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.

• Linkdotnet Telecom Limited vs Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others2016 PTD 1436 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-10-15Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Muhammad Aamer Araien2016 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-03-18Read full judgment →
• Khushnood Ahmad vs Learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad &2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-04Read full judgment →
• Khushnood Ahmad vs Additional District Judge',ISLAMABADand others2016 YLR 405 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-15Read full judgment →
• Khurram Nasser vs The Judge, Family Court (West) and others2016 C.L.R. 686 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• Khurram Naseer vs Judge Family Court (West) and others2016 MLD 1183 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• Khurram NAgNER vs Judge Family Court (West) and others2016 C.L.R. 686, 2016 MLD 1183, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 391 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03Read full judgment →
• Kamran Saeed vs Chairman National Accountability Bureau, etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-07-20Read full judgment →
• K.K. oil and Ghee Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs F.B.R., etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 441 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-12Read full judgment →
• K.K. Oil and Ghee Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federal Board of Revenue and others2016 PTD 2601 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-18
  tax creditIncome Tax Ordinance 2001jurisdiction of tax authoritiesSection 175 powersconstitutional petitioninvestigative powersroving inquirydelegated legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notice issued by the Directorate General (Intelligence and Investigation), Inland Revenue, seeking to investigate the petitioner’s tax credit claim under Section 65-D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The core legal question was whether the respondent, not being an authority specifically empowered under Section 65-D, could invoke Section 175 to initiate such an investigation. The Court held that the respondent lacked the requisite jurisdiction. It established that powers under Section 175 are ancillary and subservient to the enforcement of other provisions of the Ordinance. Consequently, an authority cannot exercise Section 175 powers to conduct investigations regarding provisions for which it has not been expressly conferred jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that Section 175 cannot be utilized for roving inquiries or fishing expeditions and that what cannot be done directly cannot be achieved indirectly. The impugned notice was declared without lawful authority, though the respondent remains free to refer information to the Commissioner Inland Revenue, who holds the exclusive statutory authority under Section 65-D.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Directorate General (Intelligence and Investigation), Inland Revenue, possess inherent powers under the Income Tax Ordinance 2001?
  • Can an authority exercise powers under Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to enforce a provision for which it has not been conferred specific jurisdiction?
  • Is a show cause notice issued without jurisdiction amenable to challenge under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the powers under Section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 independent or ancillary to other provisions?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshoro Joint Venture Ltd. and another vs Federation of Pakistan2016 P Cr. LJ 1056 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-24
  territorial jurisdictionwrit petitioncall-up noticeNational Accountability Ordinancecriminal investigationcause of actionNAB inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a call-up notice issued under Section 19 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and related proceedings initiated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) concerning the award of gas fields for LPG and NGL extraction. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the Islamabad High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, given that the inquiry and investigation emanated from a broader case against a former federal minister pending before NAB authorities and accountability courts in Karachi, and that the subject gas fields and plant were situated in Sindh. The court held that the Islamabad High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because criminal matters and investigations under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, must be governed by the location where the crime occurred, where evidence is predominantly collected, and where the related proceedings and co-accused are being investigated. The key principle laid down is that in criminal and accountability proceedings, the civil law concept of "cause of action" and plaintiff choice of forum under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not apply to establish writ jurisdiction where the special criminal law and the locus of the offense point exclusively to another provincial jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Islamabad High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against a NAB call-up notice issued during an ongoing investigation centralized in Karachi concerning gas fields situated in Sindh?
  • How does the concept of "cause of action" under civil law apply to criminal and accountability proceedings governed by the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can a petitioner invoke the concurrent jurisdiction of any High Court based on the principle of plaintiff choice of forum when challenging an ongoing criminal inquiry conducted by a regional NAB office in another province?
  • What are the dominant factors a High Court must evaluate to determine territorial jurisdiction in constitutional petitions arising out of criminal acts and special accountability laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmed Afzal vs Haji Muhammad Azram and another2016 MLD 1490 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ishaq Khan Khakwanl vs Islamabad Club through Its Secretary, etc.2016 C.L.R. 330 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-10-28Read full judgment →
• Ishaq Khan Khakwani vs Islamabad Club through Secretary and others2016 CLC 504 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
• Ishaq Khan Khakwani vs Islamabad Club through its Secretary, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 81, 2016 CLC 504 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
• Irshad Khan vs Nousteen Akhtar & 3 others2016 PLJ Islamabad 74, 2016 MLD 473 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
• Irshad Khan vs Nousheen Akhtar and 3 others2016 MLD 473 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-15Read full judgment →
• Irfan Armed, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 298 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-21Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmed, etc. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 PLC (C.S.) 491, 2016 PLJ 298, 2016 C.L.R. 356 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-11
  statutory bodyterms and conditions of servicefederal government interferenceboard of trusteesdiscretionary powersindependent decision makingspecial allowance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by employees of the Pakistan Science Foundation assailing a directive of the Ministry of Science and Technology that discontinued a special allowance and ordered its recovery. The core legal question is whether the Federal Government holds the power under Section 4(3) of the Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973, to issue binding policy instructions regarding terms and conditions of service, which fall exclusively under Section 16 of the said Act. The Islamabad High Court held that the powers of appointment, determination of terms and conditions, and administration of funds are exclusively vested in the Foundation's Board of Trustees under Section 16, and the Federal Government's policy-making role under Section 4(3) does not extend to these matters. The court ruled that directives from the Federal Government regarding employee terms and conditions are merely informative or advisory rather than mandatory, and the Board must exercise its discretion independently. The petition was consequently allowed, setting aside the mandatory nature of the government's directive.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can issue binding instructions to the Pakistan Science Foundation regarding the terms and conditions of its employees under Section 4(3) of the Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973?
  • Does the power to appoint officers and servants and fix their terms and conditions under Section 16 of the Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973, vest exclusively in the Board of Trustees?
  • Can an authority vested with statutory discretion act under the dictation of an external body without exercising its own independent judgment?
  • What is the legal status of information or guidelines provided by the Federal Government concerning pay scales and allowances of Foundation employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ahmed and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 491 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-21
  statutory interpretationservice conditionsadministrative discretionPakistan Science Foundationdictation by superior authorityspecial allowancejudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, employees of the Pakistan Science Foundation, challenged a directive from the Ministry of Science and Technology ordering the discontinuation and recovery of a special allowance previously granted by the Foundation's Board of Trustees. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government possesses the authority to dictate terms and conditions of service for Foundation employees, or if such power is exclusively vested in the Board of Trustees under the Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973. The Court held that the Act of 1973 vests the management and determination of service conditions exclusively in the Board of Trustees under Section 16. The Federal Government's power to issue policy directions under Section 4(3) does not extend to the administrative and service-related powers granted under Section 16. The Court established the principle that a statutory body vested with discretion must exercise it independently and cannot act under the dictation of another authority. Consequently, the Ministry's directive was held not binding, and the Board of Trustees was directed to consider the Ministry's communication merely as information while exercising its independent discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the authority to dictate terms and conditions of service for employees of the Pakistan Science Foundation?
  • Is the power of the Federal Government to issue policy directions under Section 4(3) of the Pakistan Science Foundation Act 1973 applicable to matters of service conditions under Section 16?
  • Can a statutory body, vested with discretion, act under the dictation of an external authority in the exercise of its functions?
