Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Haji Roshan Ali vs Amir Bux and Others1982 P Cr. L J 983 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Noor Muhammad vs Haji Mubarak and 4 Others1982 P Cr. L J 1054 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yunus and 4 Others vs Muhammad Hanif Pehalwan and 3 Other1982 CLC 49 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs Abdul Haneef and 5 Others1982 CLC 1065 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Yousaf Khan vs Abdul Haneef and 5 Other1982 CLC 1065 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ali vs Yar Muhammad and Other1982 CLC 190 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Abbas and Another vs Shaheen and Another1982 CLC 232 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Khuda Bux vs Muhammad Anwar1982 CLC 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27
  evictionwilful defaultpersonal bona fide usesubsequent eventsrent restrictionstatutory noticeremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an eviction order against a tenant on grounds of wilful default in rent payment and the landlord's personal bona fide requirement. The tenant contended that payments were made to the Excise and Taxation Department pursuant to a statutory notice under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958, due to the landlord's tax arrears. The core legal questions were whether such payments constituted a valid discharge of rent obligations and whether the court should consider subsequent events, specifically the landlord obtaining possession of another shop in the same building, regarding the personal requirement claim. The Court held that payment to the tax authorities under a valid statutory notice effectively transferred the right to recover rent, thus negating the claim of wilful default. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that it is the duty of a court to take notice of subsequent events to mould its decree to ensure complete justice. Consequently, the case was remanded to the Rent Controller to determine the impact of the landlord’s acquisition of the other shop on the current eviction claim.

  Questions settled

  • Does payment of rent to tax authorities under a notice issued pursuant to the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act 1958 constitute a valid discharge of a tenant's rent obligation?
  • Is a court empowered to take notice of subsequent events occurring after the institution of a suit to mould its decree?
  • Does a landlord's acquisition of another premises of the same class in the same building during the pendency of eviction proceedings affect the maintainability of an application based on personal bona fide requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Juwan vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 735 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim vs S. Rahmatullah1982 CLC 603 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim Ishaq Johri vs Commissioner of Income Tax (West), Karachi1982 PLD Karachi 266 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Gul Khan and 2 Other vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs Mian Bux and 3 Others1982 CLC 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Muhammad and Another S vs Mian Bux and 3 Other1982 CLC 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Muhammad and 6 Others vs The State.1982 P Cr. L J 777 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
• Haji Dhani Parto vs Abdul Kassim and Another1982 CLC 1457 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Allahando vs Muhammad Asghar1982 CLC 2309 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-08Read full judgment →
• Haji Allah Bachayo vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Alias Sachal vs The State1982PCr.LJ 901 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad Binyamin vs Msr. Amtul Manna N1982 CLC 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad Binya Min vs Amtul Manna N1982 CLC 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdur Rahim vs Deputy Land Commissioner, Karachi and Another1982 CLC 1470 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Hussain vs The State and 5 Other1982 PLD Karachi 967 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Haseen Ahmed vs Haji Ch. Fazalur Rehman1982 CLC 135 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-16Read full judgment →
• Habib Hassan Qadri and Another vs The Settlement Commissioner1982 CLC 1960 · Sindh High Court · 1081-10-18Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Mian Muhammad Yaqoob Mian Muhammad1982 CLC 714 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-17Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. Karachi vs Sind Employees' Social Security Institution1982 PLC 316 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
• Habib Ahmed vs Ch. Hashmat Ali (Represented by Legal Heirs) and 71982 CLC 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-30Read full judgment →
• Gulistan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 Others1982 PLC 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-03
  grievance petitionindustrial relationslimitation perioddepartmental appeallocus standilabour courtconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the dismissal of a grievance petition by the Sind Labour Court and the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a dismissed worker, sought redress under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The core legal questions were whether a grievance petition could be filed through an attorney and whether the petitioner had satisfied the limitation requirements regarding a departmental appeal. The Court held that Section 25-A must be read as a whole, and the legislature explicitly limited the persons competent to file such petitions to the worker, a shop steward, or a collective bargaining agent; an attorney is not authorized. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the worker to demonstrate that a departmental appeal was filed without delay to justify excluding that period from the limitation calculation. The Court concluded that the Labour Court’s findings were neither perverse nor contrary to the record, and thus dismissed the petition, establishing that the specific procedural requirements of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 prevail over general civil procedure provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a worker file a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 through an attorney?
