| CITATION NAME | PARTIES | CASE LAW NOTES |
| 2021 MLD 1059 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH | PAKISTAN AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FOR MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD | Sections 39, 72 & 73—agreement, termination of—principle—agreement cannot continue for life time or indefinite period— if a party is unable to perform its part of agreement, then disability of such party itself results into termination of agreement. |
| 2021 PLC(CS) 860 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH | PAKISTAN AIRLINE PILOTS’ ASSOCIATION VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY FOR MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD | Sections 39, 72 & 73—agreement, termination of— principle—agreement cannot continue for life time or indefinite period— if a party is unable to perform its part of agreement, then disability of such party itself results into termination of agreement. |
| 2009 SCMR 1421 SUPREME-COURT | SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE VS ADDL. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, KARACHI | R.11—contract act (ix of 1872), section 72-customs act (iv of 1969), section 33—sales tax act (vii of 1990), section 66—excise duty, tax, charges deposited by the taxpayer by mistake, error under coercion, or misconstruction, can be refunded to him—period for refund of claim of deposit of the duty or other taxes or charges, having been provided, which would be reckoned from the date of deposit of said duty or charge. |
| 2009 PTD 1544 SUPREME-COURT | SHAHTAJ SUGAR MILLS LTD. THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE VS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, KARACHI | R.11—contract act (ix of 1872), section 72—customs act (iv of 1969), section 33—sales tax act (vii of 1990), section 66—excise duty, tax, charges deposited by the tax payer by mistake, error under coercion, or misconstruction, can be refunded to him–period for refund of claim of deposit of the duty or other taxes or charges, having been provided, which would be reckoned from the date of deposit of said duty or charge. |
| 2009 PTD 1158 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH | MEKOTEX (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI VS CHAIRMAN, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUSTOMS, FEDERAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, KARACHI | Section 33—contract act (ix of 1872), section 72—clearing of imported goods without seeking benefit of exemption of duties and tax under exemption notification–refund of such duties and tax claimed after 21 months—validity—where one party under a mistake of law or fact paid some money to another party including government department, which was not due by law or contract or otherwise, then same must become repayable in view of section 72 of contract act, 1872—where tax was chargeable and payable by an importer/exporter and due to inadvertence/error/misconstruction, excess amount was paid or recovered than what was actually due and payable, then claim for refund of excess amount must be made within six months—where duty and tax charged and recovered was not payable at all, then section 33 of customs act, 1969 would have no application and refund could be sought even beyond six months period. |
| 2006 PTD 1906 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN | MESSRS AKRAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD | —Sections 21-a, 19 & 219—deferred payment of customs duty rules, 1991—contract act (ix of 1872), section 72—constitution of Pakistan (1973), art. 27—establishment of office of federal tax ombudsman ordinance (xxxv of 2000), section 2(3)—S.R.O. 490(i)/91, dated |
| 2002 YLR 1954 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH | MESSRS NOVATEX LIMITED VS MESSRS SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF D. BALOCH, OCTROI CONTRACTOR, K. M . C. | —-R. 218—contract act (ix of 1872), section 72—case of miscalculation or of coercion—payment made under coercion–provisions of section 72 of contract act, 1872–applicability—dispute was with regard to classification of goods for the purpose of octroi—ow |
| 1998 PLD 64 SUPREME-COURT | PFIZER LABORATORIES LTD VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN | Contract act 1872 sections 32, 33 & 224—central excises and salt rules, 1944, r.11—S.R.O. 349(1)/85, dated 15-4-1985—contract act (ix of 1872), section 72—constitution of Pakistan (1973), articles 199 & 24(1)—constitutional petition —maintainability–claim of refund of duty/tax and other charges paid under a mistake–limitation—principles—if one party under a mistake whether of fact or law paid some money to another party (which includes a government department) which was not due by law or contract or otherwise, that must be repaid in view of section 72, contract act, 1872—if, however, the customs duty or any other levy was realized and its realization was outside the statutory authority, the provision providing limitation of six months was not attracted—payment of excise duty or any other tax without knowledge that the same was exempted under a notification was refundable on the same footing as if there was no lawful imposition—where some money was received by the government not lawfully due, the plea of limitation by its departments was violative of the principles of morality and justice—fact that the amount of tax of which refund was claimed was voluntarily paid does not preclude the right to claim refund if it was not lawfully payable—withholding of a citizen’s money by public functionaries on the plea of limitation or any other technical plea if it was not legally payable by him was deprecated—party, however, could not claim the refund of an amount paid to a government functionary under a mistake without any constraint of limitation as that would adversely affect the good governance in financial matters—notification allowing the exemption to the item in question in the present case had put condition to be fulfilled by the importers to avail the said exemption—none of the government functionaries had adverted to the question as to whether the importers had fulfilled the conditions laid down in the notification in order to avail of the exemption—supreme court remanded the case to the collector of customs with the direction to examine, as to whether the importers had fulfilled the conditions contained in the notification and if they had fulfilled the same, the denial of refund of the amount involved, would be violative of art.24(1) of the constitution of pakistan. |
