997 SC 5829; PLD 1997 SC 334; 1997 SCMR 1874; 2005 YLR 1019; 2007 PTD 2500; 2004 PTD 1973; 2005 YLR 1719; 2003 PTD 777; 2003 PTD (Trib.) 2369; 2002 MLD 357; 1983 CLC 2882; 2005 PTD 2519; 2005 PTD 1189; 2003 PTD 2369; PLD 1995 SC 272; PLD 1970 SC 158; PLD 1970 SC 173; 1984 SCMR 1014 and 2012 PTD (Trib.) 619 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.K-617 of 2012, decision dated: 13-08-2013., hearing DATE : 23rd July, 2013.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. NIAMATULLAH CHAIRMAN/MEMBER, JUDICIAL-J AND GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER TECHNICAL-II", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Mirza for Appellant and Saud Khan (I.O.) for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KAKA TRADERS, KARACHI\nvs\nDIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE and others\nMessrs TAYABBA AGENCIES and 2 others\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMSIV and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8397", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2037 = 2013 SLD 2037 = 2013 PTD 2284", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of I969)----Ss. 129, 207 & 208---Customs General Order (XII Of 2002), para. 31--Trans-shipment of goods to foreign country---Clearing Agent authorized by importer for submission of goods declaration---Scope--- Submission of goods declaration by Clearing Agent amounted to authorization given by importer---Contention that customs officials could not ask the Clearing Agent/appellant to submit separate authorization from importer for transmitting goods declaration--- Validity-\"\"Appellant Clearing Agent submitted goods declaration before the Customs for transmission of goods to foreign country---Submission of goods declaration by the Clearing Agent was deemed to be an authorization of the importer, the same was accepted by the Customs as valid and no separate authorization was required under any provision of the Customs Act, 1969 or under the (Afghan) Transit Trade Rules or para. 31 of Customs General Order 12 of 2002---Filing of goods declaration before customs amounted to authorization to Clearing Agent\"\"-Clearing Agent who undertook the job of transiting the goods were issued smart card by the Customs Agents Association---No separate authorization was required by the Clearing Agent from the importer of Foreign Country (Afghanistan)---In the presence of goods declaration, the customs never ever demanded separate authorization from any Clearing Agent and this was the adhered mechanism honoured by the customs since decades. \n(b) Customs Act (IV of I969)----Ss.129, 156(1) Cl. 64 & 194-A---Appeal to Appellate Tabunal--- Trans-shipment of goods to foreign country (Afghanistan)---Show- cause notice to Clearing Agent---Scope---Clearing Agent/appellant was imposed a penalty in pursuance of show-cause notice on the charge of contravening the provisions of S. 129 of the Customs Act, 1969---Appeal filed by Clearing Agent before Collector of Customs (Appeals) was dismissed---Contention was that no charge could be levelled against appellant under machinery provisions of law---Validity---Show-cause notice was served under S.129 of Customs Act, 1969 which was not charging section rather the same was simply a machinery provision---No show-cause notice could be issued by any authority under S.129 of the Customs Act, 1969---No Rules were made under S.129 of the Customs Act, 1969 for (Afghan Transit) Trade at the time of issuing show cause notice---Show-cause notice had not mentioned any Rules which were contravened by the Clearing Agent---Order of adjudication being ultimately based on a ground which was not mentioned in show- cause notice was palpably illegal on the face of it---Appeal was allowed. \n2001 SCMR 838; 2006 SCMR 1519 and Rehm Din v. Collector of Customs 1987 SCMR 1840 rel.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of I969)---Ss.129, 156(1), Cl.64 & 194-A---Customs General Order (12 of 2002), Para. 31---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Trans-shipment to foreign country/Afghanistan---Cross Border Certificate (CBC), submission of---Show-cause notice to Clearing Agent for non submission of cross border certificate---Scope---Importer of foreign country had imported consignments without payment of customs duty and other leviable taxes for onward transit to Afghanistan foreign country through the appellant Clearing Agent---Customs authorities handed over the goods to the appellant Clearing Agent for transportation to foreign country/Afghanistan---Subsequently, the customs authorities asked the appellant Clearing Agent to submit the requisite cross border certificate in respect of the consignments\"\"- Appellant Clearing Agent failed to submit cross border certificate to the effect that the goods had crossed the border of Pakistan which meant that goods were consumed inside Pakistan, causing loss to the government exchequer---Customs authorities after serving show-cause notice had imposed a penalty on the appellant Clearing Agent for violating the provisions of S. 129 of the Customs Act, 1969 and causing loss to the government exchequer---Appeal filed by Clearing Agent was dismissed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals)---Contention of the appellant was that being Clearing Agent he was not responsible for submitting cross-border certificate and as such the penalty was illegal--- Validity---Consulate General of foreign country/Afghanistan submitted an authority letter/undertaking to the Collector of Customs (Appraisement) for clearance and transportation of transit goods--- Consulate General also undertook that the cargo in transit to Afghanistan would not be used/consumed in Pakistan and Cross Border Certificate would be furnished within fifteen days of its crossing the border---Consulate General authorized the Clearing Agent/appellant for clearance of the goods from Karachi port to transit to Afghanistan--- Clearing Agent got the goods cleared from Karachi port and handed over to the National Logistic Company for trans-shipment, thereafter the job of Clearing Agent was concluded and it was for the Consulate or the Border Agent to submit Cross Border Certificate to customs---Impugned order of imposing penalty upon appellant clearing agent was declared as null and void---Appeal was allowed.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of I969)----Ss. 179(3) & 194-A---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Extension of time by Collector---Order in original was time barred---Scope--Impugned penalty order was passed by Collector of Customs after the expiry of prescribed time period---Effect---Order-in-original should have been passed within 120 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice or within a further extended period of 60 days due to emergence of \"\"exceptional circumstances \"\" prior to the expiry of initial period of 120 days after serving a notice to the person concerned-- Order-in-original was passed after the expiry of entire period of 180 days without any extension prior to the expiry of 120 days---Order-in-original was silent in respect of extension of time---Order-in-original was barred by time and as such was without power0urisdietion and not enforceable under law---Impugned order was set aside---Appeal was\nallowed. \n1999 SCMR 1881; PTCL 2005 CL 841, 1998 MLD 650; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2898; 2004 PTD 369; 2005 PTD 23; 2007 PTD 2092; 2008 PTD 609; 2008 PTD 578; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1263; 2009 PTD 762; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 23; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 81; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1146; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1469; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1631; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2117 and 2006 PTD 340 rel.\n(e) Customs Act (IV of I969)----Ss. 179(4) & 194-A---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Extension of time by Federal Board of Revenue after the expiry of prescribed period of decision--Scope---Order-in-original imposing penalty on appellant was time barred---Effect ---Federal Board of Revenue extended the time period after 29 days of the expiry of entire period of 180 days---Validity---Board was not empowered to extend the time period of decision/adjudication after the expiry of prescribed time limit---Once the matter stood lapsed, no extension could be granted---Extending time by the Board was akin to giving a new lease of life into dead entity which tantamounted to flogging a dead horse---Event or documents had become dead on account of non-timely extension of time period prior to expiry of stipulated period was legally considered dead and new spirit could not be infused into it by any means or on account of any reason whatsoever-- Impugned orders were set aside---Appeal was allowed.\n1999 SCMR 1881; 2007 PTD 117; Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Sales Tax Gujranwala and another 2008 PTD 60; 2006 PTD 340; 1998 MLD 650; 2004 PTD (Trib.) 2898; 2004 PTD 369; 2005 PTD 23; 2007 PTD 2092; 2008 PTD 609; 2008 PTD 578; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 1263; 2009 PTD 762; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 23; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 81; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1146; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1469; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1631; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636 and 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2117 rel.\n(f) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss. 179(4) & 194-A---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Non---observance of time limit prescribed under provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Extension of time by Federal Board of Revenue after the expiry of prescribed period of decision---Effect---Order-in-original imposing penalty on appellant was time barred---Customs officials had taken stand that Board had extended the prescribed time period and mere non-observance of time limit would not render the lawful act as illegal-- Validity---Customs authorities were not performing their duties under the Constitution but under the provisions of Customs Act, 1969---Any act done contrary to the provisions of said Act render the whole exercise nullity and ab initio void on account of suffering from lack of power jurisdiction---Impugned order was set aside---Appeal was allowed.\nMessrs Pakistan Ordinance Factory (POF), Wah Gantt. v. Collector of Customs, Sales Tax (Adjudication) 2012 PTD 1016 rel. PLD 2006 SC 209 = 2006 PTD 769 distinguished.\n(g) Customs Act (IV of I969)---Ss. 193-A(3) & 194-A---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Extension of time period by Collector of Customs (Appeals)---Scope---Collector of Customs (Appeals) had passed order after the expiry of prescribed time period---Extension in time period was given after the expiry of initial period---Effect--0rder-in-appeal should have been passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) within 120 days from the date of filing of appeal or within a further extended period of 60 days prior to the expiry of initial period of 120 days with reason to be recorded for extension in writing---Collector of Customs (Appeals) had not extended time period of decision prior to expiry of initial period of 120 days instead he granted extension after the expiry of said period--- Extension granted by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was without lawful authority as time had been extended after the lapse of initial period of 120 days---Order-in-appeal was barred by time---Impugned orders were set aside---Appeal was allowed.\n2007 PTD 117; 2008 PTD 60; 2007 PTD 2092; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 1636; 2010 PTD (Trib.) 2117; 2009 SCMR 1126; 2002 MLD 180; 2003 PTD 1354; 2003 PTD 1797; 2008 PTD 578; 2009 PTD 762; 2009 PTD (Trib.) 107; 2010 PTD 465; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 79; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 987; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1010; 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1146 and 2012 PTD (Trib.) 1650 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=129", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos. K-1404 to K-1407 of 2011, decision dated: 12-08-2013, dates of hearing: 25th April; 15-05-4th, 25-06-8th, 22nd and 25-07-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "CH. NAIMATULLAH, CHAIRMAN/MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nadeem Ahmed Mirza for Appellant and Irfan Baig for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8398", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2013 2038 = 2013 SLD 2038 = 2013 PTD 2320", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss.2(s), 156 (1) (8) (9), 179, 180, 187 & 191-A---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.117 & 121---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal- Confiscation of smuggled goods---Burden of proof---Scope---Customs Authorities raided the godown acquired by the appellant and recovered smuggled foreign origin ladies art silk cloth having marks of \"\"in transit to Afghanistan via Karachi\"\"---Customs authorities asked the appellant to produce legal import documents in support of lawful possession of the recovered goods but he failed to produce the same, consequently the recovered goods were seized and the appellant was issued show-cause notice---Appellant took the stance that he had purchased the recovered ladies art silk cloth from open market without the cover of legal import documents and as such the same could not be treated as smuggled goods---Validity---Appellant right from the stage of detention/seizure and adjudication proceedings failed to place on record the purchase receipt in support of his contention that he had purchased the goods in question from open market---Appellant had also taken the plea that he had neither been given nor he had obtained any cash memo. or bill from the seller of the goods---Charge levelled in the show-cause notice had established against him by virtue of the fact that he had failed to discharge burden of proof laid upon him---Appeal was dismissed. \n(b) custom Act (IV of1969)----Ss.2(s), 156 (1) (8) (9), 179 & 180---Smuggled goods---Confiscation of goods not importable in Pakistan---Show-cause notice---Powers of customs authorities to seize restricted items---Scope---Customs authorities detained art silk fabric which could not be imported in Pakistan as per the provisions of Import Policy Order 2010-2011---Customs authorities raided at the godown acquired by the appellant and recovered smuggled foreign origin ladies art silk cloth having marks of \"\"in transit to Afghanistan via Karachi---Contention of the appellant was that he had purchased the recovered ladies art silk cloth from open market and as such the same could not be treated as \"\"smuggled\"\" goods---Validity---Goods meant for transit to Afghanistan were pilferaged in Pakistan either by importer or the appellant himself---Plea taken by the appellant that he bought the goods from open market could not be sustainable in circumstances---Respondent/Customs Authorities were authorized to adjudicate such type of cases and in exercise of which they issued show-cause notice---Appeal was dismissed.\n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----Ss.2(s), 156 (1) (8) (9), 179 & 180---Smuggled goods---Items alleged to be smuggled were freely available in the open market---Customs authorities recovered the banned/restricted items from the custody of appellant and confiscated them by treating the same as \"\"smuggled goods\"\"---Appellant had taken the plea that goods in question were freely available in open market and could not be termed as smuggled\"\"- Validity---Goods should be from the list of freely importable items and not falling under the restricted/banned regime of Import Policy Order--- freely importable goods were detained/seized, such goods were deemed to be duty paid---Goods in question were neither allowed to be imported free of any restriction nor the goods meant for \"\"in transit to Afghanistan via Karachi\"\" could be termed through any stretch of imagination that these were freely available in the market---Appeal was dismissed.\nMs. Sikandar A. Karim v. The State 1995 SCMR 387; Assistant Collector v. Ms. Qazi Ziauddin PLD 1962 SC 440 and Ms. Muhammad Saeed v. Collector of Customs 2005 PTD 1813 distinguished.\n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---Ss.2(s), 9 & 10---Smuggled goods---Goods brought to Pakistan other than a route declared under Customs Act, 1969---Powers of the Customs Authorities to intercept or detain goods brought into Pakistan other than a declared route---Scope---Detained goods were specifically notified by the Federal government to be termed as \"\"smuggled\"\"---Goods in question were brought into Pakistan via route other than the one declared in S.9 or S.10 of the Customs Act, 1969 or from a place other than a Customs-Station---Such goods could be either intercepted or detained for the purpose of preventing smuggling, levy of duty and taxes, penalizing.\nPLD 1975 Kar. 482; PLD 1978 Kar. 774; 1981 PCr.LJ 66; 1981 PCr.LJ 986; 1984 PCr.LJ 3096(2); 1987 PCr.LJ 325 and 1988 PCr.LJ 435 rel.\n(e) Customs Act (I of 1969)----Ss. 179(3), 193-A(3) & 194-A---Appeal before Appellate Tribunal---Smuggled goods---Order of confiscation of goods was time-barred---Scope---Customs Authorities detained the smuggled goods from the possession of appellant---Appellant challenged the order of Customs authorities being time-barred before Collector of Customs (Appeals)--Collector (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the appellant---Contention of the appellant wigs that order in original passed by the Customs Authorities and order in appeal passed by Collector Customs (Appeals) was time barred--Validity---Appellant was found involved in smuggling of the goods or if not the purchase of smuggled goods and his act was an unlawful act---While indulging in unlawful activity with the intention of evading payment of duty and taxes willfully and consciously, the appellant was not entitled to take shelter behind the plea that the orders were time barred---Party seeking equity must have equities in his favour---No one could be allowed to take advantage of its wrong act or fraud played by him under the blanket of the provision of the Customs Act, 1969---Appellant was legally stopped from challenging validity of the order-in-original/appeal---Appellant had not approached the Appellate Tribunal with clean hands and was not entitled for any relief---Appeal was dismissed.\nWest Pakistan Tanks Terminal (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs Appraisement Karachi 2007 SCMR 1318 rel.\n(f) Administration of justice---One who seeks equity must have equity in his favour. \n \nMs. Muhammad Ateeq Parachas case 2005 PTD (Trib.) 135; Ms. Kamran Industries case PLD 1996 Kar. 68; 1996 PTD 579; Collector v. Ms. Rahm Dins case 1987 SCMR 1840; Messrs Super Asia Muhammad Din Sonss case 2008 PTD 60; Messrs Syed Bhai Lighting Ltd, Lahore v. Collector 2009 PTD (Trib) 1263; Messrs A K. International v. Secretary Revenue 2007 PTD 1337; Messrs Ford and Lord v. Deputy Collector, Preventive Order No. 3056 of 2009; Messrs Tariq Irshad v. The State, PLD 2006 Kar. 25; Messrs Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner PLD 1971 SC 61; Ms, Walayat Ali Mir v. P.l.A. Corporation 1995 SCMR 650; Messrs Nadeem Textile Mils Ltd.s case 2002 PTD 3087; Adamjee Jute Mills Ltd. v. The Province of East Pakistan, PLD 1959 SC 2721; Gowanea Mohan Sikdar v. Controller Import and Export PLD 1970 SC 158; Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 173 and Ms. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Ministry of Labor 1984 SCMR 1014 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=2", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. K-470 of 2011, decision dated: 13-08-2013, hearing DATE : 18-06-2013.", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM AHMED, MEMBER TECHNICAL-II", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Faisal Zafar for Appellant. Shabih Hyder for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL RAZZAQ\nvs\nDIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION FBR and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8399", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1889 = 2011 SLD 1889 = 2011 PTD 408", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Central Excise Rules, 1944--R.197---Authorized officers to have free access to premises, equipment, stocks and accounts relating to excisable goods and excisable services---Raid and inspection---Raid of the taxpayer's both premises conducted by two teams each consisting of twelve staff members of the Director Intelligence and Investigation (Customs, Excise and Sales Tax) upon alleged information of manufacturing of excisable goods could in no way be termed as mere an inspection---Such exercise of raid and seizure could not be stretched to mean a mere inspection under the provisions of R.197 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944---The way the staff entered into the premises of the taxpayer, the statement recorded and the goods and record resumed was out and out a raid because an inspection was by eye, search by hands and that inspection would not allow the uncovering of anything not visible merely by walking around the premises in the absence of clear judicial ruling. \n \n2004 PTD 1731 rel.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R.10---Recovery of duty short-levied or erroneously refunded, etc.---Non-mention of sub-rule in the show-cause notice---Taxpayer's contention was that notice did not mention sub-rules of R.10 of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 and the show-cause notice was a vague, patently illegal and without lawful authority---Contention was repelled the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that particulars of sub-rules of R.10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were provided therein and it was held that the show-cause notice was not vague or illegal. \n \n(c) Limitation---\n \n----Question of limitation was not a mere technicality but a matter of compliance of substantive law as vested rights were created in favour of the other party which right might not be taken away from him lightly. \n \n(d) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 35-B---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Appeal without an application for condonation of delay---Limitation---Starting point---Limitation starts running from the date of knowledge where an order/ was not conveyed to a party for either reason. \n \n2003 PTD 2657; 2002 PTD 399; 1987 PTD (Trib.) 54; 1985 CLC 1072; PLD 1970 SC 558; 1988 SCMR 1256; 1997 SCMR 860; PLD 1991 SC 400 and 2002 PTD 39 ref.\n \n2006 PTD (Trib.) 1466 rel.\n \n(e) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S. 35-B---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Filing of appeal by incompetent person---Taxpayer contended that departmental appeal was filed by incompetent person as the nomenclature of the appellant as per title of the appeal was the Collector and it was only the Collector who could sign and verify the memo of appeal and no other person could sign or verify the same; and since the appeal was without required verification or a supporting affidavit the same was incompetent---Validity---Person who filed appeal must sign it---No other person except the appellant could sign an appeal until and unless the appeal had been filed under express authority of the appellant in favour of his attorney---Assistant Collector Enforcement and Collector might be an aggrieved person but the appeal must have been filed by hint as attorney of the Collector, the appellant---Appeal which was admittedly without verification or a supporting affidavit, was incompetently filed.\n \n2006 PTD (Trib.) 1466 rel.\n \n(f) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.34B---S.R.O.543(I)/75 dated 8-5-1975---Filing of appeal by a person not `aggrieved'---Taxpayer contended that Collector (Appeals) could not hear and decide an appeal, incompetently filed by the Director General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), under S.34B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the Director Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) was not a Central Excise Officer aggrieved by the order-in-original; and for filing an appeal under S.34B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the appellant must be an `aggrieved party'; and since no power under S.34B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 vested in the Director Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) under S.R.O.543(I)/75 dated 8-5-1975, the Director Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), could not competently file the appeal to the Collector as he was not an aggrieved party---Validity---Director Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) was not an `aggrieved party' and he could not file an appeal---First appeal having been filed by an incompetent person, the Collector (Appeals) could not dwell upon the appeal to pass order in appeal against the order-in-original---Order of adjudicating authority had attained finality---On merits also the department had failed in making out a case of manufacturing of excisable goods i.e. cosmetics, either at sales office of the taxpayer---Order-in-­original was maintained and the departmental appeal was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal---Appeal of the taxpayer was allowed and the order of Collector (Appeals) was set aside and the order of adjudicating authority was held to be in field in circumstances. \n \n2006 PTD (Trib.) 1466; 2005 PTD 2987; 2004 PTD 1957 and 2004 PTD Trib. 2425 rel.\n \n(g) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.18---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.38, 40 & 40A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 96, 103 & 165---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.197, 120, 126 & 226---S. R. O.574(I)/2002 dated 31-8-2002-S.R.O. 543(I)/75 dated 8-5-1975---CEGO No.1 of 2003---STGO 9 of 1999---Searches and arrest how to be made---Raid and Inspection---Raid without a search warrant or statement---Validity---Raid conducted by the detecting agency of the premises of the taxpayer was un­authorized and illegal and it could not be termed as mere inspection under R.197 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944---Power of free access as contemplated under R.197 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were limited to the inspection of building, the plant, the machinery and the stocks, and the accounts and checking of record etc; but only for the purposes of testing the accuracy of any return submitted under these rules, or of informing himself as to any particulars regarding which information was required for the purposes of the Act or the Rules---Bare reading of R.197 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. did not give an impression that it conferred the appropriate officer with the powers of raid, search and seizure---Power of search and seizure had been provided under R.201 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with S.18 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provided that all searches made under this Act or Rules thereunder and all arrests made under this Act should be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, relating respectively to searches and arrests made under that Code---Neither the detecting agency had obtained a warrant of search from the Magistrate nor any apprehension of removal of goods was recorded by them---Action of detecting agency were specifically intended and designed to probe, investigate and discover the presumed illegal tax avoidance for which the goods, record and accounts were seized---Said acts could not be termed as routine inspection but were akin to raid and investigation into a criminal matter or an offence---Free access to any property did not mean search and seizure for the purposes of collection of evidence against a taxpayer---Object could only be achieved by observing the provision of Ss.96, 103 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898---Where provisions of Central Excise Act, Central Excise Rules and the Sales Tax 'Act, relating to search and seizure were not followed, power exercised by the detecting agency was illegal and all the proceedings conducted on the basis of such illegal raid were also illegal. \n \nAIR 1960 SC 210; PLD 1991 SC 630; 2003 PTD 1034; 2004 PTD 1731; 1999 PCr.LJ 1546; PLD 1997 SC 408; 1997 PCr.LJ 603; PLD 1996 SC 574; 2007 PTD 2356; PLD 1968 Kar. 599; PLD 1969 SC 153; PLD 1977 Lath 318 and 2003 PTD 2037 ref.", + "Court Name:": "", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=197", + "Case #": "S.T. No.300-KB of 2009, S.T. No.30-KB of 2004 decided on 5-08-2010.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Irshad-ur-Rehman for Appellant (in S.T. No. 30 of 2009).\nSyed Aftab Hussain, D.R. for Respondent (in S.T. No. 300-KB of 2009).\nSyed Aftab Hussain D.R. for Appellant (in S.T. No. 30-KB of 2004).\nIrshad-ur-Rehman for Respondent (in S.T. No. 300-KB of 2004).", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KAY CHEMIST, KARACHI \nVs \nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX (APPEAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8400", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1890 = 2011 SLD 1890 = (2011) 103 TAX 49 = 2011 PTD 228", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)......Ss 3, 3-B, 4 & 36---Determination of value for the purpose of levy of excise duty---Failure to pay duty on the basis of retail price charged from the general body of consumers---Additional duty and imposition of penalty---Reference to High Court---Authority in its report alleged that appellant company was not paying central excise duty on the basis of retail price charged from the general body of consumers---Report had suggested that appellant be directed to make payment of short paid duty being the differential amount between the retail price paid by the general body of consumers and the contracted price---Adjudicating Officer in order-in-original found that appellant was liable to pay differential excise duty along with additional duty and penalty was also imposed on the appellant---Appellate Tribunal had upheld order-in-original passed by Adjudicating Officer and on reference/appeal to High Court, High Court remanded case to the Tribunal---Issue of declared retail price was considered by the hierarchy of the officers of the department and it was after a long process of deliberation that Assistant Collector communicated approval and acceptance of the declared retail price by the competent Authority---Such communication of acceptance by itself constituted an order which could not be reviewed or revoked, unless the department was in possession of some definite information regarding the evasion of excise duty through concealment/ suppression of facts---No such allegation was levelled either in show-cause notice issued to the appellant or in order-in-original---As soon as acceptance of declared retail price was communicated to the appellant, the transaction regarding the supply of goods became past and closed transaction from. the end of the department which could not be interfered with by Departmental Officers on flimsy grounds---Retail price earlier accepted by the department, could not be discarded for the purpose of charging excise duty---Department was directed to charge 'excise duty on the retail price accordingly.\n \nCrescent Textile Limited Lyalpur v. C.B.R. 1980 SCMR 773; Premier Tobacco Industries v. Deputy Collector of Central Excise 1989 CLC 2045; Souvenir Tobacco Company Ltd. 1989 CLC 1134 and PLD 1990 SC 68 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "F.E.A. No. 62/CE/IB of 2009, decision dated: 4-10-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON AND ABDUL RAUF, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tahir Razzaq, F.C.A. and Shaukat Ali Meo, Manager Tax for Appellants Imran Shah, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ASKARI CEMENT LIMITED, WAH\nvs\nCOLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE, RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8401", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1891 = 2011 SLD 1891 = 2011 PTD 857", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "(Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)......S 12 (1)(4)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 2(46)---Federal Excise Rules, 2005, R. 8---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Rejection of refund claimed from the period from 1-7-2007 to 31-3-2008---First Appellate Authority directed to constitute a Valuation Committee under S.12(1) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 which shall estimate the value of supply and Federal Excise Duty would be determined and charged accordingly---Taxpayer contended that refund was applied on the basis of goods sold on retail price during the period 1-07-2007 to 31-03-2008; that provision of S.2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in the Federal Excise Act, 2005 regarding S.12(1) was incorporated and enforced w.e.f. 1st July, 2008 and such law could not be given retrospective effect; that case did not fall under S.12(1) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and that it was case of S.12(4) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and as per, subsection (4) of S.12 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 the appellant being manufacturer was at liberty to fix the retail price of the goods produced by him and denial of this legal right was in total contradiction to the statutory provisions of law---Validity---Taxpayer applied for refund on the basis of goods sold on retail price during the period 1-10-2007 to 31-3-2008 while the provisions of S.2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 in the Federal Excise Act, 2005 regarding S.12(1) was introduced/incorporated and enforced w.e.f. 15th, July, 2008---Provision of S.12(1) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 came into force from July, 2008 and was applicable for the determination of excise duty depending upon the value after excluding the amount of duty, whereas on the retail price in terms of S.12(4) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 includes all charges and duties and these two are distinct and totally distinguishable provisions of Federal Excise Law and could only be applied separately remaining within their own spheres---Taxpayer having exclusive right to fix the retail price of the commodities produced by him and he had charged Federal Excise duty on the same retail price---Federal Excise duty paid on purchases was adjustable under S.6 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 against Federal excise duty payable on supplies---Taxpayer had paid excess amount of Federal excise duty on the purchases than the duty charged on the supplies and it was the legal right of the taxpayer that over paid Federal excise duty should be refunded to him under R.8 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005---Orders passed by the authorities below had no legal consequences in the eye of law---Orders of the said authorities were vacated and it was directed that the Additional Collector should allow refund in accordance with law.\n \nGovernment of Pakistan v. Hashwani Hotel Ltd PLD 1990 SC 68 and Souvenir Tobacco Company Ltd. v. The Deputy Collector 1989 CLC 1134 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=12", + "Case #": "F.E. No.8/LB of 2010, decision dated: 16-08-2010", + "Judge Name:": "SYED NADEEM SAQLAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHAHNAZ RAFIQUE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Abdul Basit, D.R. for Appellant M. Nouman Malik, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GOLDEN LUBRICANT, MULTAN\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER C&E INLAND REVENUE (RTO), MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8402", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1892 = 2011 SLD 1892 = 2011 PTD 1199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944).....Ss 2(28) & 3-B---Order to deposit Central Excise duty along with additional duty and imposition of penalty---Appeal was directed against the order-in-original passed by Additional Collector (Adjudication) whereby appellant/Hotel was ordered to deposit Central Excise duty, along with additional duty and penalty was also imposed---Counsel for the appellant had contended that impugned order could not stand for the only legal plane that the show-cause notice was issued by the Additional Collector on the report of the Staff of the Directorate of Audit and Revenue Receipt, who had examined the record of the appellant for relevant year---Validity---Directorate General of Revenue Receipts Audit, was a branch of the Auditor-General; and its officers did not fall in the category of officers mentioned in S.2(28) of Central Excise Act, 1944---Charter of function of said Directorate given in notification dated 17-12-1990 had revealed that President of Pakistan, had required the Auditor-General of Pakistan to audit the receipt of Federal Government and not the record of private enterprises, registratered under the Sales Tax/Central Excise Laws---Show-cause notice showed that Directorate General Revenue Receipts Audit had examined the Central Excise record of the appellant, which was not allowable---Whole exercise conducted by Directorate in circumstances, was coram non judice and could not be held to sustain in the facts and circumstances of the case. \n \n2010 PTD 1355 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "F. Excise No.53/LB of 2009, decision dated: 25-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BAJWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MASOOD ALI, JAMSHED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muqtidar Akhtar for Appellant. Mrs. Amina Kamal D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FALETTIS HOTEL, LAHORE\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS, LAHORE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8403", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 281 = 2010 SLD 281 = (2011) 103 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue, Lahore", + "Law and Sections:": "Income Tax Ordinance, 1979=62(1)", + "Case #": "I.T.A. No. 861/LB of 2009 (Assessment Year 2002-03), decision dated: 05-03-2010", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, CHAIRPERSON, JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AMJAD IRKAM ALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Munir Hussain, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ch. Karamat Ullah, D.R., for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8404", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 2282 = 2010 SLD 2282 = (2010) 101 TAX 323 = 2010 PTD 808", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVISFNTND0", + "Key Words:": "(Interpretation of statutes].........Fiscal statute---Exemption from tax, grant of---Principles.\nThe provisions relating to grant of exemption are to be strictly construed and burden to claim such exemption is upon the claimant/ assessee/taxpayer. \nThe claim of exemption is to be granted to the extent it is specified in the exemption granting clause and not beyond the specific word used therein through process of interpretation etc. \nBerger Paints Pakistan Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1991 CLC 1277 and Muhammad Ashraf v. The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi PLD 1991 Kar. 281 ref.\nPakistan Machine Tool Factory (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi v. Commissioner of Sales, Central, Zone-B, Karachi 2006 SCMR 1577; Genertech Pakistan Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan, Lahore 2004 PTD 2255; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652; Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edition, page 431; Crawford on Statutory Construction page 506; N.A. Bindra on the Interpretation of Statutes, Third Edition page 488; Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent Central Excise and Land Customs Circle. Sheikhupura PLD 1988 SC 370; Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax Companies Zone Faisalabad v. Rana Asif Tauseef c/o Rana Hoisery and Textile Mills Ltd. 2000 PTD 497 and Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax, Multan Zone, Multan v. Allah Yar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Mills 2000 PTD 2958 rel.\n(b) Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)--S.34(3)---Reference---Jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court in such jurisdiction could not examine factual controversy or deficiency, if any in such regard.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=34", + "Case #": "Federal Excise Reference Application No.242 of 2006, decided, on 19-01-2010, hearing DATE : 25-11-2009", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM AND AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mohsin Imam for Applicant. Aziz A. Shaikh for Respondent Khalid Javed Khan, Amicus Curiae", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and FEDERAL EXCISE, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, KARACHI\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8405", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2515 = 2007 SLD 2515 = 2007 PTCL 414 = (2007) 95 TAX 267 = 2007 PTD 2", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944).....S 3-D---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.10 & 96ZZF---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.10 & Art.145---Premium received by Insurance Company from insured persons---Company charged excise duty on entire premium without first deducting therefrom agents' pay, commissions and discounts---Non-deposit of such wrongly charged excise duty in treasury---Show cause to company for recovery of such wrongly charged excise duty---Limitation---Nature of obligation under S.3-A of Central Excise Act, 1944, was not excise duty, but an amount collected wrongly/ erroneously as excise duty, which could not be termed as short levied or erroneously refunded excise duty---Period of limitation as provided under R.10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for short levied or erroneously refunded excise duty would not apply to proceedings initiated for 'recovery of amount under S.3-D of Central Excise Act, 1944-Person collecting amount under S.3-D of the Act would be holding same in trust for Federal Government---Holder of such amount would be regarded either as \"\"depository\"\" as provided in Art.145 of Limitation Act, 1908 or \"\"trust\"\" within meaning of S.10 thereof---Insurance Company was holding such excess recovered amount in trust for depositing same with Federal Government---Status of Insurance Company was more of an express trust as envisaged in S.10 of the Limitation Act, 1908 than of a depository as provided in Art.145 thereof---Right to recover such excess charged amount would accrue the moment such fact became known to Excise \"\" Authority---No period of time would bar recovery of such amount---Principles. \nLala Gobind Prasad v. Chairman of Patna Municipality Calcutta Law Journal (Volume (VI) at page 535; Deputy Custodian of Enemy Property v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) PLD 1975 Kar. 121; Kishtappa Chetty v. Lakshmi Animal AIR 1923 Mad. 578 and ILR 62 Calcutta 393 rel.\n(b) Administration of justice---\n----Quoting wrong provision of law and/or rules---Effect---Such error would be regarded as a technical error and would be of no legal consequence---Principles. \n(c) Words and phrases---\n----\"\"Deposit\"\" and \"\"depository\"\"---Meaning. \nCorpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 26-A, pp. 198 and 206 ref.\n(d) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n----S.3-D [as inserted by Finance Act (X of 1993)]---Provision of S.3-D of Central Excise Act, 1944---Retrospective effect---Word \"\"collects\"\" as used in S.3-D of the Act would refer to present and future collections, while words \"\"has collected\"\" as used therein would refer to past collections---Legislature by using both such words intended to cover amounts collected in the name of excise duty either before or after insertion of such provision in the Act by Finance Act, 1993---Principles.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Special Customs Appeal No. 202 of 2003, decision dated: 26-09-2006, hearing DATE : 31st August, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sirajul Haq and Arshad Siraj for Appellant. Raja M. Iqbal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION) KARACHIIII, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8406", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1430 = 2009 SLD 1430 = 2009 PTD 320 = (2008) 98 TAX 217", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)......Ss 4(2) & 3-B---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.210---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Levy of additional tax---Appellant was directed to pay short paid amount of central excise duty, sales tax and further tax along with additional duty under S.3-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 upon the subsisting market retail price as against the retail price fixed by the appellant-Validity-Words used in S.4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were \"\"should be sold the general bodies of the consumers\"\" and not \"\"is sold to the general bodies of the consumers\"\"---Manufacturer was required to fix the retail price inclusive of all charges at which the goods should be sold---Manufacturer was not supposed to be responsible for any irresponsible act of the retailer---Condition levied upon the manufacturer in S.4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was that the retail price was legibly, prominently and indelibly printed or embossed on each article, packet, container, packages, wrapper or label as the case may be---No allegation was levelled that the manufacturer/appellant had not met these conditions---Department had persuaded the appellant to fix the retail price at the price at which it was being sold by the retailers, but the appellant had declined---Necessary measures could be taken by the appropriate authorities to combat the illegal profiteering but the central excise duty could not be charged at the will of the retailer---Show-cause notice and the orders were not in accordance with law---Appeal was accepted and additional demand was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \nMessrs Riaz Bottlers v. C.B.R. 2000 PTD 353 ref.\n \nMessrs Atlas Battery Limited, Karachi v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Circle-C, Karachi and others PLD 1984 SC 86 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(2),3BCentral Excise Rules, 1944=210", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.729/LB of 2004, decision dated: 16-09-2008, hearing DATE : 10-09-2008", + "Judge Name:": "DR. RIAZ MEHMOOD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Ahmad Jamal Sukhera for Appellant. Taqueer Zaman, S.I.O. for, Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "FARHANUDDIN\nvs\nPAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8407", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1431 = 2009 SLD 1431 = 2009 PTD 519 = (2009) 99 TAX 314 = 2009 PTCL 377", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)......S 7---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S.3(1)---S.R.O. 617(I)/2000---S.R.O. 503(I)/2004---S.R.O.648(I)/2005, dated 1-7-2005---S.R.O. 550(I)/2006, dated 5-6-2006---Excise duty included in telephone bills for year, 2006-2007---Domestic consumer's liability to pay such excise duty---Scope---S.R.O.617(I)/2000 was superseded by S.R.O. 503(I)/2004, which was again superseded by S.R.O. 648(I)/2005, dated 1-7-2005 confirming such charge on telephone services---Federal Government in exercise of powers under S.7 of Federal Excise Act, 2005 through S.R.O.550(I)/2006, dated 5-6-2006 under its Heading 98.02 and in supersession of S.R.O. 648(I)/2005 levied such duty on telecommunication services---Excise duty levied through S.R.O. 550(I)/2006 would apply to all users of telecommunication services including domestic consumer.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=7", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 978 of 2007, heard on 3rd November, 2008", + "Judge Name:": "KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Hameed Ahmad Rana for Petitioner. Khawar Ikram Bhatti for Respondent No. 2 Zubair Khalid, Standing Counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8408", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2516 = 2007 SLD 2516 = 2007 CLD 1 = 2007 PLD 33 = 2007 PTCL 114 = 2007 PTD 67", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)......Ss 2(20), 3 & First Sched. Part-II, Item 14.14---Excisable Services---History stated. \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--Ss. 2(20), 3, 3-C(1)(b), 4(3), 7(1) & First Sched. Part-II, Item 14.14 [as inserted by S.5 of Finance Act (XII of 1991) and then replaced with Item No.9813.0000 by Finance Act (XII of 1994)]---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts, 144, 163 & Fourth Sched.---Levy of excise duty on services provided or rendered to its customers by Institutions named in Item 14.14 of Part-II of First Sched. of Central Excise Act, 1944---Validity---Legislature was competent to levy excise duty on excisable services by inserting Item 14.14 in First Sched. of Central Excise Act, 1944---Such Item was part of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for purposes of charging duty on services in respect of advances made to any person---First Sched. was appended with Central Excise Act, 1944 to cater requirement of S.3 thereof being a charging section---Constitutionality of such Item, thus, could not be testified on touchstone of S.3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for being constitutional---In case of irreconcilable inconsistency between such Item and S.3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, such Item would yield to section 3 thereof---Legal nexus between such Item and S.3 of the Act, existed for both being part of a statute---Word \"\"services\"\" used in plural sense in Column II of such Item would cover all services provided to its customers by Institutions named therein---Criteria or measure to calculate duty provided in Column II of such Item was neither vague nor ambiguous---Excise duty would be calculated on the volume of loan/advance at the rate specified in Column III of such Item---Such Institutions would have a recurring cause of action for purpose of effecting recovery of excise duty on services being provided on monthly basis on volume of advance/loan, which would be calculated on last working day of each calendar month---Expressions/ words used in S. 2(20) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and such item would be interpreted keeping in view their popular meanings---Words \"\"facilities\"\", \"\"loans\"\", \"\"utilities\"\" and \"\"advances\"\" would be considered in popular sense---Such Item did not speak in respect of Modaraba or Musharka etc., but after its replacement with Item No.9813.0000 by Finance Act, 1994, excise duty became chargeable on services provided or rendered by Banking Companies, Insurance Companies, Cooperative Financing Society, Modaraba, Musharka, Licensing Companies, Non-Banking Companies and other person dealing in such services---Levy of excise duty would depend upon services being provided in respect of advances to a person, but no sooner when there was no advance outstanding, Bank would not be deemed to be providing or rendering any service as transaction between Bank and customer came to an end---Financing Company would enjoy recurring cause of action till adjustment of loan---Day on which excisable service was rendered/provided would be the date for determination of excise duty---Rate of excise duty mentioned in Item 14.4 of First Schedule, Part II of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was just, proper and not arbitrary---Levy of excise duty at such rate being an indirect tax would not burden such Institutions, but would be passed on to its customers---Principles. \nSouth Behar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 922; Hirjina & Co. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1342; Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Pakistan 1992 SCMR 891; United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum AIR 1941 FC 16; Navinchaandra Mafatlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1954] (XVI) ITR 758; Bisvil Spinners v. Superintendent Central Excise PLD 1988 SC 370; Ghulam Hyder Shah v. Chief Land Commissioner 1983 CLC 1585; Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66; A&B Food Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income/Sales Tax Karachi 1992 SCMR 663; Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax East Bengal v. B.W.M. Abdul Rehman PLD 1973 SC 445; Excise and Taxation Officer Karachi v. Burma Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 338; Mondi's Refreshment Room & Bar, Karachi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1983 Kar. 214; Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 329; ICC Textiles Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2003 PTD 1017; P. Kunhammad Kutty Haji v. Union of India [1989] 176 ITR 481; Ocean Industries Ltd. v. Industrial Development Bank PLD 1966 SC 738; Jamat-i-Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2000 SC 111; Buxa Dooars Tea Company Ltd. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1989 SC 2015; Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner of the Sales Tax (1985) 155 ITR 144; Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hunza Central Asian Textile and Woolen Mills Ltd. 1999 PTD 1135; Reference No.2 of 2005 PLD 2005 SC 873; 2002 CLC 1714; Messrs Central Insurance Co. v. The Central Board of Revenue 1993 SCMR 1232; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324; Pakistan v. Public at large PLD 1987 SC 304 and Mrs. Zehra Begum v. Pakistan Burmah-shell Ltd. PLD 1984 SC 38 ref.\nAbdul Rahim v. UBL PLD 1997 Kar. 62; Excise and Taxation Officer Karachi v. Burma Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 338; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652; Chambers Concise Dictionary (pg. 53); Habib Bank Limited v. Messrs Farooq Compost Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 1993 MLD 1571; Habib Bank Limited v. Messrs Qayyum Spinning Ltd. 2001 MLD 1351; Muhammad Shafi v. Wealth Tax Officer 1992 PTD 726 and Messrs ICC Textile Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2001 SCMR 1208 rel.\n(c) Islamic Banking---\n----Islamic modes of financing, adoption of---Expressions \"\"loan\"\", \"\"interest\"\" etc., would be alien to Islamic Banking system. \n(d) Words and phrases---\n----\"\"Service\"\"---Meaning. \nAdvanced Law Lexicon 3rd Edition Volume 4 (2005) ref.\n(e) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Fiscal statute---Language used in fiscal statute would be interpreted in its literal and ordinary meanings in favour of taxpayer.\nGovernment of Pakistan v. Messrs Haswani Hotel Ltd. PLD 1990 SC 68; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652; Messrs Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1988 SC 370 and Abdul Rahim v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1997 Kar. 62 fol.\n(f) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Not safe to compare language in one statute with that employed in another, even though subject covered by the two may involve similarities. \nAbdul Rahim v. UBL PLD 1997 Kar. 62 ref.\n(g) Words and phrases---\n----\"\"Advances\"\"---Meaning. \nWords and Phrases Vo. 2-A (pg. 117) and Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 2 page 496-97 ref.\n(h) Interpretation of statutes---\n---Law should be interpreted in such a manner, that same should be saved rather than destroyed. \nElahi Cotton Mills PLD 1997 SC 582 and Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 2 pg. 496-97 rel.\n(i) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Schedule appended with statute---Legal status---Schedule placed/appended with an enactment is an extension of the section for the purpose of which same has been inserted. \n(j) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Act and Schedule, conflict between---Schedule being an enjoinder equal status of an enacment; in case of such conflict, Act would prevail and Schedule would yield to the Act---Principles. \nExcise and Taxation Officer Karachi v. Burma Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 338; Craies on Statute Law Seventh Edition 1971 p. 225; N.S. Bindra's The Interpretation of Statutes Seventh Edition at pg. 92 and Understanding Statutes S.M. Zafar rel.\n(k) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Fiscal statute, constitutional validity of---Determination---Principles stated.\nThe Court is bound while examining whether particular matter falls within a fiscal statute is required to examine the letter of the law, and if it comes to the conclusion that all the expressions used by the legislature are to be taken into consideration its popular meaning, then there should not be hesitation in maintaining the constitutionality of particular law. \nCorpus Juris Secundum Vol. 84 page 246; Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax East Bengal v. B.W.M. Abdul Rehman 1973 SCMR 445; Tenant v. Smith 1892 AC 150; Interpretation of Statutes Fourth Edition at page 977; Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 329 and Mian Ejaz Shafi v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 Kar. 604 ref.\n(l) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Laws relating to economical activities, interpretation of---Principles stated.\nThe Court while interpreting laws relating to economical activities view the same with greater latitude than the law relating to civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc., keeping in view the complexity of economic problems, which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait jacket formula. \nElahi Cotton Mills PLD 1997 SC 582 fol.\n(m) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Fiscal statute---Taxing measure---Ultra vires to the Constitution---Determination---Reasonableness or otherwise of such measure would be a matter of legislative policy and not for the Courts for adjudication. \nAnoud Power Generation Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 340 rel.\n(n) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)----\n----Arts. 25, 184, 185(3) & 199---Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951), S.2---Constitutional petition by a Company challenging constitutionality of a statute on touchstone of Art. 25 of the Constitution---Not maintainable without joining its shareholder/director---Principles.\nUndoubtedly, the companies have got fundamental rights to carry on business through its representatives, who are the citizens of Pakistan, but for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of a statute, it would be a condition precedent to satisfy that challenge is by a citizen at the touchstone of Article 25 of the Constitution, which provides that all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to protection of law. Expression \"\"citizen\"\" means a citizen of Pakistan as defined by law under Article 260 of the Constitution.\nA company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 or the Companies Ordinance, 1984, does not fall within the definition of a citizen. However, the constitutionality of a legislation, which has impaired the rights of a company, can be challenged through a shareholder.\nAn incorporated company does not fall within the definition of citizen. However, constitutionality of a statute can be examined for violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, if the vires of the statute have been questioned by a shareholder, director along with the company itself and the company independently cannot question the constitutionality of legislation at the touchstone of Article 25 of the Constitution. The Courts are not debarred to examine the case of the company on the point other than the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Constitution.\nThe incorporated bodies/companies do not fall within the definition of a citizen for the purpose of Article 25 of the Constitution; therefore, without joining the share/account holders, the impugned legislation cannot be examined within the parameters of Article 25 of the Constitution.\nIt would be incorrect to contend that while examining the availability of the question of discrimination under Article 25 to an incorporated body, but so far as the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is concerned, it would be maintainable on behalf of the companies/banking institutions, if they fall within the definition of a person as it has been used in Article 199 of the Constitution. It would not be out of context to lay down a distinction between the expression of a person and a citizen. As far as the expression \"\"person\"\" is concerned, it also includes a juristic person i.e. incorporated bodies, and so far as expression \"\"citizen\"\" is concerned as it has been employed in Article 25 of the Constitution, which means as defined under the law. Essentially the law on the subject is Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which by its implication excludes a juristic person from the definition of citizen.\nDivisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 1368; Excell Wear v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 25; U.P.S.E. Board v. Hari Shanker AIR 1979 SC 65; I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041 and Inaam ur Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 563 ref.\nThe Progress of Pakistan Co. Ltd. v. Registrar Joint Stock Companies Karachi PLD 1958 Lah. 887; Shelat v. Bhargava, G.K. Mitter AIR 1970 SC 564; Godhra Electric Company v. State of Gujarat AIR 1975 SC 32 and DC & GM Company v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 937 rel.\n(o) Administration of justice---\n----Power of Court to maintain other than on the grounds on which same was founded---Scope stated.\nCourts can maintain the s other than on the grounds on which the same were founded. But if the plea is not available under the law to defend the , then argument raised by him would not help him at all. \n(p) Central Excise Act (1 of 1944)---\n----S. 2(20), 3 & First Sched. Part-II, Item, 14.14 [as inserted by S. 5 of Finance Act (XII of 1991) and then replaced with Item No.9813.0000 by Finance Act (XII of 1994)]---Excise duty on excisable services---Status---Such tax being an indirect tax recoverable from a person to whom excisable services were provided or rendered---Duty of Financial Institution, Insurance Company, Cooperative Financial Society, other Lending Bank or Institution and other person dealing in advancing of loans to realize excise duty at prescribed rate from amount of advances outstanding against each borrower. \nMessrs Central Insurance Co. v. The Central Board of Revenue 1993 SCMR 1232 ref.\n(q) Interpretation of statutes---\n---Retrospective effect---Scope---In absence of clear intention of legislature to apply provision of a statute with retrospective effect, same would be deemed applicable prospectively. \n(r) Taxation---\n---Rate of tax, fixation of---Acceptable consensus of taxpayers ordinarily preferred by Lawmakers--Principles.\nThe Lawgivers before imposing the tax ordinarily undertake an exercise during the process whereof the taxpayers are also examined and keeping in view their acceptable consensus the rate of tax is fixed. Besides at the same time, it becomes very difficult to quantify the excise tax, therefore, a reasonable/moderate rate of tax is fixed keeping in view the suggestion of the taxpayers and other persons who matter in this behalf. \nElahi Cotton Mills PLD 1997 SC 582 rel.\n(s) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n----Ss. 2(20), 3, 3-C(1)(b), 4(3), 7(1) & First Sched. Part-II Item 14.14 [as inserted by S. 5 of Finance Act (XII of 1991)]---Excise duty on excisable services, imposition of---Estoppel against legislature---Scope---Legislature could not be estopped from promulgating a law to impose tax with a view to generate revenue---Principles.\nNeither Banking Companies nor C.B.R. has imposed excise levy on excisable services, as it is evident from the contents of Finance Act, 1991. Similarly the Federation of Pakistan, who had legislated Item 14.14 of First Schedule Part-II is not a party to the agreement between the persons dealing in advances of loans and the Bank. Therefore, the legislature cannot be estopped from promulgating a law for the purpose of imposing of the tax with a view to generate revenue keeping in view its growing requirement to generate funds to address burning problems of the day and the complex issues facing the people, which the legislature in its wisdom through legislation seeks to solve, therefore, there is no estoppel against the Federation to levy excise on the excisable services notwithstanding the contents of the agreement. The powers of the legislature to promulgate the law imposing excise duty or other duties cannot be curtailed. \nMolasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1905 and Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1993 SC 176 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2296 to 2412, 2707-2717 of 2001, 516, 934 of 2002, 1087-1091 of 2004, 2254-2403, 2410-2423, 2433--2436 of 2005, decision dated: 22-02-2006. dates of hearing: 20th, 21st and 22-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi and M.S. Khattak, Advocates-on-Record for Respondents (in C. As. Nos.2312, 2317, 2321, 2355, 2356, 2359, 2373, 2375, 2376, 2383, 2402 and 2406 of 2001).