1) 2511/2021 Const. P. Inspector Syed Saeed Akhtar Naqvi and Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
At this juncture, learned AAG contends that there is another judgment i.e. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Punjab Lahore etc. v. Ms. Shamim Usman (Civil Petition No.1097-L of 2020) and extends his no objection that if the matter is referred to the Competent Authority, who shall examine the case of the petitioners alongwith their batch-mates as well seniors within the guidelines of dicta laid down by the apex Court and rules in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 03 months. Needless to mention that any findings of that Committee can be challenged by the petitioners or by any aggrieved person through independent proceedings and not under the contempt proceedings.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that in another inquiry competent officers opined that the case of Gul Hassan Jatoi (supra) is not applicable to them with regard to promotion, suffice to say that Police Rules are binding upon authorities, however, interpretation of the apex Court and guidelines provided in judgment, particularly paragraphs 56 and 71, shall be examined as afresh and earlier opinion shall not come in the way of promotion.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 14-SEP-21
2) 1718/2021 Const. P. Muhammad Aslam and Others (Petitioner) V/S The Sect: Education & Literacy Dept & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
we dispose of this petition with direction to the Secretary Education (Schools) that Grievance Redressal Committee shall examine the case of the petitioners after providing opportunity of hearing and in case they are qualified, having merits, they shall be accommodated/appointed in view of earlier advertisement made in 2018 and the policy
Read more Matter:
APPOINTMENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 06-SEP-21
3) 4884/2020 Const. P. Ghulam Murtaza (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:BID
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Order Date: 14-SEP-21
4) 5517/2021 Const. P. M/s W.R Edible Oil Refinery (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Federal Excise Duty (Section 46)
Tag Line:
while exercising jurisdiction under ibid section 46(2)
primary notice had already been sent to the petitioner vide letter dated
01.09.2021, however, the same is not impugned here, perhaps for the
reason that cognizance against the petitioner, being involved in alleged
fraud or evasion of duty, may have been taken and disclosed therein.
Hence, unless there is a challenged to the initial/primary notice issued
on 01.09.2021, it cannot be conceived that the instant impugned notice
under section 46 of Federal Excise Act, 2005, which is dated 06.09.2021,
is devoid of any such prerequisite of Section 46 of ibid Act of 2005. It is
not even disclosed and/or pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has
not received any such notice dated 01.09.2021..
Read more Matter:
FED. EXCISE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 14-SEP-21
5) 1955/2021 Const. P. Bashir Ahmed Soomro (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
we direct the respondents that they shall constitute a fresh Board comprising of recruitment committee/Board and they shall conduct test in the applied Chemistry as well as provide ample opportunity to the Petitioner for an interview and shall pass a speaking order with regard to his regularization in case if he qualifies shall be accommodated within two months. It is pertinent to mention here that recruitment committee shall also examine the cases of the persons/employees who were batchmats of the petitioner were regularized; petitioner shall also be treated one same anology.
Read more Matter:
AGAINST NOTIFICATION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 13-SEP-21
6) 5467/2021 Const. P. Jamal Muhammad (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Admittedly the petitioner is/was a civil servant and the question of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him ought to have been assailed before the learned Sindh Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1974, however, he remained silent for the considerable time and purportedly preferred mercy appeal for reinstatement in service in the year 2008 followed by another application in the year 2020. Besides that, the disciplinary matters fall within the expression ???terms and conditions of service???. Hence, the same cannot be called into question under Article 199 of the Constitution to set aside the dismissal from service order.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-SEP-21
7) 4356/2019 Const. P. Arshad Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Without prejudice to above, since there is consent order, no review was preferred even that order was not assailed. In case, if there was no deduction by the department and they were sending salary directly to the account; that is not justification to withhold group insurance. Accordingly, Secretary Health, Government of Sindh shall ensure that group insurance amount is paid as per her entitlement to the nominee without any delay. While parting this order, learned AG Sindh shall ensure presence of any focal person of Accountant General Sindh (A.G. Sindh) to assist this Court that under what capacity complete salary was transferred and they failed to deduct the amount and who were responsible with regard to such irregularity, if any. This exercise shall be completed within 15 days.
