P L D 1975 Karachi 978 (PLP)
MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL THAKAR SONS LTD., KARACHI — Petitioner Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ?HE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1975 Karachi 978 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Dorab Patel and Agha Ali Hyder, JJ |
| Parties | MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL THAKAR SONS LTD., KARACHI — Petitioner Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ?HE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents |
| Primary Law | Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1975 Karachi 978 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Central Excises and Salt Act (I of 1944) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1975 Karachi 978 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Dorab Patel and Agha Ali Hyder, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1975 Karachi 978 (PLP) (MESSRS MUHAMMAD ISMAIL THAKAR SONS LTD., KARACHI — Petitioner Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ?HE CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD AND 2 OTHERS- Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A I R 1961 Andh. Prd. 324 nd P L D 1975 S C 32 ref. Mirza Abdur Rashid for Petitioner. Naimuddin, Standing Counsel for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 35-Appeal-Remand-Collector, on appeal, could remand cases to Deputy Collector-Construction of section to contrary, held, not correct.
Judgment & Decree
‑ Respondents Constitutional Petition No. 1594 of 1974, decided on 29th April 1974. ‑‑ S. 35‑Appeal‑Remand‑Collector, on appeal, could remand cases to Deputy Collector‑Construction of section to contrary, held, not correct. A I R 1961 Andh. Prd. 324 nd P L D 1975 S C 32 ref. Mirza Abdur Rashid for Petitioner. Naimuddin, Standing Counsel for Respondents. DORAB PATEL, J. The contention is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, because the second respondent had no power to remand the case to the third respondent. This plea was advanced on the language of section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but, in our opinion, that would not be the correct construction of the section. We are supported in our view by a judgment reported in A I R 1961 Andh Pra.
324. Mr. Abdur Rashid Mirza was referred to this judgment, and he admitted that it was directly on the construction of the section. Addi tionally, by parity of reasoning the view taken in P L D 1975 S C 32 is also fatal to the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. We would however direct the third respondent, to whom the case is remanded, to decide the petitioner's claim according to law and not be influenced by any observations in the impugned order. We thank Mr. Naimuddin for his assistance. Petition dismissed.