CLC
1999
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 343 to 348 of 1998, decided on 5th April, 1999.
Sardar ATTAULLAH KHAN MENGAL ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Quetta
PLC
1984
There can be a distinct substantive case filed before the Commission by a party complaining of an unfair labour practice that is likely to be committed, but which has not been committed, and a case, as the present, where the substantive case is one for punishment of an unfair labour practice already committed, but where some further unfair labour practice is apprehended and for the prevention of which an application by way of further statutory relief under regulation 32 (2) is filed. Sub‑regulation (2) of regulation 32 of the N. I. R. C. Regulations aptly covered both such cases. The latter type of case basically would not be one for ancillary relief to the main case, but for further statutory reliefs relatable to the main case filed under sub regulation (1) of regulation 32; the only special feature being that of the Commission would have to deal with the main case, under sections 25‑A, 34 or 53 of the I. R. O., and the application for further statutory reliefs under clause (a) of sub‑regulation (2) of regulation 32 of the N. I. R. C. Regulations. The matter regarding the further statutory reliefs would not be decided on affidavits alone, as in the case of matters like temporary injunction etc. the relevant procedure, as stated in clause (a) of sub‑regulation (2) would have to be adopted and the Union would have to submit itself to such inquiry as the Commis sion may hold and to produce such evidence, which it considers desirable in the said inquiry. But this does not mean that no interim order can be passed in such an application for further statutory relief, if it is incidental or ancillary to the main jurisdiction under sub regulation (2) of Regulation 32 of the National Industrial Commission Regulation.
LEVER BROTHERS PAKISTAN LTD. Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND OTHBRS
Court: Lahore
PTD
2017
----Ss. 131(5), 132 & 121---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Appeal of taxpayer/petitioner against remand of his case to taxation officer by the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-adjudication---Application of taxpayer/petitioner for restraining Taxation Officer from reassessment was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal on the ground that Appellate Tribunal was not vested with power to stay the re-adjudication proceedings---Validity---Section 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provided jurisdiction to grant stay against recovery of tax for up to 180 days after providing opportunity of being heard, and the said provision was silent regarding other ancillary or incidental interim reliefs---Appellate Tribunal, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under S. 132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 could affirm, modify or annul an assessment or an order appealed against, in addition to remanding the case to Appellate Commissioner----In order to exercise such jurisdiction effectively, power to suspend impugned order or to restrain Taxation Officer from passing assessment order, pursuant to the order impugned before it, fell within incidental and ancillary jurisdiction, particularly when no restriction or limitation, on exercise of such ancillary or incidental power, was available in S. 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001----In the present case, allowing Taxation Officer to complete re-assessment would not only lead to multiplicity of litigation but would frustrate the right of appeal before Appellate Tribunal if subsequent order was passed---Impugned order was set aside and High Court remanded application for grant of stay to Appellate Tribunal with the direction that the same be decided on merits and till a decision on the same proceedings before the Taxation Officer shall remain suspended---Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.
SHAHNAWAZ Proprietor Tooba Traders Versus APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE and others
Court: Lahore High Court
CLC
1979
First Appeal from Original Order No. 154 of 1978, decided on 4th April, 1979.
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE-Appellant Versus Mst. RASHIDA BEG UM-Respondent
Court: Lahore
PLD
2005
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 1999, heard on 11th October, 2004.
Mst. LAL KHATOON and 8 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Mst. SAHATI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court:
PTD
2018
M.A. (Stay) No.904/KB of 2018, in I.T.A. No.708/KB of 2018, decided on 15th May, 2018.
Messrs SHAHEEN AIR INTERNATIONAL, KARACHI Versus The COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-V, LTU, KARACHI
Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal
PLC
1984
Constitutional Petition No. 592 of 1982, decided on 25th April, 1984.
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. AND 3 OTHERS Versus CHAIRMAN NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION AND 4 OTHERS
Court: Karachi High Court
CLC
1991
Civil Revision Application No.273 of 1989, decided on 5th April, 1991.
Dr. OBAID‑UR‑REHMAN and 5 others‑‑‑Applicants Versus Messrs M.R. SONS and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi
SCMR
2024
Civil Petition No.3391 of 2024, decided on 9th August, 2024.
KHALID alias MUHAMMAD KHALID and others — Petitioners Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION), CUSTOM HOUSE, LAHORE and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PTD
1999
Writ Petition No.30202 of 1997, decided on 18th November, 1997.
BHOJA REDDY Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX and another
Court: 231 I T R 47