\nSyed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 2318 of 2001).\nFazal-e-Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 2325, 2331, 2376, 2402 and 2410 of 2001).\nMuhammad Afzal Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 2330 and 2366 of 2001).\nRaja Haq Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 2345, 2357, 2363, 2386 and 2405 of 2001).\nMuhammad Farid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 2401 of 2001).\nA.I. Chundrigarh, Advocate Supreme Court with A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.As. Nos. 2707-2717 of 2001).\nWaseem Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 2707 to 2717 of 2001) and Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A.2717 of 2001).\nA.I. Chundrigarh, Advocate Supreme Court with A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. No. 516 of 2002).\nNemo for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 516 of 2002).\nImtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. No. 934 of 2002).\nA. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Corut and Ahmer Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 934 of 2002).\nNemo for Appellant (in C.As. Nos. 1087-1091 of 2004)\nRaja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 1087 to 1091 of 2004).\nIzhar-ul-Haq Advocate-Supreme-Court (in C. A No. 1091 of 2004).\nImtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.2254-2256, 2260-2261, 2262, 227, 2287, 2290-2292,2297-2300, 2301, 2303, 2318-2322, 2327-2329, 2349, 2350 and 2395 of 2005).\nSyed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Arshad Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2257, 2288, 2289 and 2304-2308 of 2005).\nSyed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2258 and 2259 of 2005).\nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2262, 2290-2292 and 2327-2329 of 2005).\nShahid Hamid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2263-2265 of 2005).\nKhawaja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2293-2296 and 2323 of 2005).\nMuhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.2310-2317 and 2325-2326 of 2005).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As.Nos.2259, 2311, 2330-2338, 2340-2347, 2349, 2352, 2353, 2365, 2367-2369, 2375, 2376 and 2385-2388 of 2005).\nSh. Shahid Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.2337-2339 of 2005).\nMian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2344 and 2352 of 2005).\nCh. Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2348, 2354 and 2364 of 2005).\nTariq Mehmood Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A. No. 2332 of 2005).\nKhalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos.2410 and 2412 of 2005).\nMuhammad Azeem Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.2433 and 2434 of 2005) Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2435-2436 of 2005) M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A. No. 2433 of 2005)", + "Petitioner Name:": "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeal No.516 of 2002\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeal No.934 of 2002\nICC TEXTILE MILLS, LTD\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.10871091 of 2004\nMessrs PAK ELECTRON LTD. and others\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.22542403 of 2005\nMessrs FAISAL ASAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.24102423 of 2005\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others\nVs\nGUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others\n(On appeal from the judgment and order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.Ps. Nos. 462, 780, 2289/93, 2136/94, 841/93, 3139/92, 147/03, D54/94, D2190/93, D254/93, D2202/93, D933/93, D1331/93 and 1606D/1993).\nCivil Appeals Nos.24332436 of 2005\nTHE PAK PUNJAB MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. and others\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8409", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1432 = 2009 SLD 1432 = 2009 PTD 1544", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......R 11---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 72---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.33---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.66---Excise duty, tax, charges deposited by the tax payer by mistake, error under coercion, or misconstruction, can be refunded to him--Period for refund of claim of deposit of the duty or other taxes or charges, having been provided, which would be reckoned from the date of deposit of said duty or charge. \n \nColony Thai Textile Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Faisalabad and another PLD 1980 Lah.377 ref.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 944---\n \n----R. 11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),, Art.185(3)--Levy of Regulatory Excise Duty on manufacture of sugar---Manufacturer by depositing the Regulatory Duty without challenging the levy of the duty or any protest and not claiming the refund within one year, was estopped to agitate the claim after six years, and the principle of laches and waiver would also come into play against the manufacturer---Principles. \n \nIncome Tax Officer, Central Circle II, Karachi and another V. Cement Agencies Ltd. PLD 1969 SC 322; Octavius Steel and Company Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dacca PLD 1960 SC 371; Mst. Attiyya Bibi Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan 2001 SCMR 1161 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. and others 1993 SCMR 73 fol.\n \nCentral Board of Revenue and others v. Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. 1981 SCMR 303 and Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 19998 SC 64 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1295-L of 2004, decision dated: 1st June, 2009 (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12-2-2004 passed in Writ Petition No.1283 of 1989)", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Izhar-ul-Haq Sh., Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LTD\nvs\nADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8410", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 1433 = 2009 SLD 1433 = 2009 PTD 1664", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 35C & 36C---Appeal to High Court---Order which disposes of an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal and served on the parties thereof under S.35C(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the one which can be challenged under S.36C of the said Act before the High Court---Appeals directed against the order passed under S.35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are incompetent in terms of S.36C of the said Act---Principles detailed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=35", + "Case #": "Tax Appeals Nos. 27 to 29 of 2005, heard on 26-05-2009", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER AND IMTIAZ RASHID SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Appellant Rizwan Akhtar Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN OIL FIELDS\nvs\nCUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8411", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2100 = 2008 SLD 2100 = 2008 PTD 1667", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]...........3........Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr. 9, 52-A, 53, 53-B, 226, 241 & 246---Central Excise duty, recovery of---Show-cause notice was issued to appellants on the ground that certain quantity of raw material was removed from Customs Bonded Warehouse without payment of Central Excise duty---Collector of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax being dissatisfied with the reply filed by appellant imposed penalty along with duty---Validity---Appellants had accounted for the raw material which was illegally removed from Customs Bonded Warehouse as having been consumed in appellants' declared production---Authorities failed to show any other source of goods in question without which appellants' declared production would not have been possible at all---Such situation ruled out the possibility of any additional production, which was the main cause of proceedings against appellants-Authorities had built the case on the presumption that as the appellants had removed raw material from Customs Bonded Warehouse clandestinely, so the goods produced out of the same must also have been removed without payment of Central Excise Duty and Sales Tax---Such presumption was not substantiated by the authorities---Appellant's act of illegal removal of goods from Customs Bonded Warehouse was cognizable under Customs Act, 1969, and the concerned authorities not only took due notice of the offence but had also punished the appellant in accordance with law---Case which had been made under Central Excise Act, 1944, ought to have been proved independently, which the authorities had failed to do in convincing manner-Order-in-Original passed by Collector of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax was set aside---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Appeal No.C.E.7(1326)/IB of 2001, decision dated: 19-12-2007, hearing DATE ; 19-09-2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUMTAZ HAIDER RIZVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Isaac Ali Qazi for Appellants. Jehanzeb Mehmood, D.R. Shafi-ur-Rehman, D.S., Sharifullah, Sr. Auditor and Syed Yousaf Shah, S.I.O. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8412", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1366 = 2004 SLD 1366 = 2004 PTCL 35", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16,25(1),25(5),25(6),25(7),25(8),25(9),32,81(3)", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal Nos. K 274, 275, 276 & 277/02/3765, decision dated: 11-06-2003.", + "Judge Name:": "MS. YASMIN ABBASSEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) AND MR. SAFDAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-III).", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Sohail Muzzafar, Advocate, Mr. Saeed Hasan, AC & Mr. Masood-ul-Hasan, PA. Respondent by: Mr. Sardar Ali Javed, Consultant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8413", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1630 = 2001 SLD 1630 = 2001 PTD 1799", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......First Sched., Item No.04.03---Red-lead---Litharge--Pigment or chemical-­Litharge by itself was not a pigment but a chemical that, was used in the manufacture of pigments---Red lead in view of its high toxicity was a dying pigment and was seldom used.\n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)-First Sched., Item No.04.03--Lead oxide---Pigment---Production of lead oxide, was considered/ classified as pigment by the Department and charged central excise duty under, Item No. 04.03 of the First Sched. of the Central Excises Act, 1944---Validity---Lead oxide had not reached such stage of manufacture through a chemical process of classification at a temperature of over 350°c based on which it could be categorised as pigment-Same fell outside the preview of Item No.04.03 of First Sched. of the Central Excises Act, 1944 and was not liable to central excise duty-Classification of goods and in particular that of chemicals, their derivatives or preparations could only be given on the basis of very clear determination of chemical attributes which was possible only through chemical test and not on the basis of authority or wisdom-Lead oxide alongwith zinc oxide which appellants were producing were not liable to excise duty as being chemicals in circumstances-Order of Department was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.\nConcise Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology by Megraw Hil; Chemical Process; Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary; Nateruats-Their Properties-and Uses and Remington and France and Chemical. Industries by T.I. Williams ref Treatise on Coatings, Vol. 3, Part 1 by Myers and Long and Outlines of Paint Technology by Morgan, Vol. hp. 95 rel.\n(c) Central excise.........\nLead oxide.....Pigments-Non-printing of retail sale price-Rate of excise duty. Application of......200% excise duty was levied in the absence of printing of retail sale price which if printed would have resulted in duty 10%......Validity-Philosophy behind the concept of excise duty on retail sales price was to arrest unbridled price spiral to protect ordinary consumers-­Duty in the absence of retail prices was a punitive duty-Disputed goods, even if pigments would have been pigments, levy @ 200% would have been inconsistent with the spirit and philosophy of the introduced concept as unlike cement pigments were not goods of daily use but industrial raw materials-Order was set aside in circumstances by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Excise Appeal No.3 of 1999, decision dated: 7-04-2000", + "Judge Name:": "KHALIL MASOOD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MALIK A.R. ARSHAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Raza Abbass Naqvi and Aijaz Shafi for Appellant. Afaq Nabi, Superintendent for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8414", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1631 = 2001 SLD 1631 = 2001 PTD 1446", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFDND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]........S 14 Fresh inquiry Scope New information always justifies fresh inquiry even where earlier inquiries have been conducted with due diligence. \n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--S.14 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.37 Inquiry Summoning of witness Powers of the Authorities Scope Authorities, under the provisions of S.14 of Central Excises Act, 1944 and S.37 of Sales Tax Act, 1990, have ample powers to summon witnesses for production of documentary evidence and also to testify in any proceedings before authorized Officer of the department.\n \n(c) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)\n \n S.14 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.37 Inquiry Anonymous complaint Validity Inquiry can be conducted on such complaint and the same cannot be dropped just for the reason that the contents of the anonymous complaint cannot be verified as the complainant is unavailable and has not furnished any documents in support of the facts alleged in the complaint.\n \n(d) Central Excises Act (I of 1944) \n \n S.14 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.37 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional petition Fresh inquiry Discovery of new material Issuance of show cause notice Earlier eight inquiries were conducted and the Authorities initiated another inquiry for the ninth time ignoring the results of earlier inquiries Validity Where the earlier inquiries were not termed as proper, diligent or complete, inquiries, fresh inquiry could be initiated. \n \nEdulji Dinshaw Limited v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1990 SC 399; Messrs Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income Tax Officer, Circle XVIII, South Zone, Karachi and others 1992 SCMR 250; Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Colleatorate of Customs and Central Excise, Quetta and 4 others 1999 PTD 1892; Al Abram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1992 PTD 1761 and Messrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board. of Revenue, Islamabad and others 1993 SCMR 1232 ref. \n \n(e) Central Excises Act (I of 1944) \n \n S.14 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 193 & 228 Inquiry Nature o proceedings Inquiry undertaken by an authorized Central Excise Officer under the provisions of S.14 of Central Excises Act, 1944, is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Ss. 193 & 228, P.P.C.\n \nMessrs Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited through Company Secretary v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Islamabad and 3 others 1999 MLD 1925 and Muhammad Irfan Khan v. The Superintendent, Central Excise, Moradabad and another AIR 1960 All. 40: ref.\n \n(f) Res judicata \n \n Principles of Proceedings before Administrative Authorities Principle of res judicata Applicability Principle of res judicata cannot be applied to the proceedings before the Authorities with the same strictness which it is applicable before Courts or Judicial Tribunals Where formal decision ha been reached by any administrative forum, such decision does not constitute bar to reopening and reconsideration of the same matter where the earlier decision is clearly open to some objection or the same is not reached after proper inquiry or fresh evidence having a material bearing on the\"\" point decided in the previous decision, becomes available. \n \nCommissioner of Income tax v. Wahiduzzaman PLD 1965 SC 171; Commissioner of Income tax v. Pakistan Industrial Engineering Agencies Ltd. PLD 1992 SC 562 and Messrs Farrukh Chemical Industries Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income tax, South Zone, Karachi PLD 1983 Kar. 269 ref.\n \n(g) Central Excises Act (I of 1944) \n \n . S.14 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.37 Constitution of Pakistan. (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional petition Maintainability Issuance of Show cause notice Where the Authorities had jurisdiction to issue the showcause notice and no mala fides had been alleged against the Authorities, the petitioner was not allowed to circumvent the statutory process. \n \nAl Ahram Builders (Pvt.) Ltd: v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 1992 PTD 1761 ref.\n \n(h) Central Excises Act (I of 1944) \n \n S.14 Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990); S.37 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional petition Maintainability Show cause notice, issuance of Efficacious remedy available Effect Where efficacious remedy under the relevant. statute is available, Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court cannot be exercised against mere issuance of notice by the Authority Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court can be invoked where the notice is issued by Authority lacking jurisdiction or where the appellate or revisional authority under such statute has already expressed its view on the controversy which is subject matter of the notice.\n \nAdamjee Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others 1989 PTD 1090 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=14", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 18757 of 2000, heard on 30-01-2001. dates of hearing: 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th and 30-01-2001", + "Judge Name:": "JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Aitzaz Ahsan assisted by Uzair Karamat Bhandari for Petitioner. A. Karim for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, C.B.R. HOUSE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8415", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1632 = 2001 SLD 1632 = 2001 PTD 1439", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)].......Rr 53 & 53 B [before substitution of R.53 B in the Rules] Manufacture of soft drink by a beverage company Crown cork of a soft drink Not a \"\"raw material\"\" Manufacturer , was required to maintain record of \"\"raw material\"\" and not packing material Crown cork being not used in the manufacturing in aerated water but was only required at the time of packing of bottles, manufacturer could not have been asked, prior to the substitution of R. 53 B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to have kept record of the crown corks. \n \nMessrs Shahi Bottlers Ltd., Lahore v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1976 Lah. 1584 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=53", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.5610 of 1988, heard on 15-02-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Shahid Waheed for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ADIL BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS and 2 others\nPAPER PRODUCTS LTDV\nvs\nCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8416", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1633 = 2001 SLD 1633 = 2001 PTD 2253 = (2001) 247 ITR 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "Circulars----Effect--Circulars are binding on Department---Correctness of circulars cannot be challenged by Department even on the ground of their being inconsistent with statutory provision---Indian Central Excises Act, 1944, S.37B.\nApart from the fact that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Customs and Excise in exercise of its power under section 37B of the Central Excises Act, 1944, are binding on the Department, the Department is precluded from challenging the correctness of the said circulars even on the ground of the same being inconsistent with the statutory provision. So far as the Department is concerned, whatever action it has to take, the same will have to be consistent with the circular which is in force at the relevant point of time.\nCollector of Central Excise v. Jayant Dalal (Pvt.) Ltd. (1997)-10 SCC 402; (1998) 100 ELT 10 (SC); Collector of Central Excise v. Kores (India) Ltd. (1997) 10 SCC 338; (1997) 89 ELT 441 (SC); Collector of Central Excise v. Usha Martin Industries (1997) 7 SCC 47; (1997) 94 ELT 460 (SC); Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise (1996) 10 SCC 387; (1996) 87 ELT 19 (SC) and Rollatainers Ltd. v. Union of India (1994) 72 ELT 793 (SC) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of India", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=37", + "Case #": "C.A. No.5950 with C.A. No.8301 of 1997, decision dated: 24-08-1999", + "Judge Name:": "S. P. BHARUCHA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ashok Desai and D.A. Dave, Senior Advocates (R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Ruby Ahuja, Ms. Avantika Keswani, Raghu Kothari and Ms. Manik Kamajawala, Advocates with them) for Appellant T. L. V. Iyer, Senior Advocate (Tara Chandra Sharma and P. Parmeshwaran, Advocates with him) for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8417", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2517 = 2007 SLD 2517 = 2007 PTD 415", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)].....Ss 11(4), 33(2)(cc), 36(3), 45A, 45B & 46 ---Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005), S.35---Central Excise Act (1 of 1944), S.33(3)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Assessment of tax---Limitation---Complainant contended that show cause notice was issued on 24-9-2005 and the order was passed on 20-3-2006, (177 days after issuance of show cause notice) whereas the prescribed period for deciding the case had expired on 23-12-2005 and that order was hit by time limitation as provided in law and was null and void---Validity---Order-in-Original needed to he reopened under S.35 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and S. `45A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 to quash demand of central excise duty/additional duty and penalty imposed because the Collector allowed extension in the period for deciding the case under S.33(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, without having jurisdiction to do so and remit penalty levied under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 because the show cause notice did not confront the intention to impose penalty under S.33(2)(cc) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 before it was imposed in the Order-in-Original---No proceedings could be undertaken or initiated for reopening a decision or order passed under Sales Tax Act, 1990 in a case where appeal under Ss.45B and 46 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 was pending and an appeal was indeed pending before the Collector of Appeals---Complainant, for its part, shall have to withdraw the appeal---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Revenue Division direct the competent authority to reopen the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 20-3-2006 under S.35 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and S.45A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 so as to quash demand of central excise duty/additional duty and penalty created in the impugned order hit by time limitation, remit penalty imposed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for failure to confront the complainant with specific provision of S.33(2)(cc) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and may proceed in accordance with the provisions of law---Complainant, on its part, shall have to withdraw the Appeal filed before the Collector of Customs, Excise and Sales Tax (Appeals).\nComplaint Nos. 805 of 2003; 940 of 2005; 113-L of 2005 and No.1 19-L of 2006 rel.\n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)----S. 33(3)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Power of adjudication---Limitation---Extension allowed under the provisions of S.33(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 after repeal of the same as on 1-7-2005 was void ab initio.\n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)----S. 33(3)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.36(3)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)--Power of adjudication---Under the provisions of S.33(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, it was only the Central Board of Revenue, and not the Collector, who was competent to extend the time limit under `exceptional circumstances'---Collector did ,,not extend the period prescribed for deciding the ease under S.31(3) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005---Collector Under S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was empowered to allow extension in time for another 90 days but only after recording reasons for such extension in writing.\n(d) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)----S.33(3)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.36(3)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)--Power of adjudication---Limitation---Extension by Collector---Validity---Period prescribed for deciding the case was extended for further 90 days by the Collector under S.33(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and S.36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Collector allowed extension of 90 days under Central Excise Act, 1944 on 5-12-2005---Central Excise Act, 1944 was repealed on 1-7-2005 and was replaced by Federal Excise Act, 2005---Firstly the extension was allowed under the defunct Central Excise Act, 1944 and secondly, as per the provisions of S.33(3) of Central Excise Act, 1944, only the C.B.R. under Central Excise Act, 1944 was competent to grant extension and not the Collector---Extension granted by the Collector in terms of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 was not legally sustainable---Order-in-Original related to determination of liability of excise duties and imposition of penalty under Excise Law was hit by time limitation.\n(e) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---S. 33(2)(cc)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Offences and penalties---Penalties without confrontation---Show cause notice showed that complainant was charged with evasion of both excise duty and sales tax which were shown as recoverable---Show cause notice did not disclose department's intention to levy penalty under the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Order-in-Original also imposes penalty, since complainant was not confronted with the specific penal provision of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 the imposition of penalty vide Order-in-Original could not legally stand.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=35", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 390-L of 2006, decision dated: 15-06-2006", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHAIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKISTAN FRUIT JUICE CO. (PVT.) LTD., \nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8418", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2518 = 2007 SLD 2518 = 2007 PTCL 593 = 2007 PTD 486", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......Ss 3-B, 12-A & 36-C---S.R.O. 798(I)/90, dated 30-7-1990---Liability to pay central excise duty and additional duty-Exemption--Claim for---Appeal against of Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal---Appellant who was a manufacturer of PVC pipes, had supplied UPVC riser pipe and top sleaves to UNICEF and cleared same without payment of central excise duty payable thereon, presuming the same to be exempted under S.R.O. 798(I)/90 dated 30-7-1990---Order­ in-original was passed against appellant holding him liable to pay central excise duty along with additional duty as stipulated under S.3-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 in addition to a penalty---Contention of appellant was that parts of machinery used in process directly connected with extraction of minerals, were covered by definition of machinery---S.R.O. 798(I)/90 dated 30-7-1990, contained exemption to central excise duty only to machinery and equipment which were produced by a unit and supplied against international tenders to the projects financed out of funds provided by the international loans or aid giving agencies--Definition of machinery was also provided in the said S.R.O.---UPVC riser pipes supplied by appellant to UNICEF were classifiable under PCT heading 3917 of the Tariff and those pipes could not be termed as machinery and equipment as said pipes were of specific size, length and diameter and were neither machinery nor equipment---Meaning of term \"\"machinery\"\" could not be stretched too far to bring in its ambit the UPVC riser pipes---Non-payment of central excise duty in the present case, was not deliberate, but was due to misinterpretation of S.R.O.---Appellant, in circumstances was not liable to pay any additional central excise duty---Appeal was allowed to the extent of waiver of additional tax, but impugned order to the extent of levy of central excise duty, was upheld.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.22 of 1999, heard on 12-10-2006", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hasham Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Zahid Farani Sheikh for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SHAFI SONS ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., \nvs\nCOLLECTOR (APPEALS) CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SALES TAX and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8419", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1844 = 2006 SLD 1844 = 2006 PTD 319", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......S 4(1)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.7 & 9---Central Excise General Order No.53 of 1967, para. 3---Determination of value for purposes of duty---Supply of beverage concentrate by manufacturer to franchised bottlers in same vicinity---Addition of incidental charges while determining value of concentrate---Scope---General body of retail traders was situated only next door---Due to proximity of location of both manufacturer and franchised bottlers, no octroi post was involved, thus, no duty or toll tax would be payable by franchise holder---Only handling and transportation charges could be added to value of concentrate as sundry charges for purpose of fixation of excise duty.\n \nPLD 1995 SC 659; Pakistan through Secretary Finance and another v. Kohat Cement Company and others PLD 1995 SC 659; Atlas Battery Limited Karachi v. Superintendent Central Excise and Land Customs Circle `C' Karachi PLD 1984 SC 86 and Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan v. Messrs Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. 2002 PTD 1989 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No.153 of 2001, heard on 24-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aftab Hassan for Appellant Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE\nvs\nCOCA COLA EXPORT CORPORATION" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8420", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 760 = 2005 SLD 760 = 2005 PTCL 700 = 2006 PTD 54", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......S 3-D---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Preliminary objection had been raised by respondent companies that petitioner/the department being a subordinate, could not challenge orders of his superior and in circumstances constitutional petitions were not maintainable---Validity---Impugned decisions were passed pursuant to orders passed by High Court in constitutional petition which were maintained by Supreme Court whereby matter was remanded to Central Board of Revenue to determine specific question after hearing parties concerned---In the beginning of impugned orders, it had been specifically provided that it could be appealed against before Authority which had remanded the case---Even otherwise petitioner-department was custodian of public exchequer and on its move, the vires of impugned orders could be looked into by High Court to determine whether same had been passed fully in line with parameters given by High Court and Supreme Court while remanding case to it---Preliminary objection, about maintainability of constitutional petition was repelled, in circumstances.\n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss. 3, 3-D & 12-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Levy of Excise Duty---Exemption---Respondent companies had been allowed through the impugned order, refund claim on sole ground that they did not raise prices of beverage goods at the juncture of withdrawal of capacity system and had suffered losses by absorbing excess burden of duties on account of supervised clearance system in their existing prices---Prices of beverage goods, in certain Divisions were increased by different companies after introduction of supervised clearance system, while case of respondent-companies themselves was that they did not raise price of their goods to achieve their targets and had themselves borne the excess of duties and taxes deliberately but impugned orders were silent on the said aspect of case---Sole ground furnished was that there was no price hike of beverage goods after issuance of impugned notification, and thus same could not be made basis to opine that incidence of excise duty on beverage goods was not passed on to purchasers/consumers of said goods, if they had suffered loss by not increasing price of goods in order to promote their business---Impugned orders, in circumstances appeared to have been passed in arbitrary manner and did not reflect findings on each and every aspect of case, rather same were against the decision of Supreme Court that actual controversy was not whether beverage companies had suffered any financial losses which were set aside---Matter was remanded with direction to decide appeals of respondent-companies afresh after affording opportunities of hearing to both parties and definite findings would be given on said aspects of the case within specified period.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.1445 and 1449 of 2004, heard on 27-10-2004", + "Judge Name:": "IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Saghir Ahmed for Petitioner. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS\nvs\nMessrs MULTAN BEVERAGE (PVT.) LTD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8421", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1845 = 2006 SLD 1845 = 2006 PTD 74", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......S 36-C---Appeal before Tribunal---Reply submitted by appellant before. Additional Collector (Adjudication) in response to show-cause notice issued to him, had shown that request was made by appellant for summary adjudication---No explanation was furnished to detailed show-cause notice and it was stated that appellants were very sorry as they were doing business for the first time and mistakes 'were committed due to lack of proper knowledge and that they would not repeat the mistake---Tribunal, in circumstances, dismissed appeal with observation that appeal filed before Tribunal was an exercise in futility, just to gain time and to wriggle out from admission made before adjudicating officer---Proposed questions did not arise out of order of Tribunal and observations made by Tribunal were not open to any exception.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=36", + "Case #": "Spl. Central Excise Appeal No.37 of 2002, decision dated: 13-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S. Mohsin Imam for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs KAPRON OVERSEAS SUPPLY CO. (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE EAST, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8422", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2519 = 2007 SLD 2519 = 2007 PLJ 1047", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVFpND0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--\n----Art. 199--Promotion on the recommendation of departmental promotion committee--Cancellation--Condemned unheard--Validity--Natural justice--Principle--Petitioner had commenced his work as promoted appointee, right had accrued to the petitioner that before passing a adverse order. [P. 1049] A\nNatural Justice--\n----Opportunity being heard--Before passing an adverse order, the effectee must be granted an opportunity of being heard. [P. 1049] B", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 1319-S of 2006/BWP, decided on 23.01.2007", + "Judge Name:": "SH. HAKIM ALI, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. M. Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai, Advocate for Petitioner.\nMr. Shahzad Hussain Sheikh, Advocate for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AFZAL\nvs\nTEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION HASILPUR DISTRICT BAHAWALPUR through its NAZIM and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8423", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2520 = 2007 SLD 2520 = 2007 PLJ 1053", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (IX of 1991)--\n----S. 24--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Zar-e-Soim--Depositing of Zar-e-Soim sale price within thirty days--Suit was dismissed for non-depositing--Application for recalling of order was accepted--Revision petition was dismissed--Assailed--Determination of--Provision of law--Court would require the plaintiff to deposit of zar-e-soim in cash within such period as Court may fix--Provision upon the Court and that is why such period would not be extended beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit--Question required for adjudication by High Court is whether deposited of amount by petitioner was within time or beyond 30 days--Legal aspect has not been adverted to by Courts below and passed impugned orders in violation of statutory provisions of law--Petition accepted.\n [Pp. 1055 & 1056] A & D\nPunjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (IX of 1991)--\n----S. 24--Depositing of Zar-e-Soim--Determination of period--Time for depositing of Zar-e-Soim amount of sale price would not extend beyond 30 days and time would be reckoned from the date of filing of suit--Held: Days of filing of suit would calculated. [P. 1055] B\nPunjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (IX of 1991)--\n----S. 24--Zar-e-Soim--Depositing of 1/3rd sale price within 30 days of filing of suit and not from date of passing of order--Pre-emptor is duty bond--Bars discretion of Court to extend the time beyond 30 days--Entitlement of benefit--Pre-emptor is duty bond to deposit the 1/3rd sale price within 30 days of filing of the suit and not from the date of passing of the order--Power of Court is restricted and the Court is not empowered to extend time beyond 30 days of the filing of the suit--Petition accepted. [P. 1055] C", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 9311 of 2005, decided on 21.2.2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Sajid Ali Bukari, Advocate for Petitioner.\nMr. Muhammad Anees Khatana, Advocate for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SYED MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH\nvs\nJEWAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8424", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2521 = 2007 SLD 2521 = 2007 PLJ 1021", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--\n----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471 & 34--Bail after arrest, dismissed--Prayer for--Accused committed fraud with complainant in a deal of plot and deprived him from specified amount--Held: Although, the offences for which the petitioner is being charge do not fall under the prohibitory clause but as the petitioner has deprived an innocent person from his life long earning, therefore, he does not deserve for any discretionary relief--Bail was dismissed. [P. 1022] A", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Crl. Misc. No. 920-B of 2006, decided on 27.9.2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Basharatullah Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.\nSardar Farhad Abbas, Advocate for Complainant.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Syed MAQSOOM HUSSAIN SHAH\nvs\nSTATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8425", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2522 = 2007 SLD 2522 = 2007 PLJ 1006", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--\n----O. XVII, R. 3--Evidence was closed and the suit for recovery was dismissed--Assailed--Respondents/defendants did not object to the adjournment pray--Law regarding adjournments without objection by opposing parties is firmly settled to the effect that in such cases, those should be adjourned under Rule 1 instead taking cognizance of such under Rule 3 of Order XVII CPC--Presumption of regularity/ correctness is attached to judicial proceedings which cannot be adjudged on mere affidavits--Only one opportunity of producing entire evidence granted subject to payment of costs--Appeal allowed.\n [Pp. 1008 & 1009] A & B\n1985 SCMR 585; 2004 SCMR 699 and 2004 SCMR 964, rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "RFA. No. 629 of 2001, heard on 7.2.2007", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN & SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate for Appellant.\nCh. Muhammad Iqbal Javed Dhillon, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 4.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUBASHIR KHAN\nvs\nJAVAID KAMRAN alias JAVED IQBAL and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8426", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2523 = 2007 SLD 2523 = 2007 PLJ 1115", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 (XIII of 2001)--\n----S. 54-A & Schedule 6th--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Provisions--Market in question is situated with in the territorial jurisdiction of town municipal administration--Functions and powers of T.M.A. to control over land use, land development by public and private sectors for any purpose including markets--No exception has been created between the public and private sectors nor has a market committee been excluded from the operations of the provisions of law. [P. 1117] A & B\nConstitution of Pakistan, 1973--\n----Art. 99--Punjab Local Government Ordinance, (XIII of 2001), S. 54-A--Questioon of--Whether the proposed construction of new shops and mini shops would cause a nuisance to the inhabitants is a matter which cannot be adjudicated upon by High Court as not only disputed question of fact are involved but also such inhabitants would have alternative remedy both under Civil law as well as Criminal Procedure Code--Petition dismissed. [P. 1118] C", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 5580 of 2006, decided on 9.4.2007.", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Sajid Mahmood, Advocate for Petitioners.\nMalik Zafar Iqbal Awan, Additional Advocate-General Punjab.\nM/s Hassan Makhdoom and Shahid Azeem, Advocates for Respondents.\nMalik Muhammad Jamil Awan, Advocate for Applicants in C.M. No. 1471/06.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NASEER AHMAD SUMMA & anothers\nvs\nTOWN NAZIM, GULBERG, GULBERG TOWN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8427", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2524 = 2007 SLD 2524 = 2007 PLJ 1062", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "(i) Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891--\n----S. 2(8)--Certified copy--Suit for recovery--Executed documents and availed facility--Failed to liquidate outstanding liability--No serious and bona fide dispute--Leave application was dismissed--Assailed--Mortgage failed to pay any premium of insurance--Bank has debited the salary of staff, inspection charges and other miscellaneous expenses in respondent's account--Statement of accounts was not certified copy--Act of manipulations and cutting--Date of expiry was fixed, but it was struck down by stroke of pen--Court had also inspected finance agreement which shows the fixed date--Court find some manipulations and cutting in finance agreement to make the date of expiry--On the basis of such type of finance agreement which bears cutting, overwriting, manipulations and interpolation, it can neither be urged nor held that the date of expiry was changed--Appeal dismissed. [P. 1065] C\n(ii) Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891--\n----Ss. 2(8) & 4--Certified copy without evidence of matters--Certified copy was not in accordance with provision of law so cannot be received as prima facie evidence of existence of such entry and cannot be admitted as evidence of the matters, transaction and accounts as required under the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891--Appeal dismissed. [P. 1065] A & B", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "RFA No. 128 of 2004, heard on 30.11.2006.", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sardar Riaz Kareem, Advocate for Appellant.\nMr. Abdul Majeed Malik, Advocate for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through its Manager\nvs\nM/s. MUJAHID NAWAZ, COTTON GENNERS through its Partners and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8428", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2525 = 2007 SLD 2525 = 2007 PLJ 1066", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Power of Attorney--\n----Power of attorney does not at all spell out any authority to refer the matter to arbitration or to appoint an arbitrator. [P. 1070] A\nLimitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908)--\n----Ss. 5 & 14--Question of limitation--An independent application under Section 14 of Limitation Act has not been filed and as such the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act could not be considered. [P. 1071] C\nCivil Procedure of Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--\n----Ss. 12(2) & 100--Arbitration Act, (X of 1940), S. 14--Suit for declaration--Arbitration agreements award, decree and such proceeding are void as he had never authorized his wife to enter into an arbitration agreement--Plaint rejected--Second application--Property exclusively belonged to late father of petitioner having been inherited--No any dispute existed regarding such land between the parties--Held: Entire proceedings are without lawful authority--There is no arbitrary agreement and as such there was no question of arbitration proceedings, award or the decree pursuant thereof--Petition allowed.\n [P. 1071] B", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 6130 of 1998, heard on 9.5.2007.", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. S.M. Tayyab, Advocate for Petitioner.\nMr. Baleegh-uz-Zaman, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL KHALIQ\nvs\nBASHIR AHMAD and 5 others Resondents" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8429", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2526 = 2007 SLD 2526 = 2007 PLJ 1074", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Proclaimed Offender--\n----Dacoity--Suo moto action--Bail was recalled--Respondent/accused was declared offender--Arrested 10 months after occurrence--Offences are at peak--Bail was granted--Suo moto action was taken--Such persons cannot be let loose in society to repeat offence.\n [P. 1075] B\nCancellation of bail--\n----Respondent was arrested after 10 months--Proclaimed offender--Bail was granted--Submission of challan--Suo moto action--Mere submission of challan is no ground for grant of bail in case punishable with death, life imprisonment of ten years--Held: Bail granted by Magistrate was withdrawn. [P. 1075] C\nSuo Moto--\n----Fugitive from law--Declared proclaimed offender--Accused was arrested after 10 months of the occurrence--Recommendation for withdrawal criminal power--Bail granted by Magistrate was recalled--Co-accused applied his bail, before the High Court--Fact was concealed--Suo moto action against respondent--Bail granted order by Magistrate was withdrawn--Held: Magistrate had granted bail to respondent on flimsy grounds, which were not available on record--Order would be kept on dassier--High Court recommended to Honorable Chief Justice that his powers for hearing criminal cases might be withdrawn. [Pp. 1075 & 1076] A & D", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Crl. Misc. No. 3535/CB of 2007, decided on 29.5.2007", + "Judge Name:": "KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Naseer-ud-Din Khan Nayyar, APG alongwith Atta Muhammad, Inspector for Petitioner.\nCh. Shabbir Ahmad Khan, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "STATE\nvs\nMUHAMMAD AZAM alias TAJJI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8430", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2527 = 2007 SLD 2527 = 2007 PLJ 1077", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--\n----S. 115 & O. XXXIX, R. 2(b)--Application for grant of injunction--Violation of restraint order--Mutations--Date of order seized to exist--Amendment--Notification--Revision dismissed--Period of six months under Rule (2) was substituted with words \"\"one year\"\"--Mutations were attested in violation of prohibitory order, had not impressed to upset the well reasoned s/orders, for the simple reason that though procedural law could be applied retrospectively but it could not inject the life to the order which already stood vacated--Petitioner's stay order seized to exist before amendment and in these circumstances, amendment was of no help to the petitioner's case--Revision dismissed. [Pp. 1078 & 1079] B\nCivil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--\n----O.XXXIX, R. 2(3)--Injunctive order--Order was not extended--Validity--Restraint order was not extended by trial Court and stood automatically vacated by operation of law. [P. 1078] A", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 1745 of 2005, decided on 2.2.2007.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rana Rashid Akram Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD ZAHID NASEEM ADIL\nvs\nMUHAMMAD SHAFI and 5 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8431", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2528 = 2007 SLD 2528 = 2007 PLJ 1079", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--\n----S. 12(2)--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Duty bound to register case--Land was distributed--Dispute arose between the parties--False will was prepared--Respondent forcibly turned out the petitioners from their residences--Possession was restored--Respondent filed civil suit for declaration--Status qua was passed--False will was prepared by respondents regarding the whole land in-question--Possession was disturbed again--F.I.R. was lodged--Possession was handed over back--Another attempt was made--Civil suits were filed--Status-quo--Assailed--Validity of document--Writ petition is discretionary relief--Technicalities of law--Police is duty bound to protect their possession life and liberty even after handing over the possession to petitioner--If the petitioner moves an application for registration of the case, police is duty bound to register the case against respondent--Investigating officer is directed to get admitted signatures of the deceased and compare with signature on decree. [P. 1085] A", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 4005 of 2007, decided on 15.5.2007.", + "Judge Name:": "KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Aftab Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate for Petitioner.\nCh. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. Advocate General alongwith Imran Ahmad SP, Ateeq Sindhu DSP, Umar Rashid Butt, Inspector, Sana Ullah Inspector Legal and Naeem Ahmad S.I.\nMr. M. S. Shad, Advocate for Respondents No. 6 and 7.\nCh. Imtiaz Elahi, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Professor (Rtd.) Mian KHALID IKRAM MEHMOOD and others\nvs\nCCPO and 7 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8432", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1846 = 2006 SLD 1846 = 2006 PTD 135", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 3 & 36(c)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.210---Appeal before High Court---Evasion of payment of excise duty---Demand of excise duty with additional duty and penalty---Payment of excise duty by respondent before hearing of appeal by Appellate Tribunal---Remission of additional duty and penalty by Tribunal in view of its earlier decision taken in an identical case---Validity---Discretion exercised by Tribunal was neither unfounded nor perverse---No question of law arose out of impugned order---High Court dismissed appeal in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 188 of 2002, decision dated: 11-12-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Qamar-ud-Din for Appellant. Rana Muhammad Afzal for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, \nvs\nMessrs DECSON ENGINEERING LTD.," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8433", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1847 = 2006 SLD 1847 = 2006 PTD 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].....S 12-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Exemption---Exempting Cinema Houses from payment of entertainment duty--Withdrawal of Constitutional petition---Counsel for petitioner had stated that in view of Notification dated 30-6-2004 exempting cinema houses from payment of entertainment duty, he would like to withdraw Constitutional petition to agitate matter through a representation before the department for any possible departmental relief which petitioner could persuade them to grant---Petition was disposed of as withdrawn---Petitioner could seek departmental remedies.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=12", + "Case #": "W.Ps. Nos.8904, 1775 and 1660 of 2004, decision dated: 4-10-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ahmad Waheed Khan for Petitioner. Ch. Rizwan Mushtaq, A.A.G Riaz Hussain Shah, Office Incharge (Legal Cell) Excise and Taxation Department", + "Petitioner Name:": "Mian MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR\nvs\nPROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8434", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1847 = 2006 SLD 1847 = 2006 PTD 219", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......S 40---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R. 10---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9---Suit, maintainability of---Jurisdiction of Civil Court, invoking of, even where barred by statute---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the respondent in order to challenge the notices issued to him by the Authority for the deposit of excise duty in respect of excisable services which were provided---High Court (Single Judge) decreed the suit---Appeal was filed by the Authority against the decision of the Single Judge---Contention of the Appellant/ Authority was that the suit was not maintainable as the jurisdiction of the Court was barred under S.40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and secondly, even if the plaintiff had felt aggrieved by the notices, then the remedy available to him was under the hierarchy of the Central Excise Act, 1944 itself and the same could not have been questioned by filing a suit---Rebuttal of the plaintiff was that the notices on the face of it were without jurisdiction having been issued with mala fide intentions and after the expiry of the period provided for issuing such notices, therefore bar contained under S.40 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted more particularly because no order passed or any assessment, levy or collection of any duty was assailed---Validity---Section 40 of the Act provided that no suit could have been brought in Civil Court to set aside or to modify any order passed for assessment, levy or collection of any duty under the Act---Plaintiff had not filed the suit calling in question any order passed under the Act or questioned any assessment or levy or collection of any duty under it, but had only questioned the notice issued by the Authority on the ground that the same had been issued mala fide without any jurisdiction or lawful authority---When special law provided hierarchy for redress of grievance, then one could not normally be allowed to circumvent the same by invoking jurisdiction of Civil Court, however, if prima facie any mala fide could be shown on the part of the authority, or illegality, which was floating on the surface, and or absence of jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction of Civil Court could be invoked in the matter---Plea as to bar of jurisdiction could only by sustained if it could be shown that the impugned order was passed in the bona fide exercise of powers under the statute---When it was established that the very act questioned was without lawful authority and jurisdiction, then instead of asking a party to go under the agony of lengthy departmental proceedings where possibility of getting relief were limited, Civil Court could grant relief to deserving party by holding that the act was without lawful authority---Notices in the present case were served upon the plaintiff much after the expiry of one year, despite the fact that being under the ambit of Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 they ought to have been served within one year of the date when the excisable service had been rendered and for which excise duty had not been paid---Since, notices which formed the basis of claim of the Authority were barred by time, they were without lawful authority and such colourable exercise of power by Authority could have been questioned before the Civil Court---Appeals were dismissed in circumstances. \n \nUsman Panjwani and others v. Government of Sindh and others 1996 CLC 311; K.G. Traders and another v. Deputy Collector Customs and 4 others PLD 1997 Kar. 541; Messrs Pioneer Belting Mills Ltd. Muridkey v. Joint Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan and 2 others 1983 CLC 784; Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 180; Hamid Hussain v. Government of West. Pakistan and others 1974 SCMR 356 and Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi 1965 SC 698 ref.\n \nMessrs World Trade Corporation v. C.B.R. and others (1999) 80 Tax 84 distinguished.\n \n(b) Administration of justice--\n \n----Principles of---When special law provides hierarchy for redress of grievance, then one cannot normally be allowed to circumvent the same by invoking jurisdiction of Civil Court, however, if prima facie any mala fides could be shown on the part of the authority, or illegality, which is floating on the surface, and or absence of jurisdiction, then the jurisdiction of Civil Court could be invoked in the matter---Mala fide order or one without jurisdiction is a fraud on the law and can never be assumed to have been passed under the particular statute---Plea as to bar of jurisdiction could only be sustained if it could be shown that the impugned order was passed in the bona fide exercise of powers under the statute. \n \nUsman Panjwani and others v. Government of Sindh and others 1996 CLC 311 and K.G. Traders and another v. Deputy Collector Customs and 4 others PLD 1997 Kar. 541 ref.\n \n(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---\n \n----S. 9---Jurisdiction of Civil Court, exclusion of---Principles---Exceptions---Jurisdiction of Civil Court can be excluded by the Legislature by special Acts which deal with the special subject but the statutory provision must expressly provide for such exclusion or must necessarily and inevitably lead to such inference---Bar created by the relevant provision of statute excluding jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot operate in cases, where the plea before the Civil Court goes to the root of the matter and would, if upheld, lead to conclusion that the impugned order is nullity---Even where the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and conferred upon special Tribunal, Civil Court being Court of ultimate jurisdiction will have the power to examine the acts of such forums to see whether their acts are in accordance with law or are illegal or even mala fide. \n \nMian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 180; Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others 1974 SCMR 356 and Muhammad Jamil Asghar v. The Improvement Trust, Rawalpindi 1965 SC 698 ref.\n \nMessrs World Trade Corporation v. C.B.R. and others (1999) 80 Tax 84 distinguished.\n \n(d) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R.10(1) & (2)---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S.3; Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.32(1), 32(2) and 32(3) were pari materia to R.10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944---Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is the charging section, under which excise duty is levied and collected---Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that where by reason of any inadvertence, error or misconstruction, any duty or charge had not been levied or had been erroneously refunded, the person liable to pay any amount on that account shall be served with a notice within one year of the relevant date---Notice under R.10(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be served within three years if by reason of any mis-declaration, false information or collusion, any duty or charge had not been levied or had been short levied or had been erroneously refunded---Notices were served upon the assessee much after the expiry of one year, despite the fact that being under the ambit of Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 they ought to have been served within one year of the date when the excisable service had been rendered and for which excise duty had not been paid---Notices which formed the basis of claim of the Authority being barred by time, they were without lawful authority and such colourable exercise of power by Authority could be questioned before the Civil Court. \n \nMessrs Pioneer Belting Mills Ltd. Muridkey v. Joint Secretary Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan and 2 others 1983 CLC 784; Assistant Collector Customs and others v. Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps and 3 others 2001 SCMR 838; Messrs Irfan Ashraf and Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs and 3 others in C.P. No.D-625 of 2003; Federation of Pakistan v. Messrs Ibrahim Textile Mills 1992 SCMR 1898 and Zamindar Paper and Boards Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Lahore and 2 others 2003 PTD 1257 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=40", + "Case #": "High Court Appeals Nos. 31 and 32 of 2000, decision dated: 16-08-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Shakeel Ahmed for Appellants and Kh. Shamsul Islam for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KARACHI and others\nvs\nSyed MUZAKKAR HUSSAIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8435", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1848 = 2006 SLD 1848 = 2006 PTD 700", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].....S 4(2)---S.R.O. 546(I)/94 dated 9-6-1994---Determination of value for the purposes of excise duty---Condition laid down in S.4(2) Central Excise Act, 1944 had to be fulfilled for availing the concession granted in S.R.O. 546(I)/94 dated 9-6-1994---Principles stated. \n \nIf the wholesale cash price of the goods are taken as retail price under the cover of section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act for availing the benefit of S.R.O. 546(I)/94 issued under section 4(2) of the Act then the condition laid down in section 4(2) of the Act had to be fulfilled for availing the concession granted in S.R.O. 546(I)/94. Bear reading of section 4(2) of Central Excise Act shows that it imposes conditions that the retail price of the product should be legible, prominently and indelibly printed or embossed on each article, packet, container, package cover or label as the case may be. If the retail price was neither printed nor embossed on the packets or container whatever that was the manufacturer, who was supplying his product to a general body of consumers, whether they belonged to the class of consumers in open market or to a particular class of industries, had to pay excise duty at 10% on retail price basis. Because once the manufacturer had cleared the goods on, retail price then he was bound to pay all charges and taxes as envisaged in section 4(2) of Central Excise Act, if condition for availing the exemption granted under S.P O. 546(I)/94 issued under section 4(2) of Act was not fulfilled. \n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)\n \nAppeal to High Court---Question of limitation having not been taken up before the Tribunal nor indicated in the memo of appeal, could not be allowed to be raised during the course of arguments before the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeal No. 19 of 2002, decision dated: 27-01-2006, hearing DATE : 17-11-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Amir Raza Naqvi for Appellant and Raja M. Iqbal for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SIMPSON WIRE (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOM, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION), KARACHIIII, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8436", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1849 = 2006 SLD 1849 = 2006 PTD 955", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......Ss 4(3), 3-D & 35-B---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.96ZZE & 96ZZF---S.R.O. 546(I)/96 amended by S. R. O. 456(1)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Insurance Company---Levy of duty---National Insurance Company, a Government Institution having not hired any agent to whom agency commission was being paid, to procure business, show-cause notice to the said company alleging that Insurance Company was legally collecting the excise duty from the agent against the amount of commission and withholding the same, was not warranted by law and was liable to be set aside.