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.

• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State through Chairman, National2019 PLD Islamabad 343, 2019 PLJ Islamabad 158, 2019 PLJ Karachi 163, 2019 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State and others2019 PLJ SC 297, 2019 SCMR 734 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-03-26
  suspension of sentencebail on medical groundsconvicted prisonerNational Accountability Ordinancecardiac complications
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Islamabad High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition for suspension of sentence and release on bail pending criminal appeal against his conviction under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The core legal question was whether a convicted prisoner suffering from serious medical conditions could be released on bail for a limited period for medical treatment of his choice. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, suspending the petitioner's sentence and releasing him on bail for a period of six weeks specifically for medical treatment within Pakistan, subject to furnishing surety bonds and a strict condition not to leave the country, with the explicit stipulation that the bail would automatically stand cancelled upon the expiry of the stipulated period, requiring voluntary surrender. The key principle laid down is that where medical reports and expert opinions recommend specialized cardiac and other medical management for a convict with severe comorbidities, the court may exercise discretion to grant bail upon suspension of sentence for a limited, defined period to enable the convict to receive proper medical treatment of choice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a convicted prisoner be released on bail upon suspension of sentence for medical treatment?
  • Whether bail on medical grounds can be granted for a limited fixed period with a condition of automatic cancellation?
  • Does a convict released on bail for medical treatment have the liberty to choose medical practitioners and facilities within the country?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif vs The State and another2019 P Cr. L J 389 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-08-07
  transfer of caseaccountability referencejudicial recusalfair trialbiaspre-judged mindNational Accountability Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves transfer applications filed by the applicant seeking the transfer of two accountability references from Accountability Court No.1, Islamabad, to another court, following his conviction in a related reference by the same presiding officer. The core legal question was whether findings rendered in one reference and the judge's subsequent self-expressed discomfort warranted transferring the remaining pending references to ensure a fair trial and impartial adjudication. The Islamabad High Court allowed the applications and transferred the references to Accountability Court No.II, Islamabad. The court held that where the presiding judge himself had requested a transfer reflecting discomfort in continuing the trials, and in light of overlapping facts and previous findings, it would not be just and appropriate to thrust the cases upon an unwilling judge, thereby safeguarding the principles of fair trial and an independent application of judicial mind.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conviction of an accused in one accountability reference disqualify the trial judge from hearing remaining references involving overlapping facts?
  • Can a case be transferred when the presiding judge himself requests a transfer due to expressed discomfort in continuing the trial?
  • Whether the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution is violated when a judge who has rendered findings on common facts continues to hear subsequent references?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Faisal Rasheed vs The State and others2021 KLR Criminal Cases 315, PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 173, 2019 YLR 2379 · Lahore High Court · 2019-05-06
  pre-arrest bailbail cancellationdishonouring of chequemala fidetentative assessmentCriminal Procedure Code
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed by the complainant seeking the recall of an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge confirming pre-arrest bail to the respondent accused in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for dishonouring a cheque. The core legal question was whether the lower court erred in confirming pre-arrest bail without establishing mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police, and by improperly conducting a detailed appreciation of evidence and incorporating case diary photographs into its order. The Lahore High Court held that the confirmation of pre-arrest bail was legally flawed due to the absence of findings regarding mala fide and the unwarranted deep appreciation of evidence at the bail stage. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail granting order was recalled. The key principle laid down is that the grant of pre-arrest bail strictly requires establishing mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police, and courts must confine themselves to a tentative assessment of evidence during bail hearings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed without establishing mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant or police?
  • Is it permissible for a court to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence and include snaps of case diaries while deciding a pre-arrest bail application?
