Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 ----S. 3(2)---Intra Court Appeal (ICA)---Maintainability---Proviso to Subsection 2 of Section 3 bars an ICA where the impugned order arises from proceedings in which the applicable law provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review---Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, provides an alternate, efficacious remedy, including complaint resolution, appeal, and review mechanisms---Appellant’s bypass of statutory forums rendered the ICA incompetent---Appeal dismissed in limine. (b) Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 ----Ss. 11, 12, & 13---Alternate remedy---Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution---Comprehensive grievance redressal provided under the Ordinance includes complaint resolution by a delegatee, appeal to the Authority, and review of decisions---High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 is barred when an efficacious statutory remedy exists---Appellant’s challenge to the natural gas supply schedule notified by the licensee (respondent No. 3) fell within the purview of the Ordinance and could not bypass its procedural framework. (c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 199---High Court jurisdiction---Alternate remedy---Bar---Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199 is restricted when an alternate remedy exists in the applicable law---Court highlighted the legislative intent to discourage bypassing statutory forums and emphasized the settled principle of law that such actions undermine statutory tribunals’ authority. -----Cited Cases: Tariq Transport Company, Lahore v. Sargodha Bhera Bus Service (PLD 1958 SC 437)

Summary: Background: M/s Win Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., a private limited company involved in manufacturing and exporting MS pipes, GI pipes, steel tubes, and profiles, filed a reference under Section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969. The company was availing benefits under the Duty and Tax Remission for Export (DTRE) Scheme, which allows importing raw materials without payment of duties and taxes for manufacturing export products. The Directorate General Revenue Receipt and Audit (DGRRA) conducted an audit and issued a show cause notice dated 28th February 2012, alleging that the petitioner violated Rule 307(2)(d)(e) of the Customs Rules, 2001. The petitioner was accused of not seeking approval from the Regulatory Collector for the sale of wastage. The Additional Collector of Customs (Adjudication) upheld these allegations in Order in Original No.08/2013 dated 15th July 2013. The Customs Appellate Tribunal affirmed the decision on 3rd February 2014. Consequently, the petitioner filed the instant reference. ----Issues: Whether Rule 307-A(2)(e) of the Customs Rules, 2001, read with Clause-1 of Section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, was correctly interpreted. Whether the petitioner, having already paid the due amount of duty and taxes on sales and wastage, could be made to pay the same amount twice. Whether Order in Original No.08/2013 is time-barred in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 179 of the Customs Act, 1969. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The reference application was dismissed. Section 196, Customs Act, 1969: This section limits the High Court's jurisdiction to questions of law arising directly out of the Tribunal's order. The court observed that none of the questions of law raised by the petitioner had been addressed in the pleadings or during the proceedings before the Tribunal. Questions of Law: The court emphasized that for a question of law to be entertained, it must arise from the Tribunal's order and should have been raised at the lower forums. Since the petitioner failed to demonstrate that these questions were raised earlier, the reference was deemed not maintainable. Relevant Case Law: The court cited various judgments establishing the principles for maintainability of a reference under Section 196, reinforcing that questions of law must have been part of the proceedings below to be considered by the High Court. ----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Ahmed Karachi Halva Merchants & Ahmad Food Products vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, South Zone, Karachi (1982 S.C.M.R. 489) Messrs Sarwar International vs. Additional Collector of Customs MCC Preventive (2013 P.T.D. 813) Collector of Customs vs. Messrs Qasim International Container Terminal (2013 P.T.D. 392) Messrs Gold Trade Impex vs. Appellate Tribunal Customs, Excise and Sale Tax (2012 P.T.D. 377) Collector of Customs vs. Mazhar-ul-Islam (2011 P.T.D. 2577) Collector of Customs vs. Messrs Kaghan Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (2008 S.C.M.R. 1538) Collector of Customs vs. Messrs Shahbaz International (2007 P.T.D. 202) Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, E&ST (Adjudication-II) (2006 S.C.M.R. 425) Collector of Customs vs. Messrs Kaghan Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006 P.T.D. 541) Messrs Zarghoon Zarai Corporation vs. Collector of Customs (2006 P.T.D. 534) Collector of Customs vs. Tahir Dawood (2005 P.T.D. 1988)

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: It was an un-witnessed occurrence. In the instant case the existence of enmity between two parties i.e the complainant and accused has not been disputed before this Court. It cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond any reasonable doubt to warrant conviction. Criminal Appeal accepted.

Summary: The petitioners, Tanveer Hussain Manji and others, sought the removal of their names from the Exit Control List (ECL) to be allowed to travel abroad freely. The petitioners were corporate entities engaged in the business of consumer products. Their names were placed on the ECL by the Ministry of Interior, based on an alleged investigation by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) regarding a contract violation.One of the petitioners entered into a plea bargain with NAB, agreeing to pay a certain amount to settle the matter. They have already paid a significant portion of the liability but are yet to pay the remaining amount. However, NAB did not take any steps to recover the balance amount, nor did they remove the petitioners' names from the ECL.The court found that the petitioners' fundamental right to freedom of movement was being violated by their names being on the ECL without any notice or hearing. The court also emphasized that the plea bargain agreement included a provision for recovering the remaining amount through the sale of collateral properties and cheques. As such, there was no justification for keeping their names on the ECL. The court held that the alternative remedy of review under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, was illusory and meaningless in this case.Therefore, the court allowed the petition and set aside the orders placing the names of the petitioners on the ECL, declaring them without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petitioners' fundamental rights to freedom of movement were upheld, and they were permitted to travel abroad freely.