  • Does the status of a Labour Court as a civil court under Section 36(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 allow for representation by an attorney in grievance proceedings?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish timely filing of a departmental appeal for the purpose of excluding time from the limitation period under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulan and 2 Others vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 983 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Unions and 2 Others1982 PLC 1038 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan and 3 Others vs Syed Rahim Bux Shah1982 CLC 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Government of Sind through Secretary Education and 2 Others vs Murad Alt Khan1982 CLC 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Government of Sind through Secretary Education and 2 Others vs Murad Ali Khan1982 C` L C 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan and Another vs Messrs Pakistan Pipe and Construction Co. Ltd1982 CLC 126 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulamoon and 4 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam ]Afar and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 904 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State-Opponent.1982 P Cr. L J 111 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Raza vs Mst. Fatima Bibi1982 CLC 2097 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 697 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs The State-1982 P Cr. L J 1168 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Sampat and 6 Others1982 CLC 871 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Sampat and 6 Other1982 CLC 871 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Muhammad Mustafa1982 CLC 740 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Sharifan Bibi1982 CLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Muhammad Saleh and 2 Others1982 P Cr. L J 1029 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Sagarwala vs National Bank of Pakistan and Another1982 PLC (C. S.) 61 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs Haji Muhammad Jamil1982 CLC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-20
  statutory tenantejectmentdefault in rentsublettingburden of proofcross-examinationeviction appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This statutory appeal was filed against an order of the Rent Controller directing the ejectment of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and subletting. The appellate court examined whether the tenant had committed default under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the ground of subletting was substantiated by evidence. On the question of default, the court noted that following the expiry of the contractual lease period, the tenant became a statutory tenant. Rent for December 1979 became due in January 1980, and because sixty days had not expired prior to filing the rent application on 23-2-1980, the Rent Controller erred in finding default. However, regarding subletting, the court held that where a third party is in possession of the rented premise, the burden shifts to the tenant to explain the capacity of such occupation. Because the original tenant failed to appear for cross-examination to explain the occupancy, subletting was duly established. The appeal was dismissed, maintaining ejectment solely on subletting.

  Questions settled

  • Does a default in payment of rent occur if the statutory sixty-day period has not expired prior to the filing of an eviction application under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to explain the capacity of occupation when a tenant admits that another person is in possession of the rented premises?
  • Can a finding of subletting be sustained against a tenant who fails to appear for cross-examination to explain the presence of a third party in the demised premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohiuddin vs The State1982 PLC 804 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Jilani vs Syed Aftab Ahmed1982 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain vs Haji Abdul Wahid1982 C L C877 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ghous vs Muhammad Rafiq Khan and 12 Other1982 PLD Karachi 872 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-26
  election petitionindelible inkmaterially affectedlocal council electionillegal practiceelection tribunalconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Election Tribunal which had set aside the election of the petitioner as a returned candidate for a local council unit and ordered a fresh election solely on the ground that indelible ink was not used by the election staff as required by the election rules. The core legal question was whether the mere omission by election officials to use indelible ink, without any proof of multiple voting or that the election result was materially affected, justified declaring the entire election void. The Sindh High Court held that a mere contravention of a rule or statutory direction by election officials does not vitiate an election unless it is established by evidence that the result of the election was materially affected thereby, or that the legislature expressly prescribed such failure as fatal. The Court emphasized that innocent voters and a successful candidate should not be penalized or disenfranchised due to the default of election officials, particularly when candidates participated without protest. The impugned order of the Election Tribunal was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere failure of election staff to use indelible ink automatically render an election void?
  • Can an election be set aside without a finding of fact that the result was materially affected by a violation of election rules?
  • May a candidate who participated in an election without protest challenge the result based on an omission by election officials?
  • Does an irregularity committed solely by election officials warrant disenfranchising voters in the absence of a statutory penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 997 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Ahmed vs Anwer Baig1982 PLD Karachi 403 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Gh. Muhammad Ramzan vs The State and 2 Others- Respondents1982 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• General Investment Ltd. vs Dubai Bank Ltd.1982 CLC 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
• Gangoomal vs Jamiat Mal (through His Legal Heirs).1982 CLC 731 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
• Gangoomal vs Jamiat Mal (through His Legal Heirs)1982 CLC 731 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
• Fruit Hawkers Welfare Association, Karachi vs The Government of Sind and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 228 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-11Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State Bank of Pakistan and Another--Opponents1982 P Cr. L J 779 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• Fazaluddin vs Saeedullah Jan and 3 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 322 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-08Read full judgment →
• Fazal Abbas vs Shiakh A. Shamim1982 CLC 1399 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ali vs Vice-Chancellor, Mehran University of Engineering &1982 CLC 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ali vs Vice Chancellor, Mehran University of Engineering &1982 CLC 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Fawzi Ali Kazmi vs Abdulla and Another1982 CLC 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
• Faryad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-30Read full judgment →
• Fancy Investments Ltd., Karachi vs United Bank Ltd. and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-08Read full judgment →
• Fakhruddin vs Syed Asadullah Shah1982 PLD Karachi 790 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-26
  personal bona fide requirementeviction of tenantsecond appealconcurrent findings of factgood faithlandlord's discretionrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds of default and personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court concurrently ruled in favor of the landlord, finding the personal need genuine. The appellant challenged this, arguing the landlord's claim was mala fide and that other properties were available. The High Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, holding that concurrent findings of fact regarding personal need are not open to challenge in second appeal unless vitiated by misreading or non-reading of evidence. The Court established that a landlord has the prerogative to select which of their tenements to occupy, and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord's choice. Furthermore, "good faith" implies an honest demand, and the burden lies on the tenant to prove mala fides once the landlord establishes the reasonableness of their need. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge concurrent findings of fact regarding personal bona fide requirement in a second appeal?
