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.

• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Gujarat-1 vs S.L.M. Maneklal Industries1989 PTD 285 · Gujarat High Court · 1976-02-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi vs Mustafa1989 PTD 130 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone Karachi vs B.P. (Pakistan)1989 PTD 831 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone (a). Karachi vs Farooq H.1989 PTD 679 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Zakia1989 PTD 135 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-13
  wealth-tax liabilityallowable expensebusiness expenditureincome from other sourcesincome-tax act 1922deduction of taxes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves reference applications filed by the Department under section 66(1) of the repealed Income-tax Act 1922 concerning whether wealth-tax liability is an allowable expense under sections 10 and 12 of the said Act. The core legal question is whether wealth-tax paid by an assessee on income-yielding assets or property held for business or income generation can be deducted as a business expenditure or expense from other sources. The Sindh High Court held that the payment of wealth-tax is a necessary consequence of owning and possessing income-yielding assets, and its payment is essential for the proper maintenance and existence of such assets to prevent their depletion or attachment. Therefore, wealth-tax paid on income-yielding assets or property is deductible as an expense when computing the assessee's income, profit, or gain under section 10 or 12 of the Income-tax Act 1922. The key principle laid down is that taxes statutorily levied on income-yielding assets used for business or profit-making, non-payment of which risks the asset's utility or existence, constitute necessary commercial expenses deductible under standard computation principles where no statutory prohibition exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the wealth tax liability is an allowable expense under sections 10 and 12 of the Income-tax Act 1922?
  • Can wealth tax paid on income-yielding assets or property owned for business be deducted when computing income under section 10 of the Income-tax Act 1922?
  • Is wealth tax considered a necessary expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning income under section 12 of the Income-tax Act 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Muhammad1989 PTD 764 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Central1989 PTD 128 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B' vs Standard Insurance1989 PTD 682 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs International Fisheries Ltd1989 PTD 145 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'A' Karachi vs Premier1989 PTD 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Rasiklal Maneklal (Huf)1989 PTD 1319 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-03-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Italindia Cotton Co. (P) Ltd.1989 PTD 716 · Supreme Court of India · 1980-09-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Canning Mitra Phoenix1989 PTD 342 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-01-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bihar and Orissa vs S.F. Jain1989 PTD 324 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Western India State Motors D.B.1989 PTD 328 · Allahabad High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs S.P. Viz Construction1989 PTD 345 · Patna High Court · 1987-07-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Premier Insurance of Pakistan Ltd.1989 PTD 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Pioneer Insurance Co. Ltd. , .1989 PTD 124 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. I.T.1989 PTD 612 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21
  income taxnon-resident principalmanipulated profitsnotional profitbusiness connectionpurchasing at higher price
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from tax proceedings where the Assessing Officer invoked section 42(2) of the Income Tax Act against a resident pharmaceutical company for purchasing raw materials from its non-resident parent company at prices higher than the international market rates, thereby reducing its taxable profits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal both deleted the addition, holding that purchases could not produce profits and thus section 42(2) was inapplicable. The core legal question was whether section 42(2) applies when a resident entity engages in manipulated transactions with a non-resident affiliate that deplete its normal profits through inflated purchase costs. The High Court answered in the negative, holding that the Tribunal was not justified in its view. The court ruled that section 42(2) targets notional profits and is designed to curb manipulated or arranged business dealings between close associates that reduce a resident entity's profits. The key principle established is that purchasing goods at inflated prices from a non-resident associate depletes the resident company's real profits, attracting the legal fiction under section 42(2) to tax the profits that would have ordinarily accrued in the absence of such manipulation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subsection (2) of section 42 of the Income-tax Act is applicable when a resident company purchases goods from a non-resident principal at prices higher than the international market rate?
  • Can section 42(2) of the Income-tax Act be invoked where business dealings between a resident and a non-resident are arranged to produce less than ordinary profits?
