Summary: Pending

Summary: The case revolves around the tax rate applicable to the income received by The Bank of Punjab from declared or distributed dividends by Pakistani companies. The petitioner, Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore, argues that the income should be taxed at the rate specified in paragraph A of Part V, Rates of Income Tax for Companies, of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. This paragraph imposes higher rates of taxation on different types of companies.The respondent, The Bank of Punjab, contends that the income derived from dividends should be taxed at the reduced rate mentioned in paragraph D of the same part of the Ordinance. The issue is whether the general rates of taxation specified in paragraph A apply, or if the specific reduced rate in paragraph D is applicable to the income from dividends.The Court deliberates on the language and intent of the relevant provisions. It quotes paragraphs A and D of Part V of the Schedule, highlighting the differing rates of taxation for various types of companies. The petitioner argues that since the respondent is a banking company, it should be taxed at the rate mentioned in paragraph A.The respondent counters by citing legal forums' decisions in its favor, along with a precedent involving EFU General Insurance Ltd. v Federation of Pakistan. The respondent asserts that the reduced rate in paragraph D applies to dividends from Pakistani companies. The respondent emphasizes that the EFU case was based on similar considerations and principles that are still valid for non-insurance companies, including banking ones.The Court considers the conflicting interpretations and the legislative intent behind the provisions. It finds that the EFU case precedent still holds for dividends from Pakistani companies under paragraph D. The Court underscores that paragraph A's application is contingent upon paragraph D not being applicable. Since paragraph D applies to dividend income from Pakistani companies, paragraph A's rates do not come into play.The Court criticizes the unnecessary prolonged legal proceedings initiated by the tax authorities, despite clear determinations by previous forums and the EFU case precedent. The Court denies leave to appeal the impugned orders and dismisses the case with costs. The ruling reaffirms that the applicable rate for taxing dividends received from Pakistani companies is the one specified in paragraph D of the Schedule.

Summary: (a) Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act (IV of 2020)- -Ss. 2(m), 3 & Preamble-Federal Government Employees Housing (FGEH) Authority-Object, purpose and scope-Acquiring of land for ‘schemes’-Connotation-Federal Government Employees Housing Authority(FGEHA) Act, 2020 is a self-contained comprehensive statute-FGEH Authority has been established for specific purposes of planning and developing housing schemes for serving and retired Federal Government employees and other specified groups-Existence and jurisdiction of the Authority is confined to establishing housing schemes primarily for Federal Government employees-Functions of FGEH Authority are subject to compliance with Master Plan prepared for developing and planning of Islamabad Capital Territory as Capital of Pakistan-Master Plan has a statutory backing under Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. (b) Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act (IV of 2020)- -Ss. 2 (m) & 3-Acquiring of land for schemes-Jurisdiction-Expression 'scheme' as defined in section 2(m) of FGEHA Act, 2020, does not describe nature of undertaking except that it is restricted to Federal Government employees and specified groups approved under FGEHA Act, 2020-FGEH Authority is empowered to acquire land for its schemes through inherent power of the State i.e. eminent domain. (c) Interpretation of statutes- -Courts, duty of-Presumptions-Court is to discover legislative intent and interpret laws promulgated by Legislature-While interpreting a statute or discovering legislative intent, it is presumed by Court that mistake or absurdity cannot be attributed to Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)-No legislation can be interpreted in such a manner which has effect of defeating public interest or protecting personal interests of a few in disregard or derogation of interests of public at large. (d) Constitution of Pakistan- -Art. 199-Constitutional petition-Policy-Judicial review-Policy formulated by Federal Government or any Authority, as the case may be, if found to operate against public interest or detrimental to Constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, the same is void, illegal, unconstitutional, without lawful authority and jurisdiction. [p. 294] D (e) Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act (IV of 2020)- -Ss. 2(j) & 3-Registered member of Federal