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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Messrs Radaka Corporation and others vs Collector of Customs and another1989 SCMR 353 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-05
  customs dutytariff classificationwaste and scrap metalre-rollable iron and steel scrapdepartmental practicerecovery of metalforgingPakistan Customs Tariff Schedule
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a batch of appeals concerning the proper customs duty classification of imported re-rollable iron and steel scrap. The core legal question was whether such scrap should be classified as "waste and scrap metal of iron and steel" under heading 73.03 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff Schedule or under higher-duty headings such as 73.13 and 73-10-B. The High Court had previously held that because the imported items could be re-rolled directly without first being melted into liquid form, they did not satisfy the requirement of "recovery of metal" under Explanatory Note 6 to Section XV of the Tariff, and thus fell outside heading 73.03. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that recovery of metal can be achieved through forging, which includes hot-rolling and heating processes without requiring complete fusion into liquid form. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that a long-standing departmental practice of classifying re-rollable scrap under heading 73.03 had been followed consistently, creating settled rights that could not be arbitrarily overturned to the detriment of importers who acted on the faith of such practice. The appeals were accepted and bank guarantees released.

  Questions settled

  • Whether re-rollable iron and steel scrap is classifiable under heading 73.03 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff Schedule as waste and scrap metal?
  • Does the "recovery of metal" under Explanatory Note 6 to Section XV of the Tariff require the complete melting or fusion of scrap into liquid form?
  • Can a long-standing departmental practice regarding the classification of imported goods be abruptly departed from to the prejudice of settled importer rights?
  • Does the process of re-rolling constitute forging for the purpose of recovering metal within the meaning of the customs tariff explanatory notes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rabka Pest Control Limited vs Mrs. Mahmooda Khalil1989 SCMR 515 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-23
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentconcurrent findingsleave to appealtenantrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the High Court, which ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from a house situated in Sind Muslim Co-operative Society, Karachi, on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The core legal question centered upon whether the agreed monthly rent was Rs. 2,500 or Rs. 1,500, which determined the issue of default. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the concurrent finding of fact by the lower forums fixing the rent at Rs. 2,500 per month suffered from no legal infirmity warranting interference. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the ejectment order. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the rate of rent and default unless such findings are shown to suffer from a legal infirmity.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the rate of rent?
  • Does a failure to pay rent at the agreed rate constitute default warranting ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Prestress India Corporation vs U.P. State Electricity Board1989 MLD 2391 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. vs Abdul Bari and another1989 PLC 360 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Paper Exchange, Karachi And Others vs Messrs Qadiria Board1989 MLD 2968 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Steel, Karachi vs Sajjad Rasool1989 PLC 702 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. vs Abdul K14aliq Ghandak Wala1989 MLD 1625 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory, Karachi vs Syed Muhammad1989 PLC 47 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-04-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Messrs Ali Gul Khan, Packages Ltd1989 CLC 1774 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-04-12
  company liquidationpreferential paymentselectricity duesland revenueWAPDAlocal authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous appeal arose from a report by joint liquidators regarding the distribution of assets of a company under liquidation, specifically concerning the rejection of WAPDA's claim for priority payment of outstanding electricity dues. The core legal questions were whether WAPDA qualifies as a local authority entitled to preferential payment under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and whether electricity charges recoverable as arrears of land revenue constitute government dues or local authority revenues entitled to priority. The Peshawar High Court held that WAPDA is not a local authority empowered to impose taxes, cesses, or rates, and that the mere recoverability of electricity dues as arrears of land revenue does not convert them into land revenue or government dues entitled to preferential treatment under company liquidation laws. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, establishing that WAPDA's electricity charges do not enjoy priority status under section 405 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984.

  Questions settled

  • Whether WAPDA qualifies as a local authority entitled to preferential payment of its dues under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does the statutory recoverability of electricity charges as arrears of land revenue make them government dues or land revenue?
  • Do electricity charges owed to WAPDA enjoy priority over other debts in the winding up of a company?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Wazir Ahmad and 17 others1989 PLC 576 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir vs Noor Muhammad and others1989 SCMR 565 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-15
  civil revisionco-sharersdeclaration suitleave to appealjoint khataalienation of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a plaintiff against the dismissal of his civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the appellate court's decision setting aside a trial court decree in a suit for declaration regarding the sale of land by co-sharers. The core legal question concerned whether the alienation of land by certain co-sharers involved the petitioner's share from a joint Khata and whether the High Court erred in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the first appellate judgment did not suffer from any error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction, particularly noting that the new plea regarding an earlier decree was not raised before the High Court. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, establishing the principle that new factual pleas not raised before the High Court will not be entertained for the first time to interfere with concurrent findings in revisional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere in revisional jurisdiction when a plea regarding an earlier decree was not raised before the High Court?