  Read full judgment →
• International Islamic University, Islamabad and others vs Dr. Shameem2016 PLJ Islamabad 31 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-09Read full judgment →
• Institute of Space Technology (Ist) vs Husnain Riaz and others2016 MLD 1432 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-12Read full judgment →
• Infospan(Private) Limited vs Mis. Telecom Foundation and another2016 PLJ Islamabad 342 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-22Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Rashid and 3 Others vs Federation of Pakistan and 5 Others2016 NLR Service 61 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-29
  constitutional petitionservice tribunalterms and conditions of servicedisciplinary proceedingspublic interest litigationlocus standiaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by retired police officers as public interest litigation seeking a declaration that police officers and civil servants must exercise authority in accordance with law and not follow illegal orders of superiors, and challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against two police officers who allegedly failed to take action against protestors. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional petition by non-aggrieved persons in service matters, the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding terms and conditions of service, and the principle that what is not permissible directly cannot be done indirectly. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary proceedings, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212. The court established that retired officers lacking locus standi cannot circumvent this constitutional bar through public interest litigation to challenge departmental proceedings initiated against active civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against disciplinary proceedings initiated against civil servants?
  • Do retired police officers have the locus standi to challenge departmental proceedings initiated against active civil servants under the guise of public interest litigation?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from entertaining petitions relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • Can a party circumvent the constitutional bar of Article 212 by filing a petition through third parties indirectly?
  Read full judgment →
• Humayun Safdar Khan etc. vs Planning & Development Division, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 323 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-16Read full judgment →
• Homeopathic Dr. Jamil Akhtar Ghauri vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.2016 C.L.R 1703 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-08-30
  statutory tenurepremature removalNational Council for Homeopathysupersession of notificationlocus poenitentiaeGeneral Clauses Act Section 21natural justiceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These intra-court appeals challenge an order of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers which dismissed writ petitions filed by Homeopathic doctors against a notification superseding their nomination as members of the National Council for Homeopathy. The core legal questions involve whether the Federal Government can prematurely terminate a statutory fixed tenure appointment without resorting to the removal procedures prescribed under the governing statute and whether general powers of withdrawal under the General Clauses Act override special statutory tenure provisions. The Islamabad High Court held that once members are lawfully nominated for a prescribed statutory tenure under the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, their tenure cannot be prematurely curtailed or superseded by the Federal Government without following the specific disqualification and removal mechanism provided in the Act, and general withdrawal powers cannot be used to bypass special statutory tenure protections. The key principles laid down are that fixed statutory tenures must be strictly respected, special laws prevail over general repeal provisions, and statutory members cannot be removed without due process and recorded reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can prematurely terminate the nomination of a member of the National Council for Homeopathy before the expiry of their statutory tenure?
  • Does Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 empower the government to withdraw a statutory nomination when a special law prescribes a specific procedure for removal?
  • Is the assumption of office by a nominated member of the National Council for Homeopathy conditional upon taking an oath of office under the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965?
  • Whether a notification issued under Section 8 of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965 creates vested rights that cannot be undone without observing principles of natural justice and Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Homeopathic Dr. Jamil Akhtar Ghauri vs Federation of Pakistan etc.2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-22
  statutory tenurelocus poenitentiaeNational Council for Homeopathypremature removalGeneral Clauses Actfixed-term appointmentadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns intra-court appeals challenging a single judge's order that dismissed petitions regarding the premature removal of members of the National Council for Homeopathy (NCH). The core legal question was whether the Federal Government could lawfully supersede a notification appointing members to the NCH for a fixed five-year term with a new notification, effectively removing the original appointees before their term expired, without following statutory removal procedures. The Court held that the appointment constituted a fixed statutory tenure under the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, and the associated rules. Consequently, the government could not invoke the general power of withdrawal under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to bypass the specific removal procedure mandated by Section 13 of the UAHP Act. The Court established the principle that a statutory tenure post cannot be curtailed prematurely by the government without adhering to the specific removal procedure prescribed by the governing statute, as general powers of withdrawal or supersession cannot override specific statutory protections for fixed-term appointments.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Government prematurely curtail a fixed statutory tenure of a member of the National Council for Homeopathy by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Is the removal of a member of the National Council for Homeopathy valid if the procedure prescribed in Section 13 of the Unani, Ayurvedic and Homeopathic Practitioners Act, 1965, is not followed?
  • Does the lack of an oath of office invalidate a nomination to the National Council for Homeopathy where the statute does not explicitly require such an oath?
  • Can a notification appointing members to a statutory body be superseded without providing reasons or an opportunity for a hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• High Flying Solar Development Pakistan Ltd. and others vs National2016 CLC 1805 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-22
  upfront tariffgeneration licenseregulatory autonomyaudi alteram partemdue processregulatory capturenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions were filed to challenge the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority's (NEPRA) rejection of the petitioners' applications for upfront solar power tariffs and generation licenses. The core legal question was whether NEPRA, as an independent statutory regulatory authority, is mandated to provide a meaningful hearing and record detailed reasons before rejecting such applications. The Islamabad High Court allowed the petitions, declaring the unilateral rejection of applications without a hearing or recorded reasons as ultra vires the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, and the NEPRA Upfront Tariff (Approval and Procedure) Regulations, 2011. The Court held that the right to a hearing is not a perfunctory ritual but a constitutional guarantee under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The key principles laid down are that autonomous regulatory bodies must maintain transparency, avoid regulatory capture, and ensure procedural fairness. Any decision-making process affecting the rights of stakeholders must involve a meaningful hearing where the regulator structures its discretion and records intelligible, reasoned decisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statutory regulatory authority can reject an application for upfront tariff without providing the applicant an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the failure of a regulatory body to afford a hearing and record reasons violate the fundamental right to due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution?
  • What standard of hearing and reasoning must a regulatory authority satisfy to ensure its decisions are not ultra vires its parent statute and regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan Zia and another vs Mrs. Umera Arsam and others2016 C.L.R 1685, 2016 CLD 2200 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-08-30Read full judgment →
• Hassan Zia & another vs Mrs. Umera Arsam and others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-10Read full judgment →
• Hasan Zia and another vs Mrs. Umera Arsam and others2016 C.L.R 1685 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-08-30Read full judgment →
• Hamida Farhat Burki vs Capital Development Authority & Three (3)2016 NLR Civil 386 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hamayun Safdar Khan and others vs Planning and Development2016 PLJ Islamabad 323, 2016 PLC (C.S.) 642 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-16
  constitutional petitionwithholding of salariesfundamental rightspublic sector development projectadministrative liabilitycontractual obligations18th Constitutional Amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of the "White Revolution-Doodh Darya" project, seeking payment of outstanding salaries and allowances for services rendered after the project's extension by the Prime Minister. The core legal question was whether the Planning and Development Division could withhold salaries of project employees based on inter-departmental disputes regarding funding responsibility and administrative control following the 18th Constitutional Amendment. The Court held that the petitioners, having performed their duties under validly extended contracts, were entitled to their remuneration. The Court rejected the respondents' attempt to shift liability between departments, ruling that the Planning and Development Division could not avoid its financial obligations on the pretext of administrative confusion or the Council of Common Interest's prior decisions. The principle laid down is that the state cannot withhold the salaries of employees who have performed their duties, regardless of internal administrative failures or disputes between government departments regarding the source of funding. The government must ensure payment and may subsequently resolve internal accountability issues through appropriate lawful processes.