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Appeal No. C.E. 159 of 2005, decision dated: 4-02-2006, hearing DATE : 3rd February, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. KHALIDA YASIN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-I)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Liaquat Hussain for Appellant. Arshad Mehmood, Law Officer for the Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8437", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1850 = 2006 SLD 1850 = 2006 PTD 1056", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......S 2(25)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S. 2(16)---\"\"Manufacture\"\"---Consensus on the interpretation of the word by the superior Courts.\n \nCivil and Military Press Ltd. v. Pakistan 1985 CLC 1021; Municipal Council Domoh v. Vrajlal Manilal & Co. AIR 1982 SC 844; Union of India v. Delhi Cloth' and General Mills AIR 1963 SC 79 and Mewa Lal v. Tara Rain AIR 1973 All. 165 ref.\n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--S. 2(25)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.2(16)---\"\"Manufacture\"\"---In order to bring an article within the framework of word \"\"manufacture\"\" an article must change shape; emerge as a newer product; be identifiable and commercially marketable and be an altogether different product.\n \n(c) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----First Sched.---Customs Act (IV of 1969), First Sched.---First Schedule to the Customs Act, 1969 containing General Rules for interpretation is to be read as part of the First Schedule under Central Excise Act, 1944.\n \n(d) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss. 2(25) & 3---\"\"Manufacture\"\"---Tea bag/paper bag---Department's action to treat tea bag/paper bag as an act of \"\"manufacture\"\" was wrong as in fact no independent product ever came into existence from the process of inserting the paper with the blended tea which in fact was a necessary act to use the paper pouches---Contravening act never assumed the status of manufacture---Demand of duty on paper bags used in the packing of tea as a result of a continuous process was not justified---Appeal was allowed and order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \nCollector of Customs v. Abdul Majid Khan and others 1977 .SCMR 317 and Madina Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs Adjudication, Faisalabad 85 Tax 263 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeal No. K-2370 of 1999, decision dated: 27-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER TECHNICAL AND MST. YASMEEN ABBSEY, MEMBER, JUDICIAL", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Sattar Solat for Appellant. Abdul Khaliq Senior Auditor/D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8438", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1851 = 2006 SLD 1851 = 2006 PTD 1238", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)].......R 6(2)---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S. 3-D---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.31---S.R.O. No.448(I)/2000, dated 1-7-2000---Exercise of power and discharge of duties---After creation of a separate Collectorate of Adjudication. all cases pending before various Adjudicating Officers stood transferred to the Collectorate of adjudication---Collector (Adjudication) was fully competent to adjudicate the case though it was remanded to the Deputy Collectorate or the Additional Collector.\n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--Ss. 4(2) & 3-D---Sales. Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.31---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr. 6(2) & 10---S.R.O. 232(I)/91, dated 10-3-1991---S.R.O. 448(I)/2000, dated 1-7-2000---C.B.R. Letter C. No. 1(20) CEB/94, dated 9-1-1994---C.B.R. letter C. No. 1(2) CEB/94, dated 1-2-1995---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Collection of excess duty, . etc.---Recovery of octroi charges---Department contended that octroi was not part of the retail price up to 30-6-1995 and could not be included in the retail price even then it was made a part of the retail price by the appellant and same was charged from the consumer in disregard to the explicit provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944---All such illegal realization of money was required to be deposited with the Federal Government under S.3-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and were required to be recovered as arrears of duty---Validity--Octroi charges which were not payable were being extracted from the consumer by the manufacturer and instead of paying the leviable tax, the said amount was being pocketed by misinterpreting the provisions of S.4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944---Central Board of Revenue had ruled out that the Octroi charges which had not been paid could not be allowed to be deducted from the retail prices being illegal---Octori charges were not paid on the supplies made within the municipal limits--No justification existed for the appellant. to add such charges in the retail price and if they had done so they could not claim deduction of these charges same having not been paid by them---Such was itself a violation of S.4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provided that retail price shall be the price fixed by the manufacturers inclusive of all taxes and charges---Appeal was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=6", + "Case #": "Ex. A. No. 1722 of 2002 and S.T.A. No. 1859 of 2002, decision dated: 19-12-2004, hearing DATE : 19-08-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SAEED AKHTAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND PIR AKHTAR HUSSAIN BODLA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Appellant. Khalid Bashir, D.R. assisted by Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, S.I.O. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8439", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1852 = 2004 SLD 1852 = 2014 SCMR 1658", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)--- Qatl-e-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence--- Sentence, reduction in---Death sentence reduced to imprisonment for life---Mitigating circumstances---Motive not proved---Two convicts sentenced to death for murder of one deceased---Effect---Accused and co-accused allegedly inflicted dattar blows to deceased and murdered him---Motive for the incident was that deceased had abused and slapped accused's father prior to the incident---Accused and co-accused were sentenced to death by Trial Court, which conviction was maintained by the High Court---Validity---Motive part of the prosecution story was not proved and remained shrouded in mystery---Prosecution witnesses had admittedly not seen the motive incident and were not present at the time---Question as to what provoked the accused and co-accused to cause multiple injuries with dattar on the body of deceased was not known to any one, thus it was a mitigating circumstance for showing leniency in favour of accused and co-accused in the matter of their sentences---Even otherwise, two persons (accused and co-accused) had been sentenced to death for the murder of one deceased, which in peculiar circumstances of the case was a bit harsh---Supreme Court maintained conviction of accused and co-accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. but reduced their sentence from death to imprisonment for life with direction to pay compensation of Rs.50,000 each to legal heirs of deceased---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.\n \n Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2006).\n \n Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No.815 of 2006).\n \n Mian Muhammad Sikandar Hayat, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.\n \n Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.-G. for the State.\n \n Date of hearing: 1st January, 2013.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeals Nos.814 and 815 of 2006, decided on 1st January, 2013. (On appeal from the judgment dated 7-9-2005 in Criminal Appeals Nos.2010 and 2011 of 2000, Murder Reference No.151 of 2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore)", + "Judge Name:": "ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, AMIR HANI MUSLIM AND IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD NADEEM WAQAS and another\nvs\nThe STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8440", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1853 = 2006 SLD 1853 = 2014 SCMR 1662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------S. 19(7)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). O. XXI, Rr. 89 & 90---Recovery suit--- Auction of -debtor's property---Legality---Objection petition filed by -debtor contending that auction process was irregular and illegal---Validity---Bid sheet was prepared by the auctioneer appointed by the Banking Court, who conducted the auction proceedings and submitted his detailed report---Said report reflected that proper steps were taken for conducting the auction proceedings and the highest bid was accepted, which was more than the value of the property shown by the -debtor---Judgment-debtor contended that auction proceedings were irregular and illegal but filed an application before the Banking Court under S. 19(7) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, instead of making an application under O. XXI, Rr. 89 & 90, C.P.C.---Even if objection petition of -debtor was treated as an application under O.XXI, Rr.89 & 90, C.P.C., -debtor had failed to deposit the amounts as mandated in the said Rules, without which the objections could not be entertained---Banking Court had issued notices in terms of S. 19(7) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 in the execution proceedings and thereafter it followed the inbuilt mechanism provided therein, which was summary in nature, thus the Banking Court was not bound to follow the procedure provided under O.XXI, C.P.C.---Highest bidder had deposited the auction amount within the stipulated time, and possession of property in dispute had already been delivered to the highest bidder---No inherent defect was found in the procedure adopted by the Banking Court in terms of S.19(7) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.\n \n (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---\n \n----O. XXI, Rr. 89 & 90---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 19---Recovery suit---Sale of debtor's property by auction---Objection application against such sale---Pre-requisites---Deposit of amount---Order XXI, Rr. 89 & 90, C.P.C. mandated that the objector should deposit the amounts mentioned in the said Rules along with the objection application---In the absence of the deposit, the application and or objection could not be entertained by a Banking Court.\n \n(c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)---\n \n----S. 19---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI---Recovery suit---Sale of -debtor's property by auction---Summary procedure---Once the Banking Court adopted the summary procedure provided under S. 19 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, it was not bound to follow the procedure provided under O.XXI, C.P.C. in execution proceedings.\n \n Mahmood A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.\n \n Ashar Elahi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1.\n \n Khalid Jamil, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.\n \n Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2014.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.189 of 2006, decided on 3rd June, 2014. (On review against the order dated 5-4-2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in E.F.A. No.469 of 2004)", + "Judge Name:": "NASIR-UL-MULK, AMIR HANI MUSLIM AND IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NICE N EASY FASHION (PVT.) LTD and others\nvs\nALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8441", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2010 2283 = 2010 SLD 2283 = 2010 SCMR 241 = 2010 PTR 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 3-B & 36-C---Notification S.R.O.456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Central excise duty---Determination---PCT Heading 9810.1010, 9801.1020 and 9801.1030---Distinction---Respondent-company paid Central Excise Duty on various functions at the rate of 12-1/2% instead of 20%, therefore, authorities sought recovery of short deposit along with additional duty under S.3-B of Central Excise Act, 1944---Appellate Tribunal partly allowed appeal filed by respondent-company and waived off additional duty and penalty imposed by authorities---Validity---Word \"\"function\"\" was not defined under Central Excise Act, 1944 or the Rules made thereunder nor so given in Notification S.R.O.456(I)/96, dated 13-64996, therefore, the same had to be interpreted and understood in its ordinary meaning and reasonably in the sense in which it had been used in relevant PCT Heading referred to by supplying ordinary sense and interpretation---Keeping in view the percentage of the charges, the manifest wisdom appeared to be that the functions related to matrimonial ceremonies were chargeable at a high rate of duty for the services rendered for such functions which excluded ordinary functions chargeable at less percentage of duty--Interpretation made by High Court of the word \"\"function\"\" used in PCT Heading 9801.1030 was in accord with rules of interpretation of statutes by applying the principle of \"\"ejusdum generis\"\" and therefore, no exception could be taken thereto---Appeal was dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3B,36C", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.1304 of 2006, decision dated: 30-09-2009, (On appeal from the judgment, dated 21-10-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2002)", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Sajjad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs HOLIDAY INN, MULTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8442", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1634 = 2001 SLD 1634 = 2001 PTD 3929 = (2002) 85 TAX 141", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJDND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].......S 14---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.37---Adjudication by Competent Authority---Principles of res judicata---Applicability---Principles of res judicata are applicable to the proceedings under S.14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 and S.37 of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Where the element of formal adjudication (by the Competent Authority) which is the main prerequisite before doctrine of res judicata can be pressed into service is lacking,, principles of res judicata would have no application.\n(b) Res judicata---\n----Doctrine of---Applicability---Principles---Mere issuance of show-cause notice--- Doctrine of res judicata is of universal application and in fact a fundamental concept in the organization of every jural society---Justice requires that every cause should be once fairly' tried and public tranquillity demands that having been tried once all litigation about that cause should be concluded for ever between those parties---Term \"\"res judicata\"\" signifies that the matter in dispute has been considered and finally settled and the adjudication has a conclusive effect upon the rights determined---Where dispute is yet to be settled which is at its initial stage and merely a show­cause notice has been issued and the prescribed process has just been initiated/commenced, such process cannot be stopped under the garb of doctrine of res judicata---Doctrine of res judicata can only be pressed into service where the matter has been heard, adjudicated and finally decided.\nLaw of Res Judicata by Hukam Chand 1894; Gul Hassan & Co. v. Federation of Pakistan 1995 CLC 1662; Rabat Mahmood v. Tariq Rashid PLD 1993 Kar. 648; Muhammad Anwar v. Messrs Associated Trading Co. Ltd. 1989 MLD 4750 and Mir Afzal v. Qalandar PLD 1976 Azad J&K 26 ref.\n(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Jurisdiction of High Court ---Scope--­Disputed question of fact---Superior Courts should not involve themselves into a thorough probe or in-depth investigation of disputed questions of fact which necessitate taking of evidence---In-depth investigation can conveniently and appropriately be done by the forums available in the hierarchy---Constitutional jurisdiction .is primarily meant to provide expeditious and efficacious remedy in a case where illegality, impropriety and t1agrant violation of law regarding action of the authority is apparent and can be established without any comprehensive inquiry into complicated, ticklish controversial and disputed facts---Controversial questions cannot be decided by High Court in exercise of powers as conferred upon it under Art. 199 of the Constitution.\nState Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. PLD 1983 SC 280; Attaur Rehman Khan v. Dost Muhammad 1986 SCMR 598; Muhammad Akhtar v. President, Cantonment Board, Sialkot Canu. 1981 SCMR 291; Mian Muhammad v. Government of West Pakistan 1968 SCMR 935; Zahid Hussain v. Dharmumal 1971 SCMR 110; Zuhra Begum v. Sajjad Hussain 1971 SCMR 697; Landale & Morgan (Pak.) Ltd. v. Chairman, Jute Board, Dacca 1970 SCMR 853; Mahboob Alam v. Secretary to Government of Pakistan 1969 SCMR 217; Umar Daraz v. Muhammad Yousaf 1968 SCMR 880 and Saghir Ali v. Mehar Din 1968 SCMR 145 ref.\n(d) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---\n----S. 37---Central Excises Act (I of 1944), S.147-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199---Evasion of sales tax and excise-duty ---Inquiry into the matter---Issuance of show-cause-notice---Contention of the petitioner was that the matter had already been adjudicated by the Authorities and the matter could not be reopened subsequently---Validity---Allegation of evasion of sales tax and excise duty running into billions of rupees---Where the matter had never been inquired into properly no bar could be imposed on a thorough and an honest probe-for which no restriction was laid in Central Excise Act, 1944, or Sales Tax Act. 1990, which were the governing statutes---No question of law of general importance having been raised by the petitioner leave to appeal was refused.\n(e) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n----Art. 199----Constitutional petition ---Alternate remedy--Interference by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution--­Effect---Where a particular statute provides a self-contained machinery for the determination of questions arising under the statute where law provides a remedy by appeal or revision to another Tribunal fully competent to give any relief, any indulgence to the contrary by the High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory Tribunals---Petitioner without exhausting his remedy provided by the statute tiled Constitutional petition---Constitutional petition, in circumstances, was not maintainable.\nShahid Agency v. Collector of Customs 1989 CLC 1938; Ali Hussain v. Presiding Officer PLD 1989 Kar. 157; Bhagan v. State PLD 1990 Quetta 41; Mojakkir Ali v. Regional Transport Authority PLD 1967 Dacca 6 and Azizur Rahman v. F.A.T.A. Development Corporation PLD 1988 Pesh. 9 ref.\n(f) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n---Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Invoking of ---Pre-conditions--­ Paramount consideration in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is to foster justice and right a wrong---Before a person can be permitted to invoke the discretionary power of a Court, it must be shown that the order sought to be set aside has occasioned some injustice to the parties---Where the order passed by the Authority does not work any injustice to any party, rather it cures a manifest illegality, then the extraordinary jurisdiction ought not be allowed to be invoked.\nRehmatullah v. Hameeda Begum 1986 SCMR 1561; Rafique Alam v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner 1990 CLC 1346; Muhammad Baran v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation) PLD 1991 SC 691 and Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLJ 1973 SC 42 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=14", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 417 of 2001, decision dated: 22-02-2001, (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13-2-2001 passed in W.P. No. 18757 of 2000)", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aitzaz Ahsan; Advocate Surpeme Court and M.ehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PUNJAB BEVERAGE COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. through. General Manager (Administration)\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8443", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1893 = 2011 SLD 1893 = (2012) 105 TAX 234 = 2011 PTD 2297", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......S 9---Offences and penalties---Counterfeit---Manufacturing of excisable goods in licensed factories of the other manufacturers--Persons, firms and companies having no factory or having factory of their own and getting excisable goods manufactured in duly licensed factories of other manufacturers according to their own specification and/or under their own brand names or trade names were not required to take out separate licenses---Manufacturer's agreements inter se were commercial transaction entered in to ordinary course of business---Goods manufactured in the duly licensed factories of the licensee manufacturers under their desired brand names, was neither counterfeit nor an. offence ---No complaint from parties owning brand names had supported such fact---Manufacture of goods in circumstances was not counterfeit.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.168---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), Preamble---Seizure of things liable to confiscation \"\"Under this Act\"\"---From the words \"\"under this Act\"\" would mean Central Excise Act, 1944 after its incorporation from Customs Act, 1969 into Central Excise Act, 1944.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----S.168---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), Preamble---Central Excise Rules, 1944 Rr. 197, 199, 200 & 201---S.R.O. 543(1)/75 dated 8-5-1975---Seizure of things liable to confiscation---Appropriate officer---Officer of Customs Intelligence---Section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 provide that Appropriate Officer may seize any goods liable to confiscation---Officer of Customs Intelligence was not the 'appropriate officer' because he was not vested with powers of seizure--When S.168 of the Customs Act, 1969 which was to be read as part of Central Excise. Act, 1944, Customs Intelligence Officer while acting as Central Excise Officer, he was only vested with the powers under Ss.13, 14, 19 and 26 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rr. 197, 199, 200 and 201 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.\n \n(d) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 26---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.200---Power of stoppage of moving vessels etc., search and arrest---Section 26 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and R.200 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 deal with scenario which covers moving vessels, carts and other means of conveyance carrying contraband item or items without the payment of duty---Philosophy behind was that these moving vehicles carrying goods were supposed to be with documented proof of payment of duty or with issued gate passes mentioning specific timings and destination on it--In case of failure to produce these prescribed documentation requisite to accompany the goods, Intelligence officer had been vested with the powers of seizure---Same was the general practice in the field---Officer of Customs Intelligence on information or on reasonable suspicion can intercept the vehicle coming out of factories on the way when found without prescribed accompanying documentation seizes the goods which were liable to confiscation---S.R.O. 388(1)/82 dated 22-4-1982 was not relevant being related to excise the power under various provisions of Customs Act, 1969 and not under the Central Excise Act, 1944.\n \n(e) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R. 197---Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Arts 4 & 5--- Authorized officers to have free access to premises, equipments, stocks and accounts relating to excisable goods and excisable services---Entry, search and seizure---Seizure of goods by the Customs Intelligence Officer within the licensed premises---Validity---Rule 197 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 deals with licensed premises and had given power to inspect the premises, goods, machinery and check the record---Power of seizure had not been conferred because duty was leviable on goods manufactured liable to be stored in a approved godown---If some raw material was found deficient or excessive, variation may be due to continuous process of manufacturing and entries in record were to be made at particular time and not after every minute or hour--Philosophy of criminology says that all the crimes which consist of commission of an affirmative act were proceeded by some covert or overt conduct which Wright be divided into three stages, first stage exists when the culprit first entertains the idea or intention to commit a crime, Second stage was preparation; third stage reached when culprit takes deliberate overt acts to commit the offence which was attempt; attempt begins where preparation ends---In cases. of manufacturing units attempt starts when manufactured goods were tried to be taken out of' the gate without payment of duty---Although a manufacturer produces more and showed less in record with mens rea that he will take out excessive production without payment of duty yet it was the intention or preparation and not the attempt because he could change his mind at any time and could decide to pay the duty---Difference in record and actual production could constitute a contravention and not the seizure---Legislature had not authorized to Intelligence Officer for seizure within the licensed premises which was essential for harmonious working within the department-Domain of Incharge Central Excise officer was not to interfere within the licensed premises with the exception of' inspection and checking of record---If on inspection within the licensed premises some elements of contravention was found, it could be reported to the higher hierarchy of Central Excise Officer---If; at all, some seizure was necessitated, Appropriate Central Excise Officer Incharge or Officer in supervisory jurisdiction could be asked to do the needful---Law had set the limits inter se the functionaries and forbid any of functionaries to usurp or meddle into matter of other functionary---Usurping the powers of' a functionary by another leads to complete fiasco---Machinery had delicately established an equilibrium and harmony among supervisory and detective functionary limiting them not to go beyond their limits---Article 4 of the Constitution read with Art. S (2) commands each and every citizen and functionary to remain within its bound---Customs Intelligence officer was not to be considered as omnipotent---Manner of exercising power was colorable exercise if it was violation of law and could not be stamped by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \nPLD 1969 SC 14 and PLD 1983 SC 457 rel.\n \n(f) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.26---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.200---Power of stoppage of vehicles etc., search and arrest---Customs Intelligence Officer intercepting the consignment on the road, checking the requisite documents to be carried with consignment, if not found in order could seize the goods liable to confiscation along with the vehicles also---Power of Customs Intelligence officer was well within his legal domain under S.26 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and R.200 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 which dealt with searching vessel, cart or other means of conveyance and not the licensed premises---It order to ensure smooth functioning of system Federal Board of Revenue had decided not to give unlimited and unfettered powers of Central Excise Officer to the officer of the detecting agency and split the same to the requisite extent creating an equilibrium/harmony keeping in view the job requirement and sanctity of' the licensed/regulated business which was immensely significant because according to Constitution of' Pakistan every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business.\n \n(g) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R.197---Authorized officers to have free access to premises, equipment, stocks and accounts relating to excisable goods and excisable services---Raid---Inspection---Seizure within licensed premises---Jurisdiction---Customs Officer had power to visit licensed premises not for raid but for inspection; he was not supposed to be on fishing expedition operating in the mode of search---If he finds some discrepancy on ground with some proscribed record, he could ask Central Excise Office to make seizure if required---If inc/large Central Excise Officer did not go by his dictates, he could ask higher officers in Central Excise hierarchy like Superintendent, Assistant Collector, Deputy Collector and Collector---Seizure by Customs Intelligence Officer within licensed premises that too of excisable or non-excisable items like packing/advertisement material, machinery etc. was nothing but transgression of his lawful domain---If there would have been any irregularity in search same could not effect the seizure of the excisable articles under the search, but here the seizure which was the main basis to erect the structure was without jurisdiction and lawful authority---Raiding party had no powers to conduct search to seize documents and goods by exercising powers under R.197 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 within licensed premises---Inspection and search were two distinct actions having different requisite touchstones---Where the legislature had expressly prescribed one or more particular modes of dealing with the matters specified therein, then it excludes any other method of doing such acts---If the statute enacts that it shall be done in such a manner and in no other manner, those requirements were in all cases absolute, and neglect to attend to them will invalidate the whole proceedings---Action of seizure within licensed premises was without jurisdiction and unlawful.\n \nPLD 1971 SC 124 Syed Allah Dost v. Haji Muhammad Alam and others PLD 1987 Quetta 235; Mansib Ali v. Amir Ali PLD 1971 SC 124; Muhammad Yousaf Khattak v. S.M. Ayub and others PLD 1972 Pesh. 151; E.A Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1964 SC 536 and Mir Dost Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan and 3 others PLD 1980 Quetta 1 rel.\n \nZaffar Ali v. Pakistan 1998 CLC 770; S.M. Yousaf v. Collector of Customs, Karachi PLD 1968 Kar. 599; Shokat Hussain v. Zulfiqar Ahmad PLD 1981 Lah.13; Anwar Beg v. Nazir Azhar PLD 1979 Kar. 687; PLD 1977 Lah. 924; Mohd Zubair v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1986 Pesh. 186; Deputy Collector v. Muhammad Mir 1989 SCMR 311; 1991 SCMR 590; PLD 1996 Kar. 68; 2003 PTD 2037; PLJ 2004 Lah. 1936; AIR 1960 SC 210; AIR 1958 Raj 296; Writ Petition No. 2559 of 2003; PLD 1958 SC 104; PLD 1975 Kar. 482; PLD 1981 Lah. 13 and PLD 1986 Pesh. 186 ref.\n \n(h) Administration of justice---\n \n----Proceedings initiate on a wrong legal presumption becomes totally unlawful.\n \n(i) Administration of justice---\n \n----Superstructures raised on wrong foundation remains defective and the whole of it was likely to crumble on identification of said defect.\n \n(j) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 26--- Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.210---Power of stoppage, search and arrest---Seizure of machinery---Validity---Although Customs Intelligence Officer had no powers of seizure but in the present case seizure of' machinery for main production was very unique action---Even if seizure would have been made by appropriate Central Excise Officer, it was not warranted under the law---Business growth had the top priority---Tax growth had primary nexus with business activity---If businessman/manufacturer will earn something, he will pay some share to public exchequer---Not only non-excisable goods like packing material and advertisement material had been seized but also machinery i.e. main source of production had also been seized and factory had been locked/sealed---Only those goods could. be seized which were liable to confiscation---Neither packing or advertisement material nor machinery was liable to confiscation---Such action was defended on the plea of being useful for evidence---Such could have been done by directing that machinery will not be removed from the factory, if action would have been from competent Central Excise Officer---After ascertained liability of tax in recovery proceedings such property might have been attached---No provision of law could justify seizure of machinery---Rule 210 Central Excise Rules, 1944 empowers to the adjudicating authority to order for seizure and not to the detecting agency---If Such action would have been taken by the competent/ appropriate Central Excise Officer even then he had to seek prior permission from the Federal Board of Revenue---Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was omitted just to avoid such drastic action---Such drastic action had deprived the State from future revenue, if the unit remained in operation it would have paid some share to Government exchequer---Order passed by the forums below for confiscation of seized goods including machinery were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal---Demand of principal amount along with additional duties/additional tax, penalties was dropped---Customs Intelligence authorities/Central Excise authorities were ordered to handover the seized goods/machinery and de-seal the factory subject to NOC by the National Accountability Court---In case of auction of any seized goods the amount received in Government exchequer will be refunded/ adjusted in favour of taxpayer.\n \n(k) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 15---Seizure---Jurisdiction---Customs Intelligence Officer was not vested with the power of seizure---For such job Customs Intelligence Officer had to associate the concerned incharge of the Central Ex'cise Officer or officer having the jurisdiction to affect seizure---Seizure was not made by the competent authority---However, the places from where recoveries had been made were not licensed ones; and was not a regulated business after obtaining a valid requisite license from the government; and such persons were not supposed to raise the objection regarding validity of seizure by an Officer of Customs Intelligence.\n \n(l) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Preamble---Recovery of record effected from Lahore, Hyderabad etc. and sent for adjudication to Rawalpindi-Islamabad---Territorial jurisdiction---Appellate Tribunal refrained to record finding on the issues because the forums below had not specifically recorded their findings in the light of arguments---Case was remanded back to the authority passing order-in-original to record his finding on the issue after scrutinizing all the record and discussing the relevant law.\n \n(m) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.18---Manufacture of cigarette---Calculation of duties---In the present case, each and every document recovered after raid was used to calculate federal duty, sales tax to exaggerate the figure of evasion to the climax without considering the aspect that it was being hit by philosophy of double jeopardy---On abilities, AR, stock register, trial balance, distribution or sale record; independent and separate calculations were made without keeping in mind that it resulted in duplication---If sale record was made basis then tobacco record was not be made a basis---Prosecuting agency had to select one of these because cigarette was manufactured by tobacco and from one quantity of tobacco, cigarettes were not to be manufactured twice in imagination---Front sale record quantity of tobacco have again been calculated through reversal method and tobacco record recovered had again been made basis for presumptuous calculation that so many cigarettes on the formula of one gram for one cigarette would have been manufactured, cleared without payment of duty and sold in imagination without having any evidence of sale---If from sale record Prosecuting Agency was calculating the tobacco used in it by applying the formula of one gram from one cigarette, through reversal method, then again calculation of Federal Excise duty, sale tax on tobacco record recovered from manufacturing premises of taxpayer were nothing but a case of double jeopardy; and the same was dropped / deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \n(n) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.35-D---Appellate Tribunal is a quasi judicial forum of law and had to go by evidence; and it was not the domain of Appellate Tribunal to go outside the evidence.\n \n(o) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.9---Show cause notice---While issuing the show cause notice, each and every document relied upon was to be given its copy to the taxpayer along with show cause notice.\n \n(p) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.34-B---Record to be made a part of file of First Adjudicating Authority---Huge and voluminous record had been kept in the safe custody to the customs Intelligence Office; even it had not been made part of the case file at the time of first adjudication level---Staff of customs intelligence brought the record during the argument and then took it back after showing documents under discussion during the proceedings-Prosecution agency if had danger of record being stolen, at least record in the shape of attested copies be annexed and made a part of file of First Adjudicating Authority.\n \n(q) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---\n \n----S.103---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S.26---Recovery---Search to be made in presence of witnesses---Record alleged to have been recovered had never been opened in the presence of taxpayer or private witness, which was clear violation of S.103 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.\n \n(r) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.3---Duties specified in the First Schedule to be levied---Scope---Excise duty is leviable not on the basis of theoretical yield but on actual production.\n \n(s) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 26--- Power of stoppage, of vehicles etc., search and arrest---Customs intelligence Officer if gets hold of the excisable goods being removed from the factory outside the gate or on the road without gate pass or payment of duty i.e. case is on the firm footing---If manufacturer denies ownership, seized goods were with the department, duty could be recovered through auction.\n \n(t) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss.9, 17, 3, 3-B, 4(2) & 14(2)---Federal Excise Act, 2005, Ss. 31(3) & 33(2)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.7, 9, 42-B, 43, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, 52-C, 53, 54, 174, 210, 226 & 248 ---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 3, 6, 14, 22, 23, 26, 33, 34, 36 & 37---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 24---SRO 333(1)/2002 dated 15-6-2002---Offences and penalties---Cigarette manufacturing---Calculation of duty---Presumptuous calculation that such and such quantity of tobacco might have resulted in so much production and then would have removed without payment of duty was a case which had to be proved through strong evidence---Such was a deeming scenario which could have been deemed to have been done in the past-All the links and nexus were to be established through un-rebuttable strongest evidence to bring the petitioner into net of conviction, there should be no missing link---Order had been passed mechanically on the basis of a set formula that what the raiding/investigation agency had written was sacred and petitioner's version was not to be adjudged on the standard norms of evidence---Undoubtedly document did not speak itself but these were to be corroborated and supported with some oral evidence, which could connect links to bring the taxpayer into the net of burdening with liability---Orders of both the authorities below were set aside and case was remanded to the authority passing order in original with the direction that first of all to record his specific finding on the assumption of jurisdiction; formula that one cigarette is prepared by one gram tobacco, element of wastage had been ignored; that he will record his finding to discuss on such aspect as well; that he will provide each and every copy to taxpayer of the document intended to be used adversely against him; that documents used against the taxpayer will be exhibited/marked through production of corroborative connecting evidence, if oral then subjected to cross examination and taxpayer will be provided full opportunity to cross examine and taxpayer be provided full opportunity to negate/rebut the evidence and if he wanted to produce some evidence, he will be provided opportunity and to rule out any duplication if made.\n \n1995 MLD 1532; 1994 PCr.LJ 475; 1992 MLD 2205; 2002 YLR 1231; 2002 MLD 1075; PLD 1997 SC 408; 2003 PTD 2037; AIR 1954 SC 447 and PTCL 2007 Cl. 60. (sic) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=9", + "Case #": "C. No.19/FE/IB of 20Q9, C.Nos.6 to 10 and 3/FE/IB of 2009, decision dated: 1st June, 2011. dates of hearing: 26th March and 1st June, 2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUNSIF KHAN MINHAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND IKRAMULLAH GHAURI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Nazir Azhar for Appellant. Ziaullah Khan D.R. for Respondent Khawar Ikram Bhatti, L.A", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs EXCEL TOBACCO COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED, CHAKWAL\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, FEDERAL EXCISE TAX, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8444", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2011 1894 = 2011 SLD 1894 = (2011) 104 TAX 403 = 2011 PTD 2465 = 2012 PTCL 269", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)].......S 3(A) [as inserted by Finance Act (IV of 2007)]---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), Ss. 5 & 22---S.R.O.No.655(1)/2007 dated 29-6-2009---Constitution of Pakistan Arts. 73, 75(3) & 199---Constitutional petition---Issuance of S.R.O. No. 655(1)/2007, dated 29-6-2007 under S.3(A) of Federal Excise Act, 2005 inserted by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f 1-7-2007---Petitioner's plea that impugned S.R.O. could not be issued on 29-6-2007, when S.3(A) of Federal Excise Act, 2005 was not part of law---Validity---According to S. 22 of General Clauses Act, 1897, rules, bye-laws could be made,' orders and notification could be issued under an Act during period between its passing and before its commencement---Legislature in its wisdom had chosen to use phrase \"\"passing of the Act\"\" in S.22 of General Clauses Act, 1897 rather than its receiving assent of competent authority i.e. the President---Phrase \"\"passing of the Act\"\" as used in S.22 of General Clauses Act, 1897 with reference to a Money Bill under Art. 73 of the Constitution would mean when such Bill was passed by National Assembly---According to S.5 of General Clauses Act, 1897 for being in consonance with Art.75(3) of the Constitution, a Central Act, unless expressed therein to contrary, would come into operation on date the same receives assent of the President---Powers under S.22 of General Clauses Act, 1897 could Abe exercised after passing of Mersey Bill and before its coming into force, thus, any rule or order passed thereunder would become effective in law, unless otherwise provided, on coming into force of such Act---Federal Excise Act, 2005 was passed by National Assembly on 22-6-2007---Impugned S.R.D. issued on 29-6-2007 in purported exercise of powers available under S.22 of General Clauses Act, 1897 was valid---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.\n \nPLD 2011 Kar. 415 and 2011 CLD 373 ref.\n \nVenkateswaraloo and others v. Superintendent Central Jail Hyderabad State and others AIR 1953 SC 49 and The State of Rajasthan v. The Mewar Sugar Mills Ltd. Bhopalsagar AIR 1969 Supreme Court 880 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=3AConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=73,199General Clauses Act, 1897=5,22", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 7608, 4558, 7770, , 22821 and 1398 of 2010, heard on 13-05-2011", + "Judge Name:": "SH. AZMAT SAEED, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz Ahmad Awan, Komal Awan, Naman Mushtaq Awan, Azeem Abbas Kazmi and Rana Javed for Appellants Asmar Ahmed Shamas, Agha M. Akmal Khan, Tairq Manzoor Sial, Izharul Haque and Ms. Kausar Parveen for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Brother sUGAR MILLS LTD\nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8445", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1337 = 2012 SLD 1337 = 2012 PTD 105", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Federal Excise Act, (VII of 2005)]......Ss 3A & 33---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.36---Sales Tax General Order No.03 of 2004 dated 12-6-2004, R.39(c)---Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue Rules, 2010, Rr.11 & 12---S.R.O. No.555(I)/1996 dated 1-7-1996---Special excise duty---Tax period 17-7-2005 to 17-12-2008---Deletion of special excise duty levied under S.3A of the Federal Excise Duty Act, 2005 @ 1% and penalty by observing that excise duty should be levied under S.3 only then, in addition to that special excise duty could be levied that there was no justification to levy Special Excise Duty @ 1 in the absence of Duty leviable under S.3 of the Federal Excise Duty Act, 2005; that S.3A of the Federal Excise Duty Act, 2005 was made operative w.e.f. 1-7-2007 but special duty was levied for the period 17-7-2005 to 17-12-2008 which was wrong; that power prescribed in R.39(c) of the STGO of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for conducting the audit of any taxpayer by the Directorate of intelligence and investigation provided that the staff of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation shall not undertake any audit of any registered person except under specific written authorization from the Central Board of Revenue in each individual case and that in the present case Revenue Officer had not been authorized by the Board to conduct the audit thus, whole exercise was patently illegal and all subsequent proceedings on the basis of illegal audit were also void in the eyes of law, without any authority and void ab intio---Contention of Revenue was that in the case of tax fraud the law did not impose any time constraint or the past period for which the record of an accused may be scrutinized---Registered person contended that department was not authorized by the Board to conduct the audit thus the whole exercise was patently illegal and subsequent proceeding on the basis of illegal audit were also void in the eyes of law without any authority; that Deputy Commissioner of Inland Revenue had been authorized to adjudicate the cases involving assessment of sales tax, charging of additional tax and imposition of penalty provided that the amount of tax involved did not exceed Rs.1,000,000 whereas Deputy Commissioner adjudicated the case involving sales tax Rs.33,222,896 which was without jurisdiction; that department had accepted the findings of First Appellate Authority to the extent that no principal amount of sales tax was recoverable and only special excise duty and penalty was recoverable; and that department had admitted that there was no taxable supply hence not liable to be registered under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 thus, demand of Special Excise duty and penalty for non maintenance of record was not justified---Validity---No interference was warranted by the Appellate Tribunal in the order of First Appellate Authority as the special excise duty and penalty both had been deleted placing reliance on the earlier decision of the Appellate Tribunal---First Appellate Authority had discussed all the factual as well as legal issues in detail and had rightly allowed the relief---Appeal of the department was dismissed.\n \n S.T.A. No.706/LB/2009 dated 4-11-2010; 2004 PTD 868; 2010 PTD 1376; 2004 PTD 868; (IITC 26 (Sindh); 1996 PTD (Trib.) 388 and 2011 PTD (Trib.) 1943 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=3", + "Case #": "S.T.A. No.606/LB of 2011, decision dated: 13-10-2011", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND M.B. TAHIR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Bashir Ahmad Kalwar, D.R. for Appellant. Muddassar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "C.I.R., Zone-II, R.T.O., MULTAN\nvs\nMessrs PRIME PVC FACTORY, MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8446", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1338 = 2012 SLD 1338 = (2012) 105 TAX 517 = 2012 PTD 144", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Federal Excise Act (VII of 2005)].....Ss 3(1)(d), 3(5)(c), 2(23), 2(17), 4, 14, 16, 19 & First Sched, S.No.9---Federal Excise Rules, 2005, R.40B---S.R.O.656(I)/2007 dated 29-6-2007---Excise duties specified in the First Schedule to be levied---Period 1st July 2006 to 30th June 2007---Services abroad---Excise duty had been charged for the reason that the services rendered came under the provisions of Federal Excise Duty which had not been paid---Taxpayer contended that during the said period there was no Federal Excise Duty and such services had not been generated in Pakistan as the remittances or the commission was received in USA or Canada and no transaction took place in Pakistan and subsections (1)(d) of S.3 of the Federal Excise Act was applicable at that time, according to which the duties specified in First Schedule to be levied were \"\"regarding the services, provided or rendered in Pakistan\"\"; and subsequently through Finance Act, 2008, S.3(1)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 had been substituted including the services originated outside but rendered in Pakistan---Validity---Held, there was no justification for levy of Federal Excise Duty---First Appellate Authority had rejected the version of taxpayer with the reason that the law provided that the kind of services provided by the taxpayer were subject to Federal Excise Duty and similarly placed persons were paying Federal Excise Duty on the same type of services provided by them---Such contention of First Appellate Authority had been controverted by the taxpayer with contention that none of such company was paying Federal Excise Duty---Observation by First Appellate Authority in respect of retrospective applicability of the remedial/curative legislation was not justified as substitution in clause (d) taking the \"\"services provided in Pakistan including the services originated outside but rendered in Pakistan\"\" had been made through Finance Act, 2008 which could in no way be made applicable to the case of the taxpayer which related to period of 1st July, 2006 to 30-7-2007---Order of First Appellate Authority was vacated and order-in-original was cancelled by the Appellate Tribunal and appeal filed by the taxpayer was accepted.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Federal Excise Act, 2005=3(1)(d),3(5)(c),2(23),2(17),4,14,16,19&FirstSched,S.No.9Sales Tax Act, 1990=3(1)(d)Federal Excise Rules, 2005=40B", + "Case #": "F.E. No.5/K of 2010, decision dated: 31st March, 2011,", + "Judge Name:": "JAWAID MASOOD TAHIR BHATTI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ZARINA N. ZAIDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aleem for Appellant. None for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HABIB QATAR INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PAK (PVT.) LTD.KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS SALES TAX and FEDERAL EXCISE (APPEAL), KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8447", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1855 = 2006 SLD 1855 = 2006 PTD 2194", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 4(1)(3)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.10(2)(3)---Manufacturing of drums by contractor (assessee) for its owner on supply of steel sheets and payment of manufacturing charges---Agreement between contractor and owner provided for reimbursement by owner to contractor excise duty and all taxes paid on manufactured drums after producing documentary evidence thereof---Show-cause notice after three years demanding duty from contractor, issuance of---Validity---Intention to obtain any gain or advantage on account of any misstatement, misdeclaration, under valuation, under assessment or suppression of any tax was totally missing---Such case could be termed as a case of misdeclaration or short levy of tax attracting R.10(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944---Loss of revenue, if any, could be retrieved within a period of three years---Case of fraud was neither made out nor established against contractor---Show-cause notice was barred by time and all proceedings in pursuance thereof were void and inoperative.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Spl. C.E. Appeal No.71 of 2002, decision dated: 14-05-2003, hearing DATE : 22-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND S.AHMED SARWANA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEHRAN METAL CONTAINERS (PVT.) LTD. KARACHI, through Director\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE (EAST) GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8448", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1856 = 2006 SLD 1856 = 2006 PTD 2222 = 2006 SCMR 1403 = 2007 PTCL 294", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......S 3 & First Sched.---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr. 7, 9, 52, 236 & 238---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Product \"\"Leucophor\"\"---Chargeability to duty---Laboratory test of such product showing same to be an Optical Bleaching Agent (Flourescent Brightening Agent)---Demand of duty by Revenue after classifying such product on the basis of test report under Entry No.04.03 of First Sched. of Central Excise Act, 1944---Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider, whether glazes, luster, lacquers, polishes and their ancillaries in any form would fall within ambit of Entry No.04.03 and were chargeable to excise duty; whether \"\"Leucophor\"\" being of such category would fall within scope of such Entry; whether petitioner had contravened Rr.7, 9, 52, 236 & 238 of Central Excise Rules, 1944; and whether \"\"Leucophor\"\" and \"\"Tinopal CBS-XD\"\" were comparable commodities and would be treated alike.\n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 3 & First Sched.---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199---Constitutional petition before High Court---Product \"\"Leucophor\"\"-Chargeability to duty---Laboratory test of such product showing same to be an Optical Bleaching- Agent (Flourescent Brightening Agent)---Demand of duty by Revenue after classifying such product on basis of test report under Entry NO.04.03 of First Sched. of Central Excise Act, 1944---High Court in constitutional petition set aside such demand holding product \"\"Leucophor\"\" not a \"\"dye\"\" while relying on its previous decision, wherein product \"\"Tinopal\"\" was found on basis of test reports to be an \"\"Optical Bleaching Agent\"\", \"\"Flourescent Brightening Agent\"\" and not a \"\"dye\"\"---Validity---Revenue, Appellate Authority and Member (Judicial) after scrutinizing entire record/evidence had concluded that product \"\"Leucophor\"\" was a \"\"dye\"\" chargeable to duty under such Entry---No test report was given in the present case showing \"\"Leucophor\"\" not capable of dyeing, while in case of \"\"Tinopal\"\", there existed test reports showing \"\"Tinopal\"\" not capable of dyeing---High Court ought to have relied on findings recorded by Tribunals below and might not have undertaken inquiry and investigation into nature of product---Findings of fact recorded by three forums below were based on evidence and were not suffering from any misreading or non-reading of evidence---High Court in passing impugned had travelled beyond its jurisdiction---Supreme Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned of the High Court in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.863 of 2000, decision dated: 19-12-2005, (On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-10-1999 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.P. No.D-514 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court and Advocate-on-Record for Appellants Muhammad Siddique Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN\nvs\nSANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8449", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2529 = 2007 SLD 2529 = 2007 PLJ 929", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--\n----S. 114 & O. XLVII, R. 1--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--Art. 199--Review applications--F.I.R. quashed--Question of fact--Beyond scope of writ jurisdiction--Scope of review--Limited--Granting of--Discretion of Court--There is an error or mistake apparent on face of the record--Review is neither substitute for full fledged appeal not it is akin to re-hearing of the whole matter--Even if view taken by Court is erroneous it does not warrant review of decision which can be exercised when error or mistake is manifestly to float on the face of record which is so patent that if allowed to remain intact would perpetuate illegality and gross injustice. [P. 935] A\n(ii) Application for review--\n----Matter of evidence--Patent error or mistake--Application for review has to show discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was not with his knowledge or could not be produced at the time when order was made. [P. 935] B\n(iii) Review--\n----Jurisdiction--Misconstruction or misappreciation of documents--Law applicable--Facts of case--Remedy--Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a routine matter or to re-hear a case which has already been decided--Conscious decision on a point of fact or law does not warrant review, rather remedy of aggrieved party lies elsewhere.\n [P. 936] C", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "R.A. No. 70 of 2005 in W.P. No. 2178 of 2005, decided on 26.4.2007", + "Judge Name:": "M. BILAL KHAN AND TARIQ SHAMIM, JJ.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. A. K. Advocate for Petitioner.", + "Petitioner Name:": "Begum AFSAR SULTAN QAZALBASH and 4 others\nvs\nMian NISAR ELAHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8450", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2530 = 2007 SLD 2530 = 2007 PLJ 939", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(i) Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (IX of 1991)--\n----S. 6--Suit for possession by pre-emption--Shafi Sharik, Khalit and Jaar--Performance of Talabs--Question of--Superior right of pre-emption--Adjacent with respondent's land--Both lands owned by respondent and the one sold lie adjacent to each other--Held: Respondent has superior right of pre-emption being Shafi Jaar\"\"--Appeal dismissed. [P. 941] A\n(ii) Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (IX of 1991)--\n----S. 3--Interpretation--Question of--Talab--Knowledge--Six days after the attestation of mutation--Exact date of knowledge--Not mentioned--Petitioner admitted that he came to know about the sale six days after the attestation of mutation--It is not at all difficult to ascertain the exact date on which petitioner acquired knowledge, as stated in the plaint--Statement of respondent exact date of knowledge has come out in the statement of witnesses--Held: Respondent has duly pleaded date, time and place of making of first \"\"Talab\"\" and further he has stated the names of the informer as well as the witnesses in the plaint itself--No ground being made out for interference with impugned --Appeal dismissed.\n [Pp. 941 & 942] B, C & D", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 304 of 2007, heard on 16.4.2007", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANAWR-UL-HAQ, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Faiz Muhammad Bilal, Advocate for Petitioners.\nMalik Ejaz Hussain Gorcha, Advocate for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "GUL MUHAMMAD and others\nvs\nMUHAMMAD LATIF" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8451", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2531 = 2007 SLD 2531 = 2007 PLJ 992", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--\n----Art. 199--Limitation--Petitioners review application was dismissed by respondent on the ground of limitation holding that application was barred by 2 years 6 months and 24 days--Assailed--Held: Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts and therefore entails inquiry and evidence for which adequate opportunity should have been granted to the parties, this was not done. In case of fraud, suspicious and collusive transactions, remedial measure for correction should be readily invoked, as fraud and misrepresentation vitiate the most solemn of transactions--No amount of lapse of time can sanctify such a transaction, in fact, on first availability opportunity such transaction should be set aside and any illegal gains reversed--Petition allowed. [Pp. 993 & 994] A & B\nPLD 1970 Lah. 614 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "W.P. No. 19427 of 2001, heard on 30.3.2007", + "Judge Name:": "SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mr. Shamim Hussain Bokhari, Advocate for Petitioners.\nCh. Anees-ur-Rehman, Advocate for Respondents.", + "Petitioner Name:": "SADIQ ALI and 13 others\nvs\nMst. NAHEED KAUSAR and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8452", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1857 = 2006 SLD 1857 = 2006 PTD 2889 = (2006) 93 TAX 130 = 2007 PTCL 263 = 2007 SCMR 1245", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJTND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......Rr 10(1)(2)(3), 12 & 13---S.R.O. 547(1)/96 dated 1-6-1996---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.32---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Evasion of excise duty---Show-cause notice under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944---Question of limitation prescribed in Central Excise Rules, 1944---Department issued show-cause notice to Sugar Mills under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, on ground that the latter while exporting sugar had evaded excise duty---Sugar Mills contended; that show-cause notices issued by Department were illegal and beyond limitation; that there was no specific allegation in respect of tax evasion falling under Rule 10(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944; that Department had knowledge about export of sugar by Mills but no action was taken against them, knowing well that there was no violation of ally provision but subsequently vague notices were issued by Department to cover limitation provided in Rule 10 (1)(2)(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and that provision of S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 was similar to that of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944---High Court while sustaining contentions of Mills allowed appeals of Mills---Leave to appeal was granted to Department to examine provisions of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and S.32 of Customs Act, 1969 and ratio of s pronounced in Assistant Collector of Customs and others v. Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838 and Collector of' Sales Tax and Central Excise Lahore v. Zarnindara Paper and Board Mills C.P. No. 702-L of 2003. \n \nAssistant Collector Customs and others v. Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838 and Collector of Sales Tax and C.E. Lahore v. Zamindara Paper and Board Mills and others C.P. 702-L of 2003 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=32", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 813-L to 820-L and 835-L of 2005, decision dated: 27-07-2006 (On appeal from the order, dated 7-3-2005 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.A. Nos.162 to 170 of 2001)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, \nvs\nMessrs PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LTD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8453", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2009 812 = 2009 SLD 812 = 2009 SCMR 1421 = 2010 PTCL 159", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)].......R 11---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 72-Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.33---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.66---Excise duty, tax, charges deposited by the taxpayer by mistake, error under coercion, or misconstruction, can be refunded to him---Period for refund of claim of deposit of the duty or other taxes or charges, having been provided, which would be reckoned from the date of deposit of said duty or charge. \n \nColony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Faisalabad and another PLD 1980 Lah.377 ref.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R. 11---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Levy of Regulatory Excise Duty on manufacture of sugar---Manufacturer by depositing the Regulatory Duty without challenging the levy of the duty or any protest and not claiming the refund within one year, was estopped to agitate the claim after six years, and the principle of laches and waiver would also come into play against the manufacturer---Principles. \n \nIncome Tax Officer, Central Circle II, Karachi and another v. Cement Agencies Ltd. PLD 1969 SC 322; Octavius Steel and Company Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Dacca PLD 1960 SC 371; Mst. Attiyya Bibi Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan 2001 SCMR 1161 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shahnawaz Ltd. and others 1993 SCMR 73 fol.\n \nCentral Board of Revenue and others v. Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. 1981 SCMR 303 and Messrs Pfizer Laboratories .Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 19998 SC 64 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=33Contract Act, 1872=72Central Excise Rules, 1944=11Sales Tax Act, 1990=66", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.1295-L of 2005, decision dated: 1st June, 2009, (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 12-2-2004 passed in Writ Petition No.1283 of 1989)", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND GHULAM RABBANI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ijaz-ul-Ahsan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners Izhar-ul-Haq Sh., Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LTD\nvs\nADDL. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8454", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1367 = 2004 SLD 1367 = 2004 PTD 791", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 2(25) & 3(1)---Tin containers---Levy of excise duty---Act of cutting tin plates to size, which were ultimately moulded and converted into containers, was a process incidental to manufacture of tin container, which was the final product---Such act of cutting tin plates to size would amount to manufacture within definition of term \"\"manufacture\"\" as given in S. 2(25) of Central Excises Act, 1944.\n \nAssistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Orient Straw Board and Paper Mills Ltd. PLD 1991 SC 992 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Special Central Excise Appeal No.58 of 2003, decision dated: 23rd September, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "S.A. SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Chaudhry M. Iqbal for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs SUPER CAN through Proprietor, Khawaja Tariq Rauf\nvs\nCUSTOMS, EXCISE and SALES TAX and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8455", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1368 = 2004 SLD 1368 = 2004 PTD 1068", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)].......R 43(2)---Closure of production---Notice of closure be given---Stoppage of production---Notice by the Association of manufacturers--­Validity---Joint declaration of closure given by the Association of manufacturers to the Department could not be treated as a notice of closure required to be given under R.43(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (1 of 1944)--S. 3---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.9---S.R.O. 456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---S.R.O. 772(1)96, dated 12-9-1996---Excise duties specified in the First Schedule to be levied---Levy of excise duty on the basis of production which was not cleared in protest against the levy of duty--­Validity---Collector of Customs & Central Excise himself reported to Central Board of Revenue that no clearances were made during the period of levy of duty, therefore, no duty was payable by them--­According to S.3 of the Central Excises Act, 1944 read with R.9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, central excise duty was no doubt leviable on production of excisable goods but payment thereof was to be made at the time of clearance of the same---Order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=43", + "Case #": "Ex. As. Nos.1046/LB, 1261/LB and 1262/LB of 2001, decision dated: 9-02-2002, hearing DATE : 7-02-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFARUL MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Arshad for Appellant. Adeel Hassan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8456", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1369 = 2004 SLD 1369 = 2004 PTD 1609 = (2004) 90 TAX 20", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....S 3---S.R.O. 456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---PCT Headings 9801-1010 & 9801-1030---Marriage Functions (Prohibition. of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance (II of 2000), S.2---Amount received by assessee-Hotel for rendering services for parties relating to ordinary matrimonial ceremonies and functions---Demand of excise duty @ 20% on such amount instead of 12.50% as statutory rate of duty ---Validity--­Word \"\"function\"\" was used in both PCT Headings 9801-1010 & 9801-1030---Word \"\"and\"\" used in PCT Heading 9801-1030 was not disjunctive---PCT Heading 9801-1010 was a general heading providing for all kinds of functions falling under any other specific heading---PCT Heading 9801-1030 was relating to marriage ceremonies--Other functions not directly relating to marriage could not be read or considered to be part of marriage ceremonies---Residual PCT Heading 9801-1010 providing for charge of exercise duty @ 12.50 % would apply to all kinds of functions excluding marriage ceremonies covered by specific PCT Heading 9801-1030---Impugned order imposing 20% exercise duty on account of ordinary functions was, against law. \n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---- Fiscal statutes---Where two equally reasonable interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, then the one favourable to the subject should be adopted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "C. A. No.8 of 2002, heard on 21st October, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sajjid Hussain and Mian Nazir Azhar for Appellant. Izhar-ul-Haq for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs HOLIDAY INN, MULTAN\nva\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX (ADJUDICATION), MULTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8457", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1370 = 2004 SLD 1370 = 2004 PTD 1725", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......Rr 174 & 176---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S. 2(3)---Licence fee--Advertising agency---Individual status---No opportunity of being heard---Post of notice through UMS---Levy of licence fee and penalty in the status of firm---Validity---Record showed that although the complainant denied the receipts of notices, they were sent to the complainant under UMS--­Licence fee was leviable on advertising services---Complainant had produced and put on record a certificate from the Radio Pakistan Authorities that the firm was a sole-proprietor one---If the complainant's claim was verified to be correct then the licence fee demanded was admittedly in excess of what would have been actually payable as prescribed under 8.176 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944---Order would need to be reviewed for determination of the correct liability of the complainant on account of licence fee for two years, especially when the complainant had produced a certificate from the Radio Pakistan Authorities certifying that the advertising agency was a sole proprietor firm---Contention regarding imposition of harsh penalty also needed to be considered and decided on merit---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Central Board of Revenue or the Collector reopen the Order-in-Original and direct the appropriate deciding authority to pass a fresh order to determine, subject to verification of certificate of sole-proprietorship produced by the complainant, the actual liability of the complainant on the basis of, the applicable rate of licence fee and also consider the complainant's contention regarding harshness of penalty imposed in the case after giving the opportunity of defence/hearing.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=174", + "Case #": "Complaint No.439 of 2003, decision dated: 3rd July, 2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rafaqat Ali Awan for the Complainant. Habib Ahmad, A.C. and Dr. Adrian Arkam D.C. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MEDIA NETWORK, MULTAN\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8458", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1371 = 2004 SLD 1371 = 2004 PTD 1796 = (2004) 90 TAX 177", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....S 12-A(1) & First Sched., Part II, Item 14.14 (as amended by Finance Act, (XII of 1991) and Finance Act (VII of 1992)---S. R. O. 519(1)/92, dated 25-5-1992---Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958), Ss. 3,13 & 22---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 157, 165. & 199---Constitutional petition---Levy and demand of excise duty on outstanding. advances of Wapda---Validity--­Legal status of Wapda was an Agency or Authority of Federal Government performing functions of Federal Government ---Wapda could not be burdened with a tax through a Provincial Statute and was entitled to same exemptions as permissible to Federal Government under Art. 165 of the Constitution ---Wapda being an .Agency of Government was entitled to exemption or \"\"Nil\"\" levy of excise duty as per Item \"\"g\"\" of S.R.O. 519(1)/92, dated 25-5-1992---High Court accepted Constitutional petition and declared impugned levy and demand of duty to be without lawful authority.\n \nCentral Board of Revenue v. S.I.T.E. PLD 1985 SC 97; Chairman, District Council, Rahim Yar Khan v. United Bank Limited, Rabin Yar Khan 1989 CLC.1397; Messrs Rice Export Corporation, of Pakistan v. Karachi Metropolitan Corporation PLD 1990 Karachi 186; Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and others 1997 SCMR 641; Water and Power. Development Authority and Ghazi Barotha Contractors v. Administrator, District Council, Swabi and others 2000 CLC 40 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=12A(1)&FirstSched.,PartII,Item14.14Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=157,165,199Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, (XXXI of 1958)=3,13,22", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 166 of 1996, heard on 22-01-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Saleem Chaudhry for Petitioner. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, D.A.G., Izhar-ul-Haq Shaikh and Karim Nawaz Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "WAPDA\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8459", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1372 = 2004 SLD 1372 = 2004 PTD 2026", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......R 226(2)---Conducting scrutiny of record---Essential conditions--Existence of a rule requiring maintenance of accounts and violation thereof were necessary conditions for initiating action in terms of 8.226(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944---Scrutiny of record would be restricted to prescribed records only---In absence of such rule, framing of charge of fraud against a party on the basis of non-prescribed record would be unjustified and illegal---Central Excise Officer not below the rank of Superintendent was authorized to determine the amount of liability---Legislature had intentionally kept such function within ambit of specified officers, who according to their wisdom were 'more competent to resolve such issue---Action taken by an unauthorized officer in absence of any express provision in law would amount to abuse of power.\n \nGovernment of Pakistan v. Shahi Bottlers 1987 SCMR 571 fol.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----Rr. 96ZZH & 226---Collection of excise duty on courier service--­Procedure---Every courier was horrid to issue a copy of consignment note to its customer ---Quantum of excise duty would be worked out on the basis of consignment note---Visiting team could not ignore to study and analyze such basic document i.e. consignment note---If there was discrepancy in consignment note and duty paid by courier, then other piece of evidence would be relevant for drawing inference.\n \n(c) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R. 226---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 34 & 140---Scrutiny of record---Statement made by a party while in custody of Customs Enforcement Staff---Validity---Such statement would lose its strength as a piece of evidence for having been taken under duress and threat--­Admission of such statement as a piece of evidence would be illegal as same did not relate to prescribed records---Reply made to show-cause notice, would not remain an admission---Reliance on such statement by Revenue, without following provisions of Art. 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 would not be warranted in law.\n \n(d) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)---\n \n----S. 24-A---Causes involving valuable rights of parties---Passing of quasi-judicial order in such matters---Essentials---Such order must be a speaking order manifesting by itself application of judicial mind by Tribunal to the issues and points of controversy involved in such causes---When reasons would not be forthcoming, then Appellate Court would be deprived of the views of subordinate forum---Impugned order would not be sustainable in law, if same was not a speaking order and was devoid of reasons.\n \nAdamjee Jute Mills Ltd. v. The Province of East Pakistan and others PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 272; Gouranga Mohan Sikdar v. The Controller Import and Export and 2 others PLD 1970 SC 158; Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC 173 and Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Secretary, Ministry of Labour and others 1984 SCMR 1014 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=226", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeal No.K-218 of 2000, decision dated: 22-11-2003", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Aleem Khan for Appellant. Aftab Hussain S.I.O. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8460", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 850 = 2003 SLD 850 = 2003 PTD 95", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpQT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 2(17) & 4(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--­Excise duty, inclusion in retail price---Duties of excise on cement were declared by High Court not to form part of retail price and the manufacturers of cement were not liable to pay such duties of excise forming part of retail price of cement---Contentions of the Authorities were that the provisions contained in Ss.4(2) & 2(17) of Central Excises Act, 1944, had been misconstrued and misinterpreted by ignoring its true signification, purport and meaning which resulted in serious miscarriage of. justice, that the excise duty being tax was included in `retail price' as envisaged in S.4(2) of the Central Excises Act, 1944, which included all taxes and charges which aspect of the matter escaped notice; that `retail price' had not been understood in its true perspective which included excise duty that provisions as contained in Art. 199 of the Constitution could not have been invoked without approaching forums concerned .available under the hierarchy of excise laws for the redressal of their grievance, if any, and that the manufacturers could not be considered as aggrieved party because it collected duty from the customers which was credited to the public exchequer and such duties were paid by the consumers and thus Constitutional jurisdiction as conferred upon High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not be invoked---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contentions raised by the Authorities. \n \nG.G. in Council v. Madras Province AIR (32) 1945 PC 98; Hirjina & Co. (Pak.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1971 SCMR 128;. Altas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1979 Kar. 545; Atlas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central excise and Land Customs PLD 1984 SC 86; Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) PLD 1992 .SCMR 847 Income-tax Officer v. Chappal Builders 1993 SCMR 1108; Ejaz Shafi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar, 604; Zafar Ali Khan v. Government of Pakistan 1997 PTD 1829; Indo Ashi Glass Company v. Income-tax. Officer 1978 PTD 2860; Central Board of Revenue v. Sheikh Spinning Mills Ltd. 1999 SCMR 1442; Deputy Collector v. Premier. Tobacco Industries Ltd. 1993 SCMR 447 and Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Customs House, Multan v. Pakistan Daries, Kabirwala 2001 PCTLR 550 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.369 and 370-P of 2001, decision dated: 26-09-2002 (On appeal from the judgment, dated 25-5-2001 passed by Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition 1144 of 1997)", + "Judge Name:": ", JAVED IQBAL, SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND FALAK SHER, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. Sardar Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tasleem Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both Petitions) Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in both Petitions)", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan Islamabad\nvs\nMessrs LUCKY CEMENT LTD., PESHAWAR" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8461", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 851 = 2003 SLD 851 = 2003 PTD 173", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpOD0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].......S 3 & First Sched., Hdg. 9817.0000---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R-96ZZO ---Excise duty on Services, levy of---Legality---Supply of national gas to consumers by a person, firm or company engaged in supply or distribution thereof---Such Service is an \"\"excisable service\"\" chargeable to Central Excise duty. \n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--S.3 & First Sched., Hdg. 9817.0000---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.96ZZO---S.R.O. 455(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Natural Gas Rules, 1960, Rr. 2(c) & 3---Excise duty on Services, levy of---Supply of natural gas to Staff Canteen located at production .fields by appellant--­Company engaged in exploration and production of gas---Adjudicating Officer adjudged such supply to be excisable services, thus, raised demand of duty---Validity---Not sufficient merely that a person engaged in use of gas became a person liable to duty only a person, firm or company engaged in supply or distribution of natural gas could be made liable to duty under S.3 of the Act read with R.96ZZO of Central Excise Rules, 1944---Appellant had never engaged itself in distribution or supply of natural gas to consumers, rather same was engaged in drilling out gas from gas-fields and for carrying on operations of gas drilling, field staff used gas for preparation of foods etc.---Such act of appellant did not fell within framework of excise law---Gas supplied from gas field to on site workers did not fell within definition of \"\"excisable services\"\" as given in S.2(2) of the Act---Duty was chargeable on service charges at the gate of 10% whereas appellant had neither charged its staff nor received any charges---Appellant did not fall within any definitions given in Natural Gas Rules,. 1960---Natural Gas Rules, 1960 provided an exception to a flow line used for transportation or conduct of gas within leased area or from well-head to purification plant or connection with main 'transmission line within such area---Field camps and masses of appellant fell within such exception---Contract with appellant also provided that gas' used at the site and in gas fields would be exempt from domestic taxation, which contractual provisions were given effect to through S.R.O. 455(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Show-cause notice had not been issued by an Officer competent to re-open past and closed transactions---Demand raised by appellant was not only illegal, but was also time-barred---Tribunal accepted appeal and set aside impugned order in circumstances.\n \n(c) Words and phrases---\n \n... \"\"Consumer\"\"---Meaning of. \n \nBlack's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeals Nos. H-168 and H-8 of 2000, decision dated: 20-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MRS. YASMEEN ABBASEY, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Naeem for Appellant. Abdul Saeed Khan, Superintendent for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8462", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2000 1720 = 2000 SLD 1720 = 2000 PTCL 455 = (1999) 80 TAX 210 = 2000 PTD 353", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJpND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 4(2)--Constitution of (1973), Art. 199--C.B.R. Letter No. 1(20)-DEB-94, dated 9-10-1999---Constitutional petition---Maintainability ---Determination of value for purposes of excise duty---Petitioners were manufacturers of beverages which were supplied in un-chilled form to the general body of consumers---Assessing Authority directed the manufacturers that chilling charges be included in the retail price for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty---Validity---Dispute in the Constitutional petition was limited to the question as to whether chilling charges should be included in the retail price of the beverages and answer to such question depended upon interpretation of S.4(2), Central Excises Act, 1944---Central Board of Revenue while issuing letter dated 12-6-1999 and by rejecting manufacturers representation had opined that chilling charges should be included while determining the retail price---Constitutional petition against such decision of the Central Board of Revenue was maintainable in circumstances.\n \nAttock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v.- Collector of Customs, Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Quetta and others 1999 PTO 1892; Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 1990 PTD 155 and Messrs Julian Hoshang Dinshaw Trust and others v. Income-tax Officer, Circle XVIII, South Zone, Karachi and others 1992 SCMR 250 rel.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.4(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---C.B.R. Letter No. 1(20)-DEB-94, dated 9-10-1999---Letter dated 12-6-1999--­Determination of value for payment of excise duty---Petitioners were manufacturers of beverages which were supplied in unchilled form to the general body of consumers---Assessing Authority directed the petitioner that chilling charges be included in the retail price of the beverages for the purpose of levy of Central Excise Duty---Validity---Retail price fixed by the manufacturers was embossed and printed on the bottles on which the goods were required to be sold to the consumers---Manufacturers manufactured the beverages in an unchilled form while these were sold in chilled form and the retailer or middle man incurred some additional charges, which could not be considered to be charges fixed by the manufacturers and could not be added to the retail price fixed by the manufacturers---Provisions of S.4(2) entitled a manufacturer to fix the retail price on which the goods were to be supplied to the general body of consumers while manufacturers could not therefore be forced to add chilling charges not incurred by them in the retail price--­Authorities, in circumstances, were not justified to force the manufacturers to include the chilling charges in the retail price of aerated beverages--­Letters, dated 12-6-1999 and 4-8-1999 issued by the Central Board of Revenue, therefore, were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.\n \nAtlas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs Circle 'C', Karachi and others PLD 1984 SC 86 and Deputy Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Peshawar and 2 others v. Premier Tobacco Industries Limited, Peshawar 1993 SCMR 447 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 15188 and 14794 of 1999, decision dated: 2-09-1999", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8463", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 852 = 2003 SLD 852 = 2003 PTD 777", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 36-C---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 46 & 47---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 196---Appeal/reference before High Court-­Scope---Failure of Tribunal to pass proper speaking order by considering all questions of facts and law raised by the parties---Effect---Tribunal a final forum for deciding facts---Scope of appeal before High Court limited to questions of law arising out of order of Tribunal---Disposal of appeal by Tribunal by a summary and slipshod order deprecated---Every judicial order should be a speaking order---Failure of Tribunal to pass proper judicial order by considering all questions of facts and law raised before it would amount to negation of justice as in such case High Court would not be able to decide questions of law. \n \n(b) Administration of justice---\n \n---- Every judicial order should be a speaking order.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=36", + "Case #": "Special Custom Appeal No.25 of 2002, decided on. 26-09-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Appellant. M. Farid-ud-Din for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGRO CHEMICAL PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8464", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 853 = 2003 SLD 853 = 2003 PTD 818", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 3-B---\"\"Shall pay\"\" and \"\"shall be liable to pay\"\" ---Distinction and connotation---Clear distinction exists between the phrase 'shall pay' and `shall be liable to pay'---Use of the phrase `shall pay' makes it mandatory on the person to pay the amount while the use of the words 'he shall be liable to pay' gives a discretion to the concerned functionary of the Department to impose additional tax or waive the same totally if in his opinion, the circumstances so required---Use of the words `he shall be liable to pay' in S.3-B of the Act also vests in the Adjudicating Officer, the discretion to levy or forego the additional sales tax in case of failure of person to pay the sales tax keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the reason for non-payment. \n \nShamroze Khan and another v. Muhammad Ameen PLD 1978 SC 89 ref.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss.36-C & 3-B---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.53, 10 & 210--­S.R.O. 546(I)/94, dated 9-6-1994---S.R.O. 552(I)/89 dated 3-6-1989--­Levy of additional duty---Claim of the Department was that if a person who under Central Excises Act, 1944 was liable to pay tax but failed to pay the same for any reason, he was duty bound to pay additional tax at the rate stated in S.3-B of the Act and no officer of the Excise Department had any discretion to waive or reduce the additional tax stated in the said section---Validity---Fact of late payment was conceded by the assessee but the enforcement of Central Excise duty under S.3(b) was contested by it on the ground that the late payment made due to circumstances beyond its control as out of the 100% of the total income of the assessee, it was paying 93% to Government of Pakistan in shape of development surcharge and excise duty thus leaving a balance of only 7% for the assessee and it was not at all possible for the assessee to pay the excise duty from this 7% as the major buyer (WAPDA) of the respondent had defaulted to make payment to the assessee-Considering that delay was beyond the control of the assessee and was not due to any wilful act of the assessee, Tribunal had rightly remitted the penalty and the additional duty which was punitive in nature---Finding of the Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity and was consequently maintained.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Special Central Excise Appeal No.75 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 868 of 2002, decision dated: 24-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Moton for Appellant. Syed Mohsin Imam for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, DIVISIONIII, SUKKUR\nvs\nMessrs MARI GAS COMPANY LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8465", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 854 = 2003 SLD 854 = 2003 PTD 895", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 12-A & 3---Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act (IX of 1972), First Sched., Art. 34(a)---S.R.O. 455(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.10 & 96-ZZJ ---Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Protocol Division) Letter No. P(3)-II/8/99, dated 12-10-1999--­Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.9---Expressions \"\"realizing of duty and not depositing\"\" and \"\"not realizing at all\"\"---Distinction---Failure of complainant/assessee to realize Central Excise Duty on telecommunication service billed to Diplomatic Missions, U.N. Agencies and other International Organizations---Demand---Validity---Department had not categorically stated that the complainant had realized the duty and not deposited---Lot of difference existed in realizing the duty and not depositing and not realizing at all---In the first situation duty if realized whether legal or not must be deposited with the Government Treasury irrespective of the period of limitation provided under R. 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944---Where the duty had not been realized the limitation as provided under R. 10, of the Central Excise Rules,, 1944 would be attracted---Notice was not clear about realization and deposit and there was no allegation in the notice to attract any provision of R. 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Collector (Adj.) to determine whether the complainant had realized Central Excise Duty, if so, to what amount; if answer to the first question was in the affirmative then the amount found realized be deposited by the complainant and if the duty had not been realized then the Collector (Adj.) to decide the case on question of limitation after affording hearing to the complainant before giving decision on merits.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=12", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 256 and 257 of 2002, decision dated: 28-10-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ayaz Shaukat for the Complainant. Khan Sarwar, Additional Director, Customs Audit for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKCOM LTD., ISLAMABAD\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8466", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 855 = 2002 SLD 855 = 2002 PTCL 449 = 2003 PTD 1002", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 4(2) & 2(1)(7)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--­Constitutional petition---Levy of excise duty on basis of retail price--­Retail price inclusive cat taxes and charges---Retail price whether includes excise duty---Validity---Ingredients of retail price as given in S.4(2) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 were that it would be fixed by the manufacturer; that it would be the price at which the goods brought were to be sold; that if more than one such price was fixed for the same brand the highest of such price and that it would include all charges and taxes but not the sales tax---Charges would mean and include the move spent by the manufacturer himself or any intermediary of the manufacture---Packing, repacking transport, advertising etc. were included---\"\"Tax\"\" had been used and was to be taken as a tax whether of Central or Provincial Government---Terms used and invogue were tax, charge, fee and duty for revenue realization---Legislature was fully aware of these terms and in S.4(2) for inclusion in the retail price two terms namely \"\"charges\"\" and \"\"taxes\"\" had been used---Word `duty' had not been used and such omission was significant so as to indicate intention of the law makers---If the intention was to include excise duty in the retail price it could have been easily done by adding \"\"duty\"\" or `excise duty'---If the retail price included `duty' that would amount to double taxation which indeed was not the intention of the law---Object was to impose excise duty once and not twice---Fiscal statutes were to be interpreted liberally in favour of the subject---Respondents agreed in principle that no excise duty could be levied or collected on excise duty-­Object of the Central Excises Act, 1944 or for that matter S.4(2) thereof was not double taxation---Excise duty was not to be treated as part of retail price for the purpose of duty of excise payable under the Central Excises Act, 1944---System of realization of duties of excise on the `retail price' conclusive of excise duty was illegal and without lawful Authority---High Court, in circumstances, allowed the Constitutional petition. \n \n(b) Central Excises Acct (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.4(2)---`Charge' and `tax'--Connotation--Charge means and includes the money spent by the manufacturer himself or any intermediary of the manufacture---Packing, re-packing, transport advertising etc. are included in the charge---`Tax' has been used and it is to be taken as a tax whether of Central or Provincial Government. \n \n(c) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---- Fiscal statutes are to be interpreted liberally in favour of the subject.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos. 1144 and 1526 of 1997, decision dated: 25-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUR RAUF KHAN LUGHMANI AND SHAHZAD AKHTER KHAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Latif Yousaf Zai for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LUCKY CEMENT LIMITED\nvs\nC.B.R and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8467", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 856 = 2003 SLD 856 = 2003 PTD 1006", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5TT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Board of Revenue---- Any interpretation placed by the C.B.R. on a statutory provision cannot be treated as a pronouncement by a forum competent to adjudicate whether judicial or quasi judicial. \n \n(b) Central Board of Revenue---\n \n---- Administrative direction of C.B.R.---Applicability and scope--­C.B.R. cannot issue any administrative direction of the nature which may interfere with the judicial or quasi judicial functions entrusted to the various forums functioning under the statute and that the interpretation of any provisions of the law can be rendered judicially by the hierarchy of forums provided for under the law like Collector or the Appellate Tribunal.\n \nMessrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others 1993 SCMR 1232 ref.\n \n(c) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--S.R.O. 344(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000---S.R.O. 94(I)/2002, dated 13-2-2002---P.C.T. Headings 2711.1100, 3814.0000 and 2710.0039--­Solvent Oil---Levy of central duty---Short payment of central duty on `Solvent Oil' had been alleged on the ground that the respondents had been paying the duty treating the said product to be falling under PCT Heading 2711.1100 whereas the correct heading was 3814.0000--­Collector Central Excise by his order had found that the said product was to be classified under Heading 3814.0000---Appellate Tribunal had found that the said product was to be classified under Heading 2710.0039 and modified the order of the Collector accordingly---Additional duty and penalty was also remitted ---Validity---PCT Heading 27.11 pertained to Petroleum Gas and other gaseous hydrocarbons whereas admittedly product in question was in liquid form---Respondent had not pressed their plea that the product in question was liable .to be charged under the said heading before the Tribunal---Against the statutory notification S.R.O. 344(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000 placing the said product under PCT Heading 3814.0000 Tribunal had opted to follow ruling of the Central Board of Revenue, dated 9-6-2001---Propriety---Any interpretation placed by the C.B.R. on a statutory provision could not be treated as a pronouncement by a forum competent to adjudicate whether judicial or quasi-judicial ---Said ruling of the C.B.R. had affected the merits of the case---High Court accordingly allowed the appeal with a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals filed by the respondents afresh without being influenced by the said ruling of the C.B.R. \n \n(d) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.35-C(3)---S.R.O. 344(I)/2000, dated 17-6-2000---S. R. O. 94(I)/2002, dated 13-2-2002---PCT Headings 2711.1100, 3814.0000 & 2710.0039---Limitation---Filing of appeal---Supply of copies---Failure of the Appellate Tribunal to provide the copies had resulted in delay in filing of the appeals and otherwise the appeals were in time from the date of delivery of said copies as the copies had been obtained on 18-12-2001 and the appeals had been filed on 8-1-2002---Appeals were accordingly found to be within time.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=35", + "Case #": "Tax Appeals Nos. 30 to 46 of 2002, heard on 21st October, 2002", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mian Qamar-ud-Din Ahmad for Appellant. Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX, PNCA, RAWALPINDI\nvs\nPAKISTAN OILFIELD LTD., RAWALPINDI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8468", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 857 = 2003 SLD 857 = 2003 PTD 1017 = (2002) 86 TAX 355", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5ST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 2(20) & 3---Levy of excise duty---Not all goods or services, but only excisable goods and services were made subject to levy of excise duty. \n \nModi's Refreshment Room and Bar, Karachi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others PLD 1983 Kar. 214; Hirjina & Co. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another 1993 SCMR 1342; South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. and another v. Union of India and another AIR 1968 SC 922 and Abdul Rahim and others v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar. 62 ref.\n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---- Taxing statutes---For resolving question as to whether or not a particular matter falls' within taxing statutes, one has to look merely at what is clearly said in such statute and there is no room for any intendment ---Nothing is to be implied or read in such statute---One can only look fairly at the language used. \n \nA & B Food Industries Limited. v. Commissioner of Income-tax/Sales, Karachi 1992 SCMR 663; The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, East Bengal v. B.W.M. Abdur Rehman, Manager, Taki Bara Taraf Wards Estate 1973 SCMR 445 and Tenant v. Smith 1892 AC 150 ref.\n \n(c) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--Ss. 2(20), 3, 3(1) [as added by Finance Ordinance (XVI of 1969)], S.3-C(b) & First Sched., Item 14.14, Column No.2---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R. 96-ZZI ---Excise duty on service, levy of---Scope--­Advances loans, lease or Musharka finance made financial institutions etc.---Not subject to levy of excise duty, rather services provided or rendered in respect thereof were made subject to such duty---Arranging payment was the matter between such companies and their clients, borrowers, customers, lessees. \n \nGhulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Addl. D. & S. Judge/Returning Officer N.A. 158, Naushero Feroze and others 1994 SCMR 1299 and Messrs Janana De Malucha Textile Mills Ltd., Habibabad, Kohat v. Federal Government of Pakistan and others C.P. No.D-690 of 1993 ref.\n \nModi's Refreshment Room and Bar, Karachi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others PLD 1983 Kar. 214 and Hirjina & Co. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another 1993 SCMR 1342 rel.\n \n(d) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss. 3-C(b) & 4(3)---Excisable service---Excise duty, collection of---Whether or not duty is dependent on charges for services, facilities and utilities---Nothing in S.4(3) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 to make subjecting to duty of any service, facilities and utilities at a rate dependent on charges therefor alone---Possibility or probability of services, facilities or utilities being not dependent on charges therefor stood catered for in the Act.\n \nExcise and Taxation Officer, Karachi and another v. Burmah Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan and 5 others 1993 SCMR 338 ref.\n \n(e) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 3, 3-C(b), 4(3) First Sched., Item 14.14 (presently 8193.4000) [as amended by Finance Act (XII of 1991), S'.2(5) & Finance Act (VII of 1992), S.4(8)]---Excisable service---Excise duty, levy and collection of---Services were subject to duty at the rate not dependent on charges, therefor---Government had nothing to do with taxation of price of goods or charges for service, which were to be fixed by manufacturer, producer or importer of goods and persons, who provided or rendered services---Only rate of duty was to be fixed under the Act, which was to be collected. in respect of such services. \n \n(f) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss. 3, 3-C(b), 4(3), First Sched., Item 14.14 (presently 8193.4000) [as amended by Finance Act (XII of 1991), S.2(5) & Finance Act (VII of 1992),, S.4(8)]---Constitution of Pakistan. (1973), Art, 199.-Constitutional petition ---Excisable services---Excise duty; rate of--­Reasonableness---Question as to whether certain rate of duty was reasonable or not, could not be gone into by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. \n \nAnoud Power Generation Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2001. SC 340 and Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 6 others PLD 1997 SC 582 rel.\n \n(g) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---- Taxing statutes---Question of reasonableness cannot enter a judicial mind while construing a taxing measure for determining its Constitutional--validity---Only consideration, which is germane is whether­ legislation challenged is permitted by Constitution---Reasonableness or otherwise of such statute is matter of legislative policy and is not for Court to adjudicate upon---Judicial approach is to allow Legislature flexibility at the joints, particularly when a taxing statute is under attack. \n \nInterpretation of Statutes by N.S. Bindra. 7th Edn., p. 771 and P.K. Kutty Haji and others v. Union of India and others (1989) 176 ITR 481 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.9705 of 1992, decision dated: 4-04-2002, dates of hearing: 23rd, 25th to 31-10-1st, 5th to 8th, 12th to 15th and 17-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik, S.M. Masood and Shazeb Masood for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8469", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 858 = 2003 SLD 858 = 2003 PTD 1354", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5RT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......R 10---Notice of recovery of duty short-levied or erroneously refunded ---Limitation---Assessee had deposited the instalments of duty levied and claimed adjustment in respect of the remaining demand on account of a passed by Lahore High Court, however, on insistence of the Department the entire demand for the 3rd quarter was paid by the assessee---No misdeclaration or false information was given by the assessee; no collusion between the assessee and any other person was found; no fraud, whatsoever was practised by the assessee and if the additional duty was not levied by the departmental offices the same was due to their inadvertence and consequently the period of limitation as prescribed in R.10(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 was attracted within which a show-cause notice was to be served on the assessee---Any notice of recovery beyond the period of limitation provided in R.10 was barred by time and excise duty could not be recovered/enforced beyond that period---Period of limitation provided in R.10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 being attracted to the facts of the present case, the show-cause notice and the demand created in pursuance thereof was held to be illegal, unlawful and void ab initio---Show-cause notice and all subsequent orders in pursuance thereof were quashed by High Court in appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=10", + "Case #": "Special Central Excise Appeal No.28 of 2002, decision dated: 14-02-2003, hearing DATE : 16-01-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aziz A. Shaikh for Appellant. Farid-ud-Din for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "GUL BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD. through Executive Director, Sukkur, Sindh\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTORII, CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOM HOUSE, S.I.T.E. HYDERABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8470", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 859 = 2003 SLD 859 = 2003 PTD 1444", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5QT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....First Sched., Entry No. 4-3---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.7, 9, 52, 236 & 238---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to ­appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether as per Entry No.4-3 of First Schedule to Central Excises Act, 1944-, glazes, lusterers, lacquers and polishes and their ancillaries in any form fell within the ambit of the entry and such were chargeable to excise duty and whether leucophor being of the category also fell within the scope of the entry, whether the authorities contravened Rr. 7, 9, 52, 236 and 238 of Central Excise Rules, 1944; and whether Leucophor' and 'Tenophal CBS-X were comparable commodities and were to be treated alike.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 62-K of 2000, decision dated: 25-07-2000 (On appeal from the judgment, dated 30-10-1999 of High Court of Sindh passed in C.P. No.D-514 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Saeed Khan Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Siddique Mirza, Advocate.Supreme Court and Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad\nVs\nSANDOZ (PAKISTAN) LIMITED BAHRIA COMPLEX, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8471", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 860 = 2003 SLD 860 = 2003 PTD 1454", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)].......Rr 192, 193, 194, 195 & 196---Remission of duty on goods used for special industrial purposes---Bond Register, maintenance of--­Responsibility---Bond Register was to be maintained by the Central Excise Officer incharge of the recipient mill and not by the mill itself--Default of non-entry in Bond Register could not by termed as breach of Chap. X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by the taxpayer or by the recipient mills. \n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 3 & 3-B---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.7, 10, 192 & 210--­S.R.O. 455(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---PCT Hdg. 73.10---Duties specified in the First Schedule to be levied---Metal containers--­Concessional rate of duty---Payment\"\" of Central Excise Duty @ 5 % ad valorem, instead of 15%---Validity---Appellant supplied metal containers only and exclusively to a recipient mills who was duly licensed for purposes of R. 192 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had a valid B-4 Bond as required under R. 192; had duly received the metal containers and stored and accounted for the same in the store-room after entering it in RG-II Register in terms of R. 194 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and there was no report about any shortage or misuse or misappropriation of the conditionally-exempted (in excess of 5% ad valorem) metal containers in the recipients mills---Appellate Tribunal condoned the non-issuance of AR-2 applications in view of compliance of all the provisions of Chap. X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944--­Impugued order was set aside and the appeal vas accepted by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=192", + "Case #": "Appeal Case No.7(1240)ST/IB/TRF of 2001(PB), decision dated: 25-01-2003. dates of hearing: 17th January; 16th April; 16th September; 3rd, 29th October and 11-11-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Issac Ali Qazi and Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer, Iftikhar Hussain, Superintendent, Hamidullah, D.S. and Hussain Muhammad, Senior Auditor for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8472", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 861 = 2003 SLD 861 = 2003 PTD 1582", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVJ5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 9---Offences and penalties---Imposition of penalty for failure to remove produced sugar from assessee's own godown a few days after the expiry period specified by the Collector, despite the fact that excise duty had been paid within the specified time ---Validity---Assessee could be penalized only if there had been any wilful evasion of duty on its part but there was no such allegation against it, nor there was anything on record to that effect---Appeal was accepted and order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \nPLD 1991 SC 963 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=9", + "Case #": "E.A. No. 622/LB of 2000; decided on 11-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, CHAIRMAN AND FALAK SHER, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8473", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 862 = 2003 SLD 862 = 2003 PTCL 728 = (2003) 88 TAX 128 = 2003 PTD 1593", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......R 10---Show-cause notice for non-levy, short levy or erroneous refund of duty or charge--- Essential conditions---Mere non-levy, short levy or erroneous refund of duty or charge could not become basis fo­r show-cause notice---Such notice must be founded upon non-levy, short levy or erroneous refund of duty or charge occasioned caused by any of the reasons respectively prescribed in sub-rules (1), (2) & (3) of R.10 to be -within scope and period of limitation separately prescribed in each sub-rule---Absence of any of such three tire-conditions/ingredient would render show-cause notice as illegal and :without jurisdiction.\n \nAssistant Collector, Customs and others v. Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838 and Ibrahim Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1989 Lah. 47 rel.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)-----\n \n----S. 35-C---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.10---Appeal---Question of law---Question of validity of show-cause notice was a pure question of law going to 'the root of the matter---Appellant not debarred from raising question qua legal fundamentals of show-cause notice in appeal.\n \nHaji Abdullah Khan and others v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others PLD 1965 SC 690; Gatron (Industries) Limited v. Government of Pakistan and others 1999 SCMR 1072 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Abdul Majeed 2000 PTD 359 and Province of Sindh through Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 6 others v. Messrs Royal Contractors 1996 CLC 1205 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=10", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 157 of 1999, decision dated: 10-02-2003, hearing DATE : 10-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Appellant. A. Karim Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs ATLAS TYRES (PVT.) LIMITED, SHEIKHUPURA\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), COLLECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8474", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 863 = 2003 SLD 863 = 2003 PTD 1751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 4(1)-Determination of value for the purpose of duty---National concept of equalized wholesale cash price elucidated.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--S. 4(1)---Determination of value for the purpose of duty---Element of incidental charges---Inclusion of---Words \"\"without any abatement or deduction except the amounts of duty and sales tax\"\" clearly mean that the charges (e.g. on account of loading, transportation, octroi, unloading, and duties and taxes other than central excise duty and sales tax) incurred or to be incurred post ex-factory up to the stage of wholesale market (or the consumers stage/market, if there is no wholesale market for such products) shall be included in the assessable value under S.4(1) of the Central Excises Act. 1944 irrespective of the fact as to whether these are borne by the buyers or by the sellers.\n \n(c) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 4(1)---Determination of value for the purpose of duty---Notional concept of assessment value---Notional concept of assessment value under S.4(1) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 implies the general wholesale price. as if it was transacted as on the spot cash, where the seller's price ought to include all costs, duties, taxes and charges up to the wholesale market (or up to die consumers stage if there is no such wholesale cash market) except the amounts of central excise duty and sales tax involved.\n \n(d) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)?--\n \n----Ss. 4(1), 4 & 3---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr. 7, 9, 10 & 210---S.R.O. 456(1)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Central Excises General Order No.53/67, paras. 5, 6 & 8---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990) Ss.2(46), 3, 6, 7, 11, 33, 34 & 36--­Determination of value for the purpose of duty---Element of incidental charges-­Inclusion of value of goods for purposes of excise duty--Incidental charges i.e. loading, unloading, transportation, octroi etc., claimed as paid by die buyer, were included in the value of the goods for paying duty in terms of provision of SA(1) of the Central Excises Act, 1944---Validity--Central Excise Duty was payable on the elements of post-clearance incidental charges (on account of load, transportation, octroi, unloading, etc.) incurred or liable to be incurred ex ­factory and these should be included in the assessable value under S.4(1) of the Central Excises Act, 1944.\n \nPepsi Cola's case Appeal Case No.52 of 2000; Coca Cola's case Appeal No.651/LB of 1999; Pakistan v. Popular Tobacco Co., Karachi PLD 1961 SC 66 and C.A. No. 1512 of 1999 distinguished.\n \nPakistan v. Kohat Cement Company and others PLD 1995 SC 659 rel.\n \n(e) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)-----\n \n----S. 4(1)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.2(46)---\"\"Determination of value for the purpose of duty\"\" and \"\"determination of value of supply\"\" ---Distinction--­Incidental charges---Demand for sales tax on elements of incidental charges was to be looked into from the angle of the provisions of S.2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which levy sales tax on supplies made under S.3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---As compared to notional concept of assessable value for central excise purposes under S.4(1) of the Central Excises Act, 1944, S.2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, provides for the duty-paid transaction concept of value by stating that it means \"\"consideration in money, including all Federal and Provincial duties and taxes if any which the supplier receives from the recipient for that supply but excluding, the amount of tax\"\"---Such distinction has to be borne in mind by the Department, while assessing the excise duty and sales tax simultaneously.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7(1246)/CE/ST/IB of 2001(PB), decision dated: 7-08-2002. dates of hearing: 9th,. 22nd January; 14th February; 11th March; 8th, 17th April and 14-05-2002", + "Judge Name:": "RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND S. M. KAZIMI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Abdul Wahab Qureshi for Appellants. Pir Alam Shah, D.R., Al-Haj Gul, D.R., Ishtiaq Ahmad, Law Officer, Ahmad Nawaz Shah, S.I.O. and Jangi Khan, D.S. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8475", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 864 = 2003 SLD 864 = 2003 PTD 1833", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 3-D, 4(2) & 12-A(1)---S.R.O. 4561)/96, dated 13-6-1996--­Excise duty, levy of---Lubricating oil sob in bulk---Not liable to payment of Excise duty under S.R.O. 456(I)96.\n \nPunjab Petroleum Industries (Pvt.) 1,mited v. Collector, Central Excise Writ Petition No. 14312 of 2001 and Adam Lubricants Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others Suit No. 84 r, of 2001 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No: 634 of 2001, decision dated: 2-02-2002, hearing DATE : 19-11-2001", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI AND FAZAL UR REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mumtaz Yousaf for Petitioner. K.N. Kohli, D.A.G. for Respendea", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs BALOCHISTAN MINERALS and othersOILS PRIVATE LIMITED\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8476", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 865 = 2003 SLD 865 = 2003 PTD 1855", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 11 & 36-C---Claim for refund of amount---Revenue partly rejected claim for refund for failure of assessee to produce original treasury challan while refusing to accept its photocopy as proof of deposit of amount---Appellate Authority rejected claim, but Tribunal accepted the same---Validity---Tribunal had recorded finding that amount claimed as refund had been duly deposited in treasury---Such finding of fact could not be a subject-matter of further appeal before High-Court--­Issue of evidentiary value of photocopy of challan had neither been raised before Tribunal nor they had actually ruled upon same---Such question, thus, could not be said to have arisen out of impugned order--­High Court dismissed appeal in limine. \n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 36-C---Appeal to High Court---Maintainability---Only a question of law arising out of order of Tribunal could be subject-matter of appeal before High Court---Question of law should be the one, which was duly raised before and ruled upon by Tribunal or arose as a natural consequence of its order---Where such conditions were not answered in appeal, High Court would refuse to entertain same.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=11", + "Case #": "C. A. No.49 of 2003, decision dated: 17-04-2003", + "Judge Name:": "NASEEM SIKANDAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Appellant", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, FAISALABAD\nvs\nMessrs CRESENT SUGAR MILLS," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8477", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 866 = 2003 SLD 866 = 2003 PTD 1899", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......Rr 10 & 13---S.R.O. 547(I)/96, dated 1-7-1996---Central Excises Act (I of 1944), Ss. 35(c) & 36(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Excisable goods exported without payment of duty--Limitation for recovery of evaded duty;--Export related to period from 2-4-1998 to 6-11-1998---Show-cause notice was issued on 21-5-1999--Plea of petitioner was that claim of respondent was time-barred--­Validity ---Such plea though raised in appeal was neither pressed before Tribunal nor was raised before High Court for consideration---Mere taking grounds in appeal would not be deemed to have also been pressed and rejected by Tribunal---Tribunal in its order had mentioned that no other ground was urged---No presumption, thus, could be raised that any such question was raised before Tribunal on behalf of petitioner to be raised before High Court in appeal---Such was a conscious waiver, which was not required to be considered---Supreme Court repelled plea relating to limitation. \n \nPioneer Belting Mills v. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance 1983 CLC 784 distinguished.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss. 35(c) & 36(c)---Special appeal before High Court---Scope---Only question of law arising out of order passed by Tribunal could be raised in appeal before High Court---Where no such question was raised before Tribunal, then same could not be raised before High Court in special excise appeal. \n \n(c) Limitation---\n \n----Question of---Waiver of parties---Duty of Court to take notice of such question---Principles.\n \nIf question of limitation is not mixed question of law and fact, then notwithstanding the waiver of such question by the parties, the Court must take notice of question of limitation. \n \nPoineer Belting Mills v. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance PTCL 1983 (CL) 24 fol.\n \n(d) Appeal (civil)---\n \n----Grounds taken in appeal, if not urged, would not be deemed to have been pressed.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=10", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.3471 of 2001, decision dated: 2-07-2002, (On appeal from the judgment of High Court of Sindh, Karachi dated 25-10-2001 passed in Special Central Excise Appeal No. 6 of 2001)", + "Judge Name:": ", JAVED IQBAL AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs THATTA CEMENT COMPANY, THATTA\nvs\n KARACHI BENCH, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8478", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 867 = 2003 SLD 867 = 2003 PTD 1931", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 2(25)---Manufacture---Ingredients---In order to bring an article within the framework of word \"\"manufacture\"\" such article must change the shape emerged as a new product be identifiable and commercially marketable and be an altogether different product. \n \nCivil and Military Press Ltd. v. Pakistan 1985 CLC 1021; Municipal Council, Domoh v. Vrajlal Manilal & Co. AIR 1982 SC 844; Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills AIR 1963 SC 79; Words and Phrases, Vol. 26 and Mewa Lal v. Tara Ram AIR 1973 All. 165 rel.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--S. 2(25)---Manufacture---Conversion of tea and filter paper into tea bags in a continuous process---Levy of excise duty---Validity--­Treatment of tea bag/paper bag as an act of \"\"manufacture\"\" was wrong as in fact no independent product ever came into existence from the process of inserting the paper with the blended tea which in fact was a necessary act to use the paper pouches---Intervening act never assumed the status of manufacture---Demand of duty on paper bags used in the packing of tea as a result of a continuous process was not justified--­Appeal was allowed and order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. \n \nCollector of Customs v. Abdul Majid Khan and others 1977 SCMR 371; Messrs Ilirjina & Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Karachi 1971 SCMR 128; Muhammad Ali v. State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi 1973 SCMR 140 and Madina Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs Adjudication, Faisalabad (2002) 85 Tax 263 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeal No.K-41 of 2002, decision dated: 2-12-2002", + "Judge Name:": "ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND ABDUR RASHID A. SHAIKH, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sattar Silat for Appellant. S. Aftab Hussain, D.