  • Does the purchase of goods at inflated prices from a parent company result in the depletion of profits contemplated under section 42(2) of the Income-tax Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Pareck Brothers1989 PTD 332 · Patna High Court · 1987-03-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs New Jubilee Insurance Company I.T.C.1989 PTD 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Munna Lal Shrikishan1989 PTD 330 · Bombay High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Hari Ram Sri Ram , .1989 PTD 266 · Allahabad High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.1989 PTD 250 · Rajasthan High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs General Tyre International Co.Ltd.1989 PTD 664 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Eruch Maneckji and others1989 PTD 666 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd.1989 PTD 825 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs DR. (MRS.) Krishna Rana1989 PTD 347 · Patna High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Bhonrilal Jain Karauli D.B.1989 PTD 245 · Rajasthan High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs A.B.V. Gowda I.T.R. , 111989 PTD 315 · karnataka High Court · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs A & B Food Industries Ltd.1989 PTD 770 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax East Zone, Karachi vs Mst. Khatoon Bai1989 PTD 736 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central, Karachi vs Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance Co. Ltd1989 PTD 142 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-12
  income taxinsurance companytaxation reservetrading liabilityallowable expenditurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from income tax assessments of an insurance company for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75. The Income Tax Officer had treated outstanding credit balances as taxable income under Section 10(2A) of the Income Tax Act and disallowed provisions made for taxation. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed these decisions, holding that Section 10(2A) was inapplicable to insurance companies in light of Section 10(7) of the Act. The High Court, following established precedent, affirmed the Tribunal's decision. It held that under Section 10(7), the profits and gains of an insurance business must be computed exclusively in accordance with the First Schedule to the Act. Although Rule 6 of the First Schedule permits the exclusion of expenditures not allowable under Section 10, this incorporation is strictly limited to allowable expenditures and does not extend the application of Section 10(2A) to insurance companies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 10(2A) of the Income Tax Act can be applied to compute the taxable income of an insurance company in light of Section 10(7) of the Act?
  • To what extent are the provisions of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act applicable to non-life insurance businesses under Rule 6 of the First Schedule?
  • Whether a provision for taxation or taxation reserve claimed by an insurance company can be disallowed as inadmissible expenditure under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone `B' Karachi vs Yousuf H.R.1989 PTD 829 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone Karachi vs Muhammad1989 PTD 830 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone (a), Karachi vs Razak Ltd.1989 PTD 573 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone (a), Karachi vs Norwitch1989 PTD 683 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone 'C', Karachi vs Hussain1989 PTD 519 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Western1989 PTD 176 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central); Madras vs Canara1989 PTD 229 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-07-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs Amin1989 PTD 581 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs M/s. Canning Mitra Phoenix Pvt.PTCL 1989 FC. 47 · Supreme Court of India · 1986-01-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pioneer Insurance Co.Ltd.PTCL 1989 CL. 334 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pakistan Fisheries LimitedPTCL 1989 CL. 19 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mushtaq AhmadPTCL 1989 CL. 301 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Anwar Textile Mills Ltd1989 PTD 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Merck Sharp1989 PTD 828 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Zone 'A' Karachi vs M/s. Razzak Ltd.PTCL 1989 CL. 529 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax Bihar And Orissa. vs S.P. JainPTCL 1989 FC. 55 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-04-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax And Other vs Mst. Surriya Farooq And OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  income taxtax-holidaydividend incomeshareholdersexempt profitsindustrial undertaking
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against a common judgment of the High Court concerning the taxability of dividend income received by shareholders from a company enjoying a tax-holiday. The core legal question is whether income from dividends declared out of a company's profits that are exempt under section 15BB of the Income-tax Act is also exempt from tax in the hands of the shareholders. The Supreme Court held, following its earlier precedent, that the dividend income distributed out of exempt profits remains exempt in the hands of the shareholders. The appeals were accordingly dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether income from dividend declared out of a company's profits exempt under section 15BB of the Income-tax Act is also exempt from tax in the hands of the shareholders of the Company?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Gift-Tax Gujarat, vs Executors & Trustees of the Estate of Late SH. Ambalal Sarabhai, Ahmedabad1989 PTD 540 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-12-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax, East Bengal vs B.W.M.1989 PTD 909 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1952-12-16
  agricultural income taxcollection chargescessestaxing statute constructionstrict interpretationallowance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-Tax, East Bengal, raises the question of the true construction of clause (7) of Section 6 of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944, specifically whether an assessee is entitled to a percentage allowance by way of collection charges in respect of cesses (such as local cesses and primary education cesses) collected along with agricultural rent or revenue. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the assessee is not entitled to any deduction by way of allowance as collection charges on account of cesses. The ratio laid down is that in interpreting a taxing statute, the letter of the law must be strictly construed without intendment or implication, and the specific phrasing of Section 6(7)—referring to rent or revenue which 'accrued' to the assessee—excludes cesses which are merely received under a legal obligation to pass on, thereby denying collection percentage allowances on cesses.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessee is entitled to an allowance under Section 6(7) of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944, in respect of the collection of cesses?