  Questions settled

  • Can government departments withhold salaries of project employees based on inter-departmental disputes regarding funding responsibility?
  • Does the non-payment of salaries for work performed constitute a violation of fundamental rights?
  • Can a government division avoid financial liability for a project extension approved by the Prime Minister by citing administrative confusion?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Akhtar Kiyani vs Bashir Ahmed and 5 others2016 P Cr. L J 457 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-21
  illegal dispossessioncriminal intentmens reapolice investigation reportmisreading of evidencecognizance of offenceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a complaint filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint and whether it committed material irregularity by misreading the police investigation report. The Court held that the trial court failed to properly evaluate the material on record, specifically misreading the police report dated 12-12-2013 regarding the petitioner's possession and the alleged dispossession. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that while the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is a special law, the trial court must act as a 'sieve' to filter complaints, ensuring that the essential ingredients of an offence—specifically the unlawful act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea)—are clearly disclosed in the complaint itself before directing investigation or taking cognizance. The court's power to order investigation under Section 5 must be exercised judicially, not mechanically, and cannot be used to gather evidence to fill gaps in a deficient complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 require the disclosure of both an unlawful act and criminal intent to justify taking cognizance?
  • Is the trial court's power to direct a police investigation under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 mandatory or discretionary?
  • Can a court dismiss a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 without ordering an investigation if the complaint fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence?
  • Does the misreading of a police investigation report by a trial court constitute sufficient grounds for setting aside an order of dismissal?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Aehtar Kiyani vs Bashir Ahmed and 5 others2017 MLD 1485, 2016 P Cr. L J 457, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 207 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-21
  Illegal Dispossession Actconstitutional petitioncriminal intentpolice investigationmisreading of evidencecognizance of offencecivil dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing a complaint filed under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question revolved around whether the trial court correctly evaluated the complaint and police investigation reports under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before dismissing the complaint, and whether the trial court committed misreading or non-reading of material evidence. The Court held that the trial court misread and failed to properly consider the police investigation report and relevant pleadings, thereby erroneously treating a criminal complaint under the special law as a purely civil dispute without adhering to the statutory framework and precedent. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court is obliged to examine the contents of a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to satisfy itself regarding the existence of an unlawful act and criminal intent before ordering a police investigation?
  • Can a police investigation report under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 be used as a tool to gather evidence or add allegations not originally raised in the complaint?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution with an order dismissing a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 due to misreading and non-reading of material evidence?
  • What is the correct procedure for a Court of Sessions to take cognizance and process a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Gulfraz & others vs Mir Dad & another2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-09-26Read full judgment →
• Gujranwala Energy Limited vs National Electric Power Regulatory2016 CLC 1304 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Additional Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad and 22016 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghiyas Ud Din alias Moon vs The State and another2016 P Cr. L J 156 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-10-01
  post-arrest bailmurderdying statementprohibitory clausecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and various clauses of section 337 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Golra Sharif, Islamabad. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his nomination in the FIR, the dying statement of the deceased implicating him, and discrepancies pointed out in the investigation. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner was specifically nominated with an active role in the commission of the offence and that his name and role were further corroborated by the statement of the deceased recorded in the presence of a medical officer. The court emphasized that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage and dismissed the petition, establishing that active participation in a heinous crime supported by direct dying statements disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated in the FIR with an active role in a heinous crime is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Can a statement of the deceased recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 serve as a strong ground to refuse bail?
  • Does a cross-version with a conflicting time of occurrence constitute a valid cross-version warranting bail?
  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence can be undertaken at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghansham Das vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2016 PLJ Islamabad 226 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-20
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionvested rightabsorption
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a single-judge order dismissing a writ petition filed by a civil servant against his repatriation from a deputation post to his parent department. The core legal questions concerned whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to continue on deputation or to be permanently absorbed into the borrowing department, and whether such repatriation orders are justiciable under the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that deputation is an administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending authorities, terminable at any time without assigning reasons. The Court affirmed that a deputationist holds no vested right to remain on deputation or to demand absorption, as these matters pertain to the terms and conditions of service. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013, does not confer a right of absorption. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Court reiterating that constitutional jurisdiction is barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, which fall under the purview of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to continue on deputation for the full stipulated period?
  • Can a deputationist claim a legal right to be permanently absorbed into the borrowing department?
  • Is the repatriation of a civil servant from a deputation post a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere in matters of deputation and repatriation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghansham Das vs Federation of Pakistah through Secretary2016 PLJ Islamabad 226, 2017 PLC (C.S.) 191 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-20
  deputationrepatriationcivil servantterms and conditions of servicewrit jurisdictionvested rightabsorptionadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition filed by a civil servant against his repatriation from a deputation post to his parent department. The core legal question was whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to continue on deputation indefinitely or to be absorbed into the borrowing department, and whether such repatriation is justiciable under the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that deputation is an administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending authorities, terminable at any time at the discretion of the competent authority. A deputationist holds no vested right to complete a tenure or to be absorbed into the borrowing department. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that matters concerning deputation and repatriation relate to the terms and conditions of service, which generally precludes the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Consequently, the repatriation order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal entitlement to remain in the borrowing department or to challenge the administrative decision.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant on deputation have a vested right to continue on deputation for the full stipulated period?
  • Is a deputationist entitled to be absorbed into the borrowing department as a matter of right?
  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to challenge the repatriation of a civil servant?
  • Does the repatriation of a deputationist require the borrowing authority to assign specific reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan vs Rashid Ahmed and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 239 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-09-02
  PEMRAstatutory appointmentmisconductnatural justiceaudi alteram partemtransparencyintra court appealdue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge’s decision that set aside the dismissal of the Chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA). The core legal questions were whether holding a statutory office obtained through an illegal, non-transparent process constitutes 'misconduct' under Section 7 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, and whether the respondent was denied due process. The Court held that the appointment was void ab initio for failing to adhere to Supreme Court directives requiring an open, transparent selection process. Consequently, continuing to hold such an office constitutes 'misconduct,' as it is prejudicial to good order and unbecoming of a gentleman. The Court further ruled that the respondent was afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard, and his failure to avail these opportunities constituted a waiver of his right to natural justice. The principle laid down is that statutory appointments must strictly follow transparent, merit-based procedures, and holding an office obtained via illegal, non-transparent means falls within the definition of misconduct, justifying removal even if the misconduct occurred prior to or during the appointment process.

