Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- MRS. Farida Mirza vs Income Tax Officer, Salary Circle I, Zone 'D'K.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 34 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mrs Gulshan Adamjee and 5 others vs The Muslim Commercial Bank1992 CLC 962 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-25Read full judgment →
- Moulvi Sher Muhammad vs The Statek.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 145 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-05Read full judgment →
- Moula Bux vs Manzoor Hussain And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1967 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
- Moula Bux And Other vs Sr. S.P. Sukkur And 4 Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 104)) · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-01-11Read full judgment →
- Moula Bux Abro vs Messrs United Bank Limited and 4 others1992 PLC 1083 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-08-04Read full judgment →
- Moti Lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1992 PTD 924 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-08-24Read full judgment →
- Mosam Khan And 4 Other vs Mir Alam Khan1992 PLD Supreme Court 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 29-5-1991, which had accepted the respondent's revision petition and held a pre-emption suit to be within limitation. The core legal question was whether a suit/plaint filed on the day a court re-opens is within time when the period of limitation expired during the temporary absence (leave) of the Civil Judge, and no alternative officer was authorized by the judge or the District Judge to receive plaints under section 23 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 or Order IV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Supreme Court held that where the Presiding Officer is on leave and no proper arrangements or delegations have been made for the reception of plaints, the court is considered closed for that purpose, and section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 comes to the aid of the plaintiff, rendering a plaint presented on the re-opening day entirely within time. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Does a court remain legally closed for the presentation of plaints when the Presiding Officer is on leave and no alternative officer has been authorized to receive plaints?
- Can a plaintiff claim the benefit of the period during which a court is closed under section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908 when no arrangements were made for the reception of plaints during the temporary absence of the Civil Judge?
- Does section 23 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962 apply to the temporary absence or leave of a Civil Judge for a short period?
- Is the presentation of a plaint to an unauthorized officer or court valid when the competent Civil Judge is on leave and no delegation has been made by the District Judge?
- Moor Muhammad vs Pakistan Jute and Synthetic Ltd., Karachi1992 PLC 696 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Moodie and another vs Inland Revenue Commissioners and another1992 PTD 651 · Court of Appeals · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
- Monno O Industries Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary1992 CLC 159 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
- Monno O Industries Limited vs Federation of Pakikstan throughK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom 25 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Moin Ul Islam vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1641 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto vs The President of Pakistan through the Secretary to the President1992 SCMR 1357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges the order of the Special Court dated 28-1-1992, which allowed a claim of privilege over certain documents without examining the underlying material. The core legal question concerns the proper procedure for determining a claim of privilege regarding sensitive state documents in a sensitive trial where partial waiver and declassification have already occurred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Special Court to reconsider the question of privilege by examining the material itself, guided by relevancy, consistency, and nexus to a fair trial, while also considering in camera proceedings where justified. The key principle laid down is that a court must examine the privileged material itself and weigh its relevancy and nexus to a fair and just trial rather than blindly accepting a claim of privilege, particularly where sensitive state documents are involved and partial declassification has taken place.
Questions settled- Can a court allow a claim of privilege over documents without examining the material in respect of which privilege is claimed?
- What factors should a court consider when determining a claim of privilege over sensitive state documents in a criminal trial?
- Is a court required to consider holding in camera proceedings when dealing with sensitive documents for which privilege is claimed?
- Moharram Buledi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 916 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-10Read full judgment →
- Mohan Lal Daulat Ram vs Commissioner of Income-Tax , . (1992 PTD 287 · Supreme Court of India · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mohammed Muktar Ali and anothers vs The Queen1992 SCMR 1562 · The Privy Council of England · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Zak! Ahmed vs Mohammad Mohsin and 2 othersRespondnets1992 CLC 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Yousuf vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 273 · Balochistan High Court · 1991-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Yousaf And Another vs Additional District Judge AttockK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 349 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sharif vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 477 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Shahid Hussain vs Saeeda and another1992 CLC 1013 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Samiuddin vs Soofi Mohammad AliK.L.R. .1992 Civil Cases 127 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Saghir Anwar vs Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore And 5 OtherK.L.R. Labour & Service Cases 81 · Punjab Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Sabir vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 24 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-01Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Riaz Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 242 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-03Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Nawaz And Other vs Pir Rakhsh And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 52 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-08-07Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ismail vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 428 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Boota vs Murad AliK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 44 · Lahore High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Asif vs Arif HussainK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 77 · Lahore High Court · 1990-10-06Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Arshad Jalil vs Pakistan Defence Officers HousingK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 460 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Altaf vs Mohammad NawazK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 404 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ali Khan And Other vs Munshi Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 56 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1990-10-02Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Akmal Beg vs Tahawar Ali Khan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 81 · Lahore High Court · 1990-09-24Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Abobakar vs Government of Sindh And OtherKLR.1992 Criminal Cases 158 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-21Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Abdullah vs Government of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 79 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mohamed Nasir Farooqi vs Mst. Zubaida and 2 others1992 CLC 1086 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Controller of Rents (Cantonment), Karachi, which struck off the appellant's defence under Section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, due to alleged non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The appellant had been directed to withdraw rent previously deposited with another Rent Controller and re-deposit it with the Cantonment Controller. The appellant filed an application to facilitate this transfer but, before that application could be heard, the Rent Controller struck off the defence based solely on an accountant's report indicating non-payment, without providing the appellant an opportunity to explain the delay. The Sindh High Court held that the penal provision of Section 17(9) requires a finding of 'wilful default.' Consequently, the Court ruled that the Rent Controller erred by passing the order without affording the appellant a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances or defend against the application. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for disposal in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence under Section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963, without providing the tenant an opportunity to explain the alleged default?
