Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Messrs Pak Land Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive and others2020 CLD 310 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order of the Banking Court dismissing an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought to set aside a compromise decree passed in a recovery suit. The Appellants, having previously entered into a consent decree with the Respondent Bank, alleged that the decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation regarding the calculation of mark-up and interest. The core legal question was whether a compromise decree in a banking suit could be challenged via Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on grounds of alleged fraud occurring prior to the suit proceedings, and whether such a challenge was maintainable under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001. The Court held that the application was not maintainable, ruling that Section 27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 bars the review of Banking Court orders. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or to re-litigate past transactions, especially where the alleged fraud did not occur during the court proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a compromise decree passed by a Banking Court be challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of alleged fraud occurring prior to the suit?
- Does Section 27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 bar the review of a Banking Court's order?
- Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 serve as a substitute for an appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001?
- Does the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 govern the limitation period for filing an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Messrs Pak Gulf Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others2020 P SC 276, PTCL 2020 CL. 166, 2020 PTD 336, 2020 SCMR 146 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a private limited construction company, sought leave to appeal against an Islamabad High Court judgment dismissing its constitutional petition, which challenged demands for Capital Value Tax (CVT). The core legal question was whether a company facilitating property transfers through private agreements to sell and allotment letters, rather than registered deeds, qualifies as a 'registering or attesting authority' responsible for collecting CVT under the Finance Act, 1989. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the company acts as the de facto transferring authority. The Court established that the 'pith and substance' of the transaction governs the liability. Even if an entity is not a formal registrar, if it facilitates property transfers through private instruments to bypass formal registration, it falls within the purview of Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1989. Consequently, such entities are legally obligated to collect and deposit CVT from purchasers, as they perform the functional role of an attesting or registering authority in the context of property transactions, preventing the evasion of statutory tax obligations.
Questions settled- Does a private limited company facilitating property transfers via allotment letters qualify as a registering or attesting authority under the Finance Act 1989?
- Is a company obligated to collect Capital Value Tax on property transactions that do not involve formal registration with the Registrar of Documents?
- Can a company avoid the statutory obligation to collect Capital Value Tax by utilizing private agreements to sell instead of registered deeds?
- Messrs Oriental Freight Logistics, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector Of Customs, Model Collectorate Of Customs, Appraisement (West), Customs House, Karachi and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 497 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayaz Shamas vs The State and another2020 P Cr. L J 914, 2020 LHC 1351 · Lahore High Court · 2020-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, filed by an accused charged with an unnatural offense under Section 377, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the three-day delay in lodging the FIR and a negative DNA report despite medical evidence of injury. The court dismissed the bail application, holding that a negative DNA report does not inherently negate the commission of an offense, particularly where the statute defines penetration as sufficient to constitute the crime. Furthermore, the court emphasized that delay in reporting sexual assault is not fatal to the prosecution's case due to societal hesitation. The judgment established critical procedural principles regarding forensic investigations, mandating that medical officers strictly adhere to established guidelines for the collection, preservation, and transportation of forensic evidence using Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECKs). The court directed the Health Department to ensure the availability of these kits and emphasized that failure to comply with forensic protocols by medical professionals is unacceptable in the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Does a negative DNA report in a sexual assault case automatically entitle the accused to bail?
- Is a delay in lodging an FIR fatal to the prosecution's case in sexual assault matters?
- What constitutes the offense of an unnatural act under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Are medical officers legally required to follow specific forensic guidelines for evidence collection in sexual assault cases?
- Messrs Shahrukh Jamal and others vs The Collector Of Customs (Appeal)2020 PTD (Trib.) 1703 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-10-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Orient Textile, Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Rto-III, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 1502 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-12-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Mumtaz City vs Additional Commissioner Pra, Rawalpindi2020 PTD (Trib.) 1725 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-02-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Mujahid Oil Refinery (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Commissioner, Ir2020 PTD (Trib.) 1540, 2022 PCTLR 1159 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-01-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs Muhammad Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. through Managing Director and Attorney vs The Province Of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 13 others2020 CLC 701 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Muhammad Attique Abbasi & Co vs Azad Government Of The State2020 CLD 1088 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, challenging certain additional conditions in bidding documents regarding performance security and price adjustment. The core legal question addressed by the High Court was whether a constitutional petition or legal proceeding filed on behalf of a company by an unAuthorized person without a valid resolution of the Board of Directors is maintainable. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that legal proceedings instituted on behalf of a company must be authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors passed in a duly convened meeting in accordance with the company's articles of association, and filing without such authorization renders the proceedings a nullity. The key principle laid down is that when the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only, and a company's petition filed without proper board authorization is incompetent and liable to immediate dismissal.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition filed on behalf of a company by a person not duly authorized by a resolution of the Board of Directors is maintainable?
