Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.

• Nasir Ali Shah Bukhari and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 7 othersK.L.R 2016 Civil Cases 404 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-05
  banking moratoriumamalgamation of banking companiesregulatory powernon-obstante clauseexcessive delegationconstitutional petitionpremature petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the State Bank of Pakistan's (SBP) regulatory actions regarding the moratorium and proposed amalgamation of KASB Bank Limited under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. The petitioners contended that the SBP's powers under Section 47 constituted excessive delegation of judicial functions and violated their property rights, further arguing that Section 48, which requires shareholder approval for amalgamations, should apply. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the SBP's actions under Section 47 are regulatory and executive, not judicial. The Court affirmed that Section 47 contains a non-obstante clause, which excludes the application of Section 48 regarding shareholder approval for amalgamations. The judgment established that regulatory powers exercised by the SBP to manage banking crises are administrative in nature. Furthermore, the Court held that a non-obstante clause in a statute overrides inconsistent provisions within the same legislative part. Finally, the Court ruled that constitutional petitions based on mere apprehension of future harm, where administrative remedies are still pending, are premature and not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power of the State Bank of Pakistan to apply for a moratorium and prepare an amalgamation scheme under Section 47 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, constitute an exercise of judicial power?
  • Does the non-obstante clause in Section 47 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, exclude the application of Section 48 regarding shareholder approval for bank amalgamations?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained based on the mere apprehension of future adverse action by a regulatory authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseem Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 1305 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-07
  Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistanconstitutional petitionappointment of Commissionerre-appointmenttenure limittransparent competitive processstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2 as a Commissioner and subsequently as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. The core legal question revolves around whether a person who has already completed two terms as a Commissioner can be re-appointed or appointed for a third term under the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997. The Islamabad High Court held that while the Act bars the 're-appointment' of a Commissioner for a third consecutive term after completing the cumulative period of two terms, it does not place any statutory bar or disqualification on such a person being newly 'appointed' through a fresh, transparent, and competitive selection process. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as meritless, establishing that previous tenure does not permanently disqualify an individual from competing in an open, transparent process for a fresh appointment as Commissioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who has completed two terms as a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan is barred from being appointed for a third term?
  • Is there a distinction between 'appointment' and 're-appointment' under Section 7 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997?
  • Does the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 disqualify a former Commissioner from participating in a fresh transparent selection process after completing their cumulative terms?
  • Can a Commissioner who has held office for two consecutive terms be subsequently appointed as the Chairman of the Commission?
  Read full judgment →
• Najeeb Ullah Khan and another vs Mst. Hameeda Chaudhry and others2016 YLR 1538 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-21Read full judgment →
• Najeeb Ullah Khan and another vs Mst Hameeda Chaudhry and others2016 PLJ Islamabad 264, 2016 YLR 1538, 2016 C.L.R. 551 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-21Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Younas vs Additional District Judge and 3 others2016 KLR Civil Cases 9, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 58, 2016 CLC 474 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-09-25Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Younas vs Additional District Judge & 3 others2016 KLR Civil Cases 9 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Raza Abbasi vs Sardar Abu.Bakar and 2 others2016 CLC 1051, 2016 C.L.R. 533 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-01Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Raza Abbasi vs Sardar Abu Bakar and 2 others2016 CLC 1051 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Summit Bank Limited vs Muhammad Ramzan2016 PLJ Islamabad 49 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-09-29Read full judgment →
• M/s. Paktel Limited,Islamabad. vs Collector of Central Excise & Sales Tax,PTCL 2016 CL. 296 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Member2016 P.C.T.L.R. 617 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs The Deputy2016 PTD 2685, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 840 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-09Read full judgment →
• M/s. Infotech Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 885 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Infotech (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 otherss2016 PLJ Islamabad 529 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-22Read full judgment →
• M/s. Huawei Technologies Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner InlandPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 54, 2016 PTD 1799, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 398 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• M/s. Huawei Technologies Pakistan Ltd. vs Commissioner InlandPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 54 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Haq Bahu Sugar Mills Private Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 138, 2016 PTD 955, 2016 C.L.R. 367 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-11Read full judgment →
• M/s. Haq Bahu Sugar Mills Private Limited vs Federation of Pakistan2016 PLJ Islamabad 138 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Capital Poultry Feed & Dall Mills, etc. vs Presiding Officer of2016 PLJ Islamabad 430 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Al-Haj Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited, through its authorized officer vs2016 P.C.T.L.R. 578 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Mia Corporation (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan PWD and others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-08-31Read full judgment →
• M/s Cargill Holdings vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-15Read full judgment →