Government Employees Housing Authority-Rights and entitlements-Allotment of plot-Pre-condition-No independent right or entitlement has been created under Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, in favour of registered members of the Authority to claim allotment of a plot at the expense of interest of public at large-Basis of allotment under FGEHA Act, 2020 is membership of FGEHAuthority on voluntary basis-Acquisition of land, launching a scheme and distribution of acquired land are solely governed and regulated under approved policy of Federal Government-Such policy has to meet threshold of public purpose and has to serve and be in conformity with public interest and cannot operate in derogation of fundamental rights of public at large. (f) Words and phrases- -"Public interest"-Connotation-Expressions"public good","common interest"and"public interest" are synonymous-Public interest refers to a decision or determination that is in the best interest of wellbeing and welfare of community, society or public-Public interest is antitheses of private interest or the interest of a few. London Artists Limited v. Littler (1969) 2 All ER 193; The Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition; Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 8 others v. Syed Kabir Bokhari 2016 SCMR 101; Habibullah Energy Limited and another v. WAPDA through Chairman and others PLD 2014 SC 47 and Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2012 SC 132 rel. (g) Administration of justice- -Good governance-‘Elite capture’ phenomenon-Scope-Exercising disproportionate control over policy decisions at the expense of interests of public at large is essential attribute of phenomenon of elite capture-As such the phenomenon deprives people at large from equitable distribution of state assets-Consequently, a few elite enrich themselves at the expense of welfare and wellbeing of citizens. (h) Administration of justice- -Good governance-Conflict of interest-Scope-In-conflict of interest-existence of actual pecuniary gain or pecuniary loss is not essential, nor actual proof in this regard is required-Conflict of interest refers to a principle envisaging prevention of present or future or potential situation which may lead to extending benefit to oneself or to another person. Model Rules of Prof'1 Conduct 1.7(a). [Cases: Attorney and Client - 20.1.] and Conflict of Interest in the Professions', edited by Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) rel. (i) Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act (IV of 2020)- -Ss. 2(o), 3 & Preamble-President’s (Supreme Court Judges Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order (II of 1997)-Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3-Intra Court Appeal-Policy matter-Judicial review-Judges of Supreme Court and High Court-Entitlement of plot-Specified group-Question was with regard to Revised Policy with regard to allotment of plots to Judges of Supreme Court and High Court in Federal Government Employees Housing Schemes-Validity-Privileges and entitlements of judges of Supreme Court and High Courts were described in relevant Presidential Order-Like a civil servant or other Federal Government employee, a judge of Supreme Court or High Court had no right nor entitlement to a plot costing less than its market value-Judge of Supreme Court or High Court was not entitled under Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, to become beneficiary in a scheme unless such Constitutional bodies were declared and notified as one of the 'specified groups' by Executive Board or Federal Government-Participation of a Court or its judges in any scheme of FGEH Authority or accepting its benefits were contrary to public interest and not in conformity with impartiality and independence of judiciary as an institution-Inclusion of Supreme Court and High Courts and its judges by FGEH Authority, was inappropriate and not in conformity with the Constitutional status of exalted courts-Such was not permissible under the Constitution for a judge or a court to be seen as usurping fundamental rights of people at large and become complacent to a policy formulated in breach of public interest-FGEH Authority nor Federal Government was vested with power or jurisdiction under FGEHA Act, 2020 or Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, to launch a scheme or frame policy contrary to public interest and violative of Constitutionally guaranteed rights of people at large-Scheme launched by FGEH Authority, pursuant to a policy framed by Federal Government, could withstand Constitutional scrutiny if it was to benefit people at large rather than benefiting and enriching a few powerful classes-Assets of State acquired through inherent intrusive power of eminent domain could only be used for benefit of people at large and in public interest-Revised Policy