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8479", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 868 = 2003 SLD 868 = 2003 PTD 2140", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Balochistan Excise Regulation, 1915)]......S 62(d)---Notification No. RO(EXT) 234-Tax/99/769-78 dated 20-8-1999--Government of Balochistan Memorandum dated 23-8-1999--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.151 & 199---Constitutonal petition--Inter-provincial trade---Interpretation and application of Art.151 of the Constitution ---Vires of Notification and Memorandum issued by the Provincial Government whereby tax had been imposed on the import of Pak-made foreign liquor and the action for collection of said tax--­ Notification or executive order, which invaded the authority of Art.151 of the Constitution, prohibiting the export of goods of any, class, from one Province to another, and was deterrent to free trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the, country could not be saved---Said Notification and subsequent memorandum were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect by the High Court with the observation that the petitioner would be entitled to the recovery of tax, collected from him on the basis of said notification and memorandum.\n \nIndian Cement and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others AIR 1988 SC 567 and Atiabari Tea Co. v. The State of Assam AIR 1961 SC 232 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Balochistan Excise Regulations (I of 1915)=62", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.471 of 2000, decision dated: 7-04-2003, hearing DATE : 18-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "AMANULLAH KHAN YASINZAI AND AHMED KHAN LASHARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "H. Shakil Ahmed for Petitioner. Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, Addl. A.G. for Respondent No. 1 Muhammad Ishaq Notezai for Respondents Nos.2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "MURREE BREWERY COMPANY LTD\nvs\nPROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Quetta" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8480", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 491 = 2004 SLD 491 = 2004 PTD 2570", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDQT0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Writ Petitions Nos.1166 and 2119 to 2121 of 2000, dated 19/03/2004", + "Judge Name:": "MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saqib Saeed", + "Petitioner Name:": "Saqib Saeed \nVS \nFederation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Commerce" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8481", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 492 = 2004 SLD 492 = 2004 PTD 2565", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDOD0", + "Key Words:": "", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,3B,8(6),13,14,14(2),19,42 ofthesixth Schedule", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.6721 of 2003, dated 13/05/2004", + "Judge Name:": "ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Raja Saleem And 5 Others \nVS \nFederation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance/Revenue and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8482", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 869 = 2003 SLD 869 = 2003 PTD 2562", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNDND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 22 & 9--Vexatious search seizure, etc. by Central Excise Officer-­Offences and penalties---Excess quantity of goods of what was shown in excise record---Confiscation of---Validity---Quantity of 455 bundles weighing 23 kgs. each was admittedly found in excess of the balance shown in the Central Excise records at the time of visit by the detecting staff---Explanation given by the appellant that excess of the balance shown in the RG-1 Register was previous day's production duty paid clearance, which had to be taken inside the Mills premises due to heavy rains was not convincing---Goods once cleared on payment of duty could not be taken back into the Mills without permission of the Central Excise Authorities---Order of the Adjudicating Officer to the extent of confiscation of the goods in question was declared lawful by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss. 9 & 22---Offences and penalties---Vexatious search, seizure, etc. by Central Excise Officer---Production capacity---Determination--­Demand of excise duty, in respect of previous production---Validity--­Department had re-determined the production capacity of the unit at 16 bundles weighing.368 kgs. per hour---Demand adjudged by the Adjudicating Officer was not correct---Department was directed to re­ determine the liability on the basis of Mill's production capacity of 16 bundles weighing 368 kgs. per hour and recover the same from it--­Redemption fine was reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.10,000 while personal penalty imposed was totally remitted by the Appellate Tribunal---Order was modified accordingly.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=22", + "Case #": "Appeal No.703/LB of 2000, decision dated: 20-03-2002, hearing DATE : 5-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN ABDUL QAYYUM, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND ZAFAR-UL-MAJEED, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mudassar Azam alongwith Shahid Pervaze Jami for Appellant Imran Tariq, D.R and Zawar Hussain, D.S. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8483", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2003 870 = 2003 SLD 870 = 2003 PTD 2872", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Bias-------Meaning---Bias is a state of mind which if exhibited by words, expression or body language or such expression which leads to a belief or suspicion in the mind of a party that he will not have a fair deal--­To determine whether particular alleged facts do constitute a bias does not depend on the perception, thinking, conviction or belief of the party---Test is whether a reasonable man apprised of full facts would conclude that there is likelihood of bias or reasonable suspicion of bias.\n \n(b) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)-----\n \n----Preamble---Object and purpose.\n \n(c) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)-----\n \n----S. 2(3)---Maladministration---Meaning.\n \n(d) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)-----\n \n----S. 9(1)---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman.\n \n(e) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---- Principles of interpretation.\n \nNawaz Sharif's case PLD 1993 SC 493: AIR 1960 SC 137; (1994) 1 SCC 243; Discipline of Law by Lord Denning, Pinner v. Everett (1969) 3 AER 257; Maunsell v. Olins (1975) AC 373 and Argon (Cargo Ex) Gandeb v. Brown LR5 PC 134 ref.\n \n(f) Interpretation of statutes----\n \n----Where primary construction defeats manifest purpose of a statute and leads to unjust results, absurdity, repugnancy, inconsistency or manifest contradiction, departure from the plain or primary meaning is not permitted.\n \n(g) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---\n \n----Preamble---Interpretation---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 being a beneficial legislation, its provisions should be interpretated in the manner, which may advance the object of the enactment by promoting the remedy provided under it and suppressing the mischief it seeks to eradicate.\n \n(h) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--S. 3---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Preamble---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)-­Issuance of notices alleging evasion of excise duty and sales tax--­Remarks by the Collector that he was going to create history by passing a landmark consisting of 100 pages---Allegations of bias, prejudice and passing of before hearing---Validity---Federal Tax Ombudsman passed short order and observed that Federal Tax Ombudsman had jurisdiction in the matter; that no maladministration in the case was found that Department will not take or initiate any recovery proceeding against the complainant till the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation.\n \nNawaz Sharif's case PLD 1993 SC 493; AIR 1960 SC 137; (1994) 1 SCC 243; Discipline of Law by Lord Denning; Pinner v. Everett (1969) 3 AER 257; Maunsell v. Olins (1975) AC 373; Argon (Cargo Ex) Gandeb v. Brown LR5 PC 134 and Complaint No.709 of 2001 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 1438-L of 2002, decision dated: 4-02-2003", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Viqar A. Khan, C.A. for the Complainant. Athar Minallah, Advocate Humayun Khan Sikandari, Collector (Adjudication) Customs, Central Excise, Rawalpindi", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GHARIBWAL CEMENT LTD., \nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8484", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2532 = 2007 SLD 2532 = 2007 PTD 1454 = (2007) 96 TAX 61", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......S 3---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.9 & 200---Payment of excise duty after removing cigarettes from factory---Validity---Liability of manufacturer to pay excise duty would be created at the time of removal of excisable goods from factory---Such liability would be determined on the basis of record of goods so removed---Board of Revenue could extend time for payment of excise duty, the liability' of which had already been created---Such payment would not exonerate manufacturer from charge of evasion of duty, which took place when goods were removed from factory in violation of Central Excise Rules, 1944---Principles.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.2614 of 2005, decision dated: 9-02-2007, (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dated 21-7-2005, passed in Civil Appeal No.17 of 1995, hearing DATE : 9-02-2007", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, NASIR-UL-MULK AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farrukh Jawad Panni, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN TOBACCO COMPANY LIMITED, ISLAMABAD\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, GUJRANWALA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8485", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2533 = 2007 SLD 2533 = 2007 PTCL 368 = 2007 PTD 1600", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 3, 3(b), 2(8) & 15---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr. 7, 9, 197 & 210---S.R.O. 1195(I)/90, dated 17-12-1990---S.R.O.1195(I)/90, dated 17-11-1990---Duties specified in the First Schedule to the Act to be levied---Audit by party of Director General of Revenue Receipts (Audit)---Raw material was found short accounted for---Levy of duty and penalty with the observation that procedural lapses i.e. RT-3 was not properly maintained---Appellant was warned to be careful in future with the direction to properly maintain Central Excise record---Validity---Audit party was the staff of Director General of Revenue Receipts Audit, it was branch of Auditor General of Pakistan, and its officers were neither Central Excise Officers under Cl.(8) of S.2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 nor they were authorized by the Collector or Central Excise concerned under R. 197 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to have access to premises, equipments, stocks and accounts of any licensed premises---Said party did not even fall in the category of officer mentioned in S.15 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 who were required to assist Central Excise Officers in execution of the Central Excise Act, 1944---Staff of Director General of Revenue Receipts (Audit) was not existent authority under the Central Excise Rules, 1944---Such an non-existent authority could not have access to the books of accounts and other record under the Central Excise Laws---President of Pakistan under the given notification had required the Auditor General of Pakistan to audit the receipt of Federal Government and not the record of the residential units licensed under the Central Excise Laws---Whole exercise conducted by the Director General of Revenue Receipts Audit was quorum non-judice---Appeal was accepted and order was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Appeal No. 122/CE/IB of 2005, decision dated: 12-02-2007, hearing DATE : 21st November, 2006", + "Judge Name:": "SYED SULTAN AHMED, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Arif Afzal for Appellant. Amjad Rehman, Dy. Collector for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8486", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2534 = 2007 SLD 2534 = 2007 PTD 1728 = (2007) 95 TAX 125", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......S 14---S.R.O. 543(I)/75, dated 8-5-1975---Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in inquiries under Central Excise Act, 1944---Determination of assessable value of the products---Office of Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent, was authorized under the notification---Respective officers had exercised their lawful jurisdiction while inquiring into the assessable value of the products---Investigation agency had gathered information and recorded evidence with regard to the assessable values of excisable goods which was well within the ambit of S.14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944---No further inquiry for purposes of sales tax was needed because additional liability of sales tax was only consequential. \n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 4(1)-Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Open market price---Assessable value---Determination---Provisions of S.4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were based on the notional concept of equalized wholesale cash prices---Where wholesale cash prices declared by manufacturers of exciseable products were of doubtful character, the actual assessable values could be ascertained either on the basis of retail prices and if there was no body of retail traders, the general consumer prices could be used for the purpose---Where the assessable values were ascertained on the basis of retail prices or alternatively the consumer prices, the incidence of excise duty and sales tax was to be deducted therefrom---Mechanism of \"\"work-back method\"\" explicitly provided for in the text of S.4(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944---Scope---Retail prices or consume). prices of a product or the product of a like kind or quality could validly be used for determination of the assessable values---Open market prices, where so needed, could be relied upon by the authorities for assessment of the fair values. \n \nMessrs Paramount Paper Board v. Deputy Directory, Intelligence and Investigation 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1751 rel.\n \n(c) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 4(1)---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Notional assessable price under S.4(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could validly be ascertained by deducting the element of central excise duty and sales tax from the open market price of an article or the article of a like kind and quality by employing the work-back method and such exercise, as a matter of fact, would conform to the spirit and content of the statute. \n \nMessrs Paramount Paper Board v. Deputy Director, Intelligence and Investigation 2003 PTD (Trib.) 1751 rel.\n \n(d) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 4(1)---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Open market prices---Determination of assessable values---Evidence---Open market prices determined on the basis of prices/information provided by the President of Anjuman-i-Tajran and other dealers formed a reliable basis for determination of assessable values of respective products through work-back method. \n \n(e) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 4(1)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr. 53-B & 53-BB---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Criteria for working out the correct assessable values of the manufactured products---Secondary and supportive evidence that was relied upon by the Adjudicating Officer was primarily based on \"\"cost of manufacture\"\" of paper and paper-board products---Pulp, various types of waste paper and wheat straw were the basic material which were utilized by the manufacturers in the process---Energy inputs such as electricity and gas were also consumed in the process of conversion---Some expenses were also incurred on wages and salaries of labourers and their supervisors in addition to the administrative overheads---Prices of such \"\"factors of productions\"\" could be added together after giving due allowance for the \"\"wastage\"\" in order to determine the cost per unit of the manufactured products---Such exercise forms a reasonable criterion for working out the correct assessable values of the manufactured products provided that the prices of input factors were fairly ascertained---Such secondary or corroborative evidence relied upon was valid and supported the fair assessable values that had been determined on the basis of open or retail market prices---Relevant aspect of the assessable values of the products had been examined in detail---Input/Output ratios of raw materials vis-a-vis finished products had been computed with due care---Assessable values so computed had been correctly applied for working out the liabilities of central excise duty and sales tax--Recovery of additional duty, additional tax and penalties had been correctly ordered---Order of Adjudicating Officer was upheld in toto by the Appellate Tribunal in circumstances. \n \n(f) Central Excise---\n \n----Documentary evidence regarding cost of manufacture of paper and paper-board products was exhaustive as the prices of waste paper (street picking, corrugated carton waste, old and used cement sacks/bags etc.) were confirmed from several sources including waste paper dealers and sales tax invoices of many registered persons. \n \n(g) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 4(1)-Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Prices of only two input factors (leaving aside the remaining factors) i.e. raw material and electricity consumed, when added together, were found higher than the declared assessable values of the products---Cost of manufacture worked out far higher if the costs of the remaining factors of production were also added---Such logic could not be ignored for determining the assessable value.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(1),14Sales Tax Act, 1990=3,11", + "Case #": "Excise Appeals Nos. 1366/LB, 1656/LB, 1658/LB to 1660/LB, 1662/LB, 2002 and Sales Tax Appeals Nos.1367/LB, 1661/LB, 1676/LB, 1683/LB, 1686/LB and 1687/LB of 2002, decision dated: 15-08-2005. dates of hearing: 25-04-2002, 1st April and 17-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Naveed Sohail Malik and Saud Nasrullah Cheema for Appellants. Miss Kausar Akhtar assisted Jamshed Yousaf S.I.O. for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8487", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1858 = 2006 SLD 1858 = 2006 PTD 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 3, proviso, 4(4) & First Sched.---S.R.O. 454(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.31-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Import of lubricant oils and grease---Exemption from excise duty---Availability of such exemption while entering into purchase contract with foreign supplier and establishing letter of credit, but its withdrawal before arrival of goods in Pakistan---Denial of benefit of exemption to importer---Plea of importer was that he had acquired vested right as to benefit of exemption and its withdrawal would not apply to concluded contract---Validity---Addition of proviso to S.3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 made S.31-A of Customs Act, 1969 was applicable to both levy and collection of excise duty on imported goods--Such amendment came into effect prior to arrival of goods in Pakistan and with application of S.31-A of Customs Act, 1969, any earlier date of execution of contract would become irrelevant---High Court dismissed constitutional petition in circumstances.\n \nAl-Samrez Enterprises v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917 ref.\n \nKohinoor Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan 2002 PTD 121 distinguished.\n \nM.Y. Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 1998 SCMR 1404 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-2125 of 2001, decision dated: 27 September, 2005, hearing DATE : 29-09-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, C, J AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Siddique Mughal for Petitioner. Nadeem Azhar, D.A.G. along with Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents Ataur Rehman for Respondents Nos.2 and 3", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs NASSER BROTHERS (PVT.) LIMITED through Principal Officer\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8488", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1859 = 2006 SLD 1859 = 2006 PTD 1174", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......S 3-D---Collection of excess duty, etc.---Claim of refund as on 7-6-1994 for the period 1/1991 to 6/1993 showing the refundable amount of central excise duty on account of sale of liquor---Claim was rejected on the ground that claimants had not been able to show that the incident of subject central excise duties had not been passed on to the consumers and the refund was not due in terms of S.3-D of Central Excise Act, 1944---Validity---Refund for period prior to 1-7-1993 could not be declined to assessee on his failure to establish that the burden of excise duty had not been passed on the consumer--Application of S.3-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on part of adjudicating officer, the subject claim was inappropriate so far as it related to the, period prior to 1-7-1993 and the claim in question should have been examined without recourse to the provisions of S. 3-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944.\n \nRupaly Polyestor v. Federation of Pakistan 199. PTD 54 rel.\n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 3-D---Collection of excess duty, etc.---Retrospective effect of the provisions---Language and expression used in the enactment does not suggest its application with retrospective effect---Section 3-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is prospective in nature and it cannot be applied retrospectively to the excess payments of excise duties prior to 1-7-1993.\n \nRupaly Polyestor v. Federation of Pakistan 1997 PTD 54 rel.\n \n(c) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R.11---Central Excise Act (1 of 1944), S.3-D---No refund of charges erroneously levied or paid unless claimed within one year---Claim of refund as on 7-6-1994 for the period 1/1991 to 6/1993---Claim was rejected being time barred under R.11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944---Validity---No suo motu power vested with the Central Excise Officer to grant refund--Refund could only be granted if an application was made by the person claiming refund within time of one year---Refund claim for the period 1 of 1991 to 6 of 1993 was lodged long after the expiry of the of the prescribed period of one year---Central Excise Officer had no discretion to condone the prescribed limitation---Refund claim was time-barred under R.11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and being so it was liable to rejection---Order of the adjudicating officer was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.\n \nDeputy Collector Issued Vide Order-in-Original No.246, decided on 28-8-1993 and Civil Appeal Nos. 101-K to 107-K of 1982, decided on 7-10-1991 ref.\n \nKoh-i-Noor Industries v. Government of Pakistan. 1994 CLC 994 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Excise Appeal No. 698/LB of 2003, decision dated: 28-09-2005, hearing DATE : 2-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MIAN MUHAMMAD, JAHANGIER, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MEHMOOD ALAM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Waqar Azeem for Appellant. Shamim Ahmad, Superintendent for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8489", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1860 = 2006 SLD 1860 = 2006 PTCL 116 = 2006 PTD 1751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......S 3-B---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R. 210---Notification No.PL-3(169-A)/99 dated 23-9-1999 of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources---Levy of additional duty--Opportunity of being heard---Case was decided on the basis that \"\"case cannot be kept pending due to non-appearance of respondents and was therefore, decided on the basis of evidence/documents available on record\"\"---Validity---Style of passing the order would be regarded as defiance of mandatory requirement of law by attempting to arbitrarily exercising of authority in flagrant disregard of prescribed procedure as exercise of authority without proper legal notice to respondent offended against principles of natural justice and would be void, illegal and arbitrary---Appellant had inalienable right of hearing and could not be condemned unheard before taking an action which was punitive in nature---Appeal was accepted by the Appellate Tribunal---Order was set aside and case was remanded to the original Adjudicating Officer with the direction to give de novo consideration to the dispute involved by providing fair opportunity of being heard to appellants and after looking into their oral as well as documentary evidence.\n \nPLD 1971 SC 192; 1986 CLC 2643; 2003 CLC 1011 and 2000 CLC 1257 rel.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----S.213---Service of notice---Sufficient time for service of notice---Service of notice in accordance with law had to be proved---Where sufficient time was not available for the respondent to appear and answer, the service cannot be deemed to be `due service'.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "Appeal No.7(357)CE/IB of 2002, decision dated: 8-12-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ANWAR ALI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/CHAIRMAN AND SYED SULTAN AHMAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sheikh Naveed Anwar for Appellant. Dr. Naeem Khan, Additional Collector/D.R. and Nizam-ud-Din, Superintendent for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8490", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "0000 0 = 2007 PTR 336 = 2006 PTD 2627 = 2006 SCMR 1970 = 2007 PTCL 251 = (2006) 93 TAX 56", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 2(25) & 3---Manufacture---Definition---Cutting-to-size of tin plates in order to make tin canes---Levy of duty on process of cutting-to-size of tin plates---Validity---Definition of \"\"manufacture\"\" as given in S.2(25) of Central Excise Act, 1944 would include numerous processes incidental as well as ancillary to manufacture of final product---Cutting into size was an essential process for achieving final product---No Can could be produced without cutting of tin to required size---Such process would fall within definition of \"\"manufacture\"\" being incidental to manufacture of final product---Excise duty had rightly been levied.\n \nCollector of CE & ST (Central) Karachi v. Hilal Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. 2001 PTD 3945 and Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Orient Straw Board and Paper Mills Ltd. PLD 1991 SC 992 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.934-K of 2003, decision dated: 18-07-2006, (On appeal from the judgment, dated 23-9-2003 passed by High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Appeal No.58 of 2003)", + "Judge Name:": "SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Rehan Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUPER CAN ORANGI TOWN, KARACHI\nvs\nCUSTOMS EXCISE and SALES TAX, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KARACHI, BENCHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8491", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2016 1366 = 2016 SLD 1366 = 2016 MLD 39", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTOD0", + "Key Words:": "Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) --------- \n----------S. 42 --------- Suit for declaration --------- Inheritance --------- Limitation --------- Trial Court while non-suiting the plaintiffs on the question of limitation had over-looked the relief claimed by them --------- Filing a suit for declaration to correct the revenue entries in the matter of inheritance was not necessary, however, if suit was filed for the purpose, Law of Limitation would not apply --------- Plaintiffs being legal heirs of the deceased were entitled to inherit the property to the extent of their shares --------- Findings recorded by the Appellate Court with regard to limitation were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs was declared to be within time --------- Revision was accepted in circumstances.\nGhulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1; Muhammad Zubair and others v. Muhammad Sharif 2005 SCMR 1217 and Mst. Gohar Khanum and others v. Mst. Jamila Jan and others 2014 SCMR 801 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Specific Relief Act, 1877=42", + "Case #": "C.R. No. 880-D of 1996, decision dated: 7-04-2015, hearing DATE : 7-04-2015.", + "Judge Name:": "ALI AKBAR QURESHI, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Shehzad Langrrial for Petitioners.\nNemo for Respondent.", + "Petitioner Name:": "MST. KATTU and others\nVS\nEESA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8492", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 761 = 2005 SLD 761 = 2005 PTCL 174 = 2005 PTD 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRVNTND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 3D---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.3B---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Exemption from levy of Central Excise Duty and Sales Tax---Refund of excess payment--­Petitioner had sought declaration that billets be also treated at par with Ingots, in other words billets be also exempted from levy of Central Excise Duty and Sales Tax and billets be levied and brought at par with rate applicable to Ingots---Petitioner had also prayed that authorities be directed to refund to petitioner excess payments made by it towards Central Excise Duty and Sales Tax---Collector Central Excise had conceded that billets and Ingots were same product and billets were liable to same - duty as Ingots---Collector, however had opposed the prayer for refund of amount of Tax on the ground that incidence of Tax had been passed on to the consumers under S.3D of Central Excises Act, 1944 and under S.3B of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Whether or not incidence of Tax had been passed on to the consumer, was a question of fact which could not be investigated in Constitutional petition---Prayer of petitioner with regard to declaration that billets be also treated at par with Ingots and exemption from levy of Central Excise Duty and Sales Tax, was allowed, but with regard to refund of excess payment, petitioner was at liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of the same. \n \nAhmed Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1991 PTD 618 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3", + "Case #": "C. Ps. Nos. D-156 and 156 of 1993, decision dated: 18-03-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S.A. SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Saleem for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABBAS STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8493", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 762 = 2005 SLD 762 = 2005 PTD 150", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....S 35-B---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.149---Appeal--­Limitation---Appeal against the order of Adjudicating Officer was filed by appellant Department after a lapse of about 5 months without giving explanation for said delay---Appellant. Department had totally ignored said legal aspect of the case as neither any reason of such delay had been explained in the memo. of appeal nor any application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 had been filed along with it---During course of hearing of appeal, on raising point of delay by respondent Assessee appellant Department fled application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 alleging that delay occurred due to procedural matters relating to sanctioning and arranging funds for deposition appeal's fee---Said ground taken by a Government functionary after a lapse of about 2 years was nothing, but a lame excuse as ignorance of law had always been considered as no excuse---Appellant be it a Government or ordinary citizen had always been treated equally---Even if it was taken as correct that due to office correspondence, appellant Department was not able to arrange fee in time, then in such, circumstances a special procedure had been provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which was applicable in the case and could be followed for advancement of justice---By virtue of S.149, C.P.C. opportunity of late payment had been provided to party agitating before legal forum but said procedure was not adopted by the appellant Department in the present case---Appeal being hopelessly time-barred, was dismissed.\n \n(b) Administration of justice---\n \n----No hard and fast rule was required for administration of justice, but applicability of any specific law was dependant on the fact of particular case. \n \n(c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---\n \n----S.5---Delay---Condonation---In case of delay each and every date had to be explained. \n \n2002 PTD 549 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=35", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeal No.K-46 of 2002, decision dated: 4-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "MS. YASMIN ABBASEY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) AND ZAFAR IQBAL, MEMBER (TECHNICAL-III)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Barkat Ali Bukhari, Addl. Coll./D.R. for Appellant. Siraj-ul-Haq, A.R. for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8494", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 763 = 2005 SLD 763 = 2005 PTD 498", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)......Sched I, Item No. 14.14---Finance Act (VII of 1992), Ss. 4(8) & 12-A---Notification S.R.O. 519(I)/1992, dated 25-5-1992---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.165, 165-A & 185 (3)---Central excise duty, levy of---Exemption from central excise duty---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether Water and Power Development Authority was not a Government Authority/ functionary for the purpose of exemption from the payment of central, excise duty on services in shape of bank loans under the provisions of Notification S.R.O. 519(I)/1992; dated 25-5-1992; whether under Arts. 165 and 165A of the Constitution, the Government was -empowered to impose tax upon the corporation like Water and Power Development Authority etc. and whether High Court legally was not justified to declare that Water and Power Development Authority a Government functionary for the purpose of exemption of excise tax in view of the s of Supreme Court in cases titled Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others vs. WAPDA and others, reported, as 1997 SCMR 641 and WAPDA and another v. Administrator, District Council, Swabi and others reported as 2000 CLC 40, because both the s dealt altogether different subject and it had not been held therein that the Water and Power Development Authority was Government functionary. \n \nMessrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and others 1997 SCMR 641 and WAPDA and another v. Administrator, District Council, Swabi and others 2000 CLC 40 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 1205-L to 1208-L of 2004, decision dated: 3rd August, 2004 (On appeal against the judgment, dated 22-1-2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions Nos. 166, 3501, 3522, 19483 and 19895 of 1996)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izhar-ul-Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners Nemo for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE\nvs\nWAPDA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8495", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 764 = 2005 SLD 764 = 2005 PTD 719", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S. 7---Indirect taxes---Where the burden is passed on to the consumers, the assessee collects the duty as agent of the Government or defrays it on behalf of the actual consumer and only such consumer is entitled to claim refund ---Assessee having failed to show that he had borne the burden of tax and not passed it on to the consumers, his Constitutional petition was dismissed---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.\n \nCollector of Central Excise and Sales Tax v. Rupali Polyester Ltd. 2002 SCMR 738; Sajjad Nabi Dar and Co. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi PLD 1977 SC 437 and Federation of Pakistan v. Metropolitan Steel Corporation 2002 PTD 87 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=7", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. 1454 of 1999, decided- on 7-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "S.I.H. Zaidi for Petitioner. Faisal Arab, Standing Counsel and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "I.C.I. PAKISTAN LTD\nvs\nPAKISTAN. through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8496", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 765 = 2005 SLD 765 = 2005 PTD 751", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 9, 11 & 36-C---Appeal to High Court---Non-payment of Central Excise Duty in time---Imposition of penalty---Appellant made substantial payment of Central Excise Duty levied upon it, but could not pay balance amount in time and penalty was imposed upon it for such default--- Appellate Tribunal reduced amount of penalty holding that non-payment of Excise Duty by appellant was not deliberate or wilful---Penalty imposed on appellant was set aside by High Court with direction to deposit balance amount within a period of seven days failing which its appeal would stand dismissed.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=11", + "Case #": "Appeal C.A. No. 54 of 1999, decision dated: 15-12-2004", + "Judge Name:": "TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Sahibzada Riaz Anwar for Appellant. Abdul Karim Malik for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GULBERG KABANA RESTAURANT through General Manager\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE NO.II and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8497", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 766 = 2005 SLD 766 = 2005 PTD 911", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)].....R 9, fifth proviso---S.R.O. Nil(I)/99, dated 16-9-1999---S.R.O. No.454(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.31-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Demand of Central Excise Duty at 15% ad valorem by virtue of S.R.O. Nil(I)/99, dated 16-9-1999 having amended or superseded S.R.O. No.454(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Validity---Provision of S.31-A of Customs Act, 1969 could not be extended to Central Excise Duty as there was no comparable provision in the Central Excises Act, 1944---Fifth Proviso to R.9 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 could not be interpreted to take away vested right of a person---Petitioner was entitled to benefit of S.R.O. 454(I)/96 and was not liable to pay Central Excise Duty under S.R.O. Nil (I)/99---High Court disposed of the Constitutional petition in such terms. \nKohinoor Textile Mills Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (C.P. No. D-1582 of 1999) and by , dated 13-12-1999 fol.\n(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n----Arts. 189 & 201---Judgment of Division Bench of High Court---Binding effect---Such would be binding on another Division Bench of same High Court. \n(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n----Art. 201---Judgment of High Court---Effect---Such , until reversed by Supreme Court, is good law.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=9", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1532 of 1999, decision dated: 21st February, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Saeed-ud-Din Nasir for Petitioner. Raja Mohammad Iqbal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LTD. through Representative\nvs\nFEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8498", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 767 = 2005 SLD 767 = 2005 PTD 950", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......R 10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Issuance of letter demanding excise duty at specified rate---Validity---Case of department was of short levy of duty payable under R.10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944---Show-cause notice as required under R.10 had not been issued to assessee---Impugned decision conveyed through such letter was violative of mandatory requirement of issuance of show-cause notice---High Court accepted Constitutional petition while declaring impugned decision to be illegal, void and inoperative and directed department not to take any action in pursuance thereof.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=10", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-713 of 2002, decision dated: 7-10-2003", + "Judge Name:": "S. AHMED SARWANA AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawed Khan for Petitioner. Ziad-ud-Din Nasir, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Raja Mohammad Iqbal for Respondent No. 2", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASIA LUBRICANTS, KARACHI\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8499", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 768 = 2005 SLD 768 = 2005 PTD 955", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 4 & First Sched., Item 04.03---Food colours---Taxability---All items mentioned in Item 04.03 of First Schedule of Central Excises Act, 1944 were for use in painting of buildings etc., and were never to be used for any edible purpose---Food colours were not mentioned in list of such items---Any ambiguous provision had to be resolved in favour of assessee and against taxing authority---Food colours held were not to fall within category of Item 04.03 of Schedule I. \n Collector of Central Excise v. Azizuddin PLD 1970 SC 439; Data Steel Mills v. Government of Balochistan 1983 CLC 571; Sethisthan Board v. Collector of Excise PLD 1988 Lahore 282 and the case of Searle Pakistan v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1993 Kar. 799 ref.\n Muhammad Aamir v. Controller of Duties PLD 1981 SC 119 and Commissioner of Sales Tax U.P. v. S.N. Brothers Kanpur PTCL 1989 FC 201 rel.\n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n----Fiscal statute---Ambiguity in law---Ambiguous provision would be resolved in favour of assessee and against taxing authority. \n Muhammad Aamir v. Controller of Duties PLD 1981 SC 119 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-22 of 2000, decided 28-12-2001, hearing DATE : 23rd November, 2001", + "Judge Name:": "ZAHID KURBAN ALAVI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Mamnoon Hasan for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "FAR EASTERN IMPEX (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8500", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 769 = 2005 SLD 769 = 2005 PTD 1325", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 4(2)---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Excise duty though a tax still was not includable in fixing the retail price---Principles. \nCollector of Customs and Central Excise, Customs House, Multan v. Messrs Pakistan Daries, Kabirwala and others Civil Petitions Nos.1527-L to 1530-L and 1576-L to 1579-L of 2000; Customs Appeal No.41 of 1998, dated 12-4-2000 and Pakistan Beverages Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others Constitutional Petition No.D-1926 of 2002 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals Nos.61 to 66 and 70 of 1998, heard on 8-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik for Appellant. Ali Sibtain Fazli, Ashtar Ausaf Ali and Ahmad Jamal Sukhera for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS HOUSE, \nvs\nMessrs SHEZAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8501", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 770 = 2005 SLD 770 = 2005 PTD 1361", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......S 4(2)---Determination of value for the purposes of duty---Taxes referred to in S.4(2), Central Excises Act, 1944 meant the taxes other than the excise duty which was imposable independently under the charging provisions of Central Excises Act, 1944---Excise duty could not be treated as part of \"\"retail price\"\" for the purpose of calculation of duty of excise payable under the Act. \n Collector of Customs v. Messrs Shezan International Limited and others C.A. No.61 of 1998; C.A. No.41 of 1998, Civil Petitions Nos. 1527-L to 1530-L and 1576-L to 1579-L of 2000; Pakistan Beverage Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others Constitutional petition No.D-1926 of 2002, dated 14-1-2005 and Messrs Luckey Cement Limited v. C.B.R. and others W. P. No.1144 of 1997, dated 25-5-2001 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.18494 of 1999, heard on 8-02-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. A. Karim Malik for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs RIAZ BOTTLERS (PVT.) LTD., \nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8502", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 771 = 2005 SLD 771 = 2005 PTD 1362", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFDND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 3-B & 36--Central Excise Rules, 1944, R. 96ZZA---Levy of additional duty and penalty---Collector (Adjudication) and Appellate Tribunal had failed to consider the proper applicability of S.3-B, Central Excises Act, 1944 read with Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.96ZZA and distinction between the import of phrase \"\"shall pay\"\" and \"\"shall be liable to pay\"\" before levying additional duty and penalty upon the assessee---High Court, in appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal as well as order of the Collector (Adjudication) and remanded the case to the Collector (Adjudication) for its fresh disposal in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the said aspects---Collector was directed to allow two weeks time to the appellant to submit its reply. \n Ideal Glass (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1999 PTD 1308 and Assistant Collector of Customs, Central Excise Division-III, Sukkur v. Messrs Mari Gas Company Limited 2003 PTD 818 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3B,36Central Excise Rules, 1944=96ZZA", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeal No. 14 of 2005, decision dated: 9-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Jawaid Khan for Appellant. Raja M. Iqbal for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION through Attorney, Karachi\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8503", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 772 = 2005 SLD 772 = 2005 PTD 1378", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......R 10(1)(2)(3)---Recovery of excise duty---Limitation---Provisions of R. 10, Central Excise Rules, 1944---Applicability---Scope---Pursuant to a trade agreement between the Government of Pakistan and the Government of India, a memo. of understanding was signed on 25-9-1998 by the Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance and the Chairman CBR with Pakistan Sugar Mills Association for exporting sugar to India, inter alia, on \"\"zero\"\" rated central excise duty and the sales tax---Certain sugar Mills exported different quantities of sugar to India in 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 without payment of central excise duty and the sales tax---Show-cause notices were issued to the exporters between April 2000 and Oct./Nov. 2000 seeking from each of the exporter to show cause against imposition of the central excise duty, additional duty and the penalty on sugar exports between 1997-1998 and 1998-1999---Exporters contended that the show-cause notices issued to each exporter were barred by limitation and it was so held by the Appellate Tribunal---Validity---Held, Schedule of dates of the show-cause notices issued to the exporters when compared with the date of completion of the export (April 1999) proved that the show-cause notices were issued beyond the period of one year of the export---Said show-cause notices were thus beyond the time prescribed under R.10(1), Central Excise Rules, 1944---Show-cause notices did not specify or allege \"\"mis-declaration\"\"; \"\"false information\"\"; \"\"collusion\"\"; \"\"false documentation\"\"; \"\"counterfeiting seal or impression\"\" or any other heinous offence---Such show-cause notices, therefore could not fall within the larger period of limitation of three years or ten years respectively prescribed in R. 10(2)(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944---Show-cause notices, in fact, lacked in essential ingredients and did not meet the mandatory pre-conditions for the attractibility of R.10 of the Rules---Mere allegation of non-payment of the central excise duty was not an adequate reason to invoke R.10, Central Excise Rules, 1944 charging or imposing the central excise duty on a citizen---In the absence of specific allegations in terms of R.10(1)(2)(3), show-cause notices could not be presumed to fall within the scope of a particular provision of law to attract a particular period of limitation---Show-cause notices in question therefore were patently illegal, without lawful authority and beyond the period of limitation. \n Messrs Atlas Tyres (Pvt.) Limited, Sheikhupura v. Additional Collector (Adjudication), Collectorate of Central Excise Lahore and another 2003 PTD 1593; Messrs Zamindara Paper and Board Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax PTCL 2004 CL 212 and Assistant Collector Customs and others v. Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps and others 2001 SCMR 838 = PTCL 2002 Cl. 1 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=10(1)(2)(3)", + "Case #": "Custom Appeal No. 162 of 2001, heard on 7-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aftab Hassan for Appellant. Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, NABHA ROAD, LAHORE\nvs\nMessrs PATTOKI SUGAR MILLS LTD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8504", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 773 = 2005 SLD 773 = 2005 PTD 1413", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....S 3 & First Sched., Item No.04.05---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11---Constitutional petition---Res judicata, principle of---Applicability---Levy of duty---Petitioner had challenged the levy of duty on the same items which were subject to duty in another Constitutional petition and it was not the petitioner's case that the said products were not covered by item No.04.05 of the Schedule to the Central Excises Act, 1944---Constitutional petition, being barred by res judicata, was dismissed by the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,FirstSchedCivil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=11Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitution Petition No. D-1230 of 1991, decision dated: 27-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "SABIHUDDIN AHMED AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zamir-ud-Din Ahmed for Petitioner. Faisal Arab, Standing Counsel and Raja M. Iqbal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN INDUSTRIES CORPORATION through Proprietor\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE (JUDICIAL), KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8505", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 774 = 2005 SLD 774 = 2005 PTCL 246 = 2005 PTD 1415 = (2005) 91 TAX 292", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....S 4(2)---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), S.2(27)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Central Excise General Order No.1 of 1990, dated 11-1-1999---Central Excise General Order No.10 of 1975, dated 15-8-1975---Determination of value for the purpose of duty---Issuance of show-cause notices alleging evasion of central excise duty and sales tax declaring and printing retail prices on juice packs less than the actual retail prices prevailing in the market in contravention of the provisions of S.4(2) of the Central Excises Act, 1944 and S.2(27) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 on the presumption that subject goods must necessarily be available in the open market at retail prices fixed by the manufacturers and printed on packs/containers---Validity---Department tried to make out a case that the retailers could not charge prices higher than declared prices except with the approval of manufacturers whose products they were selling and that the complainants to evade central excise duty and sales tax had not included the due portion of profit margin of the retailers/others allowing the retailers to sell their products at a higher rate to cover up their profit margin---Contravention reports or the adjudication orders could not make it clear as to whether the detecting agency had examined both the purchase and sale documents through which the goods reached the retailers and other records to determine whether or not the manufacturers had indeed not left any margin of profit to the wholesaler/retailers or to determine whether or not the manufacturers had under declared/printed the retail prices by not including retailer's margin in the prices---Prosecuting agency did obtain a few sale invoices issued by the retailers but what about the purchase documents and other records that were required to be properly examined and analyzed in terms of the provisions of General Order No.10 of 1975 dated 15-8-1975 to determine the fact of inclusion or exclusion of retailers or wholesaler's margin in the declared/printed prices---In addition to considering the retailer's cash memos the adjudication authority should have inquired of the prosecution to disclose their definitive findings based on examination of both purchase/sales documents and other records---Complainants were also not supplied all the documents asked for to enable them to prepare their defence, their point of view was not properly considered; they were also not shown as to how various s cited by them were not relevant nor, for that matter, it was shown on the basis of examination of purchases and sales and other records whether or not the manufacturers had passed the retailers margin---Adjudication authority did not pass speaking orders distinguishing them from Federal Tax Ombudsman's decisions---Maladministration was established---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that Central Board of Revenue to reopen the Order-in-Original in all the three cases under the provisions of S.35E of the Central Excises Act, 1944 read with S.45A of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and set aside the impugned orders and to direct the competent adjudication authority to revisit the cases for de novo consideration and fresh adjudication on merit in accordance with the provisions of law by taking into consideration all the pleas of the complainants after providing them with all the necessary documents to enable them to enter their defence and extending them the opportunity of hearings. \n 2000 PTD 353 and PLD 1984 SC 86 rel.\n Complaint No.1044-L of 2002 and 431-L of 2003 distinguished.\nComplainant No.877-L of 2003; Complaint No.591 of 2002; Complaint No.846-L of 2004 and Complaints Nos. 817 and 825-L of 2004 ref.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n----S.4(2)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Determination of value for the purpose of duty---Issuance of show-cause notices alleging evasion of central excise duty and sales tax---Non-supply of certified copies documents relied upon by the Department---Validity---Department should have supplied certified copies of the relevant documents to enable the complainant to prepare their defence---Complainant asked, in addition to various documents for the copies of surveys/inquiry reports---Even if no formal survey reports were issued, the Department could have supplied certified copies of the market inquiry reports or of the contravention reports containing the findings to enable the complainants to enter their reaction to the findings---It appeared that while some documents may have been supplied by way of unattested, uncertified and unauthenticated copies, the other documents were supplied incomplete and a few more were not at all supplied---Adjudication Authority was to ensure before deciding the cases that requisite documents/information asked for by the complainants were supplied to them, especially when the complainants had pointedly requested the Authority to direct the detecting agency to supply the same. \n(c) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n----S. 4(2)---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Determination of value for the purpose of duty---Issuance of show-cause notices alleging evasion of central excise duty and sales tax---Non-consideration of complainant's view point, departmental orders and Court's s during the proceedings---Validity---Departmental orders and Court's s were not dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority during the proceedings to determine whether any of those decisions/ s had any bearing on the case and it was not enough to say that the decisions/ s were not relevant---Impact/bearing or otherwise of such orders/ s on complainants cases should have been discussed in detail with by the Adjudicating Authority in the order-in-original---If the orders/ s cited by the complainants involved issues other than the issues in hand, it should have been shown as to how the decisions/Court's s were different by discussing their relevancy or irrelevancy---Failure to provide necessary documents to enable the complainant to prepare their defence, non-consideration of complainants viewpoint/evidence, the failure to discuss and deal with departmental orders/Courts s were arbitrary and unjust acts militating against the principles of natural justice amounting to 'maladministration' within the meaning of S.2(3) of the Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000. \n(d) Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000)---\n----S.9---Jurisdiction, functions and powers of the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Where the omissions and commissions on the part of department militated against the interest of the complainant and the department resorted to questionable processes (omissions and commissions) to the detriment of the complainant, the provisions of S.9(2) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000 did not stand in the way of investigation of complaints by the Federal Tax Ombudsman---Appeals were filed subsequent to filing the complaints in the Federal Tax Ombudsman Secretariat.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(2)Sales Tax Act, 1990=2(27)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3),9,9(2)", + "Case #": "Complaints Nos. 846-L, 817-L and 825-L of 2004, decision dated: 19-01-2005", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) MUNIR A. SHEIKH, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Umar Arshad Hakeem and Akhtar Javed for the Complainant. Rukhsana Yasmeen, Additional Collector (Adjudication) and Zulifqar Ali Choudhry, Additional Director, Customs Intelligence for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs VITA (PAKISTAN LIMITED)\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8506", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 775 = 2005 SLD 775 = 2005 PTD 1505", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 3, 3-B, 4(2), 9 & 35-B---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.7, 9, 10 & 210---Short payment of Central Excise Duty on solvent oil---Classification under P.C.T. Heading---Appeal before Appellate Tribunal---Matter in question was that appellants reportedly were short paying Central Excise Duty on solvent oil due to misclassification of P.C.T. Heading and it was alleged that appellants grossly underpaid Central Excise Duty due to wrong classification of P.C.T. Heading i.e. 2711.1100 instead of correct P.C.T. Heading 3814.0000 as communicated by Central Board of Revenue vide its letter---Characteristics of product/item in question were; aromatic content (Per cent)=about 10%; specific gravity=0.722; Initial Boiling Point=60°c(140F) & (4) Final Boiling Point=120oc(248-F) and in view of said characteristics, item in question was clearly classified under P.C.T. Heading 2710.0039 because product covered by 2710.0031 was white spirit, whose specific gravity was 0.722 to 0.800 and its initial boiling point was 150oc and final boiling point was over 190oc as per technical literature---White spirit described in that literature was clearly stated to contain from 20% to 25% aromatics whereas aromatic content of product under dispute was about 10%---Such fact was further strengthened by Pakistan standard classification for petroleum solvent grade 60/120 which had almost exactly the same specifications as the goods in question and which clearly stated that said petroleum solvent was a product consisting entirely of petroleum hydrocarbons obtained by refining of crude petroleum---Such were the specifications of goods under dispute as well---Appellate forum, in circumstances was of firm view that correct classification of item in question was 2710.0039 which view was also strengthened by independent opinion of World Customs Organization which had clearly ruled out 38.14 Heading and classified goods in question under Heading 2710---World Customs Organization was an independent, international expert body, whose rulings were acceptable worldwide---Customs Administration of Pakistan (C.B.R) could refuse to accept it and refer it back to World Customs Organization, but in the present case they had not done so, that was a tacit admission of its ruling---Appeals filed by appellants were accepted only to the extent of classification of goods in question under Heading 2710.0039, but other legal and factual issues raised by appellants were not upheld---Petitions of respondents were dismissed so far as the classification of goods under Head 3814.0000 was concerned and their request to refer matter to C.B.R., was not acceded to. \n Messrs Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others 1993 SCMR 1232; The Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan, Dacca v. Noor Hussain PLD 1964 SC 657; Laxmichand Hirjibhai v. CIT, Gujarat-III ITR 128; Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. N.C. Upadhyaya ITR 961; UCO Bank v. CIT 1999 PTD 3752; CIT v. Muhammad Kassim 2000 PTD 280; 1993 PTD 766; 1992 SCMR 1898; 1992 CLC 841; NLR 1991 Tax 11; 1991 MLD 1459; 1992 SCMR 1652 and PTCL 2002 CL 221 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,3B,4(2),9,35BCentral Excise Rules, 1944=9,10,210", + "Case #": "Appeals Nos.24 to 40 and 108 to 112 of 2003, decision dated: 12-08-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)/CHAIRMAN, SAYED MOHSIN ASAD, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RAJ MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farhat Nawaz Lodhi for Appellant. Kamran Khan, Assistant Collector and Muhammad Rasheed, Superintendent for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8507", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 776 = 2005 SLD 776 = 2005 PTD 1793", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises Act (I of 1944)].....S 35-C---Disposal of appeal by Tribunal without touching questions of law including question of limitation raised therein regarding impugned show-cause notice issued by authority---Validity--High Court in appeal, set aside impugned order and remanded case to Tribunal for its fresh decision after taking into all legal and factual pleas raised in memorandum of appeal.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=35C", + "Case #": "Special Central Excise Appeal No.39 of 2004, decision dated: 20-04-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN, JAFFERY, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Murtaza Chunai for Appellants. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED, KARACHI\nvs\nCOLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF CUSTOMS, SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATIONIII), KARACHI and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8508", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 777 = 2005 SLD 777 = 2005 PTD 1928 = (2005) 91 TAX 199", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......S 4(2)---Central Excise General Order (14 of 1969)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Retail price determined under S.4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be as fixed by the assessee which would include all charges/taxes (less sales tax) and upon such retail price the central excise duty would be determined---Principles.\n \nSection 4 of the Central Excise Act, provides the mechanism for determining the value of any product upon which Central Excise Duty is levied. Per section 4(1) such value shall be deemed to be the wholesale cash price for which an article of the like kind and quality is sold or is capable of being sold to the general body of retail traders [or, if there is no general body of retail traders, the general body of consumers] on the day on which the article which is being assessed to duty is removed from the factory or the warehouse, as the case may be, without any abatement or deduction whatever except the amounts of duty and sales tax then payable. Per section 4(2) notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) the Federal Government may, by Notification in the official Gazette, declare that in respect of any goods or class of goods, the duty shall be charged on the retail price fixed by the manufacturer inclusive of all charges and taxes, other than sales tax levied and collected under section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, at which any particular brand or variety of such article should be sold to the general body of consumers or, if more than one such price is so fixed for the same brand or variety, the highest of such prices.\n \nUnder section 4(2) of the Act excise duty is to be levied on the price fixed by the Manufacturer and such price should include all charges and taxes (excluding sales tax). Any other interpretation would amount to double taxation as the object of the Act is only to recover excise duty once on the value of the goods/services concerned. This conclusion is further fortified by the fact that nowhere in section 4(2) the word \"\"duty\"\" has been used to include an ingredient of retail price, whereas the word \"\"duty\"\" has been defined under section 2(17) of the Act to include additional duty, regulatory duty and any other sum payable under any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.\n \nThe retail price to be determined under section 4(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be as fixed by the Assessee which would include all charges/taxes (less sales tax) and upon such retail price the central excise duty is to be determined.\n \nAtlas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1984 SC 86 and Messrs Lucky Cement v. C.B.R. 2003 PTD 1002 quoted.\n \nHirjina and Co. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1342 distinguished.\n \nC.Ps. Nos.1527-L to 1530-L and 1576-L to 1579-L of 2000 and Atlas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1979 Kar. 545 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(1),4(2),43Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.D-1926 of 2002, decision dated: 14-01-2005. dates of hearing: 7th and 18-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND AMIR HANI MUSLIM, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Ali Sibtain Fazli for Petitioner. Javed Ahmed Farooqui for Respondents Nos.3 and 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN BEVERAGES LTD\nvs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8509", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 778 = 2005 SLD 778 = 2005 PTD 2175", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 3-B & 12-A---S.R.O. 455(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---S.R.O. 456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Unexported quantity of sugar---Demand of excise duty under S.R.O. 455(I)/96 prescribing compulsory export of sugar and higher rate of duty on unexported quantity of sugar---Payment of duty by manufacturer under S.R.O. 456(I)/96 prescribing lower rate of duty without such compulsory condition---Tribunal upheld order-in ­original---Validity---Provisions of both S.R.Os. were contradictory and could not be reconciled---Manufacturer was justified in seeking application and protection of S.R.O. 456(I)/96 issued later in time on same day as evident from its number---Where two equally reasonable interpretations of a provision were possible, then the one favourable to tax-payer would be adopted---Tribunal in an identical appeal found for tax-payer by observing that tax-payer having elected to follow later S.R.O. 456(I)/96 and paid duty nothing was due to Department---High Court accepted appeal set aside impugned order of Tribunal as well as order-in-original.\n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Fiscal statutes---When two equally reasonable interpretations of a provision are possible, then the one favourable to tax-payer needs to be adopted.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3B,12A", + "Case #": "C.A. No. 3 of 2002, decision dated: 10-03-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM SIKANDAR AND, JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "M. M. Akram for Appellant. A. Karim Malik for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs FAUJI SUGAR MILLS\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE, SHEIKHUPURA and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8510", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 779 = 2005 SLD 779 = 2005 PTD 2255", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTQT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].....Ss 3(1) & 2(g)---Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cement) Rules, 1991, R.49(1)---C.B.R. Directions/Instructions No.C.No.1(18) CE-Budget/91, dated 4-8-1991---C.B.R. Letter C.No.1(18)-CEB.91-Vol.II, dated 21st August, 1993---Demand of excise duty on the clinker from cement manufacturer, despite having not taken out of the factory for home use, but used and utilized within the factory premises for manufacturing cement, which was made subject to payment of duty under the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cement), Rules, 1991 on capacity basis, as per direction issued by C.B.R. was legal, valid and within the four corners of the relevant law-Clinker-Meaning-High Court, however, observed that the manufacturer was allowed to move a separate application along with all the material particulars and details to the Collector of Excise for consideration of his request on merits regarding deduction of the amount duly determined on the amount of clinker in terms of S. 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from the capacity duty for which the manufacturer had not furnished credible evidence before the Appellate forum.\n \nChambers 21st Century Dictionary; Commissioner of Income Tax, East Pakistan v. Noor Hussain PLD 1964 SC 657; Messrs Central Insurance Company and others v. Central Board of Revenue Islamabad and others 1993 SCMR 1232; Messrs Dewan Textile Mills Limited v. Government of Pakistan and others 1984 CLC 1740; Messrs Kohinoor Industries Limited v. Government of Pakistan 1989 MLD 1 and Central Board of Revenue and others v. 7-Up Bottling Company (Pvt.) Limited 1996 SCMR 700 ref.\n \n(b) Words and phrases---\n \n----Clinker---Meaning.\n \nChambers 21st Century Dictionary ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3(1),2(g)", + "Case #": "Spl. Central Excise Appeal No.15 of 1999, decision dated: 1st July, 2005, hearing DATE : 16-05-2005", + "Judge Name:": "ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND S. ALI ASLAM, JAFRI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Syed Ali Zafar for Appellant. Sirajul Haq Memon for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs DADA BHOY CEMENT INDUSTRIES\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8511", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 780 = 2005 SLD 780 = 2005 PTD 2392", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTOD0", + "Key Words:": "(Petroleum Products (Development Surcharge) Ordinance (XXV of 1961)].....Ss 3 & 3-A---Petroleum Products (Development Surcharge) Rules, 1967, R.8 --Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S.3-B---Levy of development surcharge---Charging of additional duty/surcharge, in case the due development surcharge was not paid within prescribed time---Validity---Held, there was no provision in the Petroleum Products (Development Surcharge) Ordinance, 1961 regarding charging of additional duty/surcharge, in case the due development surcharge was not paid within the prescribed time---Provision of S.3-B, Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be made applicable, which would be too far away from the true import of S.3-A (3) of Petroleum Products (Development Surcharge) Ordinance, 1961 and S.3-B, Central Excise Act, 1944---High Court, in appeal, declared the levy of additional duty/surcharge with reference to alleged late payment of development surcharge leviable under the Ordinance, as without lawful authority---Principles.\n \nMessrs Hashwani Hotel Limited through Executive Director v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 5 others 2004 PTD 901; Messrs Al-Haj Industrial Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Peshawar v. Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Customs House, Karachi 2004 PTD 801 and Messrs Metropole Cinema Pvt. Ltd. through Managing Director and others v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore and 4 others PLD 2004 Lah. 351 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3,3A,3B", + "Case #": "Customs Appeals No. 12 and 3 of 2003, heard on 14-07-2005", + "Judge Name:": "NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Malik Muhammad Akram Bhatti for Appellant. Ch. Saghir Ahmad, Standing Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKARAB REFINERY LTD., MUZAFFARGARH\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT, CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, MUZAFFARGARH and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8512", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2005 781 = 2005 SLD 781 = 2005 PTD 2539", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFTND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......S 36-C---Appeal to High Court---Appeal under S.36-C, Central Excise Act, 1944 can be filed by the Collector only and none else---Appeal in the present case, was filed in the name of the Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, while it was signed by the Deputy Collector Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax and the verification was signed by a Law Officer, Customs and Central Excise; in addition to the said anomalies and filing of appeal by incompetent persons, department submitted a notification to the effect that the Collectorate was transferred to the large taxpayers unit---Department, in circumstances, had no locus standi to submit the application to file a fresh memo. of appeal duly signed by the Collector and by removing other anomalies---Appeal in the present form being not maintainable was dismissed by the High Court.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=36", + "Case #": "Central Excise Appeal No.253 of 2001, C.M.As. Nos.813, 426 of 2005 and 2534 of 2001, decision dated: 8-09-2005", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Farid-ud-Din and Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Appellant. Muhammad M. Chinoy for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE, DIVISIONIII, SUKKUR\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8513", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2101 = 2008 SLD 2101 = 2008 PTCL 401 = 2008 PTD 406 = (2008) 97 TAX 306", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpYz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......Ss 2(27), 3 & 4(2)---Customs General Order 23 of 1969, dated 29-8-1969---Supply of ordinary cement on contracted price to Director-General Procurement Army---Authority permitted manufacturer to pay excise duty on contracted price subject to fulfilling conditions of Customs General Order 23 of 1969---Printing of contracted price on packages by manufacturer instead of normal retail price---Withdrawal of such permission and demand of differential amount of duty by Authority---Validity---Cement supplied to Army was of ordinary nature meant to be supplied in open market---Contractual formalities observed by manufacturer had no nexus with Customs. General Order 23 of 1969, which spoke of printing of normal price on packages regardless of contracted price---Manufacturer had not proved that any long-standing practice was being followed by Army for considering contracted price as retail price for levy of excise duty---Manufacturer could not be allowed to obviate from mandatory condition given by Authority for availing benefit of concessionary rate of duty---Manufacturer had not followed instructions contained in Customs General Order 23 of 1969, thus, Authority had rightly cancelled such permission---Price fixed for supply of cement to general public in such case would be considered as retail price being the highest one---Authority had rightly asked manufacturer to pay differential amount. \n \nMessrs Radaka Corporation and others v. Collector of Customs and another 1989 SCMR 353 ref.\n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Subsidiary legislation and Statute, conflict between---When no reconciliation was possible in case of such conflict, then subsidiary legislation must give way to statutory provision. \n \n(c) Taxation---\n \n----Mandatory direction given by department for availing benefit of concessionary rate of tax---Effect---Assessee, in order to avail such benefit could not obviate from such direction. \n \n(d) Waiver---\n \n----Statutory provision enacted in public interest relating to form of contract between company and public bodies created by or under a statute---Validity---Compliance with such provision could not be waived. \n \n(e) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.36-C---Appeal to High Court---Plea of show-cause notice being time-barred not raised before Tribunal---Effect---Such plea would be deemed to have been waived. \n \nMessrs Thatta Cement Company, Thatta v. Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Karachi Bench, Karachi and 2 others 2003 PTD 1899; 2006 SCMR 425 and 2007 PTD 1618 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(27),3,4(2),36C", + "Case #": "Spl. C.E.A. Nos. 29 of 2002 and 10 of 2006, decision dated: 16-01-2008, hearing DATE : 3rd December, 2007", + "Judge Name:": "MRS. YASMEEN ABBASEY AND SYED MEHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Muhammad Farough Naseem and Sardar Ejaz Khan for Appellants. Raja Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs PAKLAND CEMENT LIMITED\nvs\nCOLLECTOR CUSTOMS and CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICATION)III, KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8514", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2102 = 2008 SLD 2102 = 2008 PTD 656", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 1(3) & 3-D(3)---S.R.O.(I)/99 dated 1-7-1999 & S.R.O. 805(I)/99 dated 15-7-1999--Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)(i)(a)---Imposition of excise duty---Withdrawal of excise duty---Contrary to law---Refund---Excise duty was imposed by S.R.O.(I)99, dated 1-7-1999 on manufacturers at Gadoon Amazi and it was withdrawn by S.R.O. 805(I)/99, dated 15-7-1999 with effect from 1-7-1999---Complainants had deposited Rs.1,00,000 in advance and their request for refund was accepted to the extent of Rs.19,780 and the claim of Rs.80,219 was rejected---Validity---Incidence of tax had not passed to the consumers---Complainants had produced documentary evidence, which was official document---Excise duty paid was not included in the value for purposes of calculating sales tax---Invoice was in the name of customers mentioned in the official document---Process adopted in rejecting the claim without hearing the complainants and without properly examining the evidence on record was contrary to law---Decision was made arbitrarily only on presumptions and not on evidence on record---Tax Ombudsman ordered the refund of Rs.80,219 be paid within 30 days.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=1(3),3D(3)Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(a)", + "Case #": "Complaint No. 73 of 2004 decided on 12-04-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs GADOON TEXTILE MILLS LTD., INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GADOON AMAZAI, TEHSIL and DISTRICT SWABI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE, DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8515", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2103 = 2008 SLD 2103 = 2008 PTD 661", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpVT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)].......R 13---S.R.O. No.514(I)/2001, dated 12-7-2001---Zero rated---Duty drawback---Show-cause notice---General bond---Insurance guarantee---Complainant challenged the encashment of Insurance Guarantee by the Assistant Collector being perverse, unreasonable unjust, biased and oppressive amounting to maladministration---Validity---Complainant was a regular exporter of cement to Afghanistan---Delay in production of the certificate from Consulate was not wilful and customs authorities had checked the goods at the time of export and allowed export without charging duty---Consulate had confirmed the export of woods---Assistant Collector had proceeded to pass encashment order without serving show-cause notice on the complainant---Such action was arbitrary, unjust, oppressive and contrary to law---Federal Tax Ombudsman cancelled the order of Assistant Collector and allowed benefits envisaged in S.R.O. No.514(I)/2001 dated 12-7-2001. \n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R. 13---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)(i)(a)(b)---Show-cause notice---\"\"Audi Alteram Partem\"\"---Dictum---Assistant Collector has passed the order of encashment without serving any show-cause notice on the complainant and thus violated the dictum and principle enshrined in the maxim Audi Alteram Partem. \n \n2002 SCMR 1034 = 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1083 cited.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=13Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)(i)(a)(b)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.76 of 2004, decision dated: 18-05-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Anwar, Consultant, Dealing Officer. Qazi Waheed-ud-Din for the Complainant Imtiaz Sheikh, DCIT for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs CHERAT CEMENT CO. LTD., NOWSHERA\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8516", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2104 = 2008 SLD 2104 = 2008 PTD 891", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpUT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Rules, 1944)].......Rr 10(1)(2), (3), 174 & 176---S.R.O. 422(I)/97 dated 13-6-1997---Establishment of Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.2(3)---Licence---Complainant prayed that he be saved from illegal actions of Sales Tax and Central Excise Department who had issued notice for attachment of his property for recovery of alleged licence fee---Department had replied that the officials of the Directorate General, Inspection and Internal Audit, had made a case against complainant regarding recovery of licence fee and penalty for the period of 1990-91 to 1999-2000 in terms of Rules 74 & 76 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944---Validity---No evidence regarding the service of show-cause notice was available on the order-in-original---Facts of case were found to be identical to an earlier decided complaint---Case regarding recovery of licence fee was initiated at the same time and on the same basis---In the light of S.R.O. 422(I)/97 dated 13-6-1997 complainant was not required to obtain a licence with effect from 1-7-1997---Department's action for period 1-7-1997 to 1999-2000 was without jurisdiction---Limitation for action under Rule 10(1) & 10(2) was one to three years and Rule 10(3) was not applicable as no false document was filed---Action for recovery of licence fee for the period 1-7-1997 to 30-6-2000 was illegal and without jurisdiction---Federal Tax Ombudsman, therefore, recommended that all actions taken in the case of the complainant with regard to levy of licence fee including the issue of recovery notice be cancelled and dropped. \n \nComplaint No.696 of 2001 cited.", + "Court Name:": "Federal Tax Ombudsman", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=10(1)(2),(3),174,176Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000=2(3)", + "Case #": "Complaint No.294 of 2004, decision dated: 18-06-2004", + "Judge Name:": "JUSTICE (RETD.) SALEEM AKHTAR, FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mirza Muhammad Wasim, Adviser (Dealing Officer). Hazrat Ghani, Complainant in person Muhammad Saleem, Deputy Collector, ST&CE, Peshawar for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAZRAT GHANI\nvs\nSECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8517", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2001 1635 = 2001 SLD 1635 = 2001 PLD 1 = 2001 PTCL 216 = (2001) 83 TAX 286", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn., p.1441 ref.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R. 96(ZZO)---Word \"\"total\"\"---Connotation---Word \"\"total\"\" in R.96(ZZO) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not without significance as it widens the scope of the word \"\"bill\"\" and all sorts of charges are included therein.\n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 196---Central Excises Act (I of 1944), S.4(3)(b)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.96(ZZO)---Excise duty---Surcharge on late payment--­Dispute was with regard to recovery of excise duty on the whole of charges received by the company including the amount of surcharge on late payment---Contention by the company was that surcharge was exempted from excise duty by Central Board of Revenue---Validity---No instructions could be issued by the Central Board of Revenue under the provisions of S.43 of Central Excises Act, 1944 and the instruction by the Board have no binding effect on the Adjudicating Authorities---No illegality or irregularity was pointed out in the order passed by the Authorities whereby excise duty was demanded on the surcharge recovered by the company.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=96(zzo)Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(3)(b)Customs Act, 1969=196", + "Case #": "Customs Appeal No. 167 of 1999, decision dated: 12-10-2000, hearing DATE : 2-10-2000", + "Judge Name:": "MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Aftab Ahmad Khan for Appellant. A. Karim Malik for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED\nvs\nDIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE and INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS and EXCISE)" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8518", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1960 232 = 1960 SLD 232 = 1960 PLD 4", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944)].......S 3, First Sched. item 23---Dyeing and glazing of tanned leather by use of power---­Product dutiable-Licence necessary.\n \nHeld, that the processes of dyeing and glazing of tanned leather made from sheep-skins are calculated to produce---goods which would fall within the description of the first of the- t-o categories of tanned leather specified in item 23, First Schedule to Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944).\n \nSuch goods, therefore, are excisable and under section 3 of the Act, the authorities are enjoined to levy and collect duties upon such goods.\n \nDuty does not fall upon any process, but upon the goods produced.\n \nThe articles produced being excisable, it is necessary that the producer should take out a licence under the rules framed under the Act.\n \nIt is not necessary to suppose that the use of power shall be applied at the stage at which raw skins are being converted into tanned leather ; it may be any stage in the entire process leading to the production of leather which would include all kinds of tanned leather.\n \nThe leather produced after dyeing and glazing falls within the definition of uppers.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3,FirstSched", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1959, decision dated: 9-11-1959 (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 10-12-1958, in Writ Petition No. 749 of 1958)", + "Judge Name:": "M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN (2) COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS ETC.\nvs\nMUHAMMAD AQIL" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8519", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1971 136 = 1971 SLD 136 = 1971 PLD 19", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)].......Ss 3 & 12-A­Excise duty-Exemption -Central Government competent to lay down any condition for exemption of goods from duty-Notifica­tion exempting laundry soap manufactured by owners of factories having no financial interest in any other industrial or commercial enterprise -Contention that exemption could be made in respect of \"\"goods or class of goods\"\" and not in respect of goods relatable to \"\"any person or class of persons\"\"-Government by imposing such condition, held, made exemption applicable to a \"\"class of goods\"\" and hence did not act in excess of its jurisdic­tion-Such condition, further held, quite consistent with spirit of time.\n \nMessrs Amin Soap Factory v. Govt. of Pakistan 20 D L R 266 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=12,3", + "Case #": "Petitions Nos. 214, 369, 374 and 575 of 1967, decision dated: 20th March 1970, hearing DATE : 17th March 1970", + "Judge Name:": "SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND HABIBUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Hamidul Huq Chowdhury and Rafiqul Islam for Petitioner (in Petition No. 214 of 1967) Rafiqul Islam for Petitioner (in Petitions Nos. 369, 374 and 375 of 1967) Asrarul Hossain, A.G. and Kazi Shafi-ud-Din for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MESSRS JAMAL SOAP FACTORY, DACCA\nvs\nPAKISTAN and 2 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8520", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2012 1339 = 2012 SLD 1339 = 2012 PLD 50", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpQT0", + "Key Words:": "(Constitution of Pakistan)].......Art 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Good governance--Commitments of State---Duty of courts---Scope---Petitioner established an industrial unit for production of fertilizer on the assurance and guarantee of Federal Government and natural gas transmission company that the plant would get uninterrupted and regular supply of a fixed quantity of natural gas---Grievance of petitioner company was that US$ 1.l billion were spent on establishing of the plant but authorities had failed to provide the agreed amount of natural gas regularly---Validity---If State or Government failed to live up to its commitments, assurances and guarantees, court could enforce such incentive scheme and concessions, assurances and guarantee offered and acted upon at the motion of parties complaining of breach or violation thereof---Whenever State or Government, to lure or attract investment held out, gave assurance or represented to investors to 'provide certain incentives, tax holiday, concession in customs or excise duties, advantages, concession, licences and/or benefits etc. and acting on such sovereign incentive assurances, representations and guarantees any investor had made investments in any industrial undertaking it was obligatory on part of the State or the Government to ensure that it would live up to its sovereign representations, assurances, commitments, representation and guarantees, otherwise it would cause a serious dent in credibility of any State and or Government---No State or Government could afford to breach such sovereign commitment, assurances and guarantees---If these were not fulfilled, such State and/or Government would not only lose its face and credibility internationally and locally but also confidence and trust of investors would be shattered, which would not only be devastating for future of any State and or Government but had far reaching adverse impact and consequence immeasurable in terms of money---High Court directed the authorities to supply, guaranteed quantity of natural gas to petitioner's plant strictly in accordance with contract---Petition was allowed in circumstances.\n \nLucky Cement Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 Pesh. 57 rel.\n \nBismillah Textile v. HBL 2008 CLC 504; The State v. Asif Adil 1997 SCMR 209; PLD 1982 Kar 250; Ghulam Hussain v The State PLD 1981 Kar: 711; 2010 SCMR 1972; PLD 2011 SC 235; Dewan Petroleum (Pvt.)' Limited v. Federation of Pakistan 2010 CLD 988; Azra Riffat Rana v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2008 SC 476; Federation of Pakistan v. Fecto Belarus Tractors Limited. PLD 2002 SC 208; Petrosin Gas Pakistan Ltd. v. PSO 2010 YLR 2643; Echo West International v. Government of Punjab 2009 CLD 937; Huffaz Seamless Pipe Industries Limited v. SNGPL 1998 CLC 1890; Hazara Improvement Trust v. Qaisara Elahi 2005 SCMR 687; Ramna Pipe v. SNGPL 2004 SCMR 1274; Airport Services Manager v. Quaid-e-Azam International Airport 1998 SCMR 2268; Ameer Khan v. Government of Punjab PLD 2010 Lah 443; Habibullah Energy Ltd. v. WAPDA;. 2008 YLR 2612; Hydri Ship Breaking Industries v. Sindh Government; 2007 MLD 770; A.R. Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2010 CLD 1648; Lt. Gen. Salahuddin Tirmizi v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 2008 SC 735 and Al-Iblagh Limited v. The Copyright Board, Karachi 1985 SCMR 758 ref.\n \n(b) Constitution of Pakistan---\n \n----Arts. 158 & 172---Natural resources---Ownership---Mineral, oil and natural gas produced in any province, under the provisions of Arts.158 and 172 of the Constitution, vest in the province producing it and the Federal Government, jointly and equally.\n \n(c) Constitution of Pakistan---\n \n----Art. 161---Federal excise duty and royalty on natural gas---Entitlement---Net proceeds of excise duty on natural gas levied at well head and royalty collected by Federation Government is to be paid to the Province in which the well head of natural gas and oil is situated---Such amount though collected by Federal Government does not form part of Federal Consolidated Fund.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "C.P. No.D-1282 of 2011, decision dated: 18-10-2011, hearing DATE : 15-09-2011", + "Judge Name:": "MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND IMAM BUX BALOCH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ENGRO FERTILIZERS LIMITED\nvs\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8521", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2004 1373 = 2004 SLD 1373 = 2004 PLD 57", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpOD0", + "Key Words:": "(Excise Duty on Minerals (Labour Welfare) (Sindh) Rules, 1969)].......Sched.---Pakistan Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, Third Sched, [as amended]---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 --- Constitutional petition---Imposing and collecting royalty on Rati/Bajri--- Petitioner who claimed to be President of Rati/Bajri Truck Owners Association, had contended that no royalty could be imposed and collected, on Rati/Bajri carried to Karachi on trucks as the Authority had not issued any Notification in that regard and that in Schedule of Excise Duty on Minerals (Labour Welfare) (Sindh) Rules, 1969 only `gravel Ord' had been mentioned whereas Rati and Bajri had not been mentioned in the said Schedule, at best Authority could recover royalty on gravel, but action of Authority collecting royalty on Rati/Bajri was without any lawful authority---Validity---Directorate of Mineral Development had issued a Letter/Notification No.MD/CDN-4(477)99/1.781-86 dated 25-6-1999 informing the decision of Government of Sindh for collection of royalty on. material including Rati/Bajri---Said Notification while authorizing collection of royalty on Rati and Bajri, had also fixed rates in that respect---Imposing royalty on Rati and Bajri, in view of the said notification, petitioner had no case to question collection of the royalty, especially when petitioner had not alleged that Notification inserting Rati and Bajri in the. Schedule had been issued without any lawful authority or any rules or regulations had been violated while issuing said Notification.\n \nNazeer Ahmed and 8 others v. Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore 2000 MLD 322 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Constitutional Petition No.2048 of 1999, decision dated: 16-05-2003", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI AND KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zia Ahmed Awan for Petitioner. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.G., Sindh with Tanveer Azhar Siddiqui; Law Officer, Mines Labour Department", + "Petitioner Name:": "Syed ALLAUDDIN SHAH\nvs\nSECRETARY INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8522", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1967 89 = 1967 SLD 89 = 1967 PLD 58", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlFpND0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise and Salt Act (I of 1944)]......S 12-A­Ministry of Finance Notification No. S. R. O. 363 (K)/63 dated 17-5-63 and previous Central Government Notification No. S. R. 0. 35 (R) dated 30-6-61-Exemption granted to excisable goods manufactured in Chittagong Hill Tracts-Not annulled by amendment of Art. 242, Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Person establishing Factory in such area on assurances held out in notifications-Acquires vested right to enjoy exemption for period mentioned in notification-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 242-Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1963 (1 of 1964),\n \nThe Central Board of Revenue issued Notification No. S.R.O. 35 (R) dated 30-6-61 exempting for a period of 4 years with effect from 1st July, 1961 all excisable goods produced or manufactured in the special or excluded areas, mentioned in the schedule to the said notification, from the whole of excise duty leviable thereon. The district of Chittagong Hill Tracts was included in the notification as an area, which would enjoy the exemption. Relying upon the notification a Cigarette Factory was established in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. The said notification was superseded by another notification No. S. R. O. 363 (K)/63, dated 17-5-63 which, however, substantially reiterated the assurances given in the previous notification. Thereafter in February, 1964 the Inspector of Central Excise addressed a letter to the owner of the Factory and claimed that in view of the amendment of Article 242 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962 since \"\"the area of Chittagong Hill Tracts has been removed from the category of `tribal areas' . . . . . with effect from the date on which the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1963 came into force . . . . all excisable goods produced in the Chittagong Hill Tracts are subject to Excise Duty and Excise Control in the normal way.\"\" Being aggrieved the owner of the Factory filed a writ petition in the High Court and there contended that the reason advanced by the Excise authority for removing the exemption had no basis and further that he had a vested right to enjoy exemp­tion for four years from 1st July, 1961. On the question there­fore, whether the notification dated 17-5-63 under which the petitioner claimed exemption and which had not been expressly withdrawn or cancelled stood abrogated because of the constitu­tional amendment by which the area .was removed from the category of tribal areas:\n \nHeld, the constitutional amendments made by the Constitu­tion (First Amendment) Act were primarily for introducing Fundemental Rights and for making them justiciable. The purpose for excluding Chittagong Hill Tracts from the category of, tribal areas was to allow the residents of Chittagong Hill Tracts to enjoy the Fundamental Rights and claim enforcement in case they were under threat of being violated. In each of these notifications a schedule of the areas was given. What does this signify? Does it not indicate unmistakably that the raison d'etre of the exemption was that the areas in question were undeveloped and not that they came within the definition of some special areas in the Constitution? The original exemption was given at a time when the present Constitution' was not in force. In the notification dated 30th June 1961 the words used are \"\"Special and excluded areas\"\" which obviously were borrowed from the Constitution of 1956 (Articles 103 and 104). In the notifi­cation dated the 17th May, 1953 the words used instead are \"\"Tribal Areas\"\". Article 242 of the Constitution 1962 provides that in this Constitution unless the context otherwise requires the words mentioned in that Article will have the meaning mentioned in that Article. How then can it be claimed that, simply because Chittagong Hill Tracts ceased to be a tribal area within the meaning of the Constitution; the exemption from payment of excise duty granted on the authority of subsection (1) of section 12-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act ceased to be operative in that area? Therefore, there was no ground to accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that the constitutional amendment did automatically affect the notification dated the 17th May, 1963 or the earlier notification of 1961.\n \nAs the petitioner-company on the assurance given in the notification issued in 1961 made commitments and established its factory in Chittagong Hill Tracts, it had acquired a vested right to claim exemption for that period and the Central Government was not entitled to either withdraw or modify the said notifica­tion to the disadvantage of the petitioner-company.\n \nThe provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act do not alter the position in any way; while the power to add 'to, amend, vary or rescind a notification is available such power does not include the authority to take away a validly acquired right. The change of law made by ordinance XXXI of 1962 did not affect the position of the petitioner as under this law also the exemption was to remain effective till the 30th June, 1965.\n \n(b) Central Excise and Salt Act (I of 1944), S. 12-A-Notifi­cation No. S. R. O (R)/64 dated 19-5-64-Condition contained in notification that exemption granted to excisable goods manufactured in tribal areas, bearing brand or trade names or trade marks under which similar goods are manufactured in any other area of Pakistan, shall not apply if such goods are removed from tribal area to any other area in Pakistan-Condition imposed whether unauthorised and without jurisdiction (Quaere).\n \n(c) General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21-Power to add, to amend, vary or rescind notification-Does not include power to take away a validly acquired right.\n \nWrit Petition No. 186 of 1964 (unreported) ref.\n \nPakistan v. S. Hussain Ali Shah A. Fazlani P L D 1950 S C 310 ref.\n \n(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98-Petitioner complaining against illegal realisation of Excise Duty-Complaint found valid and petition accepted-Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, further competent to order refund of duty realised if such 'refund be claimable under statutory provision-Central Excise Rules, 1944, r. 11.\n \nWhere refund of amount illegally realised by an authority from a petitioner can be claimed on the basis of a statute, such refund can be directed in exercise of the Court's writ jurisdiction. Under rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 refund can be claimed of any duty, which has been realised through inadvertence error or misconstruction. Where, therefore, a Company from whom illegal Excise Duty had been realised, had in its demand of justice notice claimed the refund, the High Court acceded to the prayer and issued necessary directions prayed for.\n \nMessrs Burmeh Construction Company v. The State of Orissa and others A I R 1.962 S C 1320 and Queen v. The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income-tax (1888) 21 Q B D 313 (C A) ref.\n \nA. G. Khan v. Shujauddin Qureshi b L D 1961 S C 1 and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bombay Trust Corporation A I R 1936 P C 269 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=12,12ACentral Excise Rules, 1944=11Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=242,98", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 644 of 1964, decision dated: 14th December 1965, dates of hearing: 17th and 18th November 1965", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUS SATTAR AND SALAHUDDIN AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Brohi, A. M. Haidermota, and Kamal Hossain and Mozammal Haque Khan for Petitioner Md. Nurul Huda, Deputy Attorney-General, K. Harunur Rashid and V. L Chowdhury for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "AZIZUDDIN INDUSTRIES LTD.\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS, EAST ZONE, CHITTAGONG and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8523", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5Yz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1961 18 = 1961 SLD 18 = 1961 PLD 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5Yz0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944)]..... S 4-Value for purpose of assessment-Wholesale cash price of goods sold for delivery at place of manufacture and at time of their removal therefrom less trade discount-Manufacturer introducing goods into market through distributors-Cannot be assessed on basis of amount actually received from distributors plus trade discount allowed by them to such distributors.\n \nThe assessee, a manufacturer of cigarettes sold their cigarettes for cash price to distributors. The distributors in their turn sold them to the wholesale dealers and the wholesale dealers passed them on to the market. From the cash price which the distributor had to pay when he received goods from the factory there was deducted a discount, part of which the distributor retained for himself, the other part being intended for the wholesale dealer to whom be sold the goods. The assessees were originally assessed on the basis of the amount which they actually received from the distributors, that is, the price fixed by them for the goods less the discount allowed. Subsequently the Inspector of Central Excise directed them to include the discount in the amount on the basis of which excise duty was assessed. In the writ petition filed by the assessees the Government was called upon to state the reasons for the demand of including the discount in the amount on which duty was to be assessed. The Government in reply stated that the distributor was not a wholesale dealer and the deduction permitted by section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is only the trade discount intended for such dealer and in the alternative it was contended that only that part of the discount should be allowed which was intended for the wholesale dealer.\n \nHeld, that the demand for additional duty made by the Excise Department was unjustified. The intention of the law is that excise duty should be paid by the manufacturers on the amount which they actually receive and it is on such amount that excise duty is to be levied. Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 does not speak of the wholesale dealer but only of the wholesale cash price and even where the distributor purchases goods wholesale and pays a cash price the mere fact that he is called distributor cannot exclude him from the category of wholesale dealers. The fact that part of the discount was retained by the distributor himself and the rest intended for the wholesale dealer did not make any difference to the fact that the whole discount was a trade discount.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=4", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1959, decision dated: 21st November, 1960 (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 4-12-19f8, in Writ Petition No. 187 of 1957)", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. CORNELIUS C.J., AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE AKBAR AND B. Z. KAIKAUS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, KARACHI \nvs\nPOPULAR TOBACCO Co., KARACHI" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8524", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5WT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1973 265 = 1973 SLD 265 = 1973 PLD 68", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5WT0", + "Key Words:": "(Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics) Rules, 1968)]..... r 8(3) and Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968, r. 8(1), read with Central Excise Rules, 1944, r. 12 and Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944), S. 3(4) [as amend­ed by Finance Act (XI of 1966), S. 4]-Excise Duty on Production Capacity Rules, 1968 --Comprehensive and self-sufficient and designed to perpetuate Legislature's policy-Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 1944-No longer applicable, being inconsistent with Rules of 1968-Ruses of 1968, being special in nature and covering same field, apply exclusively-Maxim: Generalis specialibus non derogant.\n \nTo contend that notwithstanding the amendment of sub section (4) of section 3 of the Act, by Finance Act XI of 1966, by which duty was made leviable on production capacity basis, and the consequent framing of the rules thereunder, rule 12 (as originally framed) would still apply to the facts of this case would be a fallacy and moreso in view of the maxim generalls specialibus non derogant. It is also fallacious to contend that the object of rule 8 is simply to provide the guiding principles as to how the manufacturer may deduct, from the duty paid by him, the amount of rebate. The rules are not only designed to per­petuate the policy of the Legislature, as manifested in the amended subsection (4) of section 3. but are comprehensive enough and self-sufficient. The principles embodied in generalis specialibus non derogant would be another reason to exclude the application of rule 12 to the facts of this case; for it is not only inconsistent with the rules, but the rules being special in nature and covering the same field would exclusively apply.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944, rr. 185(4) & 158 --- Mere authentication by Excise official of Form A. R. 4 prescribed by r. 158 ---- Does not entitle exporter to claim amount of rebate mentioned in form-Central Excises arid Salt Act (1 of 1944), S. 3(4) as amended by Finance Act (XI of 1966), S. 4.\n \nIn one of the columns of Form A. R. 4, the exporter is required to mention the amount of rebate which he claims, but this would not mean that just because this form has been authen­ticated by the excise official, the exporter would be allowed the said amount of rebate; for this would tend to obliterate the very scheme of paying duty on the production capacity basis. The form A. R. 4 has been retained for the purposes of the rules as a measure of expediency and to say that an exporter would be allowed under it to the refund of entire duty, which he claimed fn it in his own hand, would tantamount to disregarding the very policy of the Legislature as manifested in the amended subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act.\n \n(c) Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics) Rules, 1968, r. 8(3) and Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968, r. 8(1) read with Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944), S. 3(4) [as amended by Finance Act (XI of 1966), S. 4]-Excise duty levied on mill-Represents notional duty mill is required to pay -Manufacturer exceeding specified limit-Cannot be subjected to arty further duty-Nor can he claim refund of duty if he falls short of production determined by Excise Department.\n \nThe excise duty levied on the mill would clearly represent the notional duty which it would be required to pay, if it were to actually manufacture the maximum of goods in each category. From this would follow that if a manufacturer would exceed these specified limits, he would not be subjected to any further duty and likewise he would not be entitled to claim refund of any duty in case he falls short of producting goods in the specified categories. Rebate would be payable only on the duty already paid by a manufacturer, and (2) to no case would a manufacturer be entitled to claim any rebate on the goods which he has export­ed in excess of the quantity fin which its production capacity had been determined by the Department for each category, Rule 8 is comprehensive, intelligible and provides a workable formula to be applied in all cases in which rebate has to be allowed on the duty paid on production capacity basis and it is incorrect to contend that the case would be covered by rule 12 end a manufacturer would be entitled to full rebate on the goods exported by him out of the country.\n \n(d) Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics Rules. 1968, r. 8 and Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968, r. 8, Provisos 1 to ill---Vires of statutes---Object of provisos --- No more than laid down in parent Act---­Provisos not ultra vires powers of Central Board of Revenue and competently added.\n \nThe three provisos added to rule 8, would appear to be unexceptional; for the object which they intend to achieve is no more than what has beers laid down in the amended subsection (4) of section 3 of the Act. In other words, the provisos would appear to have amplified what was already there in that section and, therefore these could well be framed and notified by the Central Board of Revenue even before the amendment of section 37(xvi) of the Act by Ordinance XVI of 1969. The subsequent amendment of this clause was made by the Legislature as a measure of abundant caution and, therefore, the competency of the Central Board of Revenue to add the three provisos to rule 8 is not open to question.\n \n(e) Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics) Rules, 1968, r. 8(3) and Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968, r. 8(1)---Liability of mill determined in light of maximum production capacity---Assessment of liability towards duty-Mere matter of calculation by Excise Department---­Mill cannot claim to be heard and represented on occasion---­Maxim: Audi alteram partem.\n \nOnce the liability of the mill was determined in the light of the maximum production capacity, then to assess its liability towards duty would be a matter of calculation in the Department in which the mill could not claim to be present.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=12,185(4),158Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3(4)Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics) Rules, 1968=8(3),8,8(1)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 55 of 1972, decision dated: 23rd February 1973, dates of hearing: 31st January; 1st and 2nd February 1973", + "Judge Name:": "GHULAM SAFDAR SHAH, C.J. AND SHAH ZAMAN BABAR, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Fazal Ghani Khan assisted by Mohammad Sardar Khan fir Petitioner. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah Bokhari for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLONY SARHAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD.\nvs\nSUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS, NOWSHERA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8525", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5VT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1966 121 = 1966 SLD 121 = 1966 PLD 73", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5VT0", + "Key Words:": "(Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)]......S 30(1), proviso (a) \"\"Local authority\"\" ­Excise and Taxation Department not \"\"Local authority\"\" - Tax assessed on immovable property by Department after determination of annual rental value-Not covered by term \"\"local fund\"\"-West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958), Ss. 2 & 3-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-North-West Frontier Province General Clauses Act (II of 1932)-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 3(28)-[See also P L D 1966 Pesh. 89].\n \nOfficial Assignee, Madras v. Trustees of Port Trust, Madras A I R 1936 Mad. 789 ref.\n \n(b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30(1), proviso (a)-Whether Excise and Taxa­tion Department \"\"local authority\"\" within meaning of proviso (a) -Whether transferee of property could legally demand rent at rate of latest assessment by Excise and Taxation Department and whether failure by occupant to pay or deposit rent at such enhanced rate renders him liable to ejectment, or to his defence being struck off under S. 13(6), West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 - Questions referred for decision to larger Bench - West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13-[See also P L D 1966 Pesh. 89.", + "Court Name:": "Peshawar High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958=30(1)", + "Case #": "Second Appeal from Order No. 57 of 1963, decision dated: 20th April 1964, dates of hearing: 6th, 9th, 31st March and 1st April 1964", + "Judge Name:": "BASHIRUDDIN AHMAD, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Afzal Khan for Appellant. Dost Muhammad Kamil for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUR RASHID\nvs\nABDUL QADEER SHAH" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8526", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5UT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 172 = 1959 SLD 172 = 1959 PLD 83", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5UT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944)]......First Sch., item 23­ Dyeing and glazing of already tanned leather, by use of power machinery-\"\"Finished\"\" leather, held, not excisable.\n \nThe petitioner did dot himself produce tanned leather in his factory but received tanned leather from various persons and dyed and glazed the same by the use of power machines:\n \nHeld, that the process of dyeing and glazing by the petitioner would not attract the provision of the Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) and therefore taking out a licence was not necessary.\n \nFurther, that the case did not require consideration of the definition of \"\"manufacture\"\" given in section 2 (f) of the Act, inasmuch as the word used in item 23 of First Sch. is \"\"produced\"\", and the argument based on the fact that dyeing and glazing were processes of manufacture, being incidental to the completion of tanned leather, was unavailing.\n \nMcNeicol and another v. Pinch (1906) 2 K B 352 not relevant.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=FirstSched", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 749 of 1958, decision dated: 10th December 1958", + "Judge Name:": "M. R. KAYANI, C.J. AND INAMULLAH, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muzaffar Hassan for Petitioner. A. S. Farooqi for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD AQIL\nvs\nPAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8527", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5TT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1641 = 2002 SLD 1641 = 2002 PLD 84", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5TT0", + "Key Words:": "(Limitation Act (IX of 1908)]......S 5---Condonation of delay---Delay of each day has to be satisfactorily explained as valuable right accrues to opposite-party by lapse of time.\n \n(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--S. 5---Condonation of delay---No preferential treatment to Government--­While computing period of limitation, no preferential treatment can be given to Government, which as party to lis, has to be treated at par with other litigants---Government may change such law, if despite possessing enormous resources is not satisfied with the law.\n \nMayar Khan v. Bakht Bibi and others 1974 SCMR 423; Muhammad Hussain and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others 1975 SCMR 304; Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rais Pir Ahmed Khan 1981 SCMR 37; Ali Ahmed and another v. Fazal Hussain and others 1983 SCMR 1239; Federation of Pakistan v. Niaz Ahmed 1997 SCMR 959; Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Collector Customs v. M/s. Raja Industries Pvt. Ltd. through G.M. and 3 others 1998 SCMR 307 and Government of Balochistan Public Health Engineering Department through Secretary v. Muhammad Ibrahim 2000 SCMR 1028 ref.\n \n(c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--\n \n----S. 5---Central Excises Act (I of 1944), Ss.35 & 36---Condonation of delay---Time-barred appeal filed by Government---Explanation given for such delay was that office did not inform appellant about receipt of copy of impugned --Validity---Such explanation was not sufficient to condone delay--High Court repelled the contention.\n \n(d) Discretion-\n \n---- Discretion has to be exercised in a judicious, fair and reasonable manner.\n \n(e) Appeal-\n \n---- Right of appeal is one of the most valuable rights vested in an affected person---No one can be deprived of availing such remedy except in accordance with law.\n \n(f) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--\n \n----Ss. 35 & 36-B---Appeal before Tribunal---Maintainability---Non-deposit of duty and penalty by respondent during pendency of its appeal before Tribunal---Effect---Power to dispense with deposit of entire amount was discretionary with Appellate Tribunal---Discretion had to be exercised in a judicious, fair and reasonable manner---No objection regarding non-deposit of amount as ordered by Authority had been raised before Tribunal--­Tribunal had exercised discretion in favour of respondent, whereby no prejudice had been caused to appellant---Objection was not sustainable.\n \n(g) Words and phrases--\n \n---?Liable\"\"---Meaning.\n \n(h) Words and phrases--\n \n----\"\"Liability\"\"---Meaning.\n \n(i) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--\n \n----S. 3-B---Levy of additional duty---Non-payment of duty in time--­Section 3-B of the Central Excises Act does not require levy of additional duty and penalty invariably, when assessee is unable to pay the duty in time.\n \n(j) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)--\n \n----Ss. 3, 3-B, 35-B & 36-C---Levy of additional duty and penalty for short payment of duty---Appellate Tribunal remitted the penalty---Contention of' appellant was that provisions of S.3-B of the Act being mandatory, Authority had rightly imposed the penalty, which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to remit---Validity---Imposition of. penalty under S.3-B of the Central Excises Act was in the discretion of Additional Collector, Excise and Sales Tax, who had proceeded on misconception of law and had imposed penalty being under impression that since sales tax had not been paid, penalty was to be imposed compulsorily---Section 3-B of the Act did not require levy of additional duty and penalty invariably, when assessee was unable to pay duty in time--­ Imposition of additional duty was discretionary with Additional Collector--­Discretion had to be exercised reasonably, equitably and fairly---Additional Collector was under legal obligation to have considered the reasons offered by respondent for not paying the amount in time---Penalty had been imposed without considering explanation of respondent---Tribunal had rightly remitted the penalty-while, finding that non-payment of dues was neither deliberate nor wilful on the part of respondent---High Court dismissed the appeal in circumstances.\n \nShamroz Khan and another v. Muhammad Amin and others PLD 1978 SC 89 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Limitation Act, 1908=5Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=35,36,3,3B,35B,36C", + "Case #": "Sales Tax Appeal No.3 of 2000, decision dated: 8-04-2002, hearing DATE : 13-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "", + "Lawyer Name:": "K.N. Kohli, D.A.G. for Appellant. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed and Asif Fateh Sheikh for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "Muhammad Riaz Ahmed and others\nvs\nMessrs PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8528", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5ST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1642 = 2002 SLD 1642 = 1969 SCMR 826", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5ST0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---S. 526-Transfer of criminal case-High Court transferring case from a criminal Court at Sukkur to one at Lahore on reasonable ground raised by applicant that she apprehended forcible kidnapping by the opposite party at Sukkur-Order of transfer not interfered with by Supreme Court.\n \nFazal Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Virasat Hussain, Attorney for Appellant.\n \nJamil Hussain Rizvi, Advocate-General West Pakistan (Said Akbar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.\n \nJan Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Habibullah, Attorney for Respondent No. 2.\n \nDate of hearing : 28th October 1959.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=526", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1959, decision dated: 28th October 1959.", + "Judge Name:": "M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "JUMMA KHAN\nvs\nTHE STATE and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8529", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5RT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1643 = 2002 SLD 1643 = 1969 SCMR 828", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5RT0", + "Key Words:": "Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------S. 302-Private defence, plea of­ Plea neither raised by accused nor any material on record supporting such plea-Contention that accused acted in right of private defence ruled out.\n \nMuhammad Shafi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Naziruddin, Attorney for Appellant.\n \nS. A. Mahmud, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.\n \nDate of hearing : 31st October 1956.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 1956, decided on 31st October 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and orders of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 31st January 1956, in Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 1955 read with Criminal Revision No. 705 of 1955).", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "NAZARA (NAZAR MUHAMMAD)\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8530", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5QT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1644 = 2002 SLD 1644 = 1969 SCMR 830", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5QT0", + "Key Words:": "Jury-----Trial-Chief Court of Sind trying criminal case on its original side-Empowered to follow procedure applicable to High Courts in matter of jury trial-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ch. XXIII. \n \nGhulam Mohi-ud-Din v. The Crown Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1951 rel.\n \nKalandar Ali Khan, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Virasat Hussain Naqvi, Attorney for Appellant.\n \nInam Ullah, Senior Advocate Federal Court (Asad Ullah Khan, Advocate Federal Court with him) instructed by Iftikhar­ud-Din Ahmad, Attorney for the Crown.\n \nDates of hearing : 22nd, 23rd and 24th October 1952.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=Ch.XXIII", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1952, decision dated: 11th November 1952.", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL RASHID, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN AND A. R. CORNELIUS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GHULAM MUHAMMAD\nvs\nTHE CROWN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8531", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1645 = 2002 SLD 1645 = 1969 SCMR 837", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5OD0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=---------- S. 288-Transfer of depositions under S. 288-Dependent on exercise of discretion by Court-Evidence so transferred, admissible as substantive evidence--Only question, that can be raised in appeal, limited to one of weight to be attached to such evidence. \n \nManzur Qadir, Senior Advocate Federal Court (M. Ismail Bhatti, Advocate Federal Court with him) instructed by M. A. Rahman, Attorney for Appellant.\n \nA. R. Changez, Advocate-General Punjab (S. A. Mahmud, Advocate Federal Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the Crown.\n \nDate of hearing : 19th October 1954.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=288", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1954, decision dated: 27th October 1954.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., A. S. M. AKRAM AND A. R. CORNELIUS, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "AHMI (AHMAD)\nvs\nTHE CROWN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8532", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5ND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1646 = 2002 SLD 1646 = 1969 SCMR 839", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlF5ND0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- S. 302-Conviction for murder ­Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to examine question whether there was credible evidence on record to support conclusion upon which conviction was founded by High Court.\n \n(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---\n \n---S. 302-High Court rejecting prosecution evidence as unreliable but nevertheless recording convic­tion by dissecting accused's statement and accepting it in part-Held: Course adopted by High Court, in circumstances, was not proper. \n \nAbdul Qaiyum Khan Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan (Dost Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Mushtaq Ahmad, Attorney for Appellant.\n \nMushtaq Ahmad, Advocate-General West Pakistan (M. Z. Kitchlew, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan with him) instructed by Ijaz AU, Attorney for the State.\n \nDate of hearing : 6th October 1958.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1958, decision dated: 6th October 1958.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "MEHRBAN SHAH\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8533", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1647 = 2002 SLD 1647 = 1969 SCMR 843", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDYz0", + "Key Words:": "Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947)------S.5(2)-Illegal gratification-Public servant working in Rehabilitation Department accepting Rs. 10 as labour of drawing up grounds of appeal of a person about to be evicted from evacuee land-Conduct although reprehensible, money, in circumstance, could not be regarded as having been obtained by corrupt or illegal means-Action, held, did not amount to an offence punishable under Act. \n \nJamil Husain Rizvi, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Appellant.\n \nA. R. Changez, Advocate-General West Pakistan (Fazal Elahi, Advocate Federal Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the Crown.\n \nDate of hearing : 14th March 1956.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947=5(2)", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1956, decision dated: 14th March 1956.", + "Judge Name:": "M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS AND MUHAMMAD SHARIF, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "ABDUL HADI\nvs\nTHE CROWN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8534", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1648 = 2002 SLD 1648 = 1969 SCMR 833", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDWT0", + "Key Words:": "Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------S. 302-If there are other ample evidence conviction sustainable even if confession made in case be ruled out as doubtful.\n \nImdad Ali Agha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.\n \nJamil Husain Rizvi, Advocate-General West Pakistan (S. Nasiruddin, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for the State.\n \nDate of hearing : 18th November 1959.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Pakistan Penal Code, 1860=302", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1959, decision dated: 18th November 1959.", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "HAJI\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8535", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1649 = 2002 SLD 1649 = 1969 SCMR 849", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDVT0", + "Key Words:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--------S. 339-Trial of person whom pardon has been tendered-Trial Court holding that approver had not complied with conditions of pardon inasmuch as he had made certain discrepant statements at committal stage and at trial before Sessions Court-No explanation called for from accused about dis­crepancies nor explanation given taken into consideration-Held, it could not, in circumstances, be held that approver failed to comply with condition of his pardon-Conviction set aside. \n \nIftikhar-ul-Haq, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Muhammad Siddique, Attorney for Appellant.\n \nJamil Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for the Crown.\n \nDate of hearing : 30th April 1953.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=339", + "Case #": "Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1953, decision dated: 25th May 1953.", + "Judge Name:": "ABDUL RASHID, C.J., A. S. M. AKRAM AND M. SHAHABUDDIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "GAHNO\nvs\nTHE CROWN" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8536", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1650 = 2002 SLD 1650 = 2002 PLD 91", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDUT0", + "Key Words:": "(West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)]......S 15--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.27---Appeal against ejectment order---Additional evidence---Production of---Tenant/appellant alongwith appeal filed by him against ejectment order of Rent Controller had filed application for production of additional evidence---Appellant/tenant wanted to summon representative of Excise and Taxation Department in respect of certain shops belonging to respondent/landlord which allegedly were lying vacant ---Ejectment application filed by respondent/landlord against appellant/tenant remained pending for four years and tenant produced nine 'witnesses in support of his contention---Nothing was on record to show that documents intended to be brought on record by tenant as additional evidence were not available to him at the time of his leading evidence---In absence of cogent reason in support of application for additional evidence, said application was rightly rejected especially when documents intended to be produced as additional evidence had no relevancy with facts of the case.\n \n(b) West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)---\n \n----S. 13(3)(ii) & (4)---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Landlord in his ejectment application had claimed that he required shop in dispute for personal bona fide use and occupation of his son who was jobless--­Ejectment application was resisted by tenant contending that as son of landlord for whom shop was required was studying, personal requirement of landlord on that ground thus was based on mala fide---Certificate produced by tenant to prove that son of landlord was a college student pertained to period prior to filing of ejectment application---Nothing was on record to show that son of landlord had been employed or was on job at the time of filing ejectment application ---Ejectment application having been decided after four years of its filing, son of landlord could not be expected to sit idle for such a long time---Landlord had produced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove that his son was jobless and shop in dispute was quite suitable for business intended to be started therein---Landlord, in his statement, had categorically stated that as soon as shop in disptue was vacated by tenant, same would be occupied by his son---Protection had been given to tenant under S.13(4) of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance; 1959 that if after .getting vacant possession of shop in dispute, same was not occupied by landlord within sitpulated period, tenant could make application to Rent Controller for possession of shop in dispute--­Landlord having proved his personal and bona fide need for shop in dispute for use and occupation of his son, Rent Controller had rightly ordered ejectment of tenant from the shop.\n \nJuma Sher v. Sabz Ali 1997 SCMR 1062; Messrs F.K. Irani & Co:, v. Begum Feroz 1996 SCMR 1178 and Sheikh Muhammad Jameel v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others 1998 MLD 1049 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)=15,13(3)(ii)&(4)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XLI,R.27", + "Case #": "First Appeal from Order No. 114 of 1999, decision dated: 27-03-2000, hearing DATE : 3rd March, 2000", + "Judge Name:": "AMAN ULLAH KHAN YASINZAI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khushnood Ahmed for Appellant. Mohsin Javed for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASHFAQ AHMED\nvs\nDr. ARBAB ALI AHMED" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8537", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 174 = 1959 SLD 174 = 1959 PLD 103", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDTT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)].....S 6 (a) read with S. 2 (f) and Sch., 1 item 15-Calendaring of cloth-Process ancillary to manufacture- Calendaring Mill to take out licence--Central Excise Rules, 1944, rule 174 (1) (c).\n \nCalendaring is a process ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product which is the calendared cloth. Under section 6 a licence is necessary only if the manufactured goods are excisable; but there is nothing in Article 15 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act to show that it excludes calendared cloth.\n \n\"\"Manufacture\"\" is defined in the Act [S. 2 (f)] as including any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product.\n \nA calendaring Mill, therefore, must take out a licence in accordance with rule 174 (1) (c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.\n \nEncyclopaedia Britannica (1953 Edition, Vol. 5 p 846) ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=6,6(a),2(f)Central Excise Rules, 1944=174(1)(c).", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 84 of 1958, decision dated: 12th January 1959, (On appeal from the judgment and order dated the 26-03-1957, of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 471 of 1956)", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS AND AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LAYALLPUR\nvs\nCh. FAQIR MUHAMMAD" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8538", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1964 187 = 1964 SLD 187 = 1964 PLD 113", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 6, 3, 2(k) & Second Sch., Part A-Goods (betel-nuts) specified in Part A, Second Schedule, excisable only when supplied \"\"by a curer to a wholesale dealer, whether directly or through a broker or commission agent\"\"-Dealer of goods not falling within such category, not wholesale dealer within mischief of S. 6-Mere possession of excisable goods-Not sufficient by itself to render possessor thereof liable to pay duty in respect of goods-Central Excises Rules, 1944, r. 7.\n \n(b) Interpretation of Statutes-----\n \n----Fiscal legislation-Imposts--­Person can be made liable only when clearly shown to be falling within category made liable under letter of law\n \n(c) Tax------\n \n---Method of collection, only an accident of administra­tion-Not essence of duty of excise which is attracted by manufacture itself-Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944).\n \nIn the matter of the Central Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938 AIR 1939 F C 1; The Province of Madras v. Messrs Boddu Paidanna & Sons A I R 1942 F C 33 and Governor-General-in-Council v. Province of Madras A I R 1945 P C 98 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=2(k),3,6,12,Second ScheduleCentral Excise Rules, 1944=7", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. K-4 of 1962, decision dated: 5th December 1963, (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 18-03-1962, in Writ Petition No. 286 of 1960/Writ Petitions Nos. 290 and 308 of 1960)", + "Judge Name:": "A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Aziz Senior Advocate Supreme Court (M. A. Pesh Imam Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muzaffar Hassan Attorney for Appellant Shah Jamil Alam Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Fakhr-ud-Din G. Ebrahim Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Shafiq Ahmad Attorney for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "MUHAMMAD YOUNUS\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8539", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2535 = 2007 SLD 2535 = 2007 PLD 133", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)-----Ss. 2(20), 3 & First Sched. Part-II, Item 14.14---Excisable\nServices---History stated.\n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)----Ss. 2(20), 3, 3-C(1)(b), 4(3), 7(1) & First Sched. Part-II, Item 14.14 [as inserted by S.5 of Finance Act (XII of 1991) and then replaced with Item No.9813.0000 by Finance Act (XII of 1994)]---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts, 144, 163 & Fourth Sched.---Levy of excise duty on services provided or rendered to its customers by Institutions named in Item 14.14 of Part-II of First Sched. of Central Excise Act, 1944---Validity---Legislature was competent to levy excise duty on excisable services by inserting Item 14.14 in First Sched. of Central Excise Act, 1944---Such Item was part of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for purposes of charging duty on services in respect of advances made to any person---First Sched. was appended with Central Excise Act, 1944 to cater requirement of S.3 thereof being a charging section---Constitutionality of such Item, thus, could not be testified on touchstone of S.3 of Central Excise Act, 1944 for being constitutional---In case of irreconcilable inconsistency between such Item and S,3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, such Item would yield to section 3 thereof---Legal nexus between such Item and S.3 of the Act, existed for both being part of a statute---Word \"\"services\"\" used in plural sense in Column II of such Item would cover all services provided to its customers by Institutions named therein---Criteria or measure to calculate duty provided in Column II of such Item was neither vague nor ambiguous---Excise duty would be calculated on the volume of loan/advance at the rate specified in Column III of such Item---Such Institutions would have a recurring cause of action for purpose of effecting recovery of excise duty on services being provided on monthly basis on volume of advance/loan, which would be calculated on last working day of each calendar month---Expressions/ words used in S. 2(20) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and such item would be interpreted keeping in view their popular meanings---Words \"\"facilities\"\", \"\"loans\"\", \"\"utilities\"\" and \"\"advances\"\" would be considered in popular sense---Such Item did not speak in respect of Modaraba or Musharka etc., but after its replacement with Item No.9813.0000 by Finance Act, 1994, excise duty became chargeable on services provided or rendered by Banking Companies, Insurance Companies, Cooperative Financing Society, Modaraba, Musharka, Licensing Companies, Non-Banking Companies and other person dealing in such services---Levy of excise duty would depend upon services being provided in respect of advances to a person, but no sooner when there was no advance outstanding, Bank would not be deemed to be providing or rendering any service as transaction between Bank and customer came to an end---Financing Company would enjoy recurring cause of action till adjustment of loan---Day on which excisable service was rendered/provided would be the date for determination of excise duty---Rate of excise duty mentioned in Item 14.4 of First Schedule, Part II of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was just, proper and not arbitrary---Levy of excise duty at such rate being an indirect tax would not burden such Institutions, but would be passed oh to its customers---Principles.\n \nSouth Behar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1968 SC 922; Hirjina & Co. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1342; Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation v. Pakistan 1992 SCMR 891; United Provinces v. Atiqa Begum AIR 1941 FC 16; Navinchaandra Mafatlal v. Commissioner of Income Tax [1954] (XVI) ITR 758; Bisvil Spinners v. Superintendent Central Excise PLD 1988 SC 370; Ghularn Hyder Shah v. Chief Land Commissioner 1983 CLC 1585; Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66; A&B Food Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income/Sales Tax Karachi 1992 SCMR 663; Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax East Bengal v. B.W.M. Abdul Rehman PLD 1973 SC 445; Excise and Taxation Officer Karachi v. Burma Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 338; Mondi's Refreshment Room & Bar, Karachi v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1983 Kar. 214; Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 329; ICC Textiles Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 2003 PTD 1017; P. Kunhammad Kutty Haji v. Union of India [1989] 176 ITR 481; Ocean Industries Ltd. v. Industrial Development Bank PLD 1966 SC 738; Jamat-i-Islami Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2000 SC 111; Buxa Dooars Tea Company Ltd. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1989 SC 2015; Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner of the Sales Tax (1985) 155 ITR 144; Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Hunza Central Asian Textile and Woolen Mills Ltd. 1999 PTD 1135; Reference No.2 of 2005 PLD 2005 SC 873; 2002 CLC 1714; Messrs Central Insurance Co. v. The Central Board of Revenue 1993 SCMR 1232; Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1996 SC 324; Pakistan v. Public at large PLD 1987 SC 304 and Mrs. Zehra Begum v. Pakistan Burmah-shell Ltd. PLD 1984 SC 38 ref.\n \nAbdul Rahim v. UBL PLD 1997 Kar. 62; Excise and Taxation Officer Karachi v. Burma Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 338; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652; Chambers Concise Dictionary (pg. 53); Habib Bank Limited v. Messrs Farooq Compost Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. 1993 MLD 1571; Habib Bank Limited v. Messrs Qayyum Spinning Ltd. 2001 MLD 1351; Muhammad Shafi v. Wealth Tax Officer 1992 PTD 726 and Messrs ICC Textile Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2001 SCMR 1208 rel.\n \n(c) Islamic Banking---\n \n----Islamic modes of financing, adoption of---Expressions \"\"loan\"\", \"\"interest\"\" etc., would be alien to Islamic Banking system.\n \n(d) Words and phrases---\n \n----\"\"Service\"\"---Meaning.\n \nAdvanced Law Lexicon 3rd Edition Volume 4 (2005) ref.\n \n(e) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Fiscal statute---Language used in fiscal statute would be interpreted in its literal and ordinary meanings in favour of taxpayer.\n \nGovernment of Pakistan v. Messrs Haswani Hotel Ltd. PLD 1990 SC 68; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652; Messrs Bisvil Spinners Ltd. v. Superintendent Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1988 SC 370 and Abdul Rahim v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1997 Kar. 62 fol.\n \n(f) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Not safe to compare language in one statute with that employed in another, even though subject covered by the two may involve similarities.\n \nAbdul Rahim v. UBL PLD 1997 Kar. 62 ref.\n \n(g) Words and phrases----\n \n---\"\"Advances\"\"---Meaning.\n \nWords and Phrases Vo. 2-A (pg. 117) and Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 2 page 496-97 ref.\n \n(h) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Law should be interpreted in such a manner, that same should be saved rather than destroyed.\n \nElahi Cotton Mills PLD 1997 SC 582 and Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 2 pg. 496-97 rel.\n \n(i) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Schedule appended with statute---Legal status---Schedule placed/appended with an enactment is an extension of the section for the purpose of which same has been inserted.\n \n(j) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Act and Schedule, conflict between---Schedule being an enjoinder equal status of an enacment; in case of such conflict, Act would prevail and Schedule would yield to the Act---Principles.\n \nExcise and Taxation Officer Karachi v. Burma Shell Storage and Distribution Company of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 338; Craies on Statute Law Seventh Edition 1971 ,p. 225; N.S. Bindra's The Interpretation of Statutes Seventh Edition at pg. 92 and Understanding Statutes S.M. Zafar rel.\n \n(k) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Fiscal statute, constitutional validity of---Determination---Principles stated.\n \nThe Court is bound while examining whether particular matter falls within a fiscal statute is required to examine the letter of the law, and if it comes to the conclusion that all the expressions used by the legislature are to be taken into consideration its popular meaning, then there should not be hesitation in maintaining the constitutionality of particular law.\n \nCorpus Juris Secundum Vol. 84 page 246; Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax East Bengal v. B.W.M. Abdul Rehman 1973 SCMR 445; Tenant v. Smith 1892 AC 150; Interpretation of Statutes Fourth Edition at page 977; Sohail Jute Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1991 SC 329 and Mian Ejaz Shafi v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 Kar. 604 ref.\n \n(l) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n----Laws relating to economical activities, interpretation of---Principles stated.\n \nThe Court while interpreting laws relating to economical activities view the same with greater latitude than the law relating to civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion etc., keeping in view the complexity of economic problems, which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait jacket formula.\n \nElahi Cotton Mills PLD 1997 SC 582 fol.\n \n(m) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---Fiscal statute---Taxing measure---Ultra vires to the Constitution---Determination---Reasonableness or otherwise of such measure would be a matter of legislative policy and not for the Courts for adjudication.\n \nAnoud Power Generation Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2001 SC 340 rel.\n \n(n) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)----\n \n---Arts. 25, 184, 185(3) & 199---Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951), S.2---Constitutional petition by a Company challenging constitutionality of a statute on touchstone of Art. 25 of the Constitution---Not maintainable without joining its shareholder/director---Principles.\n \nUndoubtedly, the companies have got fundamental rights to carry on business through its representatives, who are the citizens of Pakistan, but for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of a statute, it would be a condition precedent to satisfy that challenge is by a citizen at the touchstone of Article 25 of the Constitution, which provides that all citizens are equal before the law and are entitled to protection of law. Expression \"\"citizen\"\" means a citizen of Pakistan as defined by law under Article 260 of the Constitution.\n \nA company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 or the Companies Ordinance, 1984, does not fall within the definition of a citizen. However, the constitutionality of a legislation, which has impaired the rights of a company, can be challenged through a shareholder.\n \nAn incorporated company does not fall within the definition of citizen. However, constitutionality of a statute can be examined for violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, if the vires of the statute have been questioned by a shareholder, director along with the company itself and the company independently cannot question the constitutionality of legislation at the touchstone of Article 25 of the Constitution. The Courts are not debarred to examine the case of the company on the point other than the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Constitution.\n \nThe incorporated bodies/companies do not fall within the definition of a citizen for the purpose of Article 25 of the Constitution; therefore, without joining the share/account holders, the impugned legislation cannot be examined within the parameters of Article 25 of the Constitution.\n \nIt would be incorrect to contend that while examining the availability of the question of discrimination under Article 25 to an incorporated body, but so far as the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is concerned, it would be maintainable on behalf of the companies/banking institutions, if they fall within the definition of a person as it has been used in Article 199 of the Constitution. It would not be out of context to lay down a distinction between the expression of a person and a citizen. As far as the expression \"\"person\"\" is concerned, it also includes a juristic person i.e. incorporated bodies, and so far as expression \"\"citizen\"\" is concerned as it has been employed in Article 25 of the Constitution, which means as defined under the law. Essentially the law on the subject is Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, which by its implication excludes a juristic person from the definition of citizen.\n \nDivisional Forest Officer v. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. AIR 1981 SC 1368; Excell Wear v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 25; U.P.S.E. Board v. Hari Shanker AIR 1979 SC 65; I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCMR 1041 and Inaam ur Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 563 ref.\n \nThe Progress of Pakistan Co. Ltd. v. Registrar Joint Stock Companies Karachi PLD 1958 Lah. 887; Shelat v. Bhargava, G.K. Mitter AIR 1970 SC 564; Godhra Electric Company v. State of Gujarat AIR 1975 SC 32 and DC & GM Company v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 937 rel.\n \n(o) Administration of justice---\n \n----Power of Court to maintain other than on the grounds on which same was founded---Scope stated.\n \nCourts can maintain the s other than on the grounds on which the same were founded. But if the plea is not available under the law to defend the , then argument raised by him would not help him at all.\n \n(p) Central Excise Act (1 of 1944)---\n \n----S. 2(20), 3 & First Sched. Part-II, Item, 14.14 [as inserted by S. 5 of Finance Act (XII of 1991) and then replaced with Item No.9813.0000 by Finance Act (XII of 1994)]---Excise duty on excisable services---Status---Such tax being an indirect tax recoverable from a person to whom excisable services were provided or rendered---Duty of Financial Institution, Insurance Company, Cooperative Financial Society, other Lending Bank or Institution and other person dealing in advancing of loans to realize excise duty at prescribed rate from amount of advances outstanding against each borrower.\n \nMessrs Central Insurance Co. v. The Central Board of Revenue 1993 SCMR 1232 ref.\n \n(q) Interpretation of statutes---\n \n---Retrospective effect---Scope---In absence of clear intention of legislature to apply provision of a statute with retrospective effect, same would be deemed applicable prospectively.\n \n(r) Taxation---\n \n---Rate of tax, fixation of---Acceptable consensus of taxpayers ordinarily preferred by Lawmakers---Principles.\n \nThe Lawgivers before imposing the tax ordinarily undertake an exercise during the process whereof the taxpayers are also examined and keeping in view their acceptable consensus the rate of tax is fixed. Besides at the same time, it becomes very difficult to quantify the excise tax, therefore, a reasonable/moderate rate of tax is fixed keeping in view the suggestion of the taxpayers and other persons who matter in this behalf.\n \nElahi Cotton Mills PLb 1997 SC 582 rel.\n \n(s) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----Ss. 2(20), 3, 3-C(1)(b), 4(3), 7(1) & First Sched. Part-II Item 14.14 [as inserted by S. 5 of Finance Act (XII of 1991)]---Excise duty on excisable services, imposition of---Estoppel against legislature---Scope---Legislature could not be estopped from promulgating a law to impose tax with a view to generate revenue---Principles.\n \nNeither Banking Companies nor C.B.R. has imposed excise levy on excisable services, as it is evident from the contents of Finance Act, 1991. Similarly the Federation of Pakistan, who had legislated Item 14.14 of First Schedule Part-II is not a party to the agreement between .the persons dealing in advances of loans and the Bank. Therefore, the legislature cannot be estopped from promulgating a law for the purpose of imposing of the tax with a view to generate revenue keeping in view its growing requirement to generate funds to address burning problems of the day and the complex issues facing the people, which the legislature in its wisdom through legislation seeks to solve, therefore, there is no estoppel against the Federation to levy excise on the excisable services notwithstanding the contents of the agreement. The powers of the legislature to promulgate the law imposing excise duty or other duties cannot be curtailed.\n \nMolasses Trading and Export (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 1905 and Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ashraf PLD 1993 SC 176 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2,2(20),3,3C(1)(b),4(3),7(1),FirstSchedConstitution of Pakistan, 1973=144,163,FourthSched", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 2296 to 2412, 2707-2717 of 2001, 516, 934 of 2002, 1087-1091 of 2004, 2254-2403, 2410-2423, 2433--2436 of 2005, decision dated: 22-02-2006. dates of hearing: 20th, 21st and 22-02-2006", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi and M.S. Khattak, Advocates-on-Record for Respondents (in C. As. Nes.2312, 2317, 2321, 2355, 2356, 2359, 2373, 2375, 2376, 2383, 2402 and 2406 of 2001).\nSyed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 2318 of 2001).\nFazal-e-Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 2325, 2331, 2376, 2402 and 2410 of 2001).\nMuhammad Afzal Sandhu, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 2330 and 2366 of 2001).\nRaja Haq Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 2345, 2357, 2363, 2386 and 2405 of 2001).\nMuhammad Farid, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 2401 of 2001).\nA.I. Chundrigarh, Advocate Supreme Court with A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.As. Nos. 2707-2717 of 2001).\nWaseem Sajjad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeals Nos. 2707 to 2717 of 2001) and Farogh Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A.2717 of 2001).\nA.I. Chundrigarh, Advocate Supreme Court with A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. No. 516 of 2002).\nNemo for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 516 of 2002).\nImtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in C.A. No. 934 of 2002).\nA. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmer Bilal Sufi, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.A. No. 934 of 2002).\nNemo for Appellant (in C.As. Nos. 1087-1091 of 2004)\nRaja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos. 1087 to 1091 of 2004).\nIzhar-ul-Haq Advocate-Supreme-Court (in C. A No. 1091 of 2004).\nImtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.2254-2256, 2260-2261, 2262, 227, 2287, 2290-2292,2297-2300, 2301, 2303, 2318-2322, 2327-2329, 2349, 2350 and 2395 of 2005).\nSyed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Arshad Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2257, 2288, 2289 and 2304-2308 of 2005).\nSyed Najmul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2258 and 2259 of 2005).\nAshtar Ausaf Ali, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2262, 2290-2292 and 2327-2329 of 2005).\nShahid Hamid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2263-2265 of 2005).\nKhawaja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2293-2296 and 2323 of 2005).\nMuhammad Akram Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.2310-2317 and 2325-2326 of 2005).\nRaja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As.Nos.2259, 2311, 2330-2338, 2340-2347, 2349, 2352, 2353, 2365, 2367-2369, 2375, 2376 and 2385-2388 of 2005).\nSh. Shahid Waheed, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.2337-2339 of 2005).\nMian Abdul Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2344 and 2352 of 2005).\nCh. Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2348, 2354 and 2364 of 2005).\nTariq Mehmood Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.A. No. 2332 of 2005).\nKhalid Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.As. Nos.2410 and 2412 of 2005) Muhammad Azeem Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in C.As. Nos.2433 and 2434 of 2005) Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 2435-2436 of 2005) M.S. Khattak,Advocate-on-Record for Respondents(in C.A. No. 2433 of 2005", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nVs\nHaji MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.27072717 of 2001\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeal No.516 of 2002\nINDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN \nVs \nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and \nCivil Appeal No.934 of 2002\nICC TEXTILE MILLS, LTD. \nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.10871091 of 2004\nMessrs PAK ELECTRON LTD. and OTHERS\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and others\nCivil Appeals Nos.22542403 of 2005\nMessrs FAISAL ASAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD and OTHERS\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and OTHERS\nCivil Appeals Nos.24102423 of 2005\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and OTHERS\nVs\nGUL AHMAD TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and \n(On appeal from the judgment and order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.Ps. Nos. 462, 780, 2289/93, 2136/94, 841/93, 3139/92, 147/03, D54/94, D2190/93, D254/93, D2202/93, D933/93, D1331/93 and 1606D/1993).\nCivil Appeals Nos.24332436 of 2005\nTHE PAK PUNJAB MANUFACTURING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. and OTHERS\nVs\nFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and OTHERS\nCivil Appeals Nos. 2296 to 2412, 27072717 of 2001, 516, 934 of 2002, 10871091 of 2004, 22542403, 24102423, 24332436 of 2005, decided on 22nd February, 2006" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8540", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDQT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1959 175 = 1959 SLD 175 = 1959 PLD 134", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDQT0", + "Key Words:": "(Sind Abkari Act (V of 1878)]......S 14-Implies power to grant a licence-Power to grant implies power to refuse-Original grant of license and renewal-No difference in respect of discretion vested in Collector-Sind Excise Manual para. 183.\n \nThere is no express provision in the Sind Abkari Act giving the Collector powers to grant a licence, but by reason of the word; used in section 14 it seems clear that such a power is impliedly vested in the Collector. Unless this view is accepted, the clear intention of the section would be defeated as otherwise there would be no licensing authority at all. A power to grant a license necessarily implies power to refuse to grant it, as otherwise it would mean that there is an obligation on the Collector to grant a licence and that he has no jurisdiction to refuse the same, but there is nothing in the Act to justify such a conclusion. There is no provision in the Act regarding the renewal of licences. On the language of the statute therefore there is no justification for holding that there is a difference between the original grant and a renewal of the licence.\n \nParagraph 183 of the Excise Manual (Sind) does not in terms state that renewal is to be ordered as a matter of course.\n \nSusannah Sharp v. Wakefield and others 1891 A C 173; Ratanshaw Nusserwanji Todiwalla v. Geoffrey William McElhinny and another A I R 1942 Bom. 1 and Rex v. Metropolis Police (1911) 2 K B 131 considered.\n \n(b) Sind Excise Manual,\n \npara. 113-Does not prohibit grant of a provisional licence.\n \n(c) Sind Abkari Act (V of 1878),\n \nS. 14-Grant or renewal of licence entirely within discretion of Collector-Not a judicial Act-Act does not require recording of reasons for refusal--Exercise of discretion, however, not to be arbitrary or fanciful.\n \nThe Collector in dealing with the applications for licences and the Commissioner in the appeals from the orders of the Collector act in an administrative and not in a quasi judicial capacity. There is nothing in the Act indicating how the applications should be dealt with, but the form of licence prescribed under S. 30 contains the condition that the grant or renewal is entirely in the discretion of the Collector.\n \nGrant or refusal of a licence is not a judicial act.\n \nThis, however, does not mean that the exercise of dis­cretion by the Collector or Commissioner can be arbitrary and fanciful.\n \nScope of interference by Courts with the exercise of discretion indicated.\n \nThe Act does not require the Collector to record his reasons.\n \nIf a foreign firm was refused renewal of license, it would not be said that the refusal was based on \"\"extraneous con­siderations\"\".\n \nTariq Transport Co., Lahore v. Sargodah Bhera Bus Service P L, D 1958 S C (Pak.) 437; Boulter v. Kent Justices 1897 A C 556; Lord Mayor of Leeds v. Ryder and ,ethers 1907 A C 420 ; Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpora­tion (1948) 1 K B 223 and The King v. The London County Council (1915) 2 K B 466 ref.\n \nSharp v. Wakefield 1891 A C 173 dissented from.\n \nQueen v. The Bishop of London (1890) 24 Q B D 213 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sindh Abkari Act, 1878=14", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 103 of 1958, decision dated: 11th March 1959. (On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 14th January 1958, in Writ Petition No. 345 of 1957) dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd January 1959", + "Judge Name:": "MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J., M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, AMIRUDDIN AHMAD AND S. A. REHMAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, (Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Siddiq and Company, Attorneys for Appellants Mazhar ul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M. A. Rahman, Attorney for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "S. S. MIRANDA LTD.\nvs\nTHE CHIEF COMMISSIONER. KARACHI and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8541", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDOD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1970 170 = 1970 SLD 170 = 1970 PLD 136", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDOD0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)]....... 1st Sched Item 18, as amended by Finance Act (V of 1965), S. 5 (2) and Finance Act (XII of 1967), S. 5 (8)--Jute manufacture-Duty­\"\"Sacking\"\" and \"\"Hessian\"\", distinguished - Fiscal statutes -Interpretation.\n \n\"\"Hessian\"\" and \"\"Sacking\"\" are two established world­wide specifications of jute manufactures universally accepted and recognised by all concerned including the relevant authorities of the Government of Pakistan. There can be no hesitation in holding that until the amendment of the said item 18 of the First Schedule to the Act was made by the Finance Act of 1967 \"\"Hessian\"\" and \"\"Sacking\"\" including its kindred variety were always treated as two different categories of jute manufactures and they were well recognised and well understood as such and consequently under the said unamended item 18 of the First Schedule to the Act, \"\"Sacking\"\", heavy cess and \"\"cement bags\"\", whether of plain weave or twill weave, fell under the second category, namely, \"\"all other manufactures\"\" and they were not included under the head \"\"Hessian\"\". Besides the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 being a fiscal statute the rule of strict inter­pretation applies and unless \"\"Sacking\"\" fell clearly under the head \"\"Hessian\"\" it could not be charged at a higher rate applicable to \"\"Hessian\"\" only. From the foregoing it is patent that in every sphere, official or otherwise, \"\"Hessian\"\" and \"\"Sacking\"\" were maintained under two distinct categories and therefore, even if it could be held that it was possible for \"\"sacking\"\" to come under the heading \"\"Hessian\"\", both being plain weave fabric, a construc­tion of the statute that is favourable to the tax-payer should be preferred.\n \nThe Commissioner of Income-tax, East Pakistan v. Messrs Hossen Kasam Dada, Karachi P L D 1961 S C 375 ; Muhammad Younus v. Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistani and others P L D 1964 S C 113 ; Crawford on Interpretation of Statutes, 1940 Edn., p. 321; Craies on Interpretation of Statutes, 6th Edn., p. 614 ; Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., pp. 53, 57 and Bindra, 3rd Edn., p. 145 ref.\n \n(b) Interpretation of statutes-Words used in Act relating to particular trade, business or transaction and nit statutorily defined-To be construed as having the particular meaning which is known or understood by those connected with the particular trade, business or transaction.\n \nAt least in trade circles it is quite clear that \"\"Hessian\"\" and \"\"Sacking\"\" were always understood as two distinct categories and specifications of jute manufactures and consequently unless these two expressions have been statutorily defined, they must be under­stood in the same sense in which the people manufacturing and dealing in them understood. This view finds support from Crawford on Interpretation of Statutes, 1910 Edition, page 321 ; Craies on Interpretation of Statutes, Sixth ,Edition, page 614, Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, Eleventh Edition, pages 53 and 57 and Bindra, Third Edition, page 145.\n \nUnwin v. Hanson 2 Q B D 115 and Messrs Usmania Glass-Sheet Factory Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Companies Circle IV, Chittagong 1966 P T D 461 ref..\n \n(c) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), 1st Sched., Item 18 as amended by Finance Act (V of 1905), S. S (2) read with Finance Act (XII of 1967), S. 5 (8)-Treating of \"\"Sacking\"\", \"\"Heavy Cess\"\" and \"\"Cement Bags\"\" as falling under head \"\"Hessian\"\" of Item 18, Sched. 1 to Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, prior to amendment by finance Act, 1967-Without lawful authority.\n \nThe action of the respondents treating \"\"Sacking\"\", \"\"Heavy Cess\"\" and \"\"Cement Bags\"\" as falling under the head \"\"Hessian\"\" in item 18 of the Schedule 1, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1941 during the period prior to the coming into force of the Finance Act of 1967 was without lawful authority and of no legal effect.\n \nAzizuddin Industries Ltd. v. The Controller of Central Excise and Land Customs, Chittagong and others P L D 1967 Dacca 58 fol.", + "Court Name:": "Bangladesh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=FirstSchedFinance Act, 1967=5(8)Finance Act, 1965=5(2)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions Nos. 326, 340, 342, 358, 360, 372 and 373 of 1967, decision dated: 12th December 1967. dates of hearing : 27th and 28th November 1967", + "Judge Name:": "SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND A. B. MAHMUD HUSAIN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Dr. Kamal Hossain, Mozammel Haque Khan, Altaf Hossain and K. S. Nahi for Petitioner (in all Petitions) Md. Nurul Huda, Deputy Attorney-General, Noor Muhammad and S. A. Rahim for Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 (in Petitions Nos. 326, 340, 342, 358 and 360 of 1967). Md. Nurul Huda, Deputy Attorney-General, Noor Muhammad and S. A. Rahim for Respondent No. 4 (in Petitions Nos. 372 and 373 of 1967)", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN JUTE MILLS ASSOCIATION\nvs\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS, EAST ZONE, CHITTAGONG and 6 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8542", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1861 = 2006 SLD 1861 = 2006 PLD 148 = 2006 PTCL 137", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlJDND0", + "Key Words:": "(Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)]......Ss 2(16), 2(33), 3, 33(4) & VIth Sched.---Central Excise Act (I of 1944), S.2(25) & 3---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.210---Notification S. R.O.No.456(1)96, dated 13-6-1996---Taxable supply---Polyethylene poly bags, manufacturing of---Respondents were manufacturers of vegetable Ghee/oil and authorities issued notices for recovery of sales tax and central excise duty on polyethylene poly bags in which vegetable Ghee/oil was packed---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declared polyethylene poly bags as inseparable part of vegetable ghee and not a distinct product liable to levy of central excise tax and sales tax---Validity---Preparation of pouches/poly bags by converting polyethylene film was a manufacturing process---Word `manufacture' under S.2(25) of Central Excise Act, 1944, included any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product, any process of remanufacture, re-melting, reconciliation or repair and process of packing or repacking such product---Pouches/poly bags manufactured by respondents were capable of being sold in market and it would not make any difference even if conversion of polyethylene bags were manufactured for self or home consumption---Notification S.R.O. 456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996, issued under S.3 of Central Excise Act, 1944, and Sales Tax Act,'1990, were clearly applicable---Poly bags were put to business use and were not exempt from sales tax under the provisions of S.3 read with 6th Sched. of Sales Tax Act, 1990---Mere fact that vegetable oil/ghee was exempt from central excise and sales tax would not exclude production/manufacturing of polyethylene poly bags from the ambit of taxable activity or goods for the purpose of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Sales Tax Act, 1990---High Court took the erroneous view of the matter in treating the manufacturing activity of polyethylene poly bags as an inseparable part of vegetable ghee/oil making and not a distinct product---Judgment passed by High Court was set aside---Appeal was allowed.\n \nCommissioner of Sales Tax and others v. Hunza Central Asian Textile and Woolen Mills Ltd. and others 1999 SCMR 526; Sheikhu Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 2001 SCMR 1376; Messrs Noorani Cotton Corporation v. the Sales Tax Officer \"\"A\"\" ward, Lyallpur PLD 1965 SC 161; Messrs Pak Cosmetic Products Karachi v. Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others 1988 CLC 1772; State of Karnataka v. B. Raghurama Shetty and others AIR 1981 SC 1206 and Adil Polypropylene Products Limited and others v. The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and others 2000 SCMR 1708 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2,2(16),2(33),3,33(4),VIthSched", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 813 to 821, 932 and 933 of 2002, decision dated: 21st December, 2005 (On appeal from order/judgment dated 21-1-2002 and 11-2-2002, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.As.Nos.347/2001, 348/2001,2/2002)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR AND M. JAVED BUTTAR, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan, A.G. along with Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court and Khurram Hashmi, Advocate for Appellants (In all cases) Zaeem-ul-Farooq Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in all cases)", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX and others\nvs\nMAHBOOB INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8543", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlNDST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1863 = 2006 SLD 1863 = 2006 PLD 452 = 2006 PTCL 146", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlNDST0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excise Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 2(f) & 3---S.R.O. No. 456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996---S.R.O. No.685(I)/2001, dated 27-9-2001---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether lubricating oil supplied in excess of 10 litres would not be covered by Item No. 2710.0081 of S.R.O. No. 456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996; and whether levy of central excise duty on bulk by S.R.O. No.685(I)/2001, dated 27-9-2001, was not meant to clarify that the duty thereon was also payable under S.R.O. No.456(I)/96, dated 13-6-1996.\n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)---\n \n---Ss. 2(f) & 3---S.R.O. No. 456(1)/96, dated 13-6-1996---S.R.O. No.685 (1)/2001, dated 27-9-2001---Central excise duty, levy of---Mobil oil and lubricating oil packed in bulk---Company was manufacturing and supplying Mobil oil and lubricating oil in bulk---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declared such supply exempted from central excise duty---Contention of authorities was that lubricating oil in excess of 10 litres supplied by respondent would fall under Item No.2710.0082 of S.R.O. No.456(I)/96, dated, 13-6-1996 and that S.R.O. No.685(I)/2001, dated 27-9-2001, was intended to be a clarification necessitated by an earlier decision of another High Court similar to the one under appeal---Validity---By not challenging the s of other High Courts and instead adding another such heading to bring into the regime lubricating oil in bulk, the Authorities had accepted the interpretation placed by the other High Court on the relevant provisions of S.R.O. No.456 (1)/96, dated 13-6-1996---Contention of the Authorities based on addition of Sub-heading No.2710.0083 rather supported the case of the company-Such addition became necessary after the Central Board of Revenue had realized that existing provisions of S.R.O. No.456(1)/96, dated 13-6-1996 did not cover the supply of oil in bulks---If object of new provision was simply to clarify situation already in existence, the same would have been incorporated as explanation to the existing Item No. 2710.0082---Addition of separate Item No.2710.0083 by S.R.O. No.685 (1)/2001, dated 27-9-2001, in S.R.O. 456 (I)/96, dated 13-6-1996 amounted to acknowledgement by legislature that supply of oil in bulk was not covered by the existing items---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed.\n \nAdam Lubricants Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others Suit No.840 of 2001 and Punjab Petroleum Industries (Pvt.) Limited v. Collector Central Excise Writ Petition No.14312 of 2001 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=2(f),3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.728 of 2002, decision dated: 14-02-2006, (On appeal from the judgment of the Balochistan High Court, Quetta, dated 28-2-2002 passed C.P. No.634 of 2001)", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS, ACTG. C.J., KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND NASIR-UL-MULK, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others\nvs\nMessrs BALOCHSITAN MINERALS and othersOIL (PVT.) LTD., QUETTA" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8544", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1958 56 = 1958 SLD 56 = 1958 PLD 462 = (1959) 1 TAX 27", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIRlNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Sale tax---Manufacture of liquor-Sale price to include also Provincial excise duty-Sale Tax Act (III of 1951), S. 1 (2) as substituted by Finance Act (I of 1957)-Substitution intra vires the Held, that a duty of excise is one imposed on a manufactured article and it is in the nature of an expense incidental to the manufacture of liquor and so may be legitimately included in the sale price. As such there would be nothing wrong in assessing the sale tax on the basis of the value composed of the named price for the liquor and the excise duty.\n \nThe items in the legislative lists included in the fifth Schedule to the Constitution must not receive a narrow interpretation.\n \nThey ought to be construed in a free and liberal spirit so as to carry out the intention behind the Constitution and so as to make it a working instrument. Excise duty can be described as part of the seller's recompense in a sale transaction so as to be included legitimately in the consideration for the sale.\n \nIt was, therefore, within the competence of the Legislature to make the amendment that they did in the sales tax law. The legislative competence being thus established, the proposition admits of no doubt that such legislation could be passed with retrospec­tive effect.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=1(2)", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 84 of 1957, decision dated: 11-03-1958, under Article 170 of the Constitution.", + "Judge Name:": "S. A. RAHMAN, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Manzoor Qadir for Petitioner. S. A. Haq for Respondent 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "MURREE BREWERY Co. LTD\nvs\nTHE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8545", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1995 868 = 1995 SLD 868 = 1995 PLD 659 = (1995) 73 TAX 66", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FDRT0", + "Key Words:": "(Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)].......S 4(1)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Determination of value for purposes of duty--- Leave to appeal was granted to examine the effect of decision of Supreme Court in Ittehad Chemicals v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 136, wherein it had been observed that items of freight and octroi were to be included for the purpose of computing the price under S.4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for assessment of excise duty and sales tax.\n \nIttehad Chemicals v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 136 ref.\n \n(b) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 4(1)---Determination of value for purposes of duty--- Interpretation of S.4(1), Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944--- Octroi and transportation charges t can be included while determining wholesale cash price; being permissible under S.4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.\n \nAlthough, the value of an article is to be determined on the basis of the wholesale cash price for which such article is sold or is capable of being sold to the general body of retail traders or, as the case may be, consumers but no such provision exists in section 4(1), Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as the same is applicable in Pakistan, whereby sale of articles for the purpose of computation of their wholesale cash price is contemplated outside the factory or premises of the manufacturer. The expression \"\"general body of retail traders or consumers\"\" although, has not been defined either in the said Act or under the rules framed thereunder but reference to the same in section 4(1) would generally mean reference to traders or persons to whom articles chargeable with duty are sold in the wholesale market. Consequently, before the goods reach in the hands of any retail traders or consumers from the premises of the manufacturer, payment of octroi duty or transportation charges would also be involved. Further, the language employed by the Legislature in section 4(1) of the said Act to the effect: \"\"without any abatement or deduction whatever except the amounts of duty and sale tax then payable\"\" represents emphasis on only such deductions which have been expressly made permissible by the statute itself. Therefore, the subsection only contemplates deductions . on account of any amount of duty and sales tax payable on such articles, for the purpose of computation of their value under the said section but no provision exists therein from which the legislative intent qua further deductions on account of octroi or transportation charges can be spelt out. By a legal fiction, value of such articles is to be determined not alone on the basis of the actual price for which such article may be sold but such value may be determined even on the basis of the price of which an article of like kind and quality is capable of being sold on the day when it is removed from the factory, to the general body of retail traders or consumers, as the case may be. The amendments made in section 4(1) clearly. signify an intention on the part of the Legislature to include the element of post manufacture charges for the purpose of computation of wholesale cash price, barring only what has been expressly provided for by the legislation itself, notwithstanding the fact that by some understanding between the manufacturer of articles and their retail trader octroi or transportation or any other such charges are to be borne by the latter. Therefore, even if the contention raised by manufacturer that the octroi or transportation charges were not borne by it but the same were borne by its stockists is believed, the same would be of little consequence to it. Consequently, octroi and transportation charges, could be included while determining wholesale cash price since the same was permissible under section 4(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.\n \nIttehad Chemicals v. Islamic Repumc of Pakistan PLD 1993 SC 136; A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. AIR 1973 SC 225; Messrs Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 1989 MLD 490; Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Messrs Indian Oxygen Ltd. 1989 MLD 2454; Atic Industries Ltd. v. H.H. Dave AIR 1975 SC 960; Pakistan v. Popular Tobacco Co., Karachi PLD 1961 SC 66; Atlas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1984 SC 86 and Atlas Battery Ltd. v. Superintendent, i Central Excise and Land Customs PLD 1979 Kar. 545 distinguished._\n \nPer Fazal Karim, J.__ \n \n(c) Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944)\n \n---S. 2(ccc)---Excise duty---Elements.\n \nA.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd. AIR 1973 SC 225; AIR 1939 FC' 1; The Province of Madras v. Messrs Boddu Paidanna & Sons AIR 1942 FC 33, 35; G.G. in Council v. Province of Madras AIR 1945 PC 98; Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. AIR 1984 SC 420; Muhammad Yonus v. Central Board of Revenue PLD 1964 SC 113; Goshin v. Velry (1850 12 QB 328, 407 and Reg v. Richmond (1992) 2 AC 48, 67 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=4(1),2(ccc)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No.97 of 1993, heard on 12-04-1995, (On appeal from the judgment dated 17-3-1992, of the Peshawar High Court, in Writ Petition No.191 of 1990)", + "Judge Name:": "AJMAL MIAN, FAZAL KARIM, AND MARNOON KAZI, JJ. PER MAMOON KAZI, J.;_ AJMAL MIAN, J. AGREEING", + "Lawyer Name:": "Saadat Hussain, Dy. A.G., N. W.F.P. and Haji MA. ,Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate-on-record for Appellant Maqsood Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance and others\nvs\nKOHAT CEMENT COMPANY and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8546", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FpST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1985 236 = 1985 SLD 236 = 1985 MLD 143 = 1985 PTCL 248", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1FpST0", + "Key Words:": "Liability of Manufacturer under Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968 – Warehousing under Bond\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a manufacturer of cotton yarn, challenged orders dated 1-7-1975, 23-2-1976, and 24-2-1979 passed respectively by the Deputy Collector, Collector, and the Federal Government, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 47,500 under rule 8(2) of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Cotton Yarn) Rules, 1968.\nThe dispute arose when 225 bags of Hard Waste were removed from the petitioner’s mills by Messrs Muhammad Luqman, Muhammad Hanif Brothers, owners of a licensed warehouse in Karachi, under Form A.R.-III and with appropriate bond certification under rule 153 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, 10 bags were later found by Excise officers in Faisalabad in the godown of third parties, allegedly bearing the same marks as the earlier consignment. This led to the issuance of a show-cause notice and subsequent imposition of penalty against the petitioner for misusing duty adjustment.\nThe petitioner contended that:\nTheir liability ceased once the goods were cleared under bond and properly warehoused in Karachi.\nThe certification of warehousing by the Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi was not challenged or disproved by the authorities.\nNo action was taken against the officials who certified warehousing, nor was there any formal finding that the certification was bogus or fictitious.\nThe Assistant Collector, upon direction, submitted in Court that even the Collector had observed there was no evidence that the certification documents were verified or that Karachi officials had been informed. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that liability ended upon clearance under Chapter 7 of the Central Excise Rules.\nHeld:\nThe Lahore High Court held that since the goods were removed under official authorization and certification, and no finding existed against the validity of the warehousing certificates, the petitioner could not be saddled with liability. The writ petition was accepted with costs, and the orders of the Deputy Collector, Collector, and the Federal Government were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=153,173(B)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 7605 of 1979, heard on 7-04-1985, dates of hearing: 16-12-1984 and 7-04-1985", + "Judge Name:": "MAHBOOB AHMAD, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Petitioner\nSyed Niaz Ali Shah for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CRESCENT TEXTILE MILLS\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8547", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1654 = 2002 SLD 1654 = 2002 MLD 603 = (2002) 86 TAX 383", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JDRT0", + "Key Words:": "[National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVII of 1999)].......Ss 5(g) & 9(b) [as amended by National Accountability. Bureau (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXV of 2001)]---criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss'. 426, 491 & 561-A---Bail, grant of---Jurisdiction of High Court---\"\"Court\"\" was defined as \"\"Accountability Court\"\" in S.5(g), National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999---Section 9(b) of the Ordinance, had totally ousted jurisdiction of the Trial Court to grant bail in Accountability cases---Words \"\"including the High Court\"\" were inserted in S.9(b) of the Ordinance through Amendment Ordinance (IV of 2000) and simultaneously under the same Ordinance Ss.426 & 491, Cr.P.C., were also inserted---Intention behind said insertions was to put a bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail in such cases--­Such bar had been removed through amendments made by National. Accountability Bureau (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 and under the amendment the High Court could exercise its normal jurisdiction for grant of bail in Accountability cases---Total ouster of jurisdiction, of the Trial Court in respect of bail had reflected the intention of the Legislature that in Accountability cases bail should not be granted normally on the criterion which is observed for the purpose of bail in cases tinder other laws, because otherwise grant of bail by the High Court viz. Appellate Court instead of the Trial Court, in the first instance, would be withost any wisdom---Criterion of bail in accountability cases would be different from that laid down for the cases under other laws---High Court bad powers to grant bail in suitable cases and such suitability could be judged on the grounds of hardship and prima facie high improbability of conviction of the accused on the basis of material collected by the prosecution against him---Amending Ordinance, 2001 had omitted the words \"\"including the High Court\"\" from S.9(b) of the Ordinance, to remove the bar on the, jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail in Accountability cases, but Ss.426, 441 & 561-A, Cr.P.C., mentioned in S.9(b) of the Ordinance, had not been omitted---Section 9(b) of the Ordinance only had prohibited the Accountability Courts from granting bail---Reference to 5.426, 491 & 561-A, Cr.P.C. in S.9(b) was absolutely unnecessary because said sections related to powers of High Court and not that of the Accountability Courts---Mention-of Ss.426, 491 & 561-A, Cr.P.C. in S.9(b) of the Ordinance was thus redundant.\n \n(b) National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (VIII of 1999)---\n \n----S.9(b) [as amended by National Accountability (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXV of 2001)]---Bail, grant of---Case of the accused was not one of hardship as he had surrendered before the Trial Court when his pre-arrest bail was declined---Accused was Sales Manager of the company during the period when the alleged evaison of excise duty was made by import of wines from the said company by use of false import permits and those permits were in the name of the accused---Relevant documents were recovered from the possession of the accused and he was involved in the transaction---Evidence had vet to be examined and evaluated by the Trial Court thus, it would riot be appropriate to give a finding of high improbability of. involvement of the accused in the transaction and gains thereof---Case was not fit for grant of bail in circumstances.