Read more Matter:
PENSION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 01-SEP-21
8) 5430/2020 Const. P. Imad Samad (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Custom Act (SRO 833(I)/2018 Section 19), Import Policy , Rules of Business, 1973 (Schedule-II), Custom Act (Section 19), Import Policy Order 2020, Rules of Business, 1973, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950
Tag Line:
- Import of vintage cars on the strength of SRO No.833(I)/2018 dated 03.07.2018
followed by a decision in the case of Moin Jamal Abbasi in CP No.D-4124
of 2019 reported as 2020 PTD 660.
--Full Bench was constituted to consider the question arising out of
litigation:-
Whether the subject SRO No.833(I)/2018 issued in terms of
Section 19 of Customs Act, 1969 can also be treated as SRO issued
by the Ministry of Commerce in terms of Section 3 of the Import
& Export Control Act, 1950, permitting import of vintage cars
which are otherwise not importable as being old and used in
terms of the Import Policy Order of both 2016 and 2020.
Read more Matter:
CUSTOM MATTER
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
Order Date: 10-SEP-21
9) 1601/2008 Suit Mst. Shahnaz (Plaintiff) V/S Muhammad Saleem & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 27-AUG-21
10) 2636/2015 Const. P. M/S Thatta Cement Company (Petitioner) V/S Ghulam Muhammad and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio(Author)
Order Date: 03-SEP-21
11) 603/2020 Const. P. Aisha Steel Mills Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
12) 313/2018 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. Commissioner I-R Zone-Vi (Applicant) V/S M/s. Fab Tax Industries (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sales Tax
Tag Line:
The impugned order dated 07.03.2018 passed by Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue (Pakistan) Karachi; as well as of Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals-III), Karachi dated 19.01.2015.
The question, reframed and, placed before us in Court today prima facie does not arise out of the findings of the impugned order. Even Section 21(3) of Sales Tax Act, 1990, relied upon in the re framed question yet extraneous to the findings impugned, when perused appears to militate against the case articulated by applicant???s counsel. It seems that unnecessarily the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by filing of the instant reference and perhaps on questions of fact, as proposed, nothing could turn.
Read more Matter:
TAX MATTER Advocates:Muhammad Aqeel Qureshi()
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 12-AUG-21
13) 4496/2018 Const. P. Muhammad Sadiq (Petitioner) V/S Chairman EOBI and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
With regard to length of service, counsel for the EOBI contends that the petitioner remained employee of the respondent for a period of four years, therefore, he is not entitled for any benefit. Needless to mention that decision/termination was challenged by the petitioner in referred grievance application which was allowed, hence, it cannot be said that length of service of the petitioner was only four years. That service would be treated as upto the age of superannuation.
Read more Matter:
PENSION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 10-SEP-21
14) 4978/2021 Const. P. Dr. Muhammad Qasim (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
It is pertinent to mention that petitioner is working in BPS-19 and his promotion will be due after one year hence at this juncture questioning direct appointment on BPS-20 cannot be termed justified and legal; hence instant petition is dismissed.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 08-SEP-21
15) 5281/2021 Const. P. Ayaz Ahmed and Othes (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
relieving letters of employer (SSGC Limited/respondents No.2 and 3) is against the spirit of the judgment and that paragraph 61 of the judgment cannot be treated as against the petitioners, hence SSGC has taken wrong decision in interpretation of that judgment--It is settled principle of law that promulgation of Ordinances are passed only when the assembly is not in session. The Ordinances are meant to deal with a situation of emergency required to be endorsed by the Assembly--Without prejudice to the above, it may safely be added that interpretation may be done of the judgment of Honourable Apex Court but such course would not be available when the consequence of judgment of Honourable Apex Court is being challenged while referring to interpretation thereof by this Court. If such view is allowed to hold the field, the same shall open the rooms for making a challenge to consequences of judgment(s) of Honourable Apex Court which, we would insist, may prejudice the binding effect thereof, as insisted by Article 189 of the Constitution. In the instant matter, the authority claims to have passed the order in compliance of the judgment of Honourable Apex Court. The legal position, being so, leave us with no other option but to add that appropriate remedy to challenge the consequence of judgment of Honourable Apex Court is only by approaching the Apex Court. The instant petition, being incompetent, is dismissed in limine.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 07-SEP-21
16) 4864/2020 Const. P. Hasan Khursheed Hashmi (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:CANCELLATION OF PASSPORT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author)
Order Date: 04-JUN-21
17) 5674/2020 Const. P. M/s Spectrum Enterprises (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Sub-section 2 of Section 81 caters for a situation when the goods are
allowed to be cleared or delivered on the basis of provisional
determination, the amount of duty, taxes and charges correctly payable
to those goods shall be determined within six months from the date of
provisional determination. The time is further extendable provided the
officer concerned may in the circumstances of exceptional nature and
after recording such situation extends period of final determination,
which shall in no case exceeds ninety days.2 Proviso to sub-section 2
provides the calculating mechanism of the period prescribed in subsection 2 of Section 81. Sub-section 3 of Section 81 provides the
mechanism on completion of final determination. The amount already
paid or guaranteed shall be adjusted against the amount payable on the
basis of final determination and difference between the two amounts
shall be paid forthwith to or by the importer as the case may be.
