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. 232,813 judgments in total.
- M/s. The Hub Power Company Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Inland2015 P.C.T.L.R. 724 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. Talon Sports Pvt. Ltd. vs Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 388 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10Read full judgment →
- M/s. Swera Traders vs The Customs Appellate Tribunal and others2015 P.C.T.L.R. 514 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. Summit Bank Limited through Manager, Quetta vs M/s. Qasim & Co.2015 PLJ SC 807 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by the appellant-bank challenges a High Court judgment that set aside a trial court decision dismissing the respondents' recovery suit. The core legal questions involved whether a bank could exercise a lien or right of set-off over an account operated by the respondents to satisfy an alleged liability of their deceased father, and whether the Banking Court had exclusive jurisdiction under the relevant banking legislation. The Supreme Court held that the bank's deduction was unlawful, ruling that a banker's lien or right to set-off requires strict mutuality of claims between the same parties, a sum certain that is due and determined by a competent judicial forum, and funds actually belonging to the debtor rather than third parties or legal representatives without established inheritance. Furthermore, because the suit concerned unauthorized deductions from a third-party account rather than a 'finance' dispute between a bank and its customer, the Banking Court lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a bank can exercise a lien or right of set-off over an account belonging to legal representatives for an undetermined liability of a deceased customer?
- Does a banker's right of set-off require the amount claimed to be a sum certain and determined by a competent judicial forum?
- Is mutuality of claims between the bank and the depositor an essential prerequisite for the validity of a banker's lien?
- Does the Banking Court have jurisdiction under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credit and Finances) Act 1997 to entertain a suit regarding unauthorized deductions from an account held by third parties who are not customers in relation to the disputed transaction?
- M/s. Standard Chartered Leasing Ltd., Karachi through Authorized2015 PLJ Karachi 330 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. Spinzer Travel (Pvt.) vs Pakistan International Airline2015 C.L.R. 58 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-18Read full judgment →
- M/s. Spinzar Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan International Airlines2015 C.L.R. 58, 2015 YLR 344, 2015 PLJ Peshawar 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-18Read full judgment →
- M/s. Skyword (Pvt.) vs Salahuddin and 9 others. Ltd2015 PTD 604, PTCL 2015 CL.515 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for a temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from exporting alleged stolen goods, specifically Dark Green Onyx/Marble (Zarghoon), belonging to the plaintiff and stuffed in twelve containers. The core legal question revolves around whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss for the grant of an interim injunction, given that the goods were allegedly stolen from the plaintiff's leased mines and later attempted to be exported by subsequent purchasers. The court held that the plaintiff made out a strong prima facie case demonstrating exclusive rights to the unique marble, that the seized blocks bore the plaintiff's identifying marks, and that allowing the export would cause irreparable loss. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim injunction and allowed the injunction application, restraining the export of the disputed goods.
Questions settled- Whether a person who is not the owner of goods can pass a better title to a buyer under the law?
- Does a plaintiff seeking a temporary injunction in a commercial matter establish a prima facie case when ownership and theft of unique goods are demonstrated?
- Whether export of disputed goods claimed as stolen property ought to be restrained to prevent irreparable loss?
- M/s. Siddiq Traders vs The Deputy Collector, Customs AppraisementPTCL 2015 CL. 165, 2015 PTD 134, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 276 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-03Read full judgment →
- M/s. Siddiq Traders vs Deputy Collector Customs Appraisement-IV,PTCL 2015 CL. 165 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-03Read full judgment →
- M/s. SHV Energy Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. vs Province of the Punjab etc.2015 LHC 5407, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 139 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-26Read full judgment →
- M/s. Shaz Packages & others vs M/s. Bank Alfalah LimitedSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Shahrukh & Co. vs Federation of Pakistan & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Shah Nawaz Khan and sons vs Govt. of NWFP and others2015 KLR Supreme Court Cases 88 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a High Court judgment that remanded a civil matter to the Trial Court for the third time due to an alleged failure to frame necessary issues. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in remanding the case despite the existence of relevant issues and evidence on record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in its decision to remand. The Court observed that the Trial Court had already framed a specific issue regarding the plaintiff's locus standi, and both parties had led evidence fully aware of their respective pleadings. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the remand order and directed the High Court to decide the Regular First Appeal (RFA) on its own merits based on the existing record. The key principle laid down is that remand should be a measure of last resort, used only when absolutely necessary for fair adjudication. Unnecessary remands cause undue delay, prolong the agony of litigants, clog court dockets, and waste judicial time, and should be avoided when the appellate court possesses sufficient material to resolve the controversy.
Questions settled- Is a High Court justified in remanding a case for the framing of issues when the parties were already aware of their pleadings and evidence had been led?
- Does the failure of a Trial Court to frame a specific issue absolve the appellate court from deciding the matter if sufficient material is available on record?
- Under what circumstances should an appellate court resort to the remand of a case to a Trial Court?
