| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 2215 2008 SLD 2215 2008 CLD 1079 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.1628 of 1999, decision dated: 14-05-2008.
KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMAD, J
Mansoorul Arfin for
Respondent. Ain-ud-Din Khan for Defendant No. 2.
Suit No.1628 of 1999, decision dated: 14-05-2008.
KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMAD, J
Mansoorul Arfin for
Respondent. Ain-ud-Din Khan for Defendant No. 2.
Messrs ISHTIAQ TEXTILE MILLS LTD.--Plaintiff
VS
. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance Division and others----Defendants
Law:
Section:
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)----- Arts.132 & 133---If on a particular point there is no cross-examination, such point stands proved. (b) Pay-As-You-Earn Scheme Act (XXXI of 1973)--- ----S.4---Pay-As-You-Earn Scheme Rules, 1973; R.4---Levy and recovery of penalty and interest thereon on account of shortfall in export earnings of the Industrial Unit without prior notice to the Unit to explain the shortfall and/or to meet the short-fall--Validity-Prior service of notice being a requirement of every statute and principles of natural justice where rights of party were affected, the imposition of penalty and interest thereon was unlawful without service of such notice. (c) Pay-As-You-Earn Scheme Act (XXXI of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Pay-As-You-Earn Scheme Rules, 1973, R.4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.34---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 55---Suit for declaration, injunction and damages---Levy and recovery of penalty and interest thereon on account of shortfall in export earnings by the plaintiff, an industrial unit---Nothing was available on record from the Authorities that such was a wilful default by the plaintiff---Contention of the plaintiff/ industrial unit was that in any event, no penalty could be imposed after taking into consideration all facts and circumstances of the case which was explained by it---Reasons for shortfall had not been denied by the authorities/defendant and same had not been subjected to any cross-examination from the 'Authorities' side-Record showed that Authorities/ defendants had charged interest on the penalty amount, which, by itself, was illegal in as much as interest in the nature of damages could not have been charged on the penalty amount---Provision of S.34, C.P.C. provided awarding of interest pendente lite and from date of decree---Plaintiff thus had been deprived of his lawful money for very long time and discretion had to be exercised by the court in its favour---When the Court was of the opinion that the recovery of any public dues from a party was unjustified, it may, while disposing of the suit, make an order for payment of interest on the amount recovered at the rate of two per cent above the…
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