--Indeed the ???Explanation??? in a statute/enactment does form an
integral part to the extent of explaining and elaborating meaning of the
word in the section3 and the purpose is to explain, clarify, add or subtract
something by clarification 4, however, the word provisional assessment is
neither used in sub-section 1 nor in sub-section 2. It is sub-section 1
which secured differential amount on provisional determination and not
provisional assessment 5.
If the interpretation of respondent is accepted then customs would
never bother to determine it finally and would enjoy benefit of not doing
anything after provisional release. We may observe that the respondent
conceded that the cause of delay in final determination is not attributable
to the importer.
Read more Matter:
CUSTOM MATTER
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 02-SEP-21
18) 4776/2021 Const. P. M/s Al-Hamd Steel Furnace (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Custom Act (amendment of Import General Manifest IGM)
Tag Line:
The amendment, as sought by the petitioner, could not have been
carried out in terms of Section 45(2) of Customs Act, 1969 as this section
relates to an ???obvious error??? in the import manifest or an omission
which in the opinion of such officer was result of an accident or
inadvertence. Petitioner???s case has not fallen in any of such exceptions
inviting and/or calling for an amendment or issuance of supplementary
import manifest as it is apparently a deliberate attempt to provide an
umbrella to the original consignee as against recovery of Rs.71.179
Million.
--Previously there was absolutely no permission whatsoever for
carrying out any amendment in the import manifest except as provided
in subsection (2). This subsection (3) was replaced by a proviso
introduced through Finance Act 2021 which now provides that before
berthing of vessel or the crossover of the vessel, as the case may be,
the person incharge of a conveyance or his duly authorized agent may
amend the import manifest subject to rules notified by the Board.
---The replaced subsection (3) of Section
45 would be applicable in the sense that except as provided in
subsection (2) no import manifest shall be amended. Event disclosed is
prior to amendment carried out via Finance Bill 2021. This would leave a
very little margin, in fact no margin, for the amendment sought to be
carried out in the import manifest in terms of subsection (2) as it is
specifically for an obvious error or in fact an omission, which in the
opinion of the concerned officer is a result of accident or inadvertence.
In fact petitioner???s case has not fallen in either of the two i.e. its case is
neither covered by subsection (2) of Section 45 nor the proviso recently
inserted by Finance Act, 2021.