| 1994 CLC 994 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE | KOHINOOR INDUSTRIES LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN | R. 11—contract act (ix of 1872), section 72—limitation act (ix of 1908), art. 96—constitution of pakistan (1973), art. 199—applicability of r.11, central excise rules, 1944—refund of amount of tax paid under mistake of law or fact or under compulsion—remedy—rule 11, central excise rules would not. Apply to a case where amount of tax was paid under mistake of law or fact or under compulsion—order rejecting claim of refund being quasi judicial order, its validity can be challenged in constitutional petition—claim for refund of the duty which fell within three years, from date of demand was refundable. Rule 11 of central excise rules does not apply to a case where the amount of tax was paid under a mistake of law or fact or under compulsion; that the claim of refund of any amount realized without any authority of law, if was not barred by any specific statutory provision was enforceable in law; that the order rejecting claim of refund was a quasi judicial order and its validity can be challenged in writ jurisdiction and that where the authorities retained the money illegally realised, the petitioner can in a constitutional petition ask for refund of the money so collected by way of duty or otherwise without any authority of law when there was no tribal issue and that the claim of refund of the amount or duty or tax received without authority of law can be made within three years computable from the date on which the mistake was discovered. The view that the word ‘error’ is not synonymous with `mistake’ and that the term `misconstruction’ also is not to be understood in the technical sense of misconstruction or misinterpretation of a provision of law or notification is sound. The words used in a statute are to receive the meaning which the context in which they appear admits. |
| 1981 CLC 1582 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH | ASHRAF ALI VS BANK OF INDIA LTD. | Sections 65 & 72-..difference between sections 65 & ’12–money paid under mistake by plaintiff’s agent on supposition of having been getting genuine shares and transfer forms-recourse, held, can be taken to section 72 for recovery of amount. |
| 1976 PLD 877 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH | MUMTAZ AHMAD VS KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY | Section 72 read with evidence act (i of 1872), section 114 and civil procedure code (v of 1908), o. Iii, rr. 1 & 2-refund of money paid by mistake-alleged seller impersonating deceased allottee of property and in collusion with broker defrauding plaintiff-applicant into paying some money to seller and some to k. D. A. Against outstanding dues in respect of property-civil suit by plaintiff against k, d. A. And heirs of real allottee for recovery of sums paid-k. D. A. Admitting deposit of amount in name of real allottee-trial court holding fact of identity of person paying amount to k. D. A. Not proved for reason, of his failure to give evidence-trial court, held, overlooked provisions of o. Iii, rr. 1 & 2 enabling recognised agent to appear and act on behalf of party-holder of power of attorney from applicant having sworn affidavit of ex parte proof, and same having been accepted by trial court in evidence, and also gone unrebutted, and defendants respondents other than k. D. A. |
| 1975 PLD 193 SUPREME-COURT | KARACHI GAS CO.LTD VS DAWOOD COTTON MILLS LTD | –Sections 7, 8, 9, 63 & 72-implied agreement-contract between gas company (appellant-defendants) and consumers (respondents-plaintiffs) providing for upward revision of price of gas in case of rise in price of furnace oil beyond certain limit-defendant subs. |
| 1975 PLD 26 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH | JAMIA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS KARACHI MUNCIPIAL CORPORATION | Section 11, contract act (ix of 1872), section 72 and specific relief act (i of 1877), section 43-decree, binding force of-estoppel by res judicata erroneous decree becoming final-conclusive between parties-tax recovered under decree passed by civil court but subsequently levy of such tax declared by supreme court to be no longer permissible supreme court judgment-cannot affect operation of decree of civil court-judgment of superior court-cannot by its own force render void or inoperative erroneous decrees to opposite effect-tax paid pursuant to decree operative and not set aside–not refundable. |
| 1965 PTD 557 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA | SUGANMAL VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH | Tax-illegal collection-high court-writ-petition solely for mandamus directing refund-whether will lie-constitution of india; art. 226-contract act, 1872, section 72. |
| 1964 PLD 536 SUPREME-COURT | E. A. EVANS VS MUHAMMAD ASHRAF | Section 30 (1)-tenant agreeing to pay enhanced rent-suggested consideration for agreeing to pay such rent: landlord’s allowing tenant to remain in occupation even after expiry of period of statutory protection-landlord serving notice of ejectment without waiting for such statutory period to expire—–tenant thereby absolved from performing his part of the contract—–contract act (ix of 1872), section 72. |
| 1958 PLD 472 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT | THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS VS DAWOOD CORPORATION LTD | Contract act 1872 sections 65 & 72-import duty paid prior to the date on which it was lifted-cannot be said to have been paid by mistake-such voluntary payment not recoverable-duty paid under protest after it has ceased to be payable can be recovered under section 72. |