• Mustehkam Cement Ltd. vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu, Islamabad2016 P.C.T.L.R. 628, 2016 PTD 2853 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
• Mustehkam Cement Limited vs Commissioner Inland Revenue, Ltu, Islamabad2016 P.C.T.L.R. 628 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mujahid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Member (Judicial), Customs Appellate Tribunal and others2016 PTD 2515 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zulfiqar and another vs Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad. and others2016 PLJ Islamabad 401 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zulfiqar and another vs Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad and others2016 PLJ Islamabad 401, 2016 PLD Islamabad 91 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaqub Brohi vs Ministry of Housing & Works and others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Etc. vs Pakistan Bar Council, Etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Fahim vs Abdullah Tayyab and 2 others2016 MLD 1121, K.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 208 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Fahim vs Abdullah Tayyab and 2 other2016 MLD 1121 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 1315 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-14
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substanceschemical analysisprocedural delayborderline casefurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail concerns a charge under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, involving the recovery of 1150 grams of charas and 250 grams of heroin. The core legal questions were whether a seven-day delay in sending samples for chemical analysis, in violation of the 72-hour requirement under the Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, constitutes grounds for bail, and whether the quantity recovered qualifies as a borderline case between Section 9(b) and 9(c) of the Act. The Court held that the failure to adhere to the mandatory timeline for chemical analysis rendered the prosecution's case one of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court determined that the recovered quantity marginally exceeded the threshold, classifying it as a borderline case. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the procedural lapse and the nature of the evidence—being exclusively police witnesses—warranted the concession. The principle established is that procedural non-compliance regarding sample dispatch timelines in narcotics cases entitles an accused to further inquiry and potential bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in sending narcotic samples for chemical analysis beyond the 72-hour period prescribed by the Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the recovery of a quantity of narcotics marginally exceeding the threshold between Section 9(b) and Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, considered a borderline case for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the fact that all prosecution witnesses are police officials reduce the risk of evidence tampering in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid Amin vs Rizwan Ahmed Bhatti and another2016 PLJ Islamabad 246 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sajid Amin vs Riz Wan Ahmed Bhatti and another2016 PLJ Islamabad 246, 2016 YLR 1497 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs The State and others2016 PLJ Islamabad 315, 2016 P Cr. LJ 998 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-11
  quashment of FIRprivate complaintArticle 199 jurisdictionissuance of processSection 173 Cr.P.C.criminal proceduretrial court discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved two consolidated writ petitions challenging criminal proceedings arising from a business dispute. The petitioner sought the quashment of an FIR and orders issued in a private complaint case. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to quash criminal proceedings after a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been submitted or after a trial court had taken cognizance. The Court dismissed both petitions, holding that it must exercise restraint and not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court at the pre-trial stage. The ratio established that the issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires only an opinion of sufficient grounds, not proof of guilt. Furthermore, where both an FIR and a private complaint exist for the same allegations, the private complaint should be tried first, with the challan case kept dormant. The Court emphasized that adequate alternate remedies exist for the petitioner within the trial court framework.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an FIR under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 after a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been submitted?
  • What is the standard for a trial court to issue process against an accused under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • How should a trial court proceed when both an FIR and a private complaint contain the same allegations against the same accused?
  • Can the opinion formed by a trial court for issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be equated with the existence of reasonable grounds for believing an accused is guilty under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rizwan vs State, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 315 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Farida Khan and others2016 CLC 1451 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-18
  eviction proceedingsspecific performancelandlord and tenantexecution of ordersrent controllerdenial of titlesummary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge, which dismissed the petitioner's objection petition in execution proceedings arising from an eviction order. The petitioner, a tenant, sought to stall eviction by claiming he had purchased the rented premises and had instituted a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether the pendency of such a civil suit or the absence of a formal decree could stay execution proceedings under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. The Court held that the petition lacked merit, affirming that the Rent Controller’s orders are executable as decrees by legal fiction. It established that a tenant cannot use the mere pendency of a civil suit for specific performance to avoid eviction or stall proceedings. The Court emphasized that a tenant denying the landlord's title must vacate the premises before contesting proprietary rights. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Rent Controller’s summary jurisdiction should not be hampered by parallel civil litigation, and tenants are estopped from using frivolous ownership claims to prolong unauthorized possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell entitle a tenant to stay eviction proceedings?
  • Are execution proceedings before a Rent Controller invalid if no formal decree is passed?
  • Can a tenant who denies the landlord's title continue to occupy the premises pending the outcome of a civil suit regarding ownership?
