Skip to main content
AJURIS » Practices

Practices

AJURIS » Practices

Practices

AJURIS serves as counsel to many of the large multinational and national companies in Pakistan.

We are recognised for our ability to deploy well-configured teams that provide the depth of knowledge, breadth of experience and responsive services that our clients require to meet their critical business objectives.

Appointed to assist the Islamabad High Court on a ‘missing persons’ case whereby an employee of the Pakistan Engineering Council was illegally detained in an undisclosed location (2018 CLC 1858).

Prepared and submitted submissions on the legality of extraditing a Pakistani citizen to the United States, based on the representations from the United States’ government alone, in light of the Extradition Act, 1972 and the bilateral treaty between Pakistan and the United States.

Assisted the Islamabad High Court in interpreting the time-bound quota provisions granted under Article 27 of the Constitution to aspiring public servants from under-represented region of Pakistan.

  • Represented the Civil Aviation Authority in one of the largest contractual-commercial arbitrations in the country on various disputes arising out of the agreement for the construction of the Benazir Bhutto Islamabad International Airport
  • Represented various banks in multiple recovery proceedings under Section 9 of the Recovery of Financial Institutions (Recover of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
  • The issue in this case was whether a modaraba company was prohibited under Prudential Regulations for Modarabas, 2004 from investing more than 5% of the modaraba’s equity in an unlisted company. The Court held that under Regulation 7 (7) of the Prudential Regulations for Modarabas, 2004, an application needed to be moved for seeking the waiver of the above mentioned restriction and the modaraba company is only entitled to issuance of further shares in the company only when such waiver is granted to the modaraba company. This judgment is reported as 2015 CLD 569, First IBL Modaraba versus Mrs. Rana Azhar Saeed.
  • Successfully represented the members of a company under Section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 2017, challenging the oppressive management practices engineered against the said members (2019 CLD 355 Islamabad)
  • Represented a marketing company before both the Islamabad Civil Court and the Islamabad High Court in multiple commercial proceedings arising out of contractual obligations owed by a prominent real estate developer
  • Represent a listed textile company in its minority shareholder and rectification of register suits to safeguard its shareholding in a privately owned company, invoking section 286 and section 126 of the Companies Act, 2017, respectively
  • Represented an Honorable Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the reference proceedings initiated against him for alleged misconduct under Article 209 of the Constitution (PLD 2020 SC 346)
  • Represented terminated workers of the ex-regulator of the medical sector under the successful challenge to the vires of the PMC Ordinance, 2019 (PLD 2020 Islamabad 130)
  • Successfully challenged the scope and extent of the powers vested in Federal Government with regards to the National Transmission and Dispatch Company Limited (“NTDCL”) and its obligations under and pursuant to the Memorandum and Articles of the latter, particularly the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules 2013 (2016 CLD 134 Islamabad)
  • The issue in this case was whether the City District Government Multan was competent to levy the advertisement fee under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2011. The Court held that in the presence of alternate remedies provided under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and Punjab Local Government (Appeals) Rules, 2002, the Court cannot entertain the petition in its constitutional jurisdiction. The case is reported as [(2015) 112 Tax 375(H.C.Lahore)], Engro Foods Limited vs. C.D.G. 
  • The issue in this case was whether Section 127 and Section 130(4) of the ITO are ultravires the Article 9, 10-A and 175 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and reliable to be struck down. The Court held that the Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could not trammel the proceedings commenced on the mandate of the statute, particularly when the said statute itself provided the remedies to the aggrieved persons. The judgment is reported as 2012 PTD 1590, Ocean Pakistan Limited versus Federation of Pakistan.
  • The issue in this case was: Could a partnership firm file a constitutional petition without registration, Deed of Association and an authority letter authorizing the partner to this effect. The Court held that in terms of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, no suit can be instituted unless the firm is registered etc. However, this Section does not apply to the constitutional petitions and not filing a Deed of Association is merely a technical defect which can be cured. The judgment is reported as 2013 CLD 1748, Creative Electronics and Automation versus Commissioner, Lahore