- M/s. Shah Nawaz Khan and sons vs Government of NWFP and others2015 P.S.C. 1021 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the High Court's judgment remanding a case to the Trial Court for the third time. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter for lack of a specific issue when the existing record and issues, particularly concerning locus standi, already covered the controversy and parties had led evidence accordingly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in remanding the case as it had all necessary material before it to decide the Regular First Appeal (RFA), and that remands should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary to avoid undue delay and clogging of court dockets. The key principle laid down is that unnecessary remands prolong litigation and violate the constitutional imperative to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice, and courts must decide matters themselves when sufficient material is available on record.
Questions settled- When is an appellate court justified in remanding a case to the trial court?
- Does the failure of a trial court to frame a specific issue warrant a remand when parties were aware of the controversy and led evidence?
- Can an appellate court decide a Regular First Appeal on its merits instead of ordering a repeated remand?
- M/s. Shah Nawaz Khan & Sons vs Government of NWFP and others2015 PLJ SC 736 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a High Court judgment remanding a case back to the trial court for a third time due to the alleged non-framing of a material issue. The core legal question was whether a remand by the High Court was justified when the parties were fully aware of their respective stances, led evidence on the controversy, and the material issue was already encapsulated in the existing issues. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the remand order, holding that the High Court possessed all necessary material to decide the Regular First Appeal (RFA) on its merits. The Court laid down the principle that remand should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary for fair adjudication. Unnecessary remands cause undue delays, prolong litigant agony, clog court dockets, and violate the constitutional imperative of ensuring inexpensive and expeditious justice.
Questions settled- Is a appellate court justified in remanding a case for framing of issues when the parties were already aware of the controversy and led evidence on it?
- Under what circumstances should a court resort to remanding a case back to the trial court?
- Does the failure of a trial court to frame a specific issue justify a remand if the controversy is already encapsulated in other framed issues?
- M/s. SF Engineering Services through Proprietor vs Federation of2015 PLJ Karachi 39 · Sindh High Court · 2014-03-07Read full judgment →
- M/s. Sezei Turkes Fayzi Akkaya Construction Company (Stfa) vs M/s.2015 PLJ SC 685, 2015 SCMR 905 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in Islamabad regarding a contract dispute. The core legal question was whether the suit was maintainable in Islamabad or if jurisdiction vested in the courts at Karachi, where the contract was to be performed. The appellant, a corporate entity, argued that under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, specifically Explanation No. 2, jurisdiction is determined by the location of the principal office or where the cause of action arises. The Supreme Court held that since the contract was to be performed in Karachi, the cause of action vested jurisdiction in the courts at Karachi, not Islamabad. The Court emphasized that for corporate entities, jurisdiction is tied to the place of business or the location where the cause of action arises. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the plaint was ordered to be returned for filing in the competent court at Karachi.
Questions settled- Does the place of performance of a contract determine the territorial jurisdiction for a civil suit?
- How does Explanation No. 2 to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to corporate entities regarding jurisdiction?
- Can a plaint be returned for filing in a competent court if the initial court lacks territorial jurisdiction?
- M/s. Recorder Television Network (Pvt) Ltd vs Pakistan Electronic MediaSindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Rasheed C.N.G. Station vs Federation of Pakistan, etcK.L.R. 2015 Civil Cases 80 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-04Read full judgment →
- M/s. Rabbiya Associates vs M/s Zong (China Mobile) and othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking a temporary injunction in a suit for declaration, damages, and permanent injunction filed by a builder against telecom operators and a resident association president, seeking to restrain the installation of mobile communication base transceiver station (BTS) antennas on the rooftop of a residential building. The core legal questions concerned whether an individual flat owner could license rooftop space without express ownership rights, whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for injunction, and the extent of regulatory oversight required for BTS installations regarding health, safety, and environmental standards. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for an outright injunction since the project affairs and maintenance had been handed over to a residents association, and individual flat owners generally lack the authority to lease common rooftops without clear title. However, considering larger public interest and environmental safety, the court disposed of the injunction application by mandating compliance with telecom, environmental, and cantonment regulations, directing site inspections by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Cantonment Board, and ordering future rental proceeds to be deposited with the court Nazir pending trial. The key principles laid down emphasize that cellular tower installations must strictly adhere to national standards concerning electromagnetic radiation hazards, require prior regulatory compliance, and that rooftop leasing rights in apartment buildings depend strictly on specific title deeds or association governance rather than individual assumptions.
Questions settled- Whether an individual flat owner can lease out a building rooftop for the installation of a mobile BTS antenna without explicit leasehold rights to the rooftop?
- Does the installation of mobile base station antennas attract the right to life and protection from electromagnetic hazards under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- What mandatory regulatory standards and inspection requirements apply to cellular mobile operators installing radio base station antennas under the Protection from Health Related Effects of Radio Base Station Antennas Regulations 2008?
- Whether electromagnetic radiation falls within the definition of air pollutants under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 requiring environmental assessment?