  • Can an order granting pre-arrest bail under Section 489-F PPC be recalled under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. when the lower court fails to adhere to settled principles for granting extraordinary relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Khaliq-ur-Rehman vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA)2019 IHC 42 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-11Read full judgment →
• Mian Khaliq Ur Rehman vs PTA and others2021 KLR Civil Cases 82, 2019 CLC 555 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mian Imtiaz Ahmad vs Javed Iqbal & 10 others2019 KLR Civil Cases 107, 2018 LHC 2553 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mian Imdad Sarwar vs Ex. Officio Justice of Peace etc2019 MLD 503, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 736, 2019 LHC 76 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mian Ayaz Anwar and others vs State Bank of Pakistan and others2019 CLD 375 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mian Ashiq Hussain and others vs Faysal Bank and others2019 PLJ Lahore 121, 2019 CLD 152 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zamzama Builders and Developers through Partner vs Cantonment Board Faisal through Executive Officer and 4 others2019 MLD 1238 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zainab Enterprises, Karachi and another vs The Deputy Director, Directorate General of Valuation, Karachi and 2 others2019 PCTLR 1257, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1519 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zaidi Enterprises through. Attorney and others vs Civil Aviation2019 MLD 792 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Z.A. Cottex, Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue2019 PTD (Trib.) 570 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Waqas Enterprises, Faisalabad vs The Cir (Appeals), R.T.O., Faisalabad2019 PTD (Trib.) 120 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-08-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Waqas Developers through Proprietor vs Engr. LT. Col. (Retd.)2020 KLR Labour & Service Cases 145, 2019 PLJ Lahore 652, 2020 PLC (C.S.) · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs WAPDA Mangla through General Manager Finance (Power)_Chief Engineer vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue (PT) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council, Mirpur2019 P.C.T.L.R. 207, 2019 PTD 606 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Alishba Bibi vs The State etc2019 IHC 76, 2020 PLD Islamabad 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-06-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Walia Steel Industries PLC vs Messrs Saga Shipping and Trading2019 PLD Sindh 22 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-21
  Section 12(2) CPCfraud and misrepresentationpower of attorneystrict construction of power of attorneywithdrawal of suitcompromise under Order XXIII Rule 3restoration of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This Judicial Miscellaneous application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) arose out of an order dated 06.10.2017 dismissing Suit No. 1300/2017 as not pressed on an application filed under Order XXIII, Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The applicant contended that its attorney—an employee of a law firm—connived with the respondents to withdraw the suit without instructions or authority, thereby committing fraud and misrepresentation upon the court. The respondents raised preliminary procedural objections and contended that the attorney and pleader possessed full independent authority to act. The High Court of Sindh allowed the application and set aside the dismissal order, holding that procedural technicalities cannot thwart substantive justice. On the merits, the Court ruled that powers of attorney must be strictly construed where the agent's act is detrimental to the principal's interests. Because the power of attorney contained no express authority to withdraw or compromise, and no actual compromise existed, the order was procured through fraud and misrepresentation under Section 12(2) C.P.C.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dismissal order resulting from an unauthorized withdrawal of a suit by an attorney be set aside under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation?
  • Whether procedural technicalities or misdescription in the heading of an application bar a court from exercising its jurisdiction to grant relief under Section 12(2) C.P.C.?
  • Can an attorney compromise or withdraw a suit without express authority in the power of attorney when such act is detrimental to the principal's interests?
  • Does an application purporting to compromise a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. require an actual settlement agreement on record rather than being treated as a simpliciter withdrawal?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Wahid Builders and Techno Time Construction Company2019 MLD 107 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-08-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Venus Pakistan Private Limited through Authorized representative, Karachi vs Messrs Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co. and another2019 MLD 84 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Mobile and 3 others vs Abdul Rauf Essa and others2019 CLD 1267, 2020 P C T L R 1256, 2019 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Mobile and 3 others vs Abdul Rauf Essa and another2019 CLD 1267 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Textilers (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Representative and others2020 P C T L R 1056, 2019 CLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Team Nayyer (Private) Limited through Duly Authorized2019 CLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Tanveer Spinning and Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Limited vs MCB Bank2019 CLD 546 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Super Engineering and another vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Karachi2019 PCRLJ 480, 2020 PLJ Supreme Court 1, 2019 PTD 1912, PTCL 2020 CL. 51, · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  presumptive tax regimenormal tax regimeretrospective operationvested rightsassociation of personswithholding taxstatutory interpretationtax appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses direct appeals filed by two associations of persons (AOPs) engaged in manufacturing auto parts, challenging a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh that set aside the Appellate Tribunal's orders in favor of the taxpayers. The core legal question was whether the amendment introduced to section 153(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Finance Act, 2008—which substituted 'any person' with 'a company' to restrict exceptions from the presumptive tax regime—applied retrospectively to the tax year 2008, thereby compelling the appellant AOPs to be taxed under the presumptive tax regime instead of the normal tax regime. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that fiscal amendments affecting substantive or vested rights cannot be applied retrospectively unless the legislature explicitly so commands. The Court established that since the tax year 2008 had concluded on 30.06.2008 and the Finance Act, 2008 came into force on 1st July 2008, valuable rights had accrued to the appellants under the unamended law, and prospective application must be favored to protect vested rights in taxing statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment substituting 'any person' with 'a company' in section 153(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 applies retrospectively to the tax year 2008?
