Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1875 2011 SLD 1875 2011 PLC 1579
Sindh High Court
C.M.A. No.5422 in Suit No.815, C.M.A No.5144 in Suit No.772and C.M.A. No.7672 in Suit No.1158 of 2010, decision dated:28-07-2011
MUNIB AKHTAR, J

MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ and 44 othersvsKARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY through Company Secretary and 2 othersMUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ and 44 othersvsKARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY through Company Secretary and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 189---Judgments of Supreme Court---Two decisions---Interpretation of statute---If a decision of Supreme Court contains an explication of a principle of law enunciated in an earlier Supreme Court decision, then such explication in the subsequent decision is itself the enunciation of a principle of law and hence binding on all Courts in Pakistan within the meaning of Art. 189 of the Constitution (subject always to the rules regarding precedence of Supreme Court decisions as established by jurisprudence of Supreme Court itself)---Such enunciation of a principle of law in a decision of a Constitutional Court is as much "law" as is, for example a section of a statute---Interpretation of a statutory provisions by Supreme Court is an explanation of the correct legal meaning of a "law" and is binding in terms of Art.189 of the Constitution---Explanation in a decision of Supreme Court of a principle of law enunciated in Court's earlier decision is also an exposition of the correct legal meaning of a "law" namely the principle laid down in the earlier decision---Explanation given in the subsequent decision is, therefore, itself binding in terms of Art. 189 of the Constitution---Two factors need to be kept in mind by a Court that is referred to two Supreme Court decisions that stand in relation to each other, firstly the subsequent Supreme Court decision should expressly refer to the earlier decision and secondly the context in which the subsequent Supreme Court decision explicates the earlier decision is also relevant. CIT v. Oberoi Hotels (P) Ltd., I.T.A. No.13 of 2001; Union of India v. Azadi Bacho(?) Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706 and McDowell and Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1985] 3 SCC 230 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199(1)(a)---Expressions "person" and "functions in connection with the affairs of Federation, a Province or a local authority"---Karachi Electric Supply Company (KESC)---Status---Simply because the State has to cope with results of power shortage does not necessarily mean that an entity involved in the business of generating, distributing and supplying electricity becomes an…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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