Home Maxims & Terms Fee meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Fee

Fee legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2020 PLD 641 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
'Quid pro quo in future''Service to be rendered''Time dimension' of service to be renderedScope

Simultaneity or contemporaneity of payment and benefit was not the most vital or crucial test to determine whether a levy was a Fee or not, especially in long-term projects

While "service to be rendered" or quid pro quo in future was permissible it was equally important that the prospects of such a future service were certain, as if tied in time, with the payment of Fee

For the Fee to have a constitutional existence, the service to be rendered in return or the quid pro quo must be certain, clear, unambiguous and within a definite time

Payment of Fee by the payer could not be towards a service that floated in a timeless zone; was open-ended and uncertain

Failure in providing future service within reasonable timeline, deprived the Fee of its essential character, and gave it the complexion of a tax.

2020 PLD 641 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Fee imposing legislative enactments, types of'Fee-simplicitor' and 'Cess-fee'Distinction

Basic difference between an enactment where fee simplicitor was imposed and where Cess-fee was imposed was that in the former a service or a privilege was made available to the payer directly on the strict principle of quid pro quo whereas in the latter case, the declared purpose came with a promise to bring some benefit or advantage in future which was basically meant for its payers

In order to remain as a fee-levying enactment, the purpose for which the Cess was to be charged should be well spelled out and defined in the enactments as narrowly as possible lest it may convert it into a tax-levying enactment

Proceeds of Cess should be clearly identifiable in the accounts by using separate accounting codes so that its collection and utilization was reconcilable with the purposes stated in the enactment.

2017 PLD 28 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Characteristics

Payment/contribution would qualify as a fee if it was for specific purpose and possessed the element of quid pro quo.

1963 PTD 495 ORISSA-HIGH-COURT-INDIA Judicial Precedent

S. 66 (1)-Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946, rr. 7, 35, Form R (T), Note-Reference-Application-Limitation-Fees-Whether should be paid within time.

1956 PLD 274 FEDERAL-COURT-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

-Fee-Mere omission to refund In case client does not wish Advocate to perform work-Not always professional misconduct-Advocate not always bound to refund

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Fee", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/13971

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Fee"

PLD 2016
2016-April-20

P L D 2016 Lahore 355

Messrs D.S. TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents

Court: (a) Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001) since repealed---
PLD 1992
C. P. No.D‑1243 of 1990, decided on 5th May, 1992.

PLD 1992 KARACHI 427

TREET CORPORATION LIMITED PETITIONER Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through its secretary Ministry of industries , Islamabad and 2 others. — Respondent

Court:
PLD 2017
2017-April-7

P L D 2017 Islamabad 177

DV COM DATA — Appellant Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY through Chairman and another — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1996
Writ Petitions Nos.2620 and 4983 of 1993, heard on 8th April 1996.

P L D 1996 Lahore 436

NAQASH AHMED and another ‑‑‑ Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another ‑‑‑ Respondents

Court:
PLD 2006
N/A

P L D 2006 Karachi 648

Messrs PIONEER TRADERS — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 2017
2017-May-12

P L D 2017 Lahore 563

TRADE SERVE INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED and others — Petitioners Versus PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
CLC 1988
Constitutional Petition No. 1319 of 1975, decided on 24th February, 1976.

1988 C L C 1645

HAMEEDA BEGUM‑‑Petitioner Versus FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and another‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
CLC 1994
Civil Revision No. 1211 of 1993, decided on 7th February, 1994.

1994 C L C 1961

ALLAH RAKHA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD BOOTA and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLC 1987
Special Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 96 of 1982 and 39 of 1983, decided on 29th March, 1987.

1987 C L C 1280

Court: Karachi
CLC 1983
Judicial Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 58, 60 and 65 of 1967 in Suit No. 636 of 1976, decided on 14th October, 1976.

1983 C L C 2594

MAQSOOD AHMAD KHAN-Applicant . Versus D. B. AVARI AND 3 arms-Respondents

Court: Karachi