  • Does the alienation of land by co-sharers from a joint Khata warrant interference if it is within their share?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Associates Construction Ltd. vs WAPDA And Another1989 MLD 203 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak Containers Employees' Union through its General Secretary1989 PLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nishat Mills Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 CLC 1692 · Lahore High Court · 1988-02-29
  export dutycotton yarnpromissory estoppelvested rightscustoms notificationretrospective taxationletters of creditexemption notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of six writ petitions filed by textile mills seeking to restrain customs authorities from demanding or enhancing export duty on cotton yarn shipments under various Federal Government notifications issued in 1987. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government could lawfully rescind or amend exemption notifications retrospectively to levy or increase export duty on shipments covered by existing contracts and irrevocable letters of credit established prior to the notifications. The court held that once an exemption notification is issued and acted upon by parties entering into binding contracts or establishing irrevocable letters of credit, it creates vested rights protected by the principle of promissory estoppel and cannot be taken away retrospectively by subsequent subordinate legislation or executive notifications. The key principle laid down is that executive notifications altering fiscal duties cannot operate retrospectively to defeat accrued vested rights arising from earlier exemption notifications relied upon by citizens in their commercial dealings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can withdraw an export duty exemption notification retrospectively to affect contracts and letters of credit established prior to the withdrawal?
  • Does an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 create a vested right in favour of exporters who act upon it?
  • Whether the principle of promissory estoppel prevents the government from levying increased export duties on shipments covered by irrevocable letters of credit opened during the subsistence of an exemption?
  • What is the effect of extending the shipment dates of an irrevocable letter of credit on the exporter's entitlement to a previously existing duty exemption?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nish a T Mills Limited vs Superintendent of Central Excise Circle1989 PLD Supreme Court 222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-17
  substantial complianceexcise duty rebatedismantled loomsCentral Board of Revenuetechnicalitiesproduction capacity rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's constitutional petition regarding the refusal of rebate in excise duty under Rule 3(9) of the Production Capacity (Cotton Fabrics) Rules 1968. The appellant claimed a rebate for 110 non-working, dismantled looms. Under Rule 3(9), rebate required that installed looms be both dismantled and removed from the factory. While the appellant dismantled the looms, they were not removed. However, the Central Board of Revenue relaxed the removal requirement, permitting looms to be packed and sealed within the factory premises to ensure they were non-working. The court addressed whether the principle of 'substantial compliance' applied to procedural conditions and relaxation directions. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that procedural rules and relaxation orders are designed to advance justice rather than trap parties in technicalities. Because a certificate accepted as authentic confirmed the dismantled looms were rendered non-working, the directions of the Central Board of Revenue were substantially complied with, entitling the appellant to the rebate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of substantial compliance apply to statutory rules and administrative orders prescribing procedural conditions for tax rebates?
  • Can a requirement of removal from factory premises be satisfied if dismantled machinery is conclusively rendered non-working under an administrative relaxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Niazi Institute of Science Organization vs Anwar Zamani1989 SCMR 261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-26
  ejectmentrent appealorder sheetpresence of counselreturn of documentsSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from two petitions directed against a common order of the High Court, which dismissed first rent appeals stemming from an ejectment case and an order rejecting an application under Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerned whether proper notice and opportunity of hearing were afforded to the petitioner after a holiday adjournment, particularly regarding the presence of the petitioner's counsel on the subsequent date of hearing. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly relied upon the official order sheet—which showed the counsel was present when the matter was adjourned—in the absence of any contrary evidence or explanation. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the regularity of the proceedings and the dismissal of the application for the return of documents, ultimately ruling that the petitions lacked merit and dismissing them. The key principle laid down is that official judicial order sheets carry a presumption of correctness regarding the presence of counsel, which must be displaced by concrete evidence rather than mere assertions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an official order sheet of a Rent Controller can be relied upon to establish the presence of counsel on a date of hearing?
  • Does the absence of a party or counsel on an initial adjourned date vitiate subsequent proceedings when counsel was present on a later date?
  • Whether findings of fact recorded by the High Court regarding procedural regularity warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Motors Ltd. vs Messrs the Muslim Commercial Bank1989 PLD Karachi 168 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Insurance Corporation And Another vs Messrs Blue1989 MLD 391 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Electric Co. of Pakistan And Others vs Central Board1989 MLD 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Bank of Pakistan vs Itat Hussain Abidi1989 PLC 259 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Murafee Industries vs Messrs Riaz Ahmad1989 CLC 1081 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mian Akbar Trading Corporation vs State Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 2036 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Metropole Cinema vs Lahore Metropolitan Corporation1989 MLD 219 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Maratos & Co. vs "Rice Trader" and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-04
  admiralty jurisdictionaction in remnecessaries supplied to shipssister vesselsbeneficial ownershipcorporate veilpriority of claimsarrest of ship
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed an admiralty suit under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 for the recovery of money in respect of necessaries supplied and services rendered to various vessels managed by defendant No.2. The core legal question was whether an action in rem could be maintained against defendant No.1 ('Rice Trader') in respect of claims arising from necessaries supplied to other sister vessels under the concept of beneficial ownership and sister-ship arrest. The court held that while the plaintiff's claim against 'Rice Trader' and 'Mimosa Trader' (owned by the same company) was maintainable and proved, claims against other vessels managed by the same company could not be entertained under section 4(4) of the Ordinance because mere management, operation, or chartering does not constitute beneficial ownership of majority shares. The key principle laid down is that 'beneficial owner' under the admiralty jurisdiction connotes an equitable or real ownership interest in the majority shares of a vessel, and mere physical possession, control, or management as an operator or time/demise charterer does not satisfy the requirements for sister-ship arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Can an action in rem be maintained against a sister vessel for claims relating to another vessel under section 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 without establishing beneficial ownership of majority shares?