  • Do amendments to assessment and procedural provisions in fiscal statutes have retrospective effect when they affect accrued or vested rights?
  • Are associations of persons (AOPs) manufacturing goods entitled to file their income tax returns under the normal tax regime prior to the commencement of the Finance Act, 2008?
  • How are charging provisions distinguished from assessment and collection provisions in fiscal statutes for the purpose of statutory interpretation?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Star Enterprises, Karachi vs The Deputy Director, Directorate2019 PCTLR 1304, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1567 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sky Overseas through Authorized Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division and 4 others2020 P C T L R 834, PTCL 2020 CL. 492, 2019 PTD 1964 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs SK Farms and Messrs Health First: In the matter of vs N/A2019 CLD 667 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Siiamim and Company vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others2019 KLR Labour & Service Cases 12, 2019 PLC 25 · Lahore High Court · 2018-06-08
  Payment of Wages Act 1936pre-deposit requirementcondition precedentlimitationcondonation of delaylabour courtrevision petitionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court challenged orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and Labour Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's revision and appeal against an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Authority had directed the petitioner company to pay outstanding wages and compensation to the respondent employee. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Labour Court, which was dismissed as time-barred and for failure to comply with the statutory deposit requirement. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming that under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, depositing the determined amount with the Authority and filing the corresponding certificate is a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an appeal. Non-compliance renders the appeal incompetent. Furthermore, the High Court held that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause or explain the daily delay in filing the appeal and revision, upholding the lower forums' orders.

  Questions settled

  • Is depositing the determined wages with the Authority a mandatory condition precedent for filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does an appeal under Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 lie without a certificate confirming deposit of the awarded amount?
  • Is an applicant required to explain each day's delay when seeking condonation of delay for filing an appeal or revision?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaikh & Co. through Messrs Masood Anwar & Co., Karachi vs The Additional Collector of Customs, (Adjudication-I), Karachi and 2 others2019 PCTLR 1136, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1242 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-11-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaheen Enterprises through Partners and others vs Allied Bank2019 CLD 55 · Lahore High Court · 2018-04-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaheen and Sons Government Contractor through Managing2019 YLR 524 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2018-05-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saadullah Khan and Brothers (SKB) vs Appellate Tribunal of Inland Revenue and others2019 PTD 776 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saa Import and Exports and 4 others vs The Director General2019 PTD (Trib.) 365 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Roshan Packages Limited Lahore through Chief Executive Officer2019 PTD 575 · Lahore High Court · 2018-12-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Resoe International Trading (Private) Limited through Director2019 PLD Sindh 344 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Reliance Commercial Associates vs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi and another2020 P C T L R 425, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2206 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-09-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Quetta Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Quetta vs The Commissioner2019 PTD (Trib.) 228 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-06-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pharmacie Plus through Group Administration Head vs Abdul2019 YLR 966 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cos-II, Karachi2019 PTD 2288, 2020 P C T L R 916 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Television Corporation Limited vs Commissioner2019 P.C.T.L.R. 293, 2019 P.S.C. 366, PTCL 2019 CL. 187, 2019 PTD 484, 2019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2018-10-23
  Federal Excise Dutytelecommunication servicestelevision license feePakistan Customs Tarifffiscal statute interpretationWireless Telegraphy Acttax exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from tax proceedings initiated against the appellant, Pakistan Television Corporation Limited, for the recovery of Federal Excise Duty (FED) on the receipt of television license fees collected through electricity bills. The core legal questions involved whether television license fees and TV telecasts fall within the definition of "services" subject to FED under Section 3 of the Federal Excise Act 2005 read with Chapter 98 of the First Schedule to the Customs Act 1969, and how headings and sub-headings of the Pakistan Customs Tariff are to be interpreted. The Supreme Court held that the TV license fee is levied for the mere possession of a television set under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 and the Television Receiving Apparatus (Possession and Licensing) Rules 1970, and is not a service provided by the appellant under the Federal Excise Act 2005. Furthermore, since neither telecasts nor TV license fees are specified under any sub-heading of PCT Heading 98.12, they fall outside the charging provisions and are exempt. The appeal was consequently allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, laying down principles regarding strict interpretation of fiscal statutes and the application of specific tariff sub-headings over broad general headings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether television license fees collected for the possession of a television set constitute a service subject to Federal Excise Duty under the Federal Excise Act 2005?