  • Does the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 require the consolidation of rent eviction proceedings with a separate civil suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique vs Farida Khan & others2016 PLJ Islamabad 489 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs SHO P.S Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad, etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer vs Khalil-Ur-Rehman, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 423 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer vs Khalil-Ur-Rehman and otherss2016 PLJ Islamabad 423, 2016 CLC 1527 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer Abbasi vs Capital Development Authority & others2016 PLJ Islamabad 105 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-11-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nafees vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/O2016 PLJ Islamabad 111 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nafees vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o2016 PLJ Islamabad 111, 2016 PLC (C.S.) 381 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-09-03
  recruitment policyICT policeprovincial quotafundamental rightsconstitutional equalitydiscriminatory practicecivil service recruitment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the recruitment process for the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) Police, specifically contesting the absence of a reserved quota for ICT residents and the denial of grace marks for children of police officials. The core legal question was whether the existing recruitment policy, which lumped ICT residents with the Punjab province quota, violated constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The court held that the prevailing policy was discriminatory and offensive to fundamental rights, noting that while other provinces maintained district-specific recruitment, ICT residents were unfairly forced to compete with the larger population of Punjab. Consequently, the court set aside the relevant Office Memoranda to the extent they merged the ICT quota with Punjab. It directed the authorities to reserve a separate quota of not less than 20% for ICT residents, defined as those born in or holding domicile and residing in the territory for ten years. The judgment affirms that the state must ensure fair representation and equality of opportunity in public services, prohibiting exclusionary practices that deprive local citizens of their constitutional rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is the inclusion of the Islamabad Capital Territory within the Punjab provincial recruitment quota discriminatory and unconstitutional?
  • Does the failure to reserve a specific quota for residents of the Islamabad Capital Territory in federal police recruitment violate fundamental rights?
  • Can the court mandate the reservation of a specific percentage of posts for local residents in the Islamabad Capital Territory?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muneer Malik, etc. vs Allama Iqbal Open University, etcs2016 PLJ Islamabad 506 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muneer Malik and others vs Allama Iqbal Open University2016 PLJ Islamabad 506, 2016 PLC (C.S.) 896 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-18
  transparent selection processeligibility criteriapublic appointmentequivalence of experiencedeviation from advertisementconstitutional petitionacademic and administrative appointments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the appointment of the fourth respondent as Deputy Director (BPS-19) at the Allama Iqbal Open University. The core legal question concerned whether public authorities could alter or deviate from explicitly advertised eligibility criteria and experience requirements during a selection process, thereby violating principles of transparency, fairness, and the governing statutes. The Court held that the selection process was vitiated because the fourth respondent did not possess the requisite experience prescribed under the Statutes and the press advertisement, and the Eligibility Committee illegally equated her experience as a 'Designer' rather than the specified managerial or production posts. The Court ruled that altering eligibility criteria after the deadline for applications violates transparency and fundamental rights. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appointment order, establishing the principle that recruitment criteria advertised to the public are binding and cannot be relaxed or materially deviated from to accommodate ineligible candidates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conditions relating to experience prescribed in university statutes and expressly mentioned in an advertisement can be altered or deviated from during the selection process?
  • Does a non-transparent selection process for public appointments violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can an eligibility committee lawfully equate the general experience of an unrelated post with specific designated managerial or production posts required in an advertisement?
  • What legal consequences follow when the foundational order declaring a candidate eligible is found to be without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Masroor-Ul-Haq vs Federation of Pakistan through its2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-25
  deputationrepatriationwedlock policypromotion quotavested rightconstitutional petitionautonomous body
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges an Office Order issued by the Workers Welfare Fund (WWF) repatriating the petitioner, who was posted on deputation from the Sindh Workers Welfare Board (S-WWB), back to his parent department from a post reserved for the promotion quota. The core legal questions involve whether a deputationist has a vested right to complete a deputation period or resist repatriation on the grounds of the wedlock policy, and whether an employee of a provincial board can claim a regular transfer rather than deputation to a federal body. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a deputationist has no vested right or legitimate expectation to remain on deputation indefinitely or to complete a specific tenure, that the competent authority may repatriate a deputationist at any time without assigning reasons, and that deputationists cannot occupy posts reserved for promotion quotas. The court further held that the wedlock policy does not override service exigencies or create an enforceable right against repatriation, and that an employee from the provincial board cannot claim absorption or avoid deputation status.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to complete a specified period of deputation in a borrowing department?
  • Can a competent authority repatriate a deputationist to their parent department at any time without assigning reasons?
  • Does the government wedlock policy override service exigencies to prevent the repatriation of a deputationist?
