Summary: (a) Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899): ---- S. 54 – Refund of stamp duty – Unused special adhesive stamps returned within six months – Entitlement to refund – Obligations of revenue authorities. Plaintiff, as the Mutawalli of a private waqf, purchased special adhesive stamps worth Rs. 32,998 for a sale deed but returned them within six months after the transaction was delayed. Despite repeated requests and compliance with S. 54 of the Stamp Act, the refund was denied by the revenue authorities. The defendant contended that the plaintiff failed to prove a bona fide intention to use the stamps, citing alleged suspicious circumstances, including the involvement of an official in misappropriation of stamps. The Court held that the purchase and return of stamps within the statutory period were admitted facts, and the plaintiff had fulfilled all legal requirements. The Collector was bound to refund the amount after the prescribed deduction, and his failure to act despite repeated notices was unjustified. (b) Government of India Act, 1935: ---- S. 226 – Bar on jurisdiction of High Court in revenue matters – Effect of repeal – Procedural nature of restriction. Defendant argued that the suit was barred under S. 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which excluded the original jurisdiction of the High Court in revenue matters. The Court held that while the suit concerned revenue, the bar under S. 226 was procedural and did not confer substantive immunity on the government. Since the Government of India Act, 1935 was repealed by the 1956 Constitution without incorporating a similar restriction, the jurisdictional bar ceased to exist. The Court reaffirmed the principle that procedural laws apply at the time of trial, and since no such bar existed at the time of adjudication, the suit was maintainable. (c) Civil Procedure – Government liability – Failure of revenue authorities to act in good faith: ---- Obligation of public authorities to process refund applications – Failure to act despite repeated reminders – Legal consequences. The Court found that the revenue authorities deliberately failed to process the refund application, despite multiple letters and legal notices from the plaintiff. The defendant’s failure to respond to inquiries or provide a valid reason for withholding the refund indicated a lack of good faith. The Court ruled that such administrative inaction could not be used as a defense against a legitimate claim. ---Disposition: Suit decreed. Plaintiff awarded Rs. 30,935-10-0 with costs and 6% interest from the date of decree until payment.

Summary: Background: A company (referred to as "Petitioner-Company") was formed through the merger of three independent companies under a Scheme of Arrangement sanctioned by the Lahore High Court in 2020. The merger involved the transfer of all assets, liabilities, and obligations of the two other companies into the petitioner. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) issued the necessary approvals and de-incorporated the merged entities. However, when the petitioner approached revenue authorities in Punjab to update the revenue records, some officers demanded payment of stamp duty and mutation fees based on a directive issued by the Chief Inspector of Stamps, Board of Revenue, Punjab, which prompted this constitutional petition. -----Issues: 1- Merger as Transfer: Does a merger of companies involving the consolidation of assets and liabilities constitute a "transfer" subject to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899? -----2- Federal vs. Provincial Jurisdiction: Can Section 282(5) of the Companies Act, 2017, which exempts stamp duty for mergers, override the provisions of the Punjab Stamp Act, 1899? -----3- Constitutional Conflict: Does Article 143 of the Constitution, which resolves inconsistencies between federal and provincial laws, apply in this case? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Merger as Transfer: The court held that the merger constituted a "transfer" of assets and liabilities under the Stamp Act, 1899. It noted that such transfers fall within the scope of "instruments" as defined in the Act, making them chargeable to stamp duty. --Federal vs. Provincial Jurisdiction: The court determined that stamp duty is a provincial subject under the Constitution. While Section 282(5) of the Companies Act, 2017, exempts stamp duty for mergers, this exemption applies only in the Islamabad Capital Territory unless explicitly adopted by provincial governments. Punjab has not enacted such an exemption; therefore, provincial stamp duty laws apply. --Constitutional Conflict: The court ruled that Article 143 applies only when federal law addresses a subject within Parliament's jurisdiction. Since stamp duty falls exclusively under provincial jurisdiction, no conflict arises, and provincial law prevails. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner must pay the applicable stamp duty under Article 27-A of the Punjab Stamp Act, 1899. -----Citations/Precedents: Fatima Sugar Mills Ltd. Case (PLD 2015 Lahore 632) Established that a merger or amalgamation constitutes a "transfer" subject to stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899. Total Parco Pakistan Ltd. Case (2023 CLD 241) Distinguished on the grounds that it addressed transfer fees and involved different provincial laws. Stamp Act, 1899 (Punjab Amendments) Article 27-A explicitly requires stamp duty for the transfer of immovable property resulting from court-sanctioned schemes. Constitution of Pakistan, Article 143 Federal law prevails over provincial law only when Parliament is competent to legislate on the subject. This case emphasizes the provincial authority over stamp duty and the limited application of federal exemptions in areas constitutionally reserved for provincial legislation.