  • How are the headings and sub-headings of Chapter 98 of the First Schedule to the Customs Act 1969 to be interpreted for the levy of Federal Excise Duty?
  • Can a general heading in the Pakistan Customs Tariff override specific sub-headings for the purpose of taxation without clear statutory inclusion?
  • What are the established principles for interpreting taxing statutes and exemptions in Pakistan?
  • Whether delegated legislation such as a Statutory Regulatory Order can expand the scope of a charging provision in a fiscal statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Services Limited: In the matter of vs N/A2021 P C T L R 688, 2019 CLD 211 · Competition Commission of Pakistan · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Reinsurance Company Limited through Secretary vs Trustee of Port of Karachi (KPT)2019 CLD 888 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak International vs Deputy Collector of Customs and another2019 PTD (Trib.) 834 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2017-11-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak Brunei Investment Company Limited vs New Allied2019 CLD 301 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs NIT Income Fund, Karachi vs The C.I.R., Zone-I, C.R.T.O., Karachi2019 PTD (Trib.) 1100 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Niagra Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland2019 PCTLR 1320, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1562 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Niagra Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Faisalabad vs C.I.R., Corporate Zone, R.T.O., Faisalabad2019 PCTLR 1180, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1317 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-01-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs New Era Technologies (Private) Limited through. Chief Executive2019 CLC 1128 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Naushero Feroze-1 through Managing Partner vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 2 others2019 YLR 2198 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Naseem Palstic House, Faisalabad vs The Commissioner Inland2020 PCTLR 54, PTCL 2019 CL. 152, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1583 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mustaqim Dyeing and Printing Industries (Pvt.) Limited and others vs Province of Sindh and another2020 P C T L R 907, PTCL 2020 CL. 126, 2019 PTD 2251 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muslim Traders, Chakwal vs The C.I.R., R.T.O., Rawalpindi2019 PCTLR 411, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1118 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-02-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs Customs2019 PCTLR 1091, 2020 P SC 117, 2019 PTCL CL. 555, 2019 SCMR 1735, 2019 PTD 1961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-04-25
  Customs Actadjudicationlimitation periodshow cause noticeorder-in-originalmandatory time limit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an order-in-original issued by the Deputy Collector (Adjudication) under the Customs Act, 1969 was rendered within the mandatory statutory limitation period. The core legal question was whether the limitation period of 120 days for deciding a show cause notice concludes on the date a hearing is reserved or when the final order is actually recorded and communicated to the parties. The Supreme Court held that a case cannot be considered "decided" merely upon the conclusion of a hearing or reservation of judgment without verbal announcement, recording, or communication of the decision to the parties within the prescribed period. The Court laid down the principle that under section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969, an adjudicatory decision must be recorded and duly communicated within 120 days (or within a validly extended period not exceeding 180 days in total), failing which the decision is time-barred and invalid. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether under section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 an order-in-original is decided on the date the hearing concludes or when the written order is issued and communicated?
  • Can a case be said to be decided without the announcement or communication of the decision to the parties?