  • Does a landlord have the prerogative to select which of their tenements to occupy for personal use?
  • What is the legal definition of 'good faith' in the context of a landlord's claim for personal use of rented premises?
  • Does the failure to issue a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, invalidate the landlord-tenant relationship if rent has been accepted?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahmida Riaz vs Government of Sindh through Home Secretary1982 CLC 713 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-06Read full judgment →
• Euro Distributors Establishment, Lugano, Switzerland vs Bank of Credit and Commerce International, London and Others1982 CLC 2369 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
• Euro Distributors Establishment, Lugano, Switzerland Plaintif vs Bank1982 CLC 2369 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-12Read full judgment →
• Employees' Union vs National & Grindlays Bank Ltd. and Another1982 PLC (C. S) 669 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
• Employees Union and Another vs National Book Foundation and Another1982 PLC 543 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-01Read full judgment →
• Ejazuddin vs Nawab Din and Anumer1982 PLD Karachi 573 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
• Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd. vs State Life Insurance1982 CLC 903 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income46 TAX 138 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs State Life Insurance1982 CLC 903 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• DR. .Bano Abedin vs DR. Haq Nawaz Arbab1982 PLD Karachi 818 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24
  second appealejectmentpersonal requirementdefault in rentresidential bungalownon-residential uselandlord's prerogative
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlady against the respondent-tenant on the grounds of default and personal bona fide requirement. The premises, the ground floor of a residential bungalow, had been let out for running a poly-clinic. The Rent Controller and the appellate court dismissed the ejectment application. On appeal, the High Court upheld the concurrent findings on default, noting the tenant's genuine efforts to tender rent. Regarding personal requirement, the Court observed that although the landlady had seven rooms on the first floor, she was an old lady of sixty years who wished to reside on the ground floor, while her married son and his family lived in rented premises. The Court held that the choice of which premises to occupy rests with the landlord. Furthermore, the Court rejected the tenant's argument that a residential bungalow let out for a clinic becomes a non-residential building, ruling that temporary use does not permanently alter its residential character without the Rent Controller's permission under Section 11 of the Ordinance. The appeal was allowed on the ground of personal requirement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the choice of which portion of a property to occupy for personal requirement rest with the landlord or the tenant?
  • Does letting out a portion of a residential bungalow for a clinic permanently convert its character into a non-residential building?
  • Can a landlord seek ejectment for residential purposes of a premises let out for a non-residential purpose without the Rent Controller's permission to convert under Section 11 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-29
  murdercircumstantial evidencejudicial confessionextra-judicial confessionretracted confessionrecovery of weaponlast seen evidencecorroborationacquittalillegal detention
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, including a retracted judicial confession, extra-judicial confessions, recoveries of a blood-stained knife and shalwar, and 'last seen' evidence. The High Court found the judicial confession unreliable due to non-compliance with legal formalities, lack of corroboration, and illegal detention of the accused. The extra-judicial confessions were deemed untrustworthy as they were made to interested and inconsistent witnesses. The recoveries were also discredited due to inconsistencies in witness testimony and an unexplained delay of over two months in sending the articles for chemical analysis. The 'last seen' evidence was considered weak and unreliable, given the witnesses' motives and inconsistencies. The Court held that tainted evidence cannot corroborate other tainted evidence and that conviction cannot rest on mere suspicion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the accused appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • What are the requirements for a judicial confession to be considered voluntary and true?
  • Can a conviction for murder be based solely on circumstantial evidence?
  • What factors render a judicial confession unreliable?
  • When is 'last seen' evidence considered a weak form of circumstantial evidence?