  • Can a deputationist legally occupy a post reserved for the promotion quota of the borrowing department?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Majid vs Secretary, Ministry of Man Power & Overseas2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kamran Nadeem and 11 others vs Webcom (Pvt.) Limited2016 CLD 1277 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javed and another vs Syed Aftab Ali Naqvi and others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-18Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed Qureshi vs Walait Khan and others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas etc. vs Shahid Abbas, Etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2014-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faizan Riffat Ullah Khan vs The State, etc.K.L.R. 2016 Criminal Cases 109 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-10
  juvenile offenderdetermination of ageossification testforged documentscriminal revisionmedical board opinion
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West, whereby his application under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to be declared a juvenile was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had successfully established his status as a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence through reliable documentary evidence or if the medical board's ossification report and discrepancies in his produced documents disproved his minority. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had relied on manipulated and forged school documents, and that discrepancies regarding his date and place of birth, coupled with an authenticated medical board and ossification test determining his age to be over twenty-five years, negated his claim of minority. The court laid down the principle that when documentary evidence regarding age is found to be forged, doubtful, or contradictory, and reliable medical opinion supported by an ossification test is available, the medical assessment carries substantial weight in determining the age of an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ossification test prevails over birth certificates and school records when the primary educational documents are found to be forged or missing?
  • Can an accused claim the status of a juvenile on the basis of contradictory and maneuvered testimonials regarding his date and place of birth?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an ossification report conducted by a medical board in determining the age of an accused claiming minority?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faizan Riffat Ullah Khan vs The State and anotherK.L.R. 2016 Criminal Cases 109, PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 381, 2016 P Cr. L J · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-10
  juvenile offenderdetermination of ageossification testforged documentscriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West, whereby his application under section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 seeking to be declared a juvenile and tried as such was dismissed. The core legal question involved the determination of the petitioner's age and whether he qualified as a juvenile at the time of the alleged offense under sections 302, 364, 201, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish his minority through reliable educational or birth records, having relied instead on manipulated and forged school admission forms, while the ossification test conducted by a medical board and other official documents indicated he was an adult. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that where educational and birth records are found to be manipulated or absent, the medical opinion and ossification test, along with other supporting official records, authenticated by a proper medical board, will prevail in determining the age of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ossification test prevails when educational records and birth certificates are found to be forged or missing?
  • Can an accused claim juvenile status on the basis of manipulated and unverified school admission forms?
  • Whether the findings of a medical board regarding age can be discarded on the basis of belated and unsubstantiated allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faizan Riffat Ullah Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 381 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-10
  juvenile justiceossification testdetermination of ageforged documentsmedical boardcriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad-West, which had dismissed his application under Section 7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 (erroneously cited as 2007) to be declared a juvenile. The petitioner claimed his date of birth was 14.04.1997 based on school and passport documents. However, the prosecution and trial court records revealed that the school admission form produced by the petitioner was forged, as confirmed by the school principal. Furthermore, there were material discrepancies regarding his place of birth across different documents, and a medical board comprising four doctors conducted an ossification test determining his age to be over 25 years. The High Court held that where educational records are absent or proven forged, the medical board's opinion based on an ossification test is highly authenticated and prevails over doubtful certificates. Finding that the petitioner attempted to maneuver records and produced forged documents, the Court dismissed the revision petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ossification test report by a medical board can prevail over birth and school certificates when the authenticity of those certificates is doubtful or proven forged?
  • What is the legal effect of a petitioner submitting forged educational documents to claim juvenile status under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance?
  • Can a petitioner claim the benefit of juvenile status when there are material and unresolved discrepancies regarding their date and place of birth across official records?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Hayat vs Govt. of Pakistan, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 515 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-21
  constitutional petitionservice matterdisciplinary inquiryArticle 212civil servantService Tribunalmaintainabilityterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging ongoing disciplinary inquiry proceedings. The petitioner alleged that the inquiry violated his right to a fair trial under Article 10-A and contravened the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, due to the denial of necessary documents and defense opportunities. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant, notwithstanding the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It determined that disciplinary matters are inextricably linked to the terms and conditions of service, falling exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal established under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Court affirmed the principle that civil servants cannot bypass the Service Tribunal by invoking fundamental rights or alleging procedural irregularities, as Article 212 provides an absolute bar to the High Court's jurisdiction in such service-related matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge disciplinary inquiry proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant bypass the Service Tribunal by alleging a violation of fundamental rights in disciplinary matters?