  • Does a ship manager, operator, or time/demise charterer qualify as a beneficial owner of majority shares of a vessel for the purposes of sister-ship arrest?
  • When can the court pierce the corporate veil to determine the true beneficial ownership of a vessel in admiralty proceedings?
  • What is the relative priority of claims for necessaries supplied to a vessel compared to mortgagees, salvers, and crew wages from the sale proceeds of an arrested ship?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mairaj Din & Sons vs The Government of Pakistan and others1989 SCMR 1789 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-25
  import licencead hoc licenceadministrative discretionvested rightscivil suitprohibition laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit initiated by the petitioner firm, which challenged the government's decision to reduce the value of its import licence for arms and ammunition. Following the 1977 prohibition laws, the government had initially granted the petitioner an ad hoc import licence of Rs. 15,000 to compensate for the loss of its spirit import business. However, in the subsequent year, the government reduced this value to align with other new importers. The trial court and the Additional District Judge ruled in favor of the petitioner, but the High Court reversed these decisions, dismissing the suit. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a vested legal right to receive import licences of a specific, higher value based on an initial ad hoc grant. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to identify any statutory provision or legal basis supporting its claim to a higher-value licence. The Court affirmed that an ad hoc administrative decision does not confer a permanent right to preferential treatment over similarly situated parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the grant of an ad hoc import licence create a vested right to receive similar licences of the same value in subsequent years?
  • Can a private entity claim a legal entitlement to preferential treatment in the issuance of import licences without a statutory basis?
  • Is an administrative decision to reduce the value of an import licence to achieve parity with other importers legally challengeable in a civil court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.G. Traders vs Deputy Collector of Customs, Lahore1989 MLD 474 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.B. Mana and Company vs The District Judge and others1989 PLC 481 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs M. Shah Muhammad & Sons vs Pakistan and 2 others1989 SCMR 794 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13
  sales taxwrit jurisdictiondisputed questions of factconsignment classificationconstitutional jurisdictiontax authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition filed by a sales tax assessee. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the tax authorities' factual determination that the petitioner's consignment consisted of "wire" rather than "strips." The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the classification was based on chemical tests and physical measurements conducted by the relevant authorities. The Court held that the High Court correctly declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction because the petition primarily involved disputed questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence, which falls outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's argument regarding the validity of the testing process, finding no evidence that the petitioner was excluded from the sampling process or that the tests were defective. The judgment reaffirms the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for re-evaluating factual findings made by competent authorities absent jurisdictional defects or errors of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to re-evaluate factual findings made by tax authorities?
  • Is the recording of evidence a function of the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the absence of the petitioner during laboratory testing of samples invalidate the findings of tax authorities if the sampling process itself was conducted with notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khayal Muhammad and Sons vs Messrs Pakistan Tobacco1989 PLD Supreme Court 444 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-08
  octroi dutycomposition feeoctroi evasionpenal provisionmunicipal committeeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an Octroi agent and lessee of a Municipal Committee against the judgment of the High Court, which annulled a demand for a tenfold composition fee/penalty for alleged non-payment of Octroi duty by the respondent company. The core legal question was whether a composition fee equivalent to ten times the Octroi duty could be levied under Rule 192 of the Octroi Rules, 1964, when the respondent had not applied for composition and the strict mandatory conditions of the rule were not met. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was unexceptionable, ruling that Rule 192 is penal in nature and must be construed strictly. The court established that a composition fee under Rule 192 cannot be levied unless the person concerned applies for composition, pays the due duty, and all mandatory procedural requirements are fulfilled, nor can such a penal fee be imposed through residuary powers under Rule 195. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a composition fee equivalent to ten times the Octroi duty be levied under Rule 192 of the Octroi Rules, 1964, without an application for composition by the person against whom evasion is registered?
  • Whether penal provisions under the Octroi Rules, 1964, must be construed strictly?
  • Can a composition fee prescribed for an offence under Rule 192 be recovered under the general residuary powers of Rule 195 of the Octroi Rules, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khan Bros. & Ca vs Mst. Shahnaz Begum and another1989 SCMR 560 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14
  leave to appealdismissal for defaultrestoration of suitsufficient causecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant against the dismissal of its civil revision by the High Court. The respondents' original suit was dismissed for default, and their initial application for restoration was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, upon showing sufficient cause, the restoration application and the suit itself were restored. The petitioner's counsel challenged the credibility and correctness of the statement made by the respondents' counsel, Mr. Sana Ullah, Advocate, regarding his inability to appear on the date of default. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that Mr. Sana Ullah's statement, which had been subjected to cross-examination, suffered from no such infirmity that would warrant interference. Holding that the findings of the courts below were free from any legal error, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings regarding the sufficiency of cause for restoring a suit dismissed for default?