  Questions settled

  • Does holding a statutory office obtained through an illegal and non-transparent selection process constitute misconduct under Section 7 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002?
  • Can the principles of natural justice be excluded or deemed satisfied when a public official deliberately fails to avail reasonable opportunities for a personal hearing?
  • Is an appointment to a statutory regulatory authority valid if it fails to adhere to the requirement of an open and transparent selection process?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan vs Asad Javed, etc.2016 PLD Islamabad 53, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 191 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-01Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan vs Asad Javed and others2016 PLD Islamabad 53 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-01Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan and another vs Saeed Ahmed Khan and others2016 PLC (C.S.) 48 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-13
  regulatory autonomyforced leavestatutory interpretationOGRAacting charge appointmentsuspension of public servantadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment declaring the Federal Government's notification sending the Chairman of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) on forced leave as without lawful authority. The core legal questions were whether the Federal Government possesses inherent power under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to suspend or send the Chairman on forced leave, and whether it can appoint an acting Chairman without express statutory provision. The Court held that the OGRA Ordinance, 2002, establishes an autonomous regulatory body, and the Federal Government lacks inherent power to suspend or send the Chairman on forced leave absent specific statutory authorization. The Court ruled that any suspension or forced leave must follow the procedure prescribed for removal, involving an inquiry by the Federal Public Service Commission. Furthermore, the Court held that the Federal Government cannot appoint an acting or current charge Chairman, as the Ordinance provides no such mechanism, and implying such power would undermine the Authority's independence. The key principle established is that statutory regulatory bodies enjoy autonomy, and executive powers of suspension or interim appointments cannot be inferred where the governing statute provides a specific, exclusive framework for appointments and removals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the inherent power under Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to send the Chairman of a statutory regulatory body on forced leave?
  • Can the Federal Government appoint an acting or current charge Chairman for a statutory regulatory body in the absence of an express provision in the governing statute?
  • Is the Federal Government authorized to suspend the Chairman of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority without following the inquiry procedure prescribed in the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education through its2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-22Read full judgment →
• Fazal Hussain vs State, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 280 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-18Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ali vs The State, etc.2016 P.C.T.L.R. 568 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-08
  bail before arrestsales tax fraudunauthorized electronic accessillegal evidenceprohibitory clausemala fidesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail before arrest application filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising out of an F.I.R. registered under Sections 2(37), 33(11) and 33(13) of the Sales Tax Act 1990 regarding alleged tax fraud and concealment of income by an association of persons. The core legal question concerns whether evidence obtained through the unauthorized electronic hacking of a registered person's computer system by the tax intelligence department constitutes lawful evidence, and whether the petitioner has established sufficient grounds for pre-arrest bail including mala fides and applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Islamabad High Court held that the tax department's access to the firm's system without specific statutory authorization under Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 was illegal, and evidence gathered thereby cannot form the basis for prosecution. The court laid down the principle that evidence collected through illegal means must be discarded, that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant the grant of bail as a rule, and that pre-arrest bail is justified where prosecution is tainted with mala fides and potential humiliation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unauthorized electronic access to a registered person's computer system by the tax intelligence department render the gathered information inadmissible as evidence?
  • Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the offenses charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does Section 38 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 permit tax authorities to access a taxpayer's system without specific statutory authorization and formal visitation?
  • What are the essential conditions required for the grant of pre-arrest bail in revenue-related criminal matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Fawad Ali vs The State and others2016 P Cr. L J 1282 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-08
  pre-arrest bailtax fraudunauthorized accessinadmissible evidencemala fideSales Tax Act 1990prohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of tax fraud under the Sales Tax Act 1990. The core legal question was whether evidence gathered by the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Inland Revenue) through unauthorized access to the petitioner's computer system could form a valid basis for prosecution, and whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The court held that the tax authorities acted without lawful authority by accessing the petitioner's system without specific authorization, rendering the gathered information inadmissible. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail, ruling that the prosecution's actions suggested mala fide intent. The judgment establishes the principle that evidence obtained through illegal means is inadmissible in criminal proceedings, regardless of its incriminating nature. Furthermore, it reaffirms that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where the accused would be entitled to post-arrest bail, pre-arrest bail should be granted to prevent unnecessary humiliation and harassment, particularly when the prosecution is motivated by ulterior motives.

  Questions settled

  • Is evidence obtained through unauthorized access to a taxpayer's computer system by tax authorities admissible in criminal proceedings?
  • Does the grant of pre-arrest bail require proof of mala fide intent or ulterior motives by the prosecution?
  • Are the considerations for granting pre-arrest bail the same as those for post-arrest bail regarding the merits of the case?
  • Can tax authorities access a registered person's computer system without specific authorization from the Federal Board of Revenue or the Commissioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhad Khan vs Asad Zulfiqar and others2016 MLD 1302 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-28Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Baig vs The State2016 P Cr. L J 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-08-03
  post-arrest bailsmugglingforeign currencyfurther inquirycustoms declarationprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being apprehended at Islamabad International Airport for allegedly attempting to smuggle foreign currency exceeding the prescribed limits. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s actions constituted a non-bailable offense or if the circumstances warranted further inquiry, particularly regarding the petitioner's opportunity to declare currency and the applicability of family travel allowances. The Islamabad High Court held that the case constituted a matter of further inquiry because it remained unclear whether the petitioner had bypassed the customs declaration stage under Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the currency limits applied collectively to the petitioner's traveling family members. Furthermore, the court noted that the offense was technical in nature rather than immoral, and since the challan had been submitted, further detention was unnecessary. The court granted bail, establishing the principle that where an offense involves alternative punishments of imprisonment or fine, the lesser punishment is considered for bail purposes, and where factual ambiguities exist regarding the declaration stage or currency limits, the case qualifies for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of alternative punishments of imprisonment or fine entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
  • Is a case of alleged currency smuggling a matter of further inquiry when it is unclear if the accused had passed the customs declaration stage?
  • Should bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Educational Services (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan and another2016 C.L.R. 1577 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Educational Services (Pvt) Limited and 4 others vs Federation of Pakistan and another2016 C.L.R. 1577, 2016 PLD Islamabad 141 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-30
  private educational institutionsfee regulationPEIRAfundamental rightsfreedom of tradenatural justicevires of statuteretrospective notificationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves several writ petitions filed by private educational institutions challenging a notification dated 23.09.2015 issued by the Private Educational Institutions Regulatory Authority (PEIRA). The impugned notification prohibited fee increases for 2015 and ordered the refund of already collected enhanced fees. The petitioners also challenged the vires of Sections 4(c), 5(1)(b), and 5(1)(h) of the ICT Private Educational Institutions (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2013, arguing they violated the fundamental right to conduct business under Article 18 of the Constitution. The Court held that the notification was illegal because PEIRA was improperly constituted at the time (lacking a permanent Chairman) and the order was issued without affording the institutions a right of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Act does not empower PEIRA to issue blanket, retrospective fee freezes without individual assessment. However, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act's provisions, ruling that the State has the power to regulate fees to prevent profiteering, provided such regulation is subjective, transparent, and based on framed rules considering individual institutional expenses.

