Summary: Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act (V of 1958)- -Ss. 3, 2(e) & 16-Levy of property tax-Leased Land-Lessee in perpetuity, attributes of-Petitioner Pakistan International Airlines ("PIA") impugned demand raised by respondents for payment of property tax in respect of a superstructure raised on land leased by petitioner from Provincial Government-Contention of petitioner, inter alia, was that liability of property tax fell on owner of property, and not lessee-Contention of respondents, inter alia, was petitioner PIA was a lessee in perpetuity and therefore it was liable to pay property tax-Validity-Petitioner would be considered lessee in perpetuity when lease agreement was not for a fixed term or where there did not exist any clause for renewal or termination of lease agreement-In present case, lease agreement was for a fixed term, and said agreement provided that lease agreement could be terminated on account of any breach of agreement or if said property was used for a purpose different than one specified in said agreement, and therefore petitioner could not be termed to be a lessee in perpetuity-High Court observed that under such circumstances, property tax could only be recovered from owner of building, and no tax could be levied under Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1968 on building raised by petitioner on land leased from Provincial Government-Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly. Government of Sindh through Secretary and Director General, Excise and Taxation and another v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 2015 SC 380 rel. Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others PLD 2010 SC 676; Messrs Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. Province of Punjab 2014 CLC 590; Platinum Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Government of Sindh through the Secretary, Secretariat, Karachi and another 2003 MLD 279 and Pakistan Cricket Board v. Executive District Officer (Revenue), Lahore and 2 others Writ Petition No. 10380 of 2006 ref. Akhtar Javed, Additional, Advocate-General, Punjab along with Tanveer Hussain, Inspector in the office of Respondent No.1.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: WP: Rent Matter: against impugned order dated: 17 -12 -2018 passed by learned Appellate court whereby order dated: 30 -06 -2018 and 05 -09 -2018 dismissed.

Summary: Challenging the impugned order dated 24.11.16 of PSO regarding permanent Black listing of petitioner company.

Summary: Seeking direction to set aside the impugned order dated 27.11.19 passed by Regulators Trade Organization and also exclude the name of the respondent No.4 from the voter list of the FPCCI 2019/2020 election.

Summary: Misc Matter: Against order of Justice of Peace wherein investigation for a non cagrizable affence was directed.

Summary: The petitioners are in possession of the disputed property for more than three decades,which simply signifies the deteriorated and dilapidated condition of the shops in question whichobviously would be requiring its reconstruction. The collapsible condition of the building further leads to an inescapable conclusion that balance of convenience and irreparable loss tiling in respondents favour.

Summary: Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)-------Ss.140 & 138---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.4---Right of individuals to be dealt inaccordance with law---Recovery of tax out of property and through arrest of taxpayer---Recovery of tax from persons holding money on behalf of a taxpayer---Scope---Petitionersassailed order of department regarding attaching their Bank accounts and recovery of taxamount by directly issuing notice under S.140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Department, before invoking S.140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, wasrequired to issue a notice under S.138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 intimating thetaxpayer regarding invocation of S.140 requiring him to make payment of tax liability withina reasonable time---Under Art.4 of the Constitution, it was an inalienable right of everycitizen to be treated in accordance with law but, in the present case no notice under S.138was served before invocation of S.140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Impugnedactions regarding attachment and recovery of tax amount from the Bank accounts of thepetitioners were illegal and without lawful authority---Constitutional petitions were allowed.