| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 271 2016 SLD 271 2016 PTD 518 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 174 of 2004, decided on 19th September, 2014. Date of hearing: 5th August, 2014.
ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J
Munir A. Malik and Basil Nabi Malik for Plaintiff. Nemo for Defendants.
Suit No. 174 of 2004, decided on 19th September, 2014. Date of hearing: 5th August, 2014.
ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J
Munir A. Malik and Basil Nabi Malik for Plaintiff. Nemo for Defendants.
MUBISHAR PESH IMAN
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and 2 others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 217,156(1),156(89)
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 45A
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 10,42,54
(a) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 217-Protection against any legal proceedings-Pre-conditions- Protection provided by S. 217 of Customs Act, 1969, is conditional upon their having acted in good faith-Mala fide act is not protected under S. 217 of Customs Act, 1969-Ouster of jurisdiction can be claimed when action in question is focused to be within four corners of statute under which it is taken. Federation of Pakistan v. Saman Diplomatic Bonded Warehouse 2004 PTD 1189 rel. (b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)----S. 156(1)(89)-Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), Ss. 10, 42 & 54- Suit for recovery of specific movable property, declaration, injunction and damages-Show cause notice, assailing of-Confiscation of goods-Plaintiff was aggrieved of ceasing of betel nuts owned by him and had also assailed show cause notice issued by Customs authorities intending to confiscate the nuts under S. 156(1)(89) of Customs Act, 1969-Validity-Plaintiff had successfully proved his case that he had legally purchased 42260 kilograms of betel nuts, which were lawfully imported and Sales tax was also duly paid thereon but Customs authorities illegally and unlawfully seized the same-Plaintiff had also claimed an amount against authorities severally and / or jointly, by way of damages for causing serious mental torture and bad name to him from the date of filing of suit till satisfaction of decree-Suit was decreed accordingly. (c) Damages---Special and general-Proof-Person claiming special damages has to prove each item of loss with reference to evidence brought on record-For general damages relating to mental torture, anguish, distress and defamation, those are to be assessed following the Rule of Thumb-Such exercise falls in discretionary jurisdiction of Court which has to decide same in facts and circumstances of each case. Abdul Majid Khan v. Towseen Abudl Haleem and others 2012 CLD 6 and Malik Gul Muhammad Awan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Finance and others 2013 SCMR 507 rel. JUDGMENT ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.-This is a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, possession/return of betel nuts and damages, filed by the plaintiff on 25.02.2004. 1. Briefly the relevant…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492