  • Successfully challenged the award of the Safe City Project contract for being in violation of public procurement laws and hence detrimental to public revenue (2012 SCMR 1651)
  • Represented concerned citizens of Islamabad in the writ petition filed against the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for illegal expansion of the Service Road West in G-10 which was in violation of the Islamabad Capital Territory Master Plan
  • Successfully represented the arrested members of civil society, incarcerated on grounds of sedition for merely exercising their right to freedom of speech through protests against the state, in bail proceedings before the Islamabad High Court
  • Represented various leading European conglomerates in defense of the procurement processed for tenders granted by NADRA under the PPRA Rules, 2004 (PLD 2018 Islamabad 150, 2020 CLD 151 Islamabad)
  • Represented a local client against the annulment of procurement contract conferred upon it by the National Highway Authority
  • Represented a leading multi-national food and drink processing conglomerate before the Competition Commission of Pakistan on various matters pertaining to deceptive marketing practices
  • Represented multiple telecommunication service providers before the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority on alleged breaches of terms of licenses conferred upon the former
  • The issue before the Court was: (i) whether the Capital Development Authority (CDA) under Islamabad (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, 1977 can levy advertisement fee on urban as well as rural territories; (ii) whether the fee being charged be held to be against the principle of quid pro quo; and, (iii) whether National Highway Authority (NHA) can demand advertisement fee on signboards. The Court held that Islamabad (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, 1977 were issued in exercise of the power under Section 51 of the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 and therefore, the levy imposed under these regulations could not be termed as ultra vires the Constitution. The Court further held that the CDA can levy fee irrespective of urban or rural territory and the fee being charged was in consonance with the principle of quid pro quo. Furthermore, the Court held that fee demanded by NHA was without basis and was set aside. The case was reported as PLD 2015 Islamabad 36, Shell Pakistan Limited vs. Capital Development Authority.
  • Represented occupants of a farm-housing scheme in writ proceedings against the CDA for abdication of the latter’s regulatory function in breach of the CDA Ordinance, 1960
  • Represented multiple telecommunication service providers against the telecommunication regulator in various proceedings for alleged breach of provisions of the PTA (Re-organization) Act, 1996
  • Represented the owners of a leading news media outlet, challenging the failure of the media regulator to take action against the defamatory statements issued against the owners by a rival media corporation.
  • The issue in this case was: could the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (‘NEPRA’) under Regulation of Generation, Transmission and distribution Act, 1997 (The ‘NEPRA Act’) determine the electricity tariff including motion for leave to review in the absence of any of the five members. The Court held that the Authority while determining the electricity tariff must have full strength i.e. five members including the chairman and in the absence of any of the members the authority cannot determine the electricity tariff. The case is reported as PLD 2015 Lahore 661, National Electric Power Regulatory Authority vs. Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited.
  • The issue in this case was that: could the Local Government withdraw the ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) granted to establish a station for the supply of compressed natural gas (CNG) and petrol. The Court held that the role of Local Government was limited to the activity prior to the issuance of NOC and after the issuance of the same; Local Government became ‘Funtus officio’. Therefore, on the basis of the principal of locus poenitentiae as contained in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Local government was precluded under the law to revoke or to withdraw the NOC as vested right was already created. The case is reported as 2015 MLD 1514, Mehran Filling Station vs. Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority.
  • The issues in this case were that; (i) whether the Federal Government has the power to determine the electricity tariff under the NEPRA Act; (ii) whether Section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act is unconstitutional; (iii) whether the surcharges levied by the Federal Government on electricity tariff are illegal and unconstitutional. The court held that: (i) the determination of electricity tariff fell within the exclusive domain of NEPRA under Section 7(3) OF THE NEPRA Act and Federal Government is not empowered to determine the tax; (ii) Section 31(5) of the NEPRA Act delegated an essential legislative function to the Executive which was not permissible under the Constitution, therefore, Section 31(5) is unconstitutional; (iii) surcharges levied by the Federal Government from time to time were illegal and unconstitutional. The case is reported as PLD 2016 Lahore 35, Flying Cement Company vs. Federation of Pakistan