  • Can a counsel's statement made under cross-examination regarding non-appearance be discredited without apparent infirmity?
  • Is leave to appeal warranted against the High Court's dismissal of a civil revision upholding the restoration of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited West Wharf, Karachi vs Sher Muhammad1989 PLC 779 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs K.S.B. Pumps Co. Ltd. vs Ghulam Sughra and 2 others1989 PLC 648 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jones International, Lahore vs Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Lahore1989 MLD 1499 · Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan · 1988-07-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jan Co. Importers vs The Federal Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 1999 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs International Computers Ltd. vs Rahim Azam Khan1989 PLC 328 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Inter Agencies Ltd. vs Habib Bank Ltd.1989 MLD 1912 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Packages (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Joint Registrar, Joint1989 MLD 555 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Trade and Industries Publications Limited1989 MLD 374 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Indian Oxygen Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise1989 MLD 490 · Supreme Court of India · -Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Jabeen, Karachi vs Ejaz Hussain alias Ejaz Ahmad and another1988 PLC 56 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hindustan Tea Co. vs Messrs K. Sashikant & Co.1989 MLD 212 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hilalepakistan Publishers vs Sind Labour Court No, 1 and others1989 SCMR 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-03-22
  labour lawlimitation periodconstitutional petitionreinstatementnon-prosecutionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The employee, respondent No. 3, had been reinstated by the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The petitioner's appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was dismissed for non-prosecution, and a subsequent restoration application was also rejected. The petitioner then challenged these proceedings in the High Court, primarily arguing that the original application under section 25-A was time-barred. The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, noting that the petitioner had failed to raise the issue of limitation before the Labour Court and had not properly challenged the Labour Court's initial order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no merit in the contention that relief was unjustifiably denied. The Court affirmed that a party cannot raise a plea of limitation for the first time in constitutional proceedings if it was not agitated before the original forum of competent jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time in constitutional proceedings if it was not agitated before the original forum?
  • Does the failure to challenge an initial order of a Labour Court preclude a party from challenging subsequent appellate orders on grounds not raised earlier?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order of a Labour Appellate Tribunal where the petitioner failed to raise the issue of limitation before the Labour Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haroon Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory vs Islamic1989 MLD 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hamdard Dawakhana vs Collector of Customs1989 MLD 1500 · Additional Secretary, Government of Pakistan · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haji Habib vs The Member, CBR, Customsjudicial, Karachi And Other1989 MLD 1583 · Board of Revenue · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1989 PLC 1020 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. vs Habib Cooperative Credit Society1989 MLD 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs H. Nizam Din & Sons Ltd., Karachi vs Abdul Waheed and 5 others1989 PLC 42 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Globe Trade Corporation Ltd. vs Messrs Rex Talkies Ltd.1989 SCMR 223 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-22
  ejectment applicationrent controllerdismissal for defaultrestoration of caseadjournmentdiscretionary jurisdictioninterest of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside a Rent Controller's order, which had dismissed an ejectment application for default and non-prosecution. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application after refusing an adjournment requested due to the counsel's illness, reasoning that the applicant's witness was not present for cross-examination. The High Court subsequently restored the case, emphasizing that the matter should be decided on its merits in the interest of justice. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Rent Controller had erred by assuming the witness was required to be present without a court summons or specific undertaking, and further erred by dismissing the entire ejectment application rather than merely closing the applicant's side of the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to restore the case was in accordance with justice and equity. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's discretionary order and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is it a valid ground for a Rent Controller to dismiss an entire ejectment application solely due to the absence of a witness for cross-examination?
  • Can a Rent Controller dismiss an ejectment application for default when the applicant's counsel is absent due to illness?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the authority to dismiss an ejectment application for non-prosecution if a witness is not present, despite no court summons or undertaking to produce said witness?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghafoor and Associates And Others vs Messrs Attock Textile1989 MLD 1025 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs GERRY's Travels (Private) Ltd. vs Muslimcommercial Bank Ltd1989 MLD 610 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs General Tyre & Rubber Co. of Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad Taj1989 PLC 35 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-04-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gemini Corporation vs Collector of Customs And Other1989 MLD 1379 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Friends Sons and Partnership Concern vs The Deputy1989 PLD Lahore 337 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-18
  sales tax exemptionPakistan Customs TariffPCT Heading 48.18printed diariesCentral Excises and Salt ActSales Tax Act 1951procedural substitutionlimitation on assessmentconstitutional jurisdictionexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  The Lahore High Court addressed seven consolidated constitutional petitions filed by diary manufacturers against the Central Excise and Sales Tax authorities. The petitioners challenged show-cause notices and assessment orders imposing sales tax and penalties for the period 1982 to 1987. They argued that printed diaries were exempt under past Central Government circulars extending exemptions to printed books under Chapter 49 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff, and that assessment procedures under the Sales Tax Act 1951 were not complied with. The High Court held that diaries specifically fall under PCT Heading 48.18 rather than Chapter 49, rendering previous exemption circulars inapplicable to post-1981 notifications based on tariff headings. The Court further ruled that by virtue of Sales Tax Circular No. 2 of 1982 issued under the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Sales Tax Act 1951, sales tax on locally produced goods is legally assessed and collected under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 and its rules, superseding the procedural notice provisions of the Sales Tax Act 1951. Consequently, all petitions were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether printed diaries containing educational and informative material fall under PCT Heading 48.18 or Chapter 49 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  • Whether sales tax on goods manufactured in Pakistan can be assessed and collected under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 pursuant to directions under the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Sales Tax Act 1951?