- Is a finding of 'wilful default' a necessary prerequisite for striking off a defence under Section 17(9) of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
- Does the failure to provide an opportunity to explain a delay in rent payment render an order striking off a defence procedurally improper?
- Mohamad Iqbal vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 458 · Lahore High Court · 1991-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mobile Eye Service of Pakistan vs Director SocialK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 549 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mobile Eye Service of Pakistan Karachi vs Director Social1992 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application seeking review of a previous consent judgment passed by a Division Bench of the High Court on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The core legal question addressed is whether a consent order or compromise decree passed by a court can be reviewed, recalled, or set aside under section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1, section 12(2), or section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the sole ground that the counsel appearing for a party lacked specific authority to enter into a compromise. The Sindh High Court held that a consent order cannot be set aside merely because counsel lacked authority, unless clear and distinct fraud or misrepresentation amounting to deception of the court or party is established. The court ruled that an advocate's lack of internal authorization is a matter strictly between the advocate and the client and does not vitiate a consent order absent fraud. The key principle laid down is that consent orders enjoy a high degree of finality and cannot be reopened through review or inherent powers unless the statutory grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional defect are rigorously proved.
Questions settled- Can a consent order passed by a court be reviewed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 merely because counsel lacked authority to compromise?
- Whether the provisions of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to set aside a compromise order in the absence of established fraud or misrepresentation?
- Does an advocate entering into a compromise without specific authorization render the consent decree voidable by the court under its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What constitutes sufficient ground for recalling a consent order based on a compromise reached by parties' counsel in court?
- Mjhammad Usman vs Messrs the Taj Company Ltd.1992 CLC 1737 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
- Mitho Kasai Alias Hadi Bux vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2185 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- Miss Wafa Rashed Saleemi vs Chairman of the Admission BoardK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 211 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
- Miss Siiazia Mukhtar vs Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and another1992 CLC 1379 · Lahore High Court · 1992-03-28Read full judgment →
- Miss Naveeda Farooq vs Principal, Federal Govt. College for Women, Rawalpindi And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 378 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Miss L.M. Stratford Represented By The Principal, New School Add Other1992 PLD Supreme Court 51 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a matter concerning the transfer of an evacuee property (a school building) under settlement laws. The core legal questions involved the legality of a transfer order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner outside the prescribed statutory schemes and the proper disposal of the school's transfer application (Form LH). The Supreme Court held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner's order transferring the property to a claimant as alternate accommodation, bypassing the mandatory procedures of Settlement Scheme No.V framed under Section 16 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was without lawful authority, violative of express provisions, and a nullity in law. The Court established that where properties are transferred to compensate displaced claimants rather than by sale, the specific mechanisms of the governing schemes must be strictly followed, and administrative bypass through Section 10 is impermissible. Consequently, the High Court's Letters Patent Bench judgment was set aside, restoring the Single Judge's decision which remanded the case for lawful disposal of the appellants' application.
Questions settled- Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner can transfer evacuee property to a claimant outside the mechanism of Settlement Scheme No.V?
- Does an order of transfer passed in violation of a statutory scheme framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 render the order void?
- Whether Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 permits the transfer of property to compensate a claimant without resorting to a prior decision to sell?