and scheme pursuant thereto, intended to be launched were in derogation of public interest and violative of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of people at large-Division Bench of High Court declared revised policy in question as illegal, unconstitutional, void and without jurisdiction and declined to interfere in order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court as revised policy was contrary to public interest, unconstitutional and violative of rights of public at large-Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Human Rights Case No.5818 of 2006 in Re: action on Press Clipping 2008 SCMR 531; Malik Bashir Ahmed and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan, through Secretary Cabinet Division, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and others PLD 2018 Isl. 68; Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation v. Malik Bashir Ahmed and others (I.C.A. No.365 of 2017); Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF), Islamabad and others v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa and others 2021 SCMR 201; The State v. Maheen Zafar and another 2018 PCr.LJ 841; Noman Ahmad and 14 others v. Capital Development Authority and others Writ Petition No.244 of 2018; Punjab Public Service Commission and another v. Mst. Aisha Nawaz and others 2011 SCMR 1602; Abdul Karim Nausherwani and another v. The State through Chief Ehtesab Commissioner 2015 SCMR 397; OGRA through Secretary v. Messrs Midway II, CNG Station and others 2014 SCMR 220; Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2012 SC 167; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secy. Agriculture and others v. Adnanullah 2017 PLC (C.S.) 307; Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455; Shahid Pervaiz v. Ejaz Ahmad and others 2017 SCMR 206; Ghulam Rasool v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division Islamabad and others PLD 2015 SC 6; Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. and others PLD 2014 SC 1; OGRA through Secretary v. Messrs Midway II, CNG Station and others 2014 PTD 243; Executive District Officer (Revenue), District Khushab at Jauharabad and others v. Ijaz Hussain and others 2011 SCMR 1864; Messrs Al-Raham Travels and Tours (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, Hajj, Zakat and Ushr through Secretary and others 2011 SCMR 1621; Suo Motu Case No. 10 of 2007 PLD 2008 SC 673 and Wattan Party through President v. Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Committee of Privatization, Islamabad and others PLD 2006 SC 697 ref. Appellant/FGEHA by Malik Javaid Iqbal Wains, AHC. Ms. Kashifa Niaz Awan, AHC. Tariq Zaman Ch., AHC. Ms. Sitwat Jahangir, AHC. Petitioners by Taimoor Aslam Khan, AHC. Asad Iqbal Siddique, AHC. Raja Zahoorul Hassan, AHC. Yasir Rathore, AHC. Shair Bahadur Khan, AHC. Sardar M. Ghazi, AHC. Ms. Zainab Janjua, AHC. Atif Khokhar, AHC. Federation by Qasim Wadud, Additional Attorney General. Syed Muhammad Tayyab, Dy. Attorney General. Imran Farooq, Assistant Attorney General. Officials/representatives in attendance Dr. Imran Zaib, Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works. Tariq Rasheed, Director General, FGEHA. Muhammad Irfan Chaudhry, Director (Law), FGEHA. Dr. Sataish Sharyar, Deputy Commissioner (LAC), FGEHA. Kazim Abbas, Director (Estate), FGEHA. Khan Zaib, Dy. Director (Law), FGEHA. Rehan Cheema, Dy. Director (Estate), FGEHA. Mohsin Pasha, Asstt. Director (Legal), FGEHA. Dates of hearing: 13th September, 14th October and 22nd November, 2021.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (A) Criminal Trial – Burden of Proof • Prosecution’s Case: Prosecution must prove its case independently; benefit of doubt goes to the accused if prosecution evidence is weak or doubtful. Defense need not establish innocence but may cast doubt to secure acquittal. (B)Criminal Trial – Motive • Failure to Prove Motive: If the prosecution sets up a motive and fails to establish it, the prosecution suffers the consequence, not the defense. (C) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Sections 161, 162(2), 164, & Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 32(1) • Admissibility of Statement: A lost dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate is admissible under certain circumstances, but its evidentiary value may be limited if doubts exist. (D) Harassment at Workplace Act, 2010 Sections 3(2), 4(1)(c), & 6(3) • Inquiry Procedure: Inquiry committee found guilty of procedural irregularities, including denial of cross-examination and failure to provide statements. The appellate forum set aside the penalty imposed on the accused, reinstating him while emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements.

Summary: Appeal in WP 2233-16 (To restrain FGEHF from refusal of membership on consent letter for Bhara Kahu Green Enclave Scheme)