- M/s. Punjab Oil Mills,Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan, etcPTCL 2015 CL. 815, 2015 PTD 1219 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. PT. Synergy Oil Nusantara, Karachi vs M/s. Evergreen Marine2015 PTD 279, PTCL 2015 CL.689 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit and two associated miscellaneous applications arose in unusual circumstances concerning the proposed re-export of edible oil imported into Karachi and claimed as frustrated cargo. The plaintiff, an Indonesian company, shipped goods destined for Afghanistan under the Pakistan-Afghanistan Transit Trade Treaty, but due to errors in the import general manifest (IGM) and subsequent cancellations by successive Afghan buyers, the goods remained uncollected. The plaintiff sought permission to re-export the goods without paying duties and taxes, and later applied to restrain the Customs Department from auctioning them. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of 'frustrated cargo' under section 138 of the Customs Act, 1969, and Rules 86 to 89 and Rule 648 of the Customs Rules, 2001, specifically regarding inadvertence, misdirection, and the untraceability of a consignee in relation to straight bills versus order bills of lading. The court held that while Rule 648 and the 'inadvertence' or 'misdirection' grounds under section 138 were inapplicable because the goods were intentionally brought into the Karachi customs-station, the subsequent substitute bills of lading qualified as 'other documents' under Rule 88 alongside the IGM. The court disposed of the applications by directing the Collector of Customs to reconsider the matter and determine whether the goods constituted frustrated cargo due to an untraceable consignee, while restraining the Department from auctioning the goods in the interim.
Questions settled- Whether goods intentionally brought into a customs-station can be classified as frustrated cargo by reason of inadvertence or misdirection under section 138 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does section 138 of the Customs Act, 1969 apply to an order bill of_lading of the second kind where no consignee is named on the face of the bill?
- Are subsequent substitute bills of lading to be regarded as 'other documents' under Rule 88 of the Customs Rules, 2001 alongside the import general manifest when determining frustrated cargo?
- What constitutes an untraceable consignee for the purpose of re-exporting frustrated cargo under section 138 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- M/s. Polyfine Chempharma (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Monopoly Control Authority, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 382 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal filed under Section 20 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control & Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 against an order of the Monopoly Control Authority whereby the appellant was penalized with a fine of Rs. 100,000 and directed to provide certain business information. The core legal question was whether the respondent Authority was empowered to requisition information from the appellant undertaking under the Ordinance, and whether the appellant's failure to supply such information justified the imposition of the fine. The Islamabad High Court held that the Authority possesses wide powers under Section 21 of the Ordinance to call for information from any undertaking concerning its activities, and the appellant had willfully defaulted by maintaining an unlawful stance that the law did not apply to it. The Court laid down the principle that undertakings are legally bound to comply with information requisitions made by the Monopoly Control Authority pursuant to Section 21, and failure to do so warrants penal action.
Questions settled- Whether the Monopoly Control Authority is empowered to call for business information from an undertaking under Section 21 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control & Prevention) Ordinance, 1970?
- Does the refusal of an undertaking to provide requested information on the ground that the Ordinance does not apply to it constitute a lawful excuse?
- Can a penalty be imposed upon an undertaking for willful failure to furnish information required by the Monopoly Control Authority?
- M/s. Pharmatec Pakistan Ltd. through Managing Director Karachi and 32015 PLJ Peshawar 402 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Regular First Appeal challenged a civil court decree awarding recovery of money to the respondent. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the appeal, asserting that the appellant company had not authorized the filing through a valid resolution of its Board of Directors. The core legal question was whether legal proceedings initiated on behalf of a company by persons lacking a formal, duly convened Board resolution are maintainable. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent and dismissed it. It affirmed the principle that legal proceedings on behalf of a corporation must be authorized by a resolution passed in a properly convened meeting of the Board of Directors, in accordance with the company's articles of association. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that where the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be performed strictly in that manner. As the appellants failed to provide evidence of a valid resolution or proper authorization for the signatories, the proceedings were deemed a nullity.
Questions settled- Is an appeal filed on behalf of a company maintainable if the signatory lacks authorization from a properly convened Board of Directors meeting?
- Must legal proceedings on behalf of a company be authorized by a resolution passed in a meeting specifically convened for that purpose?
- Can a company's legal proceedings be validated by a document that fails to refer to a specific Board meeting or minutes?
- M/s. Paramount International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan through2015 P.C.T.L.R. 90 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan Mobile Communications Ltd vs Sindh Revenue Board, KarachiPTCL 2015 CL.25 · Sindh High Court · 2014-06-16Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan International Container Terminal Limited vs Noor2015 NLR Civil 509 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Pak Autos vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 643 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-04Read full judgment →
- M/s. Nishat Chunian Ltd vs Federal Board of Revenue and othersPTCL 2015 CL. 16 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-05Read full judgment →
- M/s. National Logistic Cell, Karachi. M/s. National Logistic Cell, Karachi.M/s.PTCL 2015 CL.739 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2014-08-12Read full judgment →
- M/s. Montgomery Flour and General Mills through its Chief Executive vs2015 PLJ Lahore 1170 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Montgomery Flour & General Mills vs Muslim Commercial Bank2015 PLJ Lahore 887 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Monno O Industries Limited M/s. Margalla Textile Mills Limited vsNLR 2015 Tax 146 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The subject appeals were filed by private limited companies engaged in the manufacturing and sale of textile products against appellate orders upholding the enforcement of sales tax payments made under an amnesty scheme. The core legal question was whether a taxpayer, having made a deposit under amnesty SRO 179(1)/2013 without prejudice, is precluded from seeking adjudication and a decision on the merits regarding the legality and payability of the tax, and whether suppliers can be penalized for the subsequent status or omissions of buyers. The Appellate Tribunal held that availing concessions under an amnesty notification does not bar a taxpayer from pursuing adjudication or appeals on merits, and that taxpayers are entitled to a decision on the validity of the tax and refund of amounts paid under protest. The Tribunal further laid down that the status of the buyer at the time of the supply of goods must be considered, and suppliers cannot be penalized for defaults or omissions on the part of buyers.
