Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Art.199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973Favouritism in Educational Institution in disregard of law.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 87, 88 & 89---Attached property, restoration of---Principle---Appellants after facing trialwere acquitted from the charge---Properties of appellants were attached at the time of issuance ofprocess by Trial Court---Appellants (accused) sought restoration of said property after two yearsof the order of attachmwnt---Trial Court declined to restore properties to appellants---Validity---Provision of S.87, Cr.P.C., prescribed mode of giving notice to accused to appear before Courtnot less than thirty days and if no such notice was given, proclamation could not be presumed tobe valid proclamation and presumption under S.87(3), Cr.P.C. would not arise---No proper andlegal proclamation specifying period of thirty days for appellants to appear and no statement inwriting by Trial Court to the effect that proclamation was duly published on specified day, asprovided under S.87(3), Cr.P.C. existed in the present case---All proceedings which had beeninitiated by Trial Court were without any jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Ss. 87 &88, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court without adhering to the provisions of law had passed the order inquestion which was not sustainable---High Court set aside attachment order and restoredproperties to the appellants---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 165---Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, S.4(a)---National Bank of Pakistan---Claim of exemption from provincial property tax---NBP challenged notices issued by Excise & Taxation Department, Multan demanding property tax and claimed that its properties were properties of Federal Government, therefore exempt from tax levied under Act of Provincial Assembly---Held, NBP is a separate juristic entity carrying on banking business in competition with other banks and is not a Government department performing sovereign or welfare functions---Benefit of Art.165 of Constitution and S.4(a) of Act, 1958 was not available. (b) Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958---- ----S.4(a)---Exemption---Buildings and lands vesting in Federal Government---Scope---Exemption under S.4(a) is a reiteration of constitutional protection under Art.165 and applies to property vesting in Federal Government---Property of NBP could not be treated as property vesting in Federal Government merely because NBP was established by statute and remained a nationalized bank. (c) National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance, 1949---- ----Ss. 4, 9, 12 & 14---National Bank of Pakistan---Corporate personality---Effect---NBP was established as a body corporate having perpetual succession and common seal---Although Federal Government had shareholding and powers regarding capital, appointment of Managing Director/Chairman and overall statutory framework, such features did not convert NBP’s property into Federal Government property for purposes of exemption from provincial property tax. (d) Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974---- ----Ss. 5 & 5-A---Nationalization of banks---Vesting of ownership, management and control in Federal Government---Effect on corporate status---Although ownership, management and control of banks stood transferred to Federal Government under Act, 1974, S.5 itself preserved status of banks as bodies corporate---NBP retained its distinct juristic personality and could not claim automatic exemption under Art.165 of Constitution. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 165---Government corporations and instrumentalities---Tax exemption---Principles summarized---Benefit under Art.165 may, in appropriate cases, extend to property owned by Federal Government through instrumentalities or corporations, but only where justifiable grounds exist, such as real governmental/sovereign function, monopoly, or corporation being an extension of Government---Corporation engaged in ordinary commercial activity and competing with private entities cannot claim preferential tax exemption. (f) Corporate law---- ----Lifting/piercing corporate veil---Government-owned corporation---Tax exemption---Scope---Courts may pierce corporate veil to determine true ownership/control for purposes of Art.165, but such doctrine cannot be invoked as matter of course to reduce or avoid tax burden---No justifiable reason existed to lift veil in favour of NBP, which operated as ordinary banking company in commercial market. Cited Cases: • Union Council Ali Wahan, Sukkur v. Associated Cement (Pvt.) Limited 1993 SCMR 468 • Central Board of Revenue and another v. S.I.T.E. PLD 1985 SC 97 • Water and Power Development Authority v. Administrator District Council Swabi and 5 others 2005 SCMR 487 • Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another v. WAPDA and another PLD 2014 SC 766 (g) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 25 & 165---Tax exemption for Government-owned commercial corporation---Discrimination against competitors---NBP was not the only bank providing banking services in Pakistan and was operating in competition with other banking companies---Granting exemption from property tax would place NBP on higher pedestal and discriminate against similarly placed banking companies---Such preferential treatment was not warranted. (h) Banking law---- ----National Bank of Pakistan---Commercial banking activity---No sovereign monopoly---NBP was engaged in trade, business and commerce like other banks and regulated under sound banking principles and State Bank directions---It could not be equated with a Government department or sovereign arm of State merely because of statutory origin and nationalized character. (i) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 165-A---Effect on exemption claims by statutory corporations---Supreme Court jurisprudence after insertion of Art.165-A restricted use of corporate veil doctrine for claiming tax exemption by statutory corporations---Statutory corporations cannot automatically rely upon Art.165 to avoid taxes merely because of Government control or ownership. Cited Cases: • Collector of Sales Tax and Central Excise, Lahore v. WAPDA and others 2007 SCMR 1736 • Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and another v. WAPDA and another PLD 2014 SC 766 (j) Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation / PTCL precedent---- ----Government department transformed into corporation/company---Distinction---Where entity performs monopoly governmental functions as continuation of Government department, exemption may be available; but when entity becomes commercial company competing in market, exemption is denied---NBP’s status was closer to commercial banking company than Government department. Cited Case: • Province of N.W.F.P. through Secretary Local Government & Rural Development, Peshawar v. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation PLD 2005 SC 670 (k) Tax law---- ----Exemption from taxation---Burden of proof---Interpretation---Person claiming exemption from tax bears burden to establish entitlement---Exemption provisions are construed strictly and courts lean in favour of revenue rather than assessee where exemption is doubtful. Cited Case: • Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652 (l) Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958---- ----Property tax---NBP branches/properties---Liability---Notices issued by Excise & Taxation Officer/Assessing Authority for payment of property tax were lawful---Orders of Excise & Taxation Officer and revisional authority declining exemption were maintained. (m) Constitutional petition---- ----Challenge to tax demand notices---NBP claiming Federal Government immunity---Dismissal---Where petitioner failed to show that its properties were properties of Federal Government within meaning of Art.165, constitutional petitions against property tax demand notices were dismissed. Disposition: W.P. No.6976 of 2005 and connected W.P. Nos.6977 and 6978 of 2005 were dismissed; notices/orders demanding property tax from National Bank of Pakistan under Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 were maintained; NBP was held not entitled to exemption under Art.165 of Constitution or S.4(a) of Act, 1958.