  • Successfully challenged the appointment of Member/Chairman PTA in a writ of quo warranto (PLD 2013 Lahore 343)
  • Successfully challenged the unlawful termination of the Federal Tax Ombudsman (PLD 2020 Islamabad 1)
  • Successfully challenged the termination of the Chairman of the Policy Board of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
  • The issue before the Court was: Could the amendments be made in the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 (the “1971 Ordinance”) the finance act. The Court held that the 1971 Ordinance does not fall under the purview of Article 73 (2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and the levy under the 1971 Ordinance is in the nature of fee. Furthermore, the Court held that the 1971 Ordinance could only be amended by following the process laid down in Article 70 of the Constitution and it cannot be amended through a money bill. The Court struck down the amendments made in the 1971 Ordinance by Finance Act, 2006 and Finance Act, 2008. The judgment is reported as 2011 PTD 2643, EPTC Versus Federation of Pakistan
  • The issue in this case was whether the advance tax liability of the taxpayer under ITO be adjusted against the principal amount of refund without first adjusting it against the amount of compensation accrued as payable to the taxpayer for delayed payment of that refund. The Court held that under Section 170 and Section 171 of the ITO, the FBR is required to adjust advance tax liability of tax payer first against the amount of delayed payment of compensation and is also required to reduce the tax liability by applying the compensation amount till it was fully adjusted before utilizing the principal refund amount for adjustment. The case is reported as 2015 PTD 911, MCB Bank Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue.
  • The issue before the Court was that could selection of cases by the tax authorities be done under the universal assessment scheme as provided in the ITO. The Court held that the Universal Assessment Scheme could not be imagined as free from verifications and checks and no blanket immunity from verification and check through audit be extended to taxpayer under the law. The case is reported as 2015 PTD 2572, Mujahid Oil Refinery (Private) Limited vs. Director I&I Inland Revenue.
  • Represented plaza-owners against the tax department for alleged non-payment of requisite tax amount as computed under Sections 121 and 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, before the Supreme Court of Pakistan
  • Represent a leading bottling enterprise before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging the levy of water tax placed upon the bottling industry by the latter
  • Represent the Federal Bureau of Revenue (FBR) before the Islamabad High Court in collecting tax revenue for the Government of Pakistan against the amended assessment order generated against a listed telecommunication company invoking section 122(5) and 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
  • The issue before the court was whether Defence Housing Authority (DHA) falls within a definition of a local authority and is exempted from Income Tax in terms of Section 49 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (the ITO). The Court held that DHA falls within the definition of local authority by virtue of managing local funds etc. The judgment is reported as 2010 PTD 2552, DHA versus DCIT.
  • The issue before the Court was: could the taxpayers be also subjected to pay transitional advanced tax under Section 237 of the ITO over and above, when they have already paid advance tax under Section 147 of the ITO during the currency of the same tax year. The Court held that transitional advance tax is not an independent tax but just a separate collection point for receiving advance tax if advance tax has not been already paid, therefore, the taxpayers cannot be subjected to pay the transitional advance tax if they have already made full payment of advance tax under Section 147 of the ITO. The judgment is reported as 2010 PTD 2502, Lone Cold Storage versus Revenue Officer, LEPCO
  • The issue in this case was whether under Article 59 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 the opinion of handwriting expert is mandatory to ascertain the execution of documents and whether courts could consider documents which are not exhibited otherwise to arrive at a just conclusion. The Court held that the Court could refer the matter to the expert for opinion in case of ambiguity; however, it is not necessary for the Court to send the matter to the handwriting expert in every case. The judgments is reported as 2011 CLD 1361, Sheikh Muhammad Azim versus National Bank of Pakistan.
  • The issue in this case was whether SRO 56(I)/ 2010 is illegal and whether the officers of the directorate general of the intelligence and investigation, FBR, are unlawfully authorized to exercise powers under Section 37 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The Court held that the said directorate and its Officers enjoy a specific territorial jurisdiction which is restricted to Karachi and the said officer is performing functions and has initiated the proceedings outside the territorial jurisdictions of this Court and for the same reason; this Court cannot entertain the petition. The judgment is reported as 2012 PTD 1869, Sethi and Sethi Sons versus Federation of Pakistan.
  • The issue in this case was whether 100% tax credit under Section 65-D of the ITO can be treated as a tax exemption and entitles the taxpayer to an exemption certificate. The Court held that tax credit and tax exemption work on the opposite sides of the same equation and are opposite sides of the same coin as far as the applicability of the ITO is concerned. Therefore, the taxpayer who is allowed 100% tax credit under Section 65-D of ITO is entitled to a tax exemption and is not required to pay advance tax. The judgment is reported as 2013 PTD 1883, Nishat Diary (Pvt.) Limited, versus Commissioner Inland Revenue.
  • The issue in this case is whether a show cause notice be issued under Section 122(9) read with Section 122(5-A) of the ITO demanding the income tax payable on transfer of working interest and rights in petroleum concession agreement by the plaintiff. The Court held that the Notice issued by the Revenue Authority cannot be challenged on the High Court without showing the malafides or want of jurisdiction on part of the above said authority, furthermore, remedies provided under the ITO could be availed. The judgment is reported as 2013 PTD 875, Oceans Pakistan Limited versus Federation of Pakistan.
  • The issue before the Court in this case was that could the input tax adjustment be allowed on the provincial sales tax on services. The Court held that in terms of Section 2 (14), Section 2 (22-A) and Section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, provincial sales tax levied on services rendered or provided to a registered person constitutes input tax and input tax adjustment is allowed for the same. The Judgment is reported 2014 PTD 1284, Treet Corporation Limited versus Federation of Pakistan.
  • The issue in this case was whether the unpaid surplus in the pension fund be deemed to be the income of the tax payer and is liable to be taxed under the ITO. The Court held that tax accounting was governed by Rule 4 of Part II of Sixth Schedule to the ITO and as the surplus was not repaid to the taxpayer; therefore, it could not be deemed to be the income and was so not liable to income tax. The judgment is reported as 2014 PTD 1874, MCB Bank Limited versus Commissioner Inland Revenue.
  • The issue before the court was: when the payee/deductee has already paid the advance tax, could the taxpayer be subjected to pay advance tax under the ITO. The Court held that since the taxpayer/deductee has already deposited the advance tax, deductor is not required to pay the deductible amount and can only be subjected to default surcharge for failing to deduct the said amounts at source. This is case reported as 2014 PTD 1939, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines versus Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue.
  • Drafted concession agreements for the National Highway Authority pertaining to the construction of the M-2 and M-9 highways.
  • Advised the World Bank on various matters pertaining to the applicable regulatory framework in Pakistan.
  • Drafted construction and architectural design agreements for a leading construction company based in Islamabad.
  • Regularly advise both local and multinational notable companies and corporate groups on regulatory compliance in Pakistan.
  • Routinely advise leading companies in the food and FMCG industry on compliance with provincial and federal food laws, regulations and standards.
  • Prepared a comprehensive legal feasibility and compliance report for a prominent corporation for undertaking wheat business in Pakistan.
  • Advised the local branch of an international corporation on applicable laws relating to protection of its parent company’s intellectual property, and the civil and criminal remedies available against counterfeit products or infringing entities in Pakistan.
  • Advised an international bank on the effect and legal complications arising from its merger with another banking company on their respective recognized funds.
  • Advised numerous clients on welfare and other contributions to be made towards statutory funds in respect of their workers, payment of mark-up thereon, distribution of profits, and treatment of surplus amounts.
  • Advised the local branch of an international corporation on legal automation of its contracts, scope of digital contracts and evidentiary value of electronic signatures in Pakistan.
  • Advised a prominent public sector company on its legal status and statutory compliance under the existing and former company laws and the various instruments framed thereunder.
  • Prepared an all-inclusive memorandum on labour law compliance for a subsidiary of a foreign company in Pakistan.
  • Advised various companies on compliance with the Companies Act, 2017 and prepared a compliance chart for forms to be filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan and their respective timelines.