Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Women’s inheritance rights---Restoration of possession and title---Where legal heir was deprived of her share in inherited property after the demise of her husband, Ombudsman directed Deputy Commissioner to restore and perfect her title and possession under the Act—Held, provisions of S.5 empower the Ombudsman to enforce women’s right to ownership and possession of inherited property irrespective of delay or resistance by other heirs. (b) Admission by respondents and inquiry confirmation ----Inquiry report by Deputy Commissioner Islamabad---Respondents’ failure to appear despite repeated notices amounted to acceptance of the inquiry report which confirmed that House No. 174, Street No. 7A, Sector G-11/2, Islamabad, devolved upon deceased’s widow (complainant) and daughter according to their *shari* shares—Respondents had expressed readiness to hand over household articles and pay due shares. (c) Limitation of claim regarding movable property ----Motor vehicle ownership---Where car in question was not registered in the name of deceased husband but in the name of respondent No. 3 who had purchased it from a third party, complainant’s claim to the said vehicle was rightly declined for lack of title evidence. (d) Enforcement directions and compliance ----S.5---Deputy Commissioner directed to ensure immediate restoration of possession or title to complainant and to take all legal measures to perfect her title---Compliance report required to be submitted within seven days. (e) Disposition — Complaint allowed in part. Respondents directed to deliver lawful possession and title of House No. 174, Street No. 7A, Sector G-11/2, Islamabad, to complainant Ms. Yasmin Asif and her daughter in accordance with their *shari* shares under Ss.4 & 5 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020. Claim regarding vehicle rejected. Deputy Commissioner Islamabad directed to ensure restoration and file compliance report within seven days.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: It is trite law that a statute is passed as whole and not in sections and it may well be assumed to be animated by one general purpose and intent. It is thus not safe to adopt the process of etymological dissection and after taking words out of their context and applying definitions given by lexicographers to proceed to construe the statute on the basis of such definitions. Parliamentary enactments must be construed as a whole and their meaning attributed to the words should, as general rule be inspired by the context and the nature and object of the subject matter, for the words may be enlarged or restricted to harmonize with the provisions of statute. Thus, the assertions of the learned council for the petitioners that section 26 of the Ordinance would be read in isolation and not in juxtaposition with section 34-A of the Ordinance are without any legal force.

Summary: Background: Multiple pharmaceutical companies challenged the imposition of sales tax on the import of packing material used for storing, marketing, and distributing pharmaceutical products. The companies argued that such packing materials should be exempt from sales tax as they constitute "raw materials" under Entry 105 to the 6th Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. ----Issues: 1- Whether the import of packing material used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products/drugs is entitled to exemption from sales tax as "raw material" under Entry 105 to the 6th Schedule of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. 2- Whether the packing material qualifies as "raw material" for the basic manufacture of pharmaceutical active ingredients and products. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the import of packing material is not entitled to exemption from sales tax under Entry 105. The court reasoned that: The exemption provided by Entry 105 pertains only to raw materials for the basic manufacture of pharmaceutical active ingredients and pharmaceutical products. Packing materials like cardboard, glass bottles, clear plastic, and aluminum foil are not considered raw materials for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. The manufacturing activity of packing materials is distinct from the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. The court cannot interpret the statute to include packing materials within the exemption provision unless explicitly stated. Even if the word "and" in the statute were read as "or," it would not benefit the appellants, as packing materials do not fall within the definition of raw materials for manufacturing pharmaceutical products. The appeals and petitions were dismissed, and the earlier judgment against the appellants was upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs Collectorate of Customs and Central Excise, Quetta and 4 others (PTCL 2001 CL. 509) M/s. Daewoo Pakistan Express Bus Services Limited vs. Federation of Pakistan and 5 others (PTCL 2016 CL. 490) Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise etc. vs. M/s. Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi & others (PTCL 2007 CL. 565) The Commissioner, Inland Revenue, Karachi vs. M/s. Attock Cement Pakistan Limited, Karachi (unreported judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1422/2019) Collector of Customs vs. Mahboob Industries (2006 PTD 730) Adil Propylene Products Limited vs. Pakistan (2000 SCMR 1708) Hansraj Gupta vs. Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd. (AIR 1933 PC 63) Nadeem Ahmed Advocate vs. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1062) Collector of Customs (Appraisement) vs. Abdul Majeed Khan & Others (1977 SCMR 371) Shazeb Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs. Pakistan (2015 PTD 1532) Pakistan Television v. CIR (2019 SCMR 282) Citibank NA vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2014 PTD 284) Collector of Customs FBR vs. Fitter Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (2020 SCMR 1157) Commissioner of Customs (Imports) vs. Dilip Kumar and Company (TS-421-SC-2018) Sun Export Corporations vs. Collector of Customs (1997) 6 SCC 564

Summary: The department raised preliminary objections regarding the hearing by a single member of the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the court, citing internal administrative arrangements and precedents allowing such practices. On merit, the department contested the importation based on the argument that the crane and truck, being of different makes and assembled together, did not comply with the Import Policy Order 2013, suggesting an attempt to circumvent import restrictions.The court examined the merits, including the issuance of pre-shipment certificates by agents of recognized inspection companies, and found that the objections regarding the assembly and make of the imported units were not tenable under the law. It referenced clarifications from the Ministry of Commerce and previous court decisions affirming the legality of such imports, provided they met the conditions of the Import Policy Order.Ultimately, the court dismissed the Special Customs Reference Applications, thereby upholding the tribunal's judgments and allowing the petitions filed for the implementation of these judgments. The decision emphasized that the importation of the truck-mounted cranes by M/s Quick Contractor & Traders and M/s Rehman Contractor Co. was in accordance with the Import Policy Order 2013, despite the cranes and trucks being of different makes and assembled together. The court's ruling reinforced the interpretation of import policy regulations, providing clarity on the importability of such specialized vehicles.

Summary: Section 3 of the Pakistan Evacuee Properties Ordinance, 1949 read with Section 20 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 (XII of 1957) the perpetual transaction of evacuee land is barred under Section. Section 2(g), 2(j), 23 and 24 of the Contract Act, 1872. Any contract/ agreement against the law is void ab-initio and is not enforceable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.