Summary: S. 489-F PPC ---, Ss.22-A, 22-B & 179 Cr.P.C---Police Rules, 1934, R.25(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitution petition--- Dishonestly issuing cheques---Powers and functions of Justice of Peace---Registration of FIR---Jurisdiction of Court.

Summary: PLJ 2015 Lahore 1142 [Multan Bench Multan] Present Amin - ud - Din Khan J Mst BAKHTAN MAI and 14 others - - Petitioners versus Mst ANWAR MAI and 49 others - - Respondents WP No 5984 of 2004 heard on 242015 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O VI R 17 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Acceptance of application for amendment of plaint - - Correction of names of predecessor mentioned in pedigree table in plaint - - No question of change of nature of suit - - Validity - - When there is no bar in accordance with Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in allowing proposed amendment and trial Court has exercised jurisdiction vested in it by law revisional Court was having no jurisdiction to substitute findings of trial Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction therefore findings of revisional Court are not sustainable under law - - An amendment in pleadings can be granted at any stage of proceedings even if at stage of Supreme Court - - By proposed amendment nature of suit should not change [P 1144] A B Mian Habib - ur - Rehman Ansari Advocate for Petitioners Malik Tahir Ijaz Advocate for Respondents Nos 21 and 22 Malik Muhammad Ahsan Karol Advocate for Respondents Nos 28 to 33 Mr Wazir Ahmad Khan Balouch Advocate for Respondents Nos 38 to 49Judgement Result:Petition allowed

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.