  • Do disciplinary matters fall under the terms and conditions of service for the purpose of Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Additional District and Sessions Judge and 22016 C.L.R. 1475, 2016 CLC 1838 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar vs Additional District & Sessions Judge and 2 others2016 C.L.R. 1475 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram, Etc. vs Irshad Mahmood, Etc.2016 NLR Revenue 114 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram and others vs Irshad Mahmood and others2016 NLR Revenue 114, 2016 CLC 1208, 2016 C.L.R. 561 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar Chohan vs Rent Controller Islamabad, etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ajaib vs Zahida Arshad, etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan Moin vs Federation of Paksitan, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 219 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-18
  disciplinary proceedingssummary procedureregular inquirynatural justicemisconductservice lawdiscretion of authorized officerback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the National Telecommunication Corporation (NTC), challenged their dismissal from service following allegations of sending derogatory text messages. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, which allows for a summary procedure, rather than a regular inquiry under Rule 6. The petitioners denied the allegations, which relied on a SIM card registered to another employee who had admitted to having personal differences with the petitioners. The Court examined whether the authorized officer properly exercised discretion in dispensing with a regular inquiry. The Court held that where charges are serious, involve intricate and disputed questions of fact, and carry the penalty of dismissal, a regular inquiry is mandatory to satisfy the requirements of natural justice. The Court found that the summary procedure caused prejudice to the petitioners, as they were denied the right to cross-examine witnesses or properly rebut evidence. Consequently, the dismissal orders were set aside, and the petitioners were reinstated with back benefits, with liberty granted to the authority to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • When is it mandatory for an authorized officer to conduct a regular inquiry under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973, instead of a summary procedure under Rule 5?
  • Can disciplinary proceedings based solely on questionnaires without the examination or cross-examination of witnesses be sustained in cases involving disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the failure to hold a regular inquiry in cases of serious misconduct and dismissal constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice?
  • Is the discretion of an authorized officer to dispense with a regular inquiry absolute, or must it be exercised based on the nature of the charges and the interest of justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan Moin vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 C.L.R. 318 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-18
  disciplinary proceedingsregular inquirysummary proceduremisconductdiscretion of authorized officerremoval from serviceconstitutional petitionmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated petition challenges the dismissal of the petitioners from service at the National Telecommunication Corporation (NTC) on allegations of generating derogatory text messages against management using a SIM registered in another employee's name. The core legal question is whether the authorized officer lawfully exercised discretion under Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 to dispense with a regular inquiry involving disputed questions of fact. The court held that where charges are serious and involve intricate, denied questions of fact, dispensing with a regular inquiry and relying solely on a preliminary fact-finding report conducted via questionnaires is arbitrary and causes prejudice to the accused. The ratio decidendi is that an authorized officer must properly apply an independent mind and cannot resort to summary disciplinary procedures under Rule 5 when the nature of the misconduct necessitates a regular inquiry under Rule 6 to examine and cross-examine witnesses. Consequently, the impugned dismissal orders were set aside, and the petitioners were reinstated with back benefits, leaving it open to the competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an authorized officer can dispense with a regular inquiry under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 when the charges involve serious and disputed questions of fact?
  • Does conducting a fact-finding inquiry through questionnaires satisfy the requirements of a regular inquiry under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Is it mandatory for the competent authority to provide the accused employee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in disciplinary proceedings involving complex factual controversies?
  • Does the failure to bring the alleged derogatory text messages on record vitiate the charge-sheet and subsequent dismissal orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan Moin vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 C.L.R. 318, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 219, 2016 PLC (C.S.) 549 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-18
  disciplinary proceedingssummary procedurenatural justiceregular inquirymisconductGovernment Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973constitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the dismissal of employees of the National Telecommunication Corporation (NTC) for alleged misconduct involving the generation of derogatory text messages. The core legal question was whether the authorized officer lawfully exercised discretion under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, to dispense with a regular inquiry and proceed summarily, despite the petitioners' denial of the charges and the existence of disputed questions of fact. The Court held that the summary procedure was improper and caused prejudice to the petitioners. The ratio establishes that where charges of misconduct are serious and involve intricate, disputed questions of fact, the authorized officer cannot dispense with a regular inquiry under Rule 6. The Court emphasized that discretion must be exercised reasonably, not arbitrarily, and that proceedings based merely on questionnaires, without affording the accused an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or defend themselves against specific allegations, violate the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the dismissal orders were set aside, and the petitioners were reinstated with back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authorized officer dispense with a regular inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, when the charges involve serious disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the use of questionnaires in a fact-finding inquiry satisfy the requirements of a regular inquiry under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Is an authorized officer's discretion to proceed under Rule 5 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, subject to judicial review regarding its reasonableness?
  Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd vs Director (Enforcement) Head of Department, SECP andothers2016 CLD 2293, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 873 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mubarak Textile Mills (Pvt) Ltd vs Director (Enforcement), Head of Department Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan and others2016 CLD 2293 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Safa Arshad vs The learned Additional Sessions Judge (East), Islamabad, etc2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Parveen Akhtar vs Subash Chandar, etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Maham Shabbir vs Salman Haider & Another2016 NLR Civil 421 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-10-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Basan Bi and 2 others vs Additional District Judge-v, East2016 PLJ Islamabad 353, 2016 CLC 1111 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-24
  restoration of suitdismissal for non-prosecutionprocess feesufficient causelimitation periodcondonation of delaycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged an order of the Additional District Judge, which set aside a trial court's decision to restore a suit previously dismissed under Order IX, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioners had failed to deposit the process fee for summoning newly impleaded defendants, leading to the dismissal of the suit against those parties in 2011. The petitioners sought restoration four years later, claiming ignorance of the dismissal order. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in restoring the suit despite the significant delay and lack of sufficient cause. The High Court held that the trial court's initial dismissal was lawful and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the four-year delay in seeking restoration. The court emphasized that while law favors adjudication on merits over technicalities, it does not condone gross negligence or indolence. Consequently, the High Court upheld the appellate order, ruling that the application for restoration was time-barred under Article 163, Limitation Act, 1908, and lacked merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is the dismissal of a suit under Order IX, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, mandatory or discretionary?
  • What is the limitation period for filing an application to set aside a dismissal order passed under Order IX, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a party claim ignorance of a court order when the order was passed in the presence of their counsel or recorded in the case file?
  • Does the failure to pay process fees constitute sufficient cause for the restoration of a suit after a significant delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Namoos Zaheer vs Azfar Hussain and another2016 CLC 1425, 2016 C.L.R. 646 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-03
  territorial jurisdictionforeign judgmentanti-suit injunctionsubmission to jurisdictionjudicial comityreturn of plaintCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenge orders passed by the Civil Court, Islamabad, returning plaints for lack of territorial jurisdiction in suits for damages and declaration/injunction. The appellant sought to litigate matters concerning a property in London and a debt adjudicated by a London court, despite the respondents residing in Karachi and the appellant having previously participated in the London proceedings. The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Civil Court correctly returned the plaints. The Court held that under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, no cause of action arose in Islamabad. Furthermore, by actively participating in the London proceedings through a defense and counter-claim, the appellant voluntarily submitted to that foreign jurisdiction. The Court clarified that Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not permit a preemptive suit to declare a foreign judgment void; such challenges must be raised when the foreign judgment is sought to be enforced in Pakistan. The principle of judicial comity requires respect for foreign judgments rendered by competent courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a party who contests a suit on merits in a foreign court without objecting to jurisdiction voluntarily submit to that court's jurisdiction?
  • Can a suit be maintained in Pakistan to declare a foreign judgment illegal on the grounds of fraud before the foreign judgment is sought to be enforced?
  • Does the mere residence of a plaintiff in a specific jurisdiction create a cause of action for a suit regarding a foreign property and a foreign debt?
  • Is a court required to return a plaint under Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if it lacks territorial jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Namoos vs Mr. Azfar Hussain & another2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nusrat Kausar Gillani vs Aftab Ahmed Khan and another2016 YLR 1690 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nazia Sohail vs Mst. Iqbal Begum and another2016 PLJ Islamabad 239, 2016 MLD 1403 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-25Read full judgment →
• Mis. Travel Waliis (Pvt.) Limited vs Commissioner Appeals, Income Tax, Islamabad, EtcNLR 2016 Tax 42 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mis. Siemens Aktiengese- vs Pakistan, etc. Ilschaft, Germany. Present:2016 PTD 1158, PTCL 2016 CL. 52 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Wise Communication System (Pvt.) Ltd. (Ldi & FLL Operator)2016 CLC 759 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-06-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Summit Bank Ltd. vs Mohammad Ramzan2016 PLJ Islamabad 49, 2016 MLD 139 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-09-29
  damagestortmalicious prosecutiondishonored chequefinance facilitygeneral damages
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant regular first appeal arises from a judgment and decree whereby the trial court decreed a suit for damages filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant bank to the tune of one million rupees. Respondent No.1 had defaulted on a finance facility and issued a post-dated cheque which was subsequently dishonored, prompting the appellant to file an application before the police for lodging an FIR, which was later resolved amicably. The core legal question centered on whether filing a police complaint based on a dishonored cheque constitutes a legal wrong or malicious prosecution entitling the plaintiff to general damages. The Islamabad High Court held that mere filing of a complaint with police authorities regarding a dishonored cheque does not constitute a wrongful act, nor was there any evidence of malicious prosecution or actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. Consequently, the High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit for damages, laying down that general or special damages cannot be awarded in the absence of a proven wrongful act, malice, and direct proximate loss.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a complaint with police authorities based on a dishonored cheque constitute a legal wrong?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish a case of malicious prosecution?
  • Can general damages be awarded in a suit for damages without proof of a wrongful act and direct proximate loss?
  • Whether filing an application before the police regarding an outstanding finance amount amounts to confinement and wrongful prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Siemens Aktiengesellschaft ("Siemens Ag") 2 through Authorized2016 PTD 1158 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Paktel Ltd., Islamabad vs Collector of Central Excise and Sales Tax, RawalpindiPTCL 2016 CL. 296, 2016 PTD 1754 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kingcrete Builders. vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3PTCL 2016 CL. 779 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Kingcrete Builders through General Manager vs Central BoardPTCL 2016 CL. 779, 2016 PTD 1142 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited vs Deputy2016 PTD 2685 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Infotech (Private) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 885, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 529, 2016 PTD 2839 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-22
  minimum taxincome tax ordinancevires of statuteturnover taxconstitutional petitionlegislative competenceservice sector
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment of the Islamabad High Court addresses a batch of constitutional petitions challenging the vires of Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, specifically concerning the imposition of minimum tax at the rate of 8% on payments received by companies for rendering or providing services. The core legal questions revolved around whether a tax on gross turnover/receipts constitutes a valid tax on income under Entry 47 of Schedule IV to the Constitution, whether Section 153 is a valid charging section without statutory machinery for calculation, and whether the 8% rate is confiscatory, expropriatory, or discriminatory under Article 25. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that minimum tax is a recognized species of income tax within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 47 of Schedule IV, relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 582). The Court established that the legislature has plenary powers to levy minimum tax on gross receipts, that procedural machinery for assessment and collection applies uniformly from the scheme of the Ordinance, and that petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving the tax rate to be confiscatory or violative of equal protection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minimum tax levied on gross turnover under Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, falls within the legislative competence of Parliament under Entry 47 of Schedule IV to the Constitution?
  • Does the imposition of minimum tax at the rate of 8% on gross receipts for rendering services amount to a confiscatory or expropriatory tax violating fundamental rights?
  • Whether Section 153 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, lacks necessary procedural machinery for the assessment and levy of minimum tax?
  • Does the differential treatment of minimum tax rates for certain service sectors under the Income Tax (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Huawei Technologies Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner2016 PTD 1799 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haq Bahu Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 PTD 955 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Capital Poultry Feed and Dall Mills and others vs Presiding2016 PLJ Islamabad 430, 2016 CLD 1260 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Safa Golden Co. (Pvt.) Limited vs Capital Development2016 CLC 210 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-29
  constitutional petitionbuilding control regulationslocus poenitentiaevested rightsillegal constructionnatural justiceCapital Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a letter issued by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) suspending a previously approved building plan revision. The petitioner, having purchased a plot and obtained approval for a multi-storey building, argued that the suspension was issued without authority, violated the principle of locus poenitentiae, and infringed upon vested rights. The core legal questions were whether the suspension was legally authorized, whether the petitioner had acquired an irrevocable vested right, and whether the matter involved disputed questions of fact unsuitable for constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the petition was meritless, noting that the approvals were explicitly conditional upon adherence to building regulations. The Court affirmed that no vested right accrues from illegal construction or violations of building codes, and that the State cannot permit structures that compromise safety. Furthermore, the Court determined that the dispute involved factual determinations regarding building violations, which are not amenable to adjudication under Article 199. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing that the petitioner had not exhausted administrative remedies and that the suspension did not violate natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner claim a vested right in a building approval that violates established building zoning regulations?
  • Is the suspension of a building approval by a regulatory authority subject to judicial review under Article 199 when the matter involves disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to prevent the revocation of an approval granted in violation of building codes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Haj Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited through Authorized Officer' vs Collector of Customs, Model Customs Collectorate, Islamabad and 3 others2016 P.C.T.L.R. 578, 2016 PTD 2146 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Amin and 22 others vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-09-29
  transferred employeesPTCLstatutory terms and conditionsseniority-cum-fitnessown pay and scaleservice structurewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated petition concerns the rights of "transferred employees" of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), who were formerly employees of the Telegraph and Telephone Department. The petitioners sought regularization of promotions, payment of salary differentials, and challenged disciplinary proceedings and performance evaluation systems. The core legal questions were whether these employees retain civil servant status, whether their terms and conditions are statutory, and whether PTCL can unilaterally alter their service structure. The Court held that while transferred employees are no longer civil servants, their terms and conditions of service are statutory and protected under Section 36 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996. The Court ruled that PTCL cannot intermingle the seniority lists of transferred employees with those of new inductees and must maintain separate lists. Furthermore, the Court determined that acting in a higher post on "own pay and scale" does not confer a vested right to regular promotion. The principle laid down is that PTCL must assess the promotion of transferred employees based on seniority-cum-fitness, ensuring their protected statutory terms are not adversely altered.

  Questions settled

  • Are transferred employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited still considered civil servants?
  • Does working against a higher post on "own pay and scale" confer a vested right to regular promotion?
  • Is the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited required to maintain separate seniority lists for transferred employees and new inductees?
  • Are the terms and conditions of service of transferred employees protected under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996?
  Read full judgment →
• Masud Humayun vs Federal Public Service Commission and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 1091 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-21
  Competitive ExaminationService MatterFPSCReallocation of VacancyNon-joinerMerit ListDiscriminatory Treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the refusal of the Federal Public Service Commission to reallocate a vacancy in the Police Service of Pakistan to the appellant, who was the next eligible candidate on the merit list. The core legal question was whether the Commission is obligated to reallocate a vacancy caused by a non-joining candidate to the next meritorious candidate when that vacancy arises from a prior examination cycle rather than the current one. The Court held that the appeal should be allowed, setting aside the Commission's refusal. It determined that the Office Memorandum dated 19.03.1991, which governs reallocations for non-joiners before the commencement of the Common Training Programme, applies to all such vacancies regardless of their origin. The Court established the principle that where a vacancy is created by a non-joining candidate before training commences, the Commission is duty-bound to reallocate that seat to the next eligible candidate on the merit list, and failing to do so constitutes discriminatory treatment in violation of the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Federal Public Service Commission obligated to reallocate a vacancy created by a non-joining candidate to the next eligible candidate on the merit list?
  • Does the Office Memorandum dated 19.03.1991 distinguish between original and carried-over vacancies for the purpose of reallocation?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to hear a challenge regarding the allocation of a specific service group following a competitive examination?
  • Can the Federal Public Service Commission refuse to reallocate a vacancy that arises before the commencement of the Common Training Programme?
  Read full judgment →
• Mashkoor Ahmed Khokhar vs The Family Judge (East), Islamabad etc2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mar! Petroleum Company Ltd vs Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue and others2016 PTD 2406 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-13
  writ petitioninterim reliefcoercive measurestax recoveryAppellate Tribunal Inland RevenueIncome Tax Ordinance 2001stay of recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Mari Petroleum Company Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Islamabad High Court seeking the expeditious disposal of its appeal and interim relief against a tax demand of Rs. 648,837,532/-. The demand followed a show-cause notice issued under Section 122(5A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Despite previous court directions for the Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) to decide the matter within specific timeframes, the appeal was eventually dismissed, prompting a further appeal to the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal was currently non-functional due to the absence of a Chairman, leaving the petitioner vulnerable to coercive recovery measures. The Court, following precedents and its own prior interim orders in related writ petitions, granted a stop-gap measure. It directed the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal within 60 days and restrained the department from taking coercive measures against the petitioner until the appeal's final determination. The petition was disposed of without notice to the respondents to ensure immediate temporary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can grant interim protection against tax recovery when the relevant Appellate Tribunal is non-functional?
  • Can a court direct the expeditious disposal of a tax appeal within a specific timeframe as a stop-gap measure?
  • Whether the department can be restrained from adopting coercive measures for recovery during the pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Associates Ltd. etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.s2016 PLJ Islamabad 543 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan2016 PLJ Islamabad 543, 2016 MLD 2006 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Mumtaz Qadri vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 6, PLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 633 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-03-09
  blasphemyextrajudicial killingqatl-e-amddeath sentenceconstitutional guaranteesdue processvigilantismanti-terrorism
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant for the murder of the then Governor of Punjab and sentencing him to death under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal questions involve whether an individual can take the law into their own hands to execute a perceived sentence for blasphemy without due process, whether the appellant's act fell within the definition of terrorism, and whether the plea of grave and sudden provocation is sustainable. The Islamabad High Court held that the appellant, a member of the police security detail, acted unlawfully in assassinating the deceased, as citizens are bound by the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to seek legal recourse rather than commit extrajudicial killings, and religious justifications for vigilante justice are inapplicable when state mechanisms exist. The court upheld the conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while setting aside the conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 due to lack of proof of widespread terror among the public. The key principle laid down is that taking a life under the guise of enforcing religious penalties or punishing alleged blasphemy extrajudicially is a heinous crime punishable under the law, and no individual is permitted to bypass the constitutional framework and judiciary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an individual is legally justified in taking the law into their own hands to execute a person accused of blasphemy?
  • Does an extrajudicial killing committed under the belief of enforcing religious penalties constitute a valid defense under Pakistani criminal law?
  • Can a conviction under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 be sustained in the absence of evidence showing public terror or a sense of insecurity?
  • Does the plea of grave and sudden provocation apply where the accused sought out the confrontation and no immediate provocation was offered by the victim?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Hussain vs Farrah Naz & others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-07Read full judgment →
• Linkdotnet Telecom vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 521, 2016 C.L.R 1655 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-18Read full judgment →
• Linkdotnet Telecom vs F.O.P, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 521 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-18Read full judgment →