Read more Matter:
CUSTOM MATTER
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 09-SEP-21
19) 292/2017 Suit Tatal Parco Pakistan Limited. (Plaintiff) V/S Sindh & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DECLARATION
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 25-AUG-21
20) 535/2016 Const. P. M. Qasim Jakhar (Petitioner) V/S Province of SIndh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Enforcement of decision of SST---Besides above, the point of laches is also involved in this matter on the ground that the petitioner has approached this court in the year 2016, whereas the alleged cause of action accrued to him in the year 2007 when he was purportedly terminated from his service, the reasoning assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has approached this court based on decision passed by the learned SST in the year 2010; that a constitutional petition involving violation and infringement of fundamental rights of the citizens could not be thrown out on the ground of delay in filing the same. We do not concur with this assertion of the learned counsel for the Petitioner with his explanation of laches as rights of the petitioner were not dependent upon other petitioners in the referred petition. We are of the considered view that the instant Petition falls within the doctrine of laches as the Petitioner filed the instant Petition in January 2016, whereas the alleged cause of action accrued to him in the year 2007, i.e. approximately 08 years before the filing of the instant Petition. It is well-settled law that those who slept over their rights cannot be given a premium of their own fault because such conduct does trigger the principle of waiver. The observations of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Ardeshir Cowasjee v. Karachi Building Control Authority (1999 SCMR 2883) is a guiding principle on the issue of laches.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-SEP-21
21) 48/2017 Suit Tauseef Ahmed. (Plaintiff) V/S Pearl Continetal Hotel & another. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DAMAGES
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 24-AUG-21
22) 3291/2021 Const. P. Azeem ur Rehim Khan Meo and Others (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan
Matter:SERVICE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 20-AUG-21
23) 5168/2021 Const. P. Urooba Ayman and Others (Petitioner) V/S PMC and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:EXAMINATION
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh(Author)
Order Date: 01-SEP-21
24) 10/2018 E.P Ghulam Murtaza Jatoi (Petitioner) V/S Zulfiqar Ali Behan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author)
Order Date: 21-AUG-21
25) 1/2019 Insolvency SYED RAHAT ALI (Petitioner) V/S MST. KASHAF TANWEER & OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Insolvency
Tag Line:
the decree as the one here under consideration is not a debt within the meaning of the Act, and as such keeping in view the dictum laid by this Court referred to supra and in view of the Learned
Official Assignee's Reference, it cannot form the basis of adjudication of the petitioner/husband as an insolvent. The instant petition, thus, being devoid of any merit is not maintainable, which is dismissed accordingly.
Read more Matter:
SETTLEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 20-AUG-21
26) 1758/2019 Suit Hilal Foods (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Danpak Food Industries (Private) Limited (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC, TRADE MARK, COPY RIGHT
Matter:TRADE MARKS ACT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 16-AUG-21
27) 2019/2015 Suit A&Z Agro Industries (Pvt) Limited. (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others.. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Search of premises under section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Read more Matter:
DECLARATION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 13-SEP-21
28) 1771/2020 Const. P. M/s Universal Leather Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
29) 4604/2021 Const. P. Sohail Hameed (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan
Tag Line:
It is not only the petitioner for whom the respondents, including
federal and provincial governments, have taken this decision but in fact
the respondents in pursuit of their responsibilities to take care of the
health of entire nation, have issued numerous notifications, circulars to
curb the virus spread. Petitioner, instead of being supportive, is being
troublesome in the smooth operation of effective measures undertaken
by government. The government is primarily responsible to take care of
health of 220 million citizens of Pakistan and hence the desire of one
person being petitioner cannot supersede the demand of ever-growing
spread of pandemic Covid-19. The Sindh Government has already taken
steps and are monitoring it periodically under the umbrella of Sindh
Epidemic Diseases Act, 2014. Section 3 of ibid Act enables the
government to take strict measures as they deem fit and proper in case
the provincial government feels the necessity of enforcing prescribed
measures to curb the threatened situation.
---This Covid-19 is exceeding and spreading for a number of reasons
that it is new virus meaning that no one has immunity for this virus. It is
highly contagious, meaning it spreads fast. Its novelty meaning scientists
are still not completely sure as to how it behaves since it is changing its
form and producing different variants and since they have a very limited
history to go on. It is being reported worldwide that Covid-19 will have
its short medium and long term effects for general population, health
care workers, patients and other citizens. As our general responsibility
we need to think ahead of ourselves and think beyond and stop being
selfish, not only for our survival but for the survival of our population.
The only way is to support the health care system.
Read more Matter:
VACCINATION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 31-JUL-21
30) 597/2020 Const. P. M/s Garibsons Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
31) 2515/2020 Const. P. Collapsible Tube Co. Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:FUEL CHARGES
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
32) 2002/2020 Const. P. M/s Noor Leather Garments Pvt Ltd & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
33) 2101/2020 Const. P. Pakistan Beverage Ltd & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:FUEL CHARGES
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
34) 275/2010 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S M/s A.U Technologies & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
the questions, as
proposed by the applicant department, do not appear to be the
questions of law. It could have been the questions in appeal but not in
Special Customs Reference Application where only questions of law
arising out of the Tribunal Order could be taken into consideration. The
facts of the case are that the consignments were imported on
15.09.2007 and the Goods Declaration was filed on 18.09.2007 whereas
the Valuation Ruling No.22/2008, is of 11.03.2008, and hence became a
convincing tool for the officers. However, there is no concrete evidence
as to the value of the goods arrived at Port on 15.09.2007 for which
Goods Declaration was filed on 18.09.2007. The ibid valuation ruling was
later in time that it came after about six months of the arrival of the
goods. So the question before the Tribunal was whether there was
sufficient evidence before Valuation Department for adjudging the value
of the goods in terms of the subject Valuation Ruling which was later in
time (above six months).