Questions settled- Whether availing a concession under a sales tax amnesty notification precludes a registered person from agitating its rights and pursuing appeals on the merits of the tax liability?
- Is a taxpayer entitled to a refund of sales tax paid under protest pursuant to an amnesty scheme if the tax was not legally due?
- Whether the status of a buyer existing at the time of the supply of goods is to be considered when deciding a show-cause notice rather than any status attained subsequently?
- Can a registered supplier be penalized or held liable for failures or omissions on the part of a buyer in declaring correct purchases?
- M/s. Mfmy Industries Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan through2015 PLJ SC 976 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of a High Court judgment challenged on the grounds of inordinate delay in its pronouncement. The appellants contended that the judgment, delivered one year and three months after the conclusion of arguments, constituted improper judicial dispensation. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether such delay vitiates a judicial decision. The Court held that the judiciary must function efficiently, as "justice delayed is justice denied." It established mandatory timelines for judgment pronouncement: 30 days for trial courts, 45 days for appellate district courts, and 90 days for High Courts, with a maximum limit of 120 days for the latter. The Court emphasized that judgments delivered after excessive delays, particularly when they fail to reflect the arguments or evidence presented, violate the rule of audi alteram partem and the requirement for effective hearings. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside for failing to meet the standards of proper judicial dispensation, and the case was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision.
Questions settled- Does an inordinate delay in the pronouncement of a judgment after the conclusion of arguments vitiate the decision?
- What is the maximum reasonable time period for a High Court to pronounce a judgment after the conclusion of arguments?
- Is a judgment delivered after an excessive delay without sufficient cause liable to be set aside?
- Does the failure to pronounce a judgment within the statutory timeframe constitute a violation of the rule of audi alteram partem?
- M/s. MCB Bank Ltd vs The Commissioner, Inland RevenuePTCL 2015 CL. 360 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. Marvi Pharmaceuticals (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi through their2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1280 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a suit filed by the plaintiff for rendition, declaration, settlement of accounts, damages, and permanent injunction against the defendant, wherein the defendant filed an application seeking unconditional grant of leave to defend. The core legal question was whether the defendant is entitled to leave to defend when the plaintiff's claim involves substantial unliquidated damages. The court held that since the plaintiff claimed heavy financial damages requiring evidence in pro and contra, the application for leave to defend should be granted. The court accordingly treated the leave to defend application as a written statement, settled the issues between the parties, and appointed a commissioner for recording evidence. The key principle laid down is that where a suit involves substantial claims for damages that necessitate contradictory evidence, leave to defend must be granted to enable a fair trial on merits.
Questions settled- Whether leave to defend should be granted when a suit involves substantial claims for damages requiring pro and contra evidence?
- Can an application under Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 be treated as a written statement upon the grant of leave to defend?
- Whether a court can appoint a commissioner for recording evidence upon settling the issues in a commercial suit?
- M/s. Khyber Tea & Food Company, Peshawar and--others. vs The Collector2015 PTD (Trib.) 2480, PTCL 2015 CL.132 · Customs Appellate Tribunal · 2014-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Customs Appellate Tribunal arose from an order of the Collector Customs (Appeals) upholding the confiscation of ten bags of black tea by the customs authorities. The core legal questions involved whether the seized black tea, which was locally purchased, processed, and repacked by a registered manufacturer, constituted smuggled goods under the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the appellant successfully discharged the burden of proof regarding lawful possession and import. The Tribunal held that since the appellant produced valid import documents, sales tax invoices showing payment of taxes, and proof of purchase from the original importer, the evidentiary burden under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969 stood discharged, shifting the ultimate burden to the prosecution to prove smuggling, which it failed to do. Furthermore, the Tribunal established that locally manufactured or repacked goods purchased from local markets and supported by tax invoices are not liable to confiscation as smuggled goods. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the confiscation order set aside.
Questions settled- Whether locally repacked goods purchased from the local market through valid sales tax invoices can be classified as smuggled goods under the Customs Act, 1969?
- How does the burden of proof shift between the accused and the customs authorities under Section 187 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Is it mandatory to mention the country of origin in a sales tax invoice for locally purchased and repacked imported goods?
- What are the legal consequences when the seizing officer fails to issue a notice under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1969 before seizing goods?