  Read full judgment →
• Ednan Syed & others vs Federal Government Employees Housing2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-30Read full judgment →
• Eastern Testing Services Ltd. vs SECP, etc.2016 PLJ Islamabad 91 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-08
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityalternative remedydisputed questions of factstatutory appealCompanies OrdinanceSECP
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan regarding the removal of a Chief Executive Officer and the validity of an Extra Ordinary General Meeting. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when the petitioner has failed to exhaust adequate statutory remedies provided under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner bypassed the hierarchy of appeals and revisions available under the relevant statutes. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition relied on disputed questions of fact regarding the service of an injunctive order, which cannot be resolved under constitutional jurisdiction. The Court affirmed the principle that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised when adequate statutory remedies exist, unless the impugned action is palpably without jurisdiction, malafide, or void. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted adequate statutory remedies provided under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the service of an injunctive order be resolved by the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the Registrar of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan possess the power of review under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Eastern Testing Services (Pvt.) Ltd. vs SECP and others2016 CLD 581, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 91 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-12-08
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityalternative remedywrit jurisdictionCompanies OrdinanceSECPdisputed questions of factexhaustion of remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) regarding the removal of the company's Chief Executive Officer. The core legal question was whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when the petitioner has bypassed adequate statutory remedies provided under the Companies Ordinance 1984 and the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act 1997. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner failed to exhaust the available statutory appellate and revisional remedies. The Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked when adequate alternative remedies exist, unless exceptional circumstances—such as orders being palpably without jurisdiction, void, or mala fide—are demonstrated. Additionally, the Court ruled that disputed questions of fact, such as the service of an injunctive order, cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, leaving the parties to pursue appropriate statutory forums.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when adequate statutory remedies are available under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Can a High Court resolve disputed questions of fact, such as the service of an injunctive order, while exercising writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the Registrar of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan possess the power of review under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • Under what exceptional circumstances may a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Khayal-Ur-Rehman vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o2016 PLJ Islamabad 158 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Khayal-Ur-Rehman vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Health Services, Regulation and Coordination, Islamabad and 2 others2016 PLJ Islamabad 158, 2016 PLD Islamabad 42 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-15Read full judgment →
• Dowell Schlumberger (Wastern) S.A. vs Federation of Pakistan and othersPTCL 2016 CL. 276, 2016 PTD 1702 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-10
  constitutional petitionrecovery of taxdirectory provisionmandatory provisionstay of recoveryAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenuestatutory interpretationtax appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner seeking to restrain tax authorities from taking recovery measures during the pendency of its appeal before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue. The Appellate Tribunal had reserved judgment on the appeal but could not grant stay beyond 180 days in aggregate under the relevant provisions, leaving the petitioner vulnerable to recovery notices despite having no fault in the delay. The primary legal issue was whether the 180-day limitation on stay orders specified in Section 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, Section 34 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, and Section 46(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is mandatory or directory. The Islamabad High Court held that statutory provisions limiting stay duration are directory in nature because no adverse statutory consequences were prescribed for non-compliance and the legislature could not have intended to expose taxpayers to hardship due to administrative or tribunal delays. Consequently, the stay order granted by the Tribunal was ordered to remain in effect until the final disposal of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is the statutory limit of 180 days on stay orders granted by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue under Section 131(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 directory or mandatory in nature?
  • Does a stay order granted by a tax tribunal continue to remain effective beyond the statutory maximum period if the appeal is not decided through no fault of the taxpayer?
  • What is the test for determining whether a statutory provision imposing a time limit is mandatory or directory where no consequences for non-compliance are specified in the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Dowel Schlumberger (Western) S.A. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc.PTCL 2016 CL. 276 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-10Read full judgment →
• Dewan Salman Fibre Ltd. etc. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, M_O Finance etcPLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dewan Salman Fibre Limited vs Dewan Petroleum (Pvt.) Limited2016 P.C.T.L.R. 407, 2016 CLD 1049 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-15
  Annual General Meetingcompanies ordinanceinvalidating general meetingmaterial defect in noticeproxyquorumshareholder rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 160-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking to have the proceedings of the Annual General Meeting held on 30.04.2015 and the resolution passed therein declared invalid due to alleged material defects and omissions in the notice and irregularities in the meeting's proceedings. The core legal questions revolved around the scope of Section 160-A, the statutory requirements for holding an Annual General Meeting, and whether the petitioner established that any defect, omission, or irregularity prevented it from effectively exercising its rights as a shareholder. The Islamabad High Court held that under Section 160-A, a general meeting will not be declared invalid for mere technical defects or omissions unless the petitioner proves that the defect or irregularity was 'material' and had the direct effect of prejudicing or preventing the members from effectively exercising their rights. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material defect or omission in the notice or any irregularity that prevented it from exercising its rights, noting that the petitioner's representative voluntarily chose to abstain from the meeting. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 160-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for declaring a general meeting invalid?
  • Does every technical defect or omission in a notice for an Annual General Meeting render the meeting invalid under Section 160-A of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Whether the failure to attach a proxy form to the notice of an Annual General Meeting constitutes a material omission sufficient to invalidate the meeting?
  • Is a member entitled to challenge the validity of a general meeting without showing that they were personally prevented from effectively exercising their rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Defence Housing Authority Islamabad vs Shafqat Rasool & others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-09-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Companies Zone, Islamabad/Wealth Tax2016 PTD 2419 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-Ill), L.T.U.,Islamabad vs Mls. Oil & Gas2016 P.C.T.L.R. 387 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-III), L.T.U., Islamabad vs M/s. Oil &PLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 59 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-III), L.T.U., Islamabad vs Messrs Oil2016 P.C.T.L.R. 387, PLJ 2016 Tax Cases (Isl.) 59, 2016 PTD 2727 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-29
  tax assessmentlimitation periodretrospective applicationvested rightspast and closed transactionincome taxstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant Reference Application concerns whether the amendment to Section 122(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced via the Finance Act, 2009, which altered the limitation period for amending assessment orders, applies retrospectively to assessments that had already attained finality under the previous statutory regime. The core legal question is whether the amended limitation period, which starts from the end of the financial year, can reopen assessment orders treated as passed under Section 120 of the Ordinance before the amendment's enactment. The Court held that the amendment is not merely procedural but substantive, as it affects the taxpayer's vested rights by potentially increasing liability. Relying on established precedents, including Supreme Court rulings, the Court affirmed that the amended Section 122(2) does not operate retrospectively to revive past and closed transactions. Consequently, where the limitation period under the substituted provision had already expired, the assessment order could not be reopened. The Court dismissed the Revenue's application, confirming that the limitation period applicable is that which existed when the assessment order was treated as passed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to Section 122(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, brought through the Finance Act, 2009, apply retrospectively?
  • Can an assessment order that has attained finality under the substituted provision of Section 122(2) be reopened by applying the amended limitation period?
  • Is the amendment to Section 122(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, regarding the limitation period for amending assessments, considered a procedural matter or a substantive one affecting taxpayer liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Zone-I) vs M/s. Askari Sovereign CashNLR 2016 Tax 94 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), L.T.U., Islamabad vs M/s.2016 PTD 2579, 2016 P.C.T.L.R. 609 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), L.T.U., Islamabad vs Messrs2016 PTD 2579 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-22Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs vs Messrs Askari CEMcNT Ltd.2016 PTD 1886 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-09
  Customs AppealPCT headingClassification of goodsRefractory bricksCentral Board of RevenueCustoms Act 1969Appellate Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated customs appeal addressed the legal framework governing the classification of imported goods under the Pakistan Customs Tariff headings pursuant to the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions involved whether the determination of Pakistan Customs Tariff headings is a mixed question of law and fact subject to independent evaluation by adjudicatory and appellate forums, and whether the Central Board of Revenue holds exclusive, binding jurisdiction to classify products. The Islamabad High Court held that the determination of Pakistan Customs Tariff headings and associated factual controversies fall within the independent jurisdiction of the statutory hierarchy of forums—including adjudicating officers, the Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court—rather than the exclusive domain of the Central Board of Revenue. The Court ruled that administrative rulings or interpretations by the Board cannot override or bind judicial and quasi-judicial determinations made by statutory appellate forums. Consequently, the High Court answered the proposition regarding the Board's exclusive jurisdiction in the negative and dismissed the department's references, upholding the Tribunal's factual findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of a Pakistan Customs Tariff heading is a mixed question of law and fact?
  • Is the Central Board of Revenue vested with exclusive and binding jurisdiction to classify a product for the purposes of a Pakistan Customs Tariff heading?
  • Are adjudicating officers and appellate forums under the Customs Act, 1969 competent to independently resolve controversies regarding product classification?
  • Can a question of fact determined by the Appellate Tribunal be re-examined by the High Court in a reference under section 196 of the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Arshad vs PTCL through Its General Manager2016 C.L.R. 1186 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ata-Ur-Rehman Qadri vs -Capital Development Authority and others2016 CLC 125 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-19Read full judgment →
• CH. Armed Nadeem vs Abdul Qayyum and another2016 PLD Islamabad 98, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 408 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahmed Nadeem vs Mr. Abdul Qayyum & another2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ahmed Nadeem vs Abdul Qayyum and another2016 PLD Islamabad 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Umer Memon and others vs Jabbar Satti and others2016 P Cr. LJ 1103 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-01-26
  Illegal Dispossession Actsummoning of witnessescriminal revisionfair trialprocedural irregularityproduction of evidencecognizance of offence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Islamabad-East, which dismissed the petitioners' application to summon additional witnesses in a case filed under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether a complainant's failure to initially submit a list of witnesses precludes them from summoning such witnesses at a later stage of the proceedings. The Court held that the trial court's dismissal of the application on technical grounds was improper, emphasizing that the administration of criminal justice requires providing parties full opportunity to prove their case. The Court clarified that proceedings under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, involve specific investigative procedures, and that technical omissions regarding witness lists are curable irregularities. The ratio established is that a complainant is not barred from summoning witnesses or records at any stage of the trial, including after its commencement, to ensure a just and fair conclusion, as the court has the inherent power and duty to facilitate the production of material evidence for the determination of the real controversy.