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "National Accountability Bureau Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)=5(g),9(b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)=426,491561A", + "Case #": "Criminal Bail No. 1429 of 2001, decision dated: 29-10-2001", + "Judge Name:": "S.A. RABBANI AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Muhammad Ashraf Kazi for Applicant. Aamer Raza Naqvi for the National Accountability Bureau", + "Petitioner Name:": "ASHER JAN\nvs\nTHE STATE" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8548", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JTUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 813 = 1996 SLD 813 = 1996 MLD 980 = 1996 PTCL 450", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JTUT0", + "Key Words:": "[Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)].......Art 114---Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.21(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.8(1)---Constitutional petition---promissory estoppel, doctrine of---Applicability against State ---Extent--­Government, having excluded certain items from excise duty and petitioners on basis of such exemption having imported those exempted items subsequently superseding by general notification earlier exemption---Validity---Doctrine of promissory estoppel can be applied against State even in its Governmental, public or sovereign capacity where prevention of fraud or manifest injustice would be necessary---Promissory estoppel, however, cannot be invoked to compel Government or even private party to do any act prohibited by law---No promissory estoppel can be claimed against exercise of legislative power--­Legislature can never be precluded from exercising its legislative function by resort to doctrine of promissory estoppel ---Promisee in order to invoke promissory estoppel must show that he suffered to his detriment for acting on the basis of promise---Where detriment was likely to cause injustice to promisee when promissor had receded from his promise, then detriment would certainly come in as necessary ingredient---Detriment in such case was not some prejudice which would be caused to promise, if promissors were allowed to go back on the promise---Principles of \"\"legitimate expectations\"\", \"\"promissory estoppel\"\" and \"\"fair/reasonable actions/fair procedure\"\" would thus, be applicable against Government as well---Where right or privilege was created on basis of any order/notification amounting to a promise, same could not be withdrawn without giving beneficiary opportunity of hearing without disclosing reasons for withdrawal and without giving opportunity to file representation against such action/notification---Where Government had excluded specified items from excise duty and petitioners on basis of such exemption had imported those items, subsequent withdrawal of notification of exemption without giving petitioners notice of being heard was illegal, void and not sustainable in law.\n \nPakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407; Federation of Pakistan and others v. Ch. Muhammad Aslam and others 1986 SCMR 916; Al Badar Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan 1990 PTD 565; Council of Civil Service Unions and others v. Minister for the Civil Service 1984 All ELR 935; Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and 2 others v. Salahuddin and 3 others PLD 1991 SC 546; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 4 others v. Messrs Ibrahim Textile Mills Ltd. and others 1992 SCMR 1898; Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Dr. Muhammad Zaman and others 1994 SCMR 249; Rees and others v. Crane 1994 SCMR 1682; Works Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi and another v. The Karachi Development Authority PLD 1978 Kar. 529; Faisal Spinning Mills Limited, Karachi v. State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi PLD 1993 Kar. 360; Al-Samrez Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917; M/s. Abdul Wahid Abdul Majid v. Government of Pakistan and others 1993 SCMR 17; Syed Ali Shah v. Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence and 2 others 1994\n \nCLC 369; Bashir Ahmad Bilour v. M.C., Peshawar and 3 others PLD 1976 Pesh. 1; Arsallah Khan v. Bashir Ahmad Balour and 3 others PLD 1976 SC 581; Ram Niwas Gupta and others v. State of Haryana through Secretary Local Self-Government, Chandigarh and another AIR 1970 Punjab and Haryana 462; M/s. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar and others AIR 1980 SC 1285; Union of India and others v. Godrey Philips Ltd. AIR 1986 SC 806; Jit Ram v. State of Haryana (1980) 3 SCR 689; Union of India v. M/s. Anglo-Afghan Agencies AIR 1968 SC 718; M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P AIR 1979 SC 621; Hughes v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877) 2 AC 439; Birmingham and District Land Co. v. London and North Western Rly. Co. (1888) 40 Ch D 268; Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1956) 1 All ER 256: 1947 KB 130; Jorden v. Money (1854) 5 HLC 185; Durham Fancy Goods Ltd. v. Jackson (Michael) Fancy Goods) Ltd. (1968) 2 All ER 987; Evenden v. Guildford City Association Football Club Ltd. (1975) 3 All ER 269; Spencer Bower's book on Estoppel by Representation 1966 pp.340-342; Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Edn., p.1018, Note 2 to para. 1514; Crabb v. Arun District Council (1975) 3 All ER 865; Combe v. Combe (1951) 2 KB 215; Beesly v. Hallwood Estates Ltd. (1960) 2 All ER 314; Municipal Corporation of Bombay v. Secretary of State ILR 29 Born. 580; The Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation; Moorgate Mercantile Co. Ltd. v. Twitchings (1975) 3 WLR 286; Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) 1 HL 129; Ganges Mfg. Co. v. Sourujmull ILR 5 Cal. 669; Ajayi v. Briscoe (1964) 3 All ER 556; M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala (1974) 1 SCR 515; AIR 1973 SC 2641; American Jurisprudence Vol. 28 (2 d) at 783, para. 123; Custodian v. Brij Kishore (1975) 2 SCR 359; AIR 1974 SC 2325; Howell v. Falmouth Boat Construction Co. Ltd. 1951 AC 837; Robertson v. Minister of Pension (1949) 1 KB 227; State of Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg., (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. (1974) 1 SCR 671; AIR 1973 SC 2734; W.J. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. EL Nasr Export and Import Co. (1972) 2 All ER 127; Tool Metal Mfg. Co. Limited v. Tungsten Electric Co. Ltd. (1955) 2 All ER 657; Kammin's Ballrooms Ltd. v. Zenith Investments (Torguay) Ltd. (1970) 2 All ER 871; .Central London Property Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. (1956) 1 All. ER 256; D. & C. Builders Ltd. v. Rees (1965) 3 All ER 837; Grundt v. Great Boulder Pty. Gold Mines Ltd. (1938) 59 CLR 641; Selvi Travels v. Union of India AIR 1993 Mad. 216; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Its Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1980 SC 1896; Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935; M/s. Diamond Industries Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan Writ Petition No.1265 of 1991); C.P.S.L.A. No. 149 of 1994; C.P. No.224 of 1994; C.A. 599 of 1994; M/s. Jubilee Energy Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan Writ Petition No.1007 of 1995 and Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and 3 others PLD 1970 SC 439 ref.\n \n(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---\n \n----Art.114---Principles of \"\"legitimate expectations\"\", \"\"promissory estoppel\"\" and \"\"fair action/fair procedure\"\" were not attracted to challenge legislative actions of Government/Authorities.\n \n(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Dismissal of earlier Constitutional petition at limine stage, where against appeal was pending--­Subsequent Constitutional petition which was based upon fresh cause of action; issue raised therein, were not decided in earlier Constitutional petition was not barred in law and was maintainable.\n \n(d) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss.31(A), 21(A), (B) & (C)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--- Constitutional petition ---Super session of earlier notification (whereby vested rights had been created in favour of petitioner) through subsequent notification---Validity---Provision of S.31-A, Customs Act, 1969 authorizes respondents to save any notification issued under S.21-A & B of the Act, but does not authorize respondents to withdraw any notification issued under S.21(C) of the Act, which had altogether different connotations and implications---Principles of \"\"legitimate expectations\"\", \"\"promissory estoppel\"\" and \"\"fair action/procedure\"\" were applicable to the facts of case and defendants were debarred having no justification in law to supersede earlier notification, which had to remain in force without limitation to time---Subsequent notification dated 16-2-1995, was thus, illegal and without lawful authority to the extent it superseded notification dated 26-8-1990 and same was set aside whereby earlier notification of 26-8-1990, would be deemed to be still in force for all intents and purposes.\n \nM.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P AIR 1979 SC 621; Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935; Al-Samrez Enterprise v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1917; Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Muhammad Ashraf and others v. Dr. Muhammad Zaman and others 1994 SCMR 249; Rees and others v. Crane 1994 SCMR 1682 and Selvi Travels v. Union of India AIR 1993 Mad. 216 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=21(c),31(A),21(A),(B),(C)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)=114", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No. 1078 of 1995, heard on 28th September 1995, dates of hearing: 27th and 28th September 1995", + "Judge Name:": "CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Mansoor Alimad for Petitioner. Bashir Ahmad Kiani, Standing Counsel for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "RAJA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Through General Manager\nVs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD through Chairman and 4 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8549", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1988 359 = 1988 SLD 359 = 1988 MLD 1375 = 1988 PTCL 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1JpVT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)]........S 2(f), First Sched., Items Nos.9(1) & 27-- Coloured cement and cement paint --Difference between-- Coloured cement and cement paint having been categorized as two different items attracting different rates of duty under #.4 Schedule--Difference between the two, should not depend on mode of user-­Contention that any cement used for painting or colouring house should be called cement paint not tenable. \n \n(b) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)--S.2(f), First Sched., items Nos. 9(1) & 27--Finance Act (XXX of 1977)-­Reclassification of products-- Coloured cement falling under Item No.9(1) of Sched. was reclassified by Authority as colour paint falling under Item No.27 of Schedule attracting different rate of duty, merely on ground that as cement paint has been categorised under Item 27, therefore, coloured cement should also be included in definition of paint --Mere inclusion of cement paint under Item No.27 would not automatically make it cement paint, but decision of that question would rest on evidence of experts of technical nature to determine what was a cement paint and how it differed from coloured cement--Such questions could be determined only by recording evidence--Orders of authorities, classifying coloured cement as cement paint , passed without recording any evidence and without applying mind to facts and circumstances of case and legal provisions operating at relevant time, were without lawful authority and of no legal effect-­High Court setting aside illegal orders of authorities, remanded case to decide afresh properly question of difference between coloured cement and cement paint in light of evidence if produced by parties.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No.D-1034 of 1986, decision dated: 24-02-1987", + "Judge Name:": "SALEEM AKHTAR AND AHMED ALI U. QURESHI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "SA.Sarwana for Petitioner. \nS.M.Noorul Hasan for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "BARISON INDUSTRIES\nvs\nCENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8550", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1NDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1999 682 = 1999 SLD 682 = 1999 MLD 1925 = 2000 PTCL 33", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1NDRT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 2(25) & 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2--­Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration---Interim injunction, grant of---Defendant (Department) called upon plaintiff/petitioner to furnish complete information with regard to filter paper which was converted by plaintiff/petitioner in \"\"tea bags\"\" for packing tea which, according to defendant (department), fell within definition of \"\"manufacture\"\" as contained in S.2(25) of Central Excises Act, 1944 and was chargeable to excise duty--­Plaintiff/petitioner had challenged competence/authority of defendant (Department) to call for such information from plaintiff/petitioner contending that process of converting filter paper into tea bags by plaintiff/petitioner did not fall within definition of \"\"manufacture\"\" as defined in S.2(25) of Central Excises Act, 1944---Central Excises Act, 1944 was a complete Code in itself in respect of levy and recovery of duties of Central Excises and a forum for redress of grievances of persons aggrieved by any order passed under that Act, had also been provided in the Act---Defendant (department) was empowered under S.14 of Central Excises Act, 1944 to summon any person whose attendance was necessary to give evidence or to produce document in an enquiry which Central Excise Officer was making for any of the purposes of Central Excises Act, 1944---To determine question as to whether process of converting filter paper into tea bags fell within definition of \"\"manufacture\"\" as contemplated by S.2(25) of Central Excises Act, 1944, defendant (Department) had competently called upon plaintiff/petitioner to furnish required information---Defendant (Department), before raising a demand for payment of Central Excise Duty on basis of information which would be supplied by plaintiff/petitioner, was obliged to first hear plaintiff/petitioner and then decide whether process of conversion of filter paper into tea bags fell within definition of \"\"manufacture\"\" chargeable to Excise Duty. \n \nCivil and Military Press Limited and 3 others v. Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others 1985 CLC 1021; Trust Ceramics Industries, Landhi v. Deputy Collector II, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi and 4 others 1991 CLC 1923; Pakistan and 3 others v. Civil and Military Press Limited and 3 others PLD 1991 SC 619 and Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs and 2 others v. Orient Straw Board and Paper Mills Limited PLD 1991 SC 992 ref.\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 14---Enquiry undertaken by Central Excise Officer---Nature---Enquiry duly undertaken by duly empowered Central Excise Officer is a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Ss. 193 & 228, P. P. C.", + "Court Name:": "Sindh High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=14,2(25)Specific Relief Act, 1877=42Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.XXXIX,Rr.l2", + "Case #": "Suit No.561 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4544 of 1998, decision dated: 29-07-1998", + "Judge Name:": "ABUL INAM, J", + "Lawyer Name:": "Makhdoom Ali Khan for Plaintiff. Musheer Alam, Standing Counsel. Shaikh Muneerur Rehman for Defendant No. 4", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LIMITED through Company Secretary\nvs\nTHE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8551", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1NDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1986 1186 = 1986 SLD 1186 = 1986 MLD 2091 = 1985 PTCL 283", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVIS1NDND0", + "Key Words:": "Penalty under Central Excise Rules – Requirement of Fraudulent Intent\nDetails:\nThe petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in cloth manufacturing with a factory in Lahore, was required under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, to maintain Form R.G. 19, recording the number of power-looms operated in each shift. In 1961, an Excise Inspector found overwritten entries in this register and initially issued a warning. However, subsequently, based on the same overwritings, the Deputy Collector imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Rule 226(iii).\nThe appeal to the Collector and revision before the Federal Government were both dismissed. The petitioner then challenged the fine through a writ petition, arguing that the penalty was imposed without establishing fraudulent intent, which is a necessary condition under the rule.\nHeld:\nThe High Court accepted the writ petition, holding:\nRule 226(iii) is penal in nature and must be strictly construed.\nThe rule penalizes fraudulent alterations, not mere alterations.\nNo finding was recorded by any authority (Deputy Collector, Collector, or Federal Government) that the alterations were fraudulent or made with intent to deceive.\nThe alterations could plausibly be attributed to carelessness and were not shown to be false.\nThus, an essential element of the offence (fraudulent intent) was missing, and the imposition of penalty was unlawful.\nPrinciples of strict interpretation of penal provisions\nConclusion:\nThe fine was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed with costs, as the required element of fraudulent intent under the rule had not been established.", + "Court Name:": "Lahore High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=226(iii)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Writ Petition No.1855 of 1964, decision dated: 7-04-1985", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, JUSTICE", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Qayyum D.A.G. for Respondent S. Niaz Ali Shah Federal Counsel", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM& SONS\nvs\nDEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and LAND CUSTOMS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8552", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFDUT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1997 369 = 1997 SLD 369 = 1997 MLD 3153 = (1999) 80 TAX 62 = (1998) 77 TAX 231", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFDUT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)].......S 3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--­Import of vessel for scrapping---Scrap, ship plates, waste, rods obtained through any process of dismantling or bringing of vessel or other floating structure were exempted from Central Excise Duty through Notification dated 13-6-1996--­Notification in question, was to take effect from 7-1-1996---Bill of entry of imported vessel was presented at Customs House on 9-6-1996---Letter of Authority issued on 1-9-1996, called upon petitioner So pay, Central Excise Duty---Petitioner claiming exemption from payment of Excise Duty on basis of Notification dated 13-6-1996 filed Constitutional petition---Respondent claimed that petitioner having already deposited Excise Duty could not claim exemption therefrom---Effect---Petitioner had submitted pay order in favour of respondent with covering letter being first instalment of total duty and taxes on vessel--­Excise Duty was not included in break-up of such taxes---Respondent had encashed such Pay Order and out of same deposited specified amount under his own signatures as Excise Duty---Respondent concerned was called in by High Court to explain his conduct but he failed to appear---In absence of any such explanation either by him or State Counsel, High Court held that such exercise had been done by concerned respondent with mala fide intention---High Court directed copy of to be sent to Central Board of Revenue for purpose of taking action against respondent within specified period---Petitioner having not paid Excise Duty in circumstances, department concerned was directed by High Court to treat such amount towards payment of other dues, if outstanding against petitioner.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----S. 96(ZZ)---Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), S. 3-C---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Levy of excise duty--­Relevant date---Date of filing Bill of Entry would not be crucial for determination of tariff value and rate of duty---Date of import would be when goods were cleared for export or for home consumption--Permission having been granted to petitioner to commence dismantling ship on specified date, such date would be treated as date of clearance, and from such date excise duty would be calculated---Notification of exemption from payment of excise duty being in operation during that period, excise duty would not be leviable on petitioner.\n \nFederation of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and others v. M/s. Noorie Trading Corporation (Pvt.) Limited and 14 others 1992 SCMR 710; 1993 SCMR 17 and Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1564 ref.\n \n(c) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 3---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R. 96(ZZ)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Collection of excise duty on ship-breaking---Respondents claimed that special procedure for recovery of excise duty was required to be followed, therefore, clearance of goods under S.3-C, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, would not be relevant---Such plea would not be available to petitioner firstly because R.96(ZZ), Central Excise Rules, 1944 being subordinate legislation could not supersede S.3-C, Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and secondly; that it was mainly concerned with special procedure in respect of certain manufactured goods as provided in Central Excise Rules, 1944---Demand of excise duty from petitioner on scrap of vessel was illegal and without lawful authority on basis of notification dated 13-6-1996, whereby such duty stood exempted.", + "Court Name:": "Quetta High Court", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=96(ZZ)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=199", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 290 of 1996, decision dated: 8-05-1997, hearing DATE : 29-04-1997", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zahid Alvi and S. Shakil Ahmed for Petitioner. M.S. Rakhshani, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "Messrs TARIQ SULTAN & CO \nvs\nGOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8553", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFpWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2008 2109 = 2008 SLD 2109 = 2008 SCMR 438 = (2008) 97 TAX 289", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFpWT0", + "Key Words:": "[Customs Act (IV of 1969)]........S 25---Assessment of imported goods---Assessing Officer, authority of---Scope---Officer of customs department is authorized under S.25 of Customs Act, 1969, to reject declared value of consignment imported it Pakistan and to asses the same.\n \n(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--S. 25---Declared value of imported goods, rejection of---Principles---For rejecting or refusing to accept value declared by consignee in respect of imported goods, concerned officer is required to give cogent, plausible and satisfactory reasons for non-acceptance of declared value and rejection thereof cannot proceed on whims or desire of officer of Customs department---Assessing Officer is required to point out some flaw or defect or such circumstances which create doubt with regard to veracity and correctness of declared value or that same had been under ­invoiced---In determining or assessing fair value or normal price of such imported consignment, concerned officer is tinder obligation to take into consideration all necessary factors and circumstances enumerated in S.25 of Customs Act, 1969, for such determination and assessment. \n \n(c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---\n \n----Ss. 16, 25 & 31(1)(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Assessment of imported goods---Declared value, rejection of---Collector of Customs, on allegation of misdeclaration, ordered confiscation of goods allowing importer to redeem the same on payment of 50% fine equal to amount of duty and taxes---Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal filed by importer and set aside the order passed by Collector Customs, which order was maintained by High Court---Validity---Nothing was available on record to indicate that Customs Department had secured or had attempted to secure invoices from other importers who had imported identical or similar consignment in Pakistan with a view to show that price declared by such other importers greatly varied from price declared by importer---In absence of such an exercise, action in rejecting declared value of consignment would amount to an arbitrary and capricious exercise---Resort to S.25(7) of Customs Act, 1969, was to be made only when Customs Officer, who had to make assessment or determination of fair or normal value of consignment, was of the view that the same could not be determined in view of impossibility of procuring evidence---Order of Collector Customs was silent in such regard which was an important factor for drawing' an inference that no such attempt was made before passing the order---Customs officer dealing with the case proceeded in a perfunctory, whimsical and arbitrary manner and Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in setting aside the same---High Court also did not commit any illegality or infirmity in accepting order of the Tribunal and dismissing constitutional petition filed by authorities---Supreme Court declined to interfere with passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Customs Act, 1969=16,25,31(1)(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petition No. 434-K of 2005, decision dated: 14-10-2005, (On appeal from the order, dated 25-2-2004 passed by High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Special Customs Appeal No.6 of 2004)", + "Judge Name:": "RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-On-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PORT MUHAMMAD BIN QASIM\nvs\nMessrs ZYMOTIC DIAGNOSTIC INTERNATIONAL, FA I SALABA D" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8554", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFpTT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2007 2538 = 2007 SLD 2538 = 2007 PTCL 260 = 2008 SCMR 615", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFFpTT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excise Rules, 1944)]......R 10(2)(3)-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Non-­mentioning of specific rule in show-cause notice---Effect---High Court vide impugned had opined that since the show-cause notice did not contain specific provision of law and rules, same was ineffective and void---Validity---Substantial compliance had been made by making reference of rules to identify the period of time during which tax had been allegedly evaded---Merely for the reason that sub-rules (2) & (3) of R.10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 had not been mentioned, it was not proper to declare show-cause notice illegal---Judgment of the High Court, was not sustainable, in circumstances---Instead of taking into consideration technicalities, the court should look into the matter with different angles as to whether substantial compliance had been made or if compliance of any of the sub-rules had been omitted, then what prejudice was likely to cause to the party to whom show-cause notice was given---In the present case no prejudice had been caused to respondents because substantial compliance of the relevant rules had been made---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and was allowed, impugned was set aside and case was sent back to the Collector Sales Tax and Central Excise for the purpose of decision of the case expeditiously. \n \nAssistant Collector Customs and others v. Messrs Khyber Electric Lamps and 3 others 2001 SCMR 838 rel.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Rules, 1944=10Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "C.P. No. 702-L of 2003, heard on 7-07-2006, (On appeal from the judgment of the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-2-2003 passed in C.A. No.316 of 2001)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND KARAMAT NAZAR BHANDARI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, \nvs\nZAMINDARA PAPER and BOARD MILLS and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8555", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJTYz0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1996 168 = 1996 SLD 168 = 1996 SCMR 700 = (1995) 74 TAX 9", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJTYz0", + "Key Words:": "[Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990)]........R 7---Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), Ss. 3 (4) & 37 ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) ---Levy under Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990 and recoveries of duty effected from the assessees had been declared by High Court as without lawful authority and Intra-Court Appeal by Revenue against such order was also found incompetent--- Leave to appeal was granted as authoritative pronouncement by Supreme Court on the vires of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990 was called for.\n \n(b) Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990---\n \n----S. 7---Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), Ss. 3 (1) (4) & 37--­Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Fourth Sched., Part I, Entries No. 52, 44, 47, 48 & 49---Levy of excise duty---Modes---Two mutually exclusive modes of levy of excise duty by Government; on the basis of actual production of goods and on the production capacity of the plant---When the excise duty is recovered on the basis of actual production of goods under S. 3 (1) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the production capacity of the plant, machinery etc. has no relevancy at all; similarly when excise duty is sought to be imposed on the basis of production capacity of plant; machinery etc. the actual production of goods becomes irrelevant.\n \nThe authority to levy excise duty by the Federal Government on goods is derived under Entry No. 44 of - the Federal Legislative List of the Fourth Schedule, Part. I to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Government is further authorised to levy taxes and duties under Entry No. 52 of the list on the basis of production capacity of any plant, machinery, undertaking establishment or installation, in lieu of taxes and duties leviable under Entries Nos. 44, 47, 48 and 49 of the List. The two different modes of levy of excise duty by the Government under, the Constitution are, therefore, mutually exclusive. The Government, may, accordingly, elect to impose excise duty in any one of the two modes mentioned above. As a necessary corollary, therefore, it follows that where the Government decided to recover excise duty on the basis of production capacity of plant, machinery etc. it could not demand the excise duty on the basis of actual production of goods. Clauses 1 and 4 of section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act enact these two alternative principles for levy of excise duty on goods envisaged by Entries Nos.44 and 52 of the List in the Fourth Schedule, Part 1 of the Constitution. The rationale behind these two mutually exclusive modes of levy of excise duty on goods is quite obvious; when the excise duty is recovered on the basis of actual production of goods under section 3 (1) of the Act, the production capacity of the plant, machinery etc. has not relevancy at all. Similarly, when excise duty is sought to be imposed on the basis of production capacity of plant, machinery etc. the actual production of goods becomes irrelevant.\n \n(c) Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990---\n \n----R. 7, proviso [as amended by S.R.O. 701 (1)/90 dated 2-7-1990 and S.R.O. 559(1)/91 dated 16-f-1991]---Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944), S. 3(1) & (4)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 25---Rule 7, proviso of Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990 having created a sub­class out of a well defined and intelligible classification of manufacturers of foreign brand of aerated water, on the basis of payment of excise duty by them on actual production of goods in the preceding year and determination of their tax liability on that basis which procedure had no nexus to the object. of classification envisaged by S. 3 (4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, amounted to discrimination within a well defined category of manufacturers--­Rule 7, Excise Duty of Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990 was discriminatory and liable to be struck down on the ground of inequality under Art. 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Rule 7, Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990 having been framed under S. 3 (4), Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was therefore enacted .beyond the mandate of said section and for that reason it was invalid.\n \n The classification of manufacturers of aerated water in different categories on the basis of the numbers of filling spouts/valves and machines installed in the factory and on the basis of the brands of aerated water manufactured by them is based on an intelligible differentia having a direct nexus with the object of classification contemplated by section 3(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules framed thereunder. \n \nSection 3 (4) of the said Act lays down that excise duty will be levied in lieu of the levy under section 3(1) of the said Act on the basis of production capacity of plant, machinery, undertaking, establishment or installation, to be determined on the basis of guiding principles laid down under a notification with the approval of Government, prescribing the duty or rate of duty on production capacity and the manner of collection of such duty. Rule 6 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules, 1990 accordingly, classifies the manufacturers of foreign brand of aerated water into one category and fixes their liability to pay excise duty at a predetermined rate on the basis of the capacity of plant and machinery installed by them. This classification under Rule 6 of manufacturers of aerated water in different categories and fixation of their tax liability on the basis of production capacity of their plant and machinery is based on an intelligible differentia having full nexus with object of classification. The assessees who were the manufacturers of a foreign brand of aerated water according to, the classification of manufacturers and rate of excise duty given under Rule 6 fell under category (a) of the Table appended to the said rule and were thus liable to pay excise duty at the rate specified in column 2 of the said Table. However, the proviso to rule 7, created a sub-category of manufacturers of foreign brand of aerated water within the category of manufacturers of foreign brand of aerated water and fixed their tax liability on the basis of tax paid by them in the preceding year. This sub-classification under the proviso to rule 7 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Aerated Water) Rules; 1990 clearly bears no nexus with the object of classification envisaged by section 3(4) of the Act. The criteria for levy of excise duty on production under section 3 (4) of the Act has reference only to the production capacity of plant, machinery, undertaking, establishment or installation and it bears no nexus with the actual production of the goods by the manufacturers. The creation of sub-class out of a well defined and intelligible classification of manufacturers of foreign brand of aerated water, on the basis of payment of excise duty by them on actual production of goods in the preceding year and determining their tax liability on that basis, bears no nexus to the object of classification envisaged by section 3(4) of the Act and thus amounted to discrimination within a well defined category of manufacturers. Declaring the rule as discriminatory and striking it down on the ground of inequality under Article 25 of the. Constitution, therefore, was justified. The rules having been framed under section 3(4) of the Act the proviso to Rule 7 was enacted beyond the mandate of that section and, therefore, for this reason also it was invalid.\n \n(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---\n \n----Art. 25---Article 25, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), guarantees for equality of all citizens before law and their entitlement to get equal protection of law--­Article 25 also casts a duty on the Government to ensure enactment of laws which should provide equal protection to all citizens---Such rights of citizens cannot be defeated on the ground of waiver.\n \n(e) Waiver---\n \n---- Waiver cannot be projected as an excuse to deprive citizens of their rights under the Constitution.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=25,FourthSchedule", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1994, decision dated: 4-02-1996, (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 7-7-1993 passed in W. P. 245/92, ICA No. 594/93 dated 11-12-1993)hearing DATE : 19-12-1995", + "Judge Name:": "SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, FAZAL ILAHI KHAN AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court, Mian Saqib Nisar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 3 others\nvs\nSEVENUP BOTTLING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD." + }, + { + "Case No.": "8556", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJpVT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1655 = 2002 SLD 1655 = 2002 SCMR 738 = (2003) 87 TAX 49 = 2003 PTCL 1", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJpVT0", + "Key Words:": "[Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)]......S 30-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)_--Refund of excess sales tax---Contention of the Authorities was that under S.30-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, any amount collected by way of sales tax which in fact was not payable as tax or which was in excess of the tax had to be paid to the Federal Government -and that the company had in fact collected the sales tar from the consumers and, therefore, the company was not entitled to any refund on the ground that it was not liable to pay the tax because the products in question were exempt from the levy of the sales tax---Authorities further alleged that the company did not specifically deny in the reply to show-cause notice that it did not collect the sales tax from the consumers of the goods in question---Validity---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine, inter alia, the contentions of the Authorities.\n \n(b) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R. 10---Short levied or erroneous refund of excise duty ---Recovery--­Object and scope of provisions of R.10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944--­Main object of R.10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is to provide limitation in different situations arising out of levying and recovery of the excise duty which cannot be made beyond the period of limitation---Rule 10 has nothing to do with the claims pertaining to refund but on the contrary it deals with those cases where some erroneous refund has been made and its recovery is involved.\n \nPTCL 1984 CL 24 ref.\n \n(c) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R.9---Excise duty, refund of---Tax paid on account of some mistake of law/fact or compulsion---Effect---Such payment cannot be refunded under R.9 of 'the Excise Rules, 1944, because mistake of law/fact in inadvertence or error are quite distinct to each other and neither synonymous not interchangeable.\n \n1994 CLC 994 ref.\n \n(d) Interpretation of statutes--\n \n---- Object of---Intention of the Legislature---Canons of construction and rules of interpretation are directed to one and only one end, namely, towards finding out the intention of the Legislature when such intention is clear, then there is no room for praying in aid any extreanous principle of interpretation or canons of construction.\n \nMozzaffar Ahmad v. Anwar Ali PLD 1965 Dacca 296; PLR 1964 Dacca 906 and 16 DLR 336 ref.\n \n(e) Notification---\n \n----Vires of notification-.--Determination---Principles---Purpose or purposes for which a notification is issued would be relevant in determining the vires of a notification---One of the practical and effective ways of proliferating the purpose is to see how for the suggested meaning destroys and defeats or promotes the ultimate purpose---Court, in such a research, is not confined to the literal meaning o: the words used in the notification but it has to adopt a rational attitude by attempting to align its vision to that of the draftsman while drafting the notification in question.\n \nBindra's 'Interpretation of Statutes, 7th Edn, p-833 ref.\n \n(f) Notification--\n \n---- Fiscal notifications---Interpretation of---Principles---No undue advantage could be taken on the basis of far-fetched or scholarly interpretation which the plain language does not imply nor intended to mean.\n \n(g) Sales Tax Act (III of 1951)--\n \n----S. 30-A---Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rr.9, 10 , & 11---Notification No.S.R.O.-666(1)/81, dated 25-6-1981---Sales tax, refund of---Goods exempted from sales tax---Company claimed refund of sales tax which was deposited erroneously- --Authorities declined the demand raised by the company---Orders of the authorities were assailed before High Court in exercise of Constitutional petition which was allowed---High Court directed the Authorities that the claim of refund of the sales tax had to be processed under the relevant Excise Laws and not under S.30-A of the Sales Tax Act, 1951---Validity---Where all rates of the goods in question were inclusive of sales tax meaning thereby that the rates were fixed on higher side after deduction of the sales tax paid and its burden was shared by the consumer the question of its return to the company would not arise---Company while replying to show-cause notice did not specifically deny that the sales tax was not collected from the customers and it was deposited---Sales tax having been collected by the company from the customers and for the Government, company had no locus stand/ to show-cause for its return---Judgment passed by High Court in Constitutional petition was set aside by the Supreme Court.\n \nMuhammad Yasin v. Ghulam Murtaza PLD 1988 SC 163; Mehreen Zaibun Nisa v. Land Commissioner PLD 1975 SC 397; Ellahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1997 SC 582; Friends Sons v. Deputy Collector PLD 989 Lahore 337; Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Associated Hotels (India) Ltd. 1969 SMCR 281; Hotel Midway House Ltd. Karachi v. Director-General/Commissioner, Excise and Taxation Department, Karachi 1993 SCMR 1712 and Sajjad Nabi & Co. v. Commission, of Income-tax PLD 1977 SC 437 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Sales Tax Act, (III of 1951)=30ACentral Excise Rules, 1944=9,10,11Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1492 and 1493 of 1996, decision dated: 25-09-2001 (On Appeal from the judgment/order dated 21-1-1996 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petitions Nos.1052 and 1053 of 1995)", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Izharul Haque, Advocate Supreme Court and Gulzar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE and SALES TAX\nvs\nRUPALI POLYESTER LIMITED and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8557", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJ5OD0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1993 451 = 1993 SLD 451 = 1993 SCMR 1342 = (1993) 67 TAX 243", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFJ5OD0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)].......S 3---Expression \"\"duties of excise\"\" has no precise content; in its narrowest sense it is used in contradistinction to the expression \"\"duties of customs\"\"--­Word \"\"excise\"\" has no precise or definite meaning.\n \nThe expression `duties of excise' has no precise content. In its narrowest sense it is used in contradistinction to the expression `duties of customs' thus the levy on goods imported into the country would fall under the heading `duties of customs' whereas the goods locally produced or manufactured for home consumption would fall under the heading `duties of excise'. In a comparatively larger sense `duties of excise' would relate to levy made at any stage falling between the production or manufacture of goods and their sale to the ultimate consumer. In a still wider sense it would cover a diverse variety of indirect taxes which have no nexus with the production or manufacture of goods. Similarly, the word `excise' has no precise or definite meaning.\n \nCentral Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938 AIR 1939 FC 1 rel:\n \n(b) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.3(1) [added by Finance Ordinance (XVI of 1969)]---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.279---Excisable services were made subject to the levy of the duty by amended S.3(1), Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944---Provision of Art.279 of the Constitution postulates that all taxes and fees levied under any law in force immediately before the commencing day would continue to be levied until they were varied or abolished by Act of the appropriate legislature---Competence of Federal Government to collect duty on excisable goods under Act I of 1944 (as amended by Finance Ordinance 1969) thus, could not be challenged till such tune as the appropriate Legislature makes a provision to the contrary.\n \n(c) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.4(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Third Sched., Item 43(b)---Duty of excise on alcoholic liquor was specifically reserved for the Provincial Government by the Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Third Sched., item 43(b)---In absence of any compelling reason provision of S.4(3)(b), Central Excises and Salt Act could not be construed in a manner that would include the cost of alcoholic liquor in the amount with reference to which excise duty might be charged by the Federal Government; otherwise Federal Government would be indirectly permitted to levy a tax which by express language of the Constitution belonged to Provincial Government.\n \n(d) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.3---Levy of excise duty---Liability to pay---Appellants providing services to their clients by affording them facility of consumption of liquor in their premises could not avoid liability to pay excise duty.\n \n(e) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.3---Exemption from duty---Hotels charging less than a certain amount as daily rent had been exempted from payment of excise duty---Such amount had been varying with different financial years---Appellant's plea, that said exemption was discriminatory in nature inasmuch as it had put the appellants at a disadvantage was without merit for in granting such exemption the intention was not to burden such hotels with the duty as were visited by less affluent classes---Appellants could not show that fixation of the amount in this regard was arbitrary or that the classification of the hotels in this regard was unreasonable.\n \n(f) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.4(3)(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185---Hotel management renting rooms to different classes of its clients at three different rates--­Assistant Collector had charged excise duty at the highest rate for the reason that lower rates had been offered by way of concession and for that reason they fell within the mischief of S.4(3)(a), Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944---High Court had set aside order of Assistant Collector holding that the renting of rooms at different rates did not amount to concession---View taken by High Court in this behalf was unexceptionable.\n \nGovernment of Pakistan v. Hashwani Hotel Ltd. PLD 1990 SC 68 rel.\n \n(g) Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S.4(3)---Excisable duty---Levy of ---Excisable duty was leviable with reference to the services rendered by a hotel and not with reference to tax which the owner might keep in reserve for payment to Government by way of tax.\n \n(h) Central Excises and Salt Act (1 of 1944)---\n \n----S.4(3)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185---Levy of excise duty in respect of services rendered by hotels in providing rooms, liquor and other refreshments to their clients---While computing the amount under S.4(3), Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, cost of alcoholic liquor was to be excluded and extra bed tax for a day by a hotel was not to be included in the amount with reference to which the duty was levied.\n \n(i) Words and phrases---\n \n--?Excise and \"\"duties of excise'---Meaning.\n \nCentral Provinces and Berar Sales of Motor Spirit and Lubricants Taxation Act, 1938 AIR 1939 FC 1 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=3(1),4(3)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185Constitution of Pakistan, 1962=ThirdSched.", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 101-K to 107-K, 137-K, 138-K and 149-K of 1982 and 14-K and 15-K of 1984, decision dated: 7-10-1991, hearing DATE : 22-08-1991", + "Judge Name:": "NASIM HASAN SHAH, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND SAAD SAOOD JAN, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 101-K of 1982).\nShahudul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents. (in Civil Appeal No. 101-K of 1982).\nKhalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 102-K of 1982).\nMuzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents (in Civil Appeal No. 102-K of 1982).\nKhalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos.103-K and 104-K of 1982).\nMuzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents (in Civil Appeals Nos.103-K and 104-K of 1982).\nFaizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeals Nos.105 to 107 of 1982).\nMuzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (absent) and Yousaf Raft Advocate-on-Record for (in Civil Appeals Nos.105-K and 106-K of 1982).\nA.A. Aziz Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 138-K of 1982).\nYousuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record (in Civil Appeal No. 137-K of 1952 and M. Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) (in Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1982).\nAbbas Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.S. Ghaury, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Civil Appeal No. 149-K of 1982).\nYousuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in Civil Appeal No. 149-K of 1982).\nShahudul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 14K of 1984).\nKhalid-Ishaq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Nizam Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 14-K of 1984). Mahmood lqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A..Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Civi. Appeal No. 15-K of 1984) Muzaffar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondents (in Civil Appeal No. 15-K of 1984)", + "Petitioner Name:": "HIRJINA & CO.\nvs\nISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8558", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNDWT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2014 154 = 2014 SLD 154 = 2014 SCMR 1015 = 2015 PLJ 128", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNDWT0", + "Key Words:": "(a) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)---\n \n----Ss. 52, 54, 55(3) & 63(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.15---Election petition---Format---Verification on oath---When the law prescribed a certain format for an election petition and its verification on oath, and entailed penal consequences for its non-compliance, then it was a mandatory provision.\n \n(b) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)---\n \n----S. 52---Election petition---Maintainability---When an objection was raised with regard to maintainability of an election petition for non-compliance with a mandatory provision, the Court/Tribunal should decide such preliminary objection (first), because if such objection was sustained, then the Court/Tribunal was left with no option but to dismiss the (election) petition. \n \n(c) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)---\n \n----Ss. 52 & 55(3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.15---Election petition---Verification on oath---Every election petition and every schedule or annexure to the election petition had to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in O. VI, R.15, C.P.C. [p. 1020] C\n \n(d) Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)---\n \n----Ss. 52, 54, 55(3) & 63(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VI, R.15---Election petition---Maintainability---Verification on oath---Mandatory requirement---Every election petition and every schedule or annexure to the election petition had to be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in O. VI, R.15, C.P.C.---Election petitions filed before the Election Tribunal, in the present case, were not verified on oath in the manner prescribed under O. VI, R.15, C.P.C.---If law required a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it had to be done accordingly, otherwise it would be non-compliance with the legislative intent---Petitioners had filed applications for amending their election petitions to remove the objection regarding non-compliance with S. 54 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, however said applications were time-barred as they were filed well beyond the period of 45 days as provided under S. 52(2) of Representation of the People Act, 1976---Election Tribunal should not have allowed said applications as they were time-barred---Appeal was allowed accordingly and impugned of Election Tribunal was set aside.\n \n Iqbal Zafar Jhagra v. Khalilur Rehman 2000 SCMR 250; Zafar Abbas v. Hassan Murtaza PLD 2005 SC 600; Abdul Qadir v. Abdul Wassay 2010 SCMR 1877 and Umar Aslam v. Sumera Malik PLD 2007 SC 362 ref.\n \nMuhammad Rizwan Gill v. Nadia Aziz PLD 2010 SC 828 and Umer Aslam v. Sumera Malik 2014 SCMR 215 distinguished.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Representation of the People Act, 1976=52,54,55(3),63(a),52(2)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)=O.VI,R.15", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos.1308 and 1309 of 2013, decision dated: 27-01-2014.(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-10-2013 passed by the Election Tribunal, Abbottabad in Election Petitions Nos.42 of 2013 and 95 of 2013)", + "Judge Name:": "TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, C.J., KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN AND SH. AZMAT SAEED, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Tariq Mehmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in both cases). Kamran Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1308 of 2013). Mian Abdur Rauf, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1309 of 2013)", + "Petitioner Name:": "ZIA UR REHMAN\nvs\nSyed AHMED HUSSAIN and others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8559", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNDRT0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2006 1867 = 2006 SLD 1867 = 2006 PTCL 435 = 2006 PTD 2320 = 2006 SCMR 1662", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNDRT0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excise Act (I of 1944)].......S 4(2), First Sched. Item No.02-01-B(a)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.85---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---\"\"Fruit Juice\"\" or \"\"beverage\"\" Tinned fruit juices, production and marketing of---Such juices cleared under exemption to Item No.02-01-B(a) of First Sched. to Central Excise Act, 1944---Validity---Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider question, whether such liquid being produced and marketed by company was \"\"Fruit Juice\"\" or \"\"Beverage\"\". \n \n(b) Central Excise Act (I of 1944)--S. 4(2), First Sched. Item No.02-01-B(a)---Central Excise Rules, 1944, R.85---Tinned Orange and Grape Juices---Clearing such juices under exemption to Item No.02-01-B(a) of First Sched. to Central Excise Act, 1940---Validity---Laboratory Report showing percentage of soluble solids in Orange Juice as 13.78%, while in Grape Juice as 14.03% and water contents as 83.55% and 84% respectively---Juices requiring water to make them drinkable would fall under Item No.02-01-13(b), while drinks under question would be treated as \"\"Beverages\"\"---Beverages prepared from fruit juices in manner prescribed in R.85 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would fall within ambit of exemption to Item No.02-01-B(a) and not under Item No.02-01-B(b).", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=4(2)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)Central Excise Rules, 1944=85", + "Case #": "Civil Appeals Nos. 1141 and 1142 of 2003, decision dated: 19-04-2006. (On appeal from the judgment, dated 15-11-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions Nos.5662 and 5663 of 1990)", + "Judge Name:": "IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "A. Karim Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1", + "Petitioner Name:": "COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX and CENTRAL EXCISE, \nvs\nMITCHELLS FRUIT FARM (PVT.) LTD., OKARA and 3 others" + }, + { + "Case No.": "8560", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNDND0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 2002 1656 = 2002 SLD 1656 = 2002 PTCL 634 = 2002 SCMR 1680", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNDND0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises Act (I of 1944)]........S 3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Levy of excise duty--- Validity---Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider whether the excise duty could be charged on intermediary products and whether the polypropylene strips fell within the definition of goods:\n \n(b) Central Excises Act (I of 1944)---\n \n----S. 3---Levy of excise duty and its collection---Process.\n \nThe central excise duty is a levy under section 3 of the Central Excises Act, 1944 which is a charging section. The levying of central excise duty is a legislative act and its collection is regulated by the Rules prescribed under the Act. In between 'levy' and 'collection' the process of 'assessment' of duty falls which is determined by the department. This section has prescribed the manner and method under which this duty is collected. The assessment of central excise duty is done by the authorised officer by associating the manufacturer in the determination of quantum of duty. The collection of duty is an executive act which is the last step. Before the duty is collected its levy must have the sanction of law.\n \n(c) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n----R. 10(1)---Recovery of duty---Notice .to the assessee---When the earlier notices were issued to the assessee within time, the subsequent notices issued to them reminding them of their liability would not be hit by the 'bar of 8.10(1), Central Excise Rules, 1944.\n \n(d) Central Excise Rules, 1944---\n \n---R. 10(1)---Bar placed by R.10(1), Central Excise Rules, 1944 when attracted--- Where there was no error or inadvertence or misconstruction on the pare of the department as after enquiry when it came to the light that the assessees were not paying duty on polypropylene strips in accordance with the dictates of S.R.O. 546(1)/94 dated 9-6-1994 they were issued show-cause notices---Rule 10(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 would not be applicable to the case of the assessees as neither the duty so levied was short nor the duty earlier paid had been erroneously refunded in the case.\n \nThe bar placed by Rule 10(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 would be applicable in the following three cases:--\n \n(a) Where through inadvertence, error or misconstruction duty has not been levied;\n \n(b) where the duty so levied was short; and\n \n(c) where the duty earlier paid has been erroneously refunded.\n \nIn the present case, there was no error or inadvertence or misconstruction on the part of the department as admittedly after enquiry when it came to light that the assessees were not paying duty on polypropylene strips in accordance with dictates of S.R.O. No.546(I)/94, they were issued show-cause notices. By no stretch of imagination in the circumstances it could be said that there was any inadvertence or error or misconstruction on the part of the Revenue Department. The second and third situations were not applicable in the present case. In these circumstances, Rule 10(1) of the Rules would not be applicable in the case.\n \nAdil Polypropylene Products v. The Federation of Pakistan PTCL 1997 CL 56 and Messrs Zahoor Textile Mills Limied v. The Federation of Pakistan PLD 1999 SC 880 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise Act, (I of 1944)=3Central Excise Rules, 1944=10(1)Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185(3)", + "Case #": "Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 3206 to 3211 of 2001, decision dated: 9-07-2002(On appeal from the judgment dated 27-9-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in C.As. Nos. 299, 300, 301, 302, 298 and 297 of 2001), hearing DATE : 13-03-2002", + "Judge Name:": "JAVED IQBAL, TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "", + "Petitioner Name:": "TULIP POLYBAG and others\nvs\nADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (ADJUDICATION), CENTRAL EXCISE," + }, + { + "Case No.": "8561", + "URL Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNTST0", + "Citation or Reference:": "SLD 1994 451 = 1994 SLD 451 = 1994 SCMR 1872 = (1994) 70 TAX 191", + "Case Link:": "https://sldsystem.com/caseprint.php?id=clVITFNTST0", + "Key Words:": "[Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944)]......Ss 2 (d), (f) & 3; First Sched. S. IX, Part I---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Expression \"\"excisable goods\"\"---Glazed Paper Board and Glazed Chip Board whether not \"\"excisable goods\"\"---Processes applied to make Glazed Paper Board and Glazed Chip Board would include the process of re­making and re-conditioning the original products and, therefore, the processes applied in that behalf were covered by S. 2 (f), Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and were thus included within the scope of \"\"manufacture\"\" as visualized by S. 3 of the Act---As the manufactured articles fell within the category \"\"Paper Board all sorts\"\" they were covered by item 37 of the First Sched. of the Act--­Glazed Paper Board and Glazed Chip Board so manufactured thus, fell within the definition of expression \"\"excisable goods\"\". \n \nCollector, Central Excise and Land Customs v. Sethi Straw Board Mills Ltd. Civil Petition No. 275 of 1988; Pakistan v. Civil and Military Press Ltd. PLD 1991 SC 619; Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. X, p. 451; The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Seventh Edn. pp. 23, 1012; Chambers 20th Centuary Dictionary, New Edn. pp. 30, 1236; Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edn., Vol. l p. 109 & Vol. 5, p. 2579; Burnnet v. Great North of Scotland Railway, 54 L QB 539 and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language pp. 33, 1233 ref.", + "Court Name:": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", + "Law and Sections:": "Central Excise and Salt Act, (I of 1944)=2(d),(f),3Constitution of Pakistan, 1973=185", + "Case #": "Civil Appeal No. 362 of 1992, decision dated: 29-03-1994. (On appeal from the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 15-1-1976 in Writ Petition No. 499 of 1974)", + "Judge Name:": "SAAD SAOOD JAN, MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR AND MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, JJ", + "Lawyer Name:": "Zaheer Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant A. Karim Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafferi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents", + "Petitioner Name:": "M/s. SETHI STRAW BOARD MILLS LTD.\nvs\nPAKISTAN through the Secretary to The Governmentof Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and 3 others" + } +] \ No newline at end of file