Read more Matter:
CUSTOM MATTER
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 20-AUG-21
35) 431/2020 Const. P. Amreli Steel Pvt Ltd and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
36) 133/1998 Suit MRS. PARVEEN MEHMOOD. (Plaintiff) V/S THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC CO. LT (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC
Matter:DECLARATION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 02-AUG-21
37) 1762/2020 Const. P. M/s HSJ Steel & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
38) 1961/2020 Const. P. Alucan (Pvt) Ltd & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
39) 3/2021 M.A. M/s. Jiangsu Dajin Heavy Industry Co. Limited (Appellant) V/S Port Qasim Authority (PQA) and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 24A), PPRA Rules, 2004 (Rule 36), PPRA Rules, 2004 ( Rule 25, 29, 30 and 31)
Tag Line:
- Indeed, it appears that it was more than a month after opening of the bid that the appellant made an attempt to rectify its material inability by furnishing a separate/counter bank guarantee from Bank AlHabib for both the tenders. This deficiency could not have been resurrected as by then the ship sailed. These belated attempts would have amounted to a modification of the tender documents, which is not permissible under Rule 31 of Rules 2004. Eventually only those whose technical bids were found to be in consonance with the terms of the invitation, were liable to be considered for further steps and were considered accordingly.
-Petitioner being aware of the said tender conditions participated and having participated in the tender cannot challenge or dislike prerequisites meant for technical qualification. He could only expect judicious treatment within the playing rules however, it was too late for appellant when it realized that playing conditions were not palatable to it. The situation faced by appellant based on the aforesaid facts is not res integra as a number of judgments are in the filed covering the issue as settled law.
- Even if I have to measure bidding terms on the touchstone of malice and mala fide, I would come out with understanding that these terms are for every one and not to exclude anyone. These are commercial transactions and decisions in this regard should base on strict compliance of terms of tenders whereas equity and fair play based on financial offer is not primary concern. Even if someone intends to impress by showing better financial offer, he has to qualify first on technical grounds. It is the overall impact till completion of job that needs serious consideration by procuring agency. Whether a bidder has the ability to deliver as per terms of tenders and having capacity to ensure project???s completion should be the primary concern of procuring agency. There is thus nothing which could lead to conclude that the process ended up in a decision of rejecting technical bid of appellant was flawed.
- Any term within frame of law is also not open for a judicial review even under the hierarchy of procurement laws as Rule 25 enables the procuring agency to require bid security not exceeding five per cent of the bid price to be furnished by every bidder and procuring agency may save its effectiveness for a period as they required in terms of Rule 26.