  Questions settled

  • Can a complainant in a case under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, summon witnesses if they failed to provide a list of witnesses at the initial stage of the complaint?
  • Does the failure to file a list of witnesses at the commencement of a trial under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, constitute an incurable defect?
  • Can a trial court summon witnesses or records at any stage of the proceedings to ensure a just and fair trial?
  Read full judgment →
• BNP (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Capital Development Authority and others2016 CLC 1169 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-03
  judicial reviewPublic Accounts Committeeinternal proceedingsstatutory discretionCapital Development Authorityconstitutional petitionparliamentary privilege
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and directives of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) regarding a construction project. The petitioner contested the CDA's order to stop construction, which was issued following PAC directives concerning alleged financial irregularities. The core legal questions were whether PAC proceedings are immune from judicial review under Article 69 of the Constitution and whether the CDA could implement PAC directives without independent application of mind. The Court held that PAC proceedings, as internal parliamentary business, are immune from judicial review under Article 69. However, the Court ruled that the CDA, as a statutory body, cannot act mechanically on PAC directives. It must exercise its own independent judgment, consider relevant factors, and afford the affected party an opportunity to be heard before submitting a reply to the PAC as required by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of the National Assembly, 2007. Consequently, the CDA's order was set aside, and the Board was directed to reconsider the matter independently.

  Questions settled

  • Are the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee immune from judicial review under Article 69 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a statutory body act mechanically on the directives of the Public Accounts Committee without independent application of mind?
  • Does the failure of a statutory body to exercise independent judgment in implementing directives render its administrative orders liable to be set aside?
  Read full judgment →
• BNP (Pvt.) Limited vs Collier International Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited2016 CLC 1772 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-28
  arbitration agreementstay of legal proceedingsstep in the proceedingsseverability of arbitration clauseallegations of fraudexpiration of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenges an order passed by a Civil Judge staying proceedings in a recovery suit filed by the appellant and directing the parties to invoke an arbitration clause. The core legal questions involved whether the expiration of the underlying contract nullifies the arbitration agreement, whether a routine court adjournment for filing a written statement constitutes 'a step in the proceedings' under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether bare allegations of fraud are sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of an arbitrator. The Islamabad High Court held that arbitration clauses are severable and survive the termination or expiration of the main contract, that a routine adjournment granted by the court in the presence of an unrepresented party does not amount to taking a step in the proceedings, and that mere bald allegations of fraud without supporting material do not bar arbitration. The appeal was partly allowed only to the extent of setting aside the trial court's positive direction compelling the appellant to initiate arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration clause survive the expiration or termination of the main contract?
  • Whether a routine adjournment granted by the court for filing a written statement constitutes a step in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a mere bald allegation of fraud in a civil suit defeat an application for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Is it mandatory for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to explicitly catalogue and specify the exact disputes to be referred to arbitration?
  Read full judgment →
• Babar Sattar vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Water and Power and 4 others2016 CLD 134 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-09
  constitutional petitioncorporate governancepublic sector companyNational Transmission and Dispatch Company LimitedCompanies Ordinance 1984Corporate Governance Rules 2013Federal Government powersdirector appointmentdirector removaldoctrine of pleasurefiduciary dutyultra vires actionsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the Federal Government's interference in the affairs of the National Transmission and Dispatch Company Limited (NTDCL), a public sector company, alleging breaches of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013. The core legal questions revolved around the scope of the Federal Government's powers under Section 183 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, particularly concerning the nomination and removal of directors, and whether the Corporate Governance Rules were mandatory or merely directory. The Court held that the Corporate Governance Rules are mandatory and binding on all stakeholders, including the Federal Government. It was decided that the Federal Government does not possess unfettered or exclusive authority to directly appoint or remove members of the Board of Directors or the Chief Executive of NTDCL, and such actions must strictly adhere to the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and the Corporate Governance Rules. The Court declared specific actions, including an advertisement for a Managing Director and a notification expanding the Board and appointing directors, as ultra vires and set them aside. The judgment emphasized that discretionary powers of state organs must be structured, reasonable, fair, and just, not arbitrary, and that the Federal Government, as a shareholder, acts as a trustee with a fiduciary duty to the people of Pakistan.