  • Whether failure to issue a notice under Section 28 of the Sales Tax Act 1951 invalidates assessment proceedings conducted under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 1944?
  • Whether statutory periods of limitation under the Sales Tax Act 1951 remain protected as vested rights when sales tax is collected as an excise duty?
  • Can a constitutional petition be entertained without exhausting departmental remedies when the departmental revisional authority has already issued an adverse policy interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fouji Sugar Mills, Tando Muhammad Khan vs Ali Bux1989 PLC 1013 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fine Electric Corporation vs Province of Punjab and 3 others1989 SCMR 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-02-24
  arbitration awardservice of processCode of Civil Procedurereceipt clerkgovernment departmentauthorized agentprocedural law
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged a High Court judgment that set aside a trial court's order making an arbitration award the rule of the court. The core dispute concerned whether service of notice regarding the filing of an arbitration award upon receipt clerks in government offices constituted valid service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The trial court had ruled that service on receipt clerks was sufficient, but the High Court reversed this, finding no evidence of proper authorization. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that service of court process on a receipt clerk is legally insufficient unless that individual is expressly authorized in writing to accept such service, as mandated by Order III, Rule 6 and Order V, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court clarified that the Manual of Secretariat Instructions does not confer authority upon receipt clerks to accept court notices. Consequently, the Court affirmed that strict compliance with the procedural requirements for service of process is mandatory, and implied authority cannot be assumed from the master-servant relationship or general office duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does service of court process on a receipt clerk of a government department constitute valid service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a receipt clerk considered an authorized agent for accepting service of process under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the Manual of Secretariat Instructions authorize receipt clerks to accept court notices on behalf of government departments?
  • Can a court make an arbitration award the rule of the court if the notice of filing the award was not properly served on the respondents?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fector Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Director, Excise and Taxation and others1989 PLC 434 · Lahore High Court · 1986-02-10
  workers' children education cessdefinition of workerindependent contractorprivity of contractmanual workwatchman
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several consolidated writ petitions challenging the demand made by the Excise and Taxation Department for payment of education cess under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance 1972, in respect of drivers, cleaners, and labourers engaged by independent contractors for sugar mills, as well as watchmen. The core legal question is whether persons employed by independent contractors to perform specific contractual functions for an establishment can be regarded as 'workers' of that establishment under Section 2(c) of the Ordinance, and whether watchmen qualify as workers performing manual work. The Lahore High Court held that where independent contractors are engaged to perform specific functions and maintain control, supervision, and payment over their own labourers without privity of contract or control by the principal establishment, such labourers are not indirect employees or 'workers' of the establishment, rendering the levy of cess upon them illegal. However, the court also held that watchmen perform physical exertion and fall within the category of manual workers covered by the statute. The petitions were consequently accepted in part.

  Questions settled

  • Whether persons employed by independent contractors to perform specific contractual functions can be regarded as workers of the principal establishment under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance 1972?
  • Does the definition of 'worker' under Section 2(c) of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance 1972 encompass individuals engaged indirectly where no privity of contract or supervision exists between the principal and the contractor's employees?
  • Whether watchmen performing physical protection duties qualify as workers performing manual work under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Enar Petrotech Services Ltd. vs Muhammad Ashraf1989 PLC 454 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Elite Publishers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Employees' Union1989 PLC 398 · Labour Court · 1987-12-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eclipse Dry Cleaners and another vs Messrs Imperial Chemical1989 SCMR 1708 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-04-27
  money decreeexecuting courtclerical errorjudgment-debtorinterest on decreecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a judgment-debtor challenging the recovery of interest on a money decree by the Executing Court. The petitioner contended that the decree itself did not explicitly mention interest due to a clerical error, and argued that the Executing Court lacked the authority to rectify this omission or enforce interest not specified in the decree. Additionally, the petitioner claimed the original judgment granting interest lacked clarity. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, finding the objection to be hypertechnical. The Court held that the Executing Court, being the same court that passed the decree, could properly address the matter. Furthermore, the Court determined that the judgment, when read in conjunction with the plaint, left no ambiguity regarding the entitlement to interest. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that clerical omissions in a decree do not preclude the Executing Court from enforcing the interest clearly granted in the underlying judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Executing Court enforce interest on a decretal amount if the decree omitted the interest due to a clerical error?
  • Is an objection regarding the absence of interest in a decree, where the judgment clearly grants it, considered a hypertechnical objection?
  • Does a judgment, when read with the plaint, provide sufficient clarity to support the recovery of interest even if the formal decree contains a clerical omission?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eastern Express Co. Ltd. vs Ahmad1989 PLC 178 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Duty Free Shops Limited vs Altaf Hussain Awan and 2 others1989 PLC 127 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dollar Ink Industries vs Muhammad Abid1989 PLC 543 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Delite House Ltd. vs Fayyaz Akbar1989 SCMR 595 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-10-26
  ejectmentreconstructionlandlord and tenantfunctus officiosanctioned planmala fidesrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a tenant against the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding an ejectment order passed by the Cantonment Rent Controller. The sole ground for eviction was the reconstruction of the front portion of the main building based on sanctioned plans and established financial capacity of the landlord. The core legal questions involved whether the Rent Controller became functus officio after consigning the proceedings to the record temporarily, whether the expiration of the building plan's sanction period during prolonged proceedings vitiates the application, and whether the landlord's eviction request was tainted with mala fides. The Supreme Court held that the temporary consignment of proceedings did not render the Rent Controller functus officio as the revival was pursuant to the original order, that the expiration of the building plan sanction due to prolonged litigation does not affect the merits of the ejectment application, and that the concurrent findings on good faith and absence of mala fides were unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that procedural consignment of a temporary nature and subsequent expiration of a building plan during delayed proceedings do not invalidate a bona fide ejectment application for reconstruction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a temporary consignment of proceedings to the record render the Rent Controller functus officio?
  • Whether the expiration of a building plan's sanction period during prolonged litigation affects the merits of an ejectment application for reconstruction?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bona fide intention for reconstruction be interfered with lightly?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Cotex Mills Limited vs Muhammad Khurshid1989 PLC 369 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-07-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Conforce Limited vs Messrs Rafique Industries Ltd. and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-08
  banking recoverymortgage decreemoney decreepreliminary decreefinal decreesatisfaction of decreeredemption of mortgage
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an order and final decree passed by a Special Judge Banking, which had remanded the case under rules 5 and 6 of Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question concerned whether a trial court could issue a final decree for the sale of mortgaged property after the monetary decree had already been satisfied through attachment and direct payment. The Supreme Court held that the initial decree granted by the Special Court was in substance a money decree rather than a strict preliminary mortgage decree, and since the decretal amount was fully paid and the mortgage debt satisfied, the subsequent final decree for sale was redundant and legally unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that where a decree operates in substance as a final money judgment and is fully satisfied by the judgment-debtor, a subsequent final decree for the sale of mortgaged property cannot be sustained, particularly when the mortgage itself has been redeemed and released.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a final decree for the sale of mortgaged property can be passed when the initial decree operates in substance as a money decree and has been fully satisfied?
  • Can a party question the correctness of a preliminary decree in an appeal preferred from the final decree if no appeal was filed against the preliminary decree?
  • Whether a banking suit combining a claim on a loan and a mortgage security is governed strictly by Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or the special provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Commercial Pipe Ltd. vs Federal Government of Pakistan and others1989 PLD Lahore 89 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-02
  customs valuationtrade discountnormal valuenatural justiceCustoms General Orderimport dutywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an order by the Deputy Collector of Customs (Appraisement) which increased the valuation of imported iron pipe fittings by unilaterally reducing the trade discount from 60% to 40%, relying on Customs General Order No. 16 of 1986. The core legal question was whether the Customs authorities could arbitrarily peg trade discounts to 40% based on currency fluctuation considerations without providing the importer an opportunity to rebut the underlying material used for such assessment. The Court held that while Customs authorities may determine the 'normal value' of goods under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, they cannot rely on extraneous criteria like currency depreciation to override invoice values. Furthermore, the Court ruled that administrative orders like Customs General Orders cannot override statutory provisions and that the principles of natural justice require the authorities to disclose the material relied upon for valuation to the importer. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the case remanded for a fresh decision after providing the petitioner an opportunity to examine and rebut the relevant material.

  Questions settled

  • Can Customs authorities determine the normal value of imported goods based on currency depreciation rather than market value?
  • Does a Customs General Order have the legal authority to override the provisions of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Is a Customs officer required to provide the importer with the material used to justify an upward revision of declared goods' value?
  • Can an assessing officer blindly apply a Customs General Order without disclosing the underlying evidence to the affected party?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Commercial Aviation and Travel Company And Others vs Mrs.1989 MLD 1125 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chiragh & Sons vs United Bank Ltd.1989 MLD 2777 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Century Textile Mills Ltd. vs The State1989 MLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Car Tunes vs Income-Tax Officer, Circle v, Hyderabad and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13
  additional assessmentreopening of assessmentchange of opinionincome taxconstitutional petitionalternative remedyjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge a notice issued by a successor Income-tax Officer under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979, which sought to reopen a finalized assessment for the year 1985-86. The petitioner contended that all relevant facts and valuations had been fully disclosed and accepted by the predecessor officer, and that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The respondent argued that the petition was premature as alternative remedies existed under the Ordinance. The High Court held that once an assessment is finalized, it cannot be reopened under Section 65 of the Ordinance based on a mere change of opinion by a successor officer on the same material. Furthermore, the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar constitutional relief where the impugned action is demonstrably without jurisdiction or unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notice to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finalized income tax assessment be reopened under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 based on a mere change of opinion by a successor officer?
  • Does the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where the impugned notice lacks jurisdiction?
  • What constitutes 'definite information' or new material sufficient to justify reopening an assessment under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Capital Sports Corporation, Sialkot vs Government of Pakistan1989 MLD 999 · Lahore High Court · 1988-10-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Butt International Enterprises vs The Federation of Pakistan1989 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-30
  licence renewalpassenger brokernatural justiceopportunity of hearingadministrative discretionmisconductwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal to renew a passenger broker licence. The petitioner, a licensed passenger broker, faced allegations of misconduct, leading to the suspension and subsequent non-renewal of their licence by the respondent authorities. The petitioner contended that the refusal was unlawful because they were denied a fair hearing and were not confronted with the material used against them, effectively being condemned unheard. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the petitioner had, in fact, been confronted with the relevant material and provided an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that the determination of whether the petitioner's explanation regarding the alleged misconduct was satisfactory fell within the discretion of the competent authority under the applicable rules. Finding no merit in the contention that the petitioner was denied natural justice or a fair hearing, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal to renew a licence based on misconduct require the authority to confront the licensee with the evidence against them?
  • Is the determination of whether an explanation for misconduct is satisfactory a matter for the competent authority's discretion under the Emigration Rules 1979?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained if the record demonstrates that the petitioner was provided an opportunity to be heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Burmah Oil Mills Ltd. vs Abdul Khaliq1989 PLC 62 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-03-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Burjor Ardeshir Industries Limited vs The Employers' Liability1989 PLD Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd. vs Arshad Saeed1989 PLC 788 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Brite Shoes and 2 others vs Mst. Musarrat Javid and 2 others1989 SCMR 2007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-03-21
  rent restrictionunregistered rent deedorder of remandadmissibility of evidenceleave to appealappraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by tenants against the dismissal of their writ petition by the High Court, which had challenged an order of remand passed by the lower appellate court in a rent restriction case. The core legal question concerned the admissibility and evidentiary value of an unregistered rent deed and whether the appellate court erred in remanding the case. The Supreme Court held that despite theoretical arguments regarding the use of unregistered documents, the appellate court's remand order was justified primarily because the landlord side denied the existence, authenticity, and execution of the disputed deed, supported by the tenants' failure to rely on it in earlier litigation and the lack of direct evidence to prove its execution. The Court laid down the principle that where the execution of an unregistered document is genuinely disputed and unproven by direct evidence, the matter of its proof, authenticity, and evidentiary weight is properly left to the appraisal of evidence by the Rent Controller upon remand, rendering technical observations on registration inconsequential to the final outcome of the remand order.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unregistered rent deed be used as evidence when its execution and authenticity are expressly denied?
  • Whether an order of remand by an appellate court is sustainable if independent grounds regarding the non-proof of a document exist?
  • Is the appraisal of evidence regarding the execution of a disputed document within the domain of the Rent Controller upon remand?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bisvil Spinners Ltd., Lahore vs The Collector (Appeals), Northern Zone, Lahore1989 CLC 178 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bisvil Spinners Ltd. vs Sh. Muhammad Younas1989 PLC 624 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. vs State of Bihar And Other1989 MLD 2405 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-11-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bakhtawar Singh Balkrishan vs Union of India And Other1989 MLD 1277 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Baba Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Province of Sind through Secretary Local Bodies and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Auto Centre vs Central Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 1396 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Attioue Enterprises And Others vs United Bank Limited, Lahore1989 MLD 1091 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Asiatic Optical Co. vs The Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate1989 PLC 486 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Asian Paints India Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise1989 MLD 2447 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ashfaq & Brothers vs Mazhar1989 MLD 2983 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Army Welfare Sugar Mills vs Javed Abbasi and others1989 PLC 319 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amir Industries vs Shah Gulember1989 PLC 307 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Allied Industries Hub (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs China National Metals1989 MLD 2027 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ali Pipe Industries, Faisalabad vs The Universal Insurance1989 PLD Lahore 390 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-28
  fire insuranceforfeiture clauselimitation periodrestraint of legal proceedingsstare decisiscontract of insurance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Full Bench matter concerned whether clauses in fire insurance policies, which mandate the forfeiture of benefits if a suit is not initiated within a specified timeframe (three months after claim rejection or twelve months after loss), are void under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872. The court examined whether such stipulations constitute an illegal restraint on legal proceedings or an impermissible shortening of the statutory limitation period. The Court held that these clauses are valid and enforceable. The ratio is that such provisions do not extinguish the right to sue or restrict access to courts in a manner prohibited by Section 28; rather, they define the scope and duration of the insurer's liability and the conditions precedent to recovery. The Court emphasized the principle of stare decisis, noting that this interpretation has been consistently upheld for decades in Pakistan and India. It was further held that insurance contracts require promptitude to ensure accurate assessment of losses, and parties are free to contractually define the lifespan of the insurer's liability without violating statutory limitation laws.

  Questions settled

  • Are insurance policy clauses providing for forfeiture of benefits upon failure to sue within a specified period void under Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Does a contractual provision limiting the time for filing a suit in an insurance policy constitute an illegal restraint on legal proceedings?
  • Is there a legal distinction between extinguishing a right and barring a remedy in the context of insurance contract limitation clauses?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al Qamar Recruiting Agency vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 3335 · Lahore High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs A.E.G. Telefunken Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Sind Labour Appellate1989 PLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22
  compulsory retirementsuperannuationtermination of serviceback benefitsretrospective applicationservice regulationsindustrial grievancereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged orders of the Sind Labour Court and Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside the compulsory retirement of an employee and ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits. The employee had been hired in 1971 when no age of retirement was prescribed in his appointment letter or company regulations. In 1978 and 1979, the employer passed resolutions establishing a retirement age of 60 years, under which the employee was retired in 1985. The High Court considered whether the employee could challenge his retirement under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 and whether retirement rules enacted after employment applied retroactively to existing workers. The High Court held that compulsory retirement without a statutory or contractual retirement age constitutes termination of employment, maintainable under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 via Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Furthermore, regulations affecting substantive rights apply prospectively only and cannot detrimentally alter original service terms without agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a worker challenge compulsory retirement under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 where no statutory age of superannuation exists?
  • Does a service regulation fixing an age of retirement apply retrospectively to workers employed before its enactment?
  • Does a general undertaking by an employee to abide by future rules permit an employer to alter original service terms to the employee's detriment?
  Read full judgment →
• Messers Neelkantan and Bros. Construction vs Superintending1989 MLD 1487 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Messers Famous Corporation vs Collector of Customs And Other1989 MLD 2322 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21
  customs clearancerubber scrapimport consignmentsdry portpublic notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners imported consignments of rubber scrap and sought to clear them at the Dry Port Lahore pursuant to a public notice dated 12th June, 1988. The respondents contended that they possessed information that the consignments contravened the law, while the petitioners argued that under the public notice, such information should be conveyed by the Customs House, Karachi to the Dry Port by telex or telephone for appropriate examination and action by the Customs Officer. The Sindh High Court disposed of the constitutional petition by directing the Karachi Customs House to convey the relevant information to the Dry Port authorities so that Customs Officers could examine whether any contravention of customs or other laws had occurred and take lawful action. Furthermore, the court directed that if the consignment had already been examined at Karachi, it should be resealed and forwarded to the Dry Port along with any existing report.

  Questions settled

  • How should information regarding contravention of law concerning import consignments be transmitted between custom houses under the public notice dated 12th June, 1988?
  • What procedure is to be followed by customs authorities when an import consignment has already been examined at one port before being forwarded to a dry port?
  Read full judgment →
• Mercury Industriess vs Messrs M. Asif Brother And Another1989 MLD 1664 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer and another1989 PTD 221 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-28
  retrospective operationincome tax arrearsprivate company liabilityshareholder liabilitystatutory interpretationfinance act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a demand by the Income-tax Officer for unrealized tax arrears of a private company for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, sought to be recovered from the petitioner as a shareholder holding more than 10% of the company's paid-up capital. The demand was based on section 43-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as substituted by the Finance Act of 1973. The core legal question was whether the substituted section 43-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 operates retrospectively to cover tax arrears for periods prior to its enactment. The Sindh High Court held that section 43-B is prospective in its operation and does not apply retrospectively to tax liabilities or periods predating the enforcement of the Finance Act of 1973. The court laid down the principle that statutes creating new obligations or affecting existing rights and liabilities are presumed to be prospective unless a clear retrospective intent is explicitly stated or arises by necessary implication in the statutory language.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 43-B of the Income-tax Act 1922, as substituted by the Finance Act of 1973, is retrospective in its operation?
  • Can tax arrears of a private company for periods prior to the enactment of the Finance Act of 1973 be recovered from a shareholder or director under section 43-B of the Income-tax Act 1922?
  • Does the expression 'any income of any previous year' in section 43-B of the Income-tax Act 1922 indicate a legislative intent for retrospective application?
  Read full judgment →
• Merajuddin and Muhammad Ashraf, Directors, Pak. Skyland (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 372 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
• Meraj Begum vs Abdul Sattar1989 MLD 4820 · Lahore High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Shah and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2295 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →