1989 PLP 2044 (SCMR)
KOH-I-NOOR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 2044 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | KOH-I-NOOR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 2044 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 2044 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 2044 (SCMR) (KOH-I-NOOR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Mohammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th June, 1989.
- Raja Mohammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15-6-1985 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 342 of 1985).
Art. 199 & 185 (3)--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11--Res judicata-- Petitioner's Constitutional petition was dismissed by High Court--Supreme Court in similar cases subsequently expressed view which went against the view earlier expressed by High Court in Constitutional petition--Earlier decision of High Court having not been challenged before Supreme Court had attained finality-Petitioner started fresh proceedings and got some relief--Contention that after getting some relief petitioner was justified in re-agitating the same matter in High Court by filing fresh writ petition--Judgment of Supreme Court which had expressed view against the earlier decision of High Court, held, had not the effect of re-opening of all the earlier finalized cases--Judgment of High Court, which had become final against the petitioner would operate as res judicata against petitioner at least to the extent the authorities concerned had not accepted the petitioner's plea for which fresh writ petition was filed--Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's writ petition. It had arisen out of the refusal by the respondent Taxing Authorities under the Laws of Central Excise to allow them the claim for full "abatement" of excise duty. Learned counsel has stated that it has already been allowed to the extent of 50 per cent.
2. The same question which is the subject‑matter of this petition had in an earlier round come before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel states that the petitioner's writ petition was dismissed. He, however, further stated that subsequently a development took place; namely, that in similar cases this Court expressed such view on the question in issue regarding abatement which goes against the view earlier expressed by the concerned respondents and upheld by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. While stating so learned counsel frankly admitted that the decision of the High Court in the earlier round was not brought under challenge by the petitioner before the Supreme Court and in this context it had attained finality. He, however, justified starting of fresh proceedings on account of the aforestated circumstances, whereupon he further explained the authorities re‑examined the petitioner's case and also gave some relief. This according to him is further justification for re‑agitating the same matter in the High Court by filing a fresh writ petition. When questioned; whether, the judgment of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel had the effect of re‑opening of all the earlier finalized cases decided by the High Court, he remained unable to render a positive answer. In our view, the judgment of the High Court which had become final against the petitioner would operate as res judicata against the petitioner, at least to the extent the authorities concerned have not accepted the petitioner's plea; for which fresh writ petition was filed in the second round and for which this petition for leave to appeal has been filed. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused. M.A.K./K‑115/S Leave refused.