  • Can tainted evidence corroborate other tainted evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Dost Muhammad vs District and Sessions Judge, Karachi and Another1982 CLC 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• Diwan Kewalram vs Messrs Farooque & Co., Hyderabad1982 CLC 156 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-18Read full judgment →
• Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi vs Abdul Karim1982 PLC 219 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dil Murad and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 745 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
• Deputy Director (Nationalisation), Hyderabad vs Syed Zahoorul1982 CLC 1640 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-09Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner vs Abdul Karim Moosa and Other1982 C L, C 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-25Read full judgment →
• Denis Lucien Robidoux vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 813 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-25Read full judgment →
• Dawood and 3 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 296 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
• Dawji Dadabhai & Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (West) Karachi45 TAX 208 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-17Read full judgment →
• Dad vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 360 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-20Read full judgment →
• Cototextil vs Inter-Agencies Ltd.1982 CLC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
• Cototextil vs Inter Agencies Ltd.1982 CLC 1090 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Haji E. Dossa & Sons Ltd.46 TAX 64 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Haji E. Dossa & Sons Ltd46 TAX 64 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Crescent Pak Soap & Oil Mills Ltd.45 TAX 226 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (East) vs Yasin Ali Akbar H.1982 PLD Karachi 847 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25
  income taxtax exemptiondividendstax holidayretrospective legislationconstitutional lawordinancePresident's OrderInterim Constitutioncurative statutestatutory interpretationtaxation of shareholdersIncome-tax Appellate Tribunaljudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses 179 income-tax references concerning the taxability of dividends received by shareholders from companies enjoying income-tax exemption under Section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core questions involved whether such dividends were inherently exempt and the validity and retrospective application of subsequent legislative amendments. The court held that, prior to legislative intervention, dividends from tax-exempt companies were also exempt in the hands of shareholders, aligning with the Supreme Court of Pakistan's precedent. While acknowledging the Legislature's power to enact curative and retrospective legislation, including the insertion of Section 15-BB(4-AA) by Finance Ordinance, 1972 (XXI of 1972) to tax such dividends, the court determined that the Post-Constitution (President's Order 5 of 1972), which purported to extend the Ordinance, could not grant retrospective effect to Section 15-BB(4-AA) for any period earlier than December 20, 1971, due to the limitations imposed by Article 279(4) of the Interim Constitution, 1972. Consequently, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to exempt dividends for periods prior to December 20, 1971, was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Are dividends received by shareholders from companies enjoying a tax holiday under Section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act exempt from tax?
  • Can an Ordinance promulgated by the President lapse if not approved by the National Assembly within six weeks of its re-assembly?
  • Can a President's Order issued under Article 279 of the Interim Constitution, 1972, extend the life of an Ordinance indefinitely?
  • Can an amendment to a tax law be given retrospective effect to a date earlier than December 20, 1971, under Article 279(4) of the Interim Constitution, 1972?
  • Does the pendency of income tax references before the High Court prevent an assessment from being considered a past and closed transaction for the purpose of retrospective legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central, Karachi vs Messers Eastern1982 PLD Karachi 680 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi vs Messers Fateh Textile1982 PLD Karachi 679 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (East), Karachi vs Ebrahim D. Ahmed1982 PLD Karachi 470 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) Karachi vs Messers New1982 PLD Karachi 684 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24
  Income taxInsurance businessUnexpired risksReservesExpenditureIncome-tax Officer jurisdictionAdministrative circularsStatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference concerns the assessment of an insurance company regarding reserves for unexpired risks in fire and marine accounts. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax Officer possessed the jurisdiction to restrict these reserves and whether such reserves constituted expenditure under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court held that the Income-tax Officer is generally bound to accept the balance of profits as disclosed by the accounts submitted to the Controller of Insurance under the Insurance Act, 1938, except for excluding specific expenditures not permissible under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court further determined that reserves for unexpired risks do not constitute expenditure because they are not irretrievably paid out. Additionally, the Court ruled that administrative circulars issued by the Central Board of Revenue, which sought to restrict these reserves to a specific percentage, lacked the force of law and were not binding on the assessee. The principle established is that the Income-tax Officer cannot look behind the accounts accepted by the Controller of Insurance unless to exclude impermissible expenditures.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Income-tax Officer have the jurisdiction to disallow or restrict reserves for unexpired risks in insurance accounts?
  • Do reserves for unexpired risks in insurance business constitute expenditure under the Income-tax Act 1922?
  • Are administrative circulars issued by the Central Board of Revenue regarding insurance reserves binding on an assessee?
  • Is the Income-tax Officer bound to accept the balance of profits disclosed in accounts submitted to the Controller of Insurance?
  Read full judgment →