Summary: Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----Ss. 284, 285, 286, 287 & 288---Scheme of merger---Approval---Petitioners sought sanction of scheme of arrangement for amalgamation between petitioner companies---Scheme in question was approved by Board of Directors as well as shareholders of petitioner companies in extraordinary general meetings---After merger, business set up as single unit would be enlarged with a stronger equity and a larger asset base, with more opportunities and option for development of funds---Due to merger, major contribution to profitability would arise from economy of scale and reduction in operating costs was projected immediately upon merger--- High Court sanctioned scheme of arrangement for amalgamation between petitioner companies-- -Petition was allowed in circumstances. --- Facts: The petitioners, PRD (Pvt.) Limited (Transferor Company) and Citi Housing (Pvt.) Limited (Transferee Company), sought approval for the amalgamation of PRD into Citi Housing. The merger was approved by both companies’ Boards of Directors and shareholders in Extraordinary General Meetings. The primary objective of the merger was to strengthen the equity and asset base, achieve economies of scale, and reduce operating costs. ----Legal Provisions: Sections 284 to 288 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Rules 55 and 61 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1997. Stamp Act, 1899 (for potential imposition of stamp duty). ----Issues: 1) Whether the scheme of merger between PRD (Pvt.) Limited and Citi Housing (Pvt.) Limited should be sanctioned by the court. ---2) Whether any objections were raised against the merger and how they were addressed. ---3) Whether the Stamp Act, 1899, would apply to the transaction for the transfer of immovable property. ----Arguments: Petitioners' Argument: The merger would lead to greater resource mobilization and profitability through economies of scale. The shareholders and Boards of Directors of both companies had already approved the merger. ----SECP's Position: The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) raised no objections to the merger. ----No Opposition from Creditors or the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP): Despite proper notification, no creditors or the CCP raised any objections to the proposed merger. Ruling: -----Approval of Merger: The Lahore High Court sanctioned the scheme of arrangement for the merger between PRD (Pvt.) Limited and Citi Housing (Pvt.) Limited. The court concluded that the scheme was not prejudicial to the interests of the shareholders or creditors. ----Stamp Duty: The court did not address the issue of stamp duty during the proceedings. However, it allowed the concerned authorities to impose stamp duty, if necessary, in accordance with the law, should any immovable property be transferred under the merger. ----No Objections: Since no objections were raised by creditors, SECP, or CCP, the court proceeded to approve the merger. ----Conclusion: The Lahore High Court approved the merger, as it was beneficial for both companies and posed no prejudice to their shareholders or creditors. The petitioners were directed to submit a certified copy of the court order to the SECP within 30 days.

Summary: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894)-- ----Ss. 4 & 14--Limitation Act, (IX of 1908), S. 5--Stamp Act, 1899, S. 27-A--Notification for acquisition of land--Award was challenged--Rate of compensation award was inadequate-- Condonation of delay--Office objection was removed--Question of rate of compensation awarded--Validity--Notification under Section 27-A of Stamp Act, by District Collector, was not applicable to agricultural land but it is only related to residential plot, therefore, was not relevant to assess market value of land hence, impugned judgment is not sustainable--If land was more than 10 marlas then as per notification rate was Rs.6.000/- per marla front and Rs.4,000/- per marla off front--Notification was also presented to Collector at lime of passing of award--It is settled law that land is not to be evaluated merely by reference to use at time when it was evaluated but also by reference to use to which it is reasonably capable to put to in future--To determine compensation of acquired land, beside sale price of adjoining land, location, potentiality, future prospective and likelihood of development and improvement of acquired land has to be considered by authorities at time of compensation. [Pp. 1065, 1066 & 1067] E, F, G & H Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899)-- ----S. 27-A--Rate of compensation--Documentary and oral evidence--Notification issued by Distt. Collector--Validity--Rate of compensation determination of Rs.5,000/- per marla for land in depression and Rs.6,000/- for land in level was neither arbitrary nor perverse rather same was well reasoned in accordance with record available and did not suffer from any legal infirmity. [P. 1068] I Rules and Orders of Lahore High Court (Revised Edition, 2005)-- ----Rr. 9 & 9-A--Chapter-I-Part-A--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973--Art. 202--Re-filing of appeals--Application for reconstruction of R.F.A. along with Court fees--Once appeal was originally filed within time, cannot be dismissed on ground of objection was not removed within time--Validity--Deputy Registrar Judicial of High Court--Authorized to return appeal for making up deficiency or filing requisite document--If within time provided such petition is not refiled/returned a notice shall be affixed upon Notice Board meant for purpose specified and it within seven days deficiency is still not made good, matter shall be placed before High Court for an order on a date to be notified by fixing such a petition in motion cause list--Once office objection was not removed, office was required under Rule 9-A to fix matter before Court in motion cause list for its decision--Admittedly case was not fixed before Court when fire incident took place in Civil Branch and office presumed that file of instant case was burnt along with many other files--Once appeal was originally filed within time but was returned due to office objection, which objection was not timely removed, however, case was never placed by office before Court under Rule 9-A Revised Edition 2005 and finally after recovery of appeal file from burnt record, it was numbered in 2008 and placed before Bench after removing of objection, whether instant appeal will become time barred--Petitioner rather availed more than one chance to remove objections and finally when objections were removed, 154 days were already elapsed from date of decision of impugned order--On date when objection was removed, petition became time barred, therefore, office required petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act, which when came up before High Court, same was dismissed being not maintainable and civil revision met same fate. [Pp. 1062 & 1063] A, B, C & D Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----O. XLI, R. 33--Stamp Act, (II of 1899), Ss. 27(2) & 28--Discretionary power for grant of relief--Delay payment of compensation--No appeal or cross objection was filed against judgment whereby costs and interest was specifically denied and dispute regarding vires of acquisition proceedings were challenged by land owners themselves in various petitions, which remained pending before different Courts--Not fit a case for exercising of our discretionary power for grant of relief claimed in favour of respondents under Order 41 Rule 33, CPC. [P. 1068] J & K