- Misbahul Haq And 10 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2172 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mirza Talat Mehmood Baig vs Messrs Mitsui & Company Ltd. And Another1992 PLD Tribunal 338 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mirza Talat Mehmood Baig vs Messrs Mitsui & Company Ltd. and another1992 PLC 338 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mirza Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1732 · Lahore High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mirza Shah vs The State1992 SCMR 1475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the judgment of the High Court, which maintained the conviction of the appellant under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, while reducing his sentence. The core legal question was whether Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which mandates the association of independent local witnesses during a search, applies to recoveries made by the police during an investigation, and whether failure to associate public witnesses renders such recoveries invalid. The Supreme Court held that by virtue of Section 165(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 103 is statutorily applicable to searches made during police investigation. However, its strict compliance depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and non-compliance is not absolute. The Court laid down that testimony of police officers regarding recoveries can be relied upon if it is straightforward, credible, and free from animus or malice, provided the prosecution furnishes a satisfactory explanation for the non-association of independent local witnesses.
Questions settled- Does Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to police searches made during investigation?
- Is the failure to associate independent witnesses of the locality during a police recovery fatal to the prosecution case?
- Can a conviction be based solely on the testimony of police officers regarding a recovery of illegal arms?
- Mirza Saeeduddin vs Islamic Estates & Builders Limited1992 CLC 477 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-31Read full judgment →
- Mirza Masih vs The State1992 MLD 573 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-21Read full judgment →
- Mirza Khurshid Ahmad M.a And Another vs Purjab Province, through Secretary Home Department, Government Secretariate, Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 344 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mirza Arif Baig vs Mubarikali1992 PLD Lahore 366 · Lahore High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the dismissal of a summary suit for the recovery of Rs.25,000 instituted under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of a promissory note. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that the consideration was not proved, the defendant's signatures were not genuine, and the plaintiff's evidence was contradictory and unreliable. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court involved the admissibility of a promissory note with uncancelled adhesive stamps, the proof of consideration, and the comparison of disputed signatures by the court. The High Court held that where adhesive stamps affixed on a promissory note are not duly cancelled, the document is rendered inadmissible in evidence and no decree can be passed upon it. Furthermore, the court upheld the findings that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant was unreliable and that the disputed signatures did not match the admitted signatures. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs. The key principle laid down is that failure to cancel adhesive stamps on a promissory note renders it inadmissible in evidence.
Questions settled- Does the failure to cancel adhesive stamps on a promissory note render the document inadmissible in evidence?
- Is a court competent to form its own opinion by comparing disputed signatures with admitted signatures without the assistance of a handwriting expert?
- Whether the non-proving of an accompanying receipt of consideration leads to the conclusion that payment of consideration has not been proved in a suit based on a promissory note?
- Mirza Ali Khan vs Mst. Shahida Parveen and others1992 SCMR 2112 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a suit for possession and mesne profits where the trial court struck off the defendant's defense and decreed the suit due to the defendant's failure to file an address for service as required under Order 8, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Order 8, Rule 11 are mandatory or directory, and whether striking off a defense necessitates an automatic decree. The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Order 8, Rule 11 and Rule 12 are directory rather than mandatory. The Court emphasized that the trial court should not mechanically strike off a defense without considering whether prejudice was caused to the opposite party. Furthermore, the Court clarified that striking off a defense does not absolve a plaintiff from the burden of proving their case, as a decree cannot be passed automatically. The principle laid down is that procedural rules are intended to advance justice rather than entrap litigants, and courts should avoid technicalities that frustrate the administration of justice. The case was remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Are the provisions of Order 8, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory or directory?
- Does the striking off of a defense under Order 8, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree?
- Must a plaintiff prove their case even after the defendant's defense has been struck off?
- Should a court mechanically strike off a defense for a failure to file an address for service without considering if prejudice was caused?
- Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Limited vs Riazuddin1992 PLC 759 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mir Zaman and 123 others vs Land Acquisition Collector, Nowshera1992 MLD 28 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-07-02Read full judgment →
- Mir Tariq Mahmood Khan Khetran and others vs Mir Baz Muhammad1992 CLC 1766 · Election Tribunal · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses five consolidated election petitions filed by unsuccessful candidates challenging the validity of provincial assembly election results on the grounds of corrupt and illegal practices. The core legal question was whether the procedural requirements prescribed by the Election Commission of Pakistan under Notification No. F-1(7)/85-Cord., requiring election petitions to be accompanied by documents, witness affidavits, and witness lists, are mandatory or merely directory, and whether failure to comply renders a petition non-maintainable. The Election Tribunal held that the provisions of the notification issued pursuant to section 62(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are mandatory in nature and must be strictly complied with. The Tribunal ruled that the failure of the petitioners to annex the requisite witness affidavits and lists along with their election petitions is fatal to their cases, as subsequent introduction of witnesses is impermissible and tribunals cannot condone such non-compliance. Consequently, the election petitions were dismissed as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Are the procedural requirements regarding the filing of witness affidavits along with election petitions under the Election Commission notification mandatory or directory?
