LHC orders cane commissioner to resolve dues issue
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has directed the Cane Commissioner of Punjab to resolve within two weeks a payment dispute involving a sugar mill and a local farmer, who claims the mill has failed to clear sugarcane dues exceeding Rs2.4 million.
Justice Shams Mehmood Mirza passed the directive on a petition filed by Amir Farooq, a farmer who alleged that the Ramzan Sugar Mills administration was deliberately delaying payment for sugarcane supplied, despite repeated reminders.
Farooq's counsel told the court that the farmer had delivered sugarcane worth Rs2.464 million to the mill, but the administration had been using delaying tactics under various pretexts, rather than fulfilling its legal obligation to clear the dues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
Section 30 of 1940 Act: SC explains court's jurisdictional extent
ISLAMABAD: The arbitration is an autonomous and final forum, and judicial interference is permissible only in narrow and clearly defined circumstances envisaged by Section 30 of the 1940 Act; i.e., jurisdictional error, proven misconduct, or a patent legal mistake visible on the face of the record. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, rendered this verdict on Pakistan Railways' petition against Lahore High Court (LHC) judgment dated 04.03.2024. The disputes between the petitioner (Pakistan Railways) and the respondent (CRRC Ziyang Co Limited) arose from a contract executed on 01.11.2017 were referred to arbitration by a two-member arbitral tribunal, which rendered the award on 02.07.2021 and filed it before the civil court. The petitioner on 01.09.2021 filed objections to the said award praying for the award to be set aside and the disputes to be remitted back to the arbitrators. The civil court on 23.11.2022 under amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, framed the issues requiring the parties to submit the list of witnesses for the production of evidence within a period of seven days. The respondent under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, assailed the civil court's order dated 23-11-2022 before the LHC, which on 04-03-2024 set aside the said order and remanded the case to the civil court for a decision afresh on the basis of available record. The petitioner approached the apex court against the LHC verdict. The nine-page judgment authored by Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, upholding the LHC order, dismissed the petition. It said objections to arbitration awards, ought to avoid framing issues and record evidence unless absolutely necessary. 'The framing of issues and recording of evidence; however, undermines the core objectives of the 1940 Act, which are efficiency, finality, and minimal judicial intervention.' The judgment noted that arbitration offers several time-related advantages compared to traditional court litigation. Arbitration typically takes less time because the process is more streamlined, with fewer procedural steps and less formality than court proceedings. Justice Hassan wrote that the Courts are expected to pronounce judgment and decree in terms of the award, intervening only on narrow grounds such as misconduct or invalidity of the award, without re-opening factual issues through evidence recording. It is now well settled that arbitrators are entitled to regulate their own procedure and are not governed by the strict procedure prescribed by the CPC and the rules regarding evidence contained in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Arbitrators decide disputes based on evidence presented during arbitration proceedings. They are under no obligation to frame issues as provided in the CPC. The judgment said that courts recording fresh evidence disregard the procedural safeguards in arbitration, such as the Arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction to assess evidence and apply law. This may lead to inconsistent outcomes and procedural unfairness. If the court frames issues and records evidence after objections to an award are filed, parties may use this as an opportunity to re-litigate the entire dispute, leading to multiple proceedings on the same issues besides undermining both the legislative intent and the integrity of the arbitral process. The framing of issues, recording of evidence and hearing arguments post the filing of the award in the court is bound to increase litigation costs for parties and add to the already heavy workload of courts. This again defeats the purpose of arbitration as an economical and efficient alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The recording of evidence and conducting a trial effectively converts the court into an appellate or fact-finding forum, which would be contrary to the statutory scheme envisaged by the 1940 Act. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Express Tribune
Water project contract dispute lands in court
The Lahore High Court's Rawalpindi Bench has taken notice of a petition filed by a Turkish firm against the cancellation of two contracts worth Rs20.4 billion under the Asian Development Bank (ADB)-funded Developing Resilient Environment and Advancing Municipal Services (Dreams-I) for water supply improvement at Chahan Dam. Justice Jawad Hassan has granted both the petitioner and the Dream-I project director a two-week period to resolve the matter amicably, highlighting its significance as a case involving foreign investment and international relations. The petition was filed by Turkish company MS 5H Insaat, one of the original winners of the Lot 2 and Lot 3 contracts alongside Pakistani firm Qasim & Co. Although both firms had secured the bid, the contract was ultimately awarded solely to MS 5H Insaat, citing performance guarantees and other reasons. Upon learning of the situation, Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz ordered a fact-finding investigation by the Chief Minister's Inspection Team (CMIT), which identified serious flaws in the procurement process. It noted that the project, despite being foreign-funded, had not undergone quarterly reviews by its Steering Committee as required. Following the findings, the project's Steering Committee, chaired by Punjab Planning & Development Chairman Barrister Nabeel Awan, decided to cancel the contract and reinitiate the tendering process. The committee also recommended disciplinary action against the officials responsible for the contract award and mandated quarterly reviews for all future foreign-funded projects to ensure transparency.
Business Recorder
6 days ago
- Business Recorder
There can be no criminal proceedings against taxpayer for recovery of arrears: LHC
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that no criminal proceedings can be initiated against a tax payer for recovery of tax arrears until the final determination of liability against him by a competent authority. The court also observed that in the absence of assessment of tax or determination of tax involved, the special judge could not pass the sentence of fine which is the amount of tax involved and part of the penalty provided under the law. The court said the mechanism for recovery of arrears of tax provided in Section 48 of the Sale Tax Act would come into play only once the tax was finally assessed and penalties imposed continued to be unpaid. The court passed this order in a petition of a tobacco company and others who approached against the revenue officials for registration of criminal reports against the petitioner for their involvement in tax evasion. The court said no one is denying the competence of the complainant of carrying out criminal investigation in cases involving tax fraud, however, the dispute is the modus operandi in launching such investigation. The court said a taxpayer can prefer a departmental appeal against the decision of revenue official and then knock the door of appellate tribunal of Inland Revenue by way of filing appeal and that of the high court in the shape of tax reference. The court said civil and criminal proceedings can run side by side but it is a principle of law that where the criminal liability is dependent upon or connected with the result of civil adjudication, criminal proceedings can be stopped till the outcome of civil matter for safer administration of justice. The court, however, said the provisions of the Act gave a privilege to the tax payer to compound the offence subject to payment of amount of tax due against him. The court said if the amount of tax due against a tax payer was not assessed prior to launching of criminal proceedings, then it would amount to shut the window of compound ability for a tax payer, as without determination of amount of tax due, the commissioner would not be able to compound the offence. The court said the petitioners have been regularly filing sales tax returns and prior to launching of impugned complaint neither any audit report, show-cause notice nor any assessment order was in the field against them. The court, therefore, quashed the impugned complaint registered being unconstitutional, ultra vires of the Act and against the fundamental right of the petitioner. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