Read more Matter:
AGAINST THE ORDER Advocates:Zaheer-ul-Hasan Minhas()
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
40) 2330/2020 Const. P. M/s Mehboob Re-Rollings Mills and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:FUEL CHARGES
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
41) 558/2018 Const. P. Muhammad Younus (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Perusal of above reflects that the word ???consider??? within adjudication made by this Court amounts approval to be promoted, hence, concerned Authority has already recommended the case for approval, therefore, the petitioner???s case shall be approved as per recommendations within 15 days with compliance report.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 02-SEP-21
42) 289/2005 Suit ABDUL RAHIM ORS. (Plaintiff) V/S BUKHAT JAMAL (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
43) 2108/2020 Const. P. M/s Tauheed International Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:FUEL CHARGES
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
44) 3467/2017 Const. P. Dr. Shaista Shoukat (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 03-SEP-21
45) 6218/2020 Const. P. Dr. Faraz Ahmed Wajidi (Petitioner) V/S Chancellor DOW University (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The caption petition has raised substantial questions of law involving interpretation of the certain provisions of
The DOW University of Health Sciences Act, 2004 (`Act-2004`) and the Dow Employees (Service) Statute, 2007, and the principles governing the Writ of Quo Warranto as well as the power of the syndicate/competent authority of respondent-University to make a contractual appointment under the Act-2004 as amended up-to-date and Service Statute 2007--In our view, the evaluation made by an Expert Committee of respondent-university ought not to be easily interfered with by this Court which does not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. It is a settled proposition that the competent authority, within its power to make its assessment, has to assess the candidature of a candidate for regular appointment or on contract basis, on case to case basis. On the aforesaid proposition, we are fortified with the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 157). In the instant case, prima-facie, the competent authority has assessed the candidature of the private respondents and appointed them in the respondent-university, which does not require interference at our end.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 13-SEP-21
46) 3328/2012 Const. P. National Bank of Pakistan (Petitioner) V/S Auditor GEneral of Pakistan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:AGAINST THE ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author)
Order Date: 04-JUN-21
47) 631/2019 Cr.J.A JAWAD ALI S/O DEEDAR ALI (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:IMPRISONMENT UPTO 7 YEARS
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
Order Date: 13-SEP-21
48) 2052/2020 Const. P. M/s Majeed & Sons Steel Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
49) 49/2021 I.T.R.A CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (Applicant) V/S THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE AND ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Section 236A)
Tag Line:
Section 236A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 requires a person,
making sale by public auction or auction by a tender of any property or
goods (including property or goods confiscated or attached, either
belonging to or not belonging to the Government, local Government, any
authority, a company, a foreign association declared to be a company
under sub-clause (vi) of clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 80, or a
foreign contractor or a consultant or a consortium or Collector of
Customs or Commissioner Inland Revenue or any other authority, shall
collect advance tax, computed on the basis of sale price of such
property and at the rate specified in First Schedule, from the person to
whom such property or goods are being sold. This provision is as clear as
crystal however it is followed by an explanation inserted by Finance Act 2020 for the removal of doubt that the expression of sale of public
auction or auction by tender include renewal of license previously sold
by public auction or auction by a tender and where payment is received
in installments, advance tax is to be collected with each installment. As
we observe that there is no necessity of any explanation or any
clarification as section 236A is clear in its entirety.
Notwithstanding the above, even the explanation of clarificatory
nature operates retrospectively as it only provides an assistance in
interpreting the provisions correctly in terms of intention of the
legislature, subject to however if a contradictory situation is reached by
the Court interpreting the basic provisions as against explanation. We
are, therefore, of the view that the applicant described as an agent
collecting advance tax from the bidders/occupants/lessees/ licensees
etc. to whom the premises/property was given either by way of public
auction or tender or by any other mode and includes renewal of such
document.
Read more Matter:
INCOME TAX
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 07-SEP-21
50) 5455/2021 Const. P. Inayatullah (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 02.09.2021, in respect of his posting and transfer order as Principal (BS-20) National AGRO Technical Training Centre Hyderabad on the ground, inter alia, that the impugned notification was issued to post him under the junior officer--We are of the view that Article 212 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of the matters about terms and conditions of Civil Servants.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 13-SEP-21
51) 108/2021 H.C.A Professor Dr. Lubna Ansari Baig (Appellant) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:AGAINST ORDER
Advocates:Mr Haider Waheed(10131),Ovais Ali Shah()
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 14-JUL-21
52) 7/2017 M.A. Southern Networks Limited (Appellant) V/S PEMRA Thr. Its Chairman & Another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009, PEMRA Ordinance, 2002
Tag Line:
-Definition of a ???person??? is provided under Ordinance, 2002, which
includes an individual, partnership, association, company, trust or
corporation. Invariably in the show-cause/decision impugned, PEMRA
presumed to have issued licenses to individual directors hence referred
that licenses to them should not have been transferred by them. It is
misconceived impression.
--The issuance of licence is subject to Section 19 of Ordinance
2002. The authority enjoys exclusive right to issue licence for the
establishment and operation of broadcasting media and distribution
services and that these licences shall be in conformity with the
principles of fairness and equity and the eligibility of such applicant to
whom the licence is likely to be granted is based on prescribed criteria
notified in advance.
---With this understanding of law perhaps the intensity of violation
and penalty imposed on appellant should be viewed in term of their
proportionality. Wednesbury???s principle while defining proportionality
has discussed role of public officers entrusted with the discretionary
powers. However, it is often seen that officers??? entrusted with such
powers exercising their discretion goes unattended. Discretion at times
goes unmeasured. Subjective analysis of a discretion exercised by public
officers is a difficult proposition but proportionality is a tool which can
play its role to serve the subject. The principle requires that measures
adopted by the authority should not exceed the limits of what is proper
and necessary in order to attain the objectives, legitimately. It is
generally expected that where there is choice between several
appropriate remedies and measures, the recourse that must be the least
onerous and least cumbersome be adopted.
Read more Matter:
AGAINST DECISION OF PEMRA Advocates:Mr Kashif Hanif(8551),Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed()
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 02-SEP-21
53) 4522/2021 Const. P. Kh: Ghulam Ghous (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
officers are posted on acting charge---Secretary Local Government says that he will examine the record as to whether Miss Shamona Sadaf is working in BPS-18 or BPS-16 till then he will relieve that lady and will not be posted on that post until the issue is resolved. In case, inquiry speaks that she is having BPS-18 or she is posted on same place on any other post and if she was working in BPS-16 and has been designated BPS-18, delinquent officers including that lady shall face the consequences to be carried out by the authorities.
Read more Matter:
APPOINTMENT
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 30-AUG-21
54) 239/2014 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S M/s. Lake View Forest (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Custom Act
Tag Line:
-The scheme of the Customs Act reveals that the subject is governed in terms of Section 25 of the Customs Act and in case it could not be determined under Section 25, then the recourse is available by applying valuation ruling if available in terms of Section 25-A whereafter it is finalized under the Customs Act, 1969. After the assessment and the release of the consignment, the goods are made out of any charge of the Customs. In case the aforesaid process is required to be revisited, (in appropriate cases), the mechanism is available under the law such as Section 32, 193 and 195 of the Customs Act, 1969.
--The event of post scrutiny of the goods declaration after assessment and release of goods, is not covered by Section 80(3), as undertaken. It is applicable at the time of original checking of the goods declaration in his hands and goods are yet to be assessed and released and not at belated stage when even the goods have been released. This situation (for appropriate cases) is catered by Section 32, 193 and 195 of the Customs Act, 1969 where under a show cause and/or an appeal within 30 days could have been preferred, or the Board or the Collector of Customs or the Collector of Custom (Adjudication) may, within his jurisdiction, call for the examination of the records of any proceedings under the act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by a subordinate officer respectively, could have been followed, however, none of them were invoked. Surprisingly the applicant opt to invoke Section 80(3) of the Customs Act which is ???then??? shown to have been followed by consequences. It is thus under above referred provisions when the competent authority is of the view that the assessment was not made in accordance with law, the past and closed transaction could be reopened but not in the manner as done in the instant case. Prima-facie it is neither a case of mis-declaration as correct PCT was claimed by the consignee nor this is a case of mis-declaration in terms of its value declared, to make out a case under Section 32 of the Act.
--- Without prejudice applicant???s case is that Section 80(3) of Act was rightly invoked under the given facts and circumstances. In the instant case, if at all, there was any illegality in the assessment of the goods, it could be attributed to the sub-ordinate officers of the Customs and hence the implication of Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 would not be attracted to penalize the respondent or their directors. The purported action by Customs was triggered under Section 80(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 does not have a legal cover in view of the goods being out of charge and the recourses which could have been made were under Section 32, 193 and 195 of the Customs Act, 1969 which were not directly invoked.
Read more Matter:
CUSTOM MATTER Advocates:Mr. Muhammad Khalil Dogar()
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
55) 607/2020 Const. P. M/s Ghani Chemical Ind Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICITY
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
56) 166/2006 Suit SHAHID QAZI (Plaintiff) V/S RPOVINCE OF SINDH & ORS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:RECOVERY OF AMOUNT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 24-AUG-21
57) 223/2019 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. M/s. Pakistan Telephone Cables Ltd (Applicant) V/S The Customs Appellate Tribunal & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Custom Act
Tag Line:
These reference applications have been filed belatedly on 11.05.2019, along with applications for condonation of delay, on the premise that the applicants??? counsel did not communicate the impugned order to the applicants within time on account of a disconnect between with the parties their counsel. This could hardly be grounds for condonation of delay as the applicants are supposed to be vigilant in respect of their case and cannot claim any indulgence on account of their own indolence .
In addition thereto, it appears that the copy of the impugned order was delivered on 21.01.2019, and not in May 2019 as claimed by the applicants.
It was further alleged that the impugned order is void and no limitation would arise in such regard. Merely alleging that an order is void does not preclude a person from the ambit of limitation and it is settled law that shelter cannot be taken behind such assertions to vitiate the statutory requirements in respect of limitation.
Read more Matter:
CUSTOM MATTER
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 11-AUG-21
58) 476/2020 Const. P. Dewan Cement Ltd and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
59) 8/2021 J.M M/S. GETZ PHARMA (PVT.) LIMITED (Applicant) V/S NOVARTIS AG & ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Patent Ordinance 2000:
Section 27 does not restrain Controller from exercising power under Sub Section (1), if an other proceeding is pending but no stay is operating.
Interpretation of statute:
expressio unis est exclusio alterius and casus omissus explained.
Read more Matter:
PATENT DESIGN
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 02-SEP-21
60) 390/2001 Suit CAPT. TARIQ MEHMOOD MALIK. (Appellant) V/S P.A.L.P.A. (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 02-AUG-21
61) 450/2016 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S M/s. Allied Engineering & Services Ltd. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Custom Act
Tag Line:
As far as finalization of the provisional assessment in time is
concerned, the provisional assessments were made on 07.09.2012 and it
was required to be finalized within the time frame given under section
81(2) of the Customs Act i.e. six months. This finalization ought to have
been completed by 06.03.2013 (incorrectly stated 07.03.2013) as the law
requires finalization within six months. The final assessment was made
on 15.05.2013. Reliance of the learned counsel for the applicant was
placed on the note of Additional Director of Customs which forwarded a
summary for the approval of the extension. Allegedly the time was
extended on 20.03.2013 by 60 days. By the time the purported summary
was granted, on 20.03.2013, six months??? time had already lapsed. The
fact of the matter is that the time for finalization had already lapsed.
Even if 60 days??? time is counted from the date when time lapsed i.e.
06.03.2013, it should not have gone beyond 06.05.2013 whereas final
assessment was made on 15.05.2013.
Read more Matter:
CUSTOM MATTER
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 30-AUG-21
62) 183/2017 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. M/s. Silver Surgical Complex (Pvt) Ltd. (Applicant) V/S Commissioner I-R Zone-IV (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sale Tax Rules, 2006 (Rule 25), Sale Tax Act 1990 (Section 10), Sale Tax Act 1990 (Section 8(2))
Tag Line:
Supplies involving exempt and taxable purchase cannot be treated in a generalized way. Applicant while having input tax adjustment of the above period forgot to apply rule 25(3) of the ibid rules 2006 which does not permit the adjustment of input tax in its entirety when they deal with both taxable and exempt supplies.
--Learned counsel for the applicant has argued to the extent of claiming refund in terms of section 10 of the Sales Tax Act. The scheme of Section 10 caters for an event other than applicant???s case. In terms of the facts and circumstances of the case where input adjustment is claimed on both exempt and taxable supplies as is the case of applicant before lower forums, we have to apply an unambiguous provision that deals the event and i.e. 8(2) of the ibid Act which directly deals with the input tax in respect of the supplies involving both exempt and taxable supplies.
Read more Matter:
SALES TAX
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 13-AUG-21
63) 2044/2020 Const. P. M/s Pakistan Gum Ind. Pvt Ltd & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
64) 5063/2021 Const. P. M/s Gul Ahmed Energy Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Court of Commission for Worksmen Comp. & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
we decide this petition with direction to the Commission /Authority to frame legal issue with regard to jurisdiction, as stated above, particularly in paragraph-8 of the impugned order, and allow the parties to submit documents, including additional documents if not already filed, or lead evidence and thereafter finally decide the jurisdictional question
Read more Matter:
DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 26-AUG-21
65) 1217/2020 Const. P. D.G Khan Cement Co. Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:DIRECTION
Approved for Reporting
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21