- Does the failure to annex witness affidavits and lists of witnesses with an election petition render it non-maintainable?
- Can an Election Tribunal permit an election petitioner to submit a list of witnesses or affidavits subsequently during the course of the trial?
- Whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to the trial of election petitions in place of the special procedure prescribed under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Mir Sahib Khan vs Muhammad Rauf Khan1992 SCMR 1780 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment that set aside concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed a suit for possession through pre-emption. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had satisfied the mandatory requirements for Talb-i-Mawathibat and Talb-i-Ishhad under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987, specifically regarding the timing and proof of notice. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving that the Talb-i-Ishhad notice was sent in accordance with the statutory requirements, as no postal receipt or acknowledgment was produced. Furthermore, the Court found that the plaintiff had misrepresented the date of knowledge of the sale transaction, as evidence showed he was aware of the transaction significantly earlier than claimed. The ratio established that strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the pre-emption law is mandatory, and failure to prove the essential ingredients of Talb-i-Ishhad, including timely notice, results in the extinguishment of the right of pre-emption.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce a postal receipt or acknowledgment for the Talb-i-Ishhad notice result in the extinguishment of the right of pre-emption?
- Is a pre-emptor required to prove the date of knowledge of a sale transaction to satisfy the requirements of Talb-i-Mawathibat?
- What are the mandatory ingredients for a valid Talb-i-Ishhad under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987?
- Mir Sadiq Ali vs Ishteaque AhmadK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 196 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad and 43 others vs Deputy Commissioner, Chagai and 1041992 CLC 114 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mir Hasan vs Habibur Rehman and others1992 SCMR 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Articles 7 and 8 of Chapter 4 of the Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquettes framed by the Pakistan Bar Council against respondent No.3, an advocate who previously served as an Additional Judge of the High Court. The petitioner contended that respondent No.3 was barred from representing certain convicts in a criminal appeal because he had earlier heard their bail application while sitting as a judge. The Supreme Court noted that respondent No.3 stated he was no longer representing the co-accused whose bail he had heard. The Court held that the High Court's application was rightly dismissed, observing that the Bar Council is the competent forum to enforce professional conduct rules, and clarified that the parties remain free to pursue remedies provided under the law without prejudice from the High Court's observations.
Questions settled- Is the High Court the competent forum to enforce decisions regarding the Canons of Professional Conduct and Etiquettes framed by the Pakistan Bar Council?
- Does an advocate who previously heard a bail application as a judge stand disqualified from representing a co-accused whose bail application was not heard by him?
- Mir Hasan vs Government of Sindh, through Secretary, Home1992 MLD 600 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-13Read full judgment →
- Mir Baz Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 19 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
- Mir Ali and 8 others vs K.B. Dil Aram Khan (deceased) through Legal Heirs1992 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three consolidated appeals arising from land disputes in the former Chitral State. The central legal question was whether review petitions filed under Clause (2) of Article 6 of the President's Order No. 12 of 1980 (Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Order, 1980) were competent, given the appellants' contention that the prior orders of the Federal Land Commission had already been implemented. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether an order has been 'implemented' is a mixed question of fact and law that must be raised before the forum exercising review jurisdiction, not for the first time in constitutional proceedings. The Court determined that the mere passing of an order by the Federal Land Commission did not constitute implementation, as further action was required to give effect to those orders. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in declining constitutional jurisdiction where the appellants failed to raise the plea of implementation before the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Is the question of whether an order has been implemented a mixed question of fact and law?
- Can a party raise the issue of non-implementation of an order for the first time in constitutional proceedings if it was not raised before the tribunal of first instance?
- Does the mere passing of an order by the Federal Land Commission constitute 'implementation' under the Settlement of Disputes of Immovable Property (Chitral) Order, 1980?
- Is the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 discretionary when a party fails to raise a plea before the lower forum?
- Mir Alam vs Gohar Aman And 14 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 120 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-18Read full judgment →
- Mir Alam Khan vs Mosim Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 89 · Peshawar High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mir Afzal vs Muhammad Haneef And 2 Other1992 PLD Peshawar 123 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for the cancellation of bail granted by the Sessions Judge to two accused persons charged with murder. The core legal question was whether the Sessions Judge erred in granting bail solely on the ground that the case required further inquiry, without determining whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused committed a non-bailable offence. The High Court held that the order granting bail was illegal because it failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of forming a tentative opinion regarding the prima facie guilt or innocence of the accused. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that the mere need for further inquiry is insufficient to entitle an accused to bail under the relevant statutory provisions. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused had misused the concession of bail by threatening the complainant. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, emphasizing that a finding regarding the absence of reasonable grounds for believing the accused committed a non-bailable offence is a prerequisite for bail in murder cases.