- Can legal proceedings instituted by a director or officer without proper board authorization be validated or ratified subsequently?
- Is a writ petition liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that it has been incompetently filed without valid corporate authorization?
- Messrs Miran Jee Kay Flour And General Mills vs NEPRA and others2020 MLD 311 · Lahore High Court · 2019-10-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Mianoor Enterprises Karachi and others vs The Deputy Director, Directorate General of Pca, Karachi and others2020 PTD (Trib.) 1330 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals against Order-in-Originals passed by the Collector of Customs, Adjudication, arising from audit observations by the Directorate of Post Clearance Audit regarding the import of 'Super Absorbent Polymer' under specific Goods Declarations. The core legal question is whether commercial importers importing goods usable as industrial inputs are entitled to reduced rates or zero rating under Notification No. S.R.O. 1125(1)/2011 dated 31.12.2011, and whether post-clearance audit and adjudication proceedings can be initiated without following the statutory mode and manner prescribed under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1969. The Customs Appellate Tribunal held that the audit conducted without issuing notices or summons as mandated by law is void ab initio, that the notification is goods-specific rather than strictly sector-specific, and that commercial importers importing goods usable as industrial inputs are eligible for the statutory concessions. The key principles laid down include that where a law prescribes a specific manner for doing an act, it must be performed in that manner or not at all, and that notifications granting tax concessions on specified items apply based on the nature of the goods rather than restricted exclusively to manufacturer status.
Questions settled- Whether an audit conducted under Section 26A of the Customs Act, 1969 without issuing statutory notices or summons is legally valid?
- Are commercial importers importing goods usable as industrial inputs entitled to concessions under S.R.O. 1125(1)/2011?
- Whether the tax concessions provided under S.R.O. 1125(1)/2011 are goods-specific or restricted strictly to specific sectors?
- Does the reopening of an assessment order through adjudication proceedings violate the principle of finality when an appealable order already exists?
- Messrs Mian Shadi Agricultural Material, Mamoon Kanjan, Tandlia Wala, Faislabad vs The Deputy Collector (R&D) MCC of Appraisement-East, Customs House, Karachi and 2 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 877 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-08-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs MF Enterprises, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector, Group-v, MCC2020 PTD (Trib.) 454 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Mani Enterprises vs Director Pca and 3 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 1164 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Magnum Management Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 1345 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-01-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Mac Corporation, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector (Preventive), Sukkur, MCC Of Hyderabad and 2 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 632 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Maaksons, Islamabad vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Islamabad2020 PTD (Trib.) 1732 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-12-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Lulu Enterprises, Karachi vs The Assistant Director and 2 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 853 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-08-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Lac (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs Government2020 CLC 693 · Lahore High Court · 2019-12-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Kuwait National Real Estate Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Messrs Educational Excellence Ltd. and another2020 P SC 748, 2020 SCMR 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for specific performance of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the sale of shares in a company. The core legal questions revolved around the plaintiff's (respondent No. 1) obligation to deposit the sale consideration in court as a prerequisite for seeking specific performance, and whether the petitioners' conditional statements in their written statement constituted an admission warranting a decree under Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the Civil Judge's order directing the deposit of the purchase price. The Court decided to convert the petition into an appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned High Court order, and restore the Civil Judge's order dated 13.11.2018. The key principles laid down are that a party seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell is essentially required to deposit the sale consideration in court to demonstrate readiness and willingness, and failure to do so disentitles them to the discretionary relief. Furthermore, for an admission to invoke Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C., it must be clear, unambiguous, unqualified, and unequivocal, and read as a whole.
