Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
J K TWILLS AND DRILLS (PVT) LTD through Authorized Director and another vs PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED and another
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
Summary: Summary pending
Director General Pakistan CAA & another VS Muhammad Ayyaz Butt and others
Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 1932 -15(CAA Case, Service matter, upgradation)
Dr. Shahkar Vs Government of Pakistan
Summary: It is not a case of first instance that plots of land in residential area are being used for commercial purposes or the parks are converted to some commercial use as this court in writ petition No.663-P/2019 recently declared commercial activities in the University Town, Peshawar as unlawful,besides the judgment rendered by august Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein, such like activities have been declared unconstitutional, illegal and against the basic purpose of developmental commercial activities.Keeping in view the legal and factual aspect of the matter, we feel that after disowning the advertisement for using the premises of Golf Club for commercial purposes by the respondents, the said construction could be allowed to be used for providing additional facilities to the golfers only.
Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd.,(MOBILINK) (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)
Summary: Stamp duty---The cellular companies contested the recovery of stamp duty on Cellular Services Agreement Forms that customers signed to receive telecommunication services. The dispute revolved around whether the stamp duty should be paid by the customers or the cellular companies. The Chief Inspector of Stamps clarified that stamp duty should be paid by the executant(s), and an agreement between the parties could determine who bears the duty. Despite this clarification, the respondents continued to collect stamp duty from the cellular companies. The judgment concluded that the stamp duty could not be collected from the cellular companies based on the law and the agreement between the parties. The judgment also stated that claims for refunds should be pursued through appropriate legal channels and that the findings were based on the law and facts relevant to these cases, as changes in the law may have occurred after the petitions were filed.
Indus Motor Co. (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Summary: Primacy of charging section---The document presents the argument that the term "substitute" should be interpreted to mean that the entire provision was replaced, including the deleted provisos. It highlights the difference in verbiage between Division VII's substitution and another provision's substitution within the same Finance Act, indicating that the legislature's intent was to completely replace the old provision.The document also discusses the interaction between charging sections and collection provisions in taxation law. It notes that while collection provisions like Rule 1A might continue to reference certain aspects of the old provision, they cannot expand or abridge the scope of the charging provision.Furthermore, the document emphasizes that tax statutes are to be strictly construed and that any doubts regarding interpretation should favor the taxpayer. It cites legal precedents to support the principle that tax statutes should be applied as they stand and that any exemptions should be clearly expressed in the statute.The document concludes by addressing the maintainability of the petitions and the specific implications of the interpretation of Division VII for different tax years, both post and pre the Finance Act 2016 amendment. It suggests that the petitioner's interpretation should be upheld, leading to a certain outcome in relation to taxation.
Muhammad Hassan Nadeem & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Model Custom Collectorate and Ors (Respondent)
Summary: Method of Search and seizure--- The primary issue in the case is whether Section 163 of the Customs Act, 1969, is an exception to or an alternative to Section 162 of the Act.The court finds that the raid and seizure were unlawful and contrary to the law. The respondents failed to follow the necessary legal procedures, such as obtaining a search warrant or providing proper documentation to support the belief that the goods were liable to confiscation.The court emphasizes that Section 163 should be read in conjunction with Section 162 and can only be applied in specific circumstances. In this case, the respondents did not provide sufficient grounds for resorting to Section 163.Furthermore, the court dismisses the argument that the seized goods are case property, as they are subject to adjudication and not automatically linked to criminal proceedings. The court emphasizes that civil and criminal proceedings can run independently and simultaneously.The court also directs the executive to ensure that statutory powers are not exercised in an unfettered manner and encourages the petitioners to seek remedies for any losses or damages suffered.Finally, the court declares the search and seizure as prima facie violations of the law and orders the return of the seized goods to the petitioners within seven days. The petitioners are also allowed to approach the trial court to seek the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Syed WAQAR HAIDER vs The STATE through Prosecutor General Sindh
Summary: Summary pending
vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and another Writ Petition No 54112 of 2020 heard on 21st December 2020
Summary: Summary pending
CDA VS Sajjad Ghani etc
Summary: Against dismissal of objection petition dated 25.4.19 passed by learned executing court in suit for declaration.