Questions settled- Is the mere need for further inquiry sufficient grounds to grant bail in a murder case under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Must a court record a finding regarding the absence of reasonable grounds for believing an accused committed a non-bailable offence before granting bail?
- Does the misuse of bail by threatening the complainant constitute a valid ground for the cancellation of bail?
- Millat Tractors Employees TRUSTAnd 2 Other vs Government of Pakistan Through Secretary,1992 PLD Lahore 68 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by Millat Tractors Employees Trust seeking a direction against the Federal Government to refrain from transferring managing shares of Millat Tractors Ltd to respondent No. 4, and to mandate negotiations with the petitioner as the highest bidder under a Memorandum of Agreement. The Federal Government had invited public bids for privatisation under Article 4 of the Transfer of Managed Establishments Order 1978 (P.O. No. 12 of 1978). Respondent No. 4, representing another group of employees, submitted the highest bid, which was accepted. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that petitioner No. 1 was an unsuccessful bidder and not an 'aggrieved person' entitled to relief. The Court held that contractual obligations cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction, and disputed questions of fact regarding employee representation cannot be determined under Article 199. Furthermore, the Memorandum of Agreement did not bind third-party bidders, and the statutory process of public auction under P.O. No. 12 of 1978 was fully complied with.
Questions settled- Can contractual obligations arising out of a Memorandum of Agreement be enforced through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Is an unsuccessful bidder in a public auction an 'aggrieved person' within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge the acceptance of a higher bid?
- Can disputed questions of fact regarding representation of employee groups be determined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction?
- Midway House (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs The Presiding Officer, 4TH Sindh1992 PLC 380 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-10-03Read full judgment →
- Midway House (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal1992 PLC 916 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-04Read full judgment →
- Mian Sher Rehman vs Muhammad Sharif and others1992 SCMR 1459 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the order of the Supreme Court refusing leave to appeal in a pre-emption case. The petitioner, a pre-emptor, was directed to deposit pre-emption money, partly in cash and partly by furnishing a security bond. Although the cash was deposited, the security bond was insufficiently stamped, leading to the rejection of the plaint under section 23(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act. The lower courts and eventually the Supreme Court upheld the rejection. In the review petition, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner, relying on section 42(2) of the Stamp Act 1899, that subsequent stamping of the document validates it retrospectively from the date of execution, thereby curing any initial defect regarding the time limit for furnishing security. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that the provisions of the Stamp Act cannot be interpreted to nullify the mandatory requirements of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act regarding the timely deposit or furnishing of security.
Questions settled- Does the subsequent stamping of an insufficiently stamped security bond relate back to cure a failure to furnish a valid security bond within the time fixed under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act?
- Whether a plaint can be rejected under section 23(4) of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act when the security bond furnished for pre-emption money is insufficiently stamped?
- Are there sufficient grounds for review when a legal argument regarding the Stamp Act 1899 was not raised at the initial hearing of the petition for leave to appeal?
- Mian Safdar Mahmood and 18 others vs Punjab Service Tribunal and 21992 SCMR 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the seniority of a civil servant, Sardar Ahmad Zia, who was promoted to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) after a delay due to disciplinary proceedings. The core legal question was whether a senior officer, who was ineligible for promotion at the time their juniors were promoted due to a lack of required academic qualifications, can regain seniority over those juniors upon their eventual promotion. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing that the respondent be placed senior to his juniors. The Court reasoned that the principle allowing a senior officer to regain seniority over a junior promoted earlier is subject to the limitation that the senior must have been eligible for promotion at the time the junior was promoted. Since the respondent lacked the requisite Bachelor's degree at the time his juniors were promoted, and the subsequent relaxation of rules by the Government could not be applied retrospectively, he could not claim seniority. The Court established that an ineligible or unqualified senior cannot benefit from seniority rules designed to protect those who were eligible but unfairly bypassed.
Questions settled- Can a senior officer regain seniority over a junior promoted earlier if the senior was ineligible for promotion at the time of the junior's promotion?
- Does the relaxation of academic qualification rules for promotion have retrospective effect for the purpose of seniority?
- Is the government's decision to relax service rules for a civil servant a matter of conjecture or a guaranteed right?