- Messrs Khurshid Soap And Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Sheikh2020 PLD Supreme Court 641 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court heard appeals and petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015 (GIDC Act, 2015), which imposed a cess on industrial and commercial natural gas consumers to fund gas import infrastructure projects. The core legal questions included whether the levy constituted a "fee" or a "tax," the Parliament's legislative competence, the applicability of *res judicata* to prior High Court judgments, and the necessity of a timeline for future services. The Court, by a 2:1 majority, dismissed the appeals, upholding the GIDC Act, 2015, as a valid "Cess-fee" enacted within legislative competence (Article 70, Entry 54 read with Entry 27 of Part I, Fourth Schedule to the Constitution). It ruled that *res judicata* does not apply to judgments on the *vires* of a legislative enactment, and the retrospective application of Section 8 was valid. However, the Court issued directions, restraining the Federal Government from charging further cess until collected revenue is expended on projects, mandating recovery of arrears in installments, and setting deadlines for project commencement, failure of which would render the Act in-operational. The key principle established is that a "Cess-fee" is a purpose-specific levy for future benefits, distinct from a general tax, and a Supreme Court's determination on legislative validity operates *in rem*.
- Messrs Khurram Enterprises, Karachi vs The Internal Auditor, Mcc Of Appraisement-West, Karachi and 3 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 1553 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Kashaf Foundation, Lahore vs Commissioner (Appeals-I), SRB, Karachi and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 2103 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-08-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs K.B. Corporation and another vs The Deputy Collector Of Customs, Karachi and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 713 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs K-Electric Supply Company Limited through Ceo/Authorized Officer2020 YLR 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs JSN Traders, Hyderabad vs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 54 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ashraf etc vs Member (Judicial-v) Bor/CSC etc2020 LHC 246 · Lahore High Court · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Islam Soap Industries, Shahkot vs The Commissioner Inland2020 PTD (Trib.) 614 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-02-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Islam Soap Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Sialkot vs The Cir, Zone-IV, Ltu, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 585 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-12-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Islam Soap Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Sialkot vs The Cir, Ltu, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 666 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Islam Soap Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 1850 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ishaq Textile Mills Ltd. Faisalabad vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Rto, Faisalabad2020 PTD (Trib.) 1999 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-02-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs Interloop Ltd vs Commissioner Faisalabad Pra, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 2146 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-10-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Imran Ahmed vs The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Karachi and 3 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 920 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-07-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ihsan Sorts through Managing Partner vs Pakistan Cargo Services2020 CLC 709 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Ideal Industries and others vs The Director, Directorate General Of Intelligence And Investigation, Karachi and others2020 PTD (Trib.) 1856 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-09-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Idara-E-Noor-E-Haq through Secretary General vs Public-At-Large2020 PLD Sindh 563 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Hussain Mils Limited through Authorized Representative vs Director2020 CLD 368 · Lahore High Court · 2019-09-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Hussain Mills Limited, Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-Iii, Large Taxpayer Unit, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 1569 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2020-03-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Humak Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. through CEO vs The Model2020 [M] C L R 1322, 2020 PLJ Islamabad 109, PTCL 2020 CL.576, 2020 PTD · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Huma Textiles, Faisalabad vs The Cir(a), Rto, Faisalabad2020 PTD (Trib.) 328 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Hongkong Huihua Global Technology Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division and others2020 [M] C L R 983, 2020 PCTLR 175, PTCL 2020 CL. 363, 2020 PTD 7 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a tax exemption application regarding an Engineering, Procurement, Construction, and Commissioning (EPCC) contract. The petitioner, a non-resident, sought exemption from withholding tax under Section 152(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 for the offshore supply component of the contract. The core legal question was whether the EPCC contract was a composite, indivisible agreement, thereby rendering the offshore supply component subject to tax as Pakistan-source income, and whether the petitioner maintained a permanent establishment in Pakistan. The Court held that the EPCC contract was an indivisible whole, and the petitioner’s activities—including assembly, installation, and supervision—constituted a permanent establishment under Section 2(41)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001. Consequently, the payments were deemed Pakistan-source income under Section 101(3), and the exemption was correctly denied. The key principle laid down is that where an offshore supply is part of an overall arrangement for installation and commissioning in Pakistan, it does not qualify for the exemption under Section 152(7) and is subject to withholding tax.
Questions settled- Does an EPCC contract constitute a single composite contract for tax purposes?
- Does a non-resident contractor have a permanent establishment in Pakistan if the contract involves installation and assembly at a site?
- Are payments for offshore supplies under an EPCC contract considered Pakistan-source income?
- Does Section 152(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 exempt offshore supplies from withholding tax when the contract is an overall arrangement for supply and installation?
- Messrs Honda Palace, Hyderabad vs The Cir WHT Zone, Rto, Hyderabad2020 PTD (Trib.) 940 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Hilal Chemical, Lahore vs Commissioner Inland Revenue Appeal-II, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 465 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs HBL Stock Fund through Trustee and others vs AdditionalPTCL 2021 CL.67, 2020 PT D 1742 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Habib Sweets Products Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland2020 PTD (Trib.) 2048 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Global Technologies vs The Collector (Adjudication-II) and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 1579 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-07-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ghazi Rice Mills, Sole Proprietorship Ghazi Khan Lashari vs National2020 CLD 574 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-01-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Generation (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore vs The Cir, Ltu, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 648 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-11-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs General Services and 4 others vs Chief Collector Of Customs and 20 others2020 CLC 1695 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-01Read full judgment →
- Messrs Fumicon Services (Pvt.) Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 1980 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-10-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Fine Enterprises Traders through Partner_Representative and another vs Messrs Constellation Co-operative Housing Society Limited and 37 others2020 YLR 1724 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Famous Sweets, Faisalabad vs The Cir(a), Rto, Faisalabad2020 PTD (Trib.) 562 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-05-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Fair Trading Company vs Additional Collector Of Customs and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 2069 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-03-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Fahad Construction Company through Managing Partner vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue Department and others2020 MLD 1057 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Escort International, Lahore vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Crto, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 1279 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-04-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Engineer Majid Hussain Enterprises through Proprietor vs The Secretary Works And Services Department Government Of Sindh and 5 others2020 CLC 1338 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ellahi Corporation, Lahore vs The Deputy Collector and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 367 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Elite Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2020 P C T L R 1276, 2020 SCMR 494, 2020 KLR Supreme Court Cases 381, · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a private entity, engaged a non-resident Egyptian company for consultancy services related to infrastructure and golf course development. Seeking exemption from withholding tax on the consultancy fees, the petitioner approached the Federal Board of Revenue under Section 152 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Upon rejection of the exemption request and subsequent dismissal of the revision and constitutional petition, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was liable to deduct 15% withholding tax on payments made to the foreign entity. The Court examined the Pakistan-Egypt Double Taxation Treaty, specifically Article 12 concerning fees for technical services. It held that the consultancy services fell squarely under Article 12, which permits taxation in the contracting State where the services arise, rather than Article 7 regarding business profits. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed exemption. The principle established is that consultancy fees for technical services are governed by specific treaty provisions regarding technical services, precluding reliance on general business profit provisions when the nature of the income is clearly defined.
Questions settled- Whether consultancy fees paid to a non-resident company for technical services are subject to withholding tax under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
- Does Article 12 of the Pakistan-Egypt Double Taxation Treaty apply to fees for technical services?
- Can a taxpayer rely on Article 7 of the Pakistan-Egypt Double Taxation Treaty for business profits when the income is derived from technical services?
- Messrs Elite Estate (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation Of Pakistan through SecretaryPTCL 2020 CL. 194, 2020 SCMR 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a private company, engaged an Egyptian non-resident entity for consultancy services related to infrastructure and golf course development. Seeking to avoid withholding tax on payments made to this foreign entity, the petitioner applied for an exemption under Section 152 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Upon the rejection of this request by the Federal Board of Revenue and the subsequent dismissal of their revision and constitutional petition, the matter reached the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was liable to deduct withholding tax on these consultancy payments, specifically whether the income fell under Article 7 (Business Profits) or Article 12 (Technical Services) of the Double Taxation Treaty between Pakistan and Egypt. The Court held that because the payments were for consultancy services and not general business profits, the matter was governed by Article 12, which mandates taxation in the State where the services arise. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the petitioner was not entitled to the claimed exemption.
Questions settled- Does a consultancy fee paid to a non-resident entity for technical services fall under the category of business profits or technical services under the Pakistan-Egypt Double Taxation Treaty?
- Is a petitioner liable to deduct withholding tax on payments made to a foreign entity for professional consultancy services under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
- Does Article 12 of the Double Taxation Treaty between Pakistan and Egypt permit the taxation of technical services in the State where they arise?
- Messrs Din Capital Limited vs Commissioner (Securities Market Division)2020 CLD 967 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Diamond Fabrics, Faislabad vs The Collector of Customs2020 PTD (Trib.) 1304 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-10-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Dadex Eternit Ltd. through Factory Manager vs Sindh Labour2020 PLC 200 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner-company impugning the concurrent orders of the Sindh Labour Court and the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had set aside the dismissal of respondent No.3 from service as a helper and ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits. The core legal questions involved were whether the charge-sheet issued to the workman for unauthorized absence was time-barred under statutory provisions, whether a proper domestic inquiry was conducted, and whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the proved misconduct. The Sindh High Court held that the charge-sheet, having been issued beyond the statutory period of one month from the date of the alleged misconduct and encompassing stale periods, was indeed time-barred under the relevant law, that the domestic inquiry was flawed and perfunctory, and that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate for an illness-related absence. The court laid down the principles that a charge-sheet for workplace misconduct must strictly adhere to the mandatory one-month limitation period, that domestic inquiries must afford a fair opportunity of hearing including the recording of proper evidence, and that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 will not be exercised to disturb concurrent findings of labour forums unless patent illegality or jurisdictional defect is shown.
Questions settled- Whether a charge-sheet issued beyond the statutory period of thirty days for alleged misconduct is time-barred?
- Does absence from duty due to illness constitute wilful insubordination warranting the major penalty of dismissal?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of labour forums under constitutional jurisdiction without showing an apparent illegality or jurisdictional defect?
- Messrs City Marketing Services and 2 others vs The StatePLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Quetta) 508, 2020 P Cr. L J 402 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-10-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This quashment petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged the dismissal of an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. by the Drug Court of Balochistan, where the petitioners were facing trial under sections 23(1)(i), 23(1)(a)(v), and 34 of the Drugs Act, 1976 for the recovery of substandard XAMOL Syrup. The core legal question was whether persons who are neither manufacturers, distributors, nor agents of the seized drug, but hold a valid written warranty from the manufacturer, can be prosecuted in the absence of prosecution against the actual manufacturing company. The Balochistan High Court held that since the petitioners were not the manufacturers or their distribution agents and held a valid warranty, and because no proceedings were initiated against the manufacturing company itself, the petitioners could not be held liable under section 23 in view of the statutory protections. The court laid down the principle that intermediaries possessing a valid manufacturer's warranty and who did not alter the drug are shielded from liability unless the manufacturer or its distribution agent is prosecuted and liability is duly established.
Questions settled- Can an intermediary possessing a valid manufacturer's warranty be prosecuted for selling a substandard drug when the manufacturing company has not been prosecuted?
- Whether the trial court is justified in rejecting an application under section 265-K Cr.P.C. when there is no probability of the accused person's conviction?
- What is the extent of statutory protection afforded under section 32(3) of the Drugs Act, 1976 to a person who acquires a drug under a written warranty?
- Messrs Citi Bank N.a vs Commissioner HQs-Pra, Lahore2020 PT D (Trib.) 1911 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-11-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Business Communication, Karachi and another vs The Deputy2020 PTD (Trib.) 172 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Blue Enterprises Lahore vs The Deputy Collector of Customs, (Group-IV), MCC of Appraisement-West, Karachi and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 241 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Bilal Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore vs The Cir, Rto, Lahore2020 PTD (Trib.) 359 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-03-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Bawany Sugar Mills Limited through Senior Manager Taxation vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue and 4 others2020 PTD 696 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Awan Goods Transport Co. Karachi vs The Commissioner-Ir Zone-2020 PTD (Trib.) 1020 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-03-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi vs Messrs Gul Traders, Karachi2020 PTD (Trib.) 444 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-04-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs Askari Bank Limited, Rawalpindi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax2020 PTD 2119, 2022 PCTLR 172 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-07-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ask Construction vs Punjab Province and others2020 MLD 2018 · Lahore High Court · 2020-09-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Asian Gelatin Industries (Agi) through Proprietor vs Environmental2020 CLD 960 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2019-12-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Arbab Cotton Industries and another vs Nib Bank Limited2020 CLD 1058, 2022 [M] CLR 949, 2022 PCTLR 1126 · Lahore High Court · 2019-11-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Am & Mi Builders (Pvt.) Limited through Director vs Province of Sindh through Secretary and 4 others2020 CLC 323 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Allied Plastic Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Director vs Messrs Icc Chemical Corporation through CEO and 3 others2020 CLD 720 · Sindh High Court · 2020-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for declaration, injunction, and damages filed by the plaintiff against the defendant regarding a Letter of Credit (LC) transaction. The core legal question was whether the court should restrain the encashment of an LC when the supplied goods allegedly failed to match the contractual description, despite the general rule that banks deal with documents rather than goods. The Court held that while LCs are generally irrevocable and banks are obligated to honor them, an exception exists in cases of fraud, mischief, or injustice. Crucially, because the funds had already been secured with the court's Nazir and the foreign defendant lacked a permanent establishment within the jurisdiction, the court confirmed the ad-interim injunction to prevent irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The court affirmed that goods must strictly answer the description provided in the contract. The holding establishes that where the banking transaction is effectively secured and the defendant is a foreign entity, the court may intervene to protect the plaintiff's interest pending the final adjudication of the underlying contractual dispute.
Questions settled- Can a court restrain the encashment of a Letter of Credit if the goods supplied do not match the contractual description?
- What are the recognized exceptions to the rule that banks must honor Letters of Credit?
- Does the principle that banks deal with documents and not goods apply absolutely in cases of alleged fraud or breach of contract?
- Is an injunction against the encashment of a Letter of Credit maintainable when the foreign supplier has no permanent establishment within the court's jurisdiction?
- Messrs Allied Bank Of Pakistan vs Messrs Callmate Telips Telecom Limited2020 CLD 366 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Riaz Chemicals vs The Commissioner (Appeals), SRB and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 89 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-02-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Khalid Agencies For Waste Management and another vs Assistant Commissioner, Sindh Revenue Board, Karachi and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 481 · Sindh Revenue Board · 2019-01-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Ikhlas Packages, Faisalabad vs The Cir(a), Rto, Faisalabad2020 PTD (Trib.) 543 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Al-Azhar Industries, Karachi vs The Principal Appraiser, MCC of Export, PMBQ, Karachi and 2 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 1119 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-04-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ahmad Tea Limited vs Messrs Ahmed Foods Industries (Pvt.)2020 CLD 1339 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Afu International, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector, Karachi and another2020 PTD (Trib.) 1517 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-08-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abdullah Limited vs Muhammad Irfan Azad and 2 others2020 CLD 1039 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged the dismissal of a suit for specific performance and cancellation of a sale deed filed by a corporate entity. The core legal question was whether a suit instituted by the Managing Director of a company without an authorizing board resolution is maintainable. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a company's suit instituted without a valid board resolution or proper authorization under the law is not maintainable, and that such a fundamental defect cannot be cured by belated production of documents. The court reaffirmed the principle established by the Supreme Court that filing legal proceedings on behalf of a company requires explicit authorization, and a person acting without such authority is incompetent to institute the suit.
Questions settled- Is a suit filed on behalf of a company by its Managing Director maintainable without a formal board resolution authorizing him to institute the legal proceedings?
- Can a fundamental defect regarding the lack of authorization to file a suit on behalf of a company be cured at the appellate stage by producing the Memorandum and Articles of Association?
- Whether a legal issue going to the root of the case can be raised and decided without a specific issue having been framed by the trial court?
- Does a Managing Director possess inherent authority to file a suit on behalf of a company in the absence of enabling provisions in the company's articles or an express board resolution?
- Messrs A.S. Autos, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector, Group-VI, MCC of Appraisement-West, Karachi and 2 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 392 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs A.S. Autos, Karachi vs The Deputy Collector Of Customs, Group-III, MCC, Karachi and 3 others2020 PTD (Trib.) 2028 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2019-10-09Read full judgment →
- Mehrumal vs D.O, Water Management Npiw, Mirpurkhas and Others2020 SHC 500 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-06Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ibrahim vs Post Master General and 04 others2020 SHC 1176 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-14Read full judgment →
- Mehmood ul Hassan vs AJK Govt. & others2020 SC AJK 116 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2020-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Ahmed vs District Police Officer, Bahawalpur, etc2020 PLC (C.S.) 636, 2020 SCMR 653, 2020 SCP 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2020-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a Sub-Inspector, challenged his dismissal from service following departmental proceedings regarding his failure to arrest an accused in a criminal case, which allegedly led to the victim's suicide. Initially, the appellant received a lesser penalty of reduction in rank, but the Regional Police Officer (RPO) subsequently enhanced this to dismissal after granting the appellant a personal hearing in an orderly room. The appellant appealed to the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his challenge. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the enhancement of the penalty violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 12(iii) of the Punjab Police (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1975, due to the lack of a formal show-cause notice. The Supreme Court held that the rule requires an opportunity to show cause either personally or in writing. Since the RPO provided a personal hearing to the appellant regarding the proposed enhancement, the Court found no violation of the rules or natural justice. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that a personal hearing satisfies the statutory requirement for showing cause.
Questions settled- Does the requirement to provide an opportunity to show cause against the enhancement of a penalty necessitate a written notice, or is a personal hearing sufficient?
- Can a disciplinary authority enhance a penalty imposed on a police officer after granting a personal hearing?
- Does the failure to provide a formal show-cause notice violate the principles of natural justice if a personal hearing was otherwise provided?
- Meher Taj vs Ajmal Khan and 7 others2020 MLD 1948 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
- Meher Shah Bacha vs Anjam Ali Khan2020 CLC 286 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Hassan Shah etc vs State etcPLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 998 · Lahore High Court · 2020-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 367-A, 377, and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions in medical evidence, witness testimonies, and the appellants' plea of alibi. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, noting that the medical evidence contradicted the alleged time and date of the occurrence, and the DNA analysis was negative. Furthermore, the investigation failed to substantiate the site of the crime, and the appellants successfully established an alibi through documentary evidence. Emphasizing that the "foulness" of a crime necessitates a higher degree of proof, the Court reiterated that the benefit of doubt is a right of the accused, not a concession. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and ordered their immediate release, finding that the prosecution's narrative was inconsistent and unreliable.
Questions settled- Does a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind entitle an accused to acquittal?
- Can a conviction for sodomy be sustained when medical evidence and DNA reports contradict the prosecution's timeline and narrative?
- Is the prosecution required to disprove a plea of alibi when the accused provides documentary evidence supporting their presence elsewhere?
- Mehboob-ur-Rehman etc vs the State & another2021 YLR 1560, 2020 PHC 280 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-04-08Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Shah vs Sardar Ali Khan and 10 others2020 YLR 2073, 2020 PHC 116 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-27Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Ali Zardari vs National Accountability Bureau2020 SHC 356 · Sindh High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Ali vs The State2020 YLR 1526 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life for a murder committed on the day of Eid, along with a connected criminal revision application seeking enhancement of the sentence to death. The core legal question involves determining whether the prosecution successfully established the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt through ocular and medical evidence, and whether the circumstances warranted the maximum penalty of death or the alternative sentence of life imprisonment. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant through consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence, but failed to establish the alleged motive due to a lack of substantiation regarding the antecedent events. Consequently, the court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the revision for enhancement, upholding the sentence of life imprisonment as a valid alternative to the death penalty given the facts and circumstances of the case. The key principle laid down is that life imprisonment is a legitimate alternative sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the choice between death and life imprisonment depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the presence or absence of clear mitigating factors and unproven motives.
Questions settled- Whether ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is life imprisonment a valid alternative sentence to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 depending on the facts and circumstances of the case?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive necessitate the reduction of a life sentence or warrant the imposition of the death penalty?
- Are minor contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses sufficient to discard an otherwise consistent eyewitness account?
- Mehar son of Abdullah Shaikh vs The State2020 SHC 1030 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, through two appeals arising from a judgment of the Special Judge CNS/Model Criminal Trial Court, Hyderabad, whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine for possession of 1020 grams of Chars. At the hearing, the appellant's counsel did not press the appeals on merits, seeking instead a reduction of the sentence on mitigating grounds that the appellant was a first-time offender with no prior criminal record and the sole breadwinner of his family. The Additional Prosecutor General readily accepted this proposal. The Sindh High Court considered the absence of independent witnesses, the lack of prior criminal record, the appellant's status as the sole earning member, and the protracted trial. Consequently, the court held that a lenient view was warranted, reducing the substantive sentence to six months' imprisonment while maintaining the fine, with the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court can reduce a sentence based on mitigating circumstances when the conviction itself is not contested on merits?
- Does the absence of an independent witness and prior criminal record justify a lenient view in narcotics cases?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable when a sentence is reduced on appeal?