  • Does the expression 'rent or revenue which accrued to him' in Section 6(7) of the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944, include cesses received by the landlord?
  • How should a taxing statute be construed regarding the letter of the law versus the spirit or intendment?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner for Sales Tax, Karachi vs Evans Medical Limited1989 PTD 53 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioenr of Wealth Tax, Gujarat-II, vs Shri Arvind Narottam1989 PTD 723 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioenr of Income-Tax vs Weighing Equipment Corporation1989 PTD 878 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Commercial Pipe (Pvt) Ltd. (M/s.) vs Federal Government Of Pakistan Etc.PTCL1989CL. 119 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-02Read full judgment →
• Colony Textile Mills Ltd., Multan vs Khurshid Ahmad1989 PLC 598 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Collector, Central Excise, Madras vs Messrs Kutty Flush Doors and Furniture Co. (P) Ltd1989 MLD 3323 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-28Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs and anothers vs Saeed-Ur-Rahman and others1989 PLD Supreme Court 249 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-22
  misconductcorruptionCCTV evidencemodern devicesreconstruction of recordservice tribunalefficiency and discipline ruleslost evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Collector of Customs challenges the judgment of the Service Tribunal which set aside the dismissal from service of several customs inspectors charged with corruption and misconduct. The allegations were based on recordings from a closed-circuit television (CCTV) system installed at Islamabad Airport, which purportedly showed the respondents receiving money from international passengers. The core legal question concerned the evidentiary value of CCTV footage as proof of misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and the legal consequence of the subsequent theft and disappearance of the video cassettes during the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that while modern technological evidence like CCTV footage is admissible and can be conclusive under Article 164 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat, the complete disappearance of the primary video evidence required a proper judicial approach rather than a summary dismissal of the charges or complete exoneration. The Court laid down that upon the loss or destruction of primary electronic evidence, courts and tribunals possess the inherent power to permit the reconstruction of the record using secondary evidence, or alternatively, to remand the matter for a de novo inquiry, thereby ensuring that criminality is not rewarded while maintaining due process.

  Questions settled

  • Whether CCTV footage showing the receipt of money constitutes sufficient proof of misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • What are the legal consequences of the loss or destruction of primary electronic evidence during disciplinary or appellate proceedings?
  • Does a Service Tribunal have the power to reconstruct a lost record or remand a matter for a de novo inquiry?
  • Can the mere disappearance of primary video evidence automatically result in the exoneration of a public servant charged with corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Appraisement) vs Abdul Razzaq1989 MLD 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs T.I. Millers Ltd., Madras And Another1989 MLD 1781 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-28Read full judgment →
• Collector of Central Excise, Madras vs Messrs Indian Oxygen Ltd.1989 MLD 2454 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-08-02Read full judgment →
• Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs Messrs Doaba1989 MLD 2457 · Supreme Court of IndiaRead full judgment →
• Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II vs Messrs Kiran Spinning Mills1989 MLD 2466 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-02-15Read full judgment →
• Collector of 24 Parganas And Others vs Lalith Mohan Mullick And Other1989 MLD 1518 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-03-10Read full judgment →
• Col. Rtd. Muhammad Nawaz vs Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Punjab1989 MLD 3480 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Col. (Rtd.) Ashfaq Ali Sayyed and others vs Akram H. Sayyed and 10 others1989 PLD Lahore 255 · Lahore High Court · 1989-03-04Read full judgment →
• Claggett Brachi Co. Ltd vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, A.P.1989 PTD 1322 · Supreme Court of India · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Chutto vs Hazar Khan alias Hazaroo and another1989 P Cr. L J 1931 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Chuttan through Legal Heirs vs Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur1989 SCMR 1674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-14
  settlement schemetransfer of propertyauction purchaserresumption of propertysettlement lawssupreme court of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition challenging the High Court's decision upholding the restoration of a disputed property to the auction purchaser. The core legal question was whether an application for transfer (N.C.H. Form) filed under Settlement Scheme No. VIII before the property became legally available for transfer could be acted upon, and whether the subsequent restoration of the property to the original auction purchaser upon payment of the balance auction price within the statutory period was lawful. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly concluded that the property only became available for transfer upon its resumption on 19-6-1971, and since the auction purchaser deposited the balance amount within one month of the resumption, the property was validly restored to him. Consequently, the petitioners' earlier filed N.C.H. Form was ineffective as the property was not available for transfer at that time. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, laying down the principle that a transfer application filed before property officially becomes available for transfer under the settlement laws confers no legal right.

  Questions settled

  • Can property be transferred on an N.C.H. Form filed before the property officially became available for transfer?
  • Whether the restoration of a resumed property to an auction purchaser who pays the balance price within one month of resumption is in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Chuharmal Takarmal Mohnani vs Commissioenr of Income-Tax, M.P., Bhopal1989 PTD 711 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-05-02Read full judgment →
• Chuhar and another vs Additional Sessions Judge and another1989 P Cr. L J 2446 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-10Read full judgment →
• Choudhry Mahboob Mujtaba Yar vs Additional Settlement1989 MLD 618 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-13Read full judgment →
• Chiragh Din vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 4590 · Lahore High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Chiragh And Another vs Punjab Board of Revenue And Other1989 CLC 2463 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-12Read full judgment →
• Chimanlal Hargovinddas And 2 Others vs Special Land Acquisition1989 MLD 2392 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-07-21Read full judgment →
• Chief Settlement Commissioner and others vs Muhammad Yamin and others1989 SCMR 1761 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-07-13
  Settlement propertyConstitutional petitionLawful authorityResidual propertyDisposal of propertySettlement authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and other settlement authorities against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-3-1981. The High Court had accepted a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Yamin and others, declaring that an order issued by the Deputy Secretary (Urban) on 20-7-1977, which categorized a portion of property located at Kabir Street, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, as available for disposal under a new scheme, was passed without lawful authority. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the High Court failed to correctly appreciate the legal and factual position, asserting that settlement authorities possessed the requisite jurisdiction to dispose of residual property and that only one shop had been transferred to the respondents. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court, noting that the High Court had already duly considered and rejected these contentions. Finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the High Court's decision that the impugned order was unlawful.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Deputy Secretary (Urban) have the lawful authority to declare a portion of property as available for disposal under a new scheme?
  • Do settlement authorities possess the jurisdiction to dispose of residual property?
  Read full judgment →
• Chief Secretary to Government of Sind, New Sind Secretariat1989 SCMR 473 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-09-21
  civil servicereversionprobationary perioddepartmental promotion committeeservice tribunalshow-cause noticeadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil service dispute regarding the reversion of an Executive Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer by the Government of Sind. The respondent, initially promoted on probation, was reverted after the Departmental Promotion Committee reviewed his service record, citing an average performance and poor reputation for integrity. The Sind Service Tribunal set aside the reversion, holding that the action constituted a penalty for unsatisfactory service, thereby necessitating a show-cause notice which was not provided. The Government challenged this, arguing that the reversion was a simple administrative act under the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, and that the internal deliberations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were irrelevant to the validity of the formal notification of reversion. The core legal question was whether the validity of a reversion order should be judged solely by the notification itself or by the underlying internal departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court addressed whether an order of reversion simpliciter, which casts no blemish on the face of the notification, can be invalidated by referencing internal departmental observations regarding the officer's performance.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order of reversion simpliciter be invalidated by relying on internal departmental proceedings that were not part of the formal notification?
  • Does a reversion during a probationary period based on an average service record constitute a penalty requiring a show-cause notice?
  • Is the validity of an order of reversion determined solely by the terms of the notification issued by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Fazal Hussain vs Barkat Ali and 2 others1989 SCMR 1901 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-14
  partnership propertyprospecting licencemining concessiondissolution of partnershiprendition of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a civil dispute concerning the dissolution of a partnership and the status of a coal mining prospecting licence. The core legal questions involved whether a prospecting licence obtained by an individual prior to a partnership deed could become an asset of the firm, and whether such a licence could legally be granted to a partnership firm under the relevant mining rules. The Supreme Court held that under Section 14 of the Partnership Act, property and rights brought into or acquired for the business of the firm constitute firm property, and the intention to include the licence in the partnership was evident from the partnership deeds and the retrospective effective date of the partnership. The Court further held that the licensing authority had validly granted the licence to the firm. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, establishing that pre-existing applications or individual acts can form partnership assets if intended by the partners and that mining prospecting licences can be held for or by a firm.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a prospecting licence obtained by an individual partner can become part of the partnership property?
  • Can a partnership agreement be made effective retrospectively from a date prior to its formal execution?
  • Whether a prospecting licence under the Mining Concession Rules can be granted to or held for a partnership firm?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Sharif Ahmad vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Industries And Natural Resources Islamabad And Another1989 MLD 902 · Lahore High Court · 1989-02-06Read full judgment →
• Charsadda Sugar Mills Ltd. vs North West Frontier Province And Another1989 CLC 1539 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Charman Mian Muhammad Sharif And 5 Others vs Chief Administrator1989 CLC 2378. · Federal Land Commission · 1989-07-30Read full judgment →
• Charan Lal Sahu vs Union of India And Another1989 MLD 2409 · Supreme Court of India · 1987-10-09Read full judgment →
• Channa N vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 600 · Lahore High Court · 1988-03-16Read full judgment →
• Channa Masih vs The State1989 MLD 4171 · Lahore High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
• Chander Mal vs Mst. Zubeda Khatoon1989 MLD 2867 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• Chandan And Another vs The State of Rajasthan1989 MLD 1271 · Supreme Court of India · 1988-01-12Read full judgment →
• Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi vs Chamber of Commerce and Industry Employees' Union and others1989 PLC 176 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-02-16Read full judgment →
• Chalid Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 772 · Lahore High Court · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Pakistan Railways vs Maqbool Ahmad and others1989 SCMR 1668(1) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-06-19
  limitationcivil revisiontime-barred suitappellate jurisdictionplea of limitationrecovery of damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chairman, Pakistan Railways, against a High Court order that dismissed its civil revision. The petitioner sought to challenge a decree in a suit for recovery of damages on the ground that the respondents' original suit was time-barred. The core legal question was whether a plea of limitation, which was not raised before the trial court, could be raised as a matter of right before an appellate or revisional forum. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a party cannot raise a plea of limitation for the first time before a higher forum if it was not raised before the court to which the plea initially related. The Court affirmed that appellate and revisional courts are not obligated to entertain such pleas when they were omitted at the trial stage. The key principle laid down is that the failure to raise a plea of limitation before the trial court precludes a party from asserting it as a right in subsequent appellate or revisional proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea of limitation be raised for the first time before an appellate or revisional court if it was not raised before the trial court?
  • Is an appellate court duty-bound to examine a plea of limitation that was not raised before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Pakistan Railways and another vs Punjab Labour Court and 2 others1989 PLC 336 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Chairman, District Council, Rahim Yar Khan And Another vs United1989 CLC 1397 · Lahore High Court · 1987-10-03
  professional taxconstitutional immunitynationalized banksfederal government propertytax exemptionlocal government taxationrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which declared a professional tax imposed by the District Council, Rahim Yar Khan, on the respondent-bank as illegal and void. The petitioner, a District Council, had levied the tax under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether nationalized banks, being under the ownership and control of the Federal Government, are immune from professional taxes imposed by local bodies deriving authority from provincial legislation. Relying on Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, the Court held that the Federal Government’s property and income are exempt from taxation by Provincial Assemblies or their subordinate bodies. The Court determined that since the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, transferred the management and control of banks to the Federal Government, they enjoy constitutional immunity. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Article 165-A, which empowers Parliament to tax such institutions, does not conflict with or negate the exemption granted under Article 165 regarding taxes imposed by provincial authorities. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the lower courts' decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Are nationalized banks immune from professional tax imposed by a District Council under provincial legislation?
  • Does Article 165-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 override the tax exemption granted to the Federal Government under Article 165 regarding provincial taxes?
  • Does the vesting of ownership and control of banks in the Federal Government under the Banks (Nationalization) Act 1974 confer constitutional tax immunity upon those banks?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax East Zone, Karachi vs Mst. Mariam Bai1989 PTD 576 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Chair Muhammad vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi1989 PLC 781 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Chair Marshal (Retd.) Wiqar Azim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2456 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-15Read full judgment →
• Chahat Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 508 · Lahore High Court · 1988-12-18Read full judgment →
• Chahat Khan And Others vs The State1989 MLD 839 · Lahore High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Zahoor Ahmad vs Dadu Khan and 9 others1989 SCMR 1749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-04-24
  writ petitioncompromise decreelocus standiauction-purchaserlegal representativesreview jurisdictionsettlement property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that reviewed and set aside a previous order disposing of a writ petition based on a compromise. The original writ petition involved a property transfer dispute under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, filed jointly by the original transferee, Saroon Khan, and the appellant, Zahoor Ahmed. Following Saroon Khan's death, a compromise was reached between the appellant and the auction-purchasers (respondents 5 and 6), which the High Court initially accepted. However, the High Court later reviewed this, holding that the legal representatives of Saroon Khan were not properly represented in the compromise, and subsequently dismissed the writ petition entirely, upholding the auction. The Supreme Court held that the compromise remained binding between the appellant and the auction-purchasers, regardless of the legal representatives' exclusion, as the parties involved had not resiled from the agreement. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the compromise between the appellant and the auction-purchasers, while noting that the legal representatives of the original transferee had not contested the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise agreement in a writ petition be enforced between the consenting parties even if other parties to the litigation are excluded?
  • Does the failure to obtain a separate power of attorney from legal representatives invalidate a compromise agreement for the parties who did sign it?
  • Can a High Court, in review, set aside a compromise order that remains binding and unchallenged by the actual signatories?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Wali Muhammad vs Deputy Director Food, Multan and another1989 SCMR 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-02-08
  service tribunalwheat shortagedepartmental inquiryrecovery of lossfoodgrains inspectorleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions arise from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal upholding the departmental recovery of financial compensation imposed on the petitioners, who were Foodgrains Inspectors, following a colossal shortage of wheat stored under their supervision during procurement. The petitioners were served with charge sheets, subjected to departmental inquiry, and subsequently penalized with recovery orders after being found responsible for the shortage. Their departmental appeals having failed to yield a decision within the statutory period, they approached the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals. Upon petition before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the authorities below violated the legal principles established in a precedent case. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the departmental proceedings and subsequent orders were vitiated by non-compliance with established jurisprudence regarding service matters and departmental inquiries.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the authorities below violated the law laid down in Maqsood Ahmad Sheikh v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan during the departmental proceedings?
  • Are Foodgrains Inspectors liable for wheat shortages detected in final stock reports after clearance of storage bins?
  • Did the Punjab Service Tribunal err in dismissing the appeals filed against the imposition of recovery for wheat shortages?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shaukat Ali vs Province of Punjab and another1989 SCMR 1254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-08-10
  service lawadverse remarksservice tribunalexpunction of remarksleave to appealservice record
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the rejection of his representation regarding adverse remarks recorded in his service record by his superiors. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in its assessment of the petitioner's service record and its refusal to expunge the adverse remarks made by the Commissioner. Upon reviewing the judgment of the Tribunal and the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had appropriately considered the background of the case and the Commissioner's comments. The Court held that there was no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's findings, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the remarks were the result of bias or that the Tribunal had misdirected itself. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the grounds that it raised no substantial question of law warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The judgment reinforces the principle that service tribunals are the final arbiters of fact regarding service records unless a clear error of law is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the refusal of a Service Tribunal to expunge adverse remarks in a service record constitute a question of law?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with the factual findings of a Service Tribunal regarding the assessment of a civil servant's record?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to accept allegations of bias against superior officers without evidence?
  Read full judgment →