- Does a senior officer who is ineligible for promotion due to lack of qualifications have a right to be considered for promotion alongside eligible juniors?
- Mian Nazir Sons Industries Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against the dismissal of constitutional petitions challenging the rescission of a notification issued under Section 21 of the Customs Act, 1969, which had granted customs duty concessions on imported polypropylene granules. The core legal question was whether the Central Board of Revenue could validly rescind such a notification after the appellants had entered into irrevocable letters of credit, and whether Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, validated this withdrawal. The Supreme Court held that the benefit provided under Section 21(b) constituted a 'concession' rather than an exemption. The Court ruled that Section 31-A explicitly authorizes the withdrawal of such concessions even after the conclusion of contracts or the opening of letters of credit. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the principle that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the legislature or laws enacted by it, as the legislature cannot make a representation. Consequently, the withdrawal of the notification was legally competent, and the appellants remained liable for the customs duties applicable at the time of clearance.
Questions settled- Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, permit the withdrawal of customs concessions after the conclusion of a contract or the opening of a letter of credit?
- Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against the legislature or laws enacted by it?
- Does the benefit provided under Section 21(b) of the Customs Act, 1969, constitute an exemption or a concession?
- Mian Nazir Sons Industries Ltd. and anothers vs Government of Pakistan and others1992 SCMR 883 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses four appeals concerning the validity of rescinding a customs duty concession granted under Section 21 of the Customs Act, 1969, after importers had established irrevocable Letters of Credit and entered into contracts for the import of goods. The core legal question was whether the subsequent Notification No. S.R.O.503(1)/86, which rescinded the earlier concession, was valid, particularly in light of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeals. It held that the benefit extended under Section 21(b) of the Customs Act, 1969, is a 'concession' and not an 'exemption', and therefore, Section 31-A applies. The Court ruled that no vested rights accrue to an importer to refuse payment of enhanced duty upon rescission or revocation of such a concession order, even if contracts were concluded or Letters of Credit opened prior to the withdrawal. The doctrine of promissory estoppel was also held inapplicable against legislative action.
Questions settled- Can a customs duty concession granted under Section 21 of the Customs Act, 1969, be validly rescinded after irrevocable Letters of Credit have been established and contracts entered into?
- Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, cover the modification or rescission of a special order issued under Section 21 of the Act?
- Does the term 'concession' as used in Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, include the benefits extended under Section 21(b) of the Act?
- Do vested rights accrue to an importer to refuse payment of enhanced duty upon rescission or revocation of a concession order, if contracts were concluded or Letters of Credit opened prior to the withdrawal?
- Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against the Legislature or laws framed by it in matters of customs duty?
- Mian Naseer A. Sheikh vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore1992 PTD 512 · Lahore High Court · 1991-02-09Read full judgment →
- Mian Naseeb Jan and anothers vs Moambar and 3 others1992 SCMR 1638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-02-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal through leave of the Court addressed the scope of powers exercisable by a Commissioner on appeal under section 11 of the PATA Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975. The core legal question was whether a Commissioner's appellate jurisdiction is restricted solely to examining procedural defects or material irregularities akin to the Deputy Commissioner's powers under section 10, or whether it encompasses full powers to review decisions on facts and merits. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner possesses wide appellate powers, including the authority to confirm, modify, alter, or set aside any decision, decree, or order on facts and law, and is not restricted by the limitations imposed on the Deputy Commissioner under section 10(3). The Court laid down that the appellate forum under section 11 enjoys normal and broad powers of appeal, supplemented by the provisions of section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that restricting the Commissioner's powers to those under section 10 is legally incorrect. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the case was remanded for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether the Commissioner can re-examine facts and merits in an appeal under section 11 of the PATA Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975?
- Are the powers of the Commissioner hearing an appeal under section 11 of the PATA Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Regulation, 1975 restricted by the limitations placed on the Deputy Commissioner under section 10(3)?
- Does section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 limit an appellate court's powers solely to those exercisable by a trial court?
- Mian Muhammad Altaf vs The Secretary Health, Government of Punjab, Lahore And Another1992 PLD Lahore 199 · Lahore High Court · 1992-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision arises from the cancellation of a medical store licence held by the petitioner, Mian Muhammad Altaf, which led him to file a civil suit against the Secretary, Health Department, Government of the Punjab, seeking a temporary injunction against the cancellation order. Both the trial court and the appellate court refused to grant the temporary injunction, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case. The Lahore High Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court reasoned that granting a temporary injunction would effectively grant the final relief sought in the suit before trial, potentially allowing the petitioner to continue alleged irregularities in drug sales, which could endanger public health. Emphasizing that the grant of a temporary injunction is a discretionary power, the Court held that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts absent any demonstrated illegality or material irregularity. Consequently, the civil revision was dismissed in limine, affirming that the petitioner's innocence must be established before such relief is granted.
Questions settled- Is the grant of a temporary injunction a matter of right or a discretionary power of the court?
- Should a court grant a temporary injunction if doing so would effectively grant the final relief sought in the suit before trial?
- Can a High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the refusal of a temporary injunction if no illegality or material irregularity is shown?
- Muhammad Saeed vs Manzoor Ahmad1992 CLC 961 · Lahore High Court · 1991-12-21Read full judgment →
- Mian Khan And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1569 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mian Jamshed Hussain vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 141 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-02Read full judgment →
- Mian Ghulam Nabi vs Assistant Commissioner/Registration Officer1992 MLD 212 · Lahore High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Mian Ejaz Siddique Etc vs (Mst.) Kaneez Begum EtcK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 574 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
- Mian Ejaz Siddique and others vs Mst. Kaneez Begum and 2 others1992 CLC 1658 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision before the Lahore High Court arose from a dispute between a mother (the plaintiff-respondent) and her son (the defendant-petitioner) regarding the operation of bank accounts of a private limited company. The plaintiff alleged that her son fraudulently obtained her signatures to pass a resolution authorizing him and another individual to operate the company's accounts without her joint signatures. The trial court dismissed her temporary injunction application, but the appellate court reversed it, restraining the defendants from operating the accounts. On revision, the High Court addressed whether ordinary Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over company affairs when winding-up proceedings are pending before a Companies Judge, and the effect of non-compliance with the notice requirements of Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Civil Courts retain plenary jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to prevent injustice where the Companies Judge has not passed any interim order. It further held that attaching a postal receipt of dispatch constitutes sufficient compliance with Order XLIII Rule 3. The Court modified the injunction, directing the plaintiff to retransfer unilaterally withdrawn funds to the company and ordering the defendants to furnish a bank guarantee to secure the plaintiff's investment.
Questions settled- Do ordinary Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over company matters under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when winding-up proceedings are pending but no interim order has been passed by the Companies Judge?
- Does the failure to serve actual notice under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require the dismissal of an appeal if a postal receipt of dispatch is attached?
- Can a Civil Court modify a temporary injunction by directing a party to return unilaterally withdrawn funds to a company's account while requiring the opposing party to furnish a bank guarantee?
- Mian Dad vs The State and another1992 SCMR 1418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a High Court order cancelling the appellant's bail in a murder case registered under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Bail had initially been granted on the basis that the FIR, grounded in the accused's own statement, indicated a case of grave and sudden provocation under Section 304, Part I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The High Court, upon a difference of opinion, cancelled the bail on the ground that the offence under Section 304, Part I was also punishable with imprisonment for life, bringing it within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal contention raised by the appellant was that considerations for cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) differ from grant of bail under Section 497(1), as Section 497(5) confers discretion upon the court even if the offence falls under the prohibitory clause. However, observing that the trial was about to commence after submission of the challan, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's order, holding that entering into a discussion on the merits at this juncture could prejudice either party.
Questions settled- Are the legal considerations for cancelling bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 different from those governing the grant of bail under Section 497(1)?
- Does the court retain discretion under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to refuse cancellation of bail even if the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1)?
- Should the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court bail order on the merits when the trial is about to commence after submission of the challan?
- Mian Abdul Rahim vs Habib Bank Ltd.1992 CLC 364 · Lahore High Court · 1991-04-27Read full judgment →
- Mian Abdul Ghafoor And Other vs Irshad Ali Shah And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 101 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
- Metro Garments Industries vs Sajid Hussain1992 PLC 1135 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1990-11-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs. Laxson Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Marks1992 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, challenged an order by the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to register the trade mark "HUDSON" for cigarettes and tobacco products in class 34. The Registrar had refused registration on the grounds that "HUDSON" was a common surname and a geographical name (river in USA, bay in Canada), thus objectionable under Section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, lacking distinctiveness. The Sindh High Court held that the prohibition against registering geographical names or surnames under Section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act is restricted to names "in Pakistan". Since "HUDSON" was not a recognized caste, surname, or geographical name within Pakistan, the Registrar's objection was deemed misconceived. The Court accepted the appeal and directed the Registrar to proceed with the appellant's application for registration.
Questions settled- Can a trade mark be refused registration under Section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act if it is a common surname or geographical name outside Pakistan?
- Is the prohibition against registering geographical names or surnames under Section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act restricted to names within Pakistan?
- What criteria determine if a trade mark is objectionable as a surname or geographical name under the Trade Marks Act?
- Does the appearance of a name in a foreign telephone directory or its recognition as a geographical feature outside Pakistan automatically preclude its registration as a trade mark in Pakistan?
- Messrs Zahid Hussain Shah through Partner. vs Province of Sindh1992 CLC 2519 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Yaqeen Ali & Company vs Province of Sindh and 2 others1992 CLC 760 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges a trial court judgment dismissing a suit under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to the appellant's failure to produce evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly invoked Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to decide the suit on merits rather than dismissing it for default under Rule 2. The High Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the trial court acted within its discretion. The court held that Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, is a penal provision applicable when a party, having been granted time to perform a necessary act, defaults. Given that the appellant had been granted thirteen adjournments and failed to examine witnesses despite their presence, the court determined that sufficient material existed to justify a decision on merits. The judgment establishes that persistent failure to utilize granted opportunities for evidence production warrants dismissal under Rule 3, as the court is not required to grant indefinite adjournments.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce evidence after multiple adjournments justify the dismissal of a suit under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the distinction between Order 17, Rule 2 and Order 17, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the dismissal of a suit?
- Can a court proceed to decide a suit on merits under Order 17, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if a party fails to produce evidence despite being granted time?
- Does the mere physical presence of a party in court constitute an appearance if they refuse to participate in proceedings or produce evidence?
- Messrs Water and Power Development vs Messrs National InsuranceK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 130 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Distributors Private Ltd. vs Rosiian Farm Aids, Sanghar1992 CLC 1320 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Bank Limited vs Messrs Indus Metallic Industries and another1992 CLC 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
- Messrs Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Muhammad Ramzan and 21992 PLC 323 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1991-12-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Travent Karachi vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan and others1992 CLC 1296 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sufi Soap Factory, Lahore vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lahore1992 PTD 68 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the tax liability of a licensed manufacturer, Messrs Sufi Soap Factory, regarding the sale of raw materials used in soap production. The core legal question was whether a licensed manufacturer, who purchases partly manufactured goods without paying sales tax and subsequently sells them to non-licensed persons, is liable for sales tax under Section 12(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, even in the absence of a tax-exemption certificate. The Supreme Court held that Section 12(1) is a recovery provision intended to address situations where a manufacturer avoids tax by misusing the exemption granted under Section 4 of the Act via Rule 16 certificates. The Court ruled that because the appellant did not purchase the raw materials on the strength of such certificates, the provisions of Section 12(1) were not attracted. The key principle laid down is that Section 12(1) cannot be invoked to impose tax liability on a licensed manufacturer for the sale of raw materials unless the initial purchase was made tax-free specifically under the exemption scheme provided by the Act and its rules.
Questions settled- Whether Section 12(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, applies to a licensed manufacturer who sells raw materials without having purchased them on the strength of a tax-exemption certificate?
- Does the definition of 'partly manufactured goods' under Section 2(12) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, include raw materials sold by a manufacturer in the same condition as purchased?
- Can Section 12(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, be invoked as a charging section to impose tax liability where no exemption under Section 4 was initially claimed?
- Messrs Sufi Soap Factory, Lahore vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Lahore (Copy)1992 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by Messrs Sufi Soap Factory arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning sales tax liability for the assessment year 1964-65 on the sale of raw materials used in soap manufacture. The appellant firm, a licensed soap manufacturer, declared sales of soap and raw materials, contending that the raw materials were purchased from the open market and sold directly without being utilized in manufacturing. The core legal question was whether a licensed manufacturer who sells raw materials purchased from persons other than licensed manufacturers or wholesalers is liable to pay sales tax under section 12(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The Supreme Court, by a majority view (Rustam S. Sidhwa, J. dissenting; Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Saad Saood Jan, JJ. dismissing the appeal), upheld the High Court's decision and ruled that the appellant was liable to sales tax under section 12(1) as a licensed manufacturer who purchased partly manufactured goods without payment of sales tax and subsequently sold them to persons other than licensed manufacturers or wholesalers, without establishing that the transactions were independent or that sales tax had been paid at the time of purchase.
Questions settled- Whether a licensed manufacturer who purchases raw materials without paying sales tax and subsequently sells them to non-licensed persons is liable to tax under section 12(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- Does the application of section 12(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, require proof that goods were purchased specifically on the strength of a manufacturing licence or tax-free certificate?
- Whether raw materials used in the preparation of soap constitute partly manufactured goods under section 2(12) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
- Messrs Singer Pakistan Limited and aNo ther vs Shaikh Ainulhaq1992 CLC 192 · Lahore High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →