1990 PLP 493 (CLC)
Messrs AHMED ABDUL GHANI TEXTILE MILLS‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 493 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmed .1.1. |
| Parties | Messrs AHMED ABDUL GHANI TEXTILE MILLS‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 493 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 493 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Saleem Akhtar and Wajihuddin Ahmed .1.1..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 493 (CLC) (Messrs AHMED ABDUL GHANI TEXTILE MILLS‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Amanullah Khan for Petitioner.
- Muzaffar Hassan and Umer Oureshi for Respondents.
- Dates of hearing: 12th and 13th September, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Precedent‑‑ ‑‑‑Erroneous decision in itself, cannot form a precedent and may be deviated from in favour of a correct pronouncement, at the first opportunity. (b) Estoppel‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Promissory estoppel ‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑Where an erroneous view finds favour with departmental authorities, consistently and over a long period of time, it matures into a practice, entailing enforcibility, as those concerned or affected by it come to fashion and regulate their conduct in accordance therewith‑‑‑Such a course of practice was protected by and ensured continuity by a rule, more or less akin to the evidentiary rule of estoppel and termed generally as `Promissory estoppel', involving a representation or promise from one person or authority and a corresponding alteration of position by the other, seeking continuity and protection. (c) Maxim‑‑ ‑‑‑"Ubi jus ibi remedium" (where there is a right there is a remedy)‑‑‑In a true manifestation of Rule of Law, however, insignificant or infinitesimal a right may be, and whether it be, on prevailing standards, of any consequence or not, if it was threatened or transgressed and sought to be remedied, it must be so remedied.
Judgment & Decree
Details of Continuous Stonnaees. Days Shifts From 11 p.m. To 11 p.m,= 15 45 on 25‑7‑1975_ on 9‑8‑1975. From 7 a.m. To 7 a.m. on 15‑10‑1975_ on 11‑12‑1975. 57 171 From 7 a.m. To 7 a.m. on 1‑1‑1976 on 1‑7‑1976= 182 546 Total= 254 76_2 Besides, in the list attached to the petition in relation to petitioners' claim for weekly and odd closures the following appear to qualify for being considered:‑‑ WEEKLY HOLIDAYS AND ODD CLOSURES S. No Period Number Reason for of Shifts Closure A. 10‑8‑75 a.m. to 7 a.m. 3 Sunday. on 11‑8‑1975 B, 12‑9‑75 a.m. to 7 a.m. on 13‑9‑1975. 3 Fridays Weekly Holiday. C. 1‑1‑76 7 a.m. to 7 a.m. on 1‑7‑1976 As worked Intervening out. Fridays. Regarding `A' in the preceding table, such Sunday was part of the closure ending on 9‑8‑1975, as in the above list of stoppages. As to `B' in the above table, the declaration of Friday as a weekly holiday was an unforeseen event and cut short a couple of days before the next weekly holiday (Sunday) which was pre determined and, therefore, was a closure beyond control of the petitioners. At S. No: C' in the foregoing table, Weekly Friday holidays, falling within the period of closure w.e.f. 1‑1.‑1976 to 1‑7‑1976 would equally qualify in terms of the construction herein determined.
7. As a result, therefore, this petition succeeds but only to the extent of the claim for abatement pertaining to the periods mentioned at S.Nos: A' to `C' above. We are inclined to allow it to such extent, even though it may bring small monitory advantage to the petitioners, on the basis of the qualify well‑known principle denoted by the golden words: "Where there is a right there is a remedy" or their Latin source "Ubi Jus IN Remedium". In a true manifestation of rule of Law, howsoever insignificant or infinitesimal a right may be and whether it be, on prevailing standards, of any consequence or not, if it is threatened or transgressed and sought to be remedied, must be so remedied. We, therefore, allow the above petition but partly and to the limited extent indicated. A.A./A‑695/K Petition allowed