  Read full judgment →
• Azra Jamali and others vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, M/o2016 C.L.R. 573 · Islamabad High Court
  intra-court appealtrade officersexecutive policyjudicial reviewvested rightslegitimate expectationterms and conditions of servicerules of business
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of a constitutional petition filed by twelve Trade Officers serving at Pakistan's overseas diplomatic missions. The appellants sought to set aside their recall notices and to enforce a four-year tenure under the Policy for Selection and Monitoring of Trade Officers 2005 and the Strategic Trade Policy Framework 2002-2015. The core legal questions revolved around whether the executive could retrospectively alter a policy governing the tenure of Trade Officers, whether such policy changes are amenable to judicial review, and whether the appellants possessed a vested right or legitimate expectation to complete a four-year term. The Islamabad High Court held that policy-making and the alteration of executive policies fall strictly within the domain of the executive branch under the Rules of Business 1973, and courts will not interfere unless a policy is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or violative of the Constitution or statutory provisions. The Court ruled that the Prime Minister validly amended the tenure policy, extinguishing any claim to a four-year term, but cautioned that all similarly situated officers must be treated equally without discrimination under Article 25. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the executive branch of the government has the authority to alter or depart from an established policy regarding the tenure of public appointees?
  • Does a government policy directive create a vested right or legitimate expectation that prevents the executive from subsequently changing the policy?
  • To what extent can a High Court interfere in pure policy matters of the executive under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Whether the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies to a dispute concerning the tenure and performance evaluation of Trade Officers who are not civil servants in a cadre post?
  Read full judgment →
• Azra Jamali and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o2016 C.L.R. 573, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 464 · Islamabad High Court
  trade officerspolicy changeexecutive policyjudicial reviewrules of businessvested rightslegitimate expectationconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This intra-court appeal challenged a single judge's order dismissing a constitutional petition filed by twelve Trade Officers serving abroad who had been issued recall notices after completing a two-year tenure. The core legal questions involved whether the executive could alter a settled policy regarding tenure through the Prime Minister's approval under the Rules of Business, whether the matter was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the appellants possessed a vested right or legitimate expectation to complete a four-year term. The Islamabad High Court held that while the matter was not barred by Article 212 of the Constitution since it related to fitness and evaluation rather than standard terms and conditions, the executive is fully empowered to formulate, modify, or depart from policy decisions under Rule 15(a) of the Rules of Business, 1973. The court established that executive policy changes are not justiciable unless proven arbitrary, mala fide, or unconstitutional, and government servants have no vested right to a particular policy or posting location, though any such policy departure must be applied without discrimination under Article 25.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution in respect of a petition seeking performance evaluation for tenure extension?
  • Can the Federal Government or the Prime Minister depart from or amend an established executive policy under the Rules of Business, 1973?
  • Does a government servant acquire a vested right or legitimate expectation to continue in service under a previous policy when that policy has been competently amended?
  • To what extent can superior courts interfere with policy-making domains and administrative decisions of the executive under constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Azra Jamali & others vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, M/o2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · -
  judicial reviewpolicy decisiontrade officersservice mattersRules of Business 1973legitimate expectationArticle 25judicial restraint
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of a writ petition filed by Trade Officers against recall notices issued by the Federal Government. The appellants, appointed under a 2005 policy providing for a potential four-year tenure, contested the government's decision to terminate their service after two years following a policy shift. The core legal questions concerned whether the writ petition was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution and whether the court could interfere with the executive's policy-making domain. The Court held that while the petition was maintainable under Article 199, it would not interfere with the government's policy decision. The Court affirmed that the executive has the authority to amend policies through the Rules of Business, 1973, and that courts should exercise judicial restraint, intervening only if a policy is arbitrary, mala fide, or unconstitutional. The principle laid down is that government employees have no vested right to the continuation of a specific policy, and policy-making remains within the exclusive domain of the executive, provided it is applied without discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition challenging the recall of Trade Officers barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the High Court interfere with an executive policy decision under its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a government employee have a vested right to the continuation of a policy under which they were initially appointed?
  • Does the application of a new policy to some employees while exempting others of the same batch constitute a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Atlas Cables (Pvt.) Limited vs Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited2016 C.L.R. 1139 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Atlas Cables (Pvt.) Limited vs Islamabad Electric Supply Company2016 CLD 1833 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-05-16
  regular second appealbreach of contractforce majeureperformance bondbank guaranteeliquidated damagespenaltyproof of loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 arises out of concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing the appellant's suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the encashment of performance bonds. The appellant had failed to complete supplies under three purchase orders issued by the respondent electricity company, citing financial difficulties, bifurcation of companies, power load-shedding, and abnormal increases in international metal prices as force majeure. The core legal questions involved whether a sharp rise in international market prices constitutes force majeure, and whether a beneficiary can encash conditional performance bonds or recover liquidated damages without pleading and proving actual losses. The Islamabad High Court held that economic hardship and unprofitability do not constitute force majeure, which requires physical or legal prevention. However, the Court ruled that the performance bonds were conditional security meant to cover actual losses, and under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872, a party claiming damages or invoking a penalty clause must plead and prove actual loss through cogent evidence. Since the respondent failed to plead or prove any actual loss or damages resulting from the breach, the encashment of the performance bonds was unlawful. The appeal was allowed, the lower judgments were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favor of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexpected spike in international market prices and resulting financial unviability constitute force majeure under a commercial contract?
  • Are performance bonds furnished under purchase orders conditional upon the proof of default and actual loss suffered by the beneficiary?
  • Can a party recover liquidated damages or encash a performance bond stipulated as a penalty without pleading and proving actual loss or damages under Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Does economic hardship or commercial impracticability excuse a party from fulfilling its contractual delivery obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Atlas Cables (Pvt.) Limited vs Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-24Read full judgment →
• Atiq-Ur-Rehman vs Najma Tabassum and others2016 CLC 1905 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Atiq-Ur-Re Hman vs Najma Tabassum and others2016 CLC 1905, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 331 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-04-19Read full judgment →
• Asif Nawaz Khokhar vs The State2016 KLR Criminal Cases 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-09-23
  post-arrest bailarms ordinancebailable offenceillegal weaponscriminal procedurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal petition arises from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Islamabad (East), dismissing the petitioner's post-arrest bail application in F.I.R. No. 354 dated 05.09.2015 under Sections 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance and Sections 420/468/471/188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Koral, Islamabad. The core legal question concerned the bailable or non-bailable nature of offences under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 and whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail. The Islamabad High Court held that offences under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 are bailable according to the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as amendments enhancing punishment did not alter its bailable status and temporary ordinances modifying the schedule lacked operational force. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing that Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 remains bailable.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offence under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 bailable or non-bailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the enhancement of punishment under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 alter its status from bailable to non-bailable?
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the primary offense invoked is bailable in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Nawaz Khokhar vs StatePLJ 2016 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 42 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-09-23
  post-arrest bailarms ordinancebailable offencestatutory interpretationcriminal procedurearms dealership
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 13, 20, and 65 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, and Sections 420, 468, 471, and 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a police raid on his arms dealership. The core legal question was whether the offence under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 is bailable or non-bailable, given conflicting judicial interpretations. The Court held that, based on the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, offences under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 are bailable. The Court reasoned that the legislative intent, despite subsequent amendments to punishment duration, did not alter the bailable status of the offence. Furthermore, the Court noted that other cited provisions were either bailable or non-cognizable. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and should not influence the trial court's proceedings. The petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is an offence under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 bailable or non-bailable?
  • Does the enhancement of punishment for an offence under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 automatically change its status from bailable to non-bailable?
  • What is the effect of the Second Schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the classification of offences under the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed Khan vs PTCL and others2016 PLD Islamabad 112 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-22
  consumer protectiondue processfair trialunfair trade practicesummary procedureevidence recordingconsumer complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment consolidates several consumer appeals challenging orders passed by the Authority under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995. The core legal questions concern the procedural requirements for awarding punishment and compensation, and the minimum standards for inquiry and evidence in consumer complaints. The Court held that the impugned orders were passed without adhering to the spirit of the law, specifically failing to conduct a proper inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that while the Act provides for summary proceedings, it does not dispense with the requirements of due process. The Authority must frame issues, record evidence, allow cross-examination, and apply the principles of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, mandates a fair trial, requiring the Authority to act judicially. The Court clarified that "fine" and "compensation" are distinct legal concepts requiring separate procedural handling. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the cases were remanded for fresh adjudication following the prescribed legal procedure.

  Questions settled

  • What procedure must the Authority follow when awarding punishment and compensation under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  • Does the summary procedure under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, exclude the requirement to record evidence and allow cross-examination?
  • What are the implications of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, on the adjudication of consumer complaints?
  • Is there a legal distinction between 'fine' and 'compensation' under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed Khan and others vs PTCL and others2016 PLD Islamabad 112, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 437 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-03-22
  consumer protectiondue processfair trialcompensation vs finesummary procedureinquiry and evidenceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of several consumer and criminal appeals arising from orders passed by the Additional District Judge acting as the 'Authority' under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995. The core legal questions involved the proper procedure to be followed by the Authority when awarding punishment, imposing fines, granting compensation, conducting inquiries, and evaluating evidence under the Act, particularly in light of the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Islamabad High Court held that the Authority failed to adopt proper legal procedures, such as recording evidence, exhibiting documents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, allowing cross-examination, or utilizing expert evidence, and instead disposed of complaints through a cursory perusal of pleadings. The Court laid down that while adjudicating consumer complaints, the Authority must conduct a proper inquiry, frame points of determination or issues, record oral or documentary evidence, apply the principles of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, and differentiate between criminal prosecution (summary trials for fines via Special Magistrates) and civil compensation (measured by actual loss or damage suffered). All impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh disposal.

  Questions settled

  • What procedure must be followed by a consumer authority under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 when awarding punishment or compensation?
  • Does the summary procedure under consumer legislation exclude the recording of evidence and the framing of issues?
  • How does the concept of 'fine' in criminal prosecution under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995 differ from 'compensation' awarded for unfair trade practices?
  • What are the implications of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan on proceedings conducted under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed Khan and 7 others vs PTCL & another and 7 others2016 IHC · Islamabad High Court · -
  consumer protectionfair trialdue processunfair trade practicecompensationsummary trialburden of proofremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses a batch of consumer and criminal appeals arising from orders passed under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995. The core legal questions involve determining the proper procedure to be followed by the consumer authority or courts when awarding punishment and compensation, the minimum standards for 'inquiry' and evidence in consumer complaints, and the implications of Article 10-A of the Constitution regarding fair trial and due process. The court held that the consumer authority must conduct a proper inquiry involving the framing of issues, recording of oral and documentary evidence, and allowing cross-examination in accordance with the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, distinguishing summary trials for penal offenses from inquiries for compensation. The court laid down key principles regarding due process under Article 10-A, the distinction between fines and compensation, and the procedural stages required for adjudicating consumer complaints, ultimately setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matters back to the authority for fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • What procedure has to be followed when punishment is awarded under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  • What procedure has to be followed while awarding compensation under consumer law?
  • What would be the minimum standard to be applied while resolving a controversy under the term inquiry?
  • What would be the minimum standard of evidence required in consumer complaints?
  • What are the implications of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan upon the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995?
  Read full judgment →
• Asad Amin vs Noor Hussain2016 PLJ Islamabad 254 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →
• Apex Consulting Pakistan through Mudabbir Haneef andanother vs Tanveer Hussain2016 CLC 1316, 2016 PLJ Islamabad 499, K.L.R. 2016 Civil Cases 198 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
• Apex Consulting Pakistan through Mudabbir Haneef and another vs Tanveer Hussain2016 CLC 1316 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
• Apex Consulting Pakistan through Mudabbir Haneef & another vs Tanveer HUSSAINs2016 PLJ Islamabad 499 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Ahmad vs Government of Pakistan and others2016 PLD Islamabad 15 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ameer Hamza vs The State, etc2016 KLR Criminal Cases 299 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-08-18
  post-arrest bailstatutory bailhardened criminaldangerous criminaltrial delaydacoityfourth proviso
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, following an incident where police officials were overpowered and their official equipment and motorcycle were stolen. The petitioner argued for bail on statutory grounds, citing delay in the trial process and lack of previous convictions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite meeting the statutory criteria for bail due to trial delay, fell under the exception of the fourth proviso to Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as a 'hardened', 'desperate', or 'dangerous' criminal. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that while the petitioner met the criteria for statutory bail, the exception under the fourth proviso was applicable. The Court affirmed that previous conviction is not a prerequisite for classifying an accused as a 'hardened', 'desperate', or 'dangerous' criminal. Given the nature of the offence and the petitioner's involvement in ten other criminal cases, the Court concluded he was not entitled to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is a previous conviction a mandatory requirement to classify an accused as a 'hardened', 'desperate', or 'dangerous' criminal under the fourth proviso of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Can an accused person be denied statutory bail due to trial delay if they fall within the ambit of the fourth proviso of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Does the involvement of an accused in multiple other criminal cases constitute sufficient material to form an opinion that they are a 'dangerous' or 'desperate' criminal?
  Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan PVC Pipe Manufacturers Association through Chairman vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce through Secretary and 5 others2016 CLC 1195 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-02-29Read full judgment →