  • What is the maximum permissible period including extensions for rendering a decision under section 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Yousaf vs The Commissioner Inland Revenue2019 PTD (Trib.) 577 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mughal Engineering Works, Rawalpindi vs The Commissioner2019 PTD (Trib.) 610 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-12-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Moti Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited, Faisalabad vs Commissioner Inland2020 PCTLR 137, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1898 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-04-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mohammad Parvaiz Poultry Farm through Proprietor vs Environmental Protection Agency through Director-General and 2 others2019 CLD 710 · Punjab Environmental Tribunal · 2019-02-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mobile Autos vs Deputy Collector of Customs and another2019 PTD (Trib.) 317 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-08-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Matracon Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Co-ordinator2019 CLC 1732 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Masroor Hussain and 4 others vs Director General of P.C.A. and 2 others2019 PTD (Trib.) 615 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2016-07-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mansoor Israr Ltd., Afghanistan vs The Principal Appraiser, Directorate General of Transit Trade, Karachi and another2020 P C T L R 439, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2004 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.F. & Co. Prop. Faisal, Karachi vs The Commissioner Inland2019 PCTLR 1206, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1347 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-10-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs M. Nazir and Company, Cost and Management Accountants2019 CLD 1015 · Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan · 2019-04-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lucky Cement Limited, Peshawar vs The Superintendent2019 PTD (Trib.) 1090 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-07-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lal Din Autoparts (Pvt.) Ltd.,Lahore vs National Tariff2020 P C T L R 476, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2035 · Anti-Duping Appellate Tribunal · 2019-05-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lahore Electric Supply Company Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PCTLR 1079, 2019 PTD 1116 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Labbaik (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorised Officer vs Pakistan2019 [M] C.L.R. 240, 2018 YLR 2350 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-05-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khyber Tea and Foods Company, Peshawar vs The Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Peshawar and 2 others2020 P C T L R 497, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2092 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-05-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karsaz (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Additional Commissioner Inland2019 PTD (Trib.) 939 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and another vs Muhammad2019 CLC 718 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs K.B. Enterprises, Faisalabad vs C.I.R. (Appeals), R.T.O., Faisalabad2019 PTD (Trib.) 56 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-08-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs K&N International vs Messrs Motorway Operations and Rehabilitation Engineering (Private) Limited2019 CLC 1613 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-16
  arbitration agreementlocus standires judicatacontractual rightcivil revisionarbitration clauseenforceability of arbitration
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which sought to refer a dispute to arbitration. The petitioner, a sole proprietorship, had previously filed an identical application that was dismissed for lack of authorization, which the trial court subsequently cited as res judicata. The appellate court upheld the dismissal, though on the basis that the petitioner was not a party to the Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) containing the arbitration clause. The High Court held that while the trial court erred in applying res judicata because the prior dismissal was not on the merits, the appellate court's decision was correct on the merits. The Court affirmed that the right to arbitrate is a contractual right, and only parties to an arbitration agreement can enforce it under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Since the M.O.U. was executed between the respondent and a private limited company, rather than the petitioner, the petitioner lacked the locus standi to invoke the arbitration clause.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who is not a party to an arbitration agreement enforce it by filing an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to an application dismissed on procedural grounds without an adjudication on the merits?
  • Does an appellate court have the authority to dismiss an appeal on grounds different from those relied upon by the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jiuzhou Hengtong Machinery, Islamabad vs Assistant2019 PTD (Trib.) 66 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-10-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jeeand Coal Company through Managing Partner and others vs Appellate Authority_Secretary, Mines and Minerals Development Department and others2019 CLC 1825 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-05-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ismail Industries Limited through Authorized Officer vs Mondelez2019 CLD 562 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Iris Communications (Pvt.) Ltd vs Ahmad Khalid2019 MLD 772 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs International Enterprises, Karachi vs Commissioner Inland2019 PT D (Trib.) 1201 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-06-09Read full judgment →
• Momin Khan son of Asim Khan vs The State etc2020 P Cr.L J 1322, 2019 PHC 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-30
  dying declarationcriminal appealacquittaleyewitness credibilityadverse inferencemedical evidencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of the appellant for murder and attempted murder. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the dying declaration, the credibility of the sole remaining eyewitness, and whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution's case was fundamentally flawed due to significant contradictions in the eyewitness testimony and the failure to adhere to established legal protocols for recording a dying declaration. The Court observed that the deceased's severe head injuries rendered the alleged dying declaration highly suspect, and the prosecution failed to provide corroborating evidence. Furthermore, the withholding of an independent injured witness warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's judgment and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration, while admissible, is a weak form of evidence requiring close scrutiny and corroboration, and must be recorded in strict compliance with procedural rules to be considered reliable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to produce an independent injured witness warrant an adverse inference under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • What are the essential legal requirements for a dying declaration to be considered reliable evidence?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the medical evidence contradicts the alleged dying declaration regarding the victim's capacity to speak?