- M/s. Khan and Co vs Deputy Commissioner-Ir (Audit-IX), Zone-III, R.T.O.,PTCL 2015 CL.756 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-12-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Khan & Co. Manz Kali, Kowar Mang, Bisham vs Deputy2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1009, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Pesh.) 1, PTCL 2015 CL.756, 2015 PTD · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP) vs The Learned Judge2015 CLD 1089, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 227 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-11Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ihsan Yousaf Textiles (Pvt.) Limited vs The Commissioner of Income2015 P.C.T.L.R. 218 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Ibrahim Oil Mills, etc. vs MCB Limited2015 CLD 802, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 310 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Banking Court judgment and decree for the recovery of finances. The appellants sought leave to defend, arguing that pledged stock held by the respondent bank had been stolen, thereby absolving them of liability, and further contended that the suit was incompetently filed. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a dispute regarding the status or loss of pledged goods does not constitute a valid defense to prevent a decree in a banking suit. The Court affirmed that a financial institution may sue for debt recovery while treating the pledge as collateral security. Issues concerning the availability, condition, or loss of pledged goods are not grounds for granting leave to defend but are to be adjudicated by the Executing Court during execution proceedings. Relying on Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court emphasized that the Executing Court is fully empowered to determine all questions regarding the satisfaction or discharge of a decree. Consequently, the appellants' liability remained intact, and the procedural objections regarding the suit's filing were rejected.
Questions settled- Can a defendant be granted leave to defend a banking suit on the ground that pledged goods were lost or stolen while in the bank's possession?
- Is the Executing Court empowered to determine questions regarding the status and availability of pledged goods in execution proceedings?
- Does the loss of pledged goods absolve a borrower from their liability to repay the debt to the financial institution?
- Can a financial institution file a suit for recovery of debt without first selling the pledged goods?
- M/s. Hub Power Co. Limited, Islamabad vs Cir, Ltu, Islamabad2015 P.C.T.L.R. 22 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-06-17Read full judgment →
- M/s. Hospitality Enterprises (Salt N Paper), Lahore vs Additional Collector-Ill,2015 P.C.T.L.R. 188 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2013-11-08Read full judgment →
- M/s. Hamsons Industries, Karachi vs Secretary, Revenue Division,2015 P.C.T.L.R. 105 · Federal Tax Ombudsman · 2014-05-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Golden Textile Mills Ltd. Bhai Pheru, District Kasur through Chief2015 PLJ Karachi 160 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-09Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ghaffar and Company, Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan through the2015 P.C.T.L.R. 775 · Sindh High Court · 2013-07-04Read full judgment →
- M/s. Friends Associate Builders & Developers vs Town MunicipalSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Fazal Sons, etc vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited2015 C.L.R. 494 · Lahore High Court · 2015-01-26Read full judgment →
- M/s. Fauji Cement Company Limited vs Government of Pakistan andPTCL 2015 CL. 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan impugned a judgment of the High Court regarding the entitlement of the appellant to duty exemptions on imported plant and machinery under an S.R.O. notification. The central legal questions concerned whether the statutory provisions of Section 31A of the Customs Act 1969 apply irrespective of issues raised before lower forums, and whether the appellant could claim exemption benefits after the expiry of the relevant S.R.O. notification. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the High Court. The Court held that Section 31A of the Customs Act 1969 governs the applicable date of import for customs duty purposes, making the date of import determinative rather than the establishment of a Letter of Credit. Since the appellant imported the machinery after the expiry date of the notification and concurrent factual findings confirmed that similar machinery was manufactured locally, the appellant was held ineligible for duty exemption.
Questions settled- Does Section 31A of the Customs Act 1969 apply to determine customs duty based on the date of import regardless of whether the issue was raised in forums below?
- Can an importer claim the concession of an S.R.O. notification if the actual date of import occurs after the expiry of that notification?
- Can the High Court under Section 196 of the Customs Act interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal regarding whether machinery is locally manufactured?
- M/s. Farooq :Ghee & Oils Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Marks,2015 PLJ SC 788 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court maintaining the Registrar of Trade Marks' order, which favored Respondent No. 2 by registering the trade mark "HAYAT" under Class 29 and dismissing the petitioner's competing mark "FAROOQ'S Hayat" and its opposition applications. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's adoption of "FAROOQ'S Hayat" infringed upon the prior-used and dominant registered trade mark "HAYAT" under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and whether copyright registration under the Copyright Act, 1962 could override trade mark protections. The Supreme Court held that merely adding an inconspicuous prefix like "FAROOQ'S" to a dominant existing trade mark does not prevent deception or confusion under Sections 8 and 10 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and that copyright registration protects artistic expression rather than substituting for trade mark rights. The court dismissed the petitions, establishing that copyright registration cannot be used as an alternate defense to bypass trade mark infringement.
Questions settled- Whether the addition of a prefix to a pre-existing dominant trade mark is sufficient to avoid confusion and deception under the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- Can registration under the Copyright Act, 1962 be used as a substitute for trade mark registration or as a defense against trade mark infringement?
- Does prior use of a trade mark in international markets and subsequent import into Pakistan establish prior user rights against a later domestic applicant?
- M/s. Farooq Ghee and Oils Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade2015 P.S.C. 995 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged a judgment of the Sindh High Court upholding the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to register the trademark "HAYAT" in Class 29 for respondent No. 2 (IFFCO), while dismissing the petitioners' application for "Farooq's Hayat". The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners' adoption of a composite mark containing the dominant feature "HAYAT" with a prefix constituted infringement and likelihood of deception under the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and whether a copyright registration under the Copyright Ordinance, 1962 could override trademark rights. The Supreme Court held that the dominant and striking feature of the competing mark was indeed "HAYAT", and simply adding an inconspicuous prefix like "Farooq's" was insufficient to prevent confusion or deception among consumers, thereby violating Sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. Furthermore, the court held that copyright registration protects only the artistic expression or get-up of a work and cannot be used as a substitute for trademark registration or to misappropriate another's intellectual property. The petitions were consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the addition of an inconspicuous prefix to an existing registered trademark avoids the likelihood of confusion and deception under the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
- Can a copyright registration under the Copyright Ordinance, 1962 be used as an alternate or substitute for trademark registration to justify the use of a deceptively similar mark?
- Does Section 8(a) and Section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 prohibit the registration of a trademark that incorporates the dominant and striking feature of a prior user's mark?
- M/s. Faran Sugar Mills through Manager/Attorney vs Registrar Trade2015 PLJ Karachi 98 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Unions concerning the registration of a trade union. The petitioner contended that the Registrar failed to conduct an impartial inquiry as previously directed by the Court and violated the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question was whether the Registrar acted in accordance with the law and the Court's prior directions. The Court held that the Registrar had complied with the previous court order, provided an opportunity for a hearing, and issued a reasoned, speaking order. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for appellate jurisdiction or to resolve factual disputes where the statutory authority has acted within its jurisdiction and followed the required procedure. The judgment reaffirms that judicial review is limited to ensuring statutory authorities adhere to mandatory procedures rather than re-evaluating factual determinations made by competent authorities.
Questions settled- Can constitutional jurisdiction be used as a substitute for appellate jurisdiction?
- Is a petition maintainable against a provincial statutory functionary if the provincial government is not joined as a party?
- Does the Registrar of Trade Unions have the authority to determine the validity of a trade union registration through an inquiry?
- M/s. Ericson Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad vs Cir, Ltu, Islamabad2015 P.C.T.L.R. 44 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue addresses cross-appeals filed by a registered taxpayer and the Revenue department against an order of the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals). The core legal questions involved whether composite transactions comprising both materials and services are exigible to sales tax as supplies, the validity of sales tax adjustments on sales returns without debit and credit notes, the admissibility of input tax claims without purchase invoices or beyond the statutory time frame, and the legality of Special Excise Duty. The Tribunal held that where services are an integral part and component of goods supplied under composite contracts, the entire consideration forms part of the value of supply subject to sales tax, and input tax cannot be claimed disproportionately. Furthermore, holding valid purchase invoices is mandatory for input tax adjustments, and matters of time-barred input tax may be addressed through statutory condonation procedures. The Tribunal laid down principles regarding the taxation of composite supplies and the mandatory nature of documentary compliance under the Sales Tax Act, 1990 and the Federal Excise Act, 2005.
Questions settled- Whether composite transactions involving both materials and services in the telecommunications sector are liable to sales tax on the entire invoiced amount as a supply?
- Can a registered person claim input tax adjustment without holding valid purchase invoices as mandated by the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- Whether a sales return adjustment can be allowed in monthly returns in the absence of prescribed debit and credit notes?
- Can time-barred input tax claims be regularized through statutory condonation and procedure provisions under sections 66 and 74 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
- M/s. Engineers Associated Precast (Pvt.) Limited,18 KM Sheikhupura' Road,PTCL 2015 CL. 787 · Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue · 2014-09-18Read full judgment →
- M/s. Dewan Farooque Karachi vs Commissioner Of Income Motors Limited,2015 SHC 27 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-28Read full judgment →
- M/s. DBH, Joint Venture Projects. v Ltd vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc.PTCL 2015 CL. 810 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-01-29Read full judgment →
- M/s. Daewoo Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan and others2015 LHC 4187, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1112 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Conimpex Hatchery and Breeding Farm, Multan Cantt. through its2015 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 223 · Labour Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant-employer challenged the judgment of the Labour Court which had accepted the respondent-employee's grievance petition and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The respondent, a Security Guard, was terminated from service without written notice or inquiry after returning from medical leave. The appellant raised preliminary objections, claiming the respondent was not their employee, was negligent, and that the petition was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party because the company was sued through its General Manager instead of its Chief Executive. The Labour Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant's witness admitted the authenticity of the respondent's employment and medical documents, and that no proof of negligence was produced. The Tribunal held that under Standing Orders 12(3) and 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, an employee's services cannot be terminated without a written order stating explicit reasons, a show-cause notice, and a proper inquiry. Furthermore, under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008, the definition of an employer includes management, and since the Chief Executive actively contested the proceedings, no prejudice was caused by the technical misdescription. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can an employer terminate the services of a workman without issuing a written order explicitly stating the reasons for such termination?
- Is a domestic inquiry and show-cause notice mandatory under Standing Order 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 before dismissing a workman for misconduct?
- Does the misdescription or non-joinder of a company's Chief Executive defeat a labour grievance petition if the company was actively represented and defended by its management without any prejudice being caused?
- M/s. Colony Textile Mills Ltd. vs Water & Power Development Authority2015 LHC 3019 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-13Read full judgment →
- M/s. CoCa-Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited vs Government of Punjab, etc.2015 PLC 186, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 726 · Lahore High Court · 2014-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves multiple writ petitions filed by CoCa-Cola Beverages Pakistan Limited challenging an order issued by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which directed the payment of unpaid wages and other dues to private respondents claiming to be employees of the company. The core legal question is whether the High Court should entertain constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan against an order of the Authority when an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal exists under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, particularly where the statutory appeal requires a mandatory deposit of the awarded amount. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner bypassed the statutory appellate forum merely to avoid depositing the awarded sum as mandated by Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The court held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to circumvent statutory remedies and defeat the legislative intent of a beneficial labour legislation. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot bypass a statutory remedy of appeal requiring the deposit of awarded sums in order to invoke the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court without exceptional justification.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against an order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 when a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act is available?
- Can an employer bypass the requirement of depositing the awarded amount under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does an appeal lie from a decision of a court or authority even if it is alleged to have exercised jurisdiction without lawful authority?
- Is the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 considered a beneficial legislation that must be construed to advance the remedy provided to workers?
- M/s. Chief Sarhad Cargo Service, etc vs Judge Banking Court No, II, Lahore,2015 P.C.T.L.R. 254 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-18Read full judgment →
- M/s. Chaudhary Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Chief Commissioner etc2015 LHC 5713, PLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Lah.) 124 · Lahore High Court · 2015-09-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Capital Poultry Feed and Daal Mills, etc. vs Atlas Bank Limited, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 766 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Banking Court dismissing the appellants' objection petition and confirming the sale of mortgaged property to the auction purchasers in execution proceedings. The core legal questions involve whether the auction was vitiated due to alleged non-issuance of notices under Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, substitution of the property, and whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to execution proceedings under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is a special law providing a self-contained summary procedure in execution, excluding strict adherence to the Code of Civil Procedure, and that substantial compliance with publication and lack of proven substantial injury precludes setting aside an auction sale. The key principles laid down include that non-compliance with procedural rules regarding execution sale proclamation amounts to a mere irregularity rather than a nullity, and that an auction cannot be set aside without establishing direct evidence of substantial injury resulting from the irregularity.
Questions settled- Whether the non-issuance of a fresh notice under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vitiates an auction sale when the judgment-debtor already had knowledge of the auction proceedings?
- Does the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 exclude the application of the Code of Civil Procedure during execution proceedings conducted by a Banking Court?
- Can an auction sale be set aside on the ground of procedural irregularity without proof of substantial injury sustained by the applicant?
- Whether it is the prerogative of the decree-holder to seek the sale of any or all mortgaged properties in execution of a decree?
- M/s. Capital Poultry Feed and Daal Mills etc. vs Atlas Bank Limited, etc.2015 PLJ Islamabad 167 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. Bisma Textile Mills Limited, Lahore. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2015 LHC 8064 · Lahore High Court · 2015-11-20Read full judgment →
- M/s. Bilal International vs Federation of Pakistan & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Bannu Woolen Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others2015 PTD 1058, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 548 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-02-17Read full judgment →
- M/s. Baig Enterprises and Engineering vs Federation of Pakistan and 22015 PTD 181, PTCL 2015 CL.240 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Associated Industries Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others2015 P.C.T.L.R. 199 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. Associated Industries Ltd vs Government of Pakistan and 4 othersPTCL 2015 CL. 332 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-05-29Read full judgment →
- M/s. Asia Poultry Feeds (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue etc.2015 LHC 4844 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-23Read full judgment →
- M/s. Arslan Poultry Pvt. Limited vs Officer Inland Revenue and othersPLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Isl.) 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-05Read full judgment →
- M/s. Arslan Poultry (Pvt.) Limited vs Officer Inland Revenue, etc.2015 P.C.T.L.R. 271 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Arsalan Poultry (Pvt.) Limited vs Officer Inland Revenue, Etc.sNLR 2015 Tax 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-09-01Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ali Traders and another vs National Bank of Pakistan2015 P.C.T.L.R. 556 · Lahore High Court · 2014-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a Banking Court judgment decreeing a suit for the recovery of finance against the appellants. The appellants sought leave to defend, contending that the bank had not adjusted the account correctly and, crucially, that the bank still retained possession of the pledged rice stocks, despite the bank's claim that these had been released against trust receipts. The Trial Court dismissed the application for leave to defend on technical grounds under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. On appeal, the High Court held that the dispute regarding the possession of pledged goods—supported by conflicting evidence like stock reports and delivery orders—constituted a substantial question of fact requiring evidence. The Court affirmed the principle that a pawnee is bound to return pledged goods upon payment of the debt and cannot simultaneously recover the debt while retaining the goods. Consequently, the Court set aside the decree, granted leave to defend, and remanded the case for trial to resolve the factual controversy through evidence.
Questions settled- Can a banking court decree a suit without granting leave to defend when there is a substantial dispute regarding the possession of pledged goods?
- Is a pledgee entitled to recover the full debt while retaining the pledged goods?
- Does the inability of a pledgee to redeliver pledged goods affect their right to obtain a decree for the recovery of the debt?
- M/s. Al-Imdad General Trading Co. through Proprietor vs PakistanPLJ 2015 Tax Cases (Pesh.) DB · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Al Amna International through Proprietor vs Federation of Pakistan2015 P.C.T.L.R. 192 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-11Read full judgment →
- M/s. AirwaVes Media (Pvt.) Ltd vs The Rent Controller (West) & two others2015 KLR Civil Cases 448 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-06Read full judgment →
- M/s. Ahsan Brothers vs Federation of Pakistan & othersSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s. Advance Telecom vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others2015 PTD 462, PTCL 2015 CL.406 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-22Read full judgment →
- M/s. Advance Business System, etc vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2015 PLJ Islamabad 322 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-05Read full judgment →
- M/s. A.M. Associates vs Government of KPK and others2015 PLJ SC 156 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside a trial court decree that had made an arbitration award the rule of the court. The appellant contractor and respondent government agency had entered into a road construction agreement funded by an ADB loan. Disputes arose regarding idle period costs and ransom paid due to militant activities halting work. A Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) was initially formed, which two of its members converted into an arbitration council, ultimately issuing an award filed under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Supreme Court considered whether the arbitration proceedings were validly conducted by only two members in the absence of the third member and Chairman. The Court held that the failure of the two arbitrators to include the Chairman rendered the arbitration council coram non judice, without jurisdiction, and amounted to legal misconduct. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the setting aside of the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration award rendered by two members of a tribunal in the absence and exclusion of the third member Chairman is sustainable in law?
- Does the failure to include all designated members in arbitration proceedings render the tribunal coram non judice?
- Can an arbitration award passed without following the proper constitution and procedure prescribed by the contract and rules be made the rule of the court?
- M/s. 0. S. Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2015 CL.510 · Lahore High Court · 2014-04-03Read full judgment →
- M/s Wazir Ali Industries Ltd vs The Appellate Tribunal & others2015 SHC 50 · Sindh High Court · 2011-12-16Read full judgment →
- M/s United Exports Company vs Regional Tx office through Commissioner2015 SHC 29 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Telephone Industries of Pakistan and another vs Respondents Ghulam2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenges an appellate court order that remanded a civil suit to the trial court for recording evidence. The underlying suit challenged a land acquisition award from 1967 and a subsequent mutation attested in 1984, filed by the respondents in 2009. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or if the appellate court was justified in remanding the matter for a full trial. The High Court held that the appellate court erred in remanding the case. It determined that the suit was clearly barred by limitation and that the land acquisition award, having the status of a decree, could not be challenged after such an extensive delay. The court reaffirmed the principle that frivolous litigation, particularly regarding established land acquisition proceedings, should be nipped in the bud at the inception stage. Consequently, the High Court set aside the remand order and restored the trial court’s rejection of the plaint.
Questions settled- Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on documents like a land acquisition award?
- Does a land acquisition award under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 have the status of a decree?
- Is it appropriate for an appellate court to remand a case for evidence when the suit is clearly barred by limitation?
- Can a civil court entertain a challenge to a land acquisition award decades after the acquisition proceedings were finalized?
- M/s Swera Traders vs The Customs Appellate Tribunal and others2015 LHC 1476 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-23Read full judgment →
- M/s Siddiq Traders vs The Deputy Collector Customs Appraisement andSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s SHV Energy Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Province of the Punjab etc2015 LHC 5407 · Lahore High Court · 2015-08-26Read full judgment →
- M/s Samia Faiz Durrani & Manzoorul Haq for Appellant. vs Mr. MuhammadSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Salman Tin Merchant, vs The Collector of Customs, Model CustomsSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Sajid Chemical vs The Director General of Customs Valuation &Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Sadia Industries and 3 others vs Soneri Bank LimitedSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Rana Textiles Limited vs Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited etc.2015 LHC 3817 · Lahore High Court · 2015-06-03Read full judgment →
- M/s Raja Weaving Mills Limited, Karachi vs The Commissioner Income Tax,Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- (1) M/s Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd. (2) M/s Telenor Pakistan (Pvt)Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s Pak. Suzuki Motor Company vs The Collector of CustomSindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- M/s One 2 one Solutionz Pvt. Ltd vs Post Master General KPK2015-PHC · Peshawar High Court · 2015-05-20Read full judgment →