  • Is a dying declaration sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Inayat International Trading Co., Peshawar vs The Collector2019 PTD (Trib.) 135 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2017-06-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Imran Pipe Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Lahore vs C.I.R., Zone-IV, R.T.O.2019 PTD (Trib.) 4 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-12-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hassan International, Faisalabad vs The Directorate General2019 PTD (Trib.) 1129 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haier Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd through Authorized Representative vs Director General of Customs Valuation and 2 others2019 PTD (Trib.) 91 · Customs Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
• Messrs Hafeez Traders and General Order Supplier, Khanewal vs C.I.R., Multan Zone, R.T.O., Multan2019 PCTLR 1202, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 1338 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2019-01-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hafeez Motor Store and another vs Deputy Collector of Customs and another2019 PTD (Trib.) 187 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-07-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib and Company and others vs Muslim Commercial Bank2019 SCMR 1453 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2019-06-21
  auction saleexecution proceedingsstatutory depositthird party interestconfirmation of salerecovery suitobjection petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a challenge to an auction sale conducted during execution proceedings of a bank's recovery suit. The petitioners' objection petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C. was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the auction was confirmed. Although the underlying decree was later set aside in a Regular First Appeal (R.F.A.), the High Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal against the auction confirmation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, clarifying two major legal principles. First, the Court held that the statutory deposit of 20% of the highest bid is a mandatory prerequisite for maintaining an objection under Order XXI, Rule 90, C.P.C.; failure to make this deposit renders the application non-maintainable. Second, the Court ruled that once an auction sale becomes absolute and a sale certificate is issued, the intervention of third-party interests protects the auction purchaser. Consequently, a valid sale in execution does not become invalid simply because the underlying decree is subsequently reversed or set aside.

  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Global Trade Link and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division Ministry of Finance and others2019 PTD 1308 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Global Health Services (Public) Ltd., Islamabad vs The C.I.R., L.T.U., Islamabad2019 PTD (Trib.) 1081 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-10-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghani Glass Limited, Lahore vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Lahore2019 PTD (Trib.) 1162 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-05-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghani Glass Limited through Manager Legal, Lahore vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Large Taxpayer Unit, Lahore and another2019 PTD 1559 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghaffar Corporation through Managing Partner and another vs Messrs Petro Commodities (Pvt.) Ltd. through Principal Officer and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1617, 2019 CLC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gas Masters CNG Station vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PLJ Peshawar 113, 2019 PTD 25 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-03-22
  Federal Tax OmbudsmanjurisdictionmaladministrationIncome Tax Ordinance 2001tax refundappellate remedyCNG stationsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  These writ petitions challenged an order by the President of Pakistan, which set aside recommendations made by the Federal Tax Ombudsman (FTO) regarding tax refund claims and penalties imposed on CNG stations. The core legal question was whether the FTO possesses jurisdiction to investigate and issue recommendations concerning tax refund claims and penalties when specific appellate remedies are available under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the FTO lacks jurisdiction where the subject matter—specifically tax assessment, refund claims, or penalties—is appealable under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Court affirmed that the FTO's jurisdiction is expressly barred under Section 9(2) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, where legal remedies of appeal, review, or revision are available under relevant legislation. The judgment established the principle of harmonious interpretation, ensuring that the FTO's mandate to investigate maladministration does not render statutory appellate mechanisms redundant or create a parallel, conflicting judicial hierarchy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Tax Ombudsman have jurisdiction to investigate matters where legal remedies of appeal are available under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  • Does the imposition of penalties and the denial of tax refunds constitute maladministration amenable to the jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman?
  • Can the Federal Tax Ombudsman issue binding recommendations on matters that are subject to statutory appeal processes under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Galaxy International. Karachi vs Commissioner Inland2019 PTD (Trib.) 561 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-06-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd vs Collector of Customs Model Customs2019 PTD (Trib.) 1006 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2018-04-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs G.F.Z. Autos, Rawalpindi vs C.I.R., R.T.O., Rawalpindi S.T.a2019 PTD (Trib.) 459 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2017-06-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fresh Poly Sack (Pvt.) Ltd., Faisalabad vs The C.I.R.(Appeals), R.T.O., Faisalabad2019 PTD (Trib.) 144 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-08-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fine Enterprises Traders through Partner_Representative vs Messrs Constellation Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and 37 others2019 CLC 1472, 2019 CLD 185 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Falcon (Pvt.) Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi2020 P C T L